UKH

An interesting development – possibly inevitable after recent events on the mountain?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/28/mount-everest-to-be-declared-o...

In reply to Only a hill:

What a good idea. My wife and I were talking about this yesterday after seeing this new moving picture... I don't think people should be on Everest with the ability to pay lots of money, but without the ability to look after yourself (even if this is in the context of looking after yourself with a more experienced guide).

In reply to climbwhenready:
I like the idea too. It should also negate the necessity to install a ladder on the Hillary step. Maybe customers should have to prove that they can climb comfortably at that grade otherwise they have no business being there in the first place?

It would once again make climbing Everest a worthwhile objective for experienced mountaineers rather than a circus act being dragged up by guides?

The same might be said of other trophy peaks like the Matterhorn as well?

Possibly not such good news for the guiding profession though?

In reply to Only a hill:

Got to be good if it improves safety. Is it more Lip Service from the Nepalese Govt. though ?....those climbing permits are expensive !

In reply to Trangia:

if you removed ropes, cables etc. from matterhorn, d. de geaunt and many more... it might increase the employment, as those wishing to tick these attractive peaks might find them creeping out their grade. Presumably, the bolt & tat on cosmiques would have to go too.

As for the original comment on Everest, they need to find a line between putting people off and maintaining some tourist income.

In reply to Trangia:


Would the usual big Everest guiding companies not just do a package that included doing a qualifying 6500m+ peak a couple of months beforehand?

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Who, but the inexperienced, wants to climb it?

In reply to climbwhenready:


same here! Saw it Saturday night and was discussing with the lass last night while watching the old Discovery Channel Everest series (she watched it years ago...bit of an armchair fan of mountaineering....meant my climbing stories actually impressed rather than bored her when we were first dating :-p)

I'm not really qualified to comment as the most I've done is winter climbing in the UK but it's interesting to discuss who has the right to be up there with people from different backgrounds.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


That's a good question, but perhaps this would be a step towards making it a summit revered by experienced mountaineers? I think the hordes of inexperienced wealthy tourists is what puts lots of experienced mountaineers off?

In reply to RyanOsborne:


This is one of those things that is often quoted, but speak to people who have actually been on Everest and they say this is overblown by the media. Most people who stand on the summit of Everest have worked and sacrificed for years to be there – and, yes, climbed many other high mountains to gain the necessary experience.

The 'inexperienced numpties on Everest' thing is a real phenomenon, but it isn't as prevalent as many seem to believe.

(Source: currently editing a book on this question.)

In reply to Only a hill:

Will it make a difference if the Chinese aren't on board? My understanding is that the Tibetan side is only slightly more difficult.

In reply to Only a hill:

Thank Christ.

Personally I support an absolute guiding ban on Everest. It's a trophy peak. If you're really interested in high altitude mountaineering there a 13 other 8000ers that you can focus on and very few of them are guided anything like as prolifically as Everest.

From my armchair and from what I understand the two normal routes are not exactly hard to routefind (with the exception of the Khumbu Icefall). And anyone with the technical ability and experience to climb Everest unsupported logistically is extremely unlikely to struggle with going off route. So why the guides?

All in all. Good decision. Might actually bring climbers back to Everest in the wake of Ueli Steck being chased off (by guides).

In reply to Only a hill:


But almost everyone is still jugging up lines that they didn't have any part in fixing. And those who try to avoid the lines have at least in one recent instance been punished (see the recent Steck debacle).

In reply to Mike Highbury:


me

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Opinions are like ass-holes; everyone has one !

Whilst I'm not saying you are speaking out of yours, what is wrong with people spending their ( often very hard earned)
wealth on climbing the highest mountain on Earth ?

As for 'bringing back climbers to Everest' : well, like most things in climbing/mountaineering , it's all be done before and however much I enjoy climbing I must confess that most of the people I've climbed with I simply wouldn't want anything to do with them outside the sport. Why should Everest be exclusive to such a boring-bunch ?

