Slashdot Mirror
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."
Antarctica has been divided up since about the end of the 50s:
t ml
A nt arctica.htm
http://www.secretsoftheice.org/explore/treaty.h
each country has a weird pizza like slice or claim...
http://www.atlapedia.com/online/maps/political/
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?
abc.net.au:
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.
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.
From here: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/11/10710862 02326.html
t m
"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.h
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.
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.
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.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
(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.
My other SIG is a 9mm.
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.
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.
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.