Explorers or boys messing about? Either way, taxpayer gets rescue bill
by Steven Morris - Adapted from The Guardian, 28 January 2003
Helicopter duo plucked from liferaft after Antarctic crash
[1]
Their last expedition ended in farce
when the Russians threatened to send in military planes to intercept them
as they tried to cross into Siberia via the icebound Bering Strait.
[2]
Yesterday a new adventure undertaken by
British explorers Steve Brooks and Quentin Smith
almost led to tragedy
when their helicopter plunged into the sea off Antarctica.
[3]
The men were plucked from the icy water
by a Chilean naval ship after a nine-hour rescue
which began when Mr Brooks contacted his wife, Jo Vestey, on his satellite phone asking for assistance.
The rescue involved the Royal Navy, the RAF and British coastguards.
[4]
Last night there was resentment in some quarters
that the men's adventure had cost the taxpayers of Britain and Chile tens of thousands of pounds.
[5]
Experts questioned the wisdom
of taking a small helicopter — the four-seater Robinson R44 has a single engine —
into such a hostile environment.
[6]
There was also confusion about what exactly the men were trying to achieve.
A website set up to promote the Bering Strait expedition claims the team were planning to fly from
the north to south pole in their "trusty helicopter".
[7]
But Ms Vestey claimed she did not know what the pair were up to, describing them as
"boys messing about with a helicopter".
[8]
The drama began at around 1am British time
when Mr Brooks, 42, and 40-year-old Mr Smith,
also known as Q,
ditched into the sea 100 miles off Antarctica, about 36 miles
north of Smith Island, and scrambled into their liferaft.
[9]
Mr Brooks called his wife in London on his satellite phone. She said:
"He said they were both in the liferaft but were okay and could I call the emergency people?"
[10]
Meanwhile, distress signals were being beamed from the ditched helicopter and from
Mr Brooks' Breitling emergency watch, a wedding present.
[11]
The signals from the aircraft were deciphered by Falmouth1 coastguard and passed on to
the rescue coordination centre at RAF Kinloss in Scotland.
[12]
The Royal Navy's ice patrol ship, HMS Endurance, which was 180 miles away surveying
uncharted waters, began steaming towards the scene and dispatched its two Lynx
helicopters.
[13]
One was driven back because of poor visibility but the second was on its way when the
men were picked up by a Chilean naval vessel at about 10.20am British time.
[14]
Though the pair wore survival suits and the weather at the spot where they ditched was
clear, one Antarctic explorer told Mr Brooks' wife it was "nothing short of a miracle" that
they had survived.
[15]
Both men are experienced adventurers.
Mr Brooks, a property developer from London,
has taken part in expeditions to 70 countries in 15 years. He has trekked solo to Everest
base camp and walked barefoot for three days in the Himalayas. He has negotiated the
white water rapids of the Zambezi river by kayak and survived a charge by a silver back
gorilla in the Congo. He is also a qualified mechanical engineer and pilot.
[16]
He and his wife spent their honeymoon flying the helicopter from Alaska to Chile.
The 16,000-mile trip took three months.
[17]
Mr Smith, also from London, claims to have been flying since the age of five. He has
twice flown a helicopter around the globe and won the world freestyle helicopter flying
championship.
[18]
Despite their experience,
it is not the first time they have hit the headlines for the wrong reasons.
[19]
In April, Mr Brooks and another explorer, Graham Stratford, were poised to become the
first to complete a crossing of the 56-mile wide frozen Bering Strait between the US and
Russia in an amphibious vehicle, Snowbird VI, which could carve its way through ice
floes and float in the water in between.
[20]
But they were forced to call a halt after the Russian authorities told them they would
scramble military helicopters to lift them off the ice if they crossed the border.
[21]
Ironically, one of the aims of the expedition, for which Mr Smith provided air back-up,
was to demonstrate how good relations between east and west had become.
[22]
The wisdom of the team's latest adventure was questioned by, among others, Günter
Endres, editor of Jane's Helicopter Markets and Systems, said:
"I'm surprised they used the R44. I wouldn't use a helicopter like that to go so far over the sea. It sounds as if
they were pushing it to the maximum".
[23]
A spokesman for the pair said it was not known what had gone wrong.
The flying conditions had been "excellent".
[24]
The Ministry of Defence said the taxpayer would pick up the bill, as was normal in
rescues in the UK and abroad. The spokesperson said it was
"highly unlikely" it would
recover any of the money.
[25]
Last night the men were on their way to the Chilean naval base Eduardo Frei, where
HMS Endurance was to pick them up. Ms Vestey said: "They have been checked and
appear to be well. I don't know what will happen to them once they have been picked up
by HMS Endurance — they'll probably have their bottoms kicked and be sent home the
long way".
1 Falmouth: a coastal town in Cornwall, England
Overall PAVLS Analysis
Click each element below to explore how Morris uses these techniques throughout the article
P
Purpose
A
Audience
V
Voice
L
Language
S
Structure
Purpose - Why Morris Wrote This Article
Morris's purposes are layered throughout the article:
To inform about the rescue:
"The men were plucked from the icy water by a Chilean naval ship" - Basic news reporting
To criticise wasteful spending:
"Last night there was resentment in some quarters" - Highlighting public anger
To question the explorers' judgment:
"boys messing about with a helicopter" - Undermining their credibility
Audience - Who He's Writing For
Morris targets specific readers of The Guardian:
British taxpayers:
"the taxpayers of Britain and Chile tens of thousands of pounds" - Direct relevance to those funding
Guardian readers (educated, liberal):
References to Jane's Helicopter Markets - assumes sophisticated knowledge
Critics of privilege:
"property developer from London" - Class markers that resonate
Voice - Morris's Tone and Attitude
Notice how Morris's voice shifts between objective and critical:
Ironic headline:
"Explorers or boys messing about?" - Immediately skeptical
Dry sarcasm:
"trusty helicopter" - Quotation marks signal disbelief
Understated criticism:
"not the first time they have hit the headlines for the wrong reasons" - Gentle mockery
Language - Technical Choices
Morris uses specific language techniques to shape reader response:
Loaded vocabulary:
"farce", "plunged", "scrambled" - Dramatic and undermining
Expert testimony:
"I wouldn't use a helicopter like that" - Authority figures question decisions
Ironic juxtaposition:
"nothing short of a miracle" vs "boys messing about" - Contrasting perspectives
Structure - How It's Organised
The article's structure builds the case against the explorers:
Hook with failure:
"Their last expedition ended in farce" - Opens with previous incompetence
Cost emphasis:
Rescue details followed immediately by "tens of thousands of pounds"
Pattern of failure:
Current rescue → Past achievements → Previous failures - Undermining structure
Wife's punchline:
"they'll probably have their bottoms kicked" - Ends with domestic comedy