Hillary rips climbers who left dying man

[Chip]

This story is being broadcast by a NY News Radio Station today as a teaser head-line: "Climber on Everest left to die by group of 40".

I have no desire to summit Everest as I don't think I could step over the garbage and deceased and still feel good about my accomplishment. BUT, most are looking at this like it's a tough hike that should be interupted to help out. I believe the risks here are more akin to something like Base Jumping - they know there's a HIGH probabilty of death going into it and they accept that. If a base jumper's parachute failed, would you give them yours ? And if you would, it still might not be possible and you'd both die.

 

[NumNum]

My Fiance told me about this, shock, and anger is what comes to mind. I guess they never heard the story of the good samaritan? Perhaps they soon shall find it!

 

[Gris]

I saw Krakauer on the tube not long ago. He said he was sorry he ever went to Everest and sure wouldn't ever go again. To each his own, but for myself i tend to agree w/ Mr. K. Sure, there's a balance between truly "living" life and hunkering down and avoiding all risk, but to me there IS a line of insanity and anyone who steps foot on that mountain for the purpose of summiting has already crossed it. My point in this thread being what would you expect from the type of people who would be up there in the first place (w/maybe a slight exception to some guides). Most of em have to be extremely, obsessively self centered in the first place to even be there. To listen to him, Beck Weathers also has a better, truer perspective on life, family, the stuff that really matters now...

 

[DougPaul]

It appears that Mark Inglis's (the double amputee) party attempted to help David Sharp. Sharp was beyond help and rescue for a non-ambulatory climber is basically impossible at those altutudes (8500m). http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3678735a10,00.html

If the referenced report is accurate, Inglis's party did the right thing--not add themselves to the fatality lists. At this point it no longer mattered whether they continued to the summit or turned back--turning back would not have helped Sharp. (In fact, one of the other reports says that a sherpa gave Sharp his oxygen and tried for an hour to help him move. The sherpa gave up his summit attempt and turned around. http://www.mounteverest.net/morenews.php)

The routes to the summit of Everest are littered with bodies. The statistics were (are?) about 1 death for 10 summiters.

I think some of the outcry is over the loss of tradition. Once upon a time, leaving someone to die alone was "unthinkable", even at risk to oneself. Nowdays, it seems that there are more cases of parties unwilling to help even their own members. At least there are more reports.

On a mountain like Everest, leaving a member of one's party to die is sometimes the right thing to do if there is a high risk of sacrificing additional party members. There was a famous incident on the 1971 International Everest Expidition where they were unable to rescue Harsh Bahunguna even at siginficant risk to themselves and Don Whillians utters his famous remark "Sorry Harsh old son, you've had it." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=harsh+whillans+everest&btnG=Google+Search

Not something that is likely to happen in the NE. Perhaps akin to someone trapped in a raging rapid--he will die shortly and anyone who tries to rescue him will very likely die too.

Doug

 

[iceNsnow]

Sleeping bear!!!

I agree with your comments. But am posting because I thought you were taking a deeper look into the situation and it was merited. Then I glanced at your avatar and thought you were holding a large magnifing glass and thought "how appropriate!!!"

yes , I now realize it is a pot, but I couldn't help liking the imagery.

 

[dr_wu002]

Hillary!

On a mountain like Everest, leaving a member of one's party to die is sometimes the right thing to do if there is a high risk of sacrificing additional party members. There was a famous incident on the 1971 International Everest Expidition where they were unable to rescue Harsh Bahunguna even at siginficant risk to themselves and Don Whillians utters his famous remark "Sorry Harsh old son, you've had it." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=harsh+whillans+everest&btnG=Google+Search

Doug: Nice post and it makes sense. However -- they made a movie on top of the mountain. I still think they could have done more, especially with 40 people along. At what point can you and your whole group say screw it? I understand that there are many times in which you have to. I'm just not sure this was one. Was it their safety they were concerned with? Or were they thinking, "I just spent $75,000 to get here, I'm not going to let some guy with faulty oxygen stop me 1000' below the summit." Probably never know but I'm skeptical. What Hillary says is good enough for me.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Krakauer has the true story... ...because it's the only story I know
...just doing some light point-making here
But, thanks for bringing that up. I knew of this book but didn't see the need to read it after reading Krakauer's (Krakauer seemed pretty thorough in his research), but seems like I'll have to pick up a copy of The Climb and get it in my reading queue

Keep in mind that Boukrev's "The Climb" was ghost-written by a co-author trying to save the face if not the career of a paid guide aspiring to become the foremost Himalayan mountaineer, who in 1996 summited Everest without oxygen, then descended to the South Col before all his clients were down, so that "he would be ready if needed."

