Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Mountain Rescue

  1. Feb 22, 2007 #1

    Janus

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just recently there was another rescue attempt of climbers trapped on Mt Hood, here in OR. The story ended well, due in a great part to the fact that the climbers were carrrying mountain locator units (MLUs), which meant the rescue teams knew just where they were on the mountain.

    This has triggered new debate on the use of MLUs, to the point where one of our state legislators has drafted legislation to make it mandatory to carry a MLU if one climbed above a certain elevation on Mt Hood.

    Now the thing that gets me is that some mountain climbers are arguing against the law, claiming that the requirement would take away from the experience of climbing the mountain.

    Now the purpose of the MLU is aide the rescue teams in finding you if you get in trouble (They won't keep you from getting in trouble). So the only experience that would be lessened is the element of risk of dying on the mountain if something did go wrong.

    So the question is, do these mountain climbers wish to be rescued off the mountain or not? If so, why do they think they have the right to dictate the terms of the rescue. Isn't this a bit like saying that you want to be rescued by the Coast Guard if something happens to you at sea, but you don't want them to be able to use helicopters to do so?

    If not, then they should make this known before they attempt the ascent, in order to save the rescue teams the time and effort of trying to save someone who doesn't want their help.

    After all the MLUs simply make the job easier for the rescuers. It reduces the time, effort and risk by cutting out much of the search part of the rescue. Why should they risk their lives for someone who couldn't go to the trouble of meeting them at least part way to the extent of renting a MLU for $5?

    So here's my compromise. Change the law to make the use of MLUs voluntary, with the stipulation that failure to use one automatically becomes the equivalent of signing a "Do Not Rescue" order. Meaning that if you do not come back down off the mountain on your own, no attempt at rescue will be made.

    That way, those who wish it can enjoy the "full experience" of mountain climbing, and the rescue teams can focus all their efforts on those who actually want their services.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 22, 2007 #2

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    They probably don't want to drag a lot of gadgets with them.
    Essentially, they are seeking a free-space from technology, even an electrical toothpicker would seem unbearable to them to carry along.

    Just my thoughts, though.
     
  4. Feb 22, 2007 #3

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I agree 100% with Janus. Refusing to take an MLU is STUPID. Mountain climbers take along gear, an MLU is a tiny device, if you're too stupid to take one, you don't deserve to be rescued. The only thing it will prevent the climber from experiencing is a slow death.
     
  5. Feb 22, 2007 #4

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    This seriously can't be thier only argument against them. Really? When I was stationed at Ft. Lewis, my unit used to do high altitude SAR on Mt. Reinier in WA and it amazes me just how much open area there is to be lost in. It boggles my mind to hear that idiotic argument.

    I agree to the idea of a DNR if they don't take one along. That way the money spent spinning wheels trying to hunt them down would not be wasted in vain.
     
  6. Feb 22, 2007 #5

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Just the guys that eschew carabiners, gortex, and nylon rope. Preferred methods mirror those of Antoine de Ville, who became the first person to scale Mt Inaccessible (in 1492) using ropes, grappling hooks, and ladders by copying castle siege techniques.

    In other words, while I can understand their attitude to a point, their boundary line is a little arbitrary. They would never turn down better technology in cold weather gear or climbing gear.
     
  7. Feb 22, 2007 #6

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's definitely against the spirit of alpinism, but it seems daft to break the law to do it. The DNR sounds like a good idea.
     
  8. Feb 22, 2007 #7

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That's pretty much it. In my former life as a mountaineer (now I'm a dad, the "mountaineer" is gone) I climbed Mt. Hood more than 4 times, once during the winter. There are many "old school" alpinists who feel that part of the experience is to just "go" : as light as possible, without "asking permission," without registering, and come what may. In this manner, the experience becomes more "real."

    The locator units have been around for more than 20 years now. Most climbers had one well before they even had a cell phone. I think only a small, vocal minority is against it.
     
  9. Feb 22, 2007 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Janus, do you have any links to their arguments? I believe you (people are dumb...), but I'd be curious to know how they present the argument.

    Anyway, EPIRBs are required in boats - I see no reason why locator beacons shouldn't be required for climbers.
     
  10. Feb 22, 2007 #9

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's this small vocal majority who are trying to keep to true alpine-style principles as far as possible.

    Locators aren't the only pieces of equipment these guys leave behind. They'll only take the very bare minimum required to complete the assault of the mountain. Food, gas, clothing and equipment are all kept to a bare minimum. It's tradition, and for many climbers, it's the only real way of conquering a peak. Minimum kit; maximum skill. Anyone can conquer Everest these days if they throw enough money at it. If you look at it this way, there is an inkling of sense; dozens of people have died on the mountains from either exhausting themselves carrying too much kit, or taking excessive risks after thinking they've got 'enough' kit to cope. If you're skilled and experienced enough to know the terrain, the routes, and the weather, you should be pretty safe. However, this is rarely the case.

