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.
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
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
The bases did not refuse to sell him the fuel, they refused to give it to him.
Do you have actual evidence for that statement? I find it pretty darned unlikely. Yes, the wording of the story is that the bases "refused to give him fuel" -- but one who refuses to sell something is also necessarily refusing to give it. The wording is ambiguous, and I'm quite confident that most native English speakers would agree with me on this one. So, since either definition can easily follow, let's play the "What's More Likely" game.
(1) - This guy who has enough money to build this experimental plane lets himself stay stranded because he'll only take fuel if someone gives it to him for free
or
(2) - He is in fact attempting to buy fuel (as one would from "a gas station", which the bases insist they are not) and the bases are unwilling to sell.
Well, you tell me: Which is more likely?
If you are going "adventuring", at least have a contingency plan.
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.
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"'
abc.net.au:
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.
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?
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 (?)
Actually, this would be a bargain. AVGas occasionally sells for as much as $12 per US gallon at places (airports) like Narssarssuaq in Greenland which do a brisk business with transatlantic aircraft ferry pilots.
even if his RV4 is set up to use MoGas (I suspect it is - it's unlikely that mcmurdo would have AvGas on hand to sell), $10/gallon in antarctica strikes me as not a bad deal.
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.
A pilot that hits a penguin is in serious trouble.
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.
All that base belong to US.
paintball
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.
Look the attitude of the American's is completely fair - more than that, the Australian and the New Zealand government are not complaining. The guy is a moron and he got what he has deserved.
The guy had no real contingency plan - he decided to fly over and if he couldn't make it he thought he would drop in on the yanks... I have heard he was only carrying slightly more fuel than necessary for his trip, and didn't notify the American's that they were his backup plan.
In contrast, there is a female aviator who is planning on doing a similar leg, and she has over the last few months been preparing her flight by making fuel dumps along the way. Many other people who have done similar trips have been entirely self-sufficient, and have provided contingency plans for themselves.
This idiot decided to just make the flight, and he did nothing to ensure his success or provide for failure. He deserves what he is getting (actually he is geting more than he deserves) - which as other people have already pointed out is food and accomodation, along with provisions to get he and his plane back home.
I have read comments here stating that the reason for not refueling him is to discourage tourism - I think it is actually to discourage people relying on the base as a backup. They don't want to be seen as a contingency plan for anyone, and I think that is fair enough.
There are more than enough responsible adventurers out there, we don't need to pander to the lazy ones.
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?)
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>.
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."
(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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.