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."
Besides tourism is fairly common in that part of the world anyway.
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.
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
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.
Your paranoia is about as subtle as the alien probe in your neck.
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
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! =)
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.
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.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
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...
At a stretch it's exploration, but science? No fricking way. So why does Slashdot think of it as such?
OK, so he's flying a kit plane - but it's not a kit plane that he designed, is it? It's one that he bought from a company that sold hundreds of them.
So I'll ask again, how is this news for nerds or stuff that matters? If I bought and assembled a kit car then drove it across the Sahara desert would that make the science section of Slashdot? On what basis?
I'm not trying to diminish Jon Johanson's achievements, I'm only trying to establish how this is remotely worthy of inclusion in this forum. No doubt that's enough to get me modded down as flamebait.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
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.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
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.
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
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...
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/
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
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?
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
This has been on the news for the past couple of days down here, news say that he didn't do much forward planning or contact any of the organisations in antarctica before hand to let them know what he was going to do ... it's probably this that annoys them most, having to rescue him because they didn't have a chance to advise him beforehand.
:-)
Got to admire his sense of adventure though
Maybe next year I'll get a chance to do an antarctic fly by.
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
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.
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.
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!
abc.net.au:
<deliverance>
Yew shore got a pretty mouth, boy.
</deliverance>
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
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.
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.
According to local NZ news, he was warned that he did not have enough fuel to make it to Argentina before he left, and that fuel was NOT available in Antartica. IMO NZ miltary and search and rescue spend way too much of taxpayers money rescueing idiots who try to cross the vast distances around us with few or no backups.
Like a guy that has just been rescued for the second time trying to row to Argentina. His boat has now been confiscated by the police to try to recover some of the rescue costs.
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?
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.
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 (?)
There seems to be an attitide that Antartica is reserved for science. It is tax-payer funded science and tourists are not allowed apart from the ocassional cruise ship and the people just step ashore for short periods.
Sorry, that isn't on any more. Controlled access is the answer but that would mess with too many treaties. So-called eco-tourism is working elsewhere and helps to fund the locals, the same could be done for Antartica and the cost of transporting supplies and removing rubbish to and from the bases can be subsidised by tourists.
See my journal, I write things there
They probably need the fuel - that's why they have it in the first place. There are no petrol stations on antarctica - all fuel and supplies have to be shipped from civilisation at high cost, and this must be planned for in advance. He should have been carrying a contingency supply of fuel, or should have arranged to have more shipped to the base just in case.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
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.
As a New Zealander I have always regarded Aust. as our West Island.
Just like the Americans secretly want to invade Canada, we would like to take over Austrailia.
We have already begun by acquiring all their major breweries.. We have also tried to bankrupt the Aussie people by flooding them with unemployable layabouts. We managed to plant Rusell Crowe in the modst of their unsuspecting masses!
Why do you think Weta Digital needs all those PCs and the appearance of the 'civilan' missle maker..
A pilot that hits a penguin is in serious trouble.
Perhaps they need the fuel to get home themselves.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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.
Just found an old article from The Times magazine (dead tree version) on Antarctic expedition.
Apparently there are actually specialised fuel operators servicing the Antarctic and in 2002, the fuel was being delivered at $11/gallon. (Only 2x the UK forecourt price.)
However, I've just been reading in serveral places on the web that the fuel price has tripled since last year, placing it at $33/gallon!
I would suggest that a reasonable 'idiot' tax would be $100(US) per gallon and he might think twice about trying again.
If it was up to me, I'd say, you pay $3000/gallon and you can fly your plane home. If not, we'll take it apart and ship it back to you for $3000 all-in before the end of the season.
It may also be the case that they dont have excess fuel to sell.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
All that base belong to US.
paintball
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.
"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."
paintball
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?)
It included the following paragraph:
But, of course, saying, "They didn't sell him fuel because they didn't have any," is not as "newsworthy" as saying, "Those heartless bastards refused to help him out."They won't sell him fuel, but they make him sleep in the fuel shed. That's just cruel :P
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
One extra gallon per 300 needed? That's not a contingency plan.
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.
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)
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
He's not on a highway. The idea is that Antarctica NOT become a highway.
That's a joke about frostbite, right?
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
Okay, we need a +6 Injured Myself Laughing So Damn Hard...
Subscribe for free to my show!
Johanson has no reasonable expectation to be able to purchase fuel there.
So, he landed at an American base and had "no reasonable expectation" of being able to do business?
Since when were Americans shy of doing a little business?
In all seriousness, I can so see both sides of this. I hope sense prevails.
A pilot that hits a penguin is in serious trouble.
Especially since the Linux community can be so hostile!
