Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Pilot Stranded In Antarctica

Posted by michael on from the should-have-used-AAA dept.

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."

55 of 855 comments (clear)

  1. They say they want to discourage tourism... by corebreech · · Score: 1, Insightful

    and that that's the reason they won't sell him fuel, but damn, that's pretty inhospitable. Besides, subzero temperatures probably do a fair job of discouraging tourism anyways.

    They should have sold him the gas, but for a high price.

    Now what happens if he wants to stay with his plane and try to buy gas from the next shipment? If they act to prevent that, then I think they've crossed the line.

    Who says that Antartica is theirs anyways?

    --
    Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
    1. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by goofballs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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! =)

    2. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by KrispyKringle · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    3. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by johndiii · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      Who says that Antartica is theirs anyways?

      No one. But the fuel certainly is theirs. As is the food he is consuming, the shelter he is occupying, the plane that was offered to take him home at no cost, and the ship that would take his plane back to him later.

      --
      Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
    4. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can draw lines on a map and "claim" it's mine too. Unless enough people recognize it, or I have enough power to act upon my claims I'm just plain crazy. The claims aren't real in any sense of the word. Antarctica is worthless to live on, and far to difficult to take advantage of its minerals. It's not even important as a tactical position AFAIK. How could it be when you can't even fly in/out 3-4 months of the year? Maybe even more?

      There's probbably oil, but to get to it you first have to drill through miles and miles of ice, then you have to deal with the ice moving beneath you. Then if you solve all that you have to have your guys, and equipment survive in extremely harsh conditions. Oh, and then you have to get the oil out.

      No one lays serious claims for Antarctica because it's (so far) worthless for anything but scientific investigations (which it's fairly valueable for).

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by Sunlighter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Sunlit World Scheme. Weird and different.
    6. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by incom · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

      It's not a matter of backup plan at all. He had essentially a plane accident. There are many cases of military aircraft having to land, and being helped by thier hosts. It's not thier job, but it is common curtosy and human decency to help out. Would you prefer that from now on people will treat stranded military forces that wander into thier neighborhood like this?

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    7. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by Demolition · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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 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?)

    8. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    9. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your post was interesting and informative. Very much so, in fact. But I think you're missing the point.

      Basically, fuck what the rules say. Rarely is one legally compelled to help another in need. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. They could sell him some fuel, and make a profit doing so, and send him on his way. It would be very easy for them to do this. The fact that they don't have to do this, according to the rules, doesn't mitigate the fact that they're a bunch of assholes.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    10. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by cspenn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, we need a +6 Injured Myself Laughing So Damn Hard...

      --
      Subscribe for free to my show!
    11. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What is more annoying is that the Americans themselves are tourists in Antartica. The US has no rights to any of the land. Australia and New Zealand have stakes on the largest cliams of land in Antarctic Territory.

      First, the only countries that recognize the British, Australian, and New Zealand claims are Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, dating to a set of self-dealing acts within the Empire in the early 1930s. Thus, those claims are roughly as significant in terms of international law and custom as those of the Republic of China (Taiwan) to Mongolia -- that is, utterly without force, and of little significance.

      Second, all territorial claims are in abeyance anyway, all claimant powers being members of the Antarctic Treaty System. So they're even more absolutely moot.

      Third, the U.S. (like Russia) has reserved the right to make claims of its own, and it (like Russia) clearly has a historical right to do so. An American was one of the three people who have a right to claim a discovery of Antarctica (the other two were Russian and British, and the relative dates of their January 1820 discoveries cannot be determined with accuracy). An American was the first person to make landfall in Antarctica. And the U.S. was also the first country to make a permanent inland base.

      In short, Australia's claims are just words, and the Americans were there eighty years before Australia was independent. To claim "[t]he US has no rights to any of the land" while Australia does is as silly as saying that if North Korea declared it had annexed the Moon, a U.S. trip there should have to get their permission.

    12. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by VtWebWizard · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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."

    13. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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:

      Not to mention that:
      a) He should've had a plan in place in case he couldn't make it and had to land in Antarctica that didn't depend on his ability to find the bases in the first place, let alone buy gas from them

      b) The bases more than likely have regular shipments of gas in regular amounts that more or less take care of their needs, with some minor excess in case of emergency. It's unlikely they have enough gas to sell him some without scheduling an unplanned shipment to replace what they sell.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    14. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since you obvoiously aren't a pilot, didn't bother to actually read the article and know next to nothing about flying, let me enlighten you.

