John Oliver - Mount Everest discussion

[DayTrip]

In normal situations, yes. The route takes the path of least resistance.

In a total exercise of Monday-Morning QBing, and the with the added ignorance of never having been there, I nevertheless wonder if the following bypass might be possible. It is more difficult for sure and requires some rock work. But as an alternative to waiting for hours might it be worth considering.

Major downside -- One would need real climbing skills to do it: traverse, rotten rock, etc.

(We should ask Rick Wilcox at IME!)

View attachment 6215

That route looks impossible without carrying lots of extra gear, etc. Don't forget, this is at like 28,000 ft and the weight of ropes, cams and other protection would probably kill most people at that elevation just walking around with it. And if they were already up there and hadn't planned for it - well then that route looks like suicide.

 

[jniehof]

*It is my understanding that there are some geological features, particularly in the southwestern U.S. and Australia that are considered unethical to climb because they are sacred sites to native populations.

Cases I'm familiar with aren't just unethical but illegal (trespassing), e.g. Shiprock, Pueblo peak and the two other 12000-footers on Taos Pueblo land.

 

[skiguy]

That route looks impossible without carrying lots of extra gear, etc. Don't forget, this is at like 28,000 ft and the weight of ropes, cams and other protection would probably kill most people at that elevation just walking around with it. And if they were already up there and hadn't planned for it - well then that route looks like suicide.

.....and then there was this proposal dating to 2013. Just goes to show there have been issues for awhile with congestion. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/27/mount-everest-ladder-hillary-step

 

[ChrisB]

.....and then there was this proposal dating to 2013. Just goes to show there have been issues for awhile with congestion. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/27/mount-everest-ladder-hillary-step

Exactly Skiguy!

There has been a ladder in use for some time at the second step of on the Northeast Ridge route, near where Mallory and Irvine disappeared. Even Conrad Aker could not manage the rock moves to get past this step at 8,100 meters sans ladder.

Theory is that when Mallory and Irvine did it there was a lot more snow, enabling them to bypass the rock face on the right.

 

[skiguy]

Exactly Skiguy!

There has been a ladder in use for some time at the second step of on the Northeast Ridge route, near where Mallory and Irvine disappeared. Even Conrad Aker could not manage the rock moves to get past this step at 8,100 meters sans ladder.

Theory is that when Mallory and Irvine did it there was a lot more snow, enabling them to bypass the rock face on the right.

Conrad climbed the second step. It took two try’s. The second time they removed the ladder. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/features/everest/everest-mallory-anker/

A google search of “Everest second step” results in plenty of photographs of that area of the mountain.

 

[sierra]

Isn't that the whole problem on the South route? There is no other realistic way to traverse that section so everyone bottle necks in it? Breaking out of line probably means plummeting to your death.

The ridge line there is to thin to break off. It would turn a walk up into a technical route, makes no sense at all. What they should do, but they will not because they want the money. Is limit how many can summit on any day. Granted that would be a logistical nightmare to enforce.

 

[Puma concolor]

In general, I agree with you that anyone who wishes to climb should be able to do so, but with the caveat that you should have a minimum level of experience, from which we can infer skill, and fitness, and that it is ethically acceptable*. If you lack these, you are endangering the lives of hundreds of others. The particular problem with the South/Nepalese approach to Mt. Everest is that there are virtually no regulations: according to the Oliver piece, an ~$11,000 climbing permit fee, and a doctor's note. There are no limits on the numbers of climbers. Defining what a "true mountain experience" is is subjective and a massive grey area, but Oliver's piece highlighted how Everest from the South certainly isn't.

To your point about the sherpas freely choosing their form of employment, the sherpas are all but forced by economics into their jobs. (Oliver noted that not all sherpas are Sherpas, the latter being an ethnic group, the former being a job.) Those living in that region of Nepal essentially have to choose between poverty and being a sherpa. It's akin to being an Appalachian coal miner or Newfoundland fisherman. Do/did you really have much of a choice? These people need these jobs to survive, but they are all inherently dangerous. They still deserve regulations to afford whatever safety is possible, and the they deserve to be afforded respect. It is also a fair question to ask, is it morally justifiable to pursue bagging a peak at the expense of these people's lives, even if they are desperate for work. (Similarly we can ask is it morally justifiable to watch football or is the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar? Oliver, a huge football fan, has previously addressed the Qatar World Cup.)

