Australian Pilot Stranded In Antarctica

mirio writes "Australian Jon Johanson is currently stranded in Antarctica at the US McMurdo outpost. He was attempting a flight from New Zealand to Argentina via the South Pole when he encountered a headwind that caused him to burn more fuel and divert to the base. Now both the Americans and the New Zealanders there are refusing to sell him fuel. Jon's story is amazing. He has flown his homebuilt RV-4 around the world three times and to the North Pole. You can read about his trips around the world here."

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

and that that's the reason they won't sell him fuel, but damn, that's pretty inhospitable.

inhospitable? the americans are providing him food and shelter, and the kiwis have offered to fly him out on the first available flight. additionall, they've offered to ship his plane out after him (at his cost). all in all, sounds pretty reasonable! =)

Johansen obviously didn't know...

All that base belong to US.

Re:Johansen obviously didn't know...

"But did he ever return
No, he never returned,
And his fate is still unlearned.
He may sit forever 'neath the snows of McMurdo,
He's the man who never returned."

With apologies to the Kingston Trio.

Re:Johansen obviously didn't know...

...He's the man who never returned." With apologies to the Kingston Trio.

I'm sure you're completely uninterested in this detail, but "Charlie on the MTA" predates the 1959 Kingston Trio recording by about a decade; it was first recorded (and written) by the Almanac Singers in '48, and the chorus is basically identical to "The Ship That Never Returned", written in '65 -- that's the '65 before '48.

That's not even the real problem...

"The US McMurdo exploration base in Antarctica is one of the most remote outposts in the world. Located on a scenic ice plain with an astounding view of iceberg-laden ocean, McMurdo is the ultimate destination for those seeking an escape from civilization or just a visit with an Emperor Penguin. But if you plan on a minimally-planned long-distance Antarctic flyover into a strong headwind with no invitation and no feul reserve, make sure you bring your Visa card, because Ross Island's McMurdo Station doesn't take American Express."

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

inhospitable? the americans are providing him food and shelter, and the kiwis have offered to fly him out on the first available flight. additionall, they've offered to ship his plane out after him (at his cost). all in all, sounds pretty reasonable!

This is going to cost Johanson an arm and a leg, regardless of how it all turns out. If the Americans and Kiwis continue to refuse to sell him any fuel, I suspect that he'll have to do one of two things to get his plane out of there:

1) Take New Zealand's offer to fly out on the next available flight, then pay to have his plane shipped or flown out; or
2) Charter a ship/plane to bring fuel and/or take him and his plane out

Shipping anything by air to Antarctica costs in the neighbourhood of six figures (I'm led to believe that private charters are on a per payload basis only). Might as well airlift his whole plane out if he's going to bother having a chartered aircraft come to Antarctica. Shipping by sea would be much cheaper... perhaps as little as $6,000 US (based on what it might cost to charter a ship from an IAATO member [iaato.org] to bring fuel in, or as much as $50,000 to charter a ship big enough to take his plane out.

Maybe this is why Johanson is reluctant to leave his plane behind. He's probably asked himself this question already: "Would it be cheaper to have my plane shipped to Chile, have fuel shipped in from somewhere, or build a new plane once I got home?" (I think that an RV-4 kit would be pushing $15,000 US, but probably much more outfitted like his must be)

Now it sort of makes sense why he's still holding out hope that the Americans or Kiwis will sell him the fuel he needs to fly his RV-4 back to NZ. Even though 400 litres of fuel would probably cost in the mid four-figure range (due to the enormous transportation costs involved in bringing anything to Antarctica), it's probably a lot cheaper than the alternatives.

D.


(ps. I may be talking out of ear here because my cost figures are mostly second-hand... anybody have more concrete figures?)

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

This is going to cost Johanson an arm and a leg

That's a joke about frostbite, right?

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

(I think that an RV-4 kit would be pushing $15,000 US, but probably much more outfitted like his must be)

I think the RV-4 kit is around $14,000 US, but then after you add a decent engine, avionics, etc., it can be pushing $50,000-$60,000 US. I was reading some stuff on Johanson's plane and he's done modifications beyond what the normal kit builder would so he can make 2,000+ miles without refueling. I wouldn't be surprised if he's spent into six digits all together for his plane.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

And how much do you think rescuing a couple of stupid tourists a year is going to cost?

As a former Search and Rescue team member, I've got absolutely no sympathy for the guy. He didn't plan ahead, didn't coordinate, and now he expects someone else to bail him out.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

The Americans offered to house him and feed him, and the New Zealanders offered to ship his plane out at his expense. So its not as if he doesn't have options.

And their justification is not to be mean. It's that he should have made plans to begin with. It's not their job to be someone's backup plan, as they themselves pointed out.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

If you run out of gas on a highway wouldn't you like to buy gas than get towed?

He's not on a highway. The idea is that Antarctica NOT become a highway.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

He did not have a plane accident. He encountered stronger headwinds than expected and used more fuel than expected. Now I'm willing to accept that the conditions over the South Pole might be a tad unusual or unpredictable, but, without knowing the details, I'd say that still sounds like a bit of poor planning on his part. If he had a totally unforseeable mechanical failure, say, or hit a bird (a pengiun?), then you may have a case. But through his desire to push the limits of what he, and his plane, could do, he ran out of gas.

And you gotta wonder, when planning that trip, assuming he deserves his pilot's certification, he knew how far he could make it given strong headwinds. Ya think it's possible, however unlikely, that he thought, ``Ah, well, it's a risk I'm willing to take, 'cause the American's will bail me out if I fuck up''? I agree that we should, ordinarily, try to help people simply out of kindness. But that's just stupid.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

If he had a totally unforseeable mechanical failure, say, or hit a bird (a pengiun?)

