A few years back, there appeared to be no universally accepted concept for what was an unsupported crossing of Antarctica. Hard to believe. But in the topsy turvy world of “firsts” and adventuring, it all makes sense now, because…World Records are at stake.
I typed an innocuous phrase into the Google—something like “First person to solo across Antarctica on skis.” The algorithms, in all their mighty digitizing glory, populated the search with various headlines, elevating Colin O’Brady as the first person to complete a solo unsupported trek/ski across Antarctica. News to me—despite O’Brady making the claim in 2018.
Not far down on the first page of results were a few pieces calling O’Brady’s claim into question. Nat Geo led with an article titled “The Problem with Colin O’Brady.” In it, the author Aaron Teasdale goes fine-tooth-comb to support a thesis that O’Brady’s feat, which was/is mighty, was neither unsupported nor a first.
I’d read Endurance. I’d followed, from afar, the comings and goings of polar exploration. My tastes for exploration skew away from easily codified records and firsts. I assumed that a crossing of Antarctica would be mega. The widest part of Antarctica is ~3,437.5 miles, a long long long way in the most mild of conditions. But this is, after all, Antarctica. Cold. Dry. Windy. Harsh.
I looked at O’Brady’s route and needed clarification. His path, at 932 miles, has a start and end point on ice, and both appear to be inland (see map). O’Brady chose these points because they are situated over land masses (far below the ice and detected by remote sensing) and connect two opposing coastlines, or margins in polar parlance. To visualize the start and start points in this context, imagine the ice melts; this is where Antarctica’s coastline would appear. These points are “the landward edge[s]” of two ice shelves, the Ronne and Ross, respectively. If connected, as O’Brady did, this might be considered a crossing or even a full crossing.
Map Credit: Eric Philips/icetrek.com.
As Teasdale mentions, traditionally, we think of a continental crossing as linking a body of water to a body of water after crossing most of the continent. Many cite Norway’s Borge Ousland as completing the first unsupported crossing of Antarctica in 1997—in total, a 1,864-mile path. Teasdale writes, “Ousland skied from water’s edge on the Ronne to water’s edge on the Ross. When he undertook his expedition two decades ago, this was considered the only way to claim a crossing of Antarctica.”
(Some question Ousland’s first, claiming he’s disqualified from unsupported status since he periodically used a kite to help propel himself.)
Aside from the route selection, the broader adventure community also questioned O’Brady’s unsupported status since he traveled 366 miles on a machine-smoothed ice road. The “road” is human-built infrastructure, a snow/ice lane graded for truck passage to assist with supplying the Amundsen-Scott Station at the South Pole. This road is called the South Pole Overland Traverse (SPoT) ice road. Otherwise, this is not a typical road.
Digging In
How could crossing ~⅓ of a continent be a crossing of a continent? I wanted the fluid nature of what constitutes an Antarctic crossing settled in my mind.
I went to O’Brady’s homepage. It’s a shrine to how exploration can be TED-talk-ized. ICYDK: he claims to have been the first to Snap, as in SnapChat, from Everest’s Summit. I’m not here to challenge O’Brady’s hardiness or fortitude; he’s done far burlier things than I’d ever consider.
During a time when fame and glory and “likes” can be parlayed into a decent living, we often need to clarify arbitrary exploratory feats. Arbiters of polar exploration have debated for years what constitutes a crossing. They’ve come to some conclusions. (More on that in a minute.)
After the Nat Geo article, the tit-for-tat began. O’Brady asked for a full retraction, standing by his assertion that his crossing was a first, while some polar exploration luminaries supported Nat Geo’s claims.
For word count, let’s assume that O’Brady and others claiming “firsts” aren’t simply conjuring up some abbreviated crossing model and fabricating a reality. I’ll assume they played within the defined or understood rules of the polar exploration game when claiming that “first.” Still, the polar exploration community needed to clarify some basics—like the meaning of “unsupported” and “crossing.”
The Rules
The blessing of ski touring, meadow skipping, powder, corn, jump turns, and so on is that we only have a few rules. Broadly, the rules include coming home safe, skiing kindly, and not creating unsafe situations for others. That’s reductive, but I’ll stick with it. Polar exploration doesn’t have these blessings.
I read and heard O’Brady reference ALE (Antarctic Logistics and Expeditions) as the body establishing the rules for Polar exploration. ALE is a company that helps schedule and facilitate the happenings down where the penguins roam. O’Brady links to ALE and their definitions for “unsupported” and “unassisted” in his rebuttal to Nat Geo, but I don’t see any clarification. The link’s landing page may have been modified since the publication of the original rebuttal.
However, the document written in support of Nat Geo’s claim cites PECS as the arbiter of record for polar exploration rules and definitions moving forward. PECS stands for Polar Expedition Classification System.
Over the ensuing months since becoming aware of the FUBAR state of affairs considering Antarctic crossings, PECS has been a goldmine. In a post-PECS world, we may have some clarity about what constitutes an unsupported full crossing. (Below, we’ve included relevant definitions from PECS.)
Where does this leave us?
According to PECS, O’Brady’s crossing is categorized as having no resupplies, but using the SPoT constitutes support. O’Brady’s effort is also a crossing since he began and ended on inner coastal margins. Within these guidelines, O’Brady’s claim of the first unsupported Antarctic full crossing does not stand—it’s a supported crossing.
It is also worth mentioning that the Guinness Book of World Records is also wrapped up in all this as the judge of firsts. (They don’t just do longest fingernails and twins on motorcycles.) The Guinness Book of World Records credits Ousland for the first unsupported solo crossing of Antarctica. As far as I can tell, PECS does not list using a kite as support; rather, it codifies its use under the mode of travel.
PECS clarifies that mode of travel and % of distance traveled using specific modes, like skiing and kiting, for example, must be noted when submitting trip plans and accomplishments for consideration. The one exception is skis used while dogsledding or snowkiting.
Take note, THR readers, if you are unsatisfied with seeking joy in the simple bliss of touring in any conditions, it seems the full crossing no-use-of-a-kite “first” is there for the taking. However, remaining a ho-hum ski tourer satisfied with their home range feels better after learning about these shenanigans.
We want to add that not being the first to do something is okay. We’re keen on repeats, dead-lasts, SKTs, and full-on failures with the caveat that no one gets hurt and everyone comes home friends.
Postscript: We may petition PECS to include the ECHF (Everyone Comes Home Friends) benchmark for group endeavors in the polar regions.
Definitions from PECS—You can find the full PECS Glossary with Maps Here.
CROSSING
PECS establishes four crossing “variants:” Full Crossing; Crossing; Inland Crossing; Mid-Ocean Crossing.
Crossing of Antarctica:
- starts or ends on an inner coastline (see Inner Coastline)
- start and end are equal to or greater than 90º of arc or…
- …starts on the Ronne-Filchner Ice Shelf (or associated islands) and ends on the Ross Ice Shelf (or associated islands), or vice versa
- contacts one or more points on the ACSA (see Definitions)
- may not start and end on the same ice shelf
Full Crossing of Antarctica:
- starts and ends on an outer coastline
- has a minimum of 90 degrees of arc between start and end
- contacts one or more points on the ACSA
- may not start and end on the same ice shelf
Coastal Margin in Antarctica — any nautical or geographical coastline.
Where Coastal is used without a qualifier (Inner or Outer), Outer Coastal is implied
INNER COASTLINE [Margin]
An Antarctic Margin indicated by the landward edge of an ice shelf
A journey using Inner Coastal Margins must be on or very close to the grounding zone where ice transitions from grounded icecap/glacier to freely floating ice shelf.
Any journey starting or ending mid-ice shelf is designated as using an Inner Coastline.
OUTER COASTLINE [Margin]
An Antarctic coastal Margin fronted by sea or annual sea ice. A Seaward Coastline.
Sea or sea ice may not always be reachable. For example the seaward edges of many ice shelves are sheer cliff or heavy crevassing may prevent access in which case a journey should start/end as close as practically possible to sea or annual sea ice.
SUPPORT / SUPPORTED
- receiving a resupply, cache or depot, either pre-placed or delivered on route or using a start supply to continue a journey
- off-loading or discarding anything during the journey, except for human waste and grey water collected south of 89ºS.
