Post by: gunsmith on December 18, 2006, 12:08:23 AM
mountain in winter? especially if you have not even been up that mountain in the summer?
I am sorry the guy lost his life, he did the right thing, made a "snow cave"
and all....but don't you have to expect unexpected blizzards on Mt Hood in the winter?
I've never been there but I expect snow in July when I'm in the higher elevations.
These guys are supposed to be experienced mountain climbers, I am not myself
so maybe I'm missing something..so I ask...I am sure we have a mountain climber
here...would you climb the tough side of hood in december?
Post by: LadySmith on December 18, 2006, 01:29:09 AM
I knew a guy who would push himself to the limit doing things like bicycling through Death Valley in the summertime. I asked him if he had a deathwish. He said doing things like that were the only things that made him feel alive.
Post by: thumbody on December 18, 2006, 02:32:47 AM
My problem is that they go into these endeavors willingly but when problems occur the bill is passed to the taxpayers.Hundreds of searchers are putting themselves in harms way trying to save these men lives just because they wanted to do something dangerous.
I hope for the best for the remaining hikers ,but feel sorrow only for the family members of these men.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 18, 2006, 02:38:42 AM
Quote
why attempt a climb on the tough side of a really tall
mountain in winter? especially if you have not even been up that mountain in the summer?
Because it was there. Why climb a mountain at all?
mountain in winter? especially if you have not even been up that mountain in the summer?
Post by: Ron on December 18, 2006, 04:45:18 AM
I am all for lightweight gear but I think you need to be prepared for the worst with nature.
Life is precious enough to me where I will willingly lug around extra stuff I probably won't need but will be real happy to have if I find myself in trouble.
Post by: Ben on December 18, 2006, 05:47:06 AM
If you want to do something risky, then be prepared for and aware of the WHOLE risk, up to and including dying. I bet a lot fewer people would do the "daredevil, thrillseeker" routine if they knew they'd be on their own no matter what, or at the very least would have to pay the rescue costs. The helo time alone that's been spent on this rescue would freakin' bankrupt most people.
Post by: Gewehr98 on December 18, 2006, 10:29:30 AM
I feel sorry for their surviving families, but don't pity the deceased climbers in the least.
How can I armchair quarterback that so readily?
Easy. I'm a graduate of the USAF Arctic Survival School (aka, Cool School), taught to aircrew dawgs in Fairbanks, AK. One spends a week living off the land in -40 temps with the intent of getting rescued at the end. I wish everybody could take the course, government tax dollars notwithstanding.
I know these Mount Hood climbers will become part of the lesson plan up there. My wife was watching the news reports as the search progressed, and I told her to turn the TV to a different channel, because they were already dead. When asked why I thought that, I replied that they had made several fatal errors and simply hadn't prepared for what they eventually came across. End of (sad) story.
Post by: 280plus on December 18, 2006, 10:31:30 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 18, 2006, 10:35:45 AM
Post by: Dannyboy on December 18, 2006, 10:45:09 AM
I feel sorry for their surviving families, but don't pity the deceased climbers in the least.
Can't argue with that. They knew the risks associated with mountain climbing. I show no sympathy for those who die under such circumstances, regardless of the precautions taken. However, I don't think they're candidates for the Darwin Award. They did something thousands of people do all over the world.
Post by: Gewehr98 on December 18, 2006, 11:50:13 AM
Rather than try to re-teach the course, here's a link to one of the earlier AF manuals, pretty much the same as what's still in my helmet bag:
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA365888
Ok, just a few things that are obvious to me, at least from the Cool School perspective.
The snow cave is a darned good idea - but stick with it, keep it just a hair larger than the occupants with a mimimum of at least 8 inches of snow on all sides, and the more occupants, the more body heat to keep it warm inside. Don't build one with 1,000 square feet of space inside if you're going to be the only occupant. If available, the heat from just one candle (or one of those little Sterno tins) in a small one-person snow cave can make all the difference. Likewise, there were three of the climbers - all three should have been in the same snow cave, conserving body heat and making use of the buddy system. Excursions from the cave to make ground markers or get a good cell phone signal are fine, just remember it takes time to warm up again, especially if you return to an empty snow cave. Our snow caves in Fairbanks ranged from one man to 20. One man caves were discouraged unless you were a traveling party of one.
