I can understand a persons willingness to 'push the envelope' and stretch themselves to reach their goals, but I am always mystified by the seeming lack of understanding by those who try and tackle Everest when they are not at peak climbing ability. In almost every case, it is the local Sherpas who will have to then risk their own lives to undertake a rescue or recovery operation if you don't make it.
Plus, I would hate to think that you would become just a nameless waypoint or turning marker on the way to the summit, much as poor 'Green Boots' and others have become. (though I believe 'Green Boots' has been removed now?)
EDIT: It appears that 'Green Boots' is still on the mountain, and has not been removed as previously thought. [0]
Everest is the worst example of mountaineering. For many it's just an achievement, not an experience, not something that's worthwhile on its own merits. And in that light it makes it more obvious why so many people fall into the trap of tackling it unprepared. Many people don't understand how challenging it can be and they think that if they just struggle through and be miserable for a few days they'll come out the other end with a shiny brass ring they can decorate their life with, something that will serve as bragging rights and help define who they are as a person for their life. It's really not much different than, say, college, for that matter. When you have people who have been rewarded so much for gaming the system, when you have people who struggle constantly in the search for authenticity and meaning in their life they are prone to try to fake their way through.
I can't speak for climbers from other countries, but I feel that the American attitude towards achievements like "climbing mountain X" is that they want exactly that, a checkmark on a list. They want to get in and get out as fast as possible. The destination is the goal, and everything in between is just noise that should be overcome as swiftly as possible.
This is, at least, my anedoctal experience. I go hiking recreational level hills with (American) friends frequently and it always annoys me how they just want to get to the top as soon as possible and then come back down just as quickly. I instead frequently stop on my way to look around and admire the view (and not just at officially sanctioned "lookout points") and this is something they never have any inclination on doing.
There are peak baggers from all over the world, it's not an American phenomenon. I got a nice tip the last time I was hiking in Colorado: ignore the 14ers and go for the just unders. 13,950 feet has the same views and sense of accomplishment, but with no peak baggers.
This seems like a pretty broad generalization, deriving an entire culture's adventure sport habits from a hill hike with friends. Not saying you're wrong, not saying you're right. For me, it takes a little more to characterize 300+ million people.
I did say it is anedoctal, but to make it more clear: this was not from just "a hill hike with friends". This is my experience from years hiking with these and other friends in the US, noticing their behavior (and those of other people in the same trails) on both the West and East coast, and contrasting it to the behavior seen in comparable trails outside of the US. After a while it starts feeling more like a common pattern, instead of an isolated thing.
Anecdotally I'd say that's true. The majority of the most active climbers and alpinists that I've been around don't seem to be overly goal oriented about it, though there definitely is a subset who are.
Coincidentally, Nepal is one of the best places to trek in the world, thanks in part to the natural beauty and tea houses located everywhere. It's worth it just to visit base camp.
Despite living close to the Sagarmatha (equivalent of Everest in Nepali) region, I myself haven't even dared thinking about giving it a try(not that I can't afford it). The mere suggestion of “conquering Everest” sounds ridiculous. Having conversed with few of them I've realized that many climbers do in fact posses this mentality, and while that may be fine for them, I personally believe that the true beauty in climbing is the experience – both in appreciating nature’s wonder while challenging yourself physically in new ways and to your personal limits. While reaching the top of mountains can be an exhilarating experience, irrational obsession with summiting (also called Summit Fever) can be deadly. So what is my point? It is my opinion that for most people attempting to climb to the summit of Mt. Everest is simply dumb.
I wouldn't blame the mountain. It isn't dangerous anymore, not like it once was. Modern climbing is extraordinarily safe. We now have gear that we can actually trust. Ropes are now basically magic. But more importantly, modern communications and weather forecasting mean climbers no longer need step into the void. Dangers that were once total unknowns are now calculable. It is much easier to be bold when you know what you are about to face. So I'd say the mountain is exactly as dangerous as those climbing it want it to make it. We are just now realizing that well-informed and equipped people often take risks that previous less-informed generations would never consider. Soloing everest was once crazy, but I wouldn't be surprised if some idiot out there is planning the first free-solo on-sight.