A pilot that hits a penguin is in serious trouble.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

A pilot that hits a penguin is in serious trouble.

Especially since the Linux community can be so hostile!

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

Yep. He created the issue by design.

..this guy is just looking for the headlines. Check some of the documentaries on these guys....they fly across borders and land on military bases all the time, claiming fuel issues, etc. They use existing facilities as fuel dumps, and hop from point-to-point, depending on the kindness of strangers.

Someone finally called him on it, and now he's having to deal with that. He may not like the deal, but he's busted, and not in a position to complain.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

Uh, he's not asking for free fuel. He's trying to BUY it. Both the US and New Zealand's are capitalist countries.... What happened the the much talked about free market?

And what is wrong with using existing facilities as fuel dumps? Presumably when you drive somewhere you use existing cities/towns as fuel/rest stops. You're saying this guy should have to act as if no existing human settlements exist? Essentially you're saying only the very rich or government/company backed individuals should be allowed to get anywhere near Antarctica.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

I don't know about planes, but I do know a little about the salvage laws on water.

Basically, if you issue an SOS from a ship, any nearby vessel is bound by marine law to come and help you out. Mind, however, that they are bound to to help your soul, i.e. the people, out. There is no obligation whatso'ever torwards equipment.

If your rescuer decides to help your equipment out in any way, they are entitiled to compensation according the salvage law. Unlike what people usually think, this does not mean they get your ship (at least, not automatically), but it is a long and very generous process torwards the rescuer.

In fact, the process is so generous that there are lots of stories of people, when asked for help, that trick the askers into making it an SOS call (asking them to burn a red flare and such), so they can claim salvage.

My instructor recommended that we ask anyone who offers us help in non-emergency cases to sign an LOF, which stands for "Loyd's Open Form". It's an agreement that they do not ask for salvage, and instead agree to a compensation according to a known table.

Returning to the subject at hand - this man had an emergency. He landed his plane as an SOS. He is being treated better than the rules dictate. The rules say that they should have saved his soul (which they did - offering him shelter and food), and that they have no obligation torwards his equipment. The rules further say that if they ship his plane anywhere at all, they deserve compensation (above shipping costs), which are quite dear.

All in all, he has received a fair deal.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

It may well not be easy to sell him that fuel. It's a scientific outpost, with science's typical shoestring budgets. They have a limited supply of fuel on hand. Between their emergency reserve and research plans, it's probably all spoken for. Getting more fuel into the research base isn't like strolling down to the corner petrol station that gets daily deliveries. There are planned supply shipments and what's on hand may well be all that can be on hand for quite a while.

So here comes this bloke, trying to fly across the entire place on a whim, and he doesn't make it. Now he wants these scients to scrap some their research plans for the summer (it's summer down there now, prime time research season) after they've fought and scrambled for a place on the Antartic research team. For some it's their one and only shot at doing research in the Antartic.

Basically he's asking some of these scientists to give up their research dreams to salvage his pet plane. I doubt that makes them feel all warm and giving.

As they say in Tech Support, "A lack of planning on your part does not constitue an emergency on mine."

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

McMurdo and Pole currently receive one refuling ship per year, in late January or early February (when the ice is the thinnest, and shortly after the Icebreaker has cut a channel).

The U.S. Antarctic Program is evaluating alternate energy sources to get our fuel resupply to every other year.

It's precious and it's expensive here.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

There is a bit of a difference between having an accident in an C-130 hardened for arctic flying and equipped with state of the art surival kits and satilite rescue beacons while flying in the S-Arctic and having an accident while flying something you built in your garage in the S-Arctic. The N-Atlantic, just for example, is full of the bones of people who got the yen to cross an ocean that sports some of the worst weather on the planet in a small Cessna or a small costal sporting yacht and please note that the North Atlantic has a relatively good network of SAR assets and well equpped surface rescue forces and good radar cover. It does not surprise me that the countries that maintain a presence in the S-Arctic are very reluctant to see this kind of thing become popular because rescue assets are not available in the region in nubers even remotely adequate to deal with any sizable influx of daredevil adventurers. The plain fact is that there are alot more people with pilots licenses that have more money than sense, this guy is one of them, and he is bloody lucky to be alive this could easily have ended very differently. The real question here is when do people become culpable for getting them selves in deep trouble even though they should have known better. And this applies especially when rescue workers get killed needlessly while trying to pull these fools out of the shit. It did not happen this time but it does all to often. There is a point when the excuse "Well doooh! He was just trying to have a little fun." begins to wear thin.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

As the poster of this story and a homebuilt airplane builder myself (RV-7A), I can tell you that this guy probably does have more sense than money. He's a nurse midwife (yes, he delivers babies). He isn't overly wealthy and neither am I. I'm a software engineer with 5 years of experience and according to most salary surveys I make about average salary. Johanson really dedicated himself to building the plane and made it happen by saving money in other areas of his life (like most homebuilders do). Don't think this guy is a rich flyboy like that Branson fellow circling the world in a balloon. This guys track record shows that he does know what he's doing (he's circled the Earth thrice). On the other hand, I do agree with you that he screwed up royally by not making prior arrangements with McMurdo in case of an emergency.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

I did not mean to offend, I wrote that based on having seen what the pilot of a small aircraft looks like when his body washes ashore after drifting for a while through the North Atlantic in the shreds of his dinghy. It is not a pretty sight I assure you. I also know how easily a routine flight can turn into a disaster. Even when the pilot is a chap who has extensive experience. The point is that that all the experience 97% of pilots have is usually gained in climates much more forgiving than the arctic. Flying in the arctic is a whole school of piloting in onto it self, a single engine aircraft has little place there unless it is hardened for arctic flying and in the high polar region even such hardend single engine machines are a risk to fly never mind a kitplane. Personally I would not attempt to over fly either of the polar region in anything less than a twin engined machine with heavy duty cold climate equipment, a satilte beaccon and well proportioned survival pack. If that guy had run out of fuel before he reached McMurdo I doubt he would have lasted until the rescue chopper arrived even if he had an emergency satilite beacon.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

There are many cases of military aircraft having to land, and being helped by thier hosts.