      This guy has gone around the world three times in this airplane and he has gone over the North Pole. You don't do that without proper planning. Head winds can be unpredictable as it is, but if he hit an unforecast 100 knot headwind what the hell do you expect. He studied weather reports, and chose his departure time accordingly.

      As a pilot, I'm disgusted with our US output and the NZ outpost. Shit happens when you are flying and you want to help out a pilot in trouble. Give the guy 100 gallons of gas.

    15. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by S.O.B. · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Typical American arrogance. "We don't have to do anything for anyone because WE won the war." It's been over for almost 60 years. Get over yourself. All you are now is an international bully.

      And for your information, the reason WWII got so bad in the first place was partly because you turned your back on the world and didn't help until you got attacked.

      By the time you jumped in you of course were stronger because you hadn't already been at war for years. The rest of the world had been doing their job and you were hiding out like a bunch of cowards hoping someone else would take care of it for you.

      Of course, in WWI you barely even showed up.

      I know most Americans are not as ignorant as you but your kind is what causes a lot of the anti-American sentiment around the world.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    16. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by mirio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    17. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by tiger99 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Antartica is not theirs, by international treaty. He has as much right to be there as they do. Fair enough, they don't want to encourage tourism, and all the problems it would bring, but this kind of behaviour is simply pathetic.

      There are usually other nations present at the pole, Russians for example. It would be highly embarassing for the US and the Kiwis if they were to help him out.... I wonder if his plane would run on vodka?

      In any other situation, someone who diverted to a foreign airport unexpectedly, for legitimate reasons, would be supplied with fuel at the local rate, provided the pilot had means of payment. On occasions where the politics were adverse, the plane would be impounded of course, and it could get very nasty, but here we are talking about 2 civilised countries who are not at war.

      I am amazed that some petty beaurocrat, presumably at the pole, found the matter worthy of his attention. Fortunately they did not refuse permission to land, a tactic often practiced in the Middle East, which can be tanatmount to murder.

      Surely there is some sensible person at a high level who can override this stupid decision?

    18. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by Rorschach1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    19. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by Audin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    20. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by Demolition · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm guessing that the Americans and Kiwis would probably be okay with that. From what I've read, their main gripe is having to assist people (read: tourists) who get into trouble while visiting Antarctica. I imagine that if the tourists are part of a self-supporting expedition with their own fuel and food reserves (hence not being a burden on anyone), then it wouldn't even register on the Americans' or Kiwis' consciousness.

      So, if someone flew or sailed to Antarctica with extra fuel, and was then able to return home under their own power without needing assistance from the US or NZ bases, then everything would be hunky dory, I'd say. D.

    21. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by idlemachine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. I've always been annoyed at these egotists who set out on "heroic solo endeavours" and then desperately wait for the nearest country to bail them out when it all goes wrong. Watching some moron who took his boat or plane into the wrong place at the wrong time hamming it up for the cameras while the rescue team, who are the ones actually risking their lives to rescue them, get nothing. Seriously, if you can afford the money it takes to attempt something like this, the least you can do is pay back what it cost to rescue you from the fat paycheck the publicity scores.

    22. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by S.O.B. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't believe you're comparing WWII to the current situation in Iraq.

      With WWII, the world was at war while the U.S. did nothing for two years. With Iraq, no one was at war, the U.S. ignores world opinion and invaded anyway partnered with Toady Blair.

      I have not always agreed with U.S. military actions but until this incident I could understand and respect the choices that were made.

      And for the record, I do not hate the U.S. or it's citizens. I just disagree with their current actions in Iraq.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
  2. This is sheer stupidity by RedHatLinux · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  3. They're just being dicks. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:They're just being dicks. by divec · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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 :-)

      --

      perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

  4. Fuck'm by jaxon6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Do you see the sig? Do you have it in your sights? Why yes, Miss Moneypenny...
  5. There's something kinda Lovecraftian about this... by bckrispi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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
    --
    Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  6. No contingency plan? by Howzer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:No contingency plan? by airyk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Having the luck to be near those bases when he needed to land is not a contingency plan. If he had told them ahead of time "hey, if I screw up I'm going to have to land there," then maybe I would call it a contingency plan.

