Avalance on Mt Ranier Hiker missing
- Thread starter daxs
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
J.Dub
Active member
Wow. They estimate the slab was 3,000-4,000 feet wide! (Hard to escape that one.)
It's a little sobering for somebody heading out there next week, I'll tell ya. I guess the one consolation is that we're not doing the Ingraham Direct route.
Still...
It's a little sobering for somebody heading out there next week, I'll tell ya. I guess the one consolation is that we're not doing the Ingraham Direct route.
Still...
DougPaul
Well-known member
Yeah--that was a pretty big one. If someone is still buried, there isn't much chance that he is still alive.
On the other hand, a slope that has avalanched is less likely to do so again soon (or until conditions change)... Of course, nearby (or higher) slopes could still be loaded and ready to go.
Doug
sardog1
New member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 2,579
- Reaction score
- 231
I knew a woman whose boyfriend was one of eleven fatalities in this 1981 ice avalanche on the Ingraham: Ghosts of Rainier. So far as I know, it's still the largest number lost in a climbing accident in the U.S.
Here's hoping the number involved in this incident doesn't increase with time.
Here's hoping the number involved in this incident doesn't increase with time.
Jay H
New member
cbcbd
Well-known member
Ugh, not much hope for the missing climber.
It's been dumping rain in Seattle for the last weeks, it's not Summer yet at all, lots of new snow up there. Not many climbing trip reports being posted for a good reason.
It's very sad.
It's been dumping rain in Seattle for the last weeks, it's not Summer yet at all, lots of new snow up there. Not many climbing trip reports being posted for a good reason.
It's very sad.
Chip
Well-known member
Wow. They estimate the slab was 3,000-4,000 feet wide! (Hard to escape that one.)
300 to 400 feet wide, not that it would matter much. Apparently he was by himself, hadn't registered and had a foreign accent. I guess there's a chance he won't be identified. Sad.
J.Dub
Active member
Chip said:
Just curious, are you judging that by the photo or was this magnitude cited somehere? I was just repeating the figures in several online reports I read, though 300-400 feet seems to make more sense than 3,000-4,000. (Hey, what's a power of 10 among friends, right...?
)DougPaul said:
Well, aren't you just a bright ray of sunshine...
I'm debating whether or not to make the pre-emptive strike and tell SWMBO and the kids about this story. I don't want to unnecessarily worry them, though if she sees the news reports and I didn't say anything, she might think I'm trying to hide/minimize the risks of an activity which I'm not sure she's gotten her head round yet.
I guess I could feign ignorance....(again)...
Jay H
New member
Maybe he was running from the Arizona police?
Seriously, truly sad, I know the rangers at Paradise want every climber to register as they kind of try to filter out solo climbers, I hope they can at least identify the climber and notify next of kin.
Jay
DougPaul
Well-known member
The report linked by the OP says 300-400 ft.Just curious, are you judging that by the photo or was this magnitude cited somehere? I was just repeating the figures in several online reports I read, though 300-400 feet seems to make more sense than 3,000-4,000. (Hey, what's a power of 10 among friends, right...?
That's me...Well, aren't you just a bright ray of sunshine...DougPaul said:
Avalanche prone slopes do tend to be safer after an avalanche, however avalanches will do whatever they want, no matter what I say.
Doug
Last edited:
Kevin Rooney
New member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 3,667
- Reaction score
- 354
Solo climbs of Rainier are discouraged, and I've read of accounts of solo climbers being fined. I understand why it's discouraged, but it creates a dilemma in situations like this.
AOC-1
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 43
I'm debating whether or not to make the pre-emptive strike and tell SWMBO and the kids about this story. I don't want to unnecessarily worry them, though if she sees the news reports and I didn't say anything, she might think I'm trying to hide/minimize the risks of an activity which I'm not sure she's gotten her head round yet.
I guess I could feign ignorance....(again)...
Dub - don't know which route you intend to climb, but it's always a gamble to make long-range plans for Rainier without knowing the conditions. FWIW - I've done a lot of climbing in the Cascades and I've learned it makes sense to have a few back-up climbs in mind when conditions are unfavorable on the main objective. PM me if you'd like some suggestions. Have a safe and enjoyable climb. - Al
Kevin Rooney
New member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 3,667
- Reaction score
- 354
FWIW - I don't think the news photo Chip referenced is necessarily the site of this particular avalanche, which as far as I can tell occurred on the Ingraham Direct route. My hunch is that it's a stock photo. Most climbers coming up from Muir use the DC route, but maybe the Ingraham Direct is considered a safer route this year.