- entering any building, aircraft or vehicle, or tent other than own, in particular base camp-style tent (except when instructed to do so as a condition of logistics support, such as at the South Pole)
- use of any type of seasonal road, vehicle track or flagged route including travel within 2km either side of any such route
- use of the Leverett Glacier route irrespective of whether the SPoT road is used
- aid of a vehicle providing physical or psychological support
- evacuation of a team member
Use of one or more of the above methods of support is Supported
Communication: Use of SAT phone not considered support
UNSUPPORTED
A Journey that:
- does not benefit from any external resupply, cache or depot of food and/or equipment, other than self-supplied depots cached during the course of the journey
- that does not off-load or discard anything during the journey, except for human waste and grey water collected south of 89oS. Any human waste or grey water collected south of 89oS may be disposed of at the South Pole under direction of authorities.
- that does not enter any building, aircraft or vehicle, or tent other than its own/own team, in particular base camp-style tent (except when instructed to do so as a condition of logistics support, such as at the South Pole)
- that does not use any type of seasonal road, vehicle track or marked route, nor travel within 2km either side of any such route, except for short distances when crossing such tracks or following regulated and directed routes into, out of or around bases, stations and camps. Any journey using the Leverett Glacier route is not classified as Unsupported irrespective of whether it uses the SPoT road or not.
- that is not aided by a vehicle providing physical or psychological support
- that does not require any members to be evacuated
A journey must deny the use of all of the above to be classified as Unsupported.
In the absence of the term Unsupported in the Label, Supported is implied.
SOLO
- a single person traveling alone for the entire length of a journey
- must be breaking trail for the majority of the journey
- only transitory encounters are permitted
In the absence of Solo in a label, Team is implied.
SPoT ICE ROAD
The South Pole Overland Traverse (SPoT) ice road runs from McMurdo Station across the Ross Ice Shelf, up the Leverett Glacier and across the plateau to the South Pole. The road is permanently flagged and graded at the start of each season.
Any similarly prepared and marked roads constructed in future will be considered Supported.
GUIDED
A guided journey is one that uses a guide or guides to manage and lead a team while the journey is underway. Guides often plan unique and committing journeys for their clients and as such a Guided journey is not classified as Supported unless it falls within Supported definitions. A Guided journey must make reference to its guided status in either the Label or Description.
Ah style. This is a really interesting thing to be reading here. While it’s nominally skiing (BC scaled nor-dork skis, right?), I think the struggle here is similar to what the steep skiing community has grappled with a lot over the years. What’s a crossing? What happens when someone comes in with new tactics, better gear and less pre frontal cortex and smashes everyone’s best efforts to smithereens?
The same feels true in the steep skiing world. The old guys in Chamonix were hop turning and side slipping down the big stuff before doug coombs was even born. But now people are absolutely ripping some of these lines decades later and opening new lines in a way that is almost unrecognizable from the original style. Does a first straight line matter? First to air in off the cornice? First to air the rappel? I think my partners and I generally equate less side slipping, faster turns and not losing momentum as skiing a line in better style, but we don’t count these things as ‘the first respectable ski descent’. It’s just the first controlled fall. It’s perhaps one of the reasons that truly steep skiing (the Lustenburger, Saari, Fransson, Bruchez style) remains a dark art in the larger ski world. How do we rank them? We must, surely.
But maybe your point, which I appreciate more, is that trying to bootstrap these ‘technical’ firsts into sponsorship and renown feels gimmicky and nonsensical. You just wrote an article splitting hairs about a bunch of psychos who (mostly) walked across antartica with little to no help from anyone else. Mad respect to all those folks, regardless of the technicalities (and obviously it was a really interesting insight into a proximate, parallel world). But the question feels like a symptom of the adventure media ecosystem which only values endeavors in the degree they overshadow the next raddest thing, as opposed to the storytelling of adventure. But maybe it was actually never like that and we just have too much to choose from. What’s that quote, “if I was locked in a room with a hundred paintings of Joe Biden eating a mayo sandwich, you’d better believe I’d have opinions about which one was best.” Maybe I’d even teach an art history course on the form.
THR is great, Jason. Thanks for making me think new things about skiing.