2006 - 12 Dead: What is going on with Everest?

Article

Images (1)

Comments (26)

2006 - 12 Dead: What is going on with Everest?

Page Type: Article

Activities: Mountaineering

Page By: Alan Arnette

Created/Edited: Aug 9, 2006 / Nov 29, 2008

Object ID: 214369

Hits: 13784

Page Score: 91.69% - 85 Votes

Vote: Log in to vote

I climbed Everest twice - in 2002 and again in 2003. I made it to about 27,000 feet (8200 meters) both years before health, weather or my own judgment caused me to turn back. After recently returning from an attempt on Broad Peak where a climber died after reaching the summit, I am thinking a lot about deaths in the sport I love. I am seeing article after article in the popular magazines and even on some news shows about the deaths on Everest this spring. For what it is worth, here are my thoughts.

2006 - 12 Dead: What is going on with Everest?

This has been a deadly year on both sides of Everest. Perhaps the most deaths since the infamous 1996 spring season. So what was going on this year that made it so sad for 12 climbers? First a summary.

Early in the season, a Himex Sherpa, Tuk Bahadur, died of HAPE on the north side after fixing rope up high. 3 Sherpas, Ang Phinjo Sherpa, Lhakkpa Tseri Sherpa and Dawa Temba Sherpa, died in the Khumbu Icefall when ice collapsed around them. Tomas Olsson died from a fall on the north died after a rappel anchor tore loose. Vitor Negrete died after his north summit. He had summited without using supplemental oxygen. David Sharp died on the north side during his summit bid. Jacques-Hughes Letrange died on his descent after a north summit. Igor Plyushkin died also on the descent on the north. While not on Everest, Pavel Kalny died near the Yellow Band while attempting Lhotse. Details are sketchy.

Climbing deaths are always difficult to discuss and my condolences goes out to all the family and friends. It happens every year and some years, like 2006, are worse than others. However Everest has become safer in the past 15 years. AdventureStats has the best facts I have seen and they report that as of 2003, there have been about 2,000 summits since 1922 with 179 deaths or a 9.3% fatality rate. Since 1990, it had dropped to 4.4%. As bad as this sounds, Annapurna is a much more deadly mountain with a summit to death ratio of 2:1 deaths for every summit (109:55).

It seems that each tragedy is unique. Sometimes it is the weather or altitude issues and sometimes a fall. Rare, but sometimes there is equipment failure. Sadly, like with pilots in most airplane accidents, sometime the climber is at fault. High altitude mountaineering is not only a physical sport but also a mental one and judgment is the most critical item. The most common mistakes have to do with climbers not recognizing what is happening to their bodies as a result of the altitude. Study after study have measured that cognitive skills become impaired, reasoning suffers and sometimes climbers make bad decisions: Not abiding by their turn-around time or pushing too hard, too fast to reach the summit. Not taking care of their bodies and staying hydrated. There are many reasons.

The only common theme to seven of this year's deaths (other than with the Sherpas and Igor) was that they were not on large commercial expeditions. This is noteworthy for the fact that commercial expeditions, which cost more, tend to run very conservatively and with a large amount of Sherpa support. They typically employ very experienced guides who have the skills to recognize when a climber is not acclimization properly or having real problems. The climbers who use ground agents, which cost less, and hire their own Sherpas run a slightly bigger risk in that while the Sherpas are incredible, they sometimes will not be as forceful as a western guide in stopping a climber in trouble.

With all the crowds you hear about, why don't other climbers help those in need? In an interview, 2006 climbers note "...Wayne Alexander, of Christchurch, told The Telegraph newspaper in Britain: "We came across a chap sheltering under a rock, who was perhaps hours from death. That was probably only 21/2 hours into the climb. ... Told that it had been suggested that Inglis' party should have stopped their ascent and rescued the man, Inglis replied: "Absolutely, that's a very fair comment. Trouble is, at 8500 metres it's extremely difficult to keep yourself alive - let alone keep anyone else alive." That said, other climbers have famously given up their summits to help climbers in need.

Yes, there were over 200 summits on both sides but 12 people are dead - 8 on the north - not a successful season in my mind. As the details are revealed Everest was an embarrassment this year to mountaineering and reduced the expeditions on the north to selfish amateurs. Harsh? Unfair? Judgmental? You be the judge.