They are. They went out of their way to provide the necessary resources to avoid loss of human life. On the other hand, his "fly over Antarctica" project is not something that they need to assist him with by draining their *own* contingency fuel supplies.

Heck, even if it's just to discourage people from pulling stupid stunts, I sympathize with the scientists. Imagine that you're a scientist working at the most remote research station in the world, on a continent given over entirely to scientific research.

All of a sudden, a *stupid* Australian drops his plane into your research post and wants you to fuel him up and check the oil. He didn't have clearance to pull this stunt, despite the fact that it would have been more than easy to ask. If he really needed extra fuel, he could just have asked them, paid for it, and had it shipped ahead of time. Everyone *else* in Antarctica, including the scientists, is required to plan ahead for safety. All the scientists there have $N$ quantity of food and resources, have only $N$ days allocated to them to do their research (not easy to get grants to fund Antarctic research), and instead are dealing with some thrillseeker.

Frankly, I think that his plane should be confiscated and used by whatever SAR people are responsible for near-Antarctic rescues.

This Aussie reminds me of the idiot girl in "The Cold Equations". He's damned lucky that nothing worse happened to him.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

Last I checked, Australia was owned by nobody, by international agreement.

I think the Australians might disagree with you.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

They refused to give him the fuel. No mention of him offering to pay for it.

abc.net.au: [abc.net.au]

For the time being the Americans are giving him food and a couch in the refuelling shed to sleep on, but no fuel.

JON JOHANSON: I guess officialdom are afraid to be seen to be helping in case the hordes come down and invade and I can understand their decisions, I really can and I don't, I haven't asked for their help. All I would like to do is make a commercial transaction of fuel.

.theaustralian.news.com.au: [news.com.au]

AN Australian pilot remains stranded in the Antarctic after his government today failed to sway two of its greatest allies to sell him 400 litres of fuel....Mr Johanson needs 400 litres of fuel to return to New Zealand, but both US and NZ authorities have refused to supply it under a policy to discourage tourists to the base.

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

Antarctica has been divided up since about the end of the 50s:

http://www.secretsoftheice.org/explore/treaty.ht ml

each country has a weird pizza like slice or claim...

http://www.atlapedia.com/online/maps/political/A nt arctica.htm

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

Discourage tourism? Hell, if I had a plane and knew how to fly it, I'd be tempted to fly down there and bring him some damn fuel. What if I did, and seven or eight other bright pilots got the same idea?

I can't think of a better way to cause "tourism" than to encourage a good Samaritan act like that...

Re:They say they want to discourage tourism...

and that that's the reason they won't sell him fuel, but damn, that's pretty inhospitable.

From what I heard on the radio this morning (in New Zealand), he was quite irresponsible and that's why they're not going out of their way to actively help him. Among other things, he'd only allocated two hours of spare fuel for a journey expected to be over thirty hours, which is just plain stupid in most people's judgement.

What they don't want to do is set a precedent of bailing out stupidity. I think he's getting a good deal with the free board the offer to ship back his plane is just luxury. If they don't want to give him an easy way out by selling fuel, why should they?

This is sheer stupidity

Sell the man the fuel. Christ keeping him there with free room and board is just as likely to encourage "tourism" as letting him finish his trip.

Besides tourism is fairly common in that part of the world anyway.

The Different Definitions of Stupidity

You must keep in mind that their statement of discouraging tourism has more ramifications than just keeping people away from the station. There are many considerations that you're apparently not making. Here's a short list of reasons I can come up with, and I'm not even trying:

1.) They have a specific amount of fuel at the station, for their own use and for reserves. If they're to sell him any fuel, it must come from their working stock, or their reserves. The working stock is there to run their own machinery (snowmobiles, their own aircraft, generators and such) and the reserves are their safety net in case something goes wrong, because they're a long way from help if something does go really badly for them. What makes you think they can spare 400 liters of fuel without endangering themselves whenever someone shows up like this?

2.) They're afraid that if they give him the fuel, he'll do something utterly stupid, like, say, trying to fly his craft out instead of leaving in a safer, more sensible manner. The fact he's there to begin with is a testament to his lack of foresight, and maybe they don't want the added burden of a possible rescue mission, or knowing they gave him the rope to hang himself with. They offered him a free ride on the next boat out of the area, after all, so it's not like they're leaving him out in the cold (so to speak).

3.) They're genuinely afraid that if they give him the fuel, they'll have to deal with this situation again, with the ramifications of (1) and (2) above, when the next daredevil decides to drop in. By making his exit expensive and unglorious, they can discourage others from trying the same.

4.) Replacing the volume of fuel that he wants will require them to fit the extra fuel into their next shipment(s), and so rather than selling him the fuel and going through the effort to replace it, why wouldn't they just let him arrange (and pay for) his own fuel shipment? This doesn't help with (2) above, but even so, it's not their problem to solve.

All in all, it seems very short sighted of you to tell them how to run their outpost when you seem not to understand the situation they'll be putting themselves in by helping him.

