Man Gives Up Everest Quest To Rescue Climber

[Desmond]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060608/...everest_rescue

An interesting story in and of itself, but when it gets to the part where he tells of people simply passing those in peril because they don't want to impede their own climbs, that just pisses me off. How can you knowingly leave another human being for dead?

[bulletsponge]

An interesting story in and of itself, but when it gets to the part where he tells of people simply passing those in peril because they don't want to impede their own climbs, that just pisses me off. How can you knowingly leave another human being for dead?

You have to have a massive ego just to think you can "conquere" a mountain by climbing it. not a far stretch to see those same people dismiss thier fellow man in thier persuit of an ego boost. although they are leaving behind other egomaniacs, so not as big a lose as you might think

[Desnudo]

It's a little more complicated than that. You risk your own life at that altitude by trying to save someone else.

[Desmond]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

It's a little more complicated than that. You risk your own life at that altitude by trying to save someone else.

Serious question. Helping someone else down is significantly more dangerous than continuing up?

I can't imagine seeing someone drowning and thinking to myself, "well, I could drown too" and just stand there and watch.

[SackAttack]

The difference is, conditions are much more severe at altitude. The injured/sick/whatever guy is going to slow you down no matter which way you go, and considering you don't have unlimited supplies, that very well could put you both at risk.

[SackAttack]

dola, not saying folks *shouldn't* help.

Only that I can understand.

[MrBug708]

`They should take the escalator next time

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

`They should take the escalator next time

I plan to conquer Mt. Everest.....with a dozen ICBMs.

[bulletsponge]

I plan to conquer Mt. Everest.....with a dozen ICBMs.

tying yourself around a ICBM and shooting yourself up isnt Conquering it

[molson]

Originally Posted by Desmond

Serious question. Helping someone else down is significantly more dangerous than continuing up?

Could be. Those guys have a ridiculously small window to get up and down that thing on the approach to the summit, on a pefect day. And that's whether or not they actually reach the summit - the available window of time away from the last base camp is very small, no matter where they are. I'd be very, very reluctant to get involved in a "rescue mission" at that altitude. Such a thing could end up taking much longer than just getting to the top and coming down.

[flere-imsaho]

Everest is a source of real debate amongst professional mountain climbers. Climbing Everest has turned into a real industry, and one of the big problems on the mountain is that there's a lot of people climbing it who have no business being on a mountain like that, even with Sherpas and professional guides. They just don't have the experience, skills, or even fitness to truly do it, but they have the money.

As a result, you're getting a lot of "clients" dying on the mountain because they couldn't hack it, and you're also getting a lot of guides dying on the mountain because either a) they tried to help their client off the mountain, got slowed down, missed their window, and died from exposure, or b) tried to help out someone else's client, with the same results.

Witness the professional guide from a few years ago who managed to get a sat call off to his wife as a storm closed in, knowing he'd die overnight after trying, and failing, to rescue someone.

So, I guess I'm not surprised that people are not stopping to help. A lot of the clients aren't going to stop because they paid a huge amount of money to scale Everest and they're not going to spend that money to save someone instead. A lot of guides aren't going to stop because their clients don't want them to stop and/or because they're getting paid not to stop.

This is to say nothing of the people who pass people when they're on their way back down, and don't stop, because they know if they stop, they'll miss their window, have the weather close in, and die.

I'm not saying it's right, what I do think is that it says a lot about human values and human morality, and it says a lot of bad about those things in a lot of people. But it does have a certain logic.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm not saying it's right, what I do think is that it says a lot about human values and human morality, and it says a lot of bad about those things in a lot of people. But it does have a certain logic.

Indeed. It has the trappings of a moralistic parable from ancient lore.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Everest is a source of real debate amongst professional mountain climbers. Climbing Everest has turned into a real industry, and one of the big problems on the mountain is that there's a lot of people climbing it who have no business being on a mountain like that, even with Sherpas and professional guides. They just don't have the experience, skills, or even fitness to truly do it, but they have the money.

As a result, you're getting a lot of "clients" dying on the mountain because they couldn't hack it, and you're also getting a lot of guides dying on the mountain because either a) they tried to help their client off the mountain, got slowed down, missed their window, and died from exposure, or b) tried to help out someone else's client, with the same results.

Witness the professional guide from a few years ago who managed to get a sat call off to his wife as a storm closed in, knowing he'd die overnight after trying, and failing, to rescue someone.

So, I guess I'm not surprised that people are not stopping to help. A lot of the clients aren't going to stop because they paid a huge amount of money to scale Everest and they're not going to spend that money to save someone instead. A lot of guides aren't going to stop because their clients don't want them to stop and/or because they're getting paid not to stop.

This is to say nothing of the people who pass people when they're on their way back down, and don't stop, because they know if they stop, they'll miss their window, have the weather close in, and die.

I'm not saying it's right, what I do think is that it says a lot about human values and human morality, and it says a lot of bad about those things in a lot of people. But it does have a certain logic.

That's why I have been a big fan of Eric Simonson and those he leads.

I've always wanted to make a post about Everest expeditions since that has long been one of my hobbies and reading interests. Earlier this year, I spent about a month reading several books on Mallory and learning a lot more about the North/Northeast routes. That was fun esp. after reading (and watching) so much on the Southeast "yak route". Anyone else share my interest in historical or pioneering Everest expeditions?

