On the 31st Jan, Alex and his team-mate set out from the junction of the roads 1 and F206 in order to cross the Vatnajokull from west to east in winter. Before even beginning the icecap crossing, 50km of lava fields and valleys would need to be crossed. By the 3rd Feb, this was achieved.

- The expedition proceeded on schedule and as planned for the first 7 days. Their final position was only 1.5 days from their chosen glacier, where they would descend off the icecap. They were on the ice for a total of 9 days, not 30 as reported in some places.
- The pickup by ICE-SAR was undertaken entirely in daylight hours
- There was no search. GPS coordinates accurate to 10ft were given and the skidoo team drove directly to our position.
- The ICE-SAR were thanked in person at the time and publicly in the initial press statement. Only one publication made the decision to print this part of the statement.
- Wet and cold conditions played no part in the decision to evacuate the team. Iceland in winter is wet and cold and the team were prepared for it, coping adequately throughout.
- Three separate members of the home team forecasted wind speeds of 120kph+ for the night of the Thursday. The team therefore asked for a Wednesday pickup during a lull in the wind.
- The tent was usually able to withstand high winds. Due to a change in wind direction during a period of 100kph wind, the tunnel design of the tent worked against it and part of it snapped and collapsed. Alex decided that this damage made it unable to withstand another major onslaught.
- A weather window of reduced wind was identified on the Wednesday prior to even higher winds.
- The tent canvas was not wrapped around the bodies of the team to keep them warm.
- Alex's UK-based team varies in size and type depending on the length and scale of the expedition in question. It can include logistics managers, experienced friends, members of his family and the family of other team members. In this case, it happened that he was in dialogue with his father, who naturally acted to activate the pickup.
- Press interest would likely have been much reduced should it have happened to be another member of his home team who made arrangements.
- The team had registered their PLB (personal locator beacon) with the radio administration and had notified the National Parks officials of their plans.
- The PLB was not activated due to adequate communication via phone.
- ICE-SAR offered to perform an immediate pickup. The team responded that they could secure the tent for the night to allow for a daytime operation.
- It is standard procedure to transmit vital information quickly and briefly to a home team via satellite phone and then let them make lengthier arrangements. This is due to limited battery power.
- The team was fully aware of the 112 Icelandic emergency number.

I hope that this answers many of the questions posed by interested parties and dispels some of the myths. Thanks again to all those involved with the expedition and evacuation. On a wider note, the only way to avoid the possibility of non-completion is to attempt easy challenges. This is not my style. The expedition will be relaunched in future years.

To escape criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. Elbert Hubbard

This winter brings the prospect of two interesting projects, both of which have been mentioned briefly over the past few months.

The first is a Greenlandic winter documentary I'm presenting along with a film crew comprised of the enormously talented trio of Kerr Loy, Adrian Samarra and Matt Pycroft. The blurb goes as follows:

“In the depths of the arctic winter, film-makers Adrian Samarra, Matt Pycroft and Kerr Loy will join Alex Hibbert in the Inuit communities and wilderness of Greenland.

They will produce a 30 minute documentary highlighting the lives and culture of the local villages as well as the spectacular and brutal conditions in this frontier nation. Combining highly creative camera techniques with a strong narrative with presenter Alex Hibbert, the team aim to capture a completely new angle on an amazing location.

The first instalment of a series, in Greenland, will tackle the notorious local weather, the northern lights, walking across fractured sea ice and travelling with local hunters as they work on the frozen sea with their dog teams. Adrian Samarra, Matt Pycroft and Kerr Loy are experienced and highly creative film-makers. Combining cutting-edge techniques with a keen attention to detail, they produce sequences which produce the ‘wow’ factor again and again. Their credits include the BBC, Kendal Mountain Film Festival, RAB and the BMC."

Following the period of filming in late January and after the film crew have returned to the UK, I'll be joined by a climber and outdoorsman friend in order to take on the notorious Icelandic Vatnajökull icecap in winter conditions. This expedition will be a full west to east crossing and will include a long approach and exit ski/hike instead of using local super-jeeps. Crossing the windy and heavily crevassed icecap in spring/summer is a major target but the darkness and tough conditions of the winter have inspired this expedition which will total over 120 miles of technical and complicated ice, snow and lavafields.

