Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 135 posts

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#51

Post by InclinedPlane »

cyberferret wrote: post #3

I can understand a persons willingness to 'push the envelope' and stretch themselves to reach their goals, but I am always mystified by the seeming lack of understanding by those who try and tackle Everest when they are not at peak climbing ability. In almost every case, it is the local Sherpas who will have to then risk their own lives to undertake a rescue or recovery operation if you don't make it. Plus, I would h…

Everest is the worst example of mountaineering. For many it's just an achievement, not an experience, not something that's worthwhile on its own merits. And in that light it makes it more obvious why so many people fall into the trap of tackling it unprepared. Many people don't understand how challenging it can be and they think that if they just struggle through and be miserable for a few days they'll come out the other end with a shiny brass ring they can decorate their life with, something that will serve as bragging rights and help define who they are as a person for their life. It's really not much different than, say, college, for that matter. When you have people who have been rewarded so much for gaming the system, when you have people who struggle constantly in the search for authenticity and meaning in their life they are prone to try to fake their way through.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#52

Post by InclinedPlane »

starpilot wrote: post #19
osrec wrote: post #8

Everest is an absolute beast of a climb. Even with preparation and a full team, lives can be (and have been) lost. Going it alone, while remarkable, is extremely deadly and Nepal is doing the responsible thing by banning such endeavours. For other teams of climbers also, it's one of the more sinister (and perhaps annoying) things - when you're doing well on your climb, but your good nature makes you abort your effort…

It has no technical challenge from the standard "tourist" route and mainly presents economic obstacles, in that it costs as much as an SUV. Most people in decent health could train for a year and summit successfully. It is the mountaineering equivalent of reading an entire encyclopedia. Sheer volume of effort is all it takes.

That assumes everything goes well. When things start to not go well then the survival outcomes start changing dramatically based on who has more preparation and experience.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#53

Post by steveax »

look_lookatme wrote: post #7
basicplus2 wrote: post #4

Why ban solo climbing? If an idiot wants to do something stupid, why interfere with natural selection? And why waste money looking for them?

I haven’t read the current rationale but one thing I’ve read is that Everest is _crowded_. This is OK when everything is moving along ok, but when something goes wrong it can be catastrophic for the climbers in front and behind you. I imagine it’s likely that solo climbers have higher incidents of accidents on Everest than group climbers. As far as why waste money.. if you are asking that question in earnest there’s…

If you wanted to reduce the crowds on Everest, you’d ban guided climbs, not solo climbs. Solo climbing big mountains is rarified territory that attracts relatively few participants.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#54

Post by ordinaryperson »

Just hiking to Everest Base Camp and nearby Kala Pattar (8.5 days, ~18,500 ft) was brutal for me -- and that was with porters carrying my heavier gear.

Hopefully this will save the lives of a few Sherpas (who, btw, are an ethnic group; it's not a job title). They're inevitably tasked with attempting to save rich Western idiots doing stupid stuff like climb Everest without support.

I'd just add my personal experience on the mountain: it's hard to describe how brutal Everest is. You're so cold and so tired and so out of it, 99% of us (those without natural-born mountaineering gifts) being up there unaided is just a recipe for disaster.

Next I'd like to see the Nepalese government double the Everest permit fee (currently $11,000) and pass $$ onto Sherpas.

Doubt it will happen, but this is at least a small victory.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#55

Post by sandworm101 »

cyberferret wrote: post #3

I can understand a persons willingness to 'push the envelope' and stretch themselves to reach their goals, but I am always mystified by the seeming lack of understanding by those who try and tackle Everest when they are not at peak climbing ability. In almost every case, it is the local Sherpas who will have to then risk their own lives to undertake a rescue or recovery operation if you don't make it. Plus, I would h…

I wouldn't blame the mountain. It isn't dangerous anymore, not like it once was. Modern climbing is extraordinarily safe. We now have gear that we can actually trust. Ropes are now basically magic. But more importantly, modern communications and weather forecasting mean climbers no longer need step into the void. Dangers that were once total unknowns are now calculable. It is much easier to be bold when you know what you are about to face. So I'd say the mountain is exactly as dangerous as those climbing it want it to make it. We are just now realizing that well-informed and equipped people often take risks that previous less-informed generations would never consider. Soloing everest was once crazy, but I wouldn't be surprised if some idiot out there is planning the first free-solo on-sight.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#57

Post by fergie »

If you haven't read them already, I really recommend the following two books:

"Into Thin Air" by John Krakauer was the first book to critically explore the "Death Zone" and the state of mountaineering on Everest generally- It was written in 1997, but is just as relevant now.

"Dark Shadows Falling" by Joe Simpson is another commentary on the state of mountaineering on Everest in 1997. Simpson was famously left for dead on a high altitude climb (described in "Touching The Void"), so he brings a keen insight into the morals of high-altitude climbing from the point of view of the "one that was left behind".

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#58

Post by ryannevius »

ng12 wrote: post #50
ryannevius wrote: post #25

It's unfortunate that world-class alpinists such as Kilian Jornet -- who recently summited Everest solo, in 26 hours, without supplemental oxygen, after training his ass off for years [1] -- won't be able to attempt such a challenge again (unless I'm missing something). There has to be a better solution to the problem mentioned in the article. [1] https://www.outsideonline.com/2187266/kilian-jornet-summits-...

True, but surmounting Everest is not the end-game. K2 is a more grueling, technically difficult climb -- and it's only ~800ft shorter than Everest. That's sort of the problem here, even though Everest is the tallest it's a relatively accessible climb with enough money/gear/training.

There are literally thousands of more difficult climbs in the Himalaya...I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. For some (even world-class alpinists), summiting Everest faster and by "fair means" is an end game.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#59

Post by pavel_lishin »

rascalbrother wrote: post #27
qaq wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Delsalle I bet you could design helicopter that would be able to repeat this with much less effort

That chopper was stripped to the bone so that one dude could fly in it, with a fuel time of 1 hour. It also landed on the summit which is more flat. Don't think it would be easily and safely able to carry an addition (dead) body that's probably perched on an incline, let alone carry rescuers. It takes upwards of 6 hours to chip the dead body off the ice (if it's been frozen there for a while)

According to Wikipedia, he didn't remove that much:

> Delsalle used a virtually standard version of the Eurocopter AS350 Squirrel B3, only removing unnecessary elements, such as passenger seats, to reduce the standard weight by 120 kg (265 lb) and thus extend the 1-hour fuel range.

And in any case, I believe the user you responded to was talking about rescues, not removing corpses.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#60

Post by justinator »

paulcole wrote: post #42
ryannevius wrote: post #25

It's unfortunate that world-class alpinists such as Kilian Jornet -- who recently summited Everest solo, in 26 hours, without supplemental oxygen, after training his ass off for years [1] -- won't be able to attempt such a challenge again (unless I'm missing something). There has to be a better solution to the problem mentioned in the article. [1] https://www.outsideonline.com/2187266/kilian-jornet-summits-...

Seems like there’s doubts that Kilian submitted at all. Personally, I think he did, but as of now there’s really no proof. http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8591724 Edit: Why downvote this? Is there any evidence Kilian submitted beyond his word?

Jornet isn't just some random wahoo. He's won pretty much every major ultra trail race there is, has an unparalleled race ski mountaineering career, and FKTs on other major Seven Summits, including Denali. He's an outlier''s outlier. What then, does he need to prove? What would the reason be for him to lie?
Post reply on HN