UKC

The international governing body for mountaineering, the UIAA (Union Internationale des Associations d'Alpinisme) has announced that it will be supporting restrictions as outlined by Nepalese authorities to prevent inexperienced and unsuitable mountaineers from attempting to summit Everest from the South.

Read more

In reply to UKC News:

The 6500m prerequisite is so arbitrary. As was discussed on here last time, what's wrong with just having to have insurance for rescue/remove your body and crap off the mountain if you die? Your insurance premium is worked out based on how much experience you have.

Insurance for very inexperienced person: £1,000,000.00
Insurance for Ueli Steck: £8.99

The rest of us somewhere in between. If you're super inexperienced then it's prohibitively expensive for almost all.

In reply to UKC News:

Why don't they just ban oxygen?

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:





Doesn't seem to prevent half of the people that go up there.

In reply to Dave Flanagan:

Maybe, but only very few people are capable of summiting without oxygen. How about a policy of no oxygen below the South Col except for emergencies.

In reply to Dave Flanagan:


There would be the same problem as there is now. Those with little to no experience who ascend Everest now are not put off by the dangers because I imagine they don't understand the risks or are willing to take a blind chance. The way I justify mountaneering is you cut down all risks that are in your control. For example not knowing how to use crampons before leaving for Everest does not fall in to that line of thinking

Why would anyone want to go somewhere already so dangerious without experience of similar challenges?

For the inexperienced people already willing, no bottled oxygen will simply be another hazzard they don't comprehend fully.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


A lot of people would simply make up a list of ascents if it meant slashing insurance costs.

Problem I think is that the authorities are introducing these rules as much to ensure people keep visiting Everest. I don't think they seriously want to reduce numbers given the revenue it generates.

Mandatory full membership of an National Alpine club might be a way of filtering out some of the trophy chasers. Most of these Alpine Clubs seem to ask members to have a certain level of experience in order to join. People could of course lie but the effort needed to go through the application process and risk of being caught out might at least disuade some from bothering.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

But surely you could require photos for evidence of more recent achievements and testimonials of climbing partners. Much like we have with notable first ascents these days? The goal is just to stop the very inexperienced who don't appreciate the risks and cannot help themselves when the shit hits the fan going near the mountain.

"You've been climbing 20 years, you did the Walker Spur last winter and then the Peutery Integral a few weeks later, this year you've done Broad Peak and lots of high altitude trekking. You've provided these photos and these testimonials. Your risk rating is 'c', your mandatory Body Removal Insurance Premium is £400 for next year on Everest." For example.

Or on the other hand: "You claim you've been climbing 20 years, you claim you've done Mont Blanc via the Gouter and have been unable to provide evidence. You have only been able to provide pictures of yourself and your dog on Munros in Summer in Scotland. We consider you high risk category 'a-'. Until you can provide further evidence of experience your premium is £50,000".

In the latter case the climber would just need to spend a season or two documenting some more meaty things that s/he'd be doing anyway if s/he was actually in to climbing. So it shouldn't be a problem.

This would all be on top of all other insurance costs and would be called something quite grizzly as I presented above to remind people that it is indeed very dangerous to piss about at 8000m with low experience levels.

In reply to Mr. Lee:


Not the French or Austrian, not been a member of any others

In reply to UKC News:

Also, as rightly pointed out in the article, refusal based on disability doesn't sit well with me. There's a lot more predudice toward disability in South Asia compared to the UK. For example finding work as an amputee is disproportionately hard even when perfectly capable. The perception of what a disabled person is capable of is a lot lower than here. It worries me how such people and similar will be viewed when making an application.

In reply to UKC News:

(No means of enforcing these regulations ). Shouldn't the guides be held accountable for taking the inexperienced up?? Maybe this would help cut back the problems? ??

In reply to UKC News:

The UIAA is not "The international governing body for mountaineering," it is the representative body. They have no powers to govern anyone and merely represent the interests of it´s members.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I know you're being facetious, but its not the body removal bit that's the issue. Bodies have been left up there for decades. Its the fact that inexperienced mountaineers make day planning difficult, slow down the pace and potentially exposure other people to risk trying to support them. Above all, there's the question of the inequity of sherpas, people with not much choice outside of insanely dangerous employment, being exploited by those with bigger wallets.

In reply to ModerateMatt:

But without the assistance of oxygen most people would realise, even the dopes, that they have 0 chance of summitting, hard to justify 50k on those odds even for total morons.

In reply to UKC News:

Couldn't we just set up a fake Everest base camp on a nice 6000m mountain somewhere in the Himalayas? Then all the people who have no clue what they are doing don't kill themselves while supporting the Nepalese tourist industry, and those who go 'hang on a minute...' get taken to the real base camp... :P