EverestMax has a scathing first person report on their summit bid with comments such as " ... He clearly had HAPE and if left to his own devices was going to die on the mountain. He had no colleagues with him and his Sherpas had abandoned him. I too tried to encourage him to climb the 10m up to the North Col – he couldn't." and another comment "...Eventually I had to clip him into my harness and pull him up to the North Col. His tent was too far away so I just put him in nearest empty tent. Meanwhile Dom had tried to mobilise help from the 7 Summits team - they refused to help despite being a large organisation."

The media has focused on Sharp's death and the "40 climbers passing by without providing aid". Actually that is not true. Sherpas tried to give Sharp oxygen but all he wanted do was "sleep" - a sure sign that death was near - especially at 8000m. Sadly I have helped bury climbers above 7000m and often there was nothing anyone could have done to save the person. But our world likes to point fingers and find the villains.

I have been thinking a lot about the deaths, especially the huge difference between the north and south sides. Please let me think out loud for a moment.

First - safety net: The south side has a long history of major commercial operators who use the same Sherpas, camps and routes year after year. Yes, this is similar on the north but at one time the operators on the south established an informal network committed to helping one another in an emergency - no questions asked. The network was demonstrated this year with the rescue of injured Sherpas and climbers in the icefall. This network includes IMG, AAI, Adventure Consultants and others. The south also has a group medical clinic that provides assistance to anyone.

Second - costs: The permit costs charged by the Nepalese discourage price-sensitive climbers from climbing on the south. The low Chinese permit charges have encouraged the lowest cost operators to focus on the north thus attracting, sometimes, climbers who need more guiding help but do not get it. Seven of the eleven deaths this year were climbers who were not on major commercial expeditions.

Third - discipline: The Ministry of Tourism in Nepal manages Everest with a tight first - financially, ecology and safety. For all the jokes, the Liaison Officers do pay attention and report problems. Operators with poor records can be banned. Followers of Everest know the names. Such discipline is sketchy on the north side.

Fourth -competition: The south has several majors who compete for the business year after year and most climbers always ask about their safety record. On the north, there is one dominate commercial operator who has such power that they fix ropes and dictate schedules. Their record is perfect for clients and they serve as a model for other operators. But the north needs more large scale commercial operators to bring order to the chaos.

Fifth and finally, the climbers themselves: They bring a lot of the problems. While it is seductive to be the first to do this and that; mountaineering is not an X-Games event. It is dangerous, deadly and real. I am afraid that all the commercialism has made Everest seem like a Colorado 14er, Aconcagua or a nice climb in the Alps.

While I personally think Hillary has taken his argument too far in that "... it is just ridiculous having 15 or 20 or 30 expeditions all attempting the mountain at the same time." He does have a fair point in comparing his time to now "...We would have definitely abandoned the ambition to reach the summit in order to get the other person to safety." But should another team have to do that?

Mountaineering is a sport of intense independence. It is a sport where the participant can find oneself completely alone, without food, water and shelter in mind numbing cold and flesh-freezing winds. The mountain does not care. It is really a test of the climber, not the Hill. Should a climber who has never climbed Everest be allowed to climb Everest? A silly question? Well in so many words, that seems to be the feeling of many in the industry. But that robs people of their dreams - the heart and soul of alpine mountaineering.

Sadly many operators will take anyone on an expedition if they have money. There are four tiers of operators: 1) established commercial companies with long histories and stable ownership, 2) budget operators who run safe, no-frills operations, 3) local ground agents who provide basic logistics and Sherpas for the lowest cost and finally, 4) the upstart operators without a track record. The point is you can die on any of these but some have a better record than others.

I am actually very disappointed about this year and for the sport I love. I am disappointed that the largest mountaineering web sites just repost dispatches and rarely comment or offer solutions on what is happening (except for mounteverest.net). I am disappointed that the large commercial operators continue to post rosy statements about their team’s success and ignore the cancer in their industry. I am disappointed that climbers continue to put their lives at risk based on the lowest cost operators. I am disappointed that climbers die when it could have been prevented.

Climbing is a wonderful sport that delivers challenges and rewards rarely found in this day. It should not be the domain of the "professionals" nor the wealthy. But governments, operators and climbers should dedicated themselves to running safe climbs with proper safety nets, qualified staff, sufficient resources and a moral compass.

