I am not so sure any comparison is straightforward. I have never climbed mountains anywhere near as high as Everest, but I consider myself an alpinist. What I think is safe to say is that the accepted level of risk and exposure in mountaineering is _far_ higher than in diving. Divers will mostly consider a plan not viable if at any point the answer to the "what if?" question is "we will die, end of the story". Even in casual mountaineering, there will be situations like this, and not very rarely. And this is still comparing the relatively casual, happy side. Do not think about rich tourists on Everest (by the way, it still is not an easy walk to a selfie, this I am very sure, it will still be weeks of continued strain and also suffering), but think about Messner 1980, all alone on the Mountain, during monsoon, going without oxygen and alone on a partially new route. I honestly can not even think of something remotely as daring ever done in diving. I personally think this Everest of diving has not even been discovered, much less climbed...
Diving and climbing
- Thread starter doctormike
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
This is a very interesting discussion.
Personally I see lots of similarities and contrasts. Deep down = high up the mountain. To me both are not physiological. Human nature is such that it wants to push the boundaries. High up the mountain you need to carry oxygen to survive (yes some do it without) and down below oxygen is toxic. It's fascinating. Both require meticulous planning in order to survive. Both are high risk. Both require one to know how much the envelope is getting pushed.
Personally I see lots of similarities and contrasts. Deep down = high up the mountain. To me both are not physiological. Human nature is such that it wants to push the boundaries. High up the mountain you need to carry oxygen to survive (yes some do it without) and down below oxygen is toxic. It's fascinating. Both require meticulous planning in order to survive. Both are high risk. Both require one to know how much the envelope is getting pushed.
This ^^^
I suspect Guy Garman was thinking similar to many of these Everest folks. He didn't know what he didn't know, was poorly prepared physically and experience-wise, and basically ignored any wisdom people tried to pass onto him. And people view his death with roughly the same level of disdain as these climbers.
the "conquering the mountain" part is something I have never understood and the selfie thing is another.
It would be much more understandable to me if they would pack a wingsuit with them and would finish their nice trip to the summit by flying all the way down from the highest peak on earth. THAT would be something to pay for
... as I have understood the whole Everest thing is all about the "7 Summits Club" and there is probably much more interesting challenges for people who are really interested in technical climbing
It would be much more understandable to me if they would pack a wingsuit with them and would finish their nice trip to the summit by flying all the way down from the highest peak on earth. THAT would be something to pay for
... as I have understood the whole Everest thing is all about the "7 Summits Club" and there is probably much more interesting challenges for people who are really interested in technical climbing
This was the response I would have given too, had you not beaten me to it. There is such a difference between how and why people are dying.
The difference I see is that with Everest while there is plenty of suffering required to summit, it does not require any technical expertise if you have a guide. The companies set the fixed ropes and all a climber needs to be able to do is attach their ascender to the rope for protection. With diving, without technical knowledge on a tech dive, death is much more likely.
broncobowsher
Contributor
All can be solved by requiring climbers to be certified. Who wants to start PACI?
That would be a great idea! One would need to have at least the Advanced Open Climber and Rescue Climber certifications with the Altitude Climber and Peak Performance Climber specialties to qualify and the minimum of 100 climbs on smaller peaks
That would guarantee some level of skills so that they would be self reliant enough not to do these "trust me -climbs" anymore with only the Intro to Climbing type of certifications.
(not even kidding. that would honestly be a great idea and would solve many of the problems associated with climbing)
Yes that area of tourism would need some regulations and mandatory training thats for sure :/
Another way to do it would be the requirement to first climb the second and third highest peaks before allowed to try Everest. People would probably come to their senses when being first thrown to Kanchenjunga and then to the K2...
That would guarantee some level of skills so that they would be self reliant enough not to do these "trust me -climbs" anymore with only the Intro to Climbing type of certifications.
(not even kidding. that would honestly be a great idea and would solve many of the problems associated with climbing)
Yes that area of tourism would need some regulations and mandatory training thats for sure :/
Another way to do it would be the requirement to first climb the second and third highest peaks before allowed to try Everest. People would probably come to their senses when being first thrown to Kanchenjunga and then to the K2...
