[neckardt]

The problem with mountains is twofold: Many mountains can be climbed without being elite while exposing yourself to major risk, and for some mountains there is objective hazard that can’t be mitigated.

One example of an “easy” but high risk climb is Mt. Rainier in Washington. All you need to go up is a set of crampons and a backpack, no technical mountaineering needed. However the mountain is full of glaciers that can collapse from under you, which has killed many people. Additionally, many have slipped and then slid to their death. In my case, when I attempted Rainier I took a wrong turn at one point and almost walked off a cliff.

Second: Objective Hazard. Objective hazard is risks that cannot be reasonably mitigated. Things like rockfall where a rock breaks off and falls on your head at random, or unpredictable avalanches. Mt Rainier as well has an area called the bowling alley known for its rockfall. The humans are the pins. Rainier also has an area called the icebox where cornices break off and fall into the climbing route. In 1981 the icebox killed 11 people in one day. Those climbers did everything right, but were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Mountaineering is not the same as other sports. It is sometimes deceptively easy, yet there are risks that simply cannot be mitigated. Any experienced mountaineer can give you a long list of friends they know that have died. That’s the case in few other sports.

[billy99k]

It's the same with base jumping. I remember watching a documentary on it one time and almost all of the people being interviewed knew multiple people that died during a jump.

[amiga386]

They are not the same.

In mountaineering, if something goes wrong, you could die.

In base jumping, if you don't do everything correctly, you will die.

A bit like the difference of a car engine failing (it will roll to a stop) vs an airplane engine failing (you will come down hard on the ground)

[the_af]

I think base jumping is slightly closer to suicide.

Or that almost suicidal thing with the wingsuits some people do: I get the appeal, I'm sure the rush of feeling like flying must be incredible, but they are playing Russian roulette.

[dh2022]

I have been thinking about starting to do air gliding. Is this a dangerous sport? How long does it take to get to glide a few miles? Any pointers pointers (books, videos,etc..) to start up? I live nearby Seattle, WA. Thanks!!!

[rufus_foreman]

>> Objective hazard is risks that cannot be reasonably mitigated. Things like rockfall where a rock breaks off and falls on your head at random, or unpredictable avalanches

Those risks can be mitigated. They can't be reduced to zero, but they can be made less severe.

Avalanches don't typically happen randomly out of the blue any more than thunderstorms do in the midwest. In the midwest, you know days ahead of time that there is going to be a risk of thunderstorms the same way that you know days ahead of time when there is going to be a high avalanche risk. You know the amount of recent snowfall, you know what the weather is going to be, and you know how to recognize avalanche terrain.

Rockfall does not occur completely randomly. If you go to a place overlooking something like the bowling alley on a warm summer afternoon, you will see and hear rocks the size of cars or small houses bouncing down the slopes. If you go on a cold winter morning before the sun hits the snow, you won't see or hear that because everything that is frozen in place will stay frozen in place. You choose the time of your climb to mitigate risks from rockfall, avalanches, and weather. Mitigate does not mean reduce to zero.

Yes, mountaineering can be risky. Everyone decides their own level of involvement. Climbing a walkup in bluebird weather has less risk than driving to the grocery store. Attempting to climb K2 kills 25% of the people who do it. Mountaineer's choice. If you've got kids and you try to climb K2, you're selfish and I feel sorry for your kids. If you're a single guy who wants to risk death, go for it.

[LandR]

K2 doesn't kill 25% of people who climb it.

It has a historic fatality ratio of 1 death for every 4 summits. If you have 100 people try to climb it in a season, 4 summits and 1 death you have 25% summit to death ratio, but 99 out of the 100 people survived.

Last year it looks like it had 175 climbers, ~50 summits, and 2 deaths. 2023 had over 100 summits and 1 death.

[ghaff]

You can mitigate to greater or lesser. Kate Matrosova was actually well prepared when she died a few years ago. She should simply have gone out in that forecast

On the other hand, you get into the bigger mountains and it’s a lot harder. To time the weather and other dangers.

[stefan_]

Which is why they all carry beacons, so when they fail they can involve others in their folly. Dunno, you wanna leave civilization, that's like a billion dollar risk premium right there.

[bratwurst3000]

this isnt true. I know some alpinist guides and alpinist. beeing one myself. I can remember the story of maximum 3 deaths and they were not even first encounters. If you are a professional its rly rly rare that you die. accidents with injuries can happen for sure and they are way more common.

the mt Everest hast like 300 deaths on 15.000 successful climbs or so. And thats not an easy one and ridiculous elite.

I know guids in the alps and they do 300 alpinist tour day a year. So how come allmost all are alive and their friends etc. For sure they know people that know poeple or colleges that died by accidents , mostly avalanches and loose rocks, but as said rly rly rare.

but on the other hand there are many deaths in the alps every year.

The guy in the post seemed well prepared and smart and shit happens and I am sorry for the lost. Very glad his family got an answer.

[anothereng]

you're right if you like nature go camping or somewhere that you don't have to risk your life imo