In reply to Deviant:


What's money got to do with it? This is about experience.


I really don't understand your point here. However, with regard to your final sentence, Everest should be exclusive to those who can self sufficiently climb it. Personality doesn't have much to do with it in my opinion.

In reply to Deviant:

What is wrong with running experience days where people on corporate team-building exercises jug up and abseil down Cenotaph Corner?

As for 'leaving it to those with the ability', why should routes be exclusive to the small few who are able to climb them so-called "free" ?

In reply to Only a hill:
I see a lot of doubt about this ever actually being implemented, and policed, coming from Sherpas.

The idea sounds good in principal. It should mean that if you have indeed got wads of cash you will have to at least prove you have climbed some 6000+ mountains.... I can see it becoming more lucrative for guiding companies as those wishing to go will now have to pass the 'qualifier' stages of climbing/learning to climb better before they get there. Maybe the rules should say some/all of those peaks shoulld be completed in Nepal thus keeping the cash with the Sherpas.

In reply to Only a hill:

The wealthy tourists will just move to the next mountain down that's not in Nepal.

K2

What could go wrong?

In reply to Only a hill:

http://adventure-journal.com/2015/09/sucking-on-the-everest-barrel/

In reply to Deviant:




Really? I've met loads of good friends and acquaintances through climbing and mountaineering, many of them being a lot more interesting to socialise with outside the sport than many people I've met through work or the other activities I do. Maybe I'm just a super-boring person and easily pleased when it comes to friendships, but in general I've found climbers as a group to be very interesting people, from a diverse range of backgrounds. There aren't many other activities where I'd find myself bevvying with a linguistics professor, a financial journalist, a hod carrier, a sparky, a teacher, a dance instructor and a conservatory builder.

In reply to Rob Naylor:
You really don't need to respond to his point. It's about as accurate as suggesting all black people are criminals. Yes, there are boring climbers, yes there are interesting climbers. It's almost as if climbers are human.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


Like it or not, fixed ropes placed by Sherpas are a fact of life on most of the 8,000m peaks. I'm not sure why it's such a big deal, to be honest. What's the alternative – make everyone climb alpine style? That would only result in a lot of deaths for no good reason whatsoever.

We're at the point where pretty much anything you can do on Everest is contrived to some degree. Climbing ethics is splitting hairs at the best of times.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


Define 'self sufficiently'.

In reply to Only a hill:

Are able to climb the mountain without a paid guide.

EDIT: 'paid' in my opinion makes a lot of difference. For example climbing with a partner far more experienced than you who deems you capable of coming up the mountain is very different than paying a partner far more experienced than you who will try their best to get you up the mountain regardless of whether they feel you should be coming.

In reply to Only a hill:

You see, without clients to guide, guides wouldn't fix lines. You can then either fix your own, trust lines that have been left in place by other parties or you can climb it alpine style. It's your call. Like most other mountains in the world. Nobody is forcing you to climb alpine style. And nobody is fixing lines religiously every season for profit.

I am aware my argument is a step further again from minimum requirements to be guided on the mountain.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

So you primarily seem to be objecting to Everest being used for profit. Fair enough, but how is that different from guided climbing in the Alps, guided climbing in the UK, or – in fact – the well-established outdoor industry that makes a profit from people's enjoyment of the natural world and generally works pretty well for everyone involved? It's all a matter of degree.

A lot of water has passed under the bridge since the free and unregulated days of the mid 20th century. I'm not saying things don't need to change on Everest, but banning guided climbing is completely impractical and I don't think anyone except for so-called 'real' mountaineers actually wants that. Why would they?

In reply to Only a hill:
I don't mind profit being involved- at all. Let me explain.

From where I see it, the main draw of Everest for so many is that it's the highest peak in the world. I feel that simply because of this it draws a wide number of people who are otherwise not overly interested in climbing. Everest is seen as the ultimate challenge for people who like challenges. Hence I feel a large number of non climbers want to climb it.