*It is my understanding that there are some geological features, particularly in the southwestern U.S. and Australia that are considered unethical to climb because they are sacred sites to native populations. There is at least one bona fide 4,000 footer, based on the AMC's 200-foot col standard, and officially surveyed, that is not recognized by any of the major hiking clubs because of ethics.

I dunno.

Our differences seem to be more centered around social justice/political issues than around mountain issues. So I’m just going to stay right the heck away from that.

As to the “true mountain experience” line of thought, though, a few points. In one of the other Everest 2019 threads, I brought up that a fairly close climbing friend of mine was among the “hordes” of climbers who assaulted the summit of Everest in that now famous photo from this year. I was in contact with him from the time he arrived in Kathmandu through his successful ascent. Consider this. I first became aware he was in Nepal on April 2nd and followed his climb all the way to the end. He started an uphill trek from Phakding at 8,563’ on April 4th and arrived at Everest Base Camp after a side acclimatization climb of Lobuche (20,075’) on April 15th. From there, it was the regular up-and-down acclimating that we’ve all heard and read about. Base Camp, perhaps, was a little bit cushy with excellent food and even movies but the higher camps most certainly were not. As the trip went on, my friend began to lose faith that a summit attempt was in the cards. Finally on May 19th or 20th, a weather window opened and everyone made a dash for the summit. On May 22nd, I got word that he had summited.

Now I don’t know about you, but 17 days (Denali) is the longest I’ve spent on any mountain. April 2nd to late May (7-ish weeks) amidst some of the most spectacular mountain scenery on Earth pretty much crushes that even if someone else was carrying his ****. Cushy Base Camp and movie night aside, that seems like a pretty “true mountain experience” to me when compared to say a night in Lincoln followed by a day-hike of the Tripyramids. No disrespect to the Whites intended.

 

[TEO]

Now I don’t know about you, but 17 days (Denali) is the longest I’ve spent on any mountain. April 2nd to late May (7-ish weeks) amidst some of the most spectacular mountain scenery on Earth pretty much crushes that even if someone else was carrying his ****. Cushy Base Camp and movie night aside, that seems like a pretty “true mountain experience” to me when compared to say a night in Lincoln followed by a day-hike of the Tripyramids. No disrespect to the Whites intended.

For me, the trueness of my mountain experience is almost always inversely proportional to the number of people that I see. But that's just my view, which is why I would be hesitant to set regulations based on a someones definition of that term. Whereas if you were to define a set of prerequisites for a climbing permit, and set a cap on permits based on what would reasonably reduce the risk due to bottlenecks, then you have a could hopefully reduce the literal and figurative shitshow to a relatively objective standard, without reducing the equability of opportunity.

 

[DayTrip]

For me, the trueness of my mountain experience is almost always inversely proportional to the number of people that I see.

Totally agree with that. The self reliance, skills and improvising is as rewarding as the hiking and the views. Much more impressed with alpine style climbs versus expedition style climbs at every level of hiking. I'm not sure at what point mountaineering becomes tourism but Everest of the past 5-10 years or so seems to be there. It's at a point now where you can do everything right and still be exposed to disaster by the actions of others. It's one thing to go up Everest untrained and unequipped, make a mistake or foolhardy decision and kill yourself. It's another thing entirely when that foolishness can kill other people. At that point some sort of regulation/enforcement of qualifications has to be involved.

Maybe a bad analogy but imagine a NASCAR race where trained professionals in high end cars battle at 200 mph to win. Lot of time, money and effort goes into winning a race. Crashes happen but everyone is trained, equipped, has experienced teams and knows the consequences. Now imagine that I enter my Subaru Cross Trek, put some fuel additive in the gas and some kick ass tires on it and take that bad boy into Turn 2 at 140 mph and wreck the field, causing injuries and major financial expenditures. Do we have a right to do whatever we want simply because we want to and can afford it, even if it is wildly foolish? Maybe alone you do but when your actions affect others? Private group, private property, your signing a contract acknowledging the risks, etc. I get that. But even in a public place like a National Forest, etc there has to be some minimum level of expectation for people who go there. I have no issue with regulation on Everest. It has evolved to the point where that is necessary IMO.

