5 ms·

Everest 2024: Nepal's "GPS Chip" Plan Has Major Problems

45 points by harambae 3y ago

redleader55 3y ago
It's naive to suggest limiting the number of permits given per year. On one hand it's a major source of income to both the Nepali government and the local economy. On the other hand, the folks with the most money will still get the permits and the mountaineers will not, thereby increasing the chance of accidents.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Arguably, better safety will increase the numbers of people wanting to climb Everest, and thereby increase revenues.
  - thejohnconway 3y ago
    I’d bet the opposite, personally. I think the risk is an important part of it, and clearly it’s not putting enough people off. There’s probably an, erm, ‘sweet’ spot where there are enough deaths to make it feel spectacularly dangerous, but not so many you think it’s going to happen to _you_.
- PinguTS 3y ago
  Alan Arnette is a well recognized mountaineer for years. He summited Everest, K2, and all the 7 summits. He is well recognized and connected within the community for years. He knows how it works. Did you also read the last sentences of his blog post?
- aredox 3y ago
  There is certainly a sweet spot where they can increase the price of permits and still get more money in total. If an economist would do some good in the world, they could help the Nepali government find this sweet spot. It would improve Nepalis'livelihood and save some lives.
michaelt 3y ago
> Climbers have successfully used GPS devices for many years, but they are not 100% reliable. [...] Sometimes, it will send incorrect coordinates because the signal bounces off the mountain walls. Also, they require a clear sky view Somewhat, but GPS receiver performance has improved greatly in the last 25 years. Back in the day, you'd put a carefully oriented GPS antenna on the top of your car and still expect to lose signal when going between tall buildings. These days a backseat car passenger with a metal car roof between them and the sky, paying no attention to the antenna's orientation, can almost always get a fix even in the densest of built up areas. And it's not just wifi or cell tower tracking - it's a proper satellite fix, with the precision to give turn-by-turn navigation instructions in good time. A mountaineer's personal locator beacon might not get the full benefits (unlike a smartphone in an urban area, they probably won't get the fast fix A-GPS provides) but I'd still expect them to get the high sensitivity and multipath rejection modern receivers provide.
- asdaq1312512 3y ago
  I thought the same, but I was pretty surprised how bad my phone's GPS performance was next to cliffs. Especially altitude was off significantly. When thinking of turn-by-turn navigation, keep in mind that car navigation will snap your position to roads. For a better comparison, try e.g. Google Maps in pedestrian or bicycle navigation mode. At least in my experience, the perceived "accuracy" drops significantly.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    If you have a USA phone, bear in mind most are sold with glonass and beidou and support disabled. Buy a phone or GPS from elsewhere in the world and you'll get to use all the networks and get much better accuracy.
    - asdaq1312512 3y ago
      EU phone, but yeah, good to point out GNSS isn't just GPS anymore. I also agree that the accuracy is insanely good most of the time; I'm just objecting the "accuracy test" using car turn-by-turn navigation :-)
blutack 3y ago
Interesting article, be helpful if there was a breakdown of why the author thinks people are dying. Seems from the article like there are three problems: - SAR teams knowing where people are - SPOT/inReach, PLB, Recco (at a push) - SAR teams knowing that someone is in trouble: SPOT/inReach, PLB, VHF, Satphone - Members of a climbing team knowing where each other are: SPOT/inReach, VHF, Satphone, Meshtastic (or something of that style) I imagine that SAR is really really hard on Everest even if you do know where the casualty is so knowing where other members of a climbing team are might be the most important one?
- mthoms 3y ago
  You're right on what some of the major problems are but, there are no SAR teams on Everest. Your SAR team is the expedition outfit you signed up with. Many are under-manned and under-equipped but even the best ones won't be able to facilitate a rescue much of the time (due to weather, altitude and manpower issues). The climbers all know this. Many of the bigger outfits do co-operate on rescues where they can, but aside from that there is no official rescue organization.
alfanick 3y ago
RECCO is better than nothing, but it has very minimal value for saving anyone, it's helpful used for body recovery (as mentioned in the article, recco is just a pasisive reflector antenna) - it requires active scanning from SAR team, which takes time and is prone to environment conditions. I thought that having gps sat locator (like inReach etc) was already obligatory in Himalaya, but maybe it's just a good practice, and not mandatory.
isolli 3y ago
These are the solutions that Alan recommends instead: 1. Require all climbers to have summited 7000 meters or higher before issuing them Everest permits. 2. Require all “guides” to be IFMGA certified or at least have taken climbing, medical and rescue courses at the Khumbu Climbing Center taught by proven, qualified Everest guides 3. Require that every person climbing Everest carry a handheld radio 4. Each team monitor and write down every climber’s (member and support) precise location when above base camp. 5. Establish a central monitoring team at Base Camp and Camp 2 to monitor emergency frequency 6. Position trained search and rescue resources at Base Camp, Camp 2 and on a rotating basis at the South Col during summit pushes 7. Limit foreign permits to 400 qualified members 8. Limit team size to 25 members with 1:1 Sherpa support. BC Staff is additional. 9. Ban any operator for one year if they have a client who is “missing” at the end of the season Most seem like common sense. Number 2 could lead to economic capture, but is probably worth it. Number 7 is the most difficult; there would have to be a way to distribute work and revenue among the community to make up for the losses. It would probably increase prices, which would help. Number 9 is the only one I would strike. It's most likely unenforceable (sketchy operators would just change names) and it would only serve to penalize reputable operators because accidents are inevitable. Either way, even just implementing 1 to 6 and 8 would already be tremendous progress.