Supported by:

To contact Alex and team for free whilst on-location, follow this link and use this satellite number: 881632589071

Me hauling 200kg

Whether travelling on sea ice (where limitations include negative drift, leads and pressure ice) or an icecap (where limitations include gradient to climb and glaciated/crevassed ground) there is a limit to the length of an expedition. This is most likely to be the 'haulable weight', so long as the daily calorie intake is sustainable.

I have found on expeditions in a variety of temperatures, conditions and with wide varieties of sledge weights, there is a threshold below which I felt weak and over which I felt strong. This was 5000kcal/day for me. Of course, some days are more physically demanding than others but averaged out, I've found that weight loss on a mid-length (20-50 days) to long expedition (50+ days) can be sustainable, controlled and non-disruptive on 5000kcal. There is always a balance to strike regarding having enough calories to perform the necessary work whilst not hauling too much. A lot of emphasis must be put on where these calories are from too - protein, carbs or fats. Also, vitamin and mineral levels must be maintained.

I have been able to create relatively palatable and tasty ration systems between 5000 and 5500kcal for 970-1050g per day. This means that, putting aside mental struggles on long expeditions and the chances of accidents occurring, an efficient and professional polar expedition should survive on 1kg of food per day indefinitely. This brings us back to haulable weight and although some would consider 100kg a heavy sledge - for committed long distance unsupported expeditions by a highly-trained skier, 200-250kg is feasible in the early weeks.

Taking into account equipment weight and fuel and assuming a sledge-max of 250kg, 200kg of food is reasonable. This equals 200 days of travel. The question then is how far can be skied in 200 days, including bad conditions, possible open water and gradients to climb?

I would argue ultimate human ranges for:

Spring/summer icecaps including coastal gradient and crevasses: 2400 statue miles @ 12 miles/day average

Spring/summer icecaps just on a plateau with minimal disruption: 2800 statue miles @ 14 miles/day average

Winter/spring travel on sea ice before a major melt sets in: 1600 statute miles @ 8 miles/day average

The major caveat is that these potentials are mathematical. Polar expeditions in their rawest form are brutal. These numbers don't take into account mental struggle with isolation, accidents, freak weather or broken equipment. 

Looking at the actual 'world-best' ranges currently set by unsupported expeditions, there is plenty of scope for pushing limits:

Spring/summer icecaps including coastal gradient and crevasses: 1374 statue miles @ 12.2 miles/day average

Winter/spring travel on sea ice before a major melt sets in: 1070 statute miles @ 9.8 miles/day average

The Norwegians at the South Pole 1911

These are the words of Helmer Hanssen and Roald Amundsen, upon learning of the death of Scott's Terra Nova Pole Party:

I do not believe men have ever shown such endurance at any time, nor do I believe there ever will be men to equal it. Helmer Hanssen

Their deaths are more triumphant than most other lives. Captain Scott left a record for honesty, for sincerity, for bravery. For everything that makes a man. Roald Amundsen

I wonder how many victors of the modern day would act with such respect. It is my belief that the endurance, commitment and honesty which defines many of the pioneers does not have to be left behind in the 20th Century.

Don't let the standards slip.

These expeditions are not cheap to develop, especially since I don't take advantage of the restrictive infrastructures created by the commercial tourism industry which now exists. As such, much of my time and the time of my partners at a London agency has to be dedicated to generating support. Over the past year great progress was made towards securing a future for two major expeditions in both polar regions. Sadly, on the day before Christmas Eve, the news came through that our preferred option had fallen through. A great deal of equipment must be custom made and this means that lead times limit how close to a start date, in our case 26th February, we can get before funding is required. That time has now, miracles aside, passed.

You can react in a number of ways - and this applies to any setbacks in any walk of life. You can allow the frustration to lead to self-pity - an absurd reaction since anyone searching for something which needs so many unlikely things to happen at the same time should know the odds are not stacked in their favour. Another reaction, one that is very commonly seen, is to say 'no worry, we'll just try again next year with identical tactics and aims'. One year can so easily become five years.  There is a third way - the toughest way. That way is to simply increase your own commitment to another level and make it happen.