Mountaineering above 6000m is never extraordinarily safe. During past 5 years death rate on Everest is 3.4%. That's pretty high if you ask me. If you were sitting in a bus full of climbers, one of them wasn't going back home. Sure, there is always a lot of stupidity but pretty much its just nature. No one is still able to predict weather perfectly, no one can tell who is going to get AMS and people even sitting on basecamp can just die because of avalanche.
While I don't want to die from a change in the weather while climbing, to take on Mother Nature and lose seems a bit more acceptable than to die because I was stuck in a human traffic jam caused by a dentist from Akron going through a midlife crisis who is using Everest as a coping mechanism. Once upon a time I had climbing the seven summits as a goal but with the way things are on Everest now, I'd never attempt it regardless the quality of my own skills. There are just too many inexperienced climbers and too many ways they can cause harm beyond themselves.
Parent comment logic is "since we have better and safer equipment, people are making more dangerous choices" - statistics can't show it to be false, as this death rate can be explained in this logic as said dangerous choices, not the mountaineering itself.
Part of the issue is that people seek out risk. If something is made safer, people will not go "great, no we're not taking any risks" - they will seek out something riskier.
Peoples individual risk tolerance varies, but we all tend to have a tendency to see a reduced risk as a reason to push things further.
This gives rise to the situation where if we make changes that are perceived as adding more safety than it actually does, we even risk actually causing more injury than we prevent
Just hiking to Everest Base Camp and nearby Kala Pattar (8.5 days, ~18,500 ft) was brutal for me -- and that was with porters carrying my heavier gear.
Hopefully this will save the lives of a few Sherpas (who, btw, are an ethnic group; it's not a job title). They're inevitably tasked with attempting to save rich Western idiots doing stupid stuff like climb Everest without support.
I'd just add my personal experience on the mountain: it's hard to describe how brutal Everest is. You're so cold and so tired and so out of it, 99% of us (those without natural-born mountaineering gifts) being up there unaided is just a recipe for disaster.
Next I'd like to see the Nepalese government double the Everest permit fee (currently $11,000) and pass $$ onto Sherpas.
Doubt it will happen, but this is at least a small victory.
So your ego was bruised by some trek and your solution is to ruin it for everyone else? "rich Western idiot" logic. Also just fyi - most sherpas die supporting guided climbs not rescuing solo climbers.
I don't know what the relevant statistics actually are, but if the death rate for sherpas rescuing solo climbers is higher than that for sherpas supporting guided climbs -- even if the total number of deaths is lower -- this still suggests reducing the number of solo rescues, no? Especially since, as far as I can tell, supporting guided climbs is way more economically important.
It's unfortunate that world-class alpinists such as Kilian Jornet -- who recently summited Everest solo, in 26 hours, without supplemental oxygen, after training his ass off for years [1] -- won't be able to attempt such a challenge again (unless I'm missing something).
There has to be a better solution to the problem mentioned in the article.
Racing drivers don't get kudos for racing without a helmet or a seat belt - nobody would let them race and they'd be seen as moronic for even suggesting the idea.
Nepal have every right to ban people from doing pointless, stupid things on their mountain. Jornet's good friend Ueli Steck died earlier this year. He was solo climbing Nuptse without fixed protection, supplemental oxygen or even ice axes. If Jornet has not learned from this senseless tragedy, then Nepal has no obligation to entertain him.
The racing analogy might have some flaws. Seat belts and helmets are for protection, they don't aid you in driving. Ice axes and supplemental oxygen aid you in climbing. You could very well climb without them. They are not safety devices. Seat belt is by definition a safety device which will save your life in case of a high speed accident. I think the only seat belt equivalent is the climbing rope.
Traditional rock climbers use their ropes and equipment as both a fall-arrest system and a means of ascent. Sport climbers only use their ropes as a fall-arrest system and sometimes and a means of resting on the rock. The same can be done with ice axes - they're a vital means of arresting a fall, regardless of whether you use them to ascend.
If you're determined to climb into the death zone without supplemental oxygen, you could still carry a small cylinder as a bailout option. Hell, if you want to make the climb really challenging, you could carry ten oxygen cylinders and a Piñata.
