Setting Things Straight

Posted by Hugh Bowring in Team TCJ on July 7, 2013

The post below was written by co-leader of The Coldest Journey, Anton Bowring, with specific reference to comments made by Fred Pohl and Bob Searle. Whilst it is not our policy to reply to such criticisms directly, it was felt in this case that a response was appropriate.

On June 19th Mr Pohl posted on Facebook: “If Fuchs [making reference to Vivian Fuchs, whose team made the first overland crossing of Antarctica in 1957/58] could cross or circumnavigate crevasses as wide as the ones that have stopped you, why could not you?”. And in another post: “Crevasses are clearly shown up on satellite images, and there was no excuse for not being aware of their existence as well as their location. It appears that pre-planning was non-existent! A poor state of affairs in my opinion.”

On June 24th Mr Searle wrote this message on Facebook: “I have read Mr Bowring’s excellent blog and seen Mr Newham’s video, but they do not answer my question. Fuchs certainly did come up against very formidable barriers, you can see photos in which his tracked vehicles are spanning wide crevasses. I am well aware that this was in summer, but as I said the cold and the dark of winter do not change how you deal with crevasses, and it is disingenuous to suggest so. To put it another way, if this was summer would you therefore continue your journey? Not all of your followers are as naive or as ignorant of Antarctica and her history as you might think. So please, enough of the flannel. I ask again: if Fuchs could cross or circumnavigate crevasses as wide as the ones that have stopped you, why could not you?”

Sir Vivian Fuchs who led the Commonwealth Trans Antarctic Expedition 1955–1958, the first ever crossing of Antarctica, was a good friend and enthusiastic supporter of Ran Fiennes. He was a member of our advisory group during the Transglobe Expedition 1979–1982 (the first polar circumnavigation of the World along a longitudinal axis). He was generous enough to support us with his expertise and vast knowledge of Antarctica. He also played an important role in devising much of our scientific programme. He was not just on our note paper. He was fully involved in the planning and decision making along with a number of other polar veterans of the time. His view, often stated, was that success and failure were, to a large extent, the result of luck. He was certainly not an arrogant man and would never have criticised anyone else who attempted to break new ground through human endeavour.

The Coldest Journey differs from Sir Vivian’s expedition in that, apart from being a winter journey (not a summer one), ours was mounted as a single, one-way crossing and not, from two opposing shores. Sir Vivian and Sir Edmund Hillary started off from opposite sides of Antarctica (The Filchner Ice Shelf and Ross Island) and met at the South Pole. Sir Vivian then continued along Hillary’s route using supplies from depots laid by Hillary and his team as well as from occasional air drops. Importantly, the expedition was, in large part, government supported as a contribution to the International Geophysical Year research programme. Thus, unlike our expedition, Fuchs and Hillary had public funding and were able to use two ships to position their separate parties in Antarctica over two seasons. The result of the distribution of supplies to the two locations was that each party was able to travel using relatively lightweight machinery and equipment. Fuchs had three Tucker Sno Cats (as illustrated in the classic photograph of the Cat in the crevasse). Hillary used modified agricultural Massey Ferguson tractors.

The Coldest Journey (also supported by the Commonwealth – but, alas, not with funding in our case!), was planned, following considerable research and development, to operate over one winter, travelling in one direction and without any depots along the route and no air support. The inevitable outcome was that our expedition would require more supplies and result in a heavier cargo. Tucker Sno Cats still exist and our own ‘Snowflake’, which we used to unload the SA Agulhas at Crown Bay, was similar to the ones used by Fuchs. These rubber tracked vehicles are unsuitable for the very low temperatures of winter. They weigh around 7 tonnes. For a winter crossing we needed altogether different vehicles each capable of pulling the 50 tons or more of supplies, accommodation and fuel. The only tractor (as previously stated) which could undertake such demanding work was the Caterpillar D6N. These machines, specially modified, weigh 25 tonnes. It doesn’t take a mathematician to realise that a 25 tonne vehicle is more likely to break through a snow bridge over a crevasse than one of 7 tonnes. For this reason, we chose a route which we considered, with the best advice available, would give us the least number of crevasses and awkward inclines from sea level up to the plateau at 3,000 meters. Despite the views of Pohl and Searle, knowledge of the terrain is very limited and satellite imagery certainly does not give definitive evidence. The fact that the wide tracked Belgian 8.5 tonne Prinolth vehicles haven’t encountered crevasses to the extent that ours have is clearly due to weight. It is an unfortunate discovery that, unbeknown to anyone, there were indeed substantially more crevasses than expected which the heavier D6Ns couldn’t traverse. While our team are still in the area, albeit on safe ground for the time being, it doesn’t do to be too complacent. However, rather than be criticised, I think our team should be applauded for their skill thus far in keeping the CATs firmly on the surface. And, bear in mind, they still have the daunting task of getting back to the coast when their science work is done at the end of the year.