The vast majority of the cost of a polar expedition is dedicated to aircraft. Assumptions are often made that things like carbon-kevlar sledges and satellite phones eat up budgets. This isn't the case and kit rarely exceeds 10% of the allotted budget. For example, the insertion flight chartered for this February totalled £42,000 for a single flight. The sledge would cost a tenth of that or even less. Aircraft are a mixed blessing for expeditions to the Poles. They provide rescue support and quick access to start points as well as easy ways home. However, they have shifted expectations, in my opinion not for the better. People expect to be quickly and neatly taxied to their start point and collected from their highly inaccessible destinations without have to commit too much time or inconvenience. For polar tourism, built on the back of those with access to wealth but with day jobs, this is ideal. Clearly though, it has further widened the gap between the pioneers and modern expeditions. Logic therefore suggests that to make things happen, remove the aircraft. I myself have used helicopters and aircraft for access - they have both facilitated and delayed my expeditions - a mixed blessing and an expensive one. On removal of air support, you open a door to a world of difficulty, discomfort and commitment on a scale that makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.

These hints are probably sufficient for those with some familiarity with the polar world to read between the lines. For the remainder, I'll be making a detailed announcement in the coming days. For the time being though, I can say that apart from the documentary I'm filming in the Greenlandic mid-winter next month, here is expedition number one for 2012:

An unsupported mid-winter crossing of the Icelandic Vatnajökull icecap. It is notorious, especially in the winter, for fierce storms, crevassed slopes and low visibility. I will cross with a team-mate from the extreme west side to the east side - both approaching and exiting the icecap on skis - a distance approaching 150 miles. This will be be a serious technical challenge and part of my move to undertake mid-winter expeditions. 

As for the big announcement, I'll keep you guessing but I'll promise you one thing: think big, and then think bigger.

What are the photos you want to take for:

I'm thoroughly against the modern trend of everyone getting a digital SLR camera (DSLR) - there you have it. It think it's a waste of money and effort in a vast majority of cases and actually leads to the worst possible thing - people not taking photos when they perhaps could be. This purchasing faux pas is largely due to people not thinking fully about the end product they want from their photographs. There's also the fact that the cameras are vastly more affordable than even when I began agency photography in 2002. My first DSLR was 6 megapixels, had borderline unusable autofocus and was useless above ISO 400, yet cost £1900. Now you can get a body for £400 which destroys my old Canon D60 in every department. There's also a certain degree of envy - people want to be seen to have the best, 'professional' looking gear, even if they have no intention of using 5% of its capability.

Nikon J1 compactIf your output is for web, slideshows and printing up to A4 size in the years to come, do yourself a favour and get a well made and capable compact camera or 'cut-size' pseudo-DSLR. They can cost well under £400 even with quality lenses, capability for external flash and critically, can be pocketable. Great for expeditions, polar ones especially. Drawbacks can be poor low-light performance, slower autofocus when shooting action and no live optical viewfinder. Yes, a £6000 Canon 1DX is better, but for the output I describe, is massive overkill. Good examples include the Canon G12 or S100 and Nikon V1 and J1. Even smartphones (touch screens can be dodgy in low temps) can now produce exactly what you want for this need, which covers almost every expeditioner I've ever met. Don't get sucked in by gear-envy and end up overbuying.

If your output is for commercial, editorial or large reproduction size, or involves fast moving and tricky subjects (not polar skiers!), then yes a DSLR is vital. Put simply, if you need a large DSLR with top quality interchangeable lenses, you'll already know you do. If you don't, you probably don't need more than a quality compact. Modern DSLRs provide staggering resolution when viewed at 100% magnification, 100% coverage optical viewfinders, accurate and fast autofocus and good low light performance.Canon 1DX You can also control complex off-camera wireless flash arrays. My photographic agency, Getty Images, has brutally strict technical requirements and I so take the weight penalty of a large DSLR in return for profitable, commercial images down the road. Equipment ranges from £500 for low-end consumer bodies to £6000 for the most able cameras and then most quality lenses are between £500 and £5000. Examples include the Canon 5D Mark II, 1D Mark IV and 1Ds Mark III and the Nikon D300, D700 and D3 series.