Flares/mirrors/beacons/radios/cell phones/signaling devices - From the news reports we know at least one guy had a cell phone, with maybe one battery, and it appears he was trying to conserve juice by turning it on and off as time progressed. I doubt it was an Iridium satellite cell phone, so he was using a terrestrial cell phone at an altitude of 11,000 feet. I know some cell phones have a GPS locater function built-in, assuming it's turned on and functioning. That's a pretty damned thin lifeline to the rest of the world. Now I don't expect everybody to pop a red smoke flare from their ejection seat survival kits when they're in a pinch, but these guys were supposed to be professional climbers. Even a pocket signal mirror weighs next to nothing.
Rugged survivalists or not, I doubt there's a single mountain climber, amateur or professional, who doesn't realize weather on peaks can turn to sour owl $hit in a matter of minutes. Lightweight and ultra-light doesn't do one a damned bit of good if you don't plan for the contingency. Somebody here was giving Mike Irwin crap about those aluminized mylar thermal blankets, but they actually do a good job of conserving body heat - and weigh next to nothing. The one I had in my two-man snow cave was actually quite nice, I ended up putting it under my sleeping bag to reflect heat back into me.
When they find the other two human popsicles, we'll get the full story. This sad little story won't dissuade mountain climbers, nor will it dissuade unprepared mountain climbers. I don't plan on surviving any mountain areas now that I've retired from flying, but my truck and wife's car have a lot of stuff that would sustain life were we in a similar situation. (Much to her chagrine, I'll wager she'd nominate me for a tinfoil helmet had she not seen the four survival school diplomas)
Pay attention to what shakes out in the news, and I'd lean heavily towards what survival school instructors have to say about it. Why? As part of their qualification process, they actually have to live afield using the tools of their trade, and their course is even tougher than the one taught to flyboys who take their instruction later. (The instructors refer to it as a Gentleman's School)
Post by: Brad Johnson on December 18, 2006, 12:26:14 PM
Brad
Post by: gunsmith on December 18, 2006, 12:41:15 PM
Other climbers on TV have said that it is easier to climb in the winter because you have clampons
(sic? not sure exactly what those are) also it is said to be very beautiful in the winter.
News reports say that it was a three man cave and they had spent the night there....to bad they didn't stay
Post by: Ron on December 18, 2006, 01:28:04 PM
All the things that can bail you out and keep you alive add weight.
Their note said they were traveling light.
Like I said earlier (and I am a newbie to backpacking let alone M climbing) I would rather lug around the stuff that will save me in an emergency and never use it than have bragging rights on how light my pack is compared to others.
Post by: mtnbkr on December 18, 2006, 02:15:52 PM
Also, regarding snow caves, I built one for giggles when I was in HS. It was a few inches longer than me, about a foot wider, and just tall enough to let me sit up, yet very hunched over. The outside temps were in the high 20s, yet the inside of this "cave" got warm enough to be comfortable if I stayed inside for even a half hour. It was an interesting (to me) experience.
Chris
Post by: 280plus on December 18, 2006, 03:04:17 PM
Post by: Ron on December 18, 2006, 04:44:07 PM
Quote
Thanks G...
Agreed, good stuff.
We learn from others failures, its a shame.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 18, 2006, 06:35:33 PM
My dad was an instructor at the USAF Survival School at Eielson, 67-69 (IIRC).
He would (and still does) pull out weird knowledge that sets me, Mr. High-Speed / Low-Drag Reconman, back as to just how cool my dad is.
He used to talk about the "classroom" portion and then sending the guys out to prac app. Then the instructors sitting around drinking coffee until it was time to "go round 'em up".
His other comment was the irony of teaching pilots to survive on sub-arctic tundra when most were on their way to triple-canopy jungle.
