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

'I found your dad': The mystery of a missing climber

espn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: 'I found your dad': The mystery of a missing climber

#31

Post by agurk »

amiga386 wrote: post #17
billy99k wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same with base jumping. I remember watching a documentary on it one time and almost all of the people being interviewed knew multiple people that died during a jump.

They are not the same. In mountaineering, if something goes wrong, you could die. In base jumping, if you don't do everything correctly, you will die. A bit like the difference of a car engine failing (it will roll to a stop) vs an airplane engine failing (you will come down hard on the ground)

An engine failing on an aircraft, especially a light aircraft, is not a guaranteed crash landing. It is a serious situation, however aircraft usually glide well. This means you have opportunities to find somewhere that is adequate for landing. Many aircraft with engine failures have landed safely on airstrips. Interestingly this is also the case with helicopters due to their ability to autorotate.

Re: 'I found your dad': The mystery of a missing climber

#32

Post by blackguardx »

carabiner wrote: post #26
blackguardx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving to the mountains is often more dangerous than climbing a mountain. Things change at the elite levels, but that is true for any sport.

No, stop that. That's bullshit and Will Gadd calls it out: https://www.instagram.com/realwillgadd/p/CdoHJjag_QC/

Will Gadd and his friends are at an elite level. They would call most mountain climbing done in the continental US, summits like Mt. Baldy, "hiking."

Re: 'I found your dad': The mystery of a missing climber

#33

Post by stefan_ »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #19
neckardt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with mountains is twofold: Many mountains can be climbed without being elite while exposing yourself to major risk, and for some mountains there is objective hazard that can’t be mitigated. One example of an “easy” but high risk climb is Mt. Rainier in Washington. All you need to go up is a set of crampons and a backpack, no technical mountaineering needed. However the mountain is full of glaciers that ca…

>> Objective hazard is risks that cannot be reasonably mitigated. Things like rockfall where a rock breaks off and falls on your head at random, or unpredictable avalanches Those risks can be mitigated. They can't be reduced to zero, but they can be made less severe. Avalanches don't typically happen randomly out of the blue any more than thunderstorms do in the midwest. In the midwest, you know days ahead of time th…

Which is why they all carry beacons, so when they fail they can involve others in their folly. Dunno, you wanna leave civilization, that's like a billion dollar risk premium right there.

Re: 'I found your dad': The mystery of a missing climber

#34

Post by brailsafe »

crazygringo wrote: post #27
blackguardx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving to the mountains is often more dangerous than climbing a mountain. Things change at the elite levels, but that is true for any sport.

Do you have a citation for that? In my personal experience, that does not seem true. I have a number of friends who have been seriously injured climbing, e.g. from large rocks falling from above, presumably loosened by water freezing and expanding over the winter. I don't know anyone who's gotten into an accident on their trip to or from climbing. Car accidents are already pretty rare overall, and driving to/from cli…

> Mountains are inherently dangerous, unpredictable places in ways that roads usually aren't.

Mountains are peaceful places without the majority of people around them required to keep perfectly attentive to their surroundings so they don't kill you. If you're in the mountains, your likelihood of experiencing dangerous situations depends on the environment, your skill and fitness, the weather, and maybe others on the mountain.

Roads are the most dangerous places most people will ever find themselves, much more often, regardless of whether they take on the responsibility of driving. If you're on the mountains, your death is caused by being severely ill-prepared or stupid, or significant misfortune just because. If you're around a road you're constantly surrounded by people armed with killing machines that nobody seems to have reverence for. You're in a life or death situation by default in any time you're not parked or stuck in traffic. All you or someone else needs to do is get distracted for a moment or fall asleep or whatever. Maybe they just decided that was their time to go and drive through a crowd of people.

In the mountains you could be in a very vulnerable spot, or you could effectively be camping, or just out for a trail run. Yes, bad things could happen, but there are all sorts of variables that matter to affect that. I've taken some spills, they happen, sometimes they've been scary, but I opted into that risk.

Both places are dangerous, only one is nearly always dangerous. While it may not literally be the drive to the climb that takes you out, I think the point is that being a car commuter or around roads regularly does pose a greater degree of risk.

