Explorers or boys messing about? Either way, taxpayer gets rescue bill Helicopter duo plucked from liferaft after Antarctic crash 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. Yesterday a new new adventure adventure undertaken undertaken by British British explorers Steve Steve Brooks Brooks and Quentin Smith almost led to tragedy when their helicopter plunged into the sea off Antarctica. 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 his satellite phone phone asking for for assistance. The The rescue involved involved the Royal Navy, the RAF and British coastguards.
Commented [AA1]: This shows that the writer is biased against them for he refuses to accept them as professionals. Commented [AA2]: Heading is a rhetorical question. In the heading itself, the writer makes it clear that this would appeal to a wider audience because every man is a taxpayer. Commented [AA3]: Powerful verb objectifies the two men as though they are not human. Commented [AA4]: Shows that even this time, the expedition was a failure. Commented [AA5]: The writer seems to say that they have to be taken as a joke. Commented [AA6]: The writer seems to say that they asked for this. Commented [AA7]: Personification – Personification – it it is as if the helicopter had life. The writer undermines the ability of the men to handle the helicopter. Commented [AA8]: Dehumanises the two men.
Commented [AA9]: Shows that they had to take a lot of effort to rescue them.
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.
Commented [AA10]: Doesn’t refer to them by name. Shows that they are unimportant.
Experts questioned the wisdom of taking a small helicopter - the fourseater Robinson R44 has a single engine - into such a hostile environment.
Commented [AA11]: Mentions experts’ views to add proof to his points.
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". But Ms Vestey claimed she did not know what the pair were up to, describing them as "boys messing about with a helicopter." The drama began at around 1am British time when Mr Brooks, 42, and 40 year-old Mr Smith, Smith, also known as Q, ditched into into the sea 100 miles off Antarctica, about 36 36 miles north north of Smith Island, Island, and scrambled scrambled into their their liferaft.
Commented [AA12]: Describes the helicopter as unfit to be taken into such a place.
Commented [AA13]: The writer mocks at the way the men called their helicopter.
Commented [AA14]: Uses the wife’s words in the form of direct speech so as to give the impression that it is not only she who thinks of them as the boys messing about. Commented [AA15]: The writer makes him to be a fictional character. Commented [AA16]: The writer presents it as a drama to ensure that the reader does not favour the men.
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 c all the emergency people?" Meanwhile, distress signals were being beamed from the ditched helicopter and from Mr Brooks' Breitling emergency watch, a wedding present.
Commented [AA17]: Projects it to be a joyride instead of a serious mission. Makes sure that the readers won’t sympathise with the two men. Commented [AA18]: Gives a thorough description of the rescue operation to show that the men’s actions caused discomfort for many.
The signals from the aircraft were deciphered deciphered by Falmouth coastguard and passed on to the rescue coordination centre at RAF Kinloss in Scotland. 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. One was driven back because of poor visibility but the second was on its way when the the men were picked up by a Chilean naval naval vessel at about about 10.20am British time.
Commented [AA19]: Gives the brand to show how difficulty this was.
Commented [AA20]: Repetition of ‘men’ instead of their names. Commented [AA21]: Specific time is given.
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. 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 engineer and pilot. He and his wife spent their honeymoon flying the helicopter from Alaska to Chile. The 16,000-mile trip took three months. 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. Despite their experience, it is not the first time they have hit the headlines for the wrong reasons.
Commented [AA22]: By giving a description of Mr. Brooks’ achievements and qualifications, the writer seems to blame them even more for their carelessness and recklessness displaying. They have circled the world being immature, and acted like boys messing about. Commented [AA23]: The writer gives out personal information to ridicule them. The writer has adapted a mocking tone.
Commented [AA24]: A short but powerful paragraph which shows the drawbacks of the two men.
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 through ice floes and float in the water water in between. 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. 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.
writer doesn’t refer to them by Commented [AA25]: The writer name – name – shows he didn’t respect them. Shows what they did had political repercussions. Highlights the magnanimity of their mistake.
Commented [AA26]: Presents the two men as objects. In other words, the writer objectifies them. Commented [AA27]: Pun on the word ‘air’.
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."
Commented [AA28]: Using experts’ views to further enhance the writer’s views using direct speech, thus adding more validity to the article.
A spokesman spokesman for the pair said it was not not known what what had gone wrong. The flying conditions had been "excellent".
Commented [AA30]: The writer only consults a spokesman and not the men themselves. Shows how he is not interested in justifying this point from their perspective.
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. 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." SIDE NOTES:
The negative picture of the men is given in short paragraphs to make the reader want to know more. The writer introduces the two explorers only after an introduction which talks negatively negatively of them. them. The readers readers would already already be biased biased against the explorers because the men are not referred to by their name so that to make sure that the readers won’t remember them. After the long long descriptive descriptive paragraphs about the achievements achievements and the experiences of the two men, the writer gives a short powerful paragraph ridiculing them and this provides a strong punchline to this article.
Commented [AA29]: Metaphor shows how they are asking for trouble and that they deserved it.
Commented [AA31]: Repetition (see last paragraph).
Commented [AA32]: Repetition (see previous paragraph).