I wrote an editorial called "When Good Guides Turn Bad” a few years ago that was focused on the problems with guides and how they treated clients. While I do believe the quality of the guides has improved, the industry continues to have serious and deadly issues. Everest 2006 - North has shown that there is still a long way to go. And it is up to the operators to solve it. They have the power, the knowledge and vested interest to make it happen.

Until then, what can be done to prevent these deaths? It is critical that all climbers on these high mountains understand the risks they are taking and not depend on the support from other team members, Sherpas, sat phones or helicopters. However for the climbers, never climb alone and climb in the company of someone stronger than you such as a Sherpa or more experienced climber. Check on one another often and honestly. Stay aware of yourself and what is happening to you - especially at altitude. Take care of yourself by drinking, eating and resting properly. Get the best weather forecast you can, check it often and study the history of the mountain. Know the trends and what might be unusual. Don't take chances like leaving too late for the summit or ignoring your turn-around time. Rope up in crevasse areas, speed through dangerous areas of tumbled ice. Listen to your inner voice and those with more experience.

But even with all these precautions, climbing is dangerous. Climbing deaths are always sad and devastating to the families. In some ways the sport has become accustomed to them. Some of the most famous names in the sport are of the ones who died doing what they love: Hall, Fischer, Boukreev, Lowe, Lafaille. Some of these died trying to save others. Some worked to promote safety for their sport. Some were just climbers. The sport often takes the best in spite of all their strength and experience. That is the contract every climber signs with the mountain. It is the deal they make with their families. And it is part of the adventure of mountaineering.

But changes can and must be made. Until then it will remain "climber beware".

External Links

Add External Links text here.

Images

Comments

[ Post a Comment ]

Viewing: 1-20 of 26

« PREV 1 2 NEXT »

MountaingirlBC

thoughtfully written

Voted 10/10

Great article Alan... you make some excellent points in a constructive, non-inflamatory manner. Agree wholeheartedly with you on the independence issue.

Posted Aug 10, 2006 1:12 am

km_donovan

Well Done Mate

Voted 10/10

Alan you have demonstrated great insight into an often overlooked part of high altitude mountaineering. This is a thoughtful exposé that anyone who is considering any Himalayan peak needs to read.

Posted Aug 10, 2006 2:38 pm

William Marler

Everest article

Voted 10/10

Excellent read Alan. You brought up very good points. I agree with the others. well done. Cheers William

Posted Aug 10, 2006 3:30 pm

Cy Kaicener

Everest

Voted 10/10

Very well written article.. I enjoyed reading it. Lets hope bragging rights dont replace enjoyment of the mountains. Cy
Edit - 10 out of 10

Posted Aug 10, 2006 7:35 pm

Haliku

Well articulated

Voted 10/10

Thanks for a thoughtful article. Its obvious you've thought on this topic a lot. Cheers!

Posted Aug 11, 2006 3:24 pm

Rybakov

Question

Voted 10/10

Ralf Dujmovits:
"Recognition to summits on O2 will result in more deaths"
See this article:
http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=10162
Any comments on that?

A good read Alan.

Posted Aug 12, 2006 7:22 am


	Alan Arnette	Re: Question
	Hasn't voted	The debate around "aided" climbing is as old as climbing itself: the use of pitons, air compressors(!), ropes, crampons and of course, oxygen. From my personal viewpoint, anything that makes climbing safer short of an airplane (or compressor) is a good thing. I am not sure this is an apt analogy but should water skiers be criticized for using skis when there are skiers who can ski barefoot? My point is that there are physical differences in humans that allow some climbers to climb without supplemental oxygen and do very well. I am glad for them and acknowledge their accomplishments. That does not, however, take away from the accomplishments from the masses who do not benefit from those physical advantages, in my view. Thanks for the kind words, Rybakov and everyone else. Thanks.
		Posted Aug 13, 2006 2:15 am

magellan

500 summits

Hasn't voted

Thanks for the great read.

I remember hearing that amazingly good weather would allow almost 500 people to summit this year. Is that number (12) disproportionate to the number of summiters? It seems like better weather equals more climbers higher on the mountain, where the margin of error is smaller.

