"North Face climbers confirmed dead after Banff National Park avalanche"

[BobPSU92]

I bring this up because we seem to have some Banff fans here.

See the link below. From the article:

"(CNN) -- The bodies of three professional mountain climbers were found Sunday, days after they were presumed dead in an avalanche at Canada's Banff National Park.

David Lama, Jess Roskelley, and Hansjörg Auer were caught in an avalanche Wednesday while attempting to climb the east face of Howse Peak in Alberta, a North Face spokesman said.

The three men, one American and two Europeans, were members of the company's Global Athlete Team.

After the climbers were reported missing, park officials searched for them via air and "observed signs of multiple avalanches and debris containing climbing equipment," Parks Canada said.

The east face of Howse Peak is remote and an exceptionally difficult climb, with mixed rock and ice routes requiring advanced alpine mountaineering skills, officials said.

Chelsey Dawes, a spokeswoman with Parks Canada, said it looked as though a size 3 avalanche had hit the climbers."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/21/americas/north-face-climbers-confirmed-dead-avalanche/index.html

 

[Ranger Dan]

I loved Banff, but never got far off the beaten path. Mountain climbing is dangerous business...

 

[Jovialgent]

I loved Banff, but never got far off the beaten path. Mountain climbing is dangerous business...

Indeed. These guys were elite climbers and attempting a route that had been climbed successfully only once before. They knew the risks, but they died doing what they loved. May they rest in peace.
This is the mountain they were attempting to summit.

 

[Relayer]

Folks, this tragedy happened 70 miles from Banff up off the Icefields Parkway in a remote location. This was no where near the town of Banff.

 

[massimoManca II]

Folks, this tragedy happened 70 miles from Banff up off the Icefields Parkway in a remote location. This was no where near the town of Banff.

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it was right in town*

 

[Waste Management Consultant]

And that was with ropes (and other dangers) but puts a bit more perspective on the free solo thread a few weeks back.

 

[81b&w]

Climbing is always ultra dangerous but with Spring arriving wouldn't it be magnified with the temperature changes effecting the movement of the ground?

 

[Cold Smoke]

Indeed. These guys were elite climbers and attempting a route that had been climbed successfully only once before. They knew the risks, but they died doing what they loved. May they rest in peace.
This is the mountain they were attempting to summit.

Unstable spring snow, freeze/thaw rock and ice formations. Why try it this time of year is my first thought? The mere question shows a lack of understanding of what what drives these guys.

 

[Jovialgent]

Unstable spring snow, freeze/thaw rock and ice formations. Why try it this time of year is my first thought? The mere question shows a lack of understanding of what what drives these guys.

Indeed. They were all numbered among the best in the world. One of them, Roskelley, stood atop Everest at age 20. I think elite climbers have a certain arrogance that, while there are enormous risks, they are better than the mountain. Sadly, if you climb long enough, the mountain usually wins.

 

[WestSideLion]

Indeed. They were all numbered among the best in the world. One of them, Roskelley, stood atop Everest at age 20. I think elite climbers have a certain arrogance that, while there are enormous risks, they are better than the mountain. Sadly, if you climb long enough, the mountain usually wins.

The mountain - like the house - always wins over the very long term. Very, very, very few mountain climbers grow old.

 

[UncleLar]

The mountain - like the house - always wins over the very long term. Very, very, very few mountain climbers grow old.

That's an exaggeration. More people die in automobile accidents driving to and from their mountain climbing adventures than they do from accidents on the mountain.

 

[Aardvark86]

Climbing is always ultra dangerous but with Spring arriving wouldn't it be magnified with the temperature changes effecting the movement of the ground?

Yes. Usually even most trails don’t open til May

 

[Aardvark86]

You do technical climbing in high mountains in spring, you take your chances. Pretty simple really.

 

[fkkkjm]

That's an exaggeration. More people die in automobile accidents driving to and from their mountain climbing adventures than they do from accidents on the mountain.

As a rate based on the total number of participants in driving vs mountain climbing, I don’t believe you.

 

[Jovialgent]

That's an exaggeration. More people die in automobile accidents driving to and from their mountain climbing adventures than they do from accidents on the mountain.

It depends on what we are comparing. If you consider all climbers, including those who tackle fairly benign mountains, I might agree, but here we are talking about elite climbers. If you consider those who attempt to climb the worlds tallest mountains, 8000 meter peaks, the death rates are high. The three most dangerous of the eight-thousanders—Annapurna, K2, and Nanga Parbat—claim the life of about one climber for every four who reach the top. Annapurna is around 30%. Everest, with all its alure, is not the most dangerous and yet it claims over 1%. I think its fair to say the chances of dying while traveling to get to Nepal are far less.

 

[BobPSU92]

I don't think anyone here should try to downplay the dangers of climbing these mountains. How many people here can even climb a flight of stairs?