Re: 'I found your dad': The mystery of a missing climber

#35

Post by ip26 »

jwagenet wrote: post #9
voidfunc wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some folks are adrenaline junkies. Doing this stuff when you have kids though is negligence and even worse doing it when the kid already lost one parent to the activity. Fuck those parents and anyone here that's like them.

Most mountaineering is not an adrenaline fueled pursuit and many adrenaline junkies would find it’s often non-technical tactics boring. Is it an egotistical pursuit? Sure. Objectively hazardous? Yes. But distance cyclists and runners have more in common with mountaineers than base jumpers.

There’s class 4 mountaineers, and WI6 mountaineers. It’s often hard to tell where any one person falls on that continuum.

Re: 'I found your dad': The mystery of a missing climber

#36

Post by rufus_foreman »

stefan_ wrote: post #33
rufus_foreman wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Objective hazard is risks that cannot be reasonably mitigated. Things like rockfall where a rock breaks off and falls on your head at random, or unpredictable avalanches Those risks can be mitigated. They can't be reduced to zero, but they can be made less severe. Avalanches don't typically happen randomly out of the blue any more than thunderstorms do in the midwest. In the midwest, you know days ahead of time th…

Which is why they all carry beacons, so when they fail they can involve others in their folly. Dunno, you wanna leave civilization, that's like a billion dollar risk premium right there.

[flagged]

Re: 'I found your dad': The mystery of a missing climber

#37

Post by OrsonSmelles »

paulcole wrote: post #24
voidfunc wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some folks are adrenaline junkies. Doing this stuff when you have kids though is negligence and even worse doing it when the kid already lost one parent to the activity. Fuck those parents and anyone here that's like them.

> Doing this stuff when you have kids though is negligence Obviously there’s a middle ground but nobody says that giving up the thing that you love because you have kids is negligence.

I think having a commitment that strong to a dangerous activity should factor into whether you have kids in the first place. Maybe it doesn't make the answer an automatic "no", but I think one has to really think through one's decision to create a person who will have a disproportionate risk of major trauma in their early life and should have an extremely clear contingency plan for the child's care by someone who is genuinely psychologically and materially prepared for that eventuality. I think that to do less than that would be negligence—it might be a common type of negligence, easily obscured by romanticism about bold endeavors, but it is certainly not taking care.

Re: 'I found your dad': The mystery of a missing climber

#38

Post by ghaff »

ghaff wrote: post #23
rufus_foreman wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Objective hazard is risks that cannot be reasonably mitigated. Things like rockfall where a rock breaks off and falls on your head at random, or unpredictable avalanches Those risks can be mitigated. They can't be reduced to zero, but they can be made less severe. Avalanches don't typically happen randomly out of the blue any more than thunderstorms do in the midwest. In the midwest, you know days ahead of time th…

You can mitigate to greater or lesser. Kate Matrosova was actually well prepared when she died a few years ago. She should simply have gone out in that forecast On the other hand, you get into the bigger mountains and it’s a lot harder. To time the weather and other dangers.

Not gone out of course.

Re: 'I found your dad': The mystery of a missing climber

#39

Post by pfdietz »

blackguardx wrote: post #6
shermantanktop wrote: post #4

[flagged]

Driving to the mountains is often more dangerous than climbing a mountain. Things change at the elite levels, but that is true for any sport.

Climbing Mt. Everest is three times more deadly than driving -- that is, 3x the chance of dying while driving anytime in your entire life.

Re: 'I found your dad': The mystery of a missing climber

#40

Post by shermantanktop »

bratwurst3000 wrote: post #14
shermantanktop wrote: post #4

[flagged]

honestly your comment and others are condescending as hell. For sure there are risks that the best planing cant safe one from but this is live. Many sports and adventures are dangerous. Doing a shitload of cocaine or alcohol is way more dangerous and shitty towards society then mountaineering. I am mountaineering and i come from a family of mountaineers. I asure you usually those people are very aware of what they ar…

No condescension intended. I think I understand the appeal, in the same way I understand Jack London stories, Joseph Conrad novels, Survivor, Fight Club, and that bear movie guy. We’re too civilized, we’re hothouse flowers, and a little danger makes you feel alive. Especially if you are raised with traditional masculine values.

If you could have the same solitude, sweeping views, natural beauty, cameraderie, etc., but without real danger, would it have the same appeal?

Post reply on HN