The late spring storms year keep rolling off the Pacific at frequent intervals. I've had to postpone a Shasta climb twice thus far. It may be rain in the valleys, but above 8-9,000' it's often snow.
The late spring storms year keep rolling off the Pacific at frequent intervals. I've had to postpone a Shasta climb twice thus far. It may be rain in the valleys, but above 8-9,000' it's often snow.
Craig
New member
Good luck up there. Don’t forget your wag bag. (real men take clear ziplock bags)
I’d be interested to know what their snow totals are for this spring. Quite a bit above normal I bet.
I’d be interested to know what their snow totals are for this spring. Quite a bit above normal I bet.
sardog1
New member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 2,579
- Reaction score
- 231
Ordinarily yes, but not always. Been there, saw this:
"The fracture line ran more than 3,000 feet, crossed two ridges, and cleaned out three separate bowls with two runout zones a quarter of a mile apart. The fracture depth varied from 1.5 feet to 15 feet with the average around 6 feet. The avalanche in the main path traveled more than a half mile and fell 1800 vertical feet from 7000 feet to 5200 feet."
February 3, 2001 avalanche near Eureka Summit, AK
And yes, our astonishment at the size was exceeded only by the fact that five of the seven snowmachiners involved survived this event.
Chip
Well-known member
It's supposed to be the path after the avalanche, but who knows;"This image provided by Mount Rainier National Park shows the avalanche path, center of image, Saturday June 5, 2010. Eleven climbers were overtaken by the avalanche early Saturday morning during a summit attempt. Ten of the eleven were extricated from the avalanche by guides from International Mountain Guides and Rainier Mountaineering Incorporated. The eleventh climber has not been located. (AP Photo/Mount Rainier National Park)"
from this article; http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gh0bQ4S1vdv1TwLxGLHXeMo32aggD9G5MG301
Our guides talked about taking the Direct route. I guess it's shorter and faster IF it's determined to be "safe".
Dub, no point worrying the family. It'd be like reviewing car and plane crashes with them before you left.
TCD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,087
- Reaction score
- 161
This thread gives rise to another discussion, which is the relative change in objective dangers as a result of being solo. (This may have been discussed previously.) The major objective dangers of crevasse fall and avalanche hazard vary differently when solo vs. in a team. The risk of falling in a crevasse increases greatly for the unroped solo climber. The risk of being hit by an avalanche does not increase, and may decrease slightly. The risk of not being rescued after being hit increases greatly.
Given that this solo climber was hit by an avalanche, and was known to be buried and was searched for by a competent team, it appears that the climber being solo had little or no effect on the outcome.
Given that this solo climber was hit by an avalanche, and was known to be buried and was searched for by a competent team, it appears that the climber being solo had little or no effect on the outcome.
Craig
New member
cbcbd
Well-known member
The pic looks to be of the correct location of the descriptions, with Gibraltar rock in the background and the DC in the foreground. Ingraham in between with the avalanche looking to be starting in line with the top of the DC and Gib rock, so ~12.5', where they claimed the climbers were when the avy went off.
The Ingraham Direct is well, more direct, and tends to be used more during the winter or early spring season when temps are cold and most crevasses are covered up. Early season it and the Gib ledges routes are more popular from Muir, with the DC becoming a favored choice when summer kicks in, temps are warm (raised rock fall danger on the Gib ledges, serac danger on the Ingraham direct) and crevasses open up, making the Ingraham Direct dangerous and not as direct.
DougPaul
Well-known member
I disagree with respect to crevasses** but generally agree with respect to avalanches...
** (This may be due to your choice of words: you used the phrase "the risk of falling in a crevasse". If you had used a phrase such as "the risk of injury or death due to falling in a crevasse", then I would agree.)
Ranier is a heavily traveled mountain. Most climbers, solo or in a group, probably follow existing (broken out) paths so both groups would tend to use the same micro-routes.
The probability of an individual falling in a crevasse on such routes has little to do with whether one is in a group or not. The big difference occurs after the fall:
* The risk of injury is much lower when one is roped in a team (to catch the fall).
* One is also much more likely to escape the crevasse (under one's own power or by rescue) when one is roped in a team.
* The probability of escape for an unroped victim is greater if the fall is witnessed or discovered by others (who can help) which is more likely if one is in a team.
Most fatal avalanches are set off by a member of one's own party. Thus, having multiple people nearby (such as from one's own party) increases the probability of an individual being involved in an avalanche. Being roped in a team can go either way--it increases the chance of being pulled into the avalanche by the rope but once in the avalanche it increases the chance of survival. Having others around (who survive the avalanche) certainly increases the chance of being dug out if buried.
Doug
Last edited:
