Death on Everest

[Ixion]

40 people? OK , individually each one might not have been able to save him. But 40?

If you're riding your bike along a country road, and you come upon a crash? Someone injured. What do you do?

Obviously, you stop and try to help (well, I hope you do! You're no biker if you don't!).

Maybe, on your own, you can't do much . Person's trapped, you can't get them out, no cellphone etc. But, next vehicle that comes along , you flag them down, they stop. Two people now, maybe between you you can get them out. By the time you've got 40 people ? 40 people can achieve a lot more than one or two.

I'd say it speaks volumes about the sort of people climbing Everest.

I'm with Hilary. Qui s'excuse, s'accuse. He who excuses himself, accuses himself.

[Macktheknife]

I am surprised that no-one has mentioned the obvious, on any serious mountain summit attempt there is ONE person who decides what happens. The climb leader, once they leave the base camp is the ONLY person who makes the decisions that the team must abide by. Any other method leads to chaos and death, usually on a massive scale.
The climb leader and members gave what assistance they could, realised that anything further would endanger the entire team, then made the only proper decision to make. Complete his task, keeping the best interests of his team first.
I feel great sadness for Mr Sharps family, but even they do not place any blame on the other climbers. Think about that.
I may be slammed for my opinion but I believe they made the right decision and ultimately I would probably choose the same way. (god forbid I should ever have to)
Dont be too quick to judge on this one people.

[Hitcher]

While I feel some compassion for the guy who died, I believe that people who undertake high risk endeavours -- such as extreme climbing, solo yachting -- that potentially put their lives in some form of jeopardy, should do so in full knowledge that if they fuck up, nobody is going to come and help them. That isn't saying that if people happen to be in the vicinity, they shouldn't provide reasonable assistance.

For example, that pommy git (I use this term advisedly) whose yacht dekeeled in the southern ocean a few years ago and immediately flipped upside down, trapping him inside the hull, who managed to activate his distress beacon and get inside his survival suit. He was eventually rescued by the Royal Australian Navy, after an Orion located his vessel, dropped a sonar buoy alongside to see if they could detect sounds of life (which they could) and a frigate was dispatched at great speed to chip him out. All of this was done in huge seas, at great risk to the brave and intrepid Aussie mariners and great expense to Australian taxpayers. The yacht was eventually towed back to Freemantle, to stop it acting as a hazard to shipping. At which point said pommy git asked for it back. "Fuck off" was the response from the Australian Government, who later sold it to defer some of the monumental costs involved in the rescue.

[Macktheknife]

40 people? OK , individually each one might not have been able to save him. But 40?

If you're riding your bike along a country road, and you come upon a crash? Someone injured. What do you do?

Obviously, you stop and try to help (well, I hope you do! You're no biker if you don't!).

Maybe, on your own, you can't do much . Person's trapped, you can't get them out, no cellphone etc. But, next vehicle that comes along , you flag them down, they stop. Two people now, maybe between you you can get them out. By the time you've got 40 people ? 40 people can achieve a lot more than one or two.
I'd say it speaks volumes about the sort of people climbing Everest.
I'm with Hilary. Qui s'excuse, s'accuse. He who excuses himself, accuses himself.

Im sorry mate but this is not a fair comparison, we are not talking about the street, nor did anyone 'just drive on by' this poor guy. They were nearly 5 miles up in one of the most hostile environments on earth. Im sure that any one of us on this site would feel the same as you about helping out another biker in trouble BUT, what if that biker was bleeding out quickly, trapped in a shark pool, that was surrounded by snipers shooting randomly into the water all around the person. We would all feel the same but not so many would come forward to help him out at that stage. Especially if someone they knew was trustworthy said 'forget it, he would be dead by the time you got half way there anyway. No point in losing both of you.'
Again I say dont be too quick to judge on this people.

[hXc]

Those who agree with Hillary, why? The guy was ill-prepared. He had run out of oxygen, he did not have proper clothing etc etc. I have absolutely no sympathy for him. He went up there knowing full well, the risks and dangers he would be facing, and he went up there without the right equipment. The guy was obviously a prat for doing that.

And then people saying that he should of been helped etc. If somebody is ill prepared for anything, injures themselves or whatever and is on the way to death's door, I wouldn't help them. Not here at sea level, not up there at 8000m. It's common sense! You go prepared for the worst. That way, if it happens (Which it does on that mountain), you are ready and can do all you can to keep yourself safe.

But I do agree with Hillary that Mt Everest has become all about the fame and fortune for most. But he still has no right to get angry and start spouting on that it is "his" mountain. We have absolutely no proof that the local people hadn't climbed it well before Hillary did. There may also be no proof that they have, but it's an interesting thing to ponder on.

Was Hillary really the first man up that mountain?

[phantom]

What a terrible decision to have to make but only those who were there will know the whole story. As someone who used to climb the odd mountain or two in my younger days I feel I have some idea of the mindset of those involved . I was always aware if I had an accident climbing I could expect help from other climbers but would never want them to put themselves at risk. I have had 4 friends killed in climbing accidents, these are serious mountains these guys are climbing, with serious risks that all the climbers understand. My heart goes out to the poor guy who died on the mountain and his family

[Macktheknife]

Was Hillary really the first man up that mountain?

Actually no, the first guy was Sherpa Tensing Norgay. Now reasonbly common knowledge I think.