Virg

Standard practice

Is this standard practice for "adventurers": End up stranded somewhere through poor planning, and then expect someone else to bail him out and pay for it? Seems like it from the article. The bases did not refuse to sell him the fuel, they refused to give it to him. He could have offered to buy it, though the cost might be high - it's expensive to ship fuel to Antarctica and store it. Or he could have taken them up on their offer of a free flight home, with his plane to be shipped later.

And, of course, they're feeding and housing him for the time being.

Re:Standard practice

The bases did not refuse to sell him the fuel, they refused to give it to him.

Do you have actual evidence for that statement? I find it pretty darned unlikely. Yes, the wording of the story is that the bases "refused to give him fuel" -- but one who refuses to sell something is also necessarily refusing to give it. The wording is ambiguous, and I'm quite confident that most native English speakers would agree with me on this one. So, since either definition can easily follow, let's play the "What's More Likely" game.

(1) - This guy who has enough money to build this experimental plane lets himself stay stranded because he'll only take fuel if someone gives it to him for free

or

(2) - He is in fact attempting to buy fuel (as one would from "a gas station", which the bases insist they are not) and the bases are unwilling to sell.

Well, you tell me: Which is more likely?

Re:Standard practice

Dennis Miller says it quite well, but in a slightly different subject.

If you are going "adventuring", at least have a contingency plan.

I view professional extreme athletes with, at worst, mild puzzlement and, at best, genuine respect. But what pisses me off are the amateur extreme athletes, who don't just risk their own lives -- they make some park ranger, fireman, or cop risk his life to save them. Every time I see a soldier who enlisted so he could defend his country, end up having to put his neck on the line, rappelling off a helicopter to save some middle-aged hero-wannabe jagoff who skied 20 miles off the clearly marked trail just so he can have a better pickup line than, "Hey, baby, your place or my moms?", I can't help but hope that just this one time, the kid from the National Guard is going to change his mind and chopper away to get a well-deserved beer, but not before getting just close enough to shout, "Hey, asshole, Charles Darwin says hi."

-- Dennis Miller's rant from April 6th, 2001.

Re:Except...

Except... ...this guy didn't ram his plane into a remote snowbank or something -- he landed it at a refueling station.

No, he didn't. He landed at a research station. Unlike your imaginary example, McMurdo Station isn't in the business of selling fuel, and Johanson has no reasonable expectation to be able to purchase fuel there.

Send him home third class

Why should the U.S. or New Zealand taxpayers have to front the bill for this guy's foolish lack of foresight? Send him home freight class... or make him wash dishes.

Re:Send him home third class

Here's another idea. How about discouraging illegal immigrants that cost taxpayers billions of dollars from breaking our laws, maybe by sending them home? Or even making them pay their own way while they're here? Oh no? That's not compassionate enough? Free schools, hospitals and prisons for them!

How do illegal immigrants cost billions in taxpayer money? Certainly, it would cost far, far more money to police the border and actually locate and deport everyone who wasn't supposed to be here, in addition to turning the country into an orwelian nightmare to do it. Illegal immigrants also contribute to the economy by doing jobs that Americans would frown upon, and by working more cheaply (say, three houses could be build with illegal labor, where one could be build with full-rate American labor). Also, many illegals do in fact pay taxes, because their income is automatically withheld from their paychecks. their kids even die for this country [salon.com]. As far as schools are consourned, all children born in the US are citizens, regardless of the status of their parents. And how exactly would you make them pay for their stay in prison? Or do you think we should just dump them back in Mexico so they can hop back across the border if they are caught committing a crime?

Oh, I get it, you're just stupid.

They're just being dicks.

Sell him the fuel at a VASTLY overinflated price, that would be more than enough to discourage tourism. And it would get him out of there ASAP.

I think $10 US/Gallon would be a fair stupidity tax.

Re:They're just being dicks.

Sell him the fuel at a VASTLY overinflated price [...] I think $10 US/Gallon would be a fair stupidity tax.

LOL - my local garage charges US$5.28 per US gallon (actually GBP 0.80 / litre). For roadside callout, it can easily be double that. So $10 doesn't sound that outrageous for Antarctica.

OK, so we're being taxed the hell out of, apparently to cover the cost of roads. I just thought it was funny that your punitive rate actually sounds like quite a bargain here in Britain :-)

Re:They're just being dicks.

I think $10 US/Gallon would be a fair stupidity tax.

Actually, this would be a bargain. AVGas occasionally sells for as much as $12 per US gallon at places (airports) like Narssarssuaq in Greenland which do a brisk business with transatlantic aircraft ferry pilots.

even if his RV4 is set up to use MoGas (I suspect it is - it's unlikely that mcmurdo would have AvGas on hand to sell), $10/gallon in antarctica strikes me as not a bad deal.

Why not lend him the gas?

Give him his 100 gallons so he can get home and then have him fly the 100 gallons back to them, if it's physically possible for him to do this. Seems like they are being kind of rude to him, but then again they don't *have* to sell him their gas, I suppose. Thinking about it, the kind of people they seem to be, you would think they want him out of there as son as possible.

What is there to see in Antartica?

And why do we have military bases there? They said they want to discourage tourism. This makes me want to go there and check it out.

Re:What is there to see in Antartica?

These a scientific bases. That is why it is science and why it is matters.

US bases are run by military forces, Russian bases are run by Arctica & Antatrcica Scientific Research Institute, but both do the same things, and both practice exchange of researches since their founding in 50th.

I don't remember however, which authority runs New Zealand base, but I think it is not Army.

I'd hardly consider US military base an accomodation where Russian researcher can work for monthes in the middle of Cold War.

Re:What is there to see in Antartica?

U.S. Research Stations in Antarctica are not run by the military. They are funded by the National Science Foundation. The Military does the flying because they have the expertise and the equipment. They do so under contract to the NSF.

