Top man
An impressive feat of endurance.
A well-deserved thumbs up for declining assistance and showing it's about the cause not the individual.
Brit adventurer Nick Hancock has admitted he's "never been so scared", after enduring a storm last week that blew a good part of his food supplies off the North Atlantic islet of Rockall. Hancock landed on the granite outcrop on 5 June, hoping to spend 60 days in a survival podule, in the process breaking the occupancy record …
Not an idiot at all. A man who decided that he would challenge the Atlantic and the weather thereabouts and raise money for a good cause in doing so.
Most impressively he has shown that it is not all about him and his challenge / record but about the charity he is raisng money for. At this state I am sure it would have been easier to continue with extra rations sent out but he has acknowledged that the cost of this would be better in the hands of the charity concerned.
Such humility rare to see nowadays in our egocentric five minutes of fame culture.
Nice one and well done that man!!!
> At this state I am sure it would have been easier to continue with extra rations sent out but he has acknowledged that the cost of this would be better in the hands of the charity concerned.
If it would have be easy to continue, then I would argue that he had an obligation to his sponsors to do so.
"If it would have be easy to continue, then I would argue that he had an obligation to his sponsors to do so."
I am sure he thought of that but he seems to have decided that the cause he supports takes precedence over personal concerns, 'fame' and corporate sponsors concerns.
I would chuck in the word altruism here if I knew what it meant.
I guess the OP is commenting on the dichotomy of "raising money for charity" and "spending a lot of money to do what I think is fun and cool". I'm unaware of the exact funding of this chaps trip, but people walking up Kilimanjaro for "charity" raise "£15k" for charity of which £5000 goes to the charity and £10,000 goes to the company organising the trip.
Sure, it's cool you're giving your lunchtimes up to collect money in buckets outside tube stations, but why do you spend 2/3rds of it on yourself?
Charity should be private, give money to your preferred cause and keep quiet about it. If you want to have an adventure go ahead and get on with it. You can host a few lectures / slide shows at the local Rotary Club when you get back if you want to raise awareness for a related charity.
In the 90's I cycled the South Downs Way for pleasure in a weekend. None of my work colleagues batted an eyelid. This year I mentioned vague plans to ride the Dunwich Dynamo and immediately I was being asked which charity I was riding for.
It's a corrosive attitude as it links charitable giving to stunts, rather than being a rational human impulse to help others.
Interesting point, upvoted, however stunts are publicity and publicity means awareness and so more donors.
You might expect that (seems to me like a very American position to adopt) but the numbers say not. The experience of many charities is that big, stuntish events tend to raise the take for individual events but lower the annual take. Plus, you keep on having to raise the bar. Little, but often is more effective which is why many charities now employ professional fundraisers and try to get people to subscribe to regular donations.
"which is why many charities now employ professional fundraisers and try to get people to subscribe to regular donations"
Ah yes, the joy of chuggers (every one of whom can FOAD). About time, in my view, that charities accepted that "charity" was about free will, not coercion and guilt laden marketing.
A few months ago the Red Cross sent my wife two admittedly cheap drinks mats and a begging letter for some humanitarian crisis. They didn't get anything back, but we've now had another two drinks mats and a cheap pen, asking for help in respect of Syrian refugees. Again, they got nothing, but I'm now getting hopeful of a full blown Middle East war, because if the Red Cross can raise the stakes accordingly by sending out matching place mats then it'll save me having to fork out for a full matching set of place and drinks mats. Have you seen the price of proper cork backed mats? It's an outrage.
"It's hard to care if you can't see them die, innit. "
Perhaps you give generously to every single deserving cause that comes by. But I doubt it. So when we push aside your veil of sanctimonious cant, I suspect we'll find plenty of charitable causes you chose not to support, and probably some where you gave modest amounts, preferring instead to spend money on such fripperies and technology, excess food, and entertainment.
I've yet to meet anybody in the UK (although your language suggest you may be a Merkin) who earns a decent wack and then gifts all of that to charity, and I doubt that you do.
'Merkins don't say "innit", innit.
Since you raise the issue, I've given plenty to charity and worked for one, but that's not the point. Because you give nothing doesn't mean that anyone different from you is required to "give generously to every single deserving cause" (my italics). Don't spin what I said.
It is about free will. If you're the kind who doesn't care about the suffering of others, ok, there's your free will right there and I wouldn't take it away from you, but boasting about your indifference just makes you appear a crass and unpleasant person.
"Charity should be private, give money to your preferred cause and keep quiet about it. "
I agree, in that is my own attitude.
I also agree that people 'raising' £10,000 by going skiing in Peru and essentially financing their holidays via 'charity' are w4nkers.
However, there is a place for raising awareness.
It does not take a genius to know that the prevailing winds for Rockall are from the South West. If I were going to plan a stay on the rocky outcrop then I'd probably pitch my tent/rope it to the rocks on the East side, preferably ENE or NE.
Still not many of us ElReg readers would want to venture out there. I've been to St Kilda and the journey back was a real upchucker event.
Dangling from a cliff face might have been the better option at the time, from the sound of it. Certainly dangling the supplies might have been a consideration. All depends on where the weather's coming from; the condition of the rock; how far you're prepared to deface the rock by sinking twatting great pitons into it etc. etc.
And now he knows to get barrels with stronger handles if he wants to give it another go in the future. Or lash them down with nets. Still, it's a partial success if he can hang in there long enough to break the record. Doubt if any of us commentards would last that long without wifi.
"That's not possible, unless you fancy dangling from a cliff face. The ledge he's on is the only plausible site for pitching a pod."