I feel that the above combined with the relative ease of getting a guide given you have enough cash has fostered a hugely disproportionate volume of traffic between those who respect the mountain, and those who just want to get to the top. This has sprung the closely related problem of litter/disguarded oxygen tanks/tents and dead bodies all over the place. Not to mention the endless stories of people who are able to be rescued being left behind to die. I think we'd all agree is quite shameful.

Furthermore, those who do not need a guide seem to be the outsiders and not the reverse as should be the case. I re-highlight Ueli Steck's fiasco.

So... I wager two things: 1) you'd be hard pressed to find a mountain so littered and disgusting anywhere else in the world with such a low moral standard so far from that of the (typically team spirited) general climbing community. And 2) that the vast majority of hopefuls are doing it simply because it's Everest, the highest mountain, and will stop at little to achieve their goal of climbing it given the large financial cost of failure. I personally think this is likely to make them more prone to disrespecting the environment they are in and littering and more likely to die of summit fever (aside from human tragedy) leaving further littering bodies on the mountain.

I really do think Everest is unique in this respect.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:



I think you are doing *some* guides a bit of a disservice here. I don't think that being guided is in itself the issue although I agree that it can add to the problem, if only in numbers.

In reply to Skyfall:

I completely agree. However I think large sums of money are likely to exacerbate the problem far further than none.

In reply to Only a hill:

A real cynic might suggest that the only requirement should be that you pay for insurance to get your dead body off the mountain afterwards (currently so expensive/difficult as to be impractical). I suspect the premiums, tailored to your high-altitude mountaineering experience, would have a similar effect... (and perhaps might drill it home in people's minds whether they are really suitable).

"£200,000 for insurance! Why is it so expensive!"
"Well, we reckon given your single 6000m peak, general lack of fitness and limited climbing experience, you've only got a 4 in 5 chance of getting down alive - and its about £1,000,000 per body retrieval. We did Ueli Steck the other day for £8.49 though..."

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I feel that you make valid points, but that your perception of Everest might have been heavily swayed by how it's presented in the media. I'd be interested to know what your personal experience is in this area (as mentioned above, my point of view has been influenced by a client who is an Everest summiteer and expert on the mountain – and paints a very different picture).

Must also say that it's pleasant to be able to have a reasonable discussion on UKC – I'm impressed this thread hasn't descended into name-calling yet!

In reply to Only a hill:
You're probably right regarding an element of media sway. I have to admit I have never set foot in the Himalaya.

However, and I have to be careful here, a friend of mine from uni for various reasons achieved a tiny bit of fame for some achievements of his. One of these was 'climbing' Everest. Hearing him talk really sculpted my thoughts on the subject. It was abundantly clear Everest for him was an experience worlds away from what I had done in the Alps. All the talk of 'jugging', oxygen and camps set up by sherpas just sounded pretty pointless to me.

Anyway, I suggested we go climbing one evening. It was only after I had tied in that he asked me 'how do I use this thing' ... he was referring to a belay plate. I was dumbfounded. He had climbed Everest and he couldn't use a belay plate.

Fittingly he has done no climbing since and has moved on to Iron Man. I am still very friendly with him however it's clear Everest for him was just a challenge to tick. Which he did. But what value is that tick?

The concept of achieving a summit without the enjoyment and technical challenge (via a ladder) of the ascent is just a bit bizarre to me. Seems a bit like dogging up a sport route and claiming you've 'climbed' it.

In reply to andrewmcleod:


I like this!

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I am pretty sure I know exactly who you are talking about. What a small world!

I thought the same - he's a great bloke, fit as anything, and good at his job - but climbing Everest does not an achievement; or, perhaps more importantly climber make.

In reply to neuromancer:

Haha, crikey, very small world. Fortunately he knows my thoughts on Everest- and quite rightly he doesn't care what I think!

My thoughts on his Iron Man and recent bike exploits on the other hand. Incredible.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
In fairness (just like virtually every British hill) Everest is a walk, not a climb, so there is no real reason why an Everest summitter should need to know how to climb.