The Navy detachments that once ran the research stations (NSFA) and exclusively did the flying (VXE6) were disestablished several years ago, but they hadn't been exclusive for years before that.

When I was first at McMurdo in 1995, NSFA ran the hospital, the air traffic control tower, weather and an electronics shop. They had already ceded the cooking, firefighting and other activities to the civilian contractors in previous years.

These days, the only military presence on the Ice is the New York Air National Guard (NYANG) who flies the LC-130s, (I think) regular Air Force who fly C-17s and C-141s, and an occasional Navy person at the McMurdo radio station (still military-affiliated).

The overwhelming majority of us down here are civilians.

Re:What is there to see in Antartica?

And why do we have military bases there? They said they want to discourage tourism. This makes me want to go there and check it out.

Antarctica is where the second stargate was discovered. Who knows what other alien technology is frozen in the ice, just waiting to be discovered...

Reliability...

I know that there are some incredibly high performance and extremely technical aircraft available to the person with lots of money, skills, tools, and materials. These planes outperform commercial offerings, and provide the incredible sense of 'I built it myself' and 'I know everything there is to know about this aircraft'.

I feel these things about the computer systems that I build, and I appreciate the feeling. I also have a fetish for flying, and joined the Air Force to enjoy aircraft and being around them...even though my job is with computers.

Still, it stands out to me...I would not trust anything that I built to fly my ass down to the other end of the state...let alone over something as barren and deadly as the north/south poles.

It certainly takes a special kind of person to look at the plane that he built and say to himself "Yes, technically it can perform this task." and completely ignore the other voice in his soul saying "Although perhaps I should not force my luck."

I love flying, I really do. I love fixing aircraft and flying them. I also know not to try to fly over the damn south pole, north pole, or anywhere else that I might die in...assuming that I survive that 1 in 1,000,000,000 flight hours crash.

My gosh son. There is a reason that only military aircraft regularly fly over antarctica. Its because if it goes down...supposedly they can send another one...and...those people signed up to die in the service of their country.

There is one other person that I can think of with this mentality, and only one. Chuck Yeager. Perhaps this man should take his fearless and confident self down to the local recruiter and tell them he needs a new job as a test pilot.

Fuck'm

Am I the only one who thinks the guy should be grateful to be alive? Hey, how about I go to Antarctica..., woop dee doo, woops, there's a bit of a headwind, wouldn't expect that in .. ANTARCTICA. Well, it's a good thing there's people smarter than me, I'm sure they'll save my ass for me. WHAT! I can't get gas!!! Well, no, I didn't plan ahead to possibly have gas shipped here, I figured I could just stop at an Exxon. I mean, there's Exxon all over Alaska, so why not here?

Anyways, fuck'm, he deserves the exact treatment they're giving him. And I bet they won't be charging him for the ride back, to boot.

There's something kinda Lovecraftian about this...

While I sympathize with Johanson's situation, I can't help but think how the heck he got himself there. I can't imagine a trained, responsible pilot embarking on an "adventure" like this without

1. Checking the weather report to see what direction the frickin wind is blowing.
2. Planning for multiple contigencies before bad things happen
3. Going on mapquest to find out which gas staions are on your route

No contingency plan?

So, he runs into some strong unexpected headwind, and is able to land at a base that's really close to another base.

And the reason he's being denied fuel is because he had "no contingency plan".

Sounds like typical government double-speak to me. The contingency plan was obviously to land near the bases if he got too much headwind.

Now, they've got enough space on their ships to transport his plane home (at his cost) but they don't have enough fuel to sell him (at his cost).

Why am I not believing anything the NZ govt. spokespersons are saying?

Re:Nice was to make more enemies....

It's not as if this is a continuing problem, and every week there's some yahoo who needs to buy fuel because he was a dumb-ass.

Um... yeah, it is. Maybe not at the moment in the Antarctic, but it's definitely a problem in national parks all across the US, where SAR teams have put their lives at risk and spend tens of thousands of dollars to rescue some bumbling adventurers who went in with no plans for an emergency except a cell phone. It's a huge trend that's happening everywhere, not only in the US. It's a drain on the resources of the rescue squads, the communities in that area, and the goverment who has to send in rescues.

YOSAR, one of the most famous Search and Rescue teams, had in 2002, 182 rescues, of which only 116 had injuries or illnesses. No details on the others, but a good bet the others were lost/stranded. Still, a rescue every other day, that costs taxpayers a lot of money. Las Vegas SAR has similar numbers, where hikers and climbers get stranded out after dark and need to be rescued once a week. The outdoor craze has led many people to head out, inexperienced and unprepared, with the idea that if they get stuck a quick cell phone call will save them.

So it's with good reason they are denying him the fuel, setting a good precedent. If they give him fuel, what's next? Maybe the next idiot will run out of fuel before he reaches the base, and they'll have to dispatch some rescuers. And the next may not know where they are, they'll have to send out rescue teams in all directions. And who pays for it? Me and all the other taxpayers.

He's fine. He's safe. Ship him out on the next flight, box up his plane and let him pay for delivery if he wants his plane shipped to him. Charge him storage costs, charge him for the food and room. Charge him up the @ss for all of it and send him on his way.

Re:Darwin says "Hi"

It's not quite so simple as that. Here in the UK the RAF (Air Force) run the search and rescue services and regularly pull mountaineers out of accident situations they've gotten themselves into.

From time to time someone in the press brings up your argument about the cost and risk to the RAF. And every time the argument is dismissed by the RAF themselves because they actually want to run the service.

The RAF say that the search and rescue service is ideal training for them. If they didn't run the service they'd have to have a similar number of crews running similar make-believe 'practice' missions - so the net cost of running search and rescue is practically zero and the real thing is better for skills than any make-believe exercise. And of course the PR benefit is immense.