Post by: meinbruder on December 18, 2006, 08:03:58 PM
This may sound callous, but to me, they're the candidates for the 2006 Darwin Award.
I feel sorry for their surviving families, but don't pity the deceased climbers in the least.
How can I armchair quarterback that so readily?
I feel sorry for their surviving families, but don't pity the deceased climbers in the least.
How can I armchair quarterback that so readily?
Gewehr98, I'll go beyond callous for you, these guys may only be eligible for an honorable mention. If they managed to reproduce, like Mr. Kim, they can not be given the formal Darwin Award. Your analysis of mistakes was spot on. Discussions of equipment carried or recommended will rage for years. Coulda, woulda, shouda; these are thing we'll never know for sure. Survival school is to prepare someone for the worst possible outcome.
Two things most of the country doesn't seem to know about this little incident. The original reports of the missing climbers indicated three men went up the mountain for a day hike and gave no indication of equipment carried. At least that was the report I head for the first twenty-four hours after they went missing. The weather report at the time indicated a sever storm prediction on the day they went up the mountain.
The storm that developed started at the coast 150 miles west of Mt. Hood, 100mph winds and driving rain at ground level, freezing temperatures predicted above 500 feet, possible accumulation of snow above 500 feet, and a two-day transit time projected for the storm. I wont go into the power outages extending from the Oregon coast east into the Portland Metro area and extending north to Seattle. I wont mention the downed trees and power lines in my own neighborhood, which kept the county sheriffs on high alert for thirty-six hours of over time. I wont mention the half million people affected in their homes by this storm. Okay, rant over.
They went up the mountain after nothing more than dropping a hike schedule in a closed forest service office, it was found the next morning, in advance of what could have been the storm of the century. Three days into the search, a note was found at the base camp of the rescue effort. The note detailed the equipment the climbers were carrying. This suggests the whole thing was a prank.
I truly hope the other two climbers are found alive. I would very much like to see them prosecuted for manslaughter and given a bill for the rescue effort. I dont know the cost of running a C130 SAR aircraft for a week but I do know that we the people are paying for it. Its been said that the climbers were practicing for an assault on Everest, they sure picked a great weekend to do it because the weather turn to sour owl $#!t in a hurry. Maybe that was what they were hoping for, it sure taught one of them a lesson.
}:)>
btw... I thought I posted this twenty minutes ago, pardon me if it hits twice.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 18, 2006, 10:24:09 PM
O
Other climbers on TV have said that it is easier to climb in the winter because you have clampons
(sic? not sure exactly what those are) also it is said to be very beautiful in the winter.
Other climbers on TV have said that it is easier to climb in the winter because you have clampons
(sic? not sure exactly what those are) also it is said to be very beautiful in the winter.
crampons - metal spikes that strap onto your boots, like old-timey roller skates. They allow you to plant your foot flat on snow and ice and dig in with your toes on more vertical surfaces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crampons
Post by: LAK on December 18, 2006, 11:49:34 PM
BenW
Quote
The problem, as pointed out above, is that now rescuer's lives have been put at risk, as well of the enormous costs of the rescue.
And rescuers choose their profession. They are not drafted against their will, and can quit at any time. The fact is, many rescuers are climbers themselves and take similar risks on their own excursions. Some are skiers who might every once in a while make a run when conditions are not ideal or against advice.I've been up in some remote places in the worst of conditions back to my teens snow and ice climbing. It is always a calculated risk. Like motorsports, scuba diving, flying planes etc.
The media seems to be making a meal out of this one for some reason. As if it is the only high mountain fatality this year anywhere-USA; which I doubt.
----------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Cosmoline on December 18, 2006, 11:52:26 PM
What I don't understand is why there's so much media attention to this. It must be a slow news week or something. Dozens of people die up here every year on climbs and expeditions.