Dan G, as said, I have no personal experience climbing Everest. I do however have every reason to believe that media make it sound much easier than it actually is. It is not a walk, it is not being dragged up by guides. It is still climbing on fixed ropes for hours and days, using your crampons effectively and operating oxygen supplies and everything else. I actually think even the normal routes are not only physically, but also technically much more challenging than the vast majority of our technical dives. At some point the lines will of course blur, the length of exposure and the complete inability to control huge parts of the risk (avalanches have been mentioned, where even the most competent mountaineer has no "plan B" if it happens, see the recent accident of Lama, Auer and Roskelley) are really not comparable. The vast majority of dives can be planned to the level of realistically only having an accident if one is not well trained, fit, or equipped enough. Many climbs can only be planned to the level of not having an accident if bad luck does not strike.
I wonder why media wants to make the mountain climbing sound much easier and less dangerous than it actually is but by their opinion diving and especially technical diving is super dangerous and a stupid activity to try
maybe it's because media loves hero stories and they can't see what heroic there is to gather information and explore war history or underground waterways in 400 or 500ft on a rebreather but they love the story of a ordinary guy who climbs a high mountain just to take a selfie there letting the poor Nepalese carry most of his gear
(media doesn't understand any scuba diving activity in general... couple of years ago the local media compared a minor incident in our super easy local training quarry (person having some heart problems at 30ft or so) to the 2014 Plura cave accident just because both happened to Finns and included scuba diving
)
I have no experience mountain climbing, in my late teens I was a technical rock climber before I took a huge fall, escaping with only heavy bruising and some mild pulls and sprains where in reality my survival was a "miracle" and I should have died. I never climbed again.
Equally I'm not a cave diver.
The round trip to the summit of Everest appears to be 2 months - 6- 8 days to base camp, then you have to make multiple ascents and descents between camps to acclimatize with rest periods. You are limited a window of weather, your supplies and your own physical endurance and ability to deal with altitude. You can't stay at camp 4 indefinitely waiting for the perfect time.
The extreme cold must not be underestimated, if anyone has watched teh Top Gear Episode where they race to the North Pole, you see how their mental faculties diminish with the cold - where Richard Hammond struggle counting 10 dog leashes. And this is at sea level
So there is no diving analogy. You'd need to invent one. Say trekking through virgin Yucatan to get to a spectacular cave for 1 month carrying everything with you. Agreeing that the heat humidity and bugs have a similar exhaustive effect on the body, and then daily making dives that aren't particularly challenging technically (so with minimum training most can make them) but are exhausting and close to the limits of your physical ability and for the latter week or so, being continuously Narced - 24/7. Having the constant risk of being trapped (in lieu of falling) knowing that your buddies don't have the gas resources to help you (no rule of thirds nor stage bottles)
That's my interpretation of how it would equate. But if the end were spectacular enough...
As for wealthy middle aged selfies...
People spend vast amounts of time and money on training and equipment to make some cave dives. What say is the point of diving Eagles nest apart from the personal satisfaction and challenge? You can't even get a selfie
I suspect the money spent on an ascent to Everest is small beans compared to the amount of money and time serious cave divers invest?
I intend no criticism of tech cave divers btw - just using it as the best example I can think of
Equally I'm not a cave diver.
The round trip to the summit of Everest appears to be 2 months - 6- 8 days to base camp, then you have to make multiple ascents and descents between camps to acclimatize with rest periods. You are limited a window of weather, your supplies and your own physical endurance and ability to deal with altitude. You can't stay at camp 4 indefinitely waiting for the perfect time.
The extreme cold must not be underestimated, if anyone has watched teh Top Gear Episode where they race to the North Pole, you see how their mental faculties diminish with the cold - where Richard Hammond struggle counting 10 dog leashes. And this is at sea level
So there is no diving analogy. You'd need to invent one. Say trekking through virgin Yucatan to get to a spectacular cave for 1 month carrying everything with you. Agreeing that the heat humidity and bugs have a similar exhaustive effect on the body, and then daily making dives that aren't particularly challenging technically (so with minimum training most can make them) but are exhausting and close to the limits of your physical ability and for the latter week or so, being continuously Narced - 24/7. Having the constant risk of being trapped (in lieu of falling) knowing that your buddies don't have the gas resources to help you (no rule of thirds nor stage bottles)
That's my interpretation of how it would equate. But if the end were spectacular enough...
As for wealthy middle aged selfies...
People spend vast amounts of time and money on training and equipment to make some cave dives. What say is the point of diving Eagles nest apart from the personal satisfaction and challenge? You can't even get a selfie
I suspect the money spent on an ascent to Everest is small beans compared to the amount of money and time serious cave divers invest?
I intend no criticism of tech cave divers btw - just using it as the best example I can think of
Similar threads
