EverestMax has a scathing first person report on their summit bid with comments such as " ... He clearly had HAPE and if left to his own devices was going to die on the mountain. He had no colleagues with him and his Sherpas had abandoned him. I too tried to encourage him to climb the 10m up to the North Col – he couldn't." and another comment "...Eventually I had to clip him into my harness and pull him up to the North Col. His tent was too far away so I just put him in nearest empty tent. Meanwhile Dom had tried to mobilise help from the 7 Summits team - they refused to help despite being a large organisation."

Media around the world have reported on the death of solo climber David Sharp and comments such as "We came across a chap sheltering under a rock, who was perhaps hours from death. That was probably only 21/2 hours into the climb. ... Trouble is, at 8500 metres it's extremely difficult to keep yourself alive - let alone keep anyone else alive."

The media has focused on "40 climbers passing by without providing aid". Actually that is not true. Sherpas tried to give Sharp oxygen but all he wanted do was "sleep" - a sure sign that death was near - especially at 8000m. Sadly I have helped bury climbers above 7000m and often there was nothing anyone could have done to save the person. But our world likes to point fingers and find the villians.

I commented on the deaths a few days ago but I have been thinking a lot about this since then, especially the huge difference between the north and south sides. Please let me think out loud for a moment.

First - saftey net: The south side has a long history of major commercial operators who use the same Sherpas, camps and routes year after year. Yes, this is similar on the north but the operators on the south have established an informal network committed to helping one another in an emergency - no questions asked. The network was demonstrated again this year with the rescue of injured Sherpas and climbers in the icefall. This network includes IMG, AAI, Adventure Consultants and others. The south also has a group medical clinic that provides assistance to anyone.

Second - costs: The permit costs charged by the Nepalese discourage price-sensitive climbers from climbing on the south. The low Chinese permit charges have encouraged the lowest cost operators to focus on the north thus attracting, sometimes, climbers who need more guiding help but do not get it. Seven of the eleven deaths this year were climbers who were not on major commercial expeditions.

Third - discipline: The Ministry of Tourism in Nepal manages Everest with a tight first - financially, ecology and safety. For all the jokes, the Liaison Officers do pay attention and report problems. Operators with poor records can be banned. Followers of Everest know the names. Such discipline is sketchy on the north side.

Fourth -competition: The south has several majors who compete for the business year after year and most climbers always ask about their safety record. On the north, there is one dominate commercial operator who has such power that they fix ropes and dictate schedules. Their record is perfect for clients and they serve as a model for other operators. But the north needs more large scale commercial operators to bring order to the chaos.

Fifth and finally, the climbers themselves: They bring a lot of the problems. While it is seductive to be the first to do this and that; mountaineering is not an X-Games event. It is dangerous, deadly and real. I am afraid that all the commercialism has made Everest seem like a Colorado 14er, Aconcagua or a nice climb in the Alps.

While I personally think Hillary has taken his argument too far in that "... it is just ridiculous having 15 or 20 or 30 expeditions all attempting the mountain at the same time." He does have a fair point in comparing his time to now "...We would have definitely abandoned the ambition to reach the summit in order to get the other person to safety." But should another team have to do that?

Mountaineering is a sport of intense independence. It is a sport where the participant can find oneself completely alone, without food, water and shelter in mind numbing cold and flesh-freezing winds. The mountain does not care. It is really a test of the climber, not the Hill. Should a climber who has never climbed Everest be allowed to climb Everest? A silly question? Well in so many words, that seems to be the feeling of many in the industry. But that robs people of their dreams - the heart and soul of alpine mountaineering.

Sadly many operators will take anyone on an expedition if they have money. There are four tiers of operators: 1) established commercial companies with long histories and stable ownership, 2) budget operators who run safe, no-frills operations, 3) local ground agents who provide basic logistics and Sherpas for the lowest cost and finally, 4) the upstart operators without a track record. The point is you can die on any of these but some have a better record than others.

I am actually very dissapointed about this year and for the sport I love. I am dissapointed that the largest mountaineering websites just repost dispatches and rarely comment or offer solutions on what is happening (except for mounteverest.net). I am dissapointed that the large commercial operators continue to post rosy statements about their team’s success and ignore the cancer in their industry. I am dissapointed that climbers continue to put their lives at risk based on the lowest cost operators. I am dissapointed that climbers die when it could have been prevented.

Climbing is a wonderful sport that delivers challenges and rewards rarely found in this day. It should not be the domain of the "professionals" nor the wealthy. But governments, operators and climbers should dedicated themselves to running safe climbs with proper safety nets, qualified staff, sufficient resources and a moral compass.

I wrote an editorial called "When Good Guides Turn Bad” a few years ago that was focused on the problems with guides and how they treated clients. While I do believe the quality of the guides has improved, the industry continues to have serious and deadly issues. Everest 2006 - North has shown that there is still a long way to go. And it is up to the operators to solve it. They have the power, the knowledge and vested interest to make it happen.

Now will they? Until then it will remain "climber beware".

http://www.alanarnette.com