 

[WestSideLion]

That's an exaggeration. More people die in automobile accidents driving to and from their mountain climbing adventures than they do from accidents on the mountain.

I think you’re wrong, UncleLar. In the serious profession (not weekenders hiking up Mount Hood), the goal is to do things nobody has or few have. As posted above, death rates on some of these tracks can be 10% to 20%. Do the math there and it’s easy to see that as a pro doing enough of these climbs, eventually the statistics catch you.

There are so many variables outside of a climber’s control...unexpected weather, avalanches, human error from a fellow climber, etc.

 

[UncleLar]

It depends on what we are comparing. If you consider all climbers, including those who tackle fairly benign mountains, I might agree, but here we are talking about elite climbers. If you consider those who attempt to climb the worlds tallest mountains, 8000 meter peaks, the death rates are high. The three most dangerous of the eight-thousanders—Annapurna, K2, and Nanga Parbat—claim the life of about one climber for every four who reach the top. Annapurna is around 30%. Everest, with all its alure, is not the most dangerous and yet it claims over 1%. I think its fair to say the chances of dying while traveling to get to Nepal are far less.

I'll give you the ultra elite case. But the post that started this said "very, very, very few mountain climber grow old". That's an exaggeration no matter how you measure it.

Across the entire US, only 20 some people a year will die from falls while climbing. At that rate, you will have a very hard time killing off all the mountain climbers before they grow old. Those climbers are much more likely to die in auto accidents.

 

[UncleLar]

I'll give you the ultra elite case. But the post that started this said "very, very, very few mountain climber grow old". That's an exaggeration no matter how you measure it.

Across the entire US, only 20 some people a year will die from falls while climbing. At that rate, you will have a very hard time killing off all the mountain climbers before they grow old. Those climbers are much more likely to die in auto accidents.

Over the last decade, about auto fatalities have averaged between 10.5 and 11.5 deaths per year per 100,000 people.

According to this report, there were 2,790 traditional mountain climbing participants for every 100,000 people over the age of 6. There are approximately, 300,000,000 people in the US over the age of six. That means that there were a little over 8,000,000 people who participated in traditional mountain climbing. The number of climbing deaths in the US runs between 20-30 every year. For math purposes, let's call that 24 per year. So the death rate per 100,000 participants is about .3 people. That means someone who is a climber is more than 30 times more likely to die in an auto accident than they are a fall from climbing.

 

[ClarkstonMark]

Over the last decade, about auto fatalities have averaged between 10.5 and 11.5 deaths per year per 100,000 people.

According to this report, there were 2,790 traditional mountain climbing participants for every 100,000 people over the age of 6. There are approximately, 300,000,000 people in the US over the age of six. That means that there were a little over 8,000,000 people who participated in traditional mountain climbing. The number of climbing deaths in the US runs between 20-30 every year. For math purposes, let's call that 24 per year. So the death rate per 100,000 participants is about .3 people. That means someone who is a climber is more than 30 times more likely to die in an auto accident than they are a fall from climbing.

I won't even go read the link, as it is obvious to anyone with a brain that "mountain climbers" do not total 3% of the population over age 6. Do better than that

 

[UncleLar]

I think you’re wrong, UncleLar. In the serious profession (not weekenders hiking up Mount Hood), the goal is to do things nobody has or few have. As posted above, death rates on some of these tracks can be 10% to 20%. Do the math there and it’s easy to see that as a pro doing enough of these climbs, eventually the statistics catch you.

There are so many variables outside of a climber’s control...unexpected weather, avalanches, human error from a fellow climber, etc.

The fallacy in your argument is that you are listing summit to death ratios. What would be more interesting to know would be the participation rate. If a million people tried to climb, but 999.900 safely turned back with 80 summiting and 20 dying, then a 20% ratio like you quoted doesn't look all that bad since it only works out to .2 per 10,000 participants. I am exaggerating the million for purposes of argument, but I think you can see my point.

 

[Jovialgent]

I'll give you the ultra elite case. But the post that started this said "very, very, very few mountain climber grow old". That's an exaggeration no matter how you measure it.

Across the entire US, only 20 some people a year will die from falls while climbing. At that rate, you will have a very hard time killing off all the mountain climbers before they grow old. Those climbers are much more likely to die in auto accidents.

I agree if we include all mountain climbers, virtually all do not die on the mountain. Also, I don't doubt your numbers, but I wonder if they only count climbing deaths on US soil or include US mountaineers who die abroad. A great proportion of US climbing deaths are on 8,000 meter peaks, none of which are in the 50 states. Our highest mountain is Denali in Alaska at just under 6,200 meters. Still, I understand your point.
Let me add I have a friend who has "climbed" some fairly easy mountains which require little technical skill. They are more like hikes over difficult terrain. He considers himself a mountain climber. I do not.