As Andy Kirkpatrick points out in his various videos, Everest is a walk. Technically anything where you have to step over a dead body counts as a walk; on a proper climb the bodies fall to the bottom...

In reply to Only a hill:

About time.

In reply to Only a hill:


It would result in far fewer people attempting the climb, those who did being more experienced and therefore far fewer deaths.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


That is such a common anecdote it's in danger of becoming apocryphal. But I've seen it myself, a few times.


Success without achievement.


No, that's exactly what it is. At least in climbing terms. But Everest is not about climbing.

In reply to Only a hill:

Everest regulations are better than no regulations but I think I'm a good example as to why using 6500m as a benchmark for 'experience' is flawed.

In the last decade I've done a handfull of trips to the Karakoram climbing under 6500m, a couple to the Caucasus, about a dozen trips to the Alps, and 150+ winter routes but this doesn't make me a mountaineer with 'experience' according to the proposed rules.

That is were it not for a guided trip that I did in 2005 to a 7000m peak, during which I was avalanched, got frostbite, didn't know how to tie a figure of eight prior, or abseil. I readily admit to not having a clue back then but I wanted to climb a mountain regardless. Because of this trip I am 'experienced'.

In reply to Only a hill:

A brilliant move by the Nepalese govt. to spread the benefits of tourism around a bit more evenly? Maybe they will come up with a list of peaks on which you have to have served your apprenticeship before attempting Everest? If these ascents had to be above x metres and led by a Nepali guide it would be a brilliant way of getting 2 birds with 1 stone - increased employment away from Everest and reduced death rates on Everest

In reply to Mr. Lee:

I tend to agree with you and for this reason I think it will be a difficult solution to implement.

My source informs me that the Nepalese authorities make proclamations like this most years anyway, but usually nothing ever comes of it – so this could just be more hot air. Nevertheless I think a consensus is building that *something* needs to be done differently on Everest.

In reply to pec:


I'm not sure there's a very robust logic that ties those three points together. Not being able to use fixed ropes would obviously put some people off, but if you're not very experienced and you're being sold a guided ascent of Everest, you may not realise just how much of an impact the lack of fixed ropes will have. It would be more compelling if fixed ropes were removed and minimum standard of ability was insisted upon by guides.

And how many deaths are as a result of lack of experience? Some may be, but there are many reasons why people die. A lot of the deaths on Everest are sherpas - of course, you could argue that fewer clients on Everest would mean fewer sherpas, and hence fewer sherpa deaths.

It seems to me the only way to reduce the numbers of people on Everest is for the Nepalese and Chinese governments to reduce the numbers of permits. Tour operators will always find a way round other restrictions.

In reply to tony:
minimum standards and insisting on no fixed ropes is a bit like removing the car park and stiles at Pen y Pass so that inexeperienced people aren't encouraged to go up Crib Goch, or those cable cars in the alps that get you high enough to end up on hills you could die on.

And that train that takes you up the highest mount in Wales? You should only be allowed to use it if you prove you could've walked it if you had less money.

The best idea so far is that insurance and permit costs should incorporate a tidy up after yourself factor, including removing your body.

In reply to Only a hill:
So who's going to define 'experienced enough'?

Someone who's done a couple of guided 6000 metre peaks may get approved - even though they have sod all real independent technical climbing skill or experience - yet someone who's been cranking out ED2's in the alps over many seasons gets rejected because they've never done a 6000 metre trekking peak?

And experience at 6000 metres, doesn't mean you will still be ok at 8000 metres either.

I know which one I'd sooner have on the other end of my rope on Everest, and it isn't the person working their way through GQ's adventure bucket list for senior executives.

In reply to Goucho:


The Alpine Club asks for 20 alpine climbs in order to become a full member. So the emphasis is on multiple ascents in order to demonstrate experience and genuine interest in Alpinism. I would say using a similar counting scheme (doesn't have to be 20) would gauge someone's general experience better than simply requiring a given altitude to have been broken.