Post by: LadySmith on December 19, 2006, 12:17:11 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on December 19, 2006, 08:40:35 AM
Give your dad a big old bear hug and a sincere "Thank You!" from me. Tell him it's from one of those insane guys who flew low-level WC-135B reconnaissance sorties from Eielson over the North Pole at night, and that his and his successor's training of us crew dawgs was probably the biggest topic of discussion on those 8-10 hour sorties over the ice cap. Not much to see and hear, other than the growling of the HF radios and some gorgeous Aurora Borealis. Well, we did play Bingo among all the crew positions, and joked about the polar bears getting the slowest of the runners on board if we pancaked in from our 1,500 foot operational altitude...
We knew the instructors had coffee and warmth, but we also knew when the students weren't in the field or academics, the instructors were some busy folks requalifying each other, reviewing procedures, and gleaning real-life survival stories (like the current Mount Hood episode) for potential material, good, bad, or otherwise.
Honestly, the survival school instructors are some of my biggest heroes, including Combat Survival, Water Survival, Arctic Survival, and even those sadistic bastards at "Special" Survival. They made a living out of surviving the harshest of environments, with a minimum of improvised equipment and a determined mindset, and then taught idiots like myself how to do the same.
Then there was one really cute female Arctic Survival instructor at Eielson named Maggie. I should've stayed in contact with her longer than I did.
Post by: El Tejon on December 19, 2006, 08:47:37 AM
I listened to an "experienced" person once many moons ago about how "all you need" is to travel light up mountains--I nearly froze to death (everything was starting to shut down, fingers, feet, my tongue, had to keep rubbing my chest and moving). I carried that "experiened" person off that mountain and he was airlifted out.
When we returned to camp, I had to be restrained because I almost got my hands on him. He did not return with us preferring to fly instead. The rest of the summer I made certain his life was a living hell.
If these poor guys were listening to some "experienced" person, then I feel sorry for them.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 19, 2006, 08:59:23 AM
Climbing rough mountains in the wintertime isn't a bad idea, if you have the skills to handle it. It seems these guys have the skills. Climbing in bad weather in the wintertime is commonly done as a training measure, to give climbers practice and experience in those conditions which they'll need if they plan to climb the really big peaks in the good seasons. Mt Hood and Rainier are often climbed in the winter by people who are training for expeditions up Everest and McKinley and so forth. Climbing Hood in the wintertime isn't a stupid idea.
As for these specific climbers, it sounds like they knew exactly what they were doing and were properly trained, equipped, and aware of the necessary skills. The only reason they didn't get up and down the mountian uneventfully was the fact that one of their party broke a bone. It's just a bit of random bad luck that could have happened to anyone. These sorts of risks apply whenever anyone goes into the wilds, and these climbers surely knew it. They chose to proceed anyway and accept the potential consequences. Such is their perogative.
Once disaster struck they did about as well as anyone possibly could. Unlike the Kim survival disaster, these climbers knew what to do and they did it to the best of their ability. Some of them lost their life, some may still be saved. That's life. You give it your best shot, do the best things you can do to ensure your survival, and you hope for the best. Sometimes you do everything right and still get burned.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 19, 2006, 09:09:51 AM
Quote from: Gewehr
Then there was one really cute female Arctic Survival instructor at Eielson named Maggie. I should've stayed in contact with her longer than I did.
If only for warmth.
One of the best books on the subject (survival in extremis) I've read. It covers mostly mindset but also discusses how chaos theory applies when things start to go wrong.
http://www.deepsurvival.com/
Post by: Gewehr98 on December 19, 2006, 09:39:54 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 19, 2006, 09:47:22 AM
Post by: Cosmoline on December 19, 2006, 10:57:13 AM
If you want to see something hideous, watch the Everest show on Discovery tonight. It's going to show the highly controversial incident where dozens of climbers walked past a dying man in their effort to get to the summit. The madness shown in that series is unbelievable. There's a long line of climbers waiting to get to the top like they're buying toys at walmart. It's disgusting.
Post by: Cosmoline on December 19, 2006, 10:58:03 AM
It wasn't random bad luck that somebody experienced a fracture, they simply weren't prepared for that particular eventuality and it hindered their movements downslope.
How do you know any of this?
Post by: InfidelSerf on December 19, 2006, 12:04:55 PM
What disturbs me the most is not any monday morning quarterbacking I could come up with.