Krakauer, on the other hand, was a guided client in 1996 (Outside Magazine paid his $60k fee), albeit one with a superb climbing resume in his own right, if not the altitude experience of Boukrev, who readily admitted in his Outside Magazine article and in his book "Into Thin Air" that he was lucky to get back down to the South Col by himself after his own oxygen tank ran out.

So, obviously the two books are like night and day in their points of view. If the multitude of climbers in 1996 had not been nailed so high up by such a severe storm, probably they all would have made it back down in one piece. But, the margin of error in the Death Zone does not treat favorably such consequences, not in 1924, not in 1996, and not in 2006.

 

[Maddy]

If the referenced report is accurate, Inglis's party did the right thing--not add themselves to the fatality lists.
On a mountain like Everest, leaving a member of one's party to die is sometimes the right thing to do if there is a high risk of sacrificing additional party members. There was a famous incident on the 1971 International Everest Expidition where they were unable to rescue Harsh Bahunguna even at siginficant risk to themselves and Don Whillians utters his famous remark "Sorry Harsh old son, you've had it." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=harsh+whillans+everest&btnG=Google+Search

This fact was reiterated repeatedly in most of the high altitude expedition books that I have read. It is so well documented and to my knowledge I don't think much has changed up in the "death zone". If all these climbers are murderers well then so are the countless others who have climbed at that altitude and made the decision to press on in similar situations.
It appears that this victim was given oxygen but no great miracle occured. And there is mention made that another teamate died as well. It's very tragic but there is no rescue available at that altitude and it's for good reason. The double amputee isn't going to bail you out and neither is anyone else. "Sorry Harsh old son, you've had it". It ain't pretty but it's reality!

 

[DougPaul]

Doug: Nice post and it makes sense. However -- they made a movie on top of the mountain. I still think they could have done more, especially with 40 people along. At what point can you and your whole group say screw it? I understand that there are many times in which you have to. I'm just not sure this was one. Was it their safety they were concerned with? Or were they thinking, "I just spent $75,000 to get here, I'm not going to let some guy with faulty oxygen stop me 1000' below the summit." Probably never know but I'm skeptical.

Its a very harsh environment up there (of course, some days are worse than others) and only very motivated people make it to the top. And unlike Mt Washington in winter (which as most of us know, can also have harsh weather), a climber may only get one (or no) shot at the top. The weather windows can be short and unpredictable (100 mi snow plumes off the summit are common when the jet stream hits the upper mountain...). Altitude also dulls one's ability to think. It is possilble that people are simply fixated (summit fever)--it takes three(?) to six weeks of acclimatization to be ready for a summit attempt. Maybe they are callous. Maybe they just glanced at Sharp and decided that it was unlikly they could help (or heard that someone else had tried and had decided that there was no hope). Maybe they just weren't thinking at all. I'm sure that a number of other members of this BBS can suggest other plausable reasons too.

None of us here can know exactly what was going on in people's heads, but it is at least nice to know that some tried to help Sharp.

The margin of life at the summit is very slim: if someone is transported directly from sea level to 29000ft (8800m), he will be unconcious within a few minutes and dead in a half hour or so. (I think these times are correct--I couldn't find the reference.) People wear full-body down suits because there isn't oxygen for them to work hard enough to stay warm.

BTW, I read one report that Sharp had started late. <pure speculation> If this is true, he might have been benighted (he was 300m below the summit), and been beyond help by the time people found him the next morning. </pure speculation>

BTW2, I think Sharp was on the N Col route. The final part of this route is long, high and has some technical sections. It would be very difficult to get an incapacited climber down this route. (The S col ("normal route") has a shorter high final section.)