  7. Nice was to make more enemies.... by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And Australia even supported the US in the Iraq war. What has the US gained but some bad publicity? Maybe they should make him wait a while as a penalty, but sell the poor guy some fuel. Isn't that just the decent thing to do?

    Yah, he should have planned ahead and gotten permission to have someone sell him fuel ahead of time, true. But if you're the only guy around for miles and you refuse to help someone out (and you can) you just look like a jerk. 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.

    Someone please tell me there's more to this story so I can feel a little better about the folks down in McMurdo.

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:Nice was to make more enemies.... by kevcol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Enough about this 'sending a bad message' crap. Scientists have no duty to bail out every adventurer who comes along. '..actions directly reflect on the US Government..' Oh bullshit. This is not even a flyspeck on the ass of the world's troubles.

      And again- why aren't you nailing the New Zealanders for the same thing? What is your ax to grind?

    2. Re:Nice was to make more enemies.... by Dylan2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you're saying that a human being from Australia should get better treatment from Americans than a human being from France or Germany, because of the support during the war? It's nice that you'd still disagree with it but think for a minute... it's a ludicrous statement. Politics are irrelevant here.

      The Australian govt. didn't send this guy there, he's not representing Australia so his nationality shouldn't play any part in this. Would be great if it really worked that way though, I could pull out my old Australian passport next time I go though US customs and they'll let me go to the front of the line in front of the Chinese, French and Germans. That's not really why you guys went to Iraq, is it? To buy a 'special treatment for all our citizens/preferred ally' card?

      --
      Build your own website - full service homepage system your m
  8. Re:Standard practice by Wwolmack · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
  9. Darwin says "Hi" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    This is so typical of amateur extreme athletes whose irresponsible thrill-seeking endangers the lives of park rangers, firefighters and cops:
    "Every time I see a soldier who enlisted so he could defend his country having to put his neck on the line, rappelling off a helicopter to save some middle-aged hero-wannabe jagoff who skied twenty miles off the clearly marked trail just so he could have a better pick-up line ... 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 close enough to shout: 'Hey, $%$%#%@#, Charles Darwin says hi.' "
    - Dennis Miller

    I really am sick of these A-holes that risk their lives for "adventure" and expect someone to bail their sorry asses out (and risk the rescuer's ass) when the adventure goes wrong. You know why we are all impressed with Sir Edmond Hillary? Because he could have died and no one was going to bail him out. He knew it and he went anyway. This "I am going to do something stupid and dangerous, and if things go wrong the rescuers will bail me out" attitude is another symptom of our modern Nanny-state. Mom will fix all my problems.

    Don't feel too bad for this guy. He already has offers for 3 (count 'em three) flights home.

    1. Re:Darwin says "Hi" by cruachan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  10. What the fuck by baadfood · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What the fuck is wrong with you people? Are your souls dead? Are you so satisfied in your insulated safe little lives, so dependent on the government and society in general providing youwith a safety net that you cannot concive stepping out of it? Going so far as to insult someone who does? So shut the fuck up. He HAD a contingency plan. It was "There are bases there with air strips I can land at". 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.

    1. Re:What the fuck by NerveGas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    2. Re:What the fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >so dependent on the government and society in >general providing youwith a safety net that you >cannot concive stepping out of it?
      Sounds like you could take your own advice.

      >He HAD a contingency plan. It was "There are >bases there with air strips I can land at".
      That's not a contingency plan, as there's no decent opportinuty to refuel in remote locations, there's barely opportunities to restock.

      >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.
      He wasn't injured, and all of his non-fuel needs have been taken care of.

      So, how many people will stop to fill up your gas tank if nothing's otherwise wrong with your car?

    3. Re:What the fuck by Fulkkari · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      --
      I demand the Cone of Silence!
  11. One thing I don't understand about this... by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  12. Re:What is there to see in Antartica? by iocat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Both us and the Russians, back when they were the Sovietes, took pretty good care to not militarize Antarctica. An early example of detante.