    I'm not saying it's right (and while I've done my fair share of mountaineering, the idea of true alpine-style expeditions scare the poo out of me, particularly after having met Joe Simpson), but these are the reasons you'll get from pure alpinists.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2007
  11. Feb 22, 2007 #10

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Obviously a rescue requires high tech equipment, hellicopters, small aircraft, etc... So, they wouldn't want a rescue to spoil their experience. Cleans out the gene pool at the same time. :biggrin:

    The device doesn't give them an advantage in using their skills to climb the mountain, it can't help them in any way except to provide a locator beacon in the event they can't make it down on their own. Can they not get that through their thick skulls? Who it helps is the rescuers in finding them.
     
  12. Feb 22, 2007 #11

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Small majority?
     
  13. Feb 22, 2007 #12

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I know that. I don't think they're thick as such, just have a different outlook on life to, um, "normal" people. They understand the risks, and accept them. They know that if they get stuck on the mountain in closing weather with a broken leg and no food, they're as good as dead. Any rescuers are inconsequential; if they were planning on getting rescued they'd have registered where they're going, their route, their contingency, and expected time of return.

    I reckon that these pure alpinists (who wouldn't carry a locator) are a minor majority of the mountaineering community. No figures behind this though, anyone got any more insight?

    Edit: I've just realised I should have said "small minority"! Oops.

    Incidentally, for anyone who doesn't actually understand the mentality of these guys, have a read of "Touching The Void" by Joe Simpson.
     
  14. Feb 22, 2007 #13
    Or watch the film, it's amazing how they both survived,it was an absolutely incredible story of determination, I think few people would have that willpower or courage.

    It was gripping, and heart warming, but does anyone really have to go through that? Well I guess it's their choice.:bugeye: A simple locator though?

    Let's just say I'd personally of chosen life: not living on that edge where if things go wrong your pretty much dead(probably got me a system where even the local coastguard knew where I was in case I fell of the mountain into a river and drifted out to sea, but whatever floats your boat.:smile:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touching_the_Void

    A spoiler for the film/book.

     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2007
  15. Feb 22, 2007 #14

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A locator wouldn't have saved Simpson. But it's a good example of how isolated and far from civilisation mountaineers can be.
     
  16. Feb 22, 2007 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The trouble is, people won't tolerate allowing others to die without making an effort. I would prefer to see the no rescue option applied to those not using transponders, but after the first deaths, the law suits would be flying.

    They tried the "pay for rescue" bit, I think in California, but that motivated the victims to delay calls for help until the situation was desperate.

    One partial solution that I have suggested is to implement a risk tax for all related equiment sales. This tax pays for rescue efforts.

    I also think there is a matter of judgement as to when the situation is too dangerous to risk other lives. If a person chooses not to carry a transponder, then it is too risky to allow dozens or even hundreds of others to be put at risk in a general search.
     
  17. Feb 22, 2007 #16

    Janus

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The article I read was in the local paper, and I can't find it on the web. Here is an article from another paper where some of the arguments are quoted.

    http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/...regional/194a63af1d24e56a872572860027a296.txt

    Here's some quotes from the article:

    "It's a very dangerous undertaking, but that's part of the beauty of it,"

    "if you try to legislate so much safety, you lose the adventure."

    "If you take all of the risk out of life, you lose a lot. You're removing a personal liberty from somebody who wants to go and explore without having a safety net,"

    As of late though, they have been pushing the "It would lead to lead to a sense of false security" argument. But that doesn't make sense, as the units are already available for use, and the ones you would expect to suffer from this sense of false security are those who already choose to carry them. Also, since the units have been available for over 20 yrs, we should have seen a statistical rise in mountain rescues by now if the argument had merit.
     
  18. Feb 22, 2007 #17

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Now I've got that Boney M song stuck in my head again!

    "Brown Girl in the ring, tra la la la la..."
     
  19. Feb 22, 2007 #18

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I just don't understand the mentality that carrying one of these lessens the sense of adventure or would take out the risk. It doesn't, you can still die before rescuers can get to you. It's not going to reach out and grab the ledge as you slide off a cliff, or magically prevent an avalanche, it just means that after that happens, someone can find the body or give you a chance of survival if they can speed up the rescue effort.

    So, yeah, I'd have to agree that if you refuse to carry one, we should just assume that means you have decided you don't want people to waste their time looking for you should something happen. The search for your corpse can begin after spring thaw.

    Maybe what we need is some sort of permit system for mountain climbing. A small fee for each climber would help offset the cost of rescue efforts when needed, and at the time you apply for the permit, you can check off a box and sign a waiver if you don't want to be rescued (like a DNR order). If you do want to be rescued, you need to carry a MLU with you.
     
  20. Feb 22, 2007 #19

    Dr Transport

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    An MLU is about the same size as a GPS or cell phone, I'd carry one. Matter a fact this weekend camping I plan on having both my call and GPS.
     
  21. Feb 22, 2007 #20

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Problems with the "no MLU, no rescue" approach:
    I forgot to bring it
    It was damaged in the fall
    It got wet
    It was defective
    The batteries went dead
    I didn't know that I had to carry one
    Now, only rich people can climb mountains
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Mountain Rescue
  1. Mountaineering Thread (Replies: 1)

  2. Rescue Ink (Replies: 2)

  3. My rescue dog (Replies: 68)

Loading...