Heedless Venture to Antarctica

[sinbad7]

The forum members are entitled to their opinions as we must respect the opinions of others without the risk of being expelled. We must however refrain from abuse and bad language. The most important thing is that we have learnt something from this tragedy.

[Blue Stocking]

Originally Posted by sinbad7

The forum members are entitled to their opinions as we must respect the opinions of others without the risk of being expelled. We must however refrain from abuse and bad language. The most important thing is that we have learnt something from this tragedy.

Every opinion posted on this forum is based on the opiners judgement, or interpretation, of information supplied from other sources, or posters.
The moderators have the tough job of deciding if the expressed responce meets the guidelines as to whether or not the wording conveys a positive or negative contribution.
For example, I think we all applaud the efforts of the Sea Shepherd and crew in this incident. Yet their very existence in THEIR endeavour is considered criminal by many.
And there-in lies the problem IMHO (hmmm),where is the line to be drawn by, and on behalf of, an intelligent and mature group of adults.
The loss of any life unnecessarily is tragic, but we are told that how we deal with it, is what sets us apart in the animal kingdom.

[troppo]

I, for one, have found the various opinions interesting. I am currently reading "Crossing the Ditch" by James Castrission about how he and friend paddled their kayak from Australia to New Zealand, a journey of over 3,000 kilometres. Andrew McAuley had tried it solo in a smaller kayak and died close to the New Zealand coast. It would be a a much duller world if there was no adventure, on the other hand it would not be adventure if there were no risk and when there is risk, not all stories have happy endings.

[Brazil]

[QUOTE="sinbad7"]This report from a professional on the site explains the whole sad story:

Three die in 'Viking' yacht off Antarctica
MICHAEL FIELD Last updated 05:00 27/02/2011

A foolhardy voyage to Antarctica by a group of self-proclaimed Vikings has cost three lives while forcing a New Zealand navy ship and its 55 crew into savage seas, damaging the new vessel.

Berserk, a Norway-flagged 45m-long steel yacht with three men aboard, disappeared on Tuesday, in McMurdo Sound, 33km north of Scott Base.


Anyone know is it 45ft or 45 m boat?

[Bash]

Originally Posted by troppo

I, for one, have found the various opinions interesting. I am currently reading "Crossing the Ditch" by James Castrission about how he and friend paddled their kayak from Australia to New Zealand, a journey of over 3,000 kilometres. Andrew McAuley had tried it solo in a smaller kayak and died close to the New Zealand coast. It would be a a much duller world if there was no adventure, on the other hand it would not be adventure if there were no risk and when there is risk, not all stories have happy endings.

Interesting. I just finished STELLER'S ISLAND, about the Bering expedition that discovered the west coast of North America from Russia. Fascinating. Foolhardy. Tragic. Inspiring.

We could argue about whether the age of discovery is over, but we certainly live in an age of adventure, do we not? And we have no idea whether our current story will have a happy ending.

[callmecrazy]

[QUOTE=Brazil;635486]

Originally Posted by sinbad7

This report from a professional on the site explains the whole sad story:

Three die in 'Viking' yacht off Antarctica
MICHAEL FIELD Last updated 05:00 27/02/2011

A foolhardy voyage to Antarctica by a group of self-proclaimed Vikings has cost three lives while forcing a New Zealand navy ship and its 55 crew into savage seas, damaging the new vessel.

Berserk, a Norway-flagged 45m-long steel yacht with three men aboard, disappeared on Tuesday, in McMurdo Sound, 33km north of Scott Base.


Anyone know is it 45ft or 45 m boat?

its a 48ft steel sloop (not sure where he got "ferro" in the first paragraph either). He's been sailing that boat for a few years now, it was not purchased for this particular adventure (another false fact in that article). He purchased it in South American and did the Northwest passage in 2007.

[perchance]

Originally Posted by sinbad7

Paul..

May I respectfully remind you that Norwegian Roald Amundsen was the first to set foot on the South Pole only 100 years ago and the first to survive a visit to the North Pole and also the first to sail through the North West Passage with his ships the Gjøa and the Fram.

We must also remember Fridtjov Nansen,a Norwegian explorer, scientist, diplomat, humanitarian and Nobel laureate. In his youth a champion skier and ice skater, he led the first crossing of the Greenland interior in 1888, and won international fame after reaching a record northern latitude of 86°13' during his North Pole expedition of 1893–96. Although he retired from exploration after his return to Norway, his techniques of polar travel and his innovations in equipment and clothing influenced a generation of subsequent Arctic and Antarctic expeditions.

We have since had many ways of re-visiting the poles,on skiis,on foot,yes literally,on one one leg and also by ladies. The latest attempt by these 'berserks' were to reach the pole by four wheeled motor bikes.

Just a little history....