    --

    Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

  13. Re:Hi. I'm a Dick! by NerveGas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  14. The flip side of the coin. by dann0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "The big question in our lives is how to be at the same time a hedonist and in a hurry" - Alain Ducasse (?)
  15. Re:Except... by StenD · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
  16. Re:Send him home third class by autopr0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. 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.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  17. $10 a galon? that would be like giving it to him. by autopr0n · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The cost of getting fuel to troupes during the invasion of Iraq was $90/galon. I'm sure it's a lot more to ship it to Antarctica, you think they get regular deliveries from the tanker trucks there? I'd be willing to bet that with transportation costs, fuel could be worth over $100/galon.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  18. Bzzzt. Wrong. by devphil · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  19. Re:Reliability... by Afty0r · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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."

    On the other hand, it takes a *very* trusting person to look at a plane built by a bunch of people in a country they've never been to, and maintained by mechanics paid as little as the market will allow, and choose to fly in it over the permafrost in Greenland, or Canada... or over the waters of the major oceans, instead of a plane which they have built and tested themselves...
  20. Re:Comments from someone who's there by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Then again, no one owns Antarctica so why shouldn't people do what they want.


    Not to argue 2nd-person here, but nobody's SAYING that people can't (or even shouldn't) do what they want - it's the whole "I expect someone will take care of me if things go wrong" attitude.

    And let's be honest - they ARE taking care of him. They're feeding & housing him which is already reasonable charity. They're shipping him home on one of their regular flights, again, reasonable charity. The whole "give/sell me some of your relatively precious fuelstocks, and let me fly my plane home because I want to" (no guarantee he won't get lost, or crash, or somesuch that would require ANOTHER rescue) is asking too much, and they're right to refuse both in principle, and to set a precedent.

    Hey, science funding isn't doing well enough, offer to sell him fuel at $10,000 per gallon. Or ship his plane home for $1,000,000. Take it or leave it.
    --
    -Styopa
  21. Why the category "Science" is appropriate by frostman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because the scientists are refusing to sell this joker fuel, fuel they most likely need themselves so they don't get in deep penguin-droppings like said joker.

    I'm sure he can radio someone who can bring him all the fuel he needs, and he can pay for it and fly away (or crash). And they're being really nice letting him stay on the couch and all, for free no less.

    He's just whining. So let's rewrite the headline as "South Pole Scientists Refuse to Bail Out Reckless Adventurer" and then the icon will make more sense.

    --

    This Like That - fun with words!

  22. Pointed out before. Others have bailed him out by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What half the posters seem to be missing is that he has been helped out. He got into trouble and they gave him shelter, food and a way back home and they even allow him to take his plane home.

    What more could you expect? They are not an airfield or refuel station. Say I am climbing in the alps and get stranded. Can I then ask the rescue chopper to fly me to the top of the hill or drop me off at my hotel? Of course not. I get rescued. That is it. Nothing more nothing less. Rescue services are not cabs, hotels or supply stations.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  23. they might not have any gas to spare by caveat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  24. My North Pole flier had his act together by ianscot · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  25. I am a private pilot and I say ship him out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I am all for shipping his plane back in a crate. Suppose McMurdo had enough gas? Are they a freakin' FBO (fixed base operator -- you know, like Butler aviation and other "private plane" places at major airports)?


    Flying a light plane across Antarctica is pretty stupid to begin with. Katabatic winds, can you say that? I thought you could!


    OK, suppose they give him gas. Suppose he gets the gas, gets up in the air, and runs out of gas again, far from any "Antarctic FBO"? Now what? And is it even ethical to give him the gas if with probability greater than zero and not far from one he is going to use this gas to go get himself killed.


    The equivalent situation is a VFR-rated pilot gets into trouble in the clouds, contacts Chicago Center, gets "talked down" to the nearest airport, and then wants to turn around and go back into the soup again because he got diverted from his intended destination.


    I don't think an FBO is required to not sell such a guy gas in this situation, but I wouldn't be surprised if an FBO would work hard on talking this hypothetical guy out of launching. McMurdo is not an FBO, so I think they are under more stringent ethical restrictions about selling someone gas to go up and kill himself.


    That they are housing, feeding the guy, and offering to ship him home and his plane home in a crate, I say the McMurdo guys are as good a bunch of Samaritans as it gets, especially since they are keeping the guy from getting killed.