More to the point, you could just not climb Everest. Other than the altitude, there's nothing particularly interesting about the climb. The Nürburgring was the most interesting and challenging course in the Formula 1 world championship, but the sport abandoned it in 1976 because it couldn't be made safe. The drivers agreed that no race track was worth creating widows and orphans for.
>Traditional rock climbers use their ropes and equipment as both a fall-arrest system and a means of ascent.
Minor quibble: you mean aid climbing, here. post-1960ish, "french-free" or hangdog ascents are considered bad form for trad, and using your gear to take your weight is an ethics violation at some level.
>The drivers agreed that no race track was worth creating widows and orphans for.
Motorcyclists, of course, continue to use the Isle of Man TT course despite the deaths of 255 people to date.
If you go on Oxygen, you basically want to have enough to get you down to camp. The effects of coming off Oxygen can be totally debilitating. There are also advantages to climbing without Oxygen if you have the proper physiology, mainly you don't have to worry about carrying g it or running out.
Anatoli Boukreev's book about the 1996 Everest disaster is very insightful. Among other factors climbers running out of Oxygen contributed to the scope of that disaster. It's a fascinating read.
Jornet isn't just some random wahoo. He's won pretty much every major ultra trail race there is, has an unparalleled race ski mountaineering career, and FKTs on other major Seven Summits, including Denali. He's an outlier''s outlier. What then, does he need to prove? What would the reason be for him to lie?
Just taking a wild stab at it, avoiding embarrassment and maintaining his reputation. I know literally nothing about him, but I presume he's every bit as human as the rest of us.
I'm absolutely not trying to weigh in either way - again, I know literally nothing about him. But also I don't think past accomplishment can be used as such handy proof of subsequent accomplishments.
> Just taking a wild stab at it, avoiding embarrassment and maintaining his reputation.
He's failed many times on the, "Summits of My Life" peaks. It's Alpinism! Failure is part of the game. This wasn't even his first time trying Everest. He's clearly not an egotistical guy.
> but I presume he's every bit as human as the rest of us.
I'd do some research, well worth it. They guy isn't human.
Just for the sake of argument, the reason is pretty obvious: sponsor pressure. You think Salomon is ponying up for him to get to 28,500 and then turn back?
Also, didn’t Kilian get DQed for cutting switchbacks in a race after being told repeatedly to knock it off? I know he’s a beast and GOAT but he’s still human.
> the reason is pretty obvious: sponsor pressure. You think Salomon is ponying up for him to get to 28,500 and then turn back?
The guy is a living legend in his 20's. He's already failed on Everest before, in 2016. What pressure do you think Salomon has on Jornet? Salomon is a 700 million dollar a year in revenue company, whose parent company has yearly revenue in the billions. They got the scratch and Jornet is Salomon's top athlete, no question about it. I don't even think Salomon was the sole, or even main sponsor. His blog lists Mercedes Benz a b.s. luxury brand that seems to be what's needed as the catalyst for large expeditions into the Himalayas that has nothing to do with mountaineering.
The big money in sponsorship (as an athlete) is in racing, not mountaineering. But Jornet has literally won every race there is to win! Salomon is sponsoring Jornet even though he doesn't do what a sponsors runner is supposed to do - because he's his own weather system of getting eyeballs interested in the brands that sponsor him - he doesn't need UTMB, or any other ultra race anymore. He can compete in them for fun, when he wants to.
Take it from me, there's little if no money in setting FKTs, and only the Jornet's of the world could pull it off. His sponsors aren't pushing for him to do this stuff, he's telling his sponsors what he's doing, the sponsors put up the hype, and they all make a lot of money.
> Also, didn’t Kilian get DQed for cutting switchbacks in a race after being told repeatedly to knock it off?
There's little to no money in being a professional ultra runner. A little little better in Europe, but the only dude I know that makes a living as a pro ultra runner is so injured, he can't even run. It honestly doesn't matter: he has a huge social media following, and he gets people excited for the brand. He makes a living not running (he doesn't coach, he doesn't put on his own race, nothing). He makes pennies to Jornet's dollars.
Believe me, Jornet's doing fine, and wouldn't need to fake a summit bid. Remember too, he summited twice in that one trip.