BTW3, according to a report on http://www.mounteverest.net/morenews.php there have been 15 fatalities on Everest so far this year.

If anyone is interested in reading about altitude, "Going Higher" by C. S. Huston is worth reading. (At REI, EMS, etc.)

Doug

 

[Kevin Rooney]

While I understand the extreme risk to climbers on Everest, and the knowledge that rescue is doubtful at best, I applaud Hillary's comments.

I don't think the climbers on Everest are any less representative than hikers in the Northeast in terms of their compassion and willingness to help others in need. A few months ago there was a long thread on this BB about what, if any, obligation we have to fellow hikers on the trail. Some of the responses were an eye-opener.

 

[DougPaul]

This fact was reiterated repeatedly in most of the high altitude expedition books that I have read. It is so well documented and to my knowledge I don't think much has changed up in the "death zone". If all these climbers are murderers well then so are the countless others who have climbed at that altitude and made the decision to press on in similar situations.

AFAIK, the death zone (there seem to be multiple definitions of the bounding altutude) hasn't changed. The highest that people can exist for long periods is ~16Kft. Anything higher and you break down faster than you can repair.

I wouldn't use the word murder here--there are no reports that anyone actually harmed Sharp. They only failed to render assistance or tried and were unable to help.

It appears that this victim was given oxygen but no great miracle occured. And there is mention made that another teamate died as well. It's very tragic but there is no rescue available at that altitude and it's for good reason. The double amputee isn't going to bail you out and neither is anyone else. "Sorry Harsh old son, you've had it". It ain't pretty but it's reality!

Inglis (the amputee) has stated that members of his party more able to help rendered the aid, he himself kept going.

LIfe can be harsh at altitude.

Doug

 

[sardog1]

While I understand the extreme risk to climbers on Everest, and the knowledge that rescue is doubtful at best, I applaud Hillary's comments.

I don't think the climbers on Everest are any less representative than hikers in the Northeast in terms of their compassion and willingness to help others in need. A few months ago there was a long thread on this BB about what, if any, obligation we have to fellow hikers on the trail. Some of the responses were an eye-opener.

Another person who agrees with Hillary is Juan Oiarzabal, who has "been there and done that" many times, including 21 summits on 8000 meter peaks.

It's hard to imagine that these two guys don't know what they're talking about, whether it's climbing Everest, or the devolution of climbers' ethics over the years, or the effect of the almighty $$$ on the whole subject at hand.

 

[dr_wu002]

Link

Another person who agrees with Hillary is Juan Oiarzabal, who has "been there and done that" many times, including 21 summits on 8000 meter peaks.

It's hard to imagine that these two guys don't know what they're talking about, whether it's climbing Everest, or the devolution of climbers' ethics over the years, or the effect of the almighty $$$ on the whole subject at hand.

Nice. Thank you for that link. And, nice post.

-Dr. Wu

 

[DougPaul]

Another person who agrees with Hillary is Juan Oiarzabal, who has "been there and done that" many times, including 21 summits on 8000 meter peaks.

It's hard to imagine that these two guys don't know what they're talking about, whether it's climbing Everest, or the devolution of climbers' ethics over the years, or the effect of the almighty $$$ on the whole subject at hand.

According the the reports on www.mounteverest.net, some agree, some disagree, some are silent.

BTW, this isn't the first time that dying climbers have been left on the mountain. IIRC, there was a similar incident high on the N ridge (N col route) several years age where dying climbers were passed by members of other parties. There was even an incident where several climbers abandoned an incapacitated member of their own party to go for the summit.

Doug

 

[sleeping bear]

While I understand the extreme risk to climbers on Everest, and the knowledge that rescue is doubtful at best, I applaud Hillary's comments.

I don't think the climbers on Everest are any less representative than hikers in the Northeast in terms of their compassion and willingness to help others in need. A few months ago there was a long thread on this BB about what, if any, obligation we have to fellow hikers on the trail. Some of the responses were an eye-opener.