I have no doubt that, to some people, our endeavour may appear unsound. Indeed, in retrospect, and with hindsight, I’m sure that the knowledge we have gained can be used to develop and improve the whole concept. Hopefully, along with the scientific research, education and fund-raising for Seeing is Believing, that will be another of the positive outcomes of this project. I know that experience and further development of the vehicles (and some of the other equipment) will result in practical modifications and improvements for future ultra-low temperature work. Whatever the outcome, I look forward to following another team in their attempts to cross the most hostile environment on Earth. I shall certainly be cheering them on.

Anton Bowring

Image caption: Sir Ranulph Fiennes and Sir Vivian Fuchs in September 1979 on board the Transglobe Expedition ship MV Benjamin Bowring in Greenwich at the start of the first ever polar circumnavigation of the World.

There are 16 comments

Posted by Martin on July 7, 2013 @ 8:33 pm

Dear Coldest Journey Team, hooray for you, the nay sayers need to get their history of polar expeditions in perspective.
Rgds
Martin

Posted by Conroy Fourie on July 8, 2013 @ 4:46 am

Dear TCJT,

We applaud your endeavour.
Here are some reflections, generically referring to your magnificent endeavour, that I published on my Blog a while ago after I saw some of the criticisms relating to your On-The-Ground (On-The-Ice!!) decision to refocus your priorities (+- Mid June). I copy a link to my Blog Post as well as the full Post below:

http://conroyfourieconsulting.com/2013/06/15/managing-expectations-the-meaning-of-success-in-the-case-of-high-risk-projects/
The Article:

“I am following an Online Blog for a particularly difficult endeavour that involves a never before attempted exploration under extreme conditions. The project is therefore subject to many and varied risks that can only be truly assessed and re-assessed continuously by the Project Team “On-The-Ground” as they undertake their journey.

As the project progressed in terms of calendar time expired, it became clear that the initially set progress targets were nowhere close to being achieved. Maybe the project targets were never realistic given the risky nature of the project – but as the saying goes, hindsight is an exact science. The project team’s Blog posts are quite explicit in outlining the difficulties and the way that they are re-assessing the project’s priorities and goals as time goes by.

The level of criticism that this transparency from the team on the ground elicited from people that were nowhere close to being involved in the project directly – they were merely following progress via the project’s Blog – was surprising! I checked-in with myself and realised I also felt some disappointment because this project were not meeting its widely published progress goals. I (and I assume this is also the case with the other Blog followers) was taking some real pride and ownership in the project and badly wanted it to succeed in terms of the pre-set targets come what may. And from the security and comfort of our collective armchairs as we were remotely following progress via the Project Blog it became all too tempting and easy to implicitly second guess the leadership decisions of the people who were directly involved with the project.

I also reflected on other possible reasons for our collective feeling of disappointment and in certain cases the very explicit, sharp and stinging criticism in Blog posts by some Project Followers. My thoughts are that possibly a culture of instant gratification and performance anxiety drives our need to see the Project Team achieve their original milestones. Maybe we want them to achieve their targets come what may like we want our cricket, rugby, soccer, and other sports teams to win. We may be thinking about it in terms of that there is a winner and a loser. If the targets are achieved, we win, if not, we lose.