Bored with karma, be a fan/freak
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."
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]
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.
(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.
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.
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?
if i were in a place as inhospitable as the antartic i would make sure i have enough fuel to last without receiving the next several shipments just in case they don't ever arrive. and i would make this a priority even at the expense of some science if i had to. so at least if i were running the place there would indeed be extra fuel, at least enough to get them through to the next shipment even if they did sell it to him. so i don't see why they can't sell him fuel.
why don't they charge him for the fuel what it would cost them to replace the fuel, and then possibly even a bit more so they can buy new earmuffs and steamy penguin posters or something. heck while you are at it charge him for all of his lodging and food, because that must be costing them valuable resources as well!
if they charge him enough but still gave him the option of buying fuel. hopefully if you charged enough it would not encourage him to return, would possibly get you some cool new toys from the money, and as a bonus would get rid of him as he will be merrily on his way flying out.
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!
You never saw the Simpsons that let out the truth about penguins? That whole not flying thing is just a scam to make them seem cute and harmless while they plot to take over the world. Their supreme leader is Linus Torvalds. Think about it - have you ever seen him in a Tuxedo?
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.
I can draw lines on a map and "claim" it's mine too.
No you can't. This isn't some haphazard, disorganized word-of-mouth claim, there are very clearly defined laws regarding this type of thing. In order for a country to have sovereign control of land, they must maintain a "continuing and ongoing presence." That is, if they don't have someone there for n days of the year, for the last m years consecutively, then the land becomes fair game for another nation to squat.
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.
Antarctica is very important, from a scientific point of view. There are life forms in Antarctica that don't exist anywhere else on Earth. Millennia of fossils and history and safely stored beneath its miles of ice. It is also the ideal place for studying meteorites from other worlds.
That last one, I found particularly interesting. Do you know why Antarctica is so popular for finding rocks from other planets/bodies? It's not because they land there with any greater frequency than anywhere else - it's that they're much easier to find. When you see a rock sitting on top of an ice shelf, where the next nearest rock is buried beneath 4,000 ft of ice, you can be pretty certain that that rock fell from the sky. Cool, eh?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
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....
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
From the Web page Your Stay at McMurdo Station Antarctica
FUELS
Fuel conservation is of primary importance. Scarcity of this product and increased costs have a major impact on the operational program. Your compliance with published antarctic energy conservation measures is required. Keep room and building temperatures at a comfortable level (65 degrees F or lower) and turn off all unecessary lights.
EMERGENCIES
FIRE: The danger of fire is always present and always great. Be careful about smoking, and do not smoke in bed! Check ashtrays and waste baskets before leaving common-use areas for the night. Most buildings are equipped with automatic fire alarm systems. In the event of FIRE call 911, wait outside for the fire-fighting party to arrive, and direct them to the blaze. Call even if the alarm is sounding.
MEDICAL EMERGENCY: If someone is injured and requires immediate transportation to the dispensary, call the ambulance at extension 911. This is an emergency-only number. Please wait for the ambulance and direct it to the injured person.
FACILITIES PROBLEMS: If you discover heat off in a building, a leaky water faucet, or any maintainence problem that will result in damage to a building or might cause a safety hazard, call the ASA trouble desk at 2444/2555.
VEHICLE PROBLEMS: If your vehicle will not start, or you encounter a vehicle maintainence problem or an accident, call the Vehicle Maintainence Facility at 2500 or the Trouble Desk @2555.
His vehicle will not start, all he has to do is call the Vehicle Maintainence Facility at 2500 or the Trouble Desk @2555.
I would say that he has sunk at least $70k in the aircraft, with about $10-20k in custom electronics that was donated to him.
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.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
So the priorities for the available, limited amount of fuel are:
So, if priority #2 has spoken for all of the available fuel above the reserve level, then the adventurer is crap outta luck.
If he wants to arrange his own fuel shipment, outside of the normal supply chain, more power to him. Just don't expect the base personnel to completely disrupt their lives and research to make his (saved) life easier.
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
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.
May we never see th
Well, that's not entirely true...
Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
They have fed him and offered to send him home. Apparently they are not getting a lot of credit for that.
If they diverted to a commercial or otherwise public airport, yes they would probably be sold fuel. That's because those airports have gas stations that are in the business of selling fuel. There is no such thing in Antartica.
Consider a private pilot making an emergency landing at a private airport, perhaps a military landing strip. They would not sell him fuel, because there are no businesses selling fuel at those airports.
The folks in Antartica have made sure the pilot is taken care of, providing food and shelter, and offering him a ride home. They have no obligation to help him out with his airplne, especially when giving him some of their fuel would likely be a great inconvenience to them. It's not easy to get fuel to Antartica, you know.