[TonyB]

It seems incredulous that anyone would knowingly leave a man to die. But then few people have any understanding of just how difficult it is to function at those altitudes- even with oxygen, which only supplements what is available. Don't go getting the idea that it's like wearing a scuba tank- the oxygen they carry only makes a small difference. They are 'hypoxically impaired' with the mental capacity of small SLOW child. It is incredibly difficult to function. They don't call it 'the death zone' for nothing.

[justsomeguy]

I wonder how many of you heroic souls have actually faced cold mountainous conditions and felt the humbling life and death reality they bring to your attitude. The Himalaya’s house some of the world’s harshest environments; the areas are prone to extreme and sudden weather changes. You must take advantage of whatever window the weather gives you, be that to complete your task or abandon it.

Climbing Everest is no joke, the earlier post about it becoming over commercialised is hilarious, you need to be seriously fit and experienced before you can even think of attempting the climb. It will always rank as one of life’s great achievements for climbers and it does need a level of commitment that may make others think you are slightly over zealous in your ambition. It’s not a walk in the park meant for fat people accompanied by tour guides.

I believe the Inglis crew had limited time to decide and decided they couldn’t help Sharp; instead they did the best they could to comfort him. I agree with Inglis regarding his comments on Sharp being in a state beyond rescue. Please remember they did not put him in that state, Sharp did it to himself. Whether they should have abandoned the climb for a stranger who was going to die anyway is a question they answered with their actions. Don’t judge them so transiently, we will never know what trepidation they felt.

What happened, happened, it may be right or wrong but it happened; it was the best outcome that the parties concerned drew out of the proceedings. No amount of debate seated in comfortable air conditioned rooms will change that.

Inglis lost both his legs to the ice yet had the perseverance to reach the summit again. Don’t judge him by one action and ignore the rest of his life’s work. Stop being so narrow minded.

[jonbuoy]

While I feel some compassion for the guy who died, I believe that people who undertake high risk endeavours -- such as extreme climbing, solo yachting -- that potentially put their lives in some form of jeopardy, should do so in full knowledge that if they fuck up, nobody is going to come and help them. That isn't saying that if people happen to be in the vicinity, they shouldn't provide reasonable assistance.

For example, that pommy git (I use this term advisedly) whose yacht dekeeled in the southern ocean a few years ago and immediately flipped upside down, trapping him inside the hull, who managed to activate his distress beacon and get inside his survival suit. He was eventually rescued by the Royal Australian Navy, after an Orion located his vessel, dropped a sonar buoy alongside to see if they could detect sounds of life (which they could) and a frigate was dispatched at great speed to chip him out. All of this was done in huge seas, at great risk to the brave and intrepid Aussie mariners and great expense to Australian taxpayers. The yacht was eventually towed back to Freemantle, to stop it acting as a hazard to shipping. At which point said pommy git asked for it back. "Fuck off" was the response from the Australian Government, who later sold it to defer some of the monumental costs involved in the rescue.

Its a mutual worldwide agreement - plenty of mariners get plucked out of British search and rescue areas at the expense of the British government. Ditto the NZ/AU government.

Even in an ocean race with millions of dollars spent. I'm pretty sure any of the crews would risk the race to pick up even a dead body. On the other hand one guy shouldn't have the blame on his shoulders, one guy couldn't save him, 40 might. I have no idea at what stage he was first found in. He must be a pretty determined guy to do what he's done. Most people wouldn't make it with all their limbs.

[Marknz]

IMHO - he would have been a hero if he had forgone his climb to the summit and helped the Brit guy out, even if he was dying. Under no circumstances do you leave anyone, anywhere to die on their own.

[TonyB]

Damned if I know what happened to the rest of what I typed- but I highly recommend reading Jon Krakauer's book "Into Thin Air" It will give you some insight into why 40 people would walk past a dying man and not try and help. Mainly its because severe oxygen depravation means they are mentally and physically unable to do much more than look after themselves.

[Hitcher]

Its a mutual worldwide agreement - plenty of mariners get plucked out of British search and rescue areas at the expense of the British government. Ditto the NZ/AU government.

Even in an ocean race with millions of dollars spent. I'm pretty sure any of the crews would risk the race to pick up even a dead body.

You have completely missed my point on all counts.

[Hoon]

I'm with the cripple on this one. I'm sure theres a reason those other 40 people left him to die. Its fine and dandy for you all to preach from the moral highground as you bask in the warmth of your monitor but 40+ other people who know a shitload more about the topic than all off us put together ever will all arrived at the same conclusion so that says something. Oxygen deprived, exhausted, cold, whatever, I think I would still take their judgement over any armchair mountaineer who read something on the interweb once.

[T.W.R]

On Cambell live tonight they interviewed Rob Hall's wife about the situation, and she was in understanding with Ingles and the climb party he was with, she actually stated that he'd been in contact with the Base camp to seek advice on what to do about the Brit climber.
And as she pointed out in the interview inrelation to climbing Everest herself :

It wasn't Ingles himself so why should he bare the brunt of the conflict ?

The area is the dead zone: One step One breath with oxygen, its an area where one mistake is fatal.
The brit climber had been without oxygen for considerable time & had frost bite to all extremities (limbs & other bits would have had to have been amputated if he been brought down).

It's a place we're not meant to be so, making judgements on the circumstances of the incident should be based on being there and being in the situation and knowing the full consequence of the decision made.

Sir Ed forgets the documentary where his own son had footage of bodies on the mountain and his explaination of why they were left there & the risks involved removing them.