So, once the type of camera you're after is decided, most of the subsequent cold-weather and expedition considerations are relevant to both a £100 snapomatic and a £6000 monster:

Battery-life

Most modern cameras use Lithium-Ion or Lithium-Polymer batteries, which are a vast improvement over those available five years ago. They don't suffer from memory effect and don't self-discharge fast. Yes, they run down fast when cold, but their initial capacity is generally so high for a given size that it's not an issue. As a comparison, the 12V NiMH battery I used in my Canon 1D Mark IIN in 2008 needed a charge every few days after moderate use and weighed a ton. In 2010/11 my 7.2V Li-Ion battery in my 5D Mark II was charged once in a fortnight and even fed back information about its exact charge level and how well it's charging. Batteries are no longer a major issue.

Cards

CompactFlash, xD, SD, whatever. Get a big one, but not too big. If one fails (which they rarely do), you don't want to lose everything. I use lots of 8Gb cards for my 21MP RAW files. They hold around 250 images each. Don't worry about 500x or 1000x speed cards unless you're shooting at 10 frames per second. Good brands are Integral, SanDisk and Kingston.

Viewfinders

DSLRs tend to have nice big viewfinders, especially full frame ones like Canon 5D and 1Ds series bodies, but they can be a hassle to use with large goggles on. Compacts have useless optical viewfinders or none at all, so you use the LCD screen on the back, which can yomp through batteries. Be discerning about how long you use this feature or have an effective battery charging system.

Charging

This is difficult. Your options are charging the proprietary batteries from custom-12V AA powerpacks and DC car chargers or using the same charger with a solar panel and a reservoir intermediate battery. Which of these you use depends largely on the terrain you're travelling over and the relability of light-levels. Early-season North Pole expeditions will favour AAs and mid-summer icecap expeditions will favour solar.

Formats

Storage is cheap and so if you want plenty of opportunity to edit, shoot RAW, not jpeg. In the unreliable and pressured shooting conditions of an icecap, you often won't get the exposure perfect in camera and so flexibility of RAW after the fact is very welcome. Even cheaper compacts have RAW now, but expect to spend time in the edit suite once home. If this is too much hassle and you just want snaps for sponsors or blogs, stick with the smaller and better 'out of the box' results of the jpeg format.

Weather-sealing

In conditions where humidity changes a lot from a steamy tent to a dry icecap, a camera with weather-sealing is very useful. Canon 1D, 5D, 7D and pro-compacts are sealed with O-rings to various extents and other competitors have their equivalents.

Video

A few years ago if you wanted to shoot stills and video, you needed a stills camera and a video camera. Then, compact cameras developed basic filming ability. Now, both compacts and SLRs have video capability, often up to 720p or 1080p High Definition. Excellent news for weight conscious expeditions. Remember though, don't just go for the biggest and the shiniest. Think about the end use of the video and buy accordingly.

Exposure and Autofocus

These concepts, which are the true photographer's bread and butter in the warmth of home or a studio, take on a lesser role at the Poles. With the flexibility of RAW formats, slow-moving simple subjects, excellent modern autofocus systems and difficult shooting conditions, I tend to use one-shot centre point autofocus and evaluative metering for the vast majority of situations.

I hope these tips help those who wish to photograph their cold-weather expeditions, whether for 1 inch wide blog photos or boutique agency promotion globally. It's an endless subject and so please do ask other questions in the comments section!

Whilst the normal habitats for shoes from Cushe are the beach or urban locations, the Tammarack is a crossover. Form is clearly high on the priority list, as with their entire range, but would the functionality match their looks? They don't pretend to be highly technical outdoor boots for snow or hiking use and therein lies their strength - as a crossover shoe/boot. As long as you don't overstretch them, they won't disappoint as approach shoes or for 'around basecamp' during time off.

The quality of materials, stitching and waterproofing (didn't leak with my use even with high level immersion) are very good. Another use of these might be for foot recovery when bare-feet aren't an option - perhaps after a long insertion hike or between climbs and reconnaissance trips. They really are comfortable, very comfortable. The sole tread isn't too heavy-duty - fine for gravel and paths but not up to heavily broken ground or ice/snow.

Verdict - excellent quality and fine for use within its limitations as a lightweight waterproof outdoor boot/shoe.

Polar expeditions involve a major inherent risk. This is absolute and undeniable. The risks are however very different to those experienced in the often quoted 'sister-activity' of mountaineering. There is a great deal of cross-over in both participants and skills between polar travel and mountaineering and so comparison is unavoidable.

