
Mark Synnott isn't afraid to be reckless
Writer Mark Synnott's ship, Polar Sun, navigates the northwest passage during a 2022 attempt to retrace the steps of famed British Explorer John Franklin.
The adventurer and author of Into the Ice recounts his harrowing attempt to sail the Northwest Passage and why he always listens to his gut. Photographs by Renan Ozturk
In 2022, Mark Synnott set sail from his home in Maine to complete the Northwest Passage, the legendary route through the Arctic that connects the Atlantic and Pacific. Synnott wanted to retrace the path of an 1845 expedition led by British explorer Sir John Franklin, who was attempting to chart the sea route over North America and open a valuable trade avenue with East Asia. But along the way Franklin's two ships, Erebus and Terror, became trapped in the ice, stranding the expedition. The crew of 129 men were never seen again and the mystery of what happened to them has spurred 180 years of speculation by scholars and obsessives.
Synnott originally planned to explore what happened to the crew as part of a longer voyage with his family down through the South Pacific. But he soon found his 47-foot fiberglass-hulled sailboat, Polar Sun, trapped in circumstances similar to those that proved catastrophic to the Brits. Synnott's new book, Into the Ice, recounts how his boat narrowly escaped its end in the Arctic—as well as what might have happened to the members of the Franklin expedition.
We caught up with Synnott as he and his family had resumed their voyage on Polar Sun—just hours before they were due to make their first landfall in the South Pacific—to discuss the allure of expeditions gone wrong and the fine line between adventurousness and hubris.
(Read an excerpt from Synnott's book on how he tried to solve the Arctic's biggest mystery.)
Can you start by setting the scene for where you are? I checked the GPS link to your boat, Polar Sun, and it looks like we're picking up where your book ends, with your plan to sail the South Pacific with your family.
Yes, we're currently on the boat, about 80 miles from our first stop, the island of Hiva Oa, which is part of the Marquesas Islands in French Polynesia. I still can't see land, but we should arrive today, after 20 days at sea.
Doing the Northwest Passage was always tied to this larger 20-year plan to sail the South Pacific with my family. My wife Hampton and my youngest son Tommy are onboard right now, and my three older kids plan to visit us along the way. All the other expeditions in my career have been discrete projects that lasted a month or a few months. This one has become a more open-ended, all-encompassing thing, and it's the first one we're doing as a family. It's still a little unknown how far we plan to go but right now we have an agreement that we're going to sail through French Polynesia to the Cook Islands, then Samoa, to Fiji, to New Zealand by the end of 2026.
What originally got you interested in sailing the South Pacific?
In 2005 I led an expedition to the Pitcairn Islands with Jimmy Chin and a few others for National Geographic. We sailed there from French Polynesia. It was my first time sailing. I didn't know anything about this world we were in, and seeing all those beautiful atolls made me decide right then and there, I need to find a way to get into this. I remember asking so many questions on that trip to learn about sailing. I've always wanted to come back and explore. You're so much freer to do that if you have your own boat because a lot of the islands are very isolated. Synnott, left, and crew member Rudy Lehfeldt-Ehlinger below deck on Polar Sun. A crewmember surveys Pasley Bay, a remote stretch of water deep in the Canadian Arctic not far from where Franklin's two ships became stuck in the ice.
As you started planning the Northwest Passage specifically, what was about the lost Franklin expedition that drew you into the mystery?
The Franklin expedition was 129 guys and not one of them made it out alive to tell the story. Then, on top of that, if you consider the accounts from the Inuit, which have proven highly credible, you've got evidence that there were survivors from the Franklin expedition all the way into the mid-1850s. There's an Inuit testimony about a band of survivors from the expedition on the Melville Peninsula where a bunch of their papers were supposedly buried in a cairn 10 years after they left. It's fascinating to imagine what happened during all that time they were stranded in the Arctic. The Royal Navy officers were trained to keep a record of what happened on their expeditions. And there's a strong possibility that one of the last men standing was Francis Crozier, the second-in-command. He would have definitely been recording what was happening. So the fact that more information could be out there to shed light on this mystery is super intriguing.