Posted Aug 13, 2006 5:37 am


	Alan Arnette	Re: 500 summits
	Hasn't voted	Good question. I don't think weather is the leading cause of death on Everest except in rare events (1996). Here are some facts (#s estimated): 1996 100 summits, 12 deaths - 12% (9 on one day in bad weather) 2004 150 summits, 6 deaths - 4% (typical weather) 2005 300 summits, 6 deaths - 2% (worst weather season in decades) 2006 450 summits, 12 deaths -2.6%(best weather season in decades) I agree, however, that a 500+ summit season would invite higher deaths. One other obervation is that a lot of deaths occur low on Everest - in the Icefall for example and not in the "Death Zone".
		Posted Aug 14, 2006 9:59 pm

The Chief

That's the problem!

Hasn't voted

"the industry continues to have serious and deadly issues".

Exactly! It has become an industry! This stuff is suppose to be for fun. For some, like myself, it is a "Life-Style". Too much ego, fame and fortune has evolved into something that was once a format of peace and meditation. Now it's, "Hey, look at me, I ?climbed? Everest!" Get rid of the "Industry" and it most assuridly will find itself back as a platform for those that "Can" and are "Able" rather than a circus for those that "Have Plenty" and must get "More".

Posted Aug 14, 2006 4:39 am


	Alan Arnette	Re: That's the problem!
	Hasn't voted	Chief, good point that "industry" invites the masses but the Geni is out of the bottle for Everest. Now it is the "industry" that needs to make it safer.
		Posted Aug 14, 2006 10:03 pm


	The Chief	Re: That's the problem!
	Hasn't voted	Yeah, but as long as "Capitalism" rules the "Industry", the old saying "Money talks, BS walks!" will be the name of the game. Hell, look at one of the responses(no degradation intended either Magellan)..."weather would allow almost 500 people to summit this year. Is that number (12) disproportionate to the number of summiters?" Sounds like we are OKing "Collateral Damage"? Is this the same thinking that the "Industry" is taking onboard? If so, we as a Community are just as responsible for even allowing this type of philosophy to infiltrate into this wonderous past time we call "Climbing"!
		Posted Aug 15, 2006 12:40 am

kilimanjaro1

Well Written

Voted 10/10

Thanks Alan for a well written, well thought out discussion on the issues. As one who has been there your insights are well apppreciated. Thanks!

Posted Aug 14, 2006 7:37 pm

seth@LOKI

Yes well written, Small thought here...

Hasn't voted

I read this a bit ago and meant to comment earlier. I would like to present the idea that the debate over who is responsible for other's on the mountian is disconcerting to me. It seems to take the responsibilty out of the hands of the person who chose to risk thier lives to climb the mountain, and places the blame of thier misshap(s) or death on those that may or may not be in a position to help them out of danger.
I am considering going in 2008. It scares me big time and I take it very seriously. I just hate to think that someone up there would think that they have some moral right to being rescued up there because of the current angle of "liability that is being discussed here and elsewhere. This is starting to sound very American and litigenous(sp).
No wonder there are Russian (and other nationalities I am told) that think they can prey on American climbers while on these high peaks. This place is dangerous, please don't molly coddle people into thinking that it is not.
Please don't get me wrong, I strongly appreciate your writing this and the thought provocation! Just that small feeling I get over the above sighted issue gets my attention.

Posted Aug 21, 2006 5:47 pm


	Alan Arnette	Re: Yes well written, Small thought here...
	Hasn't voted	Seth, Let me be perfectly clear: I believe each person is responsible for their own safety. Full stop. What I am advocating is for the North Side operators to take more responsibility for running safe expeditions with adequate safety nets for the unexpected. Sadly this includes climbers who should not be there. We can be idealistic (I am not saying you are) in expecting only qualified climbers to go to Everest but commerce aka Industry (sorry Chief) will allow anyone to make an attempt. What I am about to write is impossible to enforce however if an unqualified climbers goes to Everest with the expectation that he/she will be rescued due to their own misjudgments then they need to accept the potential consequences that they will not be rescued. It is time Everest climbers take as much responsibility as I am asking the operators to do.
		Posted Aug 22, 2006 4:53 am