NOTE - A key point is that the difficulty and risks of major polar and mountain expeditions are highly considerable. Please note than a comparison of one expedition as risky does not diminish the intensity or risk of another. Difficulty is not necessarily the same as 'risk of death'.

Here are a few facts:

A climber on Nanga ParbatSince 1990, 19.7% of K2 ascents have resulted in death. Before 1990, 77% of Nanga Parbat ascents were fatal. 5.7% of all Everest summits have ended in death. Over 500 people have died up until 1995 on the Matterhorn. These are statistics which clearly illustrate the risks of high altitude mountaineering and alpinism. The reasons are clear for all to see; falls, avalanches, HACE/HAPE, exhaustion, rockfall and not least, inexperience. In addition to these fatalities, there are countless major injuries every year. Yes, mountaineering is vastly more accessible and popular than polar travel, making deaths more likely, but how do they compare and how does the truth compare to the public claims?

In the 'modern era' of polar expeditions (post 1990), there have been two fatalities on land-to-pole North Pole expeditions (Dominick Arduin in 2004 and Hyōichi Kōno in 2001 [thanks Ben S]) and a few more on the perifory of the Arctic Ocean and on the Greenland icecap (examples every few years). These tend to be due to polar bear attack (a tragic example this year in Svalbard) or suffering an acute illness and having evacuation delayed. Deaths from crevasse-fall or falling into the sea are not common. Freak accidents have cost the lives of South American contractors in the Antarctic peninsula. As far as my research can ascertain, a South Pole expedition has not been fatal since Scott and team in 1912.

You may be surprised to hear that:

• At McMurdo (the place where Scott's expeditions began), expedition-season temperatures average -2.9 to -9.7 degrees C.
• The majority of arctic expeditions will not even see the tracks of a polar bear.
• The average temperature at the South Pole when expeditions plan to arrive there is -25.9 to -29.4 degrees C, not the oft-reported -50 or even -60.
• The average temperature at the North Pole when expeditions reach completion is above -20 degrees.
• For a well-trained skier, on reasonable surfaces, hauling a sledge only becomes highly-exerting above 120kg. Sledges below 80kg can be hauled quickly and smoothly and sledges below 50kg can feel almost weightless, dependent on the quality of the runners and temperature of the snow. I speak from experience having hauled between 30-200kg on a variety of surface types between March to August.

Do these facts mean that full length polar expeditions are easy? Of course not - the real statistics are impressive enough without needing to be bolstered.

There are of course variations. For example, I experienced -38 degrees C in May on the Greenland icecap, much lower than average. In late March 2008, Ben Saunders sent an SMS to my tent in Greenland reporting an ambient temperature of -48 degrees in his tent on Ward Hunt Island (his North Pole start point).

Frostbite

Frostbitten fingersFrostbite is, I believe, the most misreported part of polar expedition suffering and yet is the thing that the public are most intrigued about. Understandably so - it conjures up images of extreme hardship and suffering which grips the imagination. First of all, frostbite is not a trophy. It is not a 'must-have' for a serious polar expeditioner. Quite the opposite - it is a massive embarrassment, as those from the highly-skilled Scandinavian polar community will agree. Frostbite of any kind, from basic skin-peeling and damaged cheek tissue all the way to necrotic loss of flesh (blackened and dead fingers and toes), is caused by one or both of two reasons. The first is a physiological predisposition, poor circulation, due to Raynaud's syndrome/disease of varying seriousness. The second is administrational failure, or incompetence. This could be failure to regularly check extremities for bloodflow and capillary refill or incorrect clothing choice. Also, a constant risk on sea ice is falling through into water. The resultant soaking clothing will often lead to frostbite due to the unlikelihood of being able to dry and rewarm every part of the body fast enough. So, next time you hear stories of daring-do and badly frostbitten digits, before instantly assuming they are at the cutting edge of polar travel, check the circumstances first.

My only experience with freezing injury was on two fingers in 2008. This was luckily very minor, healing within three weeks, but still a lesson-learnt and not my finest hour. There is no need for frostbite of expedition-ending seriousness on a well-planned and executed expedition. What is sad is that the fact I still have my fingers and toes is a disadvantage when securing speaking engagements. I can't thrill an audience with a gruesome sight of short, blackened stumps but I'm sure you can guess I'd rather have it this way round!

