I’m with you on that, at least. I’m not sure I could celebrate much in that case, and every photo would be a reminder of that awful thing. But it’s worth noting Kristin Harila’s team did not have a celebration when they returned to camp. Some other expeditioners did, it’s not clear to what extent they knew about what happened. I do think it’s likely that people in this hobby/profession get used to seeing dead bodies, which lessens the emotional impact of seeing another one. Also for those mountaineers who claim the porter was dead when they walked over him, he may have genuinely appeared dead and revived enough to move later. That happened with Namba on Everest. According to those with her, there was a long period of time when she did not move, speak or appear to be breathing, and was assumed dead. But she later moved unexpectedly, shortly before her actual death.
I did not expect Into Thin Air to have such an emotional impact on me, but it did, for personal reasons. I have been having a hard time sleeping after reading this book. I may have been a bit strident because of overidentifying with the victims, some of whom died trying to save lost causes, others who had to leave others behind, and have to live with that decision for the rest of their lives. Even Boukreev who saved a bunch of people regretted the people he couldn’t save.
For the record, I agree with this (it could be inferred from my previous post that I don’t). Another thing to add to the long list of reasons why I’ll never climb such a mountain.
You’re driving down the highway and traffic slows. There’s been an accident and a car is on fire. Traffic is slowly crawling past it.
If you know there is no fire station nearby, and no police, do you stop and try to pull the driver out? You can see the driver inside, moving, so you know they’re alive. But if you try to rescue them you may die when the car explodes. If you don’t try a rescue, you know that the driver is sure to die when it explodes.
From many posters in this thread, they are obligated to try the rescue, and they are also mad/upset at everyone who drives past. You who are mad/upset, do you attempt to rescue the driver?
(estimated) stats cited in the article (linked above) are sobering: somewhere between 1/4 and 1/6 individuals who attempt to summit will die…
Blockquote Dubbed the “Savage Mountain,” K2 is significantly more difficult and technical to summit than Earth’s tallest mountain, Arnette told Insider. Everest has a 3% death rate, while K2’s was 25% before 2021. It now hovers at about 18% after becoming a far more popular option for climbers, Arnette estimates.
I think that’s a great analogy. I propose changing …
to “But if you try to rescue them you will probably die when the car explodes and you may accidentally kill some of the people riding in your car with you.”
This has been said (and corrected) a few times in this thread, but to repeat: this is the ratio of people who die to those who successfully summit. The death odds of those attempting to summit is much lower.
In the incident we’re discussing on K2, Hassan wasn’t even attempting to summit. Calculating the true risk is really tough. It’s useful for comparison to show how much more dangerous K2 is than Everest, but it’s not valid to say you have a 18% chance of dying on K2.
As of August 2022, best estimates hold that approximately 700 climbers have summited K2, with 190 ascents (27% of all K2 climbs) occurring in the 2022 season alone. Approximately 96 individuals have died on the mountain to date, but the fatality rate, once nearly 25%, is much reduced from years past. In 2022, for example, only three climbers died on the mountain, 1.6% of successful summits.
I can’t find any data on how many total people make the attempt every year. Do they really not keep track of that?
When I was learning wilderness first aid at the National Outdoor Leadership School, the first question we were taught to ask before attempting to help was, “Is the scene safe? Can I approach and render aid without putting myself in danger?” If the answer was “No”, then we were instructed not to proceed until and unless it was.
It could just be that 2022 and 2023 have been mild years, and the statistics will balance out in the years to come. If you look at the statistics you linked, there have been some very bad years, with multiple people dying the same day from storms, or avalanches, etc, and those particular disasters haven’t occurred in the past 2 years. Heck, 11 of the 91 deaths took place in a single day in 2008, ironically on the Bottleneck that’s the topic of discussion here.
It isn’t just people who attempted to summit. You’d also have to include people who were on the mountain for any reason. Hassan, the porter who died on K2, wasn’t attempting to summit, but he’s still included in the numerator. Sherpas who die in the Khumbu Icefall on Everest aren’t going past Camp 1, but their deaths are included. Climbers who die while training for a later summit push are included. The Everest tally includes 19 people who died at Base Camp in the 2015 earthquake and avalanche.