 

[ChrisB]

That route looks impossible without carrying lots of extra gear, etc. Don't forget, this is at like 28,000 ft and the weight of ropes, cams and other protection would probably kill most people at that elevation just walking around with it. And if they were already up there and hadn't planned for it - well then that route looks like suicide.

Here's an interesting NPR article about the situation on Everest in which a Nepalese official says...

"In the next season, we will work to have double rope in the area below the summit so there is better management of the flow of climbers..."


The bad press is getting to them apparently. But while China has cut back on the number of permits Nepal will not. (Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world.)

And here is an article describing the permitting process and prices for many mountains around the world. Interesting.

 

[skiguy]

Another perspective from someone whom has actually been there...more than once.https://youtu.be/ZVMIl6o_UzE

 

[strider]

In normal situations, yes. The route takes the path of least resistance.

In a total exercise of Monday-Morning QBing, and the with the added ignorance of never having been there, I nevertheless wonder if the following bypass might be possible. It is more difficult for sure and requires some rock work. But as an alternative to waiting for hours might it be worth considering.

Major downside -- One would need real climbing skills to do it: traverse, rotten rock, etc.

(We should ask Rick Wilcox at IME!)

View attachment 6215

IMG set up a rappel route around the Hillary Step in 2013. Guess it didn't catch on.

https://www.mountainguides.com/everest-south13-worlds-highest-rappel.shtml

 

[strider]

Conrad climbed the second step. It took two try’s. The second time they removed the ladder. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/features/everest/everest-mallory-anker/

A google search of “Everest second step” results in plenty of photographs of that area of the mountain.

Per Jochen Hemmleb's website, at least five people have attempted to climb the second step without using the ladder (not counting the Chinese in 1960 and Mallory/Irvine). All five succeeded.

According to climbers testimonies, the Second Step has seen up to four (4) free ascents over the years, i.e. without the ladder placed on the headwall by the Chinese in 1975 and therefore under similar conditions as during Mallory & Irvine's climb in 1924:
- By Catalan Oscar Cadiach in 1985, climbing on lead;
- By Austrian Theo Fritsche in 2001, climbing solo;
- By Russian Nickolay Totmjanin in 2003, exact style unknown; and
- By American Conrad Anker and Briton Leo Houlding in 2007, climbing as a roped party.

Only verbal testimonies exist as proof of the first three ascents (although Totmjanin probably had several eyewitnesses), while the fourth ascent by Anker & Houlding has been extensively covered on film and still photographs.

Cadiach rated the headwall crux pitch UIAA V+ (5.7-5.8); Fritsche between IV+ and V- (5.6), with the last moves probably in the V+ (5.7-5.8) range; Conrad Anker is on record with ratings between 5.8 and 5.10 (V+-VI+), while Leo Houlding, after seconding the pitch, rated it 5.9 (VI). No rating is documented from Totmjanin.

 

[DayTrip]

Per Jochen Hemmleb's website, at least five people have attempted to climb the second step without using the ladder (not counting the Chinese in 1960 and Mallory/Irvine). All five succeeded.

According to climbers testimonies, the Second Step has seen up to four (4) free ascents over the years, i.e. without the ladder placed on the headwall by the Chinese in 1975 and therefore under similar conditions as during Mallory & Irvine's climb in 1924:
- By Catalan Oscar Cadiach in 1985, climbing on lead;
- By Austrian Theo Fritsche in 2001, climbing solo;
- By Russian Nickolay Totmjanin in 2003, exact style unknown; and
- By American Conrad Anker and Briton Leo Houlding in 2007, climbing as a roped party.

Only verbal testimonies exist as proof of the first three ascents (although Totmjanin probably had several eyewitnesses), while the fourth ascent by Anker & Houlding has been extensively covered on film and still photographs.

Cadiach rated the headwall crux pitch UIAA V+ (5.7-5.8); Fritsche between IV+ and V- (5.6), with the last moves probably in the V+ (5.7-5.8) range; Conrad Anker is on record with ratings between 5.8 and 5.10 (V+-VI+), while Leo Houlding, after seconding the pitch, rated it 5.9 (VI). No rating is documented from Totmjanin.