It's the extremely excessive media coverage this has received.
While I still think it's a distraction. I can understand to a point the excessive media coverage for a missing person. We actually CAN do something to help.
In this case NO ONE can do anything but watch the rescue workers do their job. (Nevermind that I don't think it should be provided by taxpayer services, rescue services for that kind of venture should be purely on you or your families dime. But that's another thread)
Why all the airtime??
It should have been a mention at the beginning of the week.. and then a follow up when they found them alive or dead. Nothing more.
Post by: Cosmoline on December 19, 2006, 06:15:03 PM
Post by: gunsmith on December 20, 2006, 03:30:20 AM
The public loves these stories as much as thr loves the mountain lion/ grizzly bear attacks
Post by: garyk/nm on December 20, 2006, 10:36:16 AM
Please do not compare this to 911 emergency services. These folks know the risk and take it anyway. No way, no how is this an "accident".
All of this media attention is going to make it near impossible to go after the "estates" of the climbers for reimbursement of rescue costs. Too bad.
Post by: 280plus on December 20, 2006, 10:54:38 AM
Post by: 280plus on December 20, 2006, 11:39:05 AM
Post by: thebaldguy on December 20, 2006, 03:34:34 PM
Post by: Ron on December 20, 2006, 04:23:50 PM
The last thing you want a group of lost or stranded folks thinking is that they shouldn't call for help because they can't afford it.
Post by: BobR on December 20, 2006, 06:40:45 PM
Quote
I believe they can bill the estate(s).
Quote
I hope someone gets charged for the rescue/recovery
Quote
The last thing you want a group of lost or stranded folks thinking is that they shouldn't call for help because they can't afford it
In Oregon, the family of the lost can be charged for the cost of SAR up to 500.00 dollars. The rest of the cost is absorbed by the agencies involved in the search. It varies from state to state. The Blackhawks, C130's and Air Guard resources will most likely be chalked up to training funds.
bob
Post by: meinbruder on December 20, 2006, 06:49:32 PM
In Oregon, the family of the lost can be charged for the cost of SAR up to 500.00 dollars. The rest of the cost is absorbed by the agencies involved in the search. It varies from state to state. The Blackhawks, C130's and Air Guard resources will most likely be chalked up to training funds.
bob
bob
That was exactly the discussion on the radio today. The County sheriffs office mentioned the 500.00 cap and them grumbled about the 6500.00 per diem it cost them to co-ordinate the effort. They did mention that all the searchers were volunteers, most of them climbers hoping to help a kindred soul, and the air guard resources were in fact being written off to training. Sit in a simulator or train on the job, at least we got our tax dollars value on the effort. BTW... a new storm is moving into the area tonight and the search was called off as of this afternoon. It looks like the mountain swallowed a couple more climbers.
}:)>
Post by: LAK on December 21, 2006, 12:27:47 AM
Why should we start having to "pay" for what is already paid for in the form of real training for these units? Before individual climbers, skiers etc have to shell out for a bond or pay for this kind of thing - our hospitals need to put a complete stop on treating illegal aliens and not one cent of our tax money leaving the country in the form of "foreign aid". I am sick of paying for these people while being primed up to expect to have to dig into my pocket every time my feet hit the ground anywhere other than my own home.
As to these climbers; I keep reading about these guys "travelling light". Just how light did they go? What did they take, and not take, with them?
There are two general but not rigid approaches to tackling high mountains. One is the conventional approach with equipment as needed, extras and support. The other is the old "alpine ascent" - light and fast. However, in terms of surviving low temps and a moderate stay at altitude it does not necessarily involve an excessive amount of gear or an enormous weight. A down sleeping bag or suit, a Goretex bivvy bag, a ground mat (essential) and a snow shovel will ensure one does not freeze to death.
The rest is a matter of food - and hydration. The latter more important than anything at altitude in extreme dry cold. And that means fuel; sufficient fuel to melt enough snow or ice for an extended bivouac. Food can be chosen as to be readily consumable cold and dry if needed.