This is my question. To what extent does summiting Everest reflect/depend on the individual’s skill/experience/fitness? I know nothing beyond relatively modest hikes, but when I hear about the support staff laying ropes and ladders and hauling gear, I wonder whether it could be done by a reasonably fit person with enough money. I presume SOME experience is necessary - or at least beneficial. But when I see photos of those conga lines, it doesn’t strike me as requiring the same level of skill as - say - rock climbing.
“Reasonably fit person” I would say is not sufficient. It would take someone with exceptional athletic strength and physical endurance. It’s ten miles walk just to get to base camp, and then you have to climb up and down and between the camps for weeks to acclimate before you can summit. So it would take a person who can handle sustained, at times grueling physical activity all day for about two months straight. Then it takes someone who can operate well at high altitudes, which is just a luck of the draw kind of thing. In Into Thin Air Krakauer describes getting to camp after a day of climbing and then immediately having to chop ice for three hours straight, then help set up camp, etc. So my impression isn’t that the average gym rat could handle Everest. You would definitely have to train for it and you would need to be conditioned for a lot of outdoor exertion.
As far as technical climbing skill, with the current paths and fixed ropes I don’t think much technical skill is needed, and theirin lies the problem. When people are reliant on guides, they end up climbing into higher places than they can manage on their own, and the moment something goes wrong they don’t have the technical skill to accommodate it. So if for some reason the fixed ropes are broken or they lose their guide, they have to use an alternate route, they’re screwed.
Just a very minor example of this, with Krakauer’s team they were so inexperienced one person didn’t even know how to put on his crampons. When Krakauer got stuck waiting on slow, inexperienced people climbing a sheer rock face (all clipped to a safety line), he could easily move past them - with some risk - by cutting out of line and climbing around them. But these people ultimately slow everyone down because his expedition leader required him to wait at the top of the rock face for nearly an hour rather than outpace the noobs. Rob Hall had a very “everyone summits together” mentality and it’s not clear why he abandoned this and how everyone got so separated during the disaster.
You just read Into Thin Air, correct? What is the extent of your familiarity with such mountaineering beyond that book?
With much of that, it sounds like it takes a person who is WILLING to handle such activity - combined with the luxury of so much free time and expendable cash. My impression is that a lot of people can accomplish a great deal more than they generally take on.
In addition to solid alpine living, snow, and ice-climbing skills, you need significant strength endurance, high-altitude tolerance, and strong cardiovascular conditioning.
Keep in mind that just because you exercise regularly at significantly lower elevation does not mean you have suitable conditioning needed to stand on top of the world. Cardiovascular fitness is simply not enough. You should focus on building physical conditioning at lower altitudes necessary to ascend 4,000 ft. of elevation on successive days carrying 50–60 lbs. Although you will not be carrying such weight on Everest, by conditioning your body to that degree of high tolerance, you will have built extra reserves that will serve you very well on the mountain as you inevitably start to lose musculature and body fat from being at extreme altitudes for two months.
To be sure. I think in addition to being exceptionally fit, you have to be willing to suffer.
But would you really want to find out the hard way you’re not in good enough condition? I think some people are that stupid, but not most people.
A reasonable goal would be to ascend 4,000 ft. carrying an average pack of 50 lbs. in a two- to three-hour period, or roughly 1,500 vertical feet per hour. A good training option for pack weight is to carry water in gallon containers or collapsible jugs so you can dump water at the top as needed, to lighten the load for the descent.
In early season, you should be comfortable gaining 2,000 ft. elevation over 5–7 miles round-trip, with a 30–40-pound pack; each hike, try adding three to five pounds until you are comfortable with a 55-lb. pack, then begin increasing the total elevation gain and mileage. When you can gain 4,000 ft. while carrying a 60-lb. pack, start decreasing rest breaks and increasing speed on each conditioning workout. A month from your climb, you should be comfortable hiking on successive days with at least 60 lbs. on one of those outings.
That seems like a bit more than mind over matter to me, but YMMV.