Translation: The part-time "mountaineers" in these groups could not do this. Some of these people do not even know how to use crampons until they show up at base camp. I seriously doubt they can pull off 5.7-5.10 moves in the death zone as a realistic option for skipping Hillary Step.

 

[ChrisB]

Translation: The part-time "mountaineers" in these groups could not do this. Some of these people do not even know how to use crampons until they show up at base camp. I seriously doubt they can pull off 5.7-5.10 moves in the death zone as a realistic option for skipping Hillary Step.

Just a point of clarification here: We are mixing two different Everest routes. The "second step" referenced above is on the Northeast Ridge route. The "Hillary Step" is on the South Col route. Few if any commercially guided groups attempt the Northeast Ridge. Too long, too difficult and requires you to deal with China.

On the South Col route commercial guide companies pool their resources ($$) each season to establish a safe route ALL of them will use through the Khumbu icefall and on the upper mountain. This cuts costs and saves time and effort. It also creates jams when good weather windows are short and everybody goes for it at the same time, which happened this season.

I think it only a matter of time until alternate, (possibly slightly more difficult) routes from the South Col to the summit are explored and established.

When a guide service can say, "hey mate will keep you out of that mess at the Hillary Step," they will gain a significant marketing advantage.

 

[skiguy]

Translation: The part-time "mountaineers" in these groups could not do this. Some of these people do not even know how to use crampons until they show up at base camp. I seriously doubt they can pull off 5.7-5.10 moves in the death zone as a realistic option for skipping Hillary Step.

Wrong side of the Mountain. But I do get your point. Both The Hillary Step (South Col Route) and The Second Step (North Ridge Route) can be bottlenecks. The above quote you cited is about the Second Step where a ladder is in place to get over this obstacle. The Class 5 ratings described are about climbers that climbed the Second Step after the ladder was removed, at least in Conrad Anker’s case. This was done as a matter of trying to add clarity to wether Irving and Mallory could have climbed this section of the Mountain when the ladder did not exist.

 

[DayTrip]

My bad. I thought we were still discussing the alternate route ChrisB highlighted on map as a bypass of Hillary Step. And back to my original point, spontaneously deciding to take an alternate route like that, with the needed skills and gear, would not be an option just to avoid the wait as was suggested. Obviously, if someone were to climb it and establish ropes, protection, etc that would be a different story. But that would have to be planned, not improvised on the spot as a reaction.

 

[ChrisB]

... if someone were to climb it and establish ropes, protection, etc that would be a different story. But that would have to be planned, not improvised on the spot as a reaction.

I wonder if in that conga line on the step there were any independent, self guided, teams of capable experienced climbers.

Can you imagine the likes of Bonnington, Willans or Messner ( I date myself) in a crowd like that? I guarantee they would seek and probably find an alternative to standing around for hours waiting for a turn on the fixed ropes.

The notion of attempting Everest without being capable of lead climbing still amazes me. But for better or worse that’s the era we are in.

 

[Salty]

According to climbers testimonies, the Second Step has seen up to four (4) free ascents over the years, i.e. without the ladder placed on the headwall by the Chinese in 1975 and therefore under similar conditions as during Mallory & Irvine's climb in 1924:
- By Catalan Oscar Cadiach in 1985, climbing on lead;
- By Austrian Theo Fritsche in 2001, climbing solo;
- By Russian Nickolay Totmjanin in 2003, exact style unknown; and
- By American Conrad Anker and Briton Leo Houlding in 2007, climbing as a roped party.

If that's not impressive enough, the two in bold used no supplemental oxygen.

 

[Salty]

Translation: The part-time "mountaineers" in these groups could not do this. Some of these people do not even know how to use crampons until they show up at base camp. I seriously doubt they can pull off 5.7-5.10 moves in the death zone as a realistic option for skipping Hillary Step.

They won't be (and probably never are) in the death zone. Thanks to bottled oxygen, they're only climbing, at the most, a 24,000 foot mountain.

https://8kpeak.com/blogs/sneak-peak/18637335-climbing-with-supplemental-oxygen-by-the-numbers
(see the excellent plots at the end)