True, but surmounting Everest is not the end-game. K2 is a more grueling, technically difficult climb -- and it's only ~800ft shorter than Everest. That's sort of the problem here, even though Everest is the tallest it's a relatively accessible climb with enough money/gear/training.
There are literally thousands of more difficult climbs in the Himalaya...I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. For some (even world-class alpinists), summiting Everest faster and by "fair means" is an end game.
As someone with some mountaineering experience in North America, I am really surprised to hear that they ever allowed this in the first place. Of course, one could argue that govt shouldn't have any power over what an individual can do, but the same people who argue for that liberty also ask govt to go search when someone goes missing in the mountains. And you can only search for so many people. I think it is reasonable to expect that those who plan to climb such scary mountains find someone to accompany them.
> Of course, one could argue that govt shouldn't have any power over what an individual can do
If I were in charge (I never will be), my first inclination would be to not restrict high risk climbing. But then I wouldn't be able to shake the feeling that a hands off approach would be that simple. I'd want to understand the drawbacks of people dying on the mountain. I'd be concerned with being responsible for rescue costs, being vilified for not making rescue attempts, the cost of medical treatments, the lives lost in attempting to make rescues, any correlations between deaths & the number of climbing attempts made (is it scaring people away, attracting even more, etc.), how the press coverage affects Nepal's public image, and so on. In the end, banning high risk climbing might simply be a good & conservative decision.
I’d say, let them climb how they want, but mandate full insurance coverage for any needed evacuation, medical treatment, and corpse removal. As long as people don’t litter or pass costs along to others, the rest could be up to them.
I'm not sure that's the point though -- once you're up there these things are dangerous rather than just expensive. bhickey has a post further down which explains their experience nicely.
> but the same people who argue for that liberty also ask govt to go search when someone goes missing in the mountains
It's two distinct groups. If there is overlap there'll likely be ideas like fining someone after a rescue unless they have insurance, & then leaving it up to insurance companies to decide about solo climber coverage
Good point. My point is that some people don't think about the consequences of what they are asking for, unless prompted for it, and they usually have ideas that are contradictory. Of course, your point still stands and I agree alternatives should be considered as well. However, I am still in support of forcing people to go in groups because it is safer. I don't have data, but I do believe from experience that there is safety in numbers.
Regarding people not thinking about the consequences, I’d say that mistake typically falls in lawmakers. Lawmaker: “hmm, motorcyclists without helmets put too much of a financial burden on hospitals, so let’s outlaw helmetless riding.” Instead of infringing on civil liberties why not target the problem at hand? Mandate specific insurance, or self-insurance, etc. in order to ride in that manner.
Same could be said here. If there is a specific financial bidder you’re trying to solve, then create a focused law that specifically aims to resolve the point at hand. I really hate these broad-stroke lazy regulations. I’d like to think professional lawmakers would be experts at this.
I'm not sure I agree with respect to things like helmetless riding - I've not quite made my mind up. But I'd suggest that one thing that ought to be done with all law is that the law ought to specify "acceptance criteria" that specify what the law is setting out to fix, and courts ought to be able to set aside laws if they can be proven to not meet the stated goal, and interpret them more narrowly if they can be shown to not be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal.
I think that would be a giant step towards more focused laws, and certainly towards more honestly worded laws, and in many cases it may well be that this would lead a court to direct the legislative to find a different solution or risk having the law struck down.
A large problem with overly broad laws today is simply that legislatives can get away with passing poorly thought out laws and misleading laws because there is no real consequence to it: the judicial system is forced to try to make the best of it if the laws are ridiculous or over-broad, and can't even go "hold on, this law is saying something completely different than what you pretended it was for when you convinced people to vote for it".
> the same people who argue for that liberty also ask govt to go search when someone goes missing in the mountains
You posit a valuable and worthwhile hypothesis. I would appreciate it if you could show conclusive evidence that any solo climber of Everest who died requested as you claim that "government go search" when they went missing. Thank you.
I guess I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that the people who are climbing are the ones who are asking govt to go search for them if them go missing. I am talking about people, who in general ask for liberty in such matters while also asking govt to provide search and rescue operations to deal with any fallouts. I am sure you would ask me for data to show conclusive evidence of this happening and my answer is that I have none.