Very good point, I had been thinking about this myself. It's slightly different, but I was amazed at how many people responded saying that even if they were some sort of group at the trailhead, that they took 100% responsibility for themselves and did not count on anyone else. We weren't even talking about someone dying (yet anyway) but rather ditching someone along the way. I don't think those who have responded to this thread are the same as responded to that one.

It appears that this guy we're all talking about was on a solo summit attempt. You can't go on a solo climb/hike whatever and assume that if you meet trouble that others will come to your rescue, that's why you hike with other people. If you want to go solo, you take responsibility for yourself. Again, I'm not justifying the guy being left to die, even if he was half frozen- look at Beck Wethers, just trying to make a point.

 

[pilgrim]

Shades of Kitty Genovese _ just a different terrain and a different era.

Kew Gardens is way colder than Everest, or was on that sad night.

An ugly story. There are many ugly stories from Everest. Not all of them get a lot of public attention; most of us only know what Krakauer has told us.

Too many people up there. Too many people everywhere.

 

[REK]

When a future outcome, however noble, seems of greater worth than the human being before us, any means, any atrocity, is possible.
Faith and Practice, NEYMF 1986

 

[TMax]

I don't think the climbers on Everest are any less representative than hikers in the Northeast in terms of their compassion and willingness to help others in need.

And here's a story that shows us that people do make other decisions. And this guy is American .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5019288.stm

 

[expat]

Wow!

Whatever the actual situation was, I'm very dismayed at some of the attitudes expressed here. I just hope I'm not in the way of some of you while you're driving up Rt 16 to get to the trailhead so that you can bag your summit!

The attitude that seems to be something like "mountaineering is dangerous, so he shouldn't expect any help" is very disturbing. I can see where Hillary is coming from.

It seems that Everest is now filled with mostly two types of people: guides or clients. The clients haven't paid the dues and aren't prepared to assist anyone and the guides can't help because it would put their clients in danger. I suspect that the story would have been different on another peak where the climbers are mostly self-funded teams or individuals.

Those of you who seemed to think that it would be OK to pass by on the way up to the summit, instead of stopping to assist in any possible way, and maybe even abandoning summit plans (perish the thought!) remind me too much of Jeremy Haas, who left Derek Tinkham to die.

 

[Maddy]

I wouldn't use the word murder here--there are no reports that anyone actually harmed Sharp. They only failed to render assistance or tried and were unable to help.
Doug

Yes...I totally agree. I only used the "murderer" word because it was used by someone on the boards to describe Inglis and I was very upset by this.

Here are some neat words from some hard core climbers who have "been there, done that".
Friedl Mutschelechnet on 1982 climb of Kangchenjunga with Messner:
"All I can do is wait, helplessly, watching him (Messner) struggle. It is a question of survival. It would come very hard if to save yourself you were forced to leave a partner behind in such situations, but that is the reality. Each has the right, perhaps even the duty, to do just that." Messner finally made it to down to camp2. "Only when the Sherpas in Camp 2 greet us with hot tea, do we know that we have survived."
Kurt Diemberger speaking on his summit attempts on K2 with Julie Tullis and four others in a group of seven.Five of the seven lost their lives including Tullis. "I consider it of the utmost importance that anyone who climbs to such heights should be constantly aware that above 8000 meters no rescue is possible , and that you should not spend a single unnecessary day up there."
Another statement he makes in regards to himself and Messer:
"I know that we both owe our survival largely to the strict adherence to rules we hold to be right, whatever other might think; and that can extend well into the region of instinct.The mountain will tolerate me or it will not.If I can build a relationship with it, then I may bind my life to it in the sense that I am able to climb to its summit."
"The many expeditions you find these days on 8000meter routes can certainly lead to greater international co-operation, on the one hand, but equally can increase the overall danger."
We certainly have seen this evolve. I really look forward to the VFTT debates when the present day Everest survivors move on to K2 and Nanga.
I really do have the utmost respect for most individuals who do this kind of climbing and reflecting on their enthusiasm, courage, and determination has certainly helped me to get through difficult periods in my life both on and off the mountains.
GO BRUTUS!!! As an aside did you folks know that the great musher Susan Butcher took a sled dog team up Denali not once but twice???