In reply to Only a hill:

Why does everyone seem to think Everest needs some kind of experience qualification when many more people die on other mountains in absolute or relative terms.

In reply to radson:

For me, the rubbish/litter problem on Everest needs a solution. And that solution is to minimise traffic to those who respect the mountains. Typically those who respect the mountains are those who have invested years climbing in them.

I cannot think of another mountain with the scale of litter issues that Everest suffers. I'm willing to be proven wrong however.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Yes, it could have been, for the reasons you suggest, if they'd stipulated that you at least climb something meaty in Nepal first.

But, according to these new rules, someone with zero experience beyond climbing Aconcagua would be able to climb, whereas the Walking with the Wounded ex-servicemen who went to Everest in 2013 (having climbed Manaslu as preparation), wouldn't be allowed to attempt it.

Yet another PR own goal for the Nepalese govt.

In reply to Rob Naylor:


I'll grant you through climbing I've met a huge diversity of people. I did say 'most' not 'all' the people I've climbed with I wouldn't bother with socially outside the sport. Perhaps I'm the one to blame ! Whilst not exactly a sociopath, I can be a difficult bugger !

My post did manage to get 11 dislikes too 2 likes which is perhaps something worth considering more deeply !

In reply to summo:

Not sure this will be the case - the ropes allow the Zermatt guides to haul overweight rich businessmen with very little experience up the Hornli. Taking the ropes away would deprive them of their most lucrative source of income. Many climbers could not really afford the guide fees for the Matterhorn.

In reply to Tom Briggs:




Given your knowledge and experience, if you had been in charge of drafting this policy, what would you have done?

In reply to Annoying Twit:

You already have to submit a bio data form with details of your climbing experience, but I doubt anyone at the Ministry actually reads them, given they wouldn't know what they were looking at anyway.

In reply to Tom Briggs:


Thanks for the reply. But, I must admit that given your experience and position in the industry, whether you might have more specific thoughts on the matter.

E.g. as you say, getting climbers to climb something meaty in Nepal would help maintain (and spread around) the important income for the local communities. Could something like they used to do on those 'drive a Formula one car' days work. You have to work up through different mountains (cars). And if you aren't judged by the instructors to be ready for the next level, you don't get to climb (drive) it, with no refund!

If you're busy, tell me to eff off and I will

In reply to Andy Hardy:


While it might seem like a good idea, what you suggest:

a) "led by a Nepali guide" - forces all (prospective Everest) climbers onto some kind of commercial trip with a so-called local 'guide'. It's a terrible precedent for mountaineering in general and we've seen the 'slippery slope' theory work in practice for this.

b) it forces people onto mountains which may well prove more dangerous than Everest e.g. Baruntse, Pumori, Tilicho have all had avalanche deaths, especially in the post-monsoon (non-Everest) season when companies would probably want to take their prospective Everest clients there.

Commercially guided clients of the kind most-often derided are not the ones who die so publicly on Everest. It's the ones on the side, pretending to be 'independent' on cheaper trips, like the Canadian woman a few years ago, or David Sharp, or the super-strong Alexi Bolotov - or sherpas.

As on Denali and other popular commercialised peaks, clients on the big company teams are usually well looked after by their guides and sherpas and don't have as much chance to get into trouble. As every year goes by, it's increasingly clear that the 1996 incident was an anomaly, not the norm.

In reply to Only a hill:

That would have set Bear Grills back a bit.

In reply to Only a hill: If it really is only a care for the littering et al on the mountain that bothers you then rather than this woolly' experienced' cutoff (and you can still be experienced and absolutely inept) then lets just have a strict quota of people, distributed by country.

I have a nasty suspicion that a lot of this is that people don't like'outsiders', and think it should be the preserve of the 'worthy' mountaineer.

