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."

26 of 855 comments (clear)

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

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

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

  2. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by KrispyKringle · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The Americans offered to house him and feed him, and the New Zealanders offered to ship his plane out at his expense. So its not as if he doesn't have options.

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

  3. Why not lend him the gas? by nate+nice · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 ..."
  4. Reliability... by skogs · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I know that there are some incredibly high performance and extremely technical aircraft available to the person with lots of money, skills, tools, and materials. These planes outperform commercial offerings, and provide the incredible sense of 'I built it myself' and 'I know everything there is to know about this aircraft'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
  5. Fuck'm by jaxon6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    --
    Do you see the sig? Do you have it in your sights? Why yes, Miss Moneypenny...
  6. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by brokenbeaker · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

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

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

  7. Re:Standard practice by Wwolmack · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Dennis Miller says it quite well, but in a slightly different subject.

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

    -- Dennis Miller's rant from April 6th, 2001.
  8. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by Sunlighter · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    --
    Sunlit World Scheme. Weird and different.
  9. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Informative
    They refused to give him the fuel. No mention of him offering to pay for it.

    abc.net.au:

    For the time being the Americans are giving him food and a couch in the refuelling shed to sleep on, but no fuel.
    JON JOHANSON: I guess officialdom are afraid to be seen to be helping in case the hordes come down and invade and I can understand their decisions, I really can and I don't, I haven't asked for their help. All I would like to do is make a commercial transaction of fuel.
    .theaustralian.news.com.au:
    AN Australian pilot remains stranded in the Antarctic after his government today failed to sway two of its greatest allies to sell him 400 litres of fuel....Mr Johanson needs 400 litres of fuel to return to New Zealand, but both US and NZ authorities have refused to supply it under a policy to discourage tourists to the base.
  10. They want to help him but they CAN'T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    "Antarctica New Zealand, the national scientific research program, could not provide the 47-year-old with fuel anyway because it did not have aviation gas, and the petrol it had was not of aviation quality. "
    • http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/11/107108 6202326.html
  11. Comments from someone who's there by one-egg · · Score: 5, Interesting
    My cousin happens to be at McMurdo right now. Here's what she said about the guy:
    Since the subject is unexpected visits, I'll tell you what I know about the Australian guy who tried to fly across the south pole to Argentina. He got low on fuel and landed at McMurdo where he was most unwelcome and apparently very unprepared. They've been feeding him and letting him sleep in a fuel shack while they figure out what to do with him. I'm going to try to get out and talk to him today, because I think he's being sent back on a USAP flight tomorrow.

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

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

  12. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by KrispyKringle · · Score: 5, Interesting
    He did not have a plane accident. He encountered stronger headwinds than expected and used more fuel than expected. Now I'm willing to accept that the conditions over the South Pole might be a tad unusual or unpredictable, but, without knowing the details, I'd say that still sounds like a bit of poor planning on his part. If he had a totally unforseeable mechanical failure, say, or hit a bird (a pengiun?), then you may have a case. But through his desire to push the limits of what he, and his plane, could do, he ran out of gas.

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

  13. Re:Except... by StenD · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Except... ...this guy didn't ram his plane into a remote snowbank or something -- he landed it at a refueling station.
    No, he didn't. He landed at a research station. Unlike your imaginary example, McMurdo Station isn't in the business of selling fuel, and Johanson has no reasonable expectation to be able to purchase fuel there.
  14. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by Helge+Hafting · · Score: 5, Funny
    If he had a totally unforseeable mechanical failure, say, or hit a bird (a pengiun?)

    A pilot that hits a penguin is in serious trouble.

  15. Johansen obviously didn't know... by raehl · · Score: 5, Funny

    All that base belong to US.

  16. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by Sun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    D.


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

  18. Bzzzt. Wrong. by devphil · · Score: 5, Insightful
    He HAD a contingency plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  19. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  20. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by NickFitz · · Score: 5, Funny
    This is going to cost Johanson an arm and a leg

    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>.
  21. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by shivianzealot · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  22. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by VtWebWizard · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It may well not be easy to sell him that fuel. It's a scientific outpost, with science's typical shoestring budgets. They have a limited supply of fuel on hand. Between their emergency reserve and research plans, it's probably all spoken for. Getting more fuel into the research base isn't like strolling down to the corner petrol station that gets daily deliveries. There are planned supply shipments and what's on hand may well be all that can be on hand for quite a while.

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

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

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

  23. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by monkeydo · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  24. Re:What is there to see in Antartica? by Deep+Penguin · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

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

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

    The overwhelming majority of us down here are civilians.

  25. Its about policy by decsnake · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  26. Re:They say they want to discourage tourism... by Deep+Penguin · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.