Everest is an absolute beast of a climb. Even with preparation and a full team, lives can be (and have been) lost. Going it alone, while remarkable, is extremely deadly and Nepal is doing the responsible thing by banning such endeavours. For other teams of climbers also, it's one of the more sinister (and perhaps annoying) things - when you're doing well on your climb, but your good nature makes you abort your effort for some random twit alone and in trouble halfway up a mountain.
It has no technical challenge from the standard "tourist" route and mainly presents economic obstacles, in that it costs as much as an SUV. Most people in decent health could train for a year and summit successfully. It is the mountaineering equivalent of reading an entire encyclopedia. Sheer volume of effort is all it takes.
That assumes everything goes well. When things start to not go well then the survival outcomes start changing dramatically based on who has more preparation and experience.
While I agree that most people can do it, it's a very large undertaking often lasting 30-40 days. A lot can go wrong in that time, including ill health or injury. That's why having others with you makes sense.
If you haven't read them already, I really recommend the following two books:
"Into Thin Air" by John Krakauer was the first book to critically explore the "Death Zone" and the state of mountaineering on Everest generally- It was written in 1997, but is just as relevant now.
"Dark Shadows Falling" by Joe Simpson is another commentary on the state of mountaineering on Everest in 1997. Simpson was famously left for dead on a high altitude climb (described in "Touching The Void"), so he brings a keen insight into the morals of high-altitude climbing from the point of view of the "one that was left behind".
John K’s book should be mandatory reading for anyone attempting an Everest climb.
The authenticity of emotion JK spills onto the pages of this book, regardless of how well or otherwise it portrays certain people, including himself is just moving.
Here’s a man clearly traumatised by this most harrowing sequence of events and when begged by his editors to “sleep on it” for a few months before he writes anything he responds with a “no. I dont want time to blunt my recollection.”
At the beginning of the book the highlights an exchange he had with his wife at the airport as he departs to Kathmandu, the background being the relationship was severely strained by his obsession with climbing.
He says “Don’t be melodramatic, I’m not gonna die”.
> he brings a keen insight into the morals of high-altitude climbing from the point of view of the "one that was left behind"
I got curious and read a wikipedia article about the book; from the summary, I don't see any special "morals" about the incident: one mountaineer had a reason to believe another one dead and saved himself, without knowingly leaving anyone behind. Is wikipedia summary incorrect?
I think the questionable (in terms of traditional mountaineering ethics, I guess) was that Simon Yates had to cut off his partners rope. It's probably the pragmatic thing to do there, but that was definitely the part that was discussed afterwards. He had to assume that he was dead after that, that part was never questioned.
On the other hand, he stayed at their basecamp for a prolonged time (if I remember it correctly), which in the end helped Joe, who crawled back there through the glacier with his broken bones and almost dead from dehydration. So he still somehow believed in the miracle that happened.
i’m with you. No serious alpinists do much of anything on everest these days, and it’s hard to do a rational cost/benefit for the fees of well-heeled tourists versus the rights of the sherpas and the state of the mountain.
im always curious where the notion that 'everest is the worlds highest stair stepper' comes from. everyone i know whos a serious alpinist still holds it in pretty high regards for any number of reasons.
which serious alpinists no longer do much on everest? of course its not a climb for mountaineers trying to put up a new route/make news due to the fact its the most climbed 8ker but i can think of 3 big names still guiding it regularly and conrad anker who may be the "most famous" mountaineer summited in 2012 according to his wiki. i could see honnold trying to summit everest in the next few years as well.
Andrew Bisharat (http://eveningsends.com/everest-is-not-for-climbers/)
But what this sad story reaffirms, to me, is that Everest is not for climbers. It’s for guides and clients, and all the infrastructure that goes into getting a large mass of people up the same two routes, as more than 3,000 people have done in the last 60 years. The mountain has been fully co-opted by the guide culture, and it seems as though there isn’t any room—logistically, if nothing else—for “real” climbers to go climbing as a small team, and demonstrate the self-reliance and skill that normally goes into climbing almost any other mountain.
the long and short of it is that Everest is not where The Hard Stuff Up High is. That's K2, Meru, Annapurna, Cerro Torre... Honnold is not really much of an alpinist, and I doubt he'll ever do Everest ... but he did just spend a month crushing in Antarctica.