In reply to Only a hill:

Speaking of just seeing the new Everest film; I wonder if anyone can answer my question - Using Everest as an example because im sure it's not the only place this occurs, but.. when watching the film I couldn't really understand why the 'climbers' weren't in some way attached to the descent ropes on sections they can 'fall off', off slopes, into crevasses etc. After asking some mountaineering type friends i've ruled out assisted devices because of the forward downhill position not working with the devices, and possibility of them not working with frozen ropes... but i'm still left without a real answer to my query. Would it not be safer to come down backwards perhaps, so as to put tension on the rope and sort of walk rappel on something like a figure8?

Any ideas?

In reply to Only a hill:

I still think the Nepalese government should implement an Everest policy where prospective climbers get a cheaper permit if they have successfully climbed other Nepalese mountain. As a very simplified example, Permit is 25k per person for the big 'E' but 20 k if have climbed a 6,000 m peak, 15 k ala 7,000 m peak or 10 k if climbed an 8,000 m. Thus directs climbers to other Nepalese mountains, promotes experience before climbing Everest and increases revenue via multiple permits for those great guys at the Department of Civil Aviation and Tourism

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Have you seen the rubbish on Everest lately. Most of the stuff I saw was really old uncovered at Camp 2 from very warm temperatures. The garbage deposits are rightly onerous on expeditions and with the fee paid for empty bottles, I think a lot has already been done on Everest.

In reply to radson:


That's a nice plan and could work well if implemented efficiently in a holistic business sense. i.e. Nepalaya Inc.*

I move a motion and put forward radson to manage the paperwork and administration of this process and take responsibility for adherence and enforcement of the new rules. Do we have a second? (SECONDED!) I can't see how this could possibly fail.

Remuneration to be in warm fuzzies and Facebook Likes, with a performance bonus set by the Icefall Doctors. Benefits include free lasagna at Fire & Ice and a fake Mammut raincoat.




* A Member of the Halliburton Group

In reply to Damo:

Awesome. I am humbled by the nomination and feel very privileged for this opportunity.

I hereby propose a private equity spin off from the Nepalese Culture, Civil Aviation and Tourism office. We can call it umm...Extreme Summits.

All summits have to be verified by Delorme (commercial tie in and lease out the units to climbers) coupled with photographic evidence of climber, summit and tracker. This is to stop Hank from New Jersey, Sue from Melbourne or Jasdeep from Mumbai sending Nima up to the summit with the Delorne.

All summiteers to get the coveted TNF fleece summit jackets. Brown for 6000 m, Grey for 7,00 m, Gold for 8,000 m and Maroon for Everest. Buy jackets for $13.95 and include for free with the permit. Maroon jacket wearers to get free belay plate (ATC or Reverso!!) instruction so as to crush it belaying at the gym and not look like a jugging numpty. Official summit thermos, water bottles, tea towels and snow globes extra.

Extreme Summits to get 15% cut of all permit fees for admin and rest of permit fee to be sent to Tourism Ministry's Swiss bank account of choice.


..easy peasey

In reply to wbo:

Why is it 'nasty' to want to resort a mountain back to nature and ask people climb it with minimal impact? If you cannot do it without asking someone else to lay hundreds of meters of fixed rope, lug hundreds of kilos of kit to be abandoned and install a step ladder at the top for you, then I personally don't think you should be there. If only 'worthy' mountaineers are able to avoid this then so be it. My feelings don't simply apply to Everest either, I apply this to all mountains.

Out of interest how would you feel about people paying NASA millions to go to the moon if (hypothetically) the result of their trip (unlike the case of trained astronauts) was large piles of litter, ropes and dead bodies in space suits strewn all over the lunar surface? Would you not find that a travesty? Would you not ask that future travellers have the required training to make a return journey leaving only footprints?

In reply to Damo:

Fair points made. I was thinking from the perspective of using Everest as a lever to promote tourism to other parts of Nepal, with the added benefit of ensuring those heading to the south col do so with more experience.

