UKC

Les Droites

BBC reporting a fatal fall on Les Droites - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34627445
Seems to have been ab-related - see details in Daily Mail story - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3286423/Schoolboy-spends-entire-nig...

The boy must have had a horror show of a night. Glad he was rescued.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

http://www.ledauphine.com/haute-savoie/2015/10/22/chamonix-le-pere-se-tue-d...

In reply to Doug:


From google translate.

Father and son, Americans living in London, just finished climbing the Ginat on the north face of the Droites (4000 m). They coming back down yesterday by the south side towards the cover of the shelter. Surprised by the night, where they continued to absail to 21 hours, one of them-apparently failed while the father (61 years) was engaged. "He dropped with the rope, about forty meters," says Bozon commander, "boss" of Chamonix PGHM. Attempts to retrieve the son, who had raised the alarm, proved impossible because of the thick fog. Only on Thursday morning at 7:30 am the helicopter of the gendarmerie took off and recovered the young man of 15, unscathed. The body of the father was quickly found and repatriated in the valley.

In reply to ablackett:
Not a good story. I was planning on heading to that area this winter. Horror stories like that should deter people. Serious place. Mountaineering is a dangerous game.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Poor guy Must have been the worst 10 hours of his life.

In reply to Simon4:
Sympathies to the lad, family and friends. But it surely isn't for us to judge what they should, or shouldn't have been upto.

Its up to each party and this case parent, to decide what to undertake based upon thier collective experience, conditions, weather and ability.

Furthermore once over 16 years of age(in the UK) I would argue that we are at liberty should we wish to engage risk at the highest level, should we so desire to, as the fundemental expression of a free society.

The fact that they scaled the route suggests they were/are very competant.

Those that live in 'glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.... as on a purely rationale basis you cannot justify any climbing.

I find it very difficult to understand how any climber can criticise another on the actual fudemental of they shouldn't have been dooing it! Yes you could constructively comment on elements, but not the act. On the basis of whats been reported so far a competent party suffered a tragedy. Rather than reckless or uniformed stupidity.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:


I think that given the facts we should feel free to criticize any decision making on the part of those involved that led to this tragedy, and might help prevent further ones. However we don't really have all the facts as yet.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Yes, that is a given.


That seems like a non-sequitur. Climbers, especially in the Alps, make judgements all the time about the wisdom or otherwise of other parties. Sometimes they make similar (frequently retrospective), judgements about themselves. Judgement is what climbing in general, and Alpine Climbing in particular is all about.


Again, that, while not irrelevant, is something of a non-sequitur. The descent is a critical part of any Alpine route.


True of course. It is all relative, but some decisions seem blatantly reckless. Mostly we assume that (having made the initial, totally irrational decision to climb at all), we will do everything to minimise danger.


I'm not. But I do question taking a 15 year old, no matter how mature-seeming or technically competent, into such a situation. If something goes wrong, there is no resilience in the party to recover from it. A similar criticism can of course be made of a guided party, for the most part if something happens to the guide, the rest of the party just won't have the composure/ability to get out of the situation.

In reply to Simon4:



I feel terribly sorry for this family, but won´t join the critics. If I read the French article correctly, the father made a mistake with his braking device or the device failed, resulting in an abseil fall. What difference would it make in this scenario if the surviving partner had been 18 or older? Anyway, if the son is able to climb the Ginat (and presumably belay his father when leading), the descent will have been well within his capabilities (must have had sufficient practise on easier routes to get to this level). How many of us on the forum can say that they climb at this level?

CB

In reply to cb294:

I read it more that one of the ab stations had failed, leading the father to fall with the rope and stranding the youngster.

But your point - that the tragedy was irrespective of the age of the participants and after completion of the "hard" part - stands.

In reply to Simon4:

A lot of what you say is quite valid.

I do think though, and i wonder if you would agree with me, that an arbitary age (15) isn't, in isolation, a good judge of a person's character, resiliance or ability.

I have known (and guided) adults aged 40+, senior executives in large corporation,s who seemed to lack any ability/ resiliance / mental strengh and i have taught pupils aged 10 who have all those characteristics by the bucket full.

It's all about the individual; my own late father worked at a coal mine at the age of 15, Alexander the great led an army into battle before / at the age of 18, so you know a number isn't a short hand to a person's ability or character.

We do infantile young adults far too much, but that it perhaps another thread.

In reply to James Edwards:

Yes, certainly. But it must be definition seriously limit your experience, which counts for a lot in the mountains, notwithstanding the old saw "the mountain does not know how experienced you are".


In general, I agree. Not so sure on this specific example.