Rescue

Rescue is the most contentious issue surrounding travel in remote locations. Some ultra-purists believe that no communications devices should be taken, meaning that expeditions are entirely self-reliant. I see this as infantile and morbid. There is always a risk to pilots and rescue teams if called to evacuate an expedition and every expedition leader should respect this enormously. However, rescue pilots and their colleagues are volunteers to that line of work and are highly professional. Many will be well remunerated for long polar flights and this is a balance of risk that they have found to be acceptable. Another area of mis-education is that in this day and age, you can just press a red button and have the cavalry appearing over the horizon within minutes. This is not the case. In many situations a single aircraft or helicopter for an entire region must be moved a number of times before flying a rescue mission and depots of fuel laid. Often, as was the case for a diabetic coma rescue this year in Greenland, aircraft can be grounded due to technical problems or bad weather.

Examples of people claiming on insurance for rescues for minor ailments are totally unacceptable and are the sole cause for the reduction in insurance available. I believe that an expedition should always assume that rescue for a life-threatening injury or illness could be delayed for at least a week. If this risk is too much for an individual, then the expedition should not set foot on the ice.

Me hauling 200kgThe long and the short is that polar expeditions, although without the fatality statistics of mountaineering, are highly demanding on skills, preparation and robustness. They involve high levels of inherent danger and exposure but my message for the general consumer of online media and articles is that the statistics are very often inflated. This is a shame because the genuine facts and conditions faced on major expeditions speak for themselves without embellishment.

These topics are of course fairly contentious and so I welcome opinions, experience and debate in the comments section.

However, sometimes the ice is flat and featureless, usually on ice shelves, icecap plateaus or large pans. This provides an opportunity to take advantage of one of the great privilege of polar travel - headspace. Preparing for a polar expedition has two main components - the concept and the execution. The concept is where some choose to be creative - to use imagination and dream up something truly exciting. This for me is one of the best parts of the 'job', something so hard to come by in process and bureaucracy-shackled workplaces. Then comes the execution of preparation - methodical and extensive, but not challenging once you know the ropes. There are x number of things to do and you just work through them until they're done. For me, the reason why I do not guide commercial groups full-time and why I limit the amount I do is because I would find the endless repetition of this process impossible to live with - I need more. The reality is that each day on the ice would have ten days of drudgery attached to it.

Then comes the expedition - the ultimate purpose and culmination of all that work. This is where I often come up against one of the biggest challenges of polar travel, aside from the physical hardship and dangerous situations - boredom. There's no getting away from it - the reason that so few people undertake major expeditions - let's say of >30 days duration - is because it's hard to handle. Simple as that. Every person who has hauled/driven dogs for extended periods, from Nansen and Scott to Weber and Ousland, will have come up with their own mental survival strategies. My own is firstly to split things up into bite-size chunks, a very normal human reaction to things of a scale which scare us. This is a very typical response for anything that is too complex or large to comprehend - just in the same way that early naturalists applied the flawed concept of a 'species' onto each animal they tried to describe and categorise into a neat box. Of course, species cannot really exist as distinct units, since genetic variation within and between 'species' is so fluid and indefinable. I'm as guilty as anyone for trying to categorise the uncategoriseable, having come from a science background.

Once I have split up my hauling day, be it into eight or fifteen hour-long sessions, each session needs to be filled. Sometimes it will be mental arithmetic - our average speeds and what we needed to do in order to make our next depot etc. Sometimes it will be simply thoughts of home and the real world. Sometimes however, and this is the purpose of this article, I really let my mind go - let it ponder the bigger things - real freedom. There will be some who say that I should stop pontificating about the infinite and just get on with hauling my glorified bath tub around. The problem is I can't. My mind is simply too curious, ambitious and impatient. This impatience leads finally and clumsily onto the topic I want to think about in this article.

I believe the single most important thing to question in life is the status quo. Is a 'mouse' the best way of controlling a computer? Maybe it is, but the key is not to assume that it is. It may be comfortable to rest, safe in the knowledge that many things are unchanging - familiar perhaps. Despite this, our very existence and that of everything we as a collective race have built, physically and metaphorically, are due to rejecting the status quo. Wanting something more - bigger, better, faster. I love this - it immerses me and I hope it excites anyone who wants to approach their life with vigour. This is why I am dismayed when I hear the criticism most regularly levelled at my millennial generation by those of previous generations -

'You kids have no patience - you won't wait for anything - it has to be now, now, now'.

I completely and utterly, and with pride, consider myself one of the targets of this condemnation. I simply don't believe in a resignation to the unrelenting passage of time. Why wait? I don't think there is an answer to this question which holds water. I started doing what I do young, but I could have done it even younger. That would then allow yet more time to experience more, and in time, achieve things of real significance. If I waste a day, or feel that a month or even a year of my life was under-par, I try to work out why and make sure it doesn't happen again. I cannot see the point in waiting - we have no idea how many days we will have and the biggest shame of all would be to end them, short of our potential.

My message to some of the baby boomers and Generation X is, don't stifle the impatience and hunger of those who were born into our world of ever-increasing pace. Instead, become part of it - afterall, it was some of you who created it. There is no 'proper age' to lead a team, invent something which changes the way the world communicates, or even buy those new speakers which allow you to enjoy your music that much better. World-changing concepts and ideas have been born in just an afternoon - it doesn't take 23 committees and 17 years of due diligence to effect genuine change.

Route from Nagtivit Glacier (East) to Point 660 (West)

As a brief history of high speed Greenland expeditions for the uninitiated:

Normal crossing speeds for independent expeditions - 20-30 days

Summer 1888 - 49 days (Umivik to Nuuk) - Fridtjof Nansen and team (NOR)

Pre-1991 - >20 days

Summer 1991 - 12 days and 20 hours - Odd Harald Hauge and team (NOR)

Summer 1999 - 11 days and 13 hours - Sjur Mørdre and team (NOR)

Summer 2001 - 10 days and 10 hours - Swedish trio (SWE)

May 2002 - 9 days and 5 hours - Nilsen/Holman (NOR)

Aug/Sept 2002 - 8 days and 9 hours - Odd Harald Hauge and team (NOR)Odd Harald Hauge

Summer 2010 - Attempt abandoned soon after start - Sjur Mørdre and Bjørn Arne Evensen (NOR)

August 2011 - 11 days 12 hours (incomplete due to finishing short of Point 660) - Wilki and myself (GBR)

From April 2001 Volkswagen and Skanska filled in the crevasses from Point 660 on the west side of the icecap all the way up to 'Dog Camp', 45 miles inland, to create an iceroad. This vehicle testing road clearly enabled teams to avoid the slow and turbulent ice on the west coast which represents the most challenging part of a crossing. This road was maintained twice-yearly but fell into disrepair by 2004 and the movement of the icefall negated its usefulness almost immediately.

From this information the perceived wisdom is that, historically at least, late summer is the optimum time to undertake an attempt. It's important to note that August is not strictly summer in Greenland. The sun is only 24 hour (or near 24hr) around June and July when icecap crossings are highly unadvisable due to excessive melt. By mid-August the sun is below the horizon for over 7 hours per day and so conditions reflect this with lower temperatures, a chance of snow and reduction of melting. This wisdom certainly holds true for the early speed crossings but as the Greenlandic climate has changed and melting dramatically increased, this may not be the case any longer. More on this later.

A speed crossing of the Greenland icecap can be divided into three phases (dependent on direction of crossing - this is for East to West):

1. Nagtivit Glacier climbSummer crevassing

With major gradients and heavy crevassing, this is an early test of viability for an expedition, and especially the pace here can make or break a speed crossings' chances. In spring (March/April) the crevassing is mostly covered and the glacier can be tackled quickly, in a near straight line and mostly without need for a rope. In summer, as the snow cover disappears and the undulating ice and crevassing is revealed, progress becomes torturous with slow going over bumpy and dangerous ground and major deviations in direction are needed.

2. Icecap Plateau

Once clear of the glacier, an expedition will reach the snowline in the summer where the surface becomes flat and consolidated. Pace can increase as the elevation settles at over 7000-8000ft. In spring, excess snow and winds can cause difficult surfaces due to drift, sastrugi and snow dunes.