Lester, you know as well as everyone else on this forum that facts don't matter when you are commenting as AC with a viewpoint in opposition of the article.
Frankly I'm surprised at the number or arm chair Explorers/Physicists/Chemists/etc that bother posting comments at all on here, surely their talents are needed else where? :)
As a professional dangler-of-stuff-off-cliffs in a past life, I was merely pointing out that there are other options than the horizontal. Whether the benefits (shelter) would outweigh the risks (the extra effort, equipment and risk) is a matter for conjecture as I've never been there and have no intention whatsoever of correcting this.
Shelter would seem to be quite important, given what's happened.
"As a professional dangler-of-stuff-off-cliffs in a past life"
<snip>
I was similar as an Alipiste Militaire. The scariest thing I ever did bar none was to sleep in a tent hanging on a vertical cliff face in Corsica on Monte Cinto. Wrong on every measure and disturbing and disorientating on every possible level.
Dangling from a cliff face might have been the better option at the time, from the sound of it.
Colour me stupid but I fail to see how dangling is going to give more stability. I can imagine some form of suspension on all sides being used to help diffuse the energy from the wind but how would that work here? How would you stop the thing from being smashed against the cliff face?
Because you do your dangling on the lee side of the rock (that's the side opposite to the direction the weather is coming from, for non-nautical types). You use the body of the rock to protect you from the worst of the wind and waves; which would protect you from being cleaned off the top, as nearly happened to Mr. Hancock.
I used the word 'dangle', by the way because Lester used it and I was running with the idea. My idea of dangling would -in this context- be pinned top, bottom, sides, fore, aft, diagonally, and every other way I could think of. With very big pitons. There would be some dangling involved...you'd need a rope ladder at least to get you to the brow of the rock (but that would be seriously pinned along the entire length if it were me doing things, plus separate anchors for double safety lines while in transit between the two); and some dangling would be necessary while installing your nest; but that's where any dangling would end.
All of this is theoretical, of course and if the rock isn't solid or has rotten bits, the idea may be a non-starter. It also depends upon whether the weather can be relied upon to come from the same direction for the duration of your stay.
Sure sleeping over a dizzying drop doesn't appeal, particularly, but neither does being cleaned off the top of a rock in mid-Atlantic in the middle of a storm.
It also depends upon whether the weather can be relied upon to come from the same direction for the duration of your stay.
Sure, which is why I'm sceptical: the prevailing winds for Rockall may be from the SW but the north Atlantic does experience significant changes of wind directions as the various system move across.
As you're only strapping the container to a sheer face you're also still not compensating for leverage as you would if you really could dangle between faces so I don't see much difference to pegging it on the ledge: you're at the mercy of the weakest link so aerodynamics are possibly the most import consideration.
"Sure, which is why I'm sceptical: the prevailing winds for Rockall may be from the SW but the north Atlantic does experience significant changes of wind directions as the various system move across."
My speculations were speculative. Mr. Hancock nearly got collected by a wave in the middle of the storm and washed away until (if there was preparation for that eventuality) rescue ships homed in on his beacon and rescued him (although probably with the caveat that he did his own laundry).
My -wholly theoretical- theory is that -given the events- it might be an idea to put a great big rock between you and the brunt of the weather. Now this idea would be more expensive; troublesome; and labour-intensive than just strapping the lifepod to the best flat bit you can see but as we now know that waves can wash over the top of the rock then future expeditions should plan with that possibility in mind.
Might not be an option anyway if the rock won't support it.
<snip>
"Still not many of us ElReg readers would want to venture out there. I've been to St Kilda and the journey back was a real upchucker event."
I think you might be surprised here. I have been out there in a trawler from Killybegs and it is beautiful to behold and if it got me away from modern life for a while I would go for it.
But the pod and its contents survived..
Don't think anyone is making any claims about the barrels being particularly hard wearing.
Have to say though... Leaving your only buoyancy aid in a barrel... Balls of STEEL! I'd have been sleeping in mine!
"People can still claim bits of land for their countries by landing on them? I thought that went out in the 19th century at the latest."
Still works. China's busy doing it in various parts of the South China Sea. Russia's just done it in Crimea. Argentina tried it back in 1982. Obviously if there's a shed load of natives able to fight back things can get a bit complicated, but rule number one of territory grabbing is only to do it if you think that the previous owner can't fight back.
A quick check confirms that the British Navy claimed the island in 1955. The 1985 trip was to re-affirm Britiain's ownership by having someone reside on the island, which was originally claimed to avoid cold-war enemies establishing a remote "listening post" on it.
A sentry box and beacon was constructed by the crew of HMS Tartar on the islet in 1974, when they also remodeled the peak with explosives to form a ledge. There's a rather amusing photograph of the sentry box and two guards in ceremonial uniform on Wikipedia.
Sort of my thought. If you are going to be out there all alone for months with nought much to do, bring a hammer, star drill, and some Dexpan. If everyone who roosted there did their bit, in a few centuries there would be a nice hollow in the rock to stay in with steps down to a boat landing.
He chickened out.
1) He's suddenly worried about the cost of an airdrop (which he actually shouldn't need at all if it was just a few days food at issue) after the expense of getting him and all his gear set up on the islet.
2) His survival suit (presumably) was carefully stowed outside the pod. This tells me that he never expected to need it. When a big storm is about to hit, most experienced yachtsmen gear up or at least ensure that their safety equipment is ready at hand. They don't leave it tied to the foredeck.
Conclusion: he was out there for a lark, found out he was Nature's bitch and didn't like the feeling. It sounds to me like this guy is just another entitled ponce ala Felix Baumgartner.