(guided) mountaineering and alpinism are very different beasts, and Everest is a guided mountain (now). Fixed ropes, O2, guides, lines, litter. Judging by the last few years of trip reports in the AAC journal, the people who want to rack up and stomp off into the mountains alone or with one or two partners are going elsewhere.
Why would Honnold commit to spending two months AWAY from rock? He struggles with just a single 'rest' day which for him usually means running up a mountain (not snowy technical). I assume you mean Alex Honnold the rock climber...
the ladder is on chinese side. but yeah, solo climbers probably won't support nepalese family of 5 with a single climb so in the face of falling revenues from disastrous last couple years they just banned it.
Rescues above 7000m aren't really an organized affair. When I traveled to the Himalayas I carried rescue insurance and it specifically excluded any efforts above 7000m. When you hear about attempts made to save people at high altitude it's typically opportunistic rescues or folks going back for their friends.
When Scott Fischer was stricken, his friend Anatoli Boukreev climbed up to him with oxygen. Same with Francys Arsentiev, her husband Sergei went back for her and died. On K2, Ger McDonnell attempted a solo rescue of three incapacitated Korean climbers. It isn't like there's a strike force of Reinhold Messner clones waiting at Base Camp ready to run up and pluck tourists off the mountain.
Edit: Hell, rescue below 7000m or 2000m isn't guaranteed. Back in 2009 one of my friends turned around on Aconagua just before the summit due to weather. During her descent she passed an ascending party. That group got disoriented and trapped by the storm. By the time rescuers reach them four days later two climbers were dead or dying.
Who would even put a price on the cost of a human life? If you don't want to rescue someone on Mount Everest then help out a child in Yemen. They didn't even choose to put themselves in harm's way
Curious of extent to what climbing have you done and what extent of alpinism you have been around if you think price is the right way to gauge a rescue attempt? Im a climber myself and while not really interested in alpinism I know quite certainly that most rescue attempts aren't prevented or attempted because of monetary reasons. Alpinist (http://www.alpinist.com/newswire/) probably has at least a story or two a year of rescue attempts on a variety of places less 'dangerous' than himilayas that are well funded that result in nothing or sometimes pilot/guide deaths.
they already do this. theres a huge amount of luck that factors into a summit for a ton of climbs. they spend weeks just acclimating let alone the amount of preparation prior to their climbs (and the fact that people who want to just pay to summit are not physically capable or even allowed up, theres actual physical confrontations by guides to head back more often than you'd think).
theres a reason people are left for dead and walk back to camps in the middle of the night (beck weathers is the de facto example) and its because they are so incredibly competent and prepared that they are able to survive but at extreme costs to themselves and those around
They discuss base camp a lot, so I believe it was Nepal. Certainly it could be China, but I think they would have highlighted that. Also, he did it without fixed ropes.
Please don't post uncivil, unsubstantive comments to Hacker News. I'm sure you can do considerably better than this, and if you want to comment here you need to.
I haven’t read the current rationale but one thing I’ve read is that Everest is _crowded_. This is OK when everything is moving along ok, but when something goes wrong it can be catastrophic for the climbers in front and behind you. I imagine it’s likely that solo climbers have higher incidents of accidents on Everest than group climbers.
As far as why waste money.. if you are asking that question in earnest there’s probably not a rationale that could convince you as to why. So I’ll abstain.
If you wanted to reduce the crowds on Everest, you’d ban guided climbs, not solo climbs. Solo climbing big mountains is rarified territory that attracts relatively few participants.
> f you wanted to reduce the crowds on Everest, you’d ban guided climbs, not solo climbs. Solo climbing big mountains is rarified territory that attracts relatively few participants.
It's not about reducing the crowds; it's about reducing the risk that solo climbers pose to the crowds.
But rich priveleged people have both the means to do stupid shit and willingly/callously put other people's lives at risk when their stupidity causes an oops moment.
There's already more than a few bodies up there now. Some are a little famous, like the green boots guy. The bodies can't be removed.