[Desmond]

Cool replies, I guess my initial outrage has been tempered a bit. Thats gotta be rough having to make a decision like that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Indeed. It has the trappings of a moralistic parable from ancient lore.

[Neon_Chaos]

I think that if you've got balls enough to climb Everest, you should be resigned to the fact that if you fuck up, you're probably gonna die. These guys probably knew what they were in for when they climbed, and were willing to take that risk.

[Coffee Warlord]

Every time I see this thread, I keep seeing "Man Gives up Everquest to Rescue Climber"

[Abe Sargent]

The problem is that we've turned scaling Everest into the passage of guru-hood. Anybody who has scaled it is introduced as the person who scaled Everest, is a motivational speaker, writes a book, tours the lecture circuit, etc.

-Anxiety

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I plan to conquer Mt. Everest.....with a dozen ICBMs.

Mmmmm...I could use a dozen ICBM Cream Soda's right now!

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Desmond

Serious question. Helping someone else down is significantly more dangerous than continuing up?

I can't imagine seeing someone drowning and thinking to myself, "well, I could drown too" and just stand there and watch.

Read "Into Thin Air"...most people die coming down the mountain, you are not breathing well, you are being hit by heavy winds, you have so much weight for what you need to carry, your body is failing due to lack of oxygen...this isn't like a rescue from drowning, this is two people drowning and one trying to rescue the other...chances are, you'll both die.

That isn't taking into account the dangers of falling into holes, off cliffs, or being hit by a storm.

It is all time managed, any little delay will kill you, or cost you the thousands invested to get to the top.

[Qwikshot]

When I meant about most people dying when the come down from the mountain is that most are exhausted from the climb up, running low on cannisters, and from the book, most are in a sense of elation and suddenly lose focus.

You really have to be a machine doing this stuff, and a lot of people die because they due to a lack of judgement from either the thin air (kind of like when divers drown because they pull the airhose from their mouth), you are high (sorry pun) from oxygen loss, so every judgement needs to be calculated to the nth degree, because you won't be able to recover.

People die there because their body can't adapt to the change in pressure (like the bends).

Krakauer in his book even describes walking past bodies still left on the mountain, so this isn't anything new.

[Buccaneer]

It depends what type of climbers you are talking and on what route. As Krakauer famously described, the deaths of many amateurs come from mistakes - whether not getting out of the extreme death zone in time or lack of planning/foresight. Despite the late times Fischer's and Hall's groups were on the mountain, they would have easily made it off if it wasn't for the freak storm that came up. Even in their mechanized, exhausted state, they could have been short-roped down back to the camp on the South Col. (By the way, I was an avid reader of Outside and a follower online in the early days of the internet. I do remember hearing the news that something went wrong and waiting see what it was.)

In 2001, a couple of Simonson's guys found an exhaused Ukrainian (I believe) that wouldn't/couldn't move near the summit on the Northeast Ridge. They abandoned their summit bid and literally carried him down to Camp XIII. But if even his extremely exhausted, delusional state, he found enough effort to get down the Third and Second Steps on his own (which someone really can't carry or short-rope).

Here's my original point. The most dangerous part of the Southern route is actually the Khumbu Falls - way down in the valley nowhere near the death zones. That's where the majority of the accidents and fatalities have occured. The 1996 expeditions did of course the dangers of being in the death zone but technically (besides the well-roped Hillary Step), it is not that big of a deal. On the other side of the mountain, however, the Northeast Ridge is long and very, very exposed.

Speaking of finding bodies, I found it somewhat interesting that they still can see some of the remains of the earlier English expeditions (from the 1930s) popping in and out of the glacier down in the Rongbuk Glacier.

My most favorite book I've read is Ghosts on Everest about the expedition to find Mallory and Irvine (they found Mallory, of course).

[judicial clerk]

these sherpas must be the baddest men on earth. Other people are literally dying to get to the top and for these guys its a day at the office.

This is an interesting issue. If someone is dying while trying to get down the mountain, people on their way up should stop and help. They don't need to die themselves but they do need to give up their shot at the top. on the other hand, it should be criminal for these idiots who are not up to the task to go up there and put others lives at risk to help them.

i guess the nepalese govt should regulate access access a little more. maybe make potential climbers do some jumping jacks or some windsprints or something.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

The problem is that we've turned scaling Everest into the passage of guru-hood. Anybody who has scaled it is introduced as the person who scaled Everest, is a motivational speaker, writes a book, tours the lecture circuit, etc.

-Anxiety

That's true. I mean BFD. You climbed a big mountain and came back down. Yippie for you.

I holed a shot from 153 yards out once. I am the man as well.


Of course I've never gotten the fascination of climbing something that when you get to the top there is nothing there and you just turn around and go home.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Desmond

Serious question. Helping someone else down is significantly more dangerous than continuing up?

I can't imagine seeing someone drowning and thinking to myself, "well, I could drown too" and just stand there and watch.

It's a lot easier going up a mountain than down. Think about climbing a tree and then trying to get down again. Lowering someone down a mountain is a lot more complicated than it might sound. If you've ever seen the ski patrol struggling to lower someone down a pre-cut trail on a sled, then that might give you a picture.

[3ric]

Also, if a climber has been exposed in the "Death Zone" long enough, he's dead already, no matter if he's brought down or not.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...everest04.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...956544080.html