In what ways are the responses to this high risk endeavour similar to what leaders do in organisations when they are faced with innovation projects that do not deliver “success” exactly as per narrowly set targets? In what ways are the responses similar to the way a manager deals with mistakes made by his or her subordinates. Of course we must performance manage but there are times where we should encourage teams and individuals to take risks and responsibly respond to when this risk taking results in “failure” if measured against traditionally narrow “success” criteria. Otherwise we will undermine the confidence of teams and individuals and in so doing we will undermine the appetite for risk taking and we will detrimentally impact the innovation bench strength of our organisations.

As I am writing this, I saw a post by Charlie Garland ( http://www.linkedin.com/in/innovationoutlet ) relating to an online discussion on the Harvard Business Review LinkedIn Group Blog that fits in perfectly in what I’m trying to say here. I quote an extract from the Charlie Garland discussion verbatim:

“So, one of the most impactful ways of raising that leadership capacity is not through thinking about it; rather, it is by actually doing it. This is the essence of the concept of “action learning.” We learn from our experiences…in ways that are profoundly different than learning by thinking about things, or by reading about them, or watching someone else do things. Learning-by-doing is an incredibly powerful teacher. We try, we fail, we reflect upon what we did that last time that did, or did not, work well…and we try again. And again. And again. This iterative process of continuous learning, by doing (i.e. “trial-and-error”) is so basic, yet so magnificently effective…if one is persistent. The trick is to not get discouraged; but rather to treat each failure as a learning experience. Like a scientist would. Experimentation is a mindset that is missing from so many individuals, so many cultures. The piece that is most often missing is the “reflection” part of the process.”

What came to mind as I was reflecting on my response to the Project Team not meeting some of its original objectives was the old American Indian proverb: “Never criticize a man until you’ve walked a mile in his moccasins.” We are not “in situ” – we should let the Project Team run their project and make the calls because they are “in it”. Sometimes life does not go exactly as we want it to.

A seasoned and celebrated Team and Change Facilitator, William Bridges (see his book “the way of transition: embracing life’s most difficult moment”), noted this about success (p198):

“It is salutary to note that the word ‘success’ originally had nothing to do with ‘good’ results…It simply meant whatever follows after something.”

And:

“To do one’s best and then to let outcomes be what they will be is both to acknowledge realistically how often outcomes are beyond our control and to guard against the neurotic attempts at controlling how things turn out – efforts that lead to everything from defensiveness to dishonesty.”

Let us celebrate this particular (very risky) journey wherever it goes and however it eventually ends. The project is a magnificent endeavour. We should trust and support the team through good days and bad days and we should celebrate each day as it unfolds. After all, this journey, like life, is not a 100m sprint; it is an ultra-marathon of note.”

Posted by Ed Stafford on July 8, 2013 @ 7:50 am

Well said Anton. What you were attempting was vastly more difficult than any form of traverse attempted before. What was learned will hugely benefit future expeditions and the team, both on the ice and supporting, should be congratulated for their vision and their courage. The Internet is an easy place for people to put others and their efforts down and, as such, don’t loose any sleep over the negative comments. I doubt very much that the authors are putting their lives at risk to do something special that has never been done before. Deep respect to all of your team. Ed

Posted by Paul Campbell on July 8, 2013 @ 4:48 pm

Mr Pohl, Searle et al,
If you can do better than go ahead

Posted by Gloworm on July 9, 2013 @ 2:42 pm

There are five very brave men out there in the dark and awesome cold. They need our support, not criticism and condemnation from whinging whiners safe, and warm in their own homes. I have visited Antarctica the cold makes your teeth rattle, and that was in the summer in daylight. May I suggest some hot toddies, a few group hugs and a few songs to the gallant warriors waiting for the daylight. Keep safe and warm and the sun will surely return.

Posted by Keith Bridges on July 9, 2013 @ 3:52 pm

Hard to beleive that anyone could question the planning on the 1st attempt of anything so heroic. Given that the team still have to come down the crevasses they have spent weeks climbing, we wish this remarkable attempt nothing but the best.

Posted by Boris on July 9, 2013 @ 7:38 pm

Never mind the bickering on the forums. Lots of people forget the difference between real and virtual. You guys are as real as it gets. Catch up on that sleep – you’ll need it come spring!