(In 1845 explorers sought the Northwest Passage—then vanished.)
When your boat had a brush with the same fate as the Franklin expedition, getting trapped in the Arctic ice floes, was the writer in you thinking how great that would make bringing the story to life?
We were trapped there for 10 days versus 10 years, but I honestly don't think there was ever a moment during that time when I thought, 'Wow, this is going to make a great story.' My whole objective in doing the Northwest Passage was to not get caught in the ice. You really don't want that to happen, especially in a fiberglass boat. Now when I look back, from a safe distance here in the South Pacific, I can see so clearly how it makes the story so much better—and I'm kind of glad it worked out the way that it did, because it was an incredible experience. Synnott sailed through Pasley Bay in August, but summer in the arctic ends quickly and the bay was always at risk of freezing over completely.
On these expeditions, how do you decipher that fine line between maintaining an adventurous spirit and outright recklessness?
There have definitely been moments when I've crossed that line before. When we were filming the documentary Lost on Everest for Nat Geo [about Sandy Irvine and George Mallory's Everest expedition] I left the fixed ropes at 28,000 feet to try to find Sandy's body. There was eyewitness testimony that a body had been seen in a certain place high up on the mountain, but it wasn't on the standard route, so it required leaving the fixed ropes to get there. I took a lot of shit from different people, including family, because I had stepped over the line in that instance. But I knew in my gut it was something I was supposed to be doing. Whenever I get to the point of feeling that way, I just try to do everything I can to manage the risks to the best of my ability. I also try to remember that it's pretty risky just being alive. For me, all the best, most fun, rewarding, meaningful experiences have tended to be risky. Into the Ice is Synnott's third book.
Another thing that comes through in your book is people's enduring obsession with new frontiers, which drove Franklin's exploration. And I wonder if the notion of frontiers drives your own expeditions?
I got introduced to the whole world of climbing and exploration through reading as a kid. Prior to 1950, none of the 8,000-meter peaks in the Himalaya and Karakoram had been climbed before, but the subplot to a lot of the books I read as a kid was how that Golden Age of exploration was already over. I think one of the main reasons I became a big-wall climber was realizing that was still its own frontier, and there were giant cliffs people hadn't yet climbed. In a way, I'm still going with that, exploring giant unclimbed cliffs. I've got all my climbing gear here on the boat. There's a big cliff out on this French Polynesian island called Ua Pou, and I think I'm going to try to climb it. Of course, what I've also learned along the way is that the Golden Age is not over at all. There's so much of this planet that remains unexplored.
Since you mentioned the upcoming route on your voyage I've been wondering if you see this extending into a trip around the world?
That definitely falls into the category of not wanting to overcommit where we might end up. When people sail to some far away place like this, often they'll sell their boat, and I already know I don't want to do that. I see Polar Sun as a member of the family at this point. I want to get back to Maine eventually. For now, I'm just happy to see we've made it this far.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘My £19,000 family holiday is in jeopardy because of the Home Office's ETA shambles'
I live in California and have dual UK-US nationality, as do my three teenagers. Me and my husband (who has dual Canadian-US citizenship) have been planning a month-long trip to see family in England for the first time since 2019. Our UK passports expired in 2017, so we booked the flights – and planned to travel – using our US passports (as required under US law). After doing so a few weeks ago, United Airlines informed us that we would need to apply for the new Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) to visit the UK. No problem, we thought. One of the questions on the online ETA form asks applicants whether they hold dual nationality, however, and nowhere in the drop-down menu can you select 'British', nor is there anywhere to type it in. Therefore, unless I falsely claim to have only US citizenship, I cannot obtain one. Having booked the flights within a month of travel – we were awaiting confirmation of work commitments – we have no time to apply for new UK passports (it takes at least four weeks, we have been advised) or a Certificate of Entitlement (which takes up to eight weeks and costs £589 per person). I have spent around 30 hours calling the British Consulate and Embassy in the US, I've called the UK Visas and Immigration agency and used its ETA web chat multiple times, and I've spoken to United