- Kluggy 3y ago
  I took 9 to be missing without a trace rather then missing due to an accident.
  - isolli 3y ago
    Makes sense, thanks
onetimeuse92304 3y ago
I am (an amateur) sailor and every time I have a new crew I go through the same set of safety rules with them including explanation of what to do in case somebody falls overboard. We will usually also go through a training exercise (throw a weighted fender into water while underway) to cement the lesson a bit and for people to understand what they can expect in a real situation. Probably the most important task is that of the person who needs to keep pointing with the finger at the man over board and keep constant focus on not loosing them from their sight. On a small yacht and with any waves around you, it is almost impossible to find a bobbing human head unless somebody is constantly focused on tracking the victim. Trust me, once you loose the sight of the head that only shows in your view intermittently, it can be almost impossible to find them again. I am not a mountaineer, but I have red quite a bunch of mountain stories and the same theme repeats all over again -- people who die even though they could be easily rescued if just anybody knew where they got stuck. People who got caught by a blizzard and got disoriented even as close as a hundred feet from the basecamp. Rescuers going on a long and dangerous rescue mission even if the victim was almost at the door step. Rescuers risking their lives even though the victim have fallen from a great height and there was essentially no chance for a positive outcome. Rescuers waiting for a long time not knowing what to do and trying to weigh the risks of going out vs the risk to their friend who did not report to the base at the planned time. A simple GPS device could cut so much of that drama just like a simple mobile phone cut a lot of drama from meeting with somebody. Who still remembers the time when you had to meet with the other person at the prearranged time and if they were not there you faced a sometimes difficult decision to stay and wait because they might be late or go back home? As to the GPS receiver inaccuracy, even with inaccurate results the signal can be useful. You can usually tell if the signal is or is not accurate by how erratic it is. If it follows the planned path it probably is accurate. If suddenly strays off the planned path and then stays in one place while still transmitting -- that is very likely a sign of accident. Even if you don't have 100% certainty in the signal, rather than search everywhere for the victim and risk rescuers' lives, you can just go where the signal points and there is good likelihood you will not come emptyhanded.
badcppdev 3y ago
It would be useful if the Everest routes had active base stations all the way up and down the route. They could form a mesh network and precisely locate every climbers on the way up and down the mountain. Put them in place at the beginning of each season. I'm aware that this dramatically changes the 'adventure' of climbing Everest but I don't care because if it saves one Sherpa or guide then I think it will have served its purpose
RegnisGnaw 3y ago
The author is mistaken in the article. Alan says in the article: Gurung told CNN that the chips are manufactured in “a European country” but did not specify where or by which company and cost $10-15 apiece for each chip. He said that they would be sewn into the climber’s jacket. Once the climber returns, the chip will be removed, given back to the government, and saved for the next person.” No where in the CNN link does it say the chip costs $10-15 a piece. It says: He explains that climbers will pay $10-15 apiece for the chips, which will be sewn into their jackets. Once the climber returns, the chip will be removed, given back to the government, and saved for the next person. So the $10-15 is a rental price, not a per unit price. Which means it could be some of the more expensive solutions he ruled out due to cost.
- mthoms 3y ago
  Good catch. There's still something fishy though. I mean, does anyone here know of an an unpowered, waterproof GPS "chip" that can be "sewn" into a jacket? Also, charging a $10-$15 mandatory rental fee is weird given that an Everest climbing permit is already in the neighbourhood of $15k (up from ~$10k last year). I can't see the Nepali Government bothering with a rental fee of that magnitude, so maybe it is a cheap Recco-like device (ie *not GPS) and the fee is more of a deposit? So many questions. This mistake aside, I can't say enough about Alan and his blog/podcast for those interested in the topic. Even non-climbers.
lxgr 3y ago
I'd be very surprised if the "GPS chip" was actually RECCO. RECCO has one pretty specific use case: Being hit by an avalanche while not carrying an active avalanche beacon. This is pretty much only useful for recreational skiers straying off-slope: If you get hit by an avalance in the backcountry, chances are that anybody noticing the avalance and capable of digging you out in time, i.e. within minutes, will be your group members (hopefully you were following precautions, i.e. skiing with a lot of distance between each other on avalanche-prone slopes and are carrying shovels!) In any case, there will most likely not be anybody carrying the heavy active searching device needed for RECCO. Active avalance beacons can be switched to homing mode by non-buried group memebers; that's why skiing and mountain guides I've spoken to heavily recommend carrying these when planning to go off-slope. RECCO's range is 80 meters only in free-space (20 meters under packed snow), so it's not even remotely useful to locate lost hikers/climbers.
- pankajdoharey 3y ago
  Or get a Apple TAG no?
  - lxgr 3y ago
    With a range of 10 meters probably not so much. Great for when you lose your car keys in basecamp, though!

45 points by harambae 3y ago

It's naive to suggest limiting the number of permits given per year. On one hand it's a major source of income to both the Nepali government and the local economy. On the other hand, the folks with the most money will still get the permits and the mountaineers will not, thereby increasing the chance of accidents.

londons_explore 3y ago
Arguably, better safety will increase the numbers of people wanting to climb Everest, and thereby increase revenues.
- thejohnconway 3y ago
  I’d bet the opposite, personally. I think the risk is an important part of it, and clearly it’s not putting enough people off. There’s probably an, erm, ‘