 

[UncleLar]

I won't even go read the link, as it is obvious to anyone with a brain that "mountain climbers" do not total 3% of the population over age 6. Do better than that

I'll agree with 3% of them not being elite climbers but I certainly don't think it's irrational to think that 3% of the population has done some sort of significant climbing. I've got around 1000 people who are listed as my FB friends. I'm pretty sure I can find 20-30 of them who have hauled themselves up some fairly interesting climbs, so the 3% passes my sniff test.

 

[UncleLar]

I agree if we include all mountain climbers, virtually all do not die on the mountain. Also, I don't doubt your numbers, but I wonder if they only count climbing deaths on US soil or include US mountaineers who die abroad. A great proportion of US climbing deaths are on 8,000 meter peaks, none of which are in the 50 states. Our highest mountain is Denali in Alaska at just under 6,200 meters. Still, I understand your point.
Let me add I have a friend who has "climbed" some fairly easy mountains which require little technical skill. They are more like hikes over difficult terrain. He considers himself a mountain climber. I do not.

It was US soil.

 

[Jovialgent]

It was US soil.

OK. And I do not minimize the risks of climbing Denali, or Mt. Hood in Oregon, which is a technical climb and can be a dangerous one. That said, taking on any 8,000 meter peak is far different, and to me, unless you attempt to summit, you put yourself at limited risk. Many people with no technical climbing skills make it to Everest Base Camp which is basically a difficult hike at high altitude. Many of them pass themselves off to friends as mountain climbers. They are not. Let me also make clear that there are many mountains at less than 8,000 meters which are difficult and can be deadly. Howse Peak, where these 3 died, is a good example. I guess it's just a matter of defining terms. Elite climbers constantly put themselves at risk and a good number die because they continue to push the envelope. As for the rest, if they are careful, their risks are small.

 

[UncleLar]

OK. And I do not minimize the risks of climbing Denali, or Mt. Hood in Oregon, which is a technical climb and can be a dangerous one. That said, taking on any 8,000 meter peak is far different, and to me, unless you attempt to summit, you put yourself at limited risk. Many people with no technical climbing skills make it to Everest Base Camp which is basically a difficult hike at high altitude. Many of them pass themselves off to friends as mountain climbers. They are not. Let me also make clear that there are many mountains at less than 8,000 meters which are difficult and can be deadly. Howse Peak, where these 3 died, is a good example. I guess it's just a matter of defining terms. Elite climbers constantly put themselves at risk and a good number die because they continue to push the envelope. As for the rest, if they are careful, their risks are small.

I had friend who attempted to climb Everest about 30 years ago. He didn't make it to the summit. When he got back, I asked him how the climb went. His answer was "I came back with all my fingers and toes. When you climb Everest, if you can say that, you consider it a successful climb".

 

[Jovialgent]

I had friend who attempted to climb Everest about 30 years ago. He didn't make it to the summit. When he got back, I asked him how the climb went. His answer was "I came back with all my fingers and toes. When you climb Everest, if you can say that, you consider it a successful climb".

Very true. In my 30's, with boundless health and energy, but limited climbing experience, I considered such a climb myself, setting a timetable for a summit in 5 years which would include much less challenging summits. My wife indulged me, likely knowing that it would never happen, and it did not. Common sense took over and the responsibilities of family life, and limited cash, crushed a flickering dream.
On a related note, most people may not know that Carolyn Maloney, a member of the US House from New York, lost her husband in 2009 to a summit of Cho Oyu, the 6th highest mountain in the world, but perhaps the easiest 8,000 meters to climb (not that any are easy). He actually reached the summit and returned to base camp at 23,000 feet where he died in his sleep. His last words before going to sleep were "I'm the happiest man in the world. I've just summited a beautiful mountain."

 

[Langmuir]

Thanks for posting that. I worked for TNF over twenty years ago. I knew some of the climbers back then. Most were not very friendly but I think that it was more about them being socially awkward than anything else. Dealing with people is not their forte. However, Conrad Anker was the exception and was a very nice guy. He is still one of their athletes and I was glad to see he was not one of the ones that died. You have to have some sort of death wish to do the things these guys do but still my condolences to their families.

 

[WestSideLion]

The fallacy in your argument is that you are listing summit to death ratios. What would be more interesting to know would be the participation rate. If a million people tried to climb, but 999.900 safely turned back with 80 summiting and 20 dying, then a 20% ratio like you quoted doesn't look all that bad since it only works out to .2 per 10,000 participants. I am exaggerating the million for purposes of argument, but I think you can see my point.

You and I are working off of different definitions for mountain climbers. I am talking about the pros and serious climbers who attack highly technical and difficult peaks. My definition is not limited to people who pay $150,000 to have a guide carry them up Everest. I am talking about the types of climbers mentioned in the original article shared. I feel we've strayed from the original context of the thread re: North Face Elite Team climbers killed doing something challenging.