Airlines on several occasions. Yet all I'm getting is conflicting advice. While the Home Office website advises dual nationals that we should be allowed to board a plane to the UK without an ETA, I don't want to risk being turned away at Heathrow for either travelling without an ETA, withholding information on my ETA form, or possessing an expired passport. We feel devastated and defeated, with no choice but to cancel our travel to the UK. This is a once-in-a-lifetime trip and we are faced with losing $26,000 (£19,200) in flights, car rental and accommodation and are left wondering why entry for British dual citizens is so much harder than for tourists. I also worry for myself – and others – what would happen if I needed to travel if a family member was sick or dying. - Mary, California I can well understand your frustration. The ETA scheme has been phased in since early January and it appears you are not the only ones to be baffled by the rules – many other dual British nationals are experiencing the same problem. Currently, the UK Home Office seems unable to provide a solution beyond the advice on its ETA Factsheet which states: 'We recommend that all British citizens travel on a valid British passport to avoid unnecessary delays at the border… As an alternative, British dual citizens can evidence their citizenship in another passport by obtaining a certificate of entitlement on However, with just 10 days to go before you travel, obtaining either a valid UK passport or a certificate of entitlement is, as you say, not an option. I spoke to the Home Office on your behalf and was advised verbally that you should be allowed to board a plane with an expired passport but there was no confirmation that your family would be allowed to enter the UK when you arrived at Heathrow. Of course, without an ETA, you are unable to simply use your US passport upon arriving in Britain as you did the last time you came here in 2019. The ETA factsheet goes on to state: 'We recognise that the introduction of the ETA is a substantial change for British dual citizens of ETA eligible nationalities. In the current transition period, we do not expect carriers to deny boarding to passengers who cannot produce a valid British passport or certificate of entitlement.' This would suggest you can enter the UK with your US passport and an expired UK passport, but the Home Office is unwilling to say so on record. Your airline, United, would not confirm to me that you will be allowed to board, and simply referred me back to when I contacted them on your behalf. Scouring blogs, social media forums and media coverage for expatriates in ETA-eligible countries, the situation is being described as 'a shambles' but it appears people facing this quandary are coming to the UK on expired passports or using an ETA and the valid passport they hold for the country where they now live, falsely claiming on the ETA form that they do not have dual citizenship. The latter option – lying on an immigration form – is risky and understandably not one we would condone nor that you wish to pursue, especially with teenagers in tow. There is one last option, and that is to apply for an Emergency Travel Document (ETD) for yourself and your three children. While ETDs are not designed for leisure travel, the Home Office told me verbally that if you have held valid UK passports since 2006 (and yours only expired in 2017), then there is no requirement to prove the reason for emergency travel. Applying for an ETD takes 48 hours and may involve an interview with the nearest embassy, but could provide the peace of mind you need to proceed with your desperately longed-for holiday. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Thousands gather to watch RAF Air Show
Thousands of military aviation enthusiasts gathered on Sunday for the RAF Cosford Air Show - the only one of its kind organised by the Air Force. As well as The Red Arrows, display teams from Ireland, Poland, and the Netherlands took to the skies above the Shropshire base. Sqn Ldr Dave Kerrison, one of the organisers, said there had been lots to enjoy. The event was first held in 1978, and has run most years since then. "Everybody wants to see the Red Arrows [but] we've got quite a lot of flights that are coming in today, so it's going to be a fun-packed day," Sqn Ldr Kerrison said ahead of the event. He added that as well as air displays, the Air Force would offer a flavour of everything it did, and not just touch upon its history and part in conflicts but highlight its role in humanitarian aid. Attractions this year included the Great War Display Team performing a dogfight routine in replica British, French and German World War One aircraft. There were also displays by the Royal Navy Black Cats, and Chinook and Apache helicopters. There was also a display from aerobatics pilot Mélanie Astles, the first woman to take part in the Red Bull Air Race. The chairman of the Royal Netherlands Air Force Historic Flight André Steur said it was an honour to attend the event. "The ties [between ourselves and the RAF] are very close and have been for years so when we were asked to come here, we were very glad to honour it," he said. West Midlands Railway advised that due to a late-notice shortage of crew, there would be limited train services returning from the event. It said queueing systems would be in place at Cosford and Wolverhampton during busier periods to manage the flow of people. Follow BBC Shropshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram. Thousands expected at RAF air show Special traffic arrangements planned for air show