Amundsen was one smart man. He learned from the native people that had been living in a Polar environment for centuries While the English felt it was beneath their dignity to take advise from savages.

[perchance]

Originally Posted by troppo

I, for one, have found the various opinions interesting. I am currently reading "Crossing the Ditch" by James Castrission about how he and friend paddled their kayak from Australia to New Zealand, a journey of over 3,000 kilometres. Andrew McAuley had tried it solo in a smaller kayak and died close to the New Zealand coast. It would be a a much duller world if there was no adventure, on the other hand it would not be adventure if there were no risk and when there is risk, not all stories have happy endings.

I think the urge to "go where no man has gone before" is in our DNA, otherwise we would still be blundering around in Africa. Having said that I feel that a lot of these "voyages" are done more for the stunt factor than for any other reason. Something about "fifteen minutes of fame"?

[Kimmo]

Not taking any stance of the Norwegian vessel expedition, except that packing too much stuff on sailboat deck is a definitely no no.

Here's one Finnish boat that did the Antarctica trip in 1980's, although they were stopped by the ice. About the same time of the year too. Interesting and quite scary to read it:

Merivuokko - Two Finnish men try to sail to the Antarctic Circle

[Artif]

Originally Posted by perchance

Having said that I feel that a lot of these "voyages" are done more for the stunt factor than for any other reason. Something about "fifteen minutes of fame"?

The same could be said for sailing around the local harbour in a small dinghy, not so much for the fame but the sense of adventure for ones self. We do not need to sail around the local harbour or across the Oceans as it can be done by far "safer" means of transport.
I'm always amused at the critics of these follies, when they themselves are often doing the very same thing. Many of us have tales of "adventure", caught in bad weather or strong currents etc. etc. fortunately many of us live to tell the tale.
We don't need to climb mountains, but people do it, and people die doing it, does that mean the mountains should be cordoned off and made safe?

Should we condemn anyone for having their adventure?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by troppo

from Australia to New Zealand, a journey of over 3,000 kilometres.

Is that the long route? Sydney to Wellington is just a bit more than 2000 km; the closest points are quite a bit less.

[sinbad7]

Artif..

No one is denying the people's right to their adventures as long as it is done with forethought and proper planning. And most important,if you ca'nt afford the minimum
safety requirement and do not possess the neccessary experience,then DO'NT do it!

The demands on your resources is in direct relation to the demands of the venture.

Lodesman.. Oh, and the distance Sydney - Wellington is actually 1.200 nm by sea...

[Khagan1227]

I am of the belief that a lot of people take risks that others think are foolhardy because those taking the risk cannot believe the true power of mother nature.

For example, thousands of people in New Orleans refused to leave their homes while a cat 5 hurricane was bearing down on them, and a large number paid for that mistake with their life. When asked why they stayed, many replied, they did not believe that any storm could be that bad.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Artif

Should we condemn anyone for having their adventure?

Yes, we should, IF:

#1 the Captain leave a physical mess (sunken oil, fuel and much other junk) in one of the very last near pristine environments in the world which many people are trying very hard to protect, and
#2 His crew is killed because he does such a piss poor job of planning that they arrive after the season has ended and well after (several months) the event they are trying to 'recreate' actually happened, and
#3 He thumbs his nose at others, and ignores their suggestions and safety procedures, but then forces two other vessels to risk their equipment and lives in a rescue effort. And,
#4 He break so many normal safety procedures and rules that he leave a very bad taste in everyone else's mouth and makes it harder for other sailors afterwards to have THEIR adventure.
#5 When their 'adventure' is in 'bad style' (in the way mountaineers use the term) in any case. If is rather discouraged for mountaineers to cut steps in rock cliff faces and to dump trash all along their route, etc.

Its quite possible for modest people to do Antarctic adventures while following the recommended environmental and safety procedures, and don't leave a mess (human or physical) behind. There are many people who do (just for example friends of our have just spent the past two winters on South Georgia on a 30' boat).

The criticism here is not about the adventure and not even about the fact that he lost 3 of his crew, but that he did it in a thoughtless and careless fashion that left a physical and human and emotional mess that will harm the environment, other cruisers, and the families when he could easily have done it with respect for the environment and his crew and other adventurers and history in a prudent and careful fashion. If people had died while he was acting respectfully, prudently and carefully he would still probably have been criticised but I for one would have defended him. But with his obvious immature media oriented 'manly viking' scorn for everyone else, I can only have scorn for his actual actions and decisions.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Yes, we should, IF:

##3 He thumbs his nose at others, and ignores their suggestions and safety procedures, but then forces two other vessels to risk their equipment and lives in a rescue effort.

The theme about "forcing" vessels to the rescue has appeared in several posts. No rescuer is forced. Why wouldn't rescue efforts be delayed until conditions allow safe rescue? This doesn't make sense.