3. Russell Glacier icefall descent

The most notorious section of the expedition which is in bad condition in the spring (lacking the snow shroud of the Nagtivit) and becomes dramatically worse in the summer due to melt and lack of snow, leaving dry, unstable ice. Melt rivers with powerful currents, ice valleys over 20 ft high and large crevasses, some over 15ft wide, are typical. In spring the bad ice can last for 10 miles, in summer 2011 it lasted for 50 miles.

Decision-making in 2011 between summer and spring crossings:

Summer (10 Aug - 15 Sep): 

PROS Flat, consolidated plateau surface with little drift snow, temperatures usually above -15 degrees and often around zero, theoretically comparatively stable weather conditions (fewer storms)

CONS Dry glaciers on both sides with crevassing, melt rivers

Spring (20 Mar - 15 May):  

PROS Snow covered crevasse fields on both coasts

CONS Snow drift and often poor quality plateau surface, temperatures often below -25 or -30 degrees, regular storms

Our 2011 late August expedition:

Melt river crossing August 2011Conditions on the Nagtivit Glacier controlled the viability of skiing the icecap in sub-9 days. This year they were unusually challenging on the coastal areas due to a major lack of snow (contrasting against the excessive snow and low pressure in the spring). This meant that our snowline (which beckons better surfaces and less undulation) was far above 1200m in elevation, meaning that we had to face crevassing all the way to and beyond 30 miles inland. In hindsight, having travelled more or less north up the glacier, we should have pushed on north further instead of curving west towards the finish point on the west coast. Having started to move west, thinking we would be free of crevassing, we instead found ourselves deep into two further crevasse fields which causes a massive delay and on one occasion, a need to double-back.

Our plateau speed and performance was strong and fast with daily mileages regularly over 30/35 miles. Having realised that our Nagtivit problems had cost us the record chances, we did take our foot off the gas slightly in this central section, although only marginally. Far from the hoped-for blue skies, low winds and flat surfaces, we only had two days of 'optimum skiing conditions' and encountered plenty of snow drift, white out and headwinds.

Final ice leading to Point 660 from the airAs we approached the west coast, we hoped that the ground would be reasonable at least up to the waypoint of 'Dog Camp', 45 miles from the end. Sadly, we started to see evidence of the snow cover becoming very thin nearly 80 miles from Point 660 with cracks evident that far out. The ground became extremely challenging only ten or fifteen miles beyond that point, long before Dog Camp, with major melt rivers and highly brittle, unstable dry ice underfoot. What followed was desperately tough and dangerous travel across highly turbulent glacial ice, culminating at a crevasse field of unknown length which comprised crevasses set 20ft apart and mostly 4-10ft wide. This point was a few miles short of Point 660 and, having let the record go some days before, Wilki and I decided that in the interests of self-preservation and having been very content with our performance, we would change our pickup point to where we stood. Only 3 hours later and after an excellent bit of flying and chartering efficiency by Air Greenland, we were picked up and stared open mouthed at the remaining ice to Point 660. We had made the right call.

Conclusions:

Greenland icecap in August has 7+ hours of darknessIt is my belief that given the conditions experienced on the icecap in August 2011, we could have only improved a small number of things to increase our pace. The glacier conditions, combined with difficult plateau weather, bad surfaces and the high snowline elevation, made an attempt on the 8 day 9 hour record nigh on impossible. Changes would have been: to push further north before heading west having completed the Nagtivit Glacier, to have a redesigned and improved ski bracket for our sledges and to use 10mm narrower skis.

Far more important than the details of the expedition undertaken by Wilki and myself however, is the fact that I think the fast season has changed. I believe that the climate and weather conditions which made 1990s and early 2000s summer expeditions possible at high speed are no longer possible or present. Another major point is that the sub 10 day crossings most likely took advantage of the iceroad, removing arguably the hardest section, the Russell icefall. It is my view that the supposed advantages of the summer; good surfaces and calm weather, are now overpowered by the more navigable glaciers experienced on both coasts in the spring. Significant time is now won and lost in those 30-40 mile regions on each side. I'd love to still see world-class teams make attempts on that spectacular effort by the Norwegian 2002 expedition.

For more on this expedition, check out my interview with ExWeb below and our 10 min video of the crossing.

Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts so do use the comments section below!