-----------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: 280plus on December 21, 2006, 02:37:50 AM
Post by: Cosmoline on December 21, 2006, 04:15:41 AM
Post by: 280plus on December 21, 2006, 10:16:58 AM
Last I heard Sir Edmund Hillary was still frozen in time up there although he has eroded a bit. Apparently it takes a while. I just can't help thinking what a grisly expedition it must be passing all the dead ones on the way to and from. If the traffic keeps up it's recent pace you got to figure there'll be DBs from start to finish after a while. Then yes, where DOES all the excrement go? What fun!
Post by: Gewehr98 on December 21, 2006, 12:07:44 PM
Matter of fact, Sir Edmund Hillary has recently spoken of his disdain for the attitudes displayed by many modern mountaineers. In particular he publicly criticised New Zealander Mark Inglis and 40 other climbers who, in various groups, left British climber David Sharp to die in May 2006. He said "I think the whole attitude towards climbing Mount Everest has become rather horrifying. The people just want to get to the top, it was wrong if there was a man suffering altitude problems and was huddled under a rock, just to lift your hat, say good morning and pass on by." He also told the New Zealand Herald that he was horrified by the callous attitude of todays climbers. "They dont give a damn for anybody else who may be in distress and it doesnt impress me at all that they leave someone lying under a rock to die.".
Post by: Brad Johnson on December 21, 2006, 12:22:37 PM
Quote
Matter of fact, Sir Edmund Hillary has recently spoken of his disdain for the attitudes displayed by many modern mountaineers. In particular he publicly criticised New Zealander Mark Inglis and 40 other climbers who, in various groups, left British climber David Sharp to die in May 2006. He said "I think the whole attitude towards climbing Mount Everest has become rather horrifying.
For someone with as much climbing and expeditionary expertise as Hillary has, that's an awful naive thing for him to say. I presume he is inferring that the other climbers should have placed themselves at futher risk to try and rescue a man when, by all accounts, there simply wasn't anything that could be done.
A) There was no logistical way to get the man down without endangering many more lives in the process
B) If there had been the manpower, there was no way to recover the victim in any reasonable time to save him (if is condition was recouperable to begin with).
C) The climbers who attempt Everest rarely, if ever, do so alone. If the man was left behind he was first left behind by his own climbing party after they had determined he was unable to continue. Getting on another climbing party's case about leaving him behind is kinda redundant as well as being slightly hypocritical.
The climbers who attempt Everest know the score. You lose your wits in the death zone and get to the point where you can't make it on your own power, well... sorry. Hope you had a paid up insurance policy and said 'bye to the kids before you started. If you aren't smart enough to turn around when it becomes necessary then the only person to blame is yourself.
Brad
Post by: 280plus on December 21, 2006, 12:32:23 PM
Post by: 280plus on December 21, 2006, 12:38:17 PM
Post by: Cosmoline on December 21, 2006, 01:44:23 PM
Post by: gunsmith on December 21, 2006, 05:01:28 PM
If they charge the family for the effort then Mexico should subsidize our ER's
Post by: Cosmoline on December 21, 2006, 05:18:06 PM
Post by: LAK on December 22, 2006, 12:07:42 AM
Quote
..... [Sir Edmund Hillary] said "I think the whole attitude towards climbing Mount Everest has become rather horrifying. The people just want to get to the top, it was wrong if there was a man suffering altitude problems and was huddled under a rock, just to lift your hat, say good morning and pass on by." He also told the New Zealand Herald that he was horrified by the callous attitude of todays climbers. "They dont give a damn for anybody else who may be in distress and it doesnt impress me at all that they leave someone lying under a rock to die.".
I am not surprized at all; a direct reflection of the effects of modern popular culture. Many might accuse someone like Rheinhold Messner of being foolish or obsessed - but I would be very surprized would he to have ever passed up a climber in distress in this way.----------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: 280plus on December 22, 2006, 01:57:18 AM
Post by: gunsmith on December 22, 2006, 05:32:20 PM
of being incapable of being processed by now?
Post by: Gewehr98 on December 22, 2006, 07:16:04 PM