BTW, it's not likely that there is any sort of control tower in Antartica that could have refused him permission to land, even if they wanted to.
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.
Has anyone stopped to think how valuable that fuel is to the people at the base? They are living in Antarctica, their lives depend on that fuel. The amount of food he consumes is probably negligable, but to give up that much fuel could potentially be a life or death decision. My house can be heated for an entire winter (in Ohio) by 60-70 gallons of fuel oil, what if the next shipment of fuel was delayed? Then that 100 or so gallons becomes a very big deal for those still at the base. If the plane came from a kit, dis-assemble it and ship it back FedEx ;)
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
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--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Wonder what they'd say if one of his buddies flew in with the fuel. In the end they might have less traffic there if they just give him the fuel.
Last I checked, Australia was owned by nobody, by international agreement.
I think the Australians might disagree with you.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Agreed.
I used to work as a leader of a Civil Air Patrol search and rescue team. I've seen my share of aircraft accidents. My mother wonders why I persist with this flying 'nonsense' when she knows how I had to burn an entire change of clothes because they smelled like two week old decaying human flesh. I literally stripped naked outside (we had a privacy fence and lived in a rural area) and took a shower with a water hose because I didn't want to bring that smell into my house. I still remember that smell today. It was like nothing else you have ever smelled. Roadkill and humans strangely don't smell the same when decaying. I honestly believe that we are genetically programmed to be horrified by that scent.
Having said that I do believe that there is simply an appeal to take chances and do something incredible with one's life. That is why I fly and will continue to do so.
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.
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.
This just goes to show that 'Glonoinha's Theorum of Kindness' needs more support and belief in the world.
:
:
It goes something like this
1. You are more likely to get whant you want if you ask very nicely (and have a gun,) than if you are rude (and unarmed.)
Corollaries
2. It is easier to get forgiveness than permission (if you have a gun.)
3. He who has the gold, makes the rules (but is careful to include the guy with the gun in the decision making process.)
4. Their superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons.
A lot of people are baggin' on the guy for not enough forethought - I am tempted to do the same : not about bringing enough gasoline or making prior arrangements, but for not including a few MP5A3s and thermite grenades in his emergency pack. Hard to argue with a man holding a willy-pete (white phosphorous) grenade when he is standing less than 100 feet from your entire fuel supply.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
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.
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.
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.
The US goverment pays for search and rescue missions all the time. The Coast Guard provides services to anyone with a boat. The Parks department rescues hikers, climbers and skiers. They aren't required to have a 'rescue plan'.
This is about sending a message. And a very petty one at that. It's about exploration versus 'real' science. It will probably cost more to feed and house him than it would to replace 104 gallons of gas.
It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
>The US actually don't run a gas station in Antarctica...
Think that says it all. I wouldn't want to set that precedent either.
Not like they're making him sleep out in his plane and eat shoe leather or anything.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
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.
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.
> The article said that they would be shipping him out on a flight, so if a flight can get in, bringing a few jerricans would be a good idea and charging him for support costs is more than fair.
More than fair? You're right, it would be. Much more. The planes that fly into McMurdo go in fully loaded. They fly out nearly empty. Taking him out is just a matter of his getting on the plane. Taking his plane out in crates is just the extra effort to load it on the nearly-empty plane. Taking in "a few jerricans" (which is in fact two 55-gallon drums) means that the fully loaded plane going in needs to take on an extra quarter ton or so, at the expense of the other supplies that would have fit in that weight limit. In the extreme, it might even mean another flight needs to go in. So, it would indeed be far more than fair.
Virg
That's what was going on when this bozo landed.
as a previous poster reminded me there is no need for AvGas at either MCM or Scott Base. Small plane ops are conducted with the DeHavilland Twin Otter aircraft which is turboprop powered and uses JP, not AvGas.
Typically, on a high risk flight there is a "point of no return". I have no idea whether this was in his contingency plan, but he sure seemed to have passed it.
In other words, you need a plan of how much resources you have at what stage of your journey. At each milestone, he should have had a number for fuel that meant he had 150% times the amount he needed to complete the journey or turn around.
He seemingly ignored the signals (strong headwinds) to turn around and got himself stuck.
Another famous case is that of British explorer Shackleton, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/shackleton/. He was breaking ice on the way into Antarctica late in the season. He didn't consider how he might get himself out or turned around. "Failure is not an option". It may not be an option, but it's absolutely a possiblity. His bull-headedness got his crew stuck and some killed.
When the odds are against you, and things aren't going right giving up, and trying again under more favorable conditions is absoluetly an option.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
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.
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.
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.