Posted by Bob Searle on July 10, 2013 @ 7:10 pm

Thank-you Anton for a very considered reply. I’d
like to clarify that I’ve never criticized the planning or the reason for this
expedition, of which I’ve always been a supporter, emotionally and financially,
and I greatly respect those who thought up and planned the whole enterprise. My
question is simply with the ice team’s execution, and it remains a simple one.
Sure, Fuchs used lighter vehicles, but as we’ve seen they were still very
capable of falling into crevasses (and by the by it’s ground pressure, not
outright weight that counts). To blame your heavier vehicles somewhat misses my
point. Put yourself in Fuchs’s shoes: he was in a similar position, as at the
time his vehicles were also the heaviest yet used in Antarctica, so using your
logic he could also have justified abandoning his expedition when he ran into
trouble. But when confronted with the stark reality of his vehicles breaking
through crevasse bridges, did Fuchs turn around? No, he had the balls to
continue into the unknown, despite the risks. Yet your team gave up. It is this
that is so disappointing, after years of planning, and effort, and being given
the best tools for the job. Are you honestly claiming that those crevasses were
impossible to negotiate? There is always a way around. We’re left to draw the
simple but unpleasant conclusion that an on-the-ground team more in the Fuchs
mould might have found a way to continue. Great deeds are not achieved through
timidity.
To those criticizing my views as an ‘armchair
critic’ (from their own armchairs), please think again. Not that this should
affect anybody’s right to comment, but I have more polar and expedition
experience than almost all of the ice team. I know the conditions they
face. From your own armchairs, and perhaps romantically blinded by the ‘heroism’
of the expedition team, you unquestioningly accept their attempts to save face.
From my tent, and rather less star-struck, perhaps I can see a less one-sided
picture. Are your armchair views (based on what you’re fed by the team’s PR machine) any more valid than mine?

The fact is the team are human, and people fail. No
big issues there. But when it’s due to a lack of commitment rather than
‘insurmountable’ obstacles, and when it’s spun differently, that’s when it
becomes hard to stomach.

Posted by Andy Lawrence on July 11, 2013 @ 8:05 am

The fact that the team are where they are demonstrates clearly that they can negotiate the crevasses. The fact that it has taken so long with such significant expenditure of fuel demonstrates clearly why it is not safe to go further. As Anton explains Fuchs did not have to carry supplies for the full crossing but was resupplied from depots from the South Pole back to the coast. Had the Ice Team continued it is clear that they were likely to run out of supplies well before they completed the crossing and well away from any possibility of help. Yes they could have made for the pole and then made the decision to stop. Yes they could have continued to battle through the crevasses as they had already done and as Bob Searle recommends they should have continued to do. There would have been no point to either course of action. It was simply no longer possible to complete the primary objective of an unsupported winter crossing of the continent. This is not a question of anybody ‘giving up’, this is a situation in which a well balanced decision has been taken that it is neither possible nor safe to continue to attempt what had become effectively impossible. To accuse the Ice Team of timidity and a lack of commitment is frankly insulting not just to the team but to their supporters.

Posted by Bob Searle on July 11, 2013 @ 7:48 pm

Andy, the primary reason given in their
announcement was that of crevassing. They have plenty of food and other supplies to last them well into next year. As for fuel, I’d be extremely surprised if
that is already a make-or-break issue. Let’s think: they had enough fuel when
they left their depot, 40 km ago. Now, I don’t doubt that the 40 km since
then has been extremely difficult and slow. But even if they’ve used
double their planned amount of fuel for that 40 km stretch, that’s only leaves
them 40 km-worth of fuel short. That’s only 1% in the context of a 4,000 km
journey! Do we really think that they had less than 1% contingency in their
fuel? To put it another way, would you abandon anything based on 1% of it not
going to plan? Even allowing for a doubling of fuel burn over the next 100 km of
(possibly) crevassed terrain ahead, that would still only require a 3 – 4%
contingency. I find it very hard to believe that a tough 40 km was enough to
make the difference between having enough fuel or not for a journey of this
magnitude.

Even if the fuel question was in irrefutable doubt,
it’s an extremely early call, and they’re at least 1,000 km from the point at
which they’d have to turn around because of fuel. Whatever happened to carrying
on for the moment ‘because it’s there’?