Re:What the fuck

Helping someone is one thing.

Having an idiot who is so imbecilic as to not even account for possible headwinds drop in out of the blue and expect you to give him the world on a silver platter is entirely another.

Sometimes the best thing you can do for a person is let them work their own way out of the hole they dug for themselves.

This guy's being fed and sheltered. And he's been offered ways to get off of the island. If he's (a) wealthy enough to take on this sort of adventure, and (b) stupid enough to not plan for the nearly inevitable ("Oh, no, there couldn't be any headwinds!"), then you can't exactly blame me if I don't cry him a river for not having someone cater to him like the prince he evidently believes himself to be.

steve

Re:What the fuck

I understand that if I am involved in an accident and am incapacitated, that total strangers will actually stop and help.

The problem is that they don't. People don't seem to care. "It's none of their business anyway." Maybe they think they might end up in trouble helping someone. Who knows? I have myself witnessed that many people act like this. Some people even pretend that anything had happened.

I would want to think like you, but I'm not so sure if it's going to help you. Assuming someone would actually help may be a bit naive, so I would not be counting on that. It's just the invidualistic society we have today.

Re:What the fuck

Look the attitude of the American's is completely fair - more than that, the Australian and the New Zealand government are not complaining. The guy is a moron and he got what he has deserved.

The guy had no real contingency plan - he decided to fly over and if he couldn't make it he thought he would drop in on the yanks... I have heard he was only carrying slightly more fuel than necessary for his trip, and didn't notify the American's that they were his backup plan.

In contrast, there is a female aviator who is planning on doing a similar leg, and she has over the last few months been preparing her flight by making fuel dumps along the way. Many other people who have done similar trips have been entirely self-sufficient, and have provided contingency plans for themselves.

This idiot decided to just make the flight, and he did nothing to ensure his success or provide for failure. He deserves what he is getting (actually he is geting more than he deserves) - which as other people have already pointed out is food and accomodation, along with provisions to get he and his plane back home.

I have read comments here stating that the reason for not refueling him is to discourage tourism - I think it is actually to discourage people relying on the base as a backup. They don't want to be seen as a contingency plan for anyone, and I think that is fair enough.

There are more than enough responsible adventurers out there, we don't need to pander to the lazy ones.

Bzzzt. Wrong.

He HAD a contingency plan.

One extra gallon per 300 needed? That's not a contingency plan.

It was "There are bases there with air strips I can land at"

Except that those bases have repeatedly and publicly stated that THIS IS THE WRONG THING TO BELIEVE. This jerkoff isn't the first amateur half-ass to get stranded in Antartica and expect scientific bases to suddenly bail him out. Even the slightest amount of pre-trip research would have told him that they do not have spare fuel.

Its the same contigency plan I have every day when I leave for work. I understand that if I am involved in an accident and am incapacitated, that total strangers will actually stop and help.

The "I've always relied on the kindness of strangers" approach? Nothing personal, pal, but that's fucking stupid. "I don't need to pack the trunk with flares or a spare tire or a jack or a blanket or a gallon of water or some food -- surely within minutes of the breakdown/accident/whatever, some random person will come by and give me all the supplies I need."

I almost died from exposure less than 20 miles from home (snowstorm, -15 degrees F, freezing rain, and a flat tire), and I live in fucking Ohio, the dullest place on earth. In a major city, too, not the boonies. Fortunately, I had a heavy blanket and a good spare tire in the car. After getting it changed, I drove straight to the hospital to be treated for frostbite. Not another vehicle ever drove by; if I'd waited for a total stranger I'd likely be dead.

That was Ohio. This dipshit went to Antartica and planned less than I did.

One thing I don't understand about this...

Why didn't he just contact those guys in Antarctica (or someone that could in turn contact them) so he was sure that it would be ok with them if he needed some help out there.

Sure, it might be silly of them to not offer fuel, but maybe they have their reasons to why they aren't doing that, but offering him a trip home as an alternative solution. Can't really blame them with a guy at least as silly, going to Antarctica and relying on people's hospitality when he could have used his brain a little before going there. It doesn't take a genius to understand that maybe you should check if there's anyone there to help if you'd happen to crash on one of the most inhospitable places on earth. He should be glad everything got sorted out so well, with them giving options to get home and also offering him a place to stay while waiting for it. That's a perfectly reasonable solution to me.

Re:Hi. I'm a Dick!

Sell him the gas at a markup, give him a bill for the food and shelter, and call it a day.

There are two problems:

First, to sell the gasoline at cost would still be an exhoribant amount of money, because you have to factor in the price of delivery to Antarctica, which ain't exactly cheap.

Second, even if they recovered the delivery cost, they're still short of fuel, and won't be able to just send out for it the next day. They need their fuel for their own uses, and can't just give it up for any Joe that happens to take off without enough of his own.

steve

They want to help him but they CAN'T

"Antarctica New Zealand, the national scientific research program, could not provide the 47-year-old with fuel anyway because it did not have aviation gas, and the petrol it had was not of aviation quality. "

• http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/11/107108 6202326.html

It's ANTARCTICA! It's COLD. DARK.

Nobody ever drops by.

<deliverance>
Yew shore got a pretty mouth, boy.
</deliverance>

There is much precident for this....