milan1970

Good points

Hasn't voted

Hi Alan, thanks for writing this peace. I believe it's always a good thing to work on a better safety on any mountain. I heard from some expeditionleaders that they are starting to team up on the North side for a safer expedition coming years.
As you know I was on the North-side this year and I'm wondering which information (or list) do you have on the climbingexperience of the climbers who died on the North-side. As far as I heard, they were pretty good climbers and therefore choosing for having less help (oxygen or sherpas). Ofcourse there will also be the climbers searching for the cheapest price. But I mean if you compare the climbers from the North- with the South-side, is there a difference, if yes in what?
Secondly, QUOTE"I am disappointed that the largest mountaineering web sites just repost dispatches and rarely comment or offer solutions on what is happening (except for mounteverest.net)."
Can you give me an example of this, as I didn't see any solution on their website. The thing I noticed (as they were publishing a lot during Everest period)is that they are very easy storytellers. Without factchecking, just publishing lies. Maybe without their knowledge but...then it's still not correct. If you have a link for their sollutions on this mountain, I would be pleased to read it.
Thanks again and keep up the good work :-).

Milan Collin

Posted Aug 22, 2006 1:10 pm


	Alan Arnette	Re: Good points
	Hasn't voted	Hi Milan, good points for sure. My condolences on Thomas. I believe there a few differences between North and South side clients as you point out. However, the profiles of the climbers who died are not that different from south side climbers who have died in previous years. The biggest difference in my mind is not with the climbers but the operators and the overall organization of the expeditions - with some exceptions like Himex. But the low price of the North does attract climbers who may need more help or simply should not be there and the safety net does not exist like on the South thus the problem. Once again, I believe it is the climber's responsibility for their own safety and they should not be there if they are counting on rescues from their poor judgment. Check out this link from mteverest.net http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=7933
		Posted Aug 26, 2006 6:57 pm

camp-1

12 dead

Hasn't voted

Nothing to add exept that this story might as well be situated in the european alps, because the same mistakes are made over there especially for unguided climber's on the lesser known mountains.
Could the main cause of these problem's come from a lack of experience, because climbing is becoming more and more popular, and so more and more people come to the mountains.
With or with out the proper experience.
I have to confess that this was the way I learned the ropes.

Posted Aug 23, 2006 11:10 am

Brad Marshall

Thanks Alan

Voted 10/10

A well written article, very informative and you make several very good points. I'm sure the debate as to what climbers are "qualified" to attempt Mount Everest will continue for years to come. As climbers I believe that many of us will push ourselves beyond our perceived limits and, unfortunately, some will not return. It's a fact of life and I had the opportunity to contemplate this while standing in the Talkeetna cemetary after summiting Denali reading all the names of climbers who had not returned. It made me wonder about the Japanese climbers we passed on the way out who were heading up the Kahiltna Glacier wearing pink, plastic snowshoes and who tied into their climbing rope with 5mm cord.

Posted Aug 25, 2006 10:16 pm

RMPsp	Good article but where will it lead us
Hasn't voted	I enjoyed reading your article and as others have said,you make many good points about how safety could be inproved on the mouintain. One point I would disagree with is where you think that " the low price of the North does attract climbers who may need more help or simply should not be there ".I think the climbers attempting from either side will be similar but as you say ,the safety net in the North is not good as in the South, hence more fatalities. My main point of responding is not to criticise the article which is written well and earnestly to raise awareness and safety on the mountain, but to query whether the way forward is to make the mountain safer for more and more people to climb it or to limit the number of people attempting it. The logical way forward to make things safer on Everest is to have continuous fixed lines, permanent fixed camps, high guide/sherpa to client ratio's and stricter vetting of climbers at every stage. This of course goes against what mountaineering is all about and I dont see why we should encourage this further by letting the commercial companies set the pace on what happens in the worlds finest mountains. It will further take the climbing of Everest out of the realms of mountaineering and into the realms of an adventure theme park (admittedly a very risky and dangerous theme park). I would advocate the banning of commercial guiding above base camp if it were not for concerns over lost revenues to the peoples of Nepal and Tibet and also the fact that it would be very difficult to police. We should not be encouraging the further dumbing down of our natural landscape but leaving it for future generations as we found it. It may arguably reduce the death toll on the mountain purely by reducing numbers of people who 'risk it'. Hope some of that makes sense. Cheers. Roy
	Posted Aug 27, 2006 8:57 pm

Viewing: 1-20 of 26

« PREV 1 2 NEXT »