UKH

I have just finished reading Jon Krakaeurs book "Into Thin Air" about the 1996 Everest fiasco. The events that took place cannot be said to have been caused by any one single event but, like a lot of accidents, the culmination of numerous contributory factors.

I cannot help but think back to the successful 1953 British Commonwealth Expedition. Compared with clothing and equipment that is available today their kit was, I think, almost primitive with heavy fabrics(compared with today) and bulky equipment. Yet, as far as I know, all members came through unscathed. I'm not even aware that there were any serious cases of frost bite or altitude problems.

Yet, nowadays - unless I am wrong, scarcely a year goes by when there is not some mishap on Everest. Cases of frostbite, AMS and even deaths crop up despite the advances in clothing and equipment design and manufacture. I know far more people climb Everest in a season nowadays that did so fifty or sixty years ago; but surely the aforementioned "improvements" should compensate.

I'd be interested to hear what others think.

In reply to mypyrex:

You are also comparing a group of people on the 1953 expedition that had lived and breathed the challenge for many years, and were all aware that it was a very serious undertaking.

These days, i get the impression many people don't fully appreciate what they are letting themselves in for, have other prioirties that take up their time to train, and a tendency to go "Fast and Light" or at least more so than you would if you werent sure of the route ahead.

In reply to balmybaldwin:



Yes, that is much what I was thinking. Years ago, to do something like Everest, required serving something resembling an apprenticeship in mountaineering. I think too that a lot of summit aspirants nowadays are even foolish enough to think that they can just buy a ticket to the top. As one guide was quoted as saying, "Clients think they're paying us to get them to the summit when, really, they're paying us to make decisions".

In reply to mypyrex:

Back in the day, they were WELL hard and could handle the situation.
Nowadays, any idiot with a fat enough wallet, can attempt Everest and they're just not up to it.

In reply to mypyrex:

This is an interesting book about the history of mountaineering clothing and equipment

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Invisible-Everest-Innovation-Gear-Makers/dp/0970414...

I read it years ago but seem to remember that it basically said that most clothing was as good as now where natural material is used (insulation etc) boots for 1953 Everest were as good as now, mainly hardware, ropes and waterproofs as seen big improvement

In reply to Lusk:

Above 7K it's physically tough no matter how fat your wallet is. As with everything there will be a few "idiots" trying for an 8K but the vast majority aren't rich or fat.

In reply to m0unt41n:


And a significant number of the deaths are Sherpas. Most of those who died last year were in the icefall avalanche. Simply writing off the deaths as unprepared westerners with fat wallets is ignorant.

In reply to mypyrex:

There were plenty of early attempts that results in frostbite and death (e.g. Mallory) and plenty of modern ones that don't. You would need some sensible comparison of frostbite/person or something to draw any conclusions rather than comparing one successful/lucky day with one unsuccesful/unlucky one

In reply to MG:


Agreed but my comments were intended to be a generalisation.

In reply to mypyrex:

But you can't generalize from two isolated events. You could just as well say Mallory died LatestRichPunter didn't, hence improvements in clothing now prevent deaths. Which is similarly nonsense.

In reply to mypyrex:

Statistically I doubt that the statement stands up simply because the number of deaths prior to 1960's as a % of number of attempts must have been very significant whereas now there are hundreds of attempts each year and therefore the number of deaths as a % is small.

Equipment - the 1953 Boots were meant to be as good as now, specially made for the attempt. Ditto most clothing and sleeping bags. Other things were significantly poorer.

Anyhow interesting subject so its never worth letting facts get in the way of a good argument.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Plus many others died around that time.. fewer on the mountain.. get a better window..

They were successful because of the scale of the attempt, a military assault on it working as a big team.

It'd be interesting f the 'fast and light' brigade are relatively more at risk than the general 'tourists'. You'd think those taking that approach would a) not take risks with weather windows b) be much more experienced.

In reply to mypyrex:


now read Anatoli Boukreev - The Climb.

In reply to mypyrex:

Frostbite is nothing new, I remember seeing pictures of frostbitten fingers and toes in early books about Everest.

I've skied off piste with one of the British guides who are busy exploiting Everest to death at the moment and remember thinking at the time that his life was one massive contradiction - on one hand he waxed lyrical about Nature and the beauty of the mountains yet on the other he talked about the numbers of times he had summitted and the hotel he and some others were planning high up on the Chinese side, requiring a road to be bulldozed right up the mountain. Dunno if they ever got it built though.

In reply to ti_pin_man:

That was going to be my first comment as well! I ad them one after the other, a very diferent version of events.

In reply to OP, I'd say there were a lot fewer deaths per attempt now than in the 1950s.

In reply to mypyrex:

Everest is far safer now than it was prior to 1985, when the first 'commercial' ascent of the mountain was made.

Many times more people of climbing the mountain and whilst there are deaths, the death rate is significantly lower. Sadly though I think still highest amongst the Sherpas and other porter staff.

In reply to mypyrex:
the question is looked at in some detail here - the conclusion is that climbing everest has become, on average, safer
http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2013/02/11/everest-2013-has-everest-become-...

In reply to mypyrex:
>Yet, as far as I know, all members came through unscathed. I'm not even aware that there were any serious cases of frost bite or altitude problems.

I'm pretty sure a Sherpa died on the 53 expedition?

In reply to Bob Hughes:



It almost feels weird to write this, but it seems similar to how motorway crashes are the biggest but they're the safest roads statistically speaking. Due to the numbers now climbing Everest, it's almost inevitable that a lot of people will be caught up if something goes wrong.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Weird to compare Everest to a motorway that is.

In reply to Timmd:

exactly, just seen this on wikipedia: "Curiously, 1996 was statistically a safe year for Everest climbers. Before 1996, one in four climbers had died making the ascent; 1996 saw huge numbers of people attempting the climb and the statistics for 1996 reveal that only one in seven died."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_died_climbing_Mount_Everest

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Interesting, it still seems weird though, being the worlds highest mountain.

In reply to mypyrex:

Read Herzog's "Annapurna," from that same era. There's a memorable passage where the amputated parts of someone's frostbitten digits are swept with the other rubbish from the floor of their train compartment.

If you want to draw a general conclusion you need to look the general picture - both then and now.

In reply to Fredt:


I don't think so, but there was a Sherpa death on the Swiss expedition the previous year, plus plenty before and after.

In reply to AdrianC:

To the surprise of the people on the platform waiting to board their train.

In reply to mypyrex:


I have studied the 96 disaster extensively and you are right, it was a culmination of factors but the overriding cause was, in my opinion, commercial pressures forcing Hall and Fischer to push the safety boundaries too far, ignoring their own strictures on good high altitude practice. They thought they could get away with it and when the proverbial hit the fan, Everest taught them the toughest lesson.

In reply to ti_pin_man:

At least two clients (Lene Gammelgard and Beck Weathers) have written accounts also; whilst I don't think they add anything like the perspective that Boukreev's The Climb does, it is interesting to see how the clients were thinking.

Matt Dickinson's The Death Zone also has some interesting commentary on the incident, with a bit more distance.