It's such an extreme environment. You can't really rescue people who are in trouble. At best, with multiple climbers, you can have someone else tell you that you shouldn't proceed, which might save your life.
But if someone is already in trouble, you can't really help out, or you will die too. Sure, if you have an extra energy bar, you can give that to your buddy, but that's about it.
Although the main theme of the article is about the recovery of a body from near the summit, it has background information on when climbs can take place, and how the route to the summit is established every year.
That chopper was stripped to the bone so that one dude could fly in it, with a fuel time of 1 hour. It also landed on the summit which is more flat. Don't think it would be easily and safely able to carry an addition (dead) body that's probably perched on an incline, let alone carry rescuers. It takes upwards of 6 hours to chip the dead body off the ice (if it's been frozen there for a while)
According to Wikipedia, he didn't remove that much:
> Delsalle used a virtually standard version of the Eurocopter AS350 Squirrel B3, only removing unnecessary elements, such as passenger seats, to reduce the standard weight by 120 kg (265 lb) and thus extend the 1-hour fuel range.
And in any case, I believe the user you responded to was talking about rescues, not removing corpses.
I am not advocating building one or using it to remove bodies I am just speculating that it's possible to design and build a model that could accomplish the fit much easier and that theoretically could be used for rescue. It's obviously would require too much $ to be practical.
You don't need to use a manned one at all . You could design unmanned drone which can carry the weight of the (dead)person. Losses while perhaps costly will improve the design and more acceptable than risking human lives.
The rotor would have to be enormous and fast, and the helicopter incredibly light with very little payload. One or both of those constraints are probably beyond our materials knowledge, particularly a controllable rotor that would work.
Passenger jets are fine up there because they haul ass, often north of Mach 0.7-0.8, and push as much of the thin air as possible over the wing. (One of the cool things about commercial air travel is that most people don’t realize they’re flying at transonic speeds, but you’ll occasionally see evidence of it in flight.) It doesn’t take much slowing down for a passenger jet to start descending, and ultimately stall, at cruising altitude. The flight envelope at Everest altitude is much smaller than you’d expect.
For a helicopter, you’d need to replicate that set of circumstances, but with wings rotating above you instead. One has to worry about other conditions, too: in the '70s, when Boulet set the helicopter altitude record above 40,000, the engine flamed out on account of how cold it was and wouldn’t restart. High altitude helicopters are a very difficult design problem, and there isn’t much economic demand to solve it.
The above link the dude did it 2 days in a row on a stock stripped down helicopter. If you had tolerance for higher cost you can make a much lighter version replacing parts with composites, titanium etc. and modding the engine to work better at high altitude.
It's not a question of it being simple it's a question of ROI the market would be too small. If you read the article this was done using stock Eurocopter AS350 Squirrel.
Who are "they"? I was replying to a person postulating that rescue is impossible. My point it's not impossible it's impractical given the resources that would need to be allocated to solving this problem.
Nepal has more basic things to worry about. Sorry. Some rich dude hanging at the edge of some cliff should be problem number 58299 in their or my list.
This is gone crazy. At least have a written note that forbids anyone from saving their life if it comes to it. They put their own life and the rescuers' lives at risk.
Everytime someone proudly says 'i climbed the Everest ' oh cool, I immediately think, who is the sherpa? They get my praise. Not some rich, over priveleged dude who thinks the rest of the world has to bend to their will for whatever sordid privileged game they are interested in playing.
Well, banning the practice is the first step towards doing exactly that. The whole world is a lot more understanding of the stance, "Sorry, we cannot go and rescue [person X]," when person X got in trouble because of illegal activity they were performing - and there are few more effective methods of making someone adopt the stance espoused by your proposed note, "I forbid you from rescuing me," than making the practice illegal.
So, essentially, I agree, I just think this is the proper way for Nepal to go about de-prioritizing this particular problem. :)
Plus, I would hate to think that you would become just a nameless waypoint or turning marker on the way to the summit, much as poor 'Green Boots' and others have become. (though I believe 'Green Boots' has been removed now?)
EDIT: It appears that 'Green Boots' is still on the mountain, and has not been removed as previously thought. [0]
[0] - http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2017/05/27/everest-2017-week...