Posted by Andy Lawrence on July 12, 2013 @ 6:41 am

Crevassing has been given as the reason for their lack of progress. Simple question, given their rate of progress was there any possibility of them completing their primary objective? Answer no, the only sensible and safe decision was to stop. No amount of mental arithmetic around their supply position alters the fact that they could not hope to make sufficient progress to allow them to complete the journey within the winter period.

Posted by Bob Searle on July 13, 2013 @ 7:22 pm

Andy, I’m sure you’re right, the chances of
completing the traverse before the end of winter were probably slim. But even if
they’d got across after the end of winter it would still have been a hell of an
achievement, worth doing, and no doubt they’d have raised a lot more for Seeing
is Believing. If they turned around because the chance for the ‘glory’ of a
purely winter traverse had gone, then to my mind that’s even more disappointing.
It’s not all about setting records.

Posted by Suzannah Frobisher on July 13, 2013 @ 7:49 pm

From everything I’ve read the Ice Team still have plenty of food, time, increasing daylight and, despite everything they must have plenty of fuel to explore the 100 km to the south which is allegedly (no one knows) a mass of crevassses. They will get safely back to Crown Bay, over or round the crevassses they successfully negotiated in April and May. Unfortunately none of our discussions is going to reverse this decision, which in the absence of factors they haven’t told us about (unlikely) will be judged by posterity to be illogical and, frankly, wrong. A very great shame.

Posted by Anton Bowring on July 17, 2013 @ 12:07 am

Dear Bob Searle,

I have no desire to hold a prolonged debate with you about the level of commitment displayed by the expedition team. It strikes me that your opinion is set and unlikely to change. You have expressed your view and that is that.

Much of your criticism is covered by a ‘blog’ I wrote some weeks ago. I have no doubt that you are highly experienced and can claim to have a greater knowledge of Antarctica than any of us who are following events from afar but, however much experience you have, you are not with our team in their converted sea container on the edge of the plateau in mid winter. If you were, your comments might have greater value. Without wishing to be too critical myself, I feel it is somewhat ungracious to make accusations without access to all the facts and conditions that have led to the present situation.

Wherever you may be, you are, in effect, observing from an armchair critic’s
perspective – just like the rest of us. As such, your experience, however
great, is diminished by your absence from the scene. Of course, it allows you
to comment but not necessarily with greater authority than anyone else. The
only true knowledge of the situation belongs to the long suffering Ice Team who
continue to make a success of the project – even if it is changing in its
focus.

In an ideal world to have hands on experience of our expedition or Fuchs’s expedition would give you a real point of view. To have been on both expeditions would give you absolute authority to compare them. But, being on neither, makes your argument a questionable observation and not much more.

Finally, regarding your suggestion that there is a PR ‘machine’ at work. We do not employ a PR agency. We have neither a PR department nor even a PR officer. Your cynicism might just be the clue to your uncompromising views. I do not feel the need to defend our team nor all those who have given their time and effort so generously in support of our various aims. We are all attempting to achieve worthwhile results with absolute sincerity. What we want is support not demolition.

You know we are raising funds for Seeing is Believing. This wonderful cause is working to eliminate avoidable blindness. This includes short sightedness. Need I say more?

With best wishes

Anton

Posted by Mark on July 11, 2013 @ 7:16 am

Mr. Searle presents some reasonable commentary, which unfortunately is overshadowed by the attitude with which it is delivered.

Posted by Suzannah Frobisher on July 11, 2013 @ 9:24 pm

Mr Searle, it gives me no pleasure to say that I totally agree with you! As a total amateur I was commenting along the same lines on the blogs of 2nd, 5th & 18 June (2 comments) – and I was, sadly, proved right. However they are where they are and the teams in Antarctica and London are, correctly, currently bound by collective responsibility, which regrettably includes putting a brave face on this bad decision. No doubt truth will out when history comes to be written after the team has dispersed, so we will have to wait till then for light rather than heat. In the meantime the ice team might be safe but I wonder if that they are at ease and I can’t see any point in us doing anything other than wishing them all the best.

Comments are closed

Setting Things Straight