I'm probably being horribly ignorant, but couldn't there be different levels of mountaineering licences for Everest and the rest of Nepal? A level 1 licence is obtained if you can provide evidence of qualifying climbs such as the proposed 6500m summit or similar. (E.g. does someone fail to qualify if they sensibly turn back 200m from the summit compared to someone who puts themselves and others at risk by pushing on). If you've got a level 1 licence you can only go on guided climbs.

Those whose experience and skills are demonstrably higher than that qualify for a level 2 licence, allowing them to climb independently etc. For the Damos, Tom Briggs, and Ueli Stecks of this world.

Damo raises the issue of who will administer the scheme. Surely if there is a cost for licences, it could be subcontracted out to one of the major guiding companies (preferably Nepalese). If there's to be any policing of who can climb Everest, there needs to be some paperwork and enforcement involved.

In reply to Damo:
"As every year goes by, it's increasingly clear that the 1996 incident was an anomaly, not the norm. "

I dont see it that way.. its just the expected outlier in a constant list of deaths but the combination of factors that caused it could happen again. Its not what most would regard as black swan.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_died_climbing_Mount_Ever...

In reply to Offwidth:




I'm not quite sure what an expected outlier is, or a black swan. The wikipedia list isn't really very helpful in identifying trends - there's nothing that indicates the relative skill levels of those who have died. What is does show, quite horribly, is how many sherpas die.

In reply to Offwidth:

Of the top of my head, '96 is unlikely to happen again in some part due to.

- fixed ropes fixed to summit usually set way before main teams attempt summit
- Fixed ropes back to within 100 m or so of Camp 4 thus preventing people getting lost over the South Col
- much better weather reporting.
- generally much more oxygen lying around and a long history of teamwork between the big teams.

In reply to Offwidth:



I was going to disagree with you and say that anomalies and outliers are predicted but Black Swan events are not, as per some definitions. However the issue of expectation/surprise is quite subjective and reliant upon the observer. I think going by Wikipedia's definition of a Black Swan event, it disagrees with you - and actually describes the 1996 incident pretty well, particularly in terms of broader effect (umpteen books, at least four movies, this thread, etc).

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory#Identifying_a_black_swan_ev...

"Identifying a black swan event[edit]
Based on the author's criteria:
The event is a surprise (to the observer).
The event has a major effect.
After the first recorded instance of the event, it is rationalized by hindsight, as if it could have been expected; that is, the relevant data were available but unaccounted for in risk mitigation programs. "

In reply to Damo:
The risk of such an event was predicted regularly by those concerned (including some of the guiding companies worried about poor practice from other teams.. I spoke to some about it at Kendal MFF) and a repeat sometime is regularly predicted.

The effect is arguably serious but not major... in that deaths are normal every year and often cluster due to weather events and other contributary factors.

It wasn't the first event of its type (clusterf*ck linked to bad weather on a himalayan peak), it was just the worst so far. It wasn't rationalised in hindsight, it was predicted to be likley given an unlucky combination of circumstances and sadly they happened that year.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

The litter issue on Everest was largely solved years ago by offering porters money to bring down rubbish and O2 bottles. The South Side is actually pretty clean now.

There are many myths about Everest:

1. It's covered in used oxygen bottles. Not true.
2. It's covered in dead bodies. Not true. There are now very few - usually on the North Side and often hard to get to.
3. It's just a walk. Not true. If you have to use your hands then you're not walking. Remove the fixed ropes on the Lhotse face and it would be even harder.
4. The Hillary Step is a huge and serious obstacle. Not if you're actually a climber. The step is actually only climbed for about 12 feet. You then walk left around the corner on a big ledge to rejoin the track. It's actually about Mod/Diff grade climbing for that short section. However if people aren't climbers they struggle with it.

Perhaps if people got evidence from people who had been there rather than from the tabloids there would be less nonsense printed about Everest.

Safe climbing everyone....

In reply to stuartmacdonald:

As you are clearly in agreement with some of my points I don't think your final comment was necessarily directed at me. Though to clarify my thoughts come predominantly from a friend who made two trips to the south side and successfully submitted on one.