Governments (especially the US) have made an art out of screwing many capable people whos detailed antarctic plans have hit some unlikely snag, despite there best intent. It is likely this guy arranged nothing in advance with McMurdo frankly because he knew by reputation what there response would be. Adventure Network International fly planes into antartica for climbing expeditions and they have been fighting against these attitudes since day 1. They have to bring in everything themselves including return trip fuel. They normally refuel at a BAS base where they have shipped fuel to in advance. Check out the history of Giles Kershaw if you want evidence that even the very best antarctic pilot faces random chances and poor odds.
At least this guy hasn;t been forcably 'rescued' so far against his will, that has been the fate of some of his predecessors.

Comments from someone who's there

My cousin happens to be at McMurdo right now. Here's what she said about the guy:

Since the subject is unexpected visits, I'll tell you what I know about the Australian guy who tried to fly across the south pole to Argentina. He got low on fuel and landed at McMurdo where he was most unwelcome and apparently very unprepared. They've been feeding him and letting him sleep in a fuel shack while they figure out what to do with him. I'm going to try to get out and talk to him today, because I think he's being sent back on a USAP flight tomorrow.

At the pole, I saw three guys who were skiing downwind to the coast with kites and touring skis. They weren't particularly welcome there either. I guess the US doesn't want to encourage people to do silly things in Antarctica because they've had to pick up more than a few parts in the past. Like the four skydivers who slammed into the snow near the south pole several years ago.

Then again, no one owns Antarctica so why shouldn't people do what they want.

Re:Comments from someone who's there

Then again, no one owns Antarctica so why shouldn't people do what they want.

Hmmm, sure go ahead. But do not expect your sorry @$$ to be hauled out of the place when you think you can jolly well do anything you please in there.

The more the number of people who come, the more the number of idiots like this guy who think, "Hey! You know what, I'll fly by Antartica today. And if something goes wrong, I always have one of them research bases to help me out. Oh come on, someone or the other would rescue me? Wouldn't they?"

I mean, come on. Its a research base. And it takes a lot of resources to get stuff in there. And people. And I would think they have better things to do than haul the sorry asses of guys like him.

Re:Comments from someone who's there

If somebody steals something out of a US Army Jeep parked next to the leaning tower of Pisa, have they broken a US law?

I don't know, but I imagine the US Army have probably broken Italian parking law.

The flip side of the coin.

I don't think that 100 gallons of fuel is an insignificant amount in a place where shipments are probably only made every 3-6 months.

I would much prefer to ensure the that fuel was used to help the researchers and their support teams in an emergency rather than some adventurer's poorly planned and whimisical flight of fancy.

Please don't think I undervalue the benefits of exploration and adventure, but what this guy has done is like climbing Everest and not packing a spare tent or two. He's just assumed that the others will bail him out. That's wrong.

If the 1996 Everest Disaster and the 1998 Sydney To Hobart Yacht Race proved nothing else, they demonstrated that Heros die when they go to help others. Being a so-called adventurer and forcing others into risking their lives to help you is completely irresponsible.

I think that offering him food, shelter and a return trip home is extremely generous. Expecting to get fuel that is part of someone else's contingency against disater is nothing short of foolishness.

NZ base says do not have any aviation fuel

From here: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/11/10710862 02326.html

"Sanson said he understood Johanson struck very high head winds soon after leaving Invercargill, on the southern tip of the south island.

"We believe it would have been wiser to turn around when he got into difficulties," he said.

Sanson said Antarctica New Zealand, the national scientific research program, could not provide the 47-year-old with fuel anyway because it did not have aviation gas, and the petrol it had was not of aviation quality.

"It's very unclear that at McMurdo or Scott base we have the fuel he needs," he said.

"We've done all we possibly can in terms of the resources we have."

Sanson said Johanson's expedition seemed "very ill planned", adding the adventurer had no search and rescue back up or contingency plans and only had a two-hour fuel margin for a 33-hour flight in his flight plan."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1008265.ht m

New Zealand's side of the story:

"Antarctica New Zealand spokeswoman Shelly Peebles said American and New Zealand authorities were being painted in a bad light but Mr Johanson had taken a very irresponsible approach.

She said he filed a flight plan just before he left but kept his South Pole flight plan a secret because he knew both American and New Zealand authorities would have stopped it.

"All our research points to the fact that this guy had one mission in mind and that was to fly over the South Pole," she said.

"He abdicated complete personal responsibility for any kind of contingency plan or consideration of how he was going to get back with limited fuel.""

The other side of the story:

Mr Johanson says he spent months studying weather patterns in the Antarctic before he left, including "a lot of time talking with Australia's top Antarctic weather forecaster".

"Any suggestion that this was a flight on a whim is far from accurate," he said. "Weather is only one very small segment of the whole flight, but it can happen to any flight anywhere in the world that things just don't work out as forecast.

"Weather can't be an exacting science. You can't blame the weathermen. I guess, technically, we should have made the decision earlier, and that was where the mistake was made."

It seems like he is insisting on the fuel rather than the flight out because it will be waaaaaay more expensive to take the flight out and have the plane shipped to him.

The whole truth...

Having been to Ross Island, both at Scott Base and McMurdo Station many times over the years, I can tell you straight up that you aren't seeing the whole truth here from the media reports.. 1.) First off, the RV-4 runs 100+ octane low lead AVGAS. Neither the Kiwi's or the Americans have any need for 100LL. Everythings run on Deisel or JP-5. There are no piston powered airplanes on Ross Island. There are trucks and tractors that may run regular gas, but at sub-freezing temps, I wouldn't try it in an airplane. Therefore, give or sell, there's no fuel down there for this guy. 2.) If he's to arrange for cargo shipment off the island of his plane, he'd better do so in a hurry. It's fast coming upon the time for Mac-Town to close down for the winter. He's going to have to coordinate with the National Science Foundation, which is the organization that arranges for the U.S. Coast Guard to break a channel into the fast-ice around Ross Island each year. More often than not, the cargo ships that enter the Ross Sea need to be escorted to the ice pier at McMurdo Station by an Icebreaker. It's bound to be a pricey proposition either way. The dude had to have lost his noodle flying that little kite over Antarctica during this time of year. Neither the Americans or the Kiwis should be forced to deal with this guy. I wonder if he's aware of the multitude of international treaties that he's subject to once he crosses south of 60 degrees....

