It is not so much a case of having an IR. Lets face it an IR allows you to follow IFR rules which means being able to depart from an airport, transit to another airport, hold if necessary and then land following a published procedure. To be honest, I can not see an IR as being much use in Antarctica unless there are landing sites with procedures out there. What counts is the hours of spent in IMC. Unfortunately, you dont get the latter without the former!
It is interesting to listen to ex RN pilots and crewmen who have been trained to operate in arctic conditions. As far as I can see, the content of an IR does not prepare anyone for whiteout. In my opinion a wise pilot who wishes to operate an unusual role or environment would seek out someone to learn how to cope with that new role/environment. It is evident from the quotes in the report that they didn't do that, or if they did, they didn't act on the advice they were given. To descend into cloud to land is a recipe for disaster - the accident reports are littered with such accidents.
Alan Bristow started flying helicopters in the Antarctic 50 years ago. There is nothing new in flying in that environment. Then compare the aircraft he used (a Hiller and Dragonfly) and the aircraft used by Murray and Bodill (all singing and dancing Bell). I'm not that impressed by people who feel the need to prove themselves in such a way, but it is not to say that they should be stopped from doing it.
What does interest me on this thread is the difference in attitude between pilots. Some say push the limits and take risks, others say that it is crazy to attempt such a feat without the right training and experience. I wonder if there is a correlation between these two attitudes and GA / professional pilots? In any case, there are old pilots and there are bold pilots.......