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Trump brings the BOOM! New order opens skies across US to supersonic flights
President Donald Trump has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to scrap a longstanding ban on supersonic air travel across the U.S. and replace it with a to-be-determined set of regulations that will allow faster-than-sound travel so long as the sonic booms it creates do not breach certain noise limitations. In an executive order signed on Friday, Trump directed the FAA administrator to begin the process of repealing a section of the Code of Federal Regulations that prohibits anyone in the United States from flying a civilian aircraft 'at a true flight Mach number greater than 1.' That regulation was imposed in April 1973, at a time when the British and French governments were jointly developing Concorde, a supersonic airliner that had a cruising speed in excess of Mach 2, or twice the speed of sound. Because aircraft that break the sound barrier create shockwaves that produce loud sounds, known as sonic booms, the U.S. government banned supersonic flight over the U.S. out of concern over disruptive noise from supersonic jets criss-crossing the country. As a result, Concorde was limited to subsonic speeds when arriving or leaving American airports, only crossing the sound barrier during transit over the Atlantic Ocean on routes between New York's JFK airport and London. Michael Kratsios, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, told reporters that Trump's order 'seeks to revolutionize supersonic aviation in the United States' by allowing for modern aircraft to fly faster than sound over the continental U.S. 'The US used to be the global leader in this technology, but stifling regulations have grounded progress for generations. The reality is that Americans should be able to fly from New York to LA in under four hours,' he said. Kratsios added that 'advances in aerospace engineering, material science and noise reduction' by new startups working on faster-than-sound passenger aircraft can make supersonic travel 'safe, sustainable and commercially viable' and noted that the longstanding American ban on such flights had ' grounded supersonic passenger flight and weakened our global competitiveness in aviation.' 'Today's order fixes that,' he said. Trump's order comes just weeks after a pair of Republicans in Congress, Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas and Senator Ted Budd of North Carolina, introduced legislation to direct the FAA to repeal and replace the current supersonic flight ban within a year. That legislation will no longer be necessary, as the Trump executive order directs the FAA to withdraw the ban within 180 days and launch a notice-and-comment period for replacement regulations that would be based on a noise standard rather than a strict speed limit. According to a senior administration official, the function of the new regulations would be 'to replace the effective speed standard with instead an interim noise standard, and then to have a longer term process to publish a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to result in a final rule.' That process would be 'coordinated through the White House [and] through the National Science and Technology Council' and would be based on research and development that has been going on at NASA, the Department of Defense, and 'elsewhere within the federal government,' the official said. Trump's effort to enable supersonic flight across the U.S. follows the success of the first flight of a civilian supersonic aircraft since Concorde 216 (registered as G-BOAF) made its' final flight to Bristol Filton Airport in 2003. In January, Boom Supersonic's XB-1 aircraft reached a speed of Mach 1.122 during a 34-minute flight over California's Mojave Desert. The test flight, just eight days into Trump's second term, produced no audible sonic boom — or at least not one that was heard from the ground during the flight. The company says its' proposed Overture passenger jet will cut a trip from Los Angeles to Washington to three hours and 15 minutes, more than an hour less than the current duration of such a flight, while producing no sonic booms that are audible from the ground. It attributes this to atmospheric effects that cause the sound to reflect off layers in the atmosphere and travel upward, rather than downward. It also claims to be able to cut flights over water by even more time by reaching even higher speeds.