they might not have any gas to spare

I've seen a few posts pointing out they probably don't have avgas, and a few pointing out that he probably used moto-gas in his aircrat, but nobody seems to have mentioned that they simply might not have any gas to spare. what with the hideous costs associated with shipping anything down there, it wouldn't suprise me if they figure out their seasonal fuel consumption to the liter, and then put up stores accordingly. YES - i'm sure they have a reserve, and probably enough of a reserve to get this guy home...but I don't expect them to welch on their safety to bail this id-10-T out. Let him cool his heels (no pun intended) in the storage shed and pay for his own damn shipment of gas, then send him a bill for food and heating costs once he gets home =D

Why should they help him get killed???

It's as if someone comes to your house in the middle of the night, completely wasted drunk, asking you to sell them your can of gas.

They have fed him and offered to send him home. Apparently they are not getting a lot of credit for that.

Yellow Journalism

Quoth the poster: Now both the Americans and the New Zealanders there are refusing to sell him fuel.

Qouth the article: But both the Americans and a nearby New Zealand base refuse to give him the fuel

The article has no indication that an offer to buy fuel made made by the pilot, nor any statements that the US or New Zealand have refused to sell him fuel. This is simply a "govmint"-bash troll on the parts of mirio and the /. editors.

Its about policy

Unlike most everyone else here, I know a little about this. I was involved with the United States Antarctic Program (USAP) for about 10 years and I've been to the South Pole 4 times.

The policy of the USAP is not to support private travel in the Antarctic. Period. They will perform SAR activities and help you return to your place of origin. This is the policy. It was set by the National Science Foundation in Washington DC (more or less, the USAP offices are in Ballston now).

As far as this guy goes, he's not being treated any differently than the Gore-tex Trans-Antarctic expedition was, or the outfits running adventure travel packages to the South Pole are. The USAP will only intervene to prevent loss of life. If you don't like it write your congressman.

This guy claims to know what he's doing but that doesn't appear to be the case to me. There is a concept in flying called the Point of Safe Return (PSR). Your PSR is determined by your actual range which depends on your fuel load and effective groundspeed. It appears to me that either this guy didn't know what his PSR was or chose to ignore it (remember his goal was not McMurdo, South Pole or even Palmer Station, but Puntas Arenas, Chile). As far as the conditions go, that part of the world is known for bad weather (understatement). Its not uncommon for the USAP LC-130s to reach their PSR and have to turn back. Even given WX updates from McMurdo and Christchurch, things can get dicey. I was on a return flight from MCM to CHC one time when we had to land in Invercargill due to severe unpredicted headwinds.

Its hard to say what the actual fuel situation is at MCM. Most equipment there runs on DFA or JP4. There is some MoGas for pickup trucks and snowmobiles. So there is a multi-year supply of those fuels on hand. AvGas, on the other hand is only used to support light plane ops and the supply of that would be based on year to year science program requirements.

The adventure travel outfits seem to be able to support light plane ops in antarctica without depending the USAP to bail them out so I don't see any reason why this guy couldn't have done the same. It sounds to me like he's been offered a fair deal: a ride home on the next return flight and a ride for his plane when the re-supply ship sails for NZ.

My North Pole flier had his act together

I interviewed a guy, Jurgen something, who'd flown across the North Pole in his private plane back in the late 80's and who write a little book about it. Still have the book around the house somewhere.

Half of his story was about all the contingency planning you need to do for something like this. What happens if there's a mechanical failure? He had several ways of navigating -- it isn't that easy at the poles to know which way's home. All his route legs had alternatives, and he knew exactly where he'd go in this and that situation.

Doesn't seem like the South Pole has as much leeway, okay, but it's the responsibility of our would-be tourist to figure out his options beforehand. I'm with the people on the ground there; their role isn't to be someone's backup, and their treatment of the guy seems more than fair.

McMurdo has enough problems right now

McMurdo experienced a three-day storm [polar.org] just a few days ago. Forty people were trapped overnight at the airport. Two people had to be rescued with a tracked vehicle. The search and rescue team had to find two more people stuck out by the runway. They're plowing and digging out. "We'll be feeling this for another four or five weeks," fleet operations supervisor Crist said. "Some of it for the rest of the season."

That's what was going on when this bozo landed.

Re:They don't have the gas dumbass

Be surprised, then.

Piston airplanes run on 100LL (100 octane low-lead). The U.S. Antarctic Program and the N.Z. Antarctic Programme do _not_ operate piston planes. They operate Bell Ranger (Huey) helicopers, LC-130s, C-141s, C-5s, C-17s, a fleet of Caterpillar Tractors and other heavy equipment. They run on a variety of heavy fuels like kerosene/diesel (JP-8/AN-8/etc). There are some gasoline-powered light trucks and vans for summer use. They use a formulation the military calls "Mogas" (motor-vehicle gasoline). It's nowhere near 100 octane. Airplanes don't refuel at the corner Shell station for a reason. It's the wrong stuff for the engine.

It's just not there to sell him. Other adventurers make arrangements for fuel caches. He did not. He failed to plan. I say this as a licensed pilot and a four-season Antarctic veteran.

I took pictures of him when he flew over the Pole. As a pilot, I even thought to myself - what a load of fun that would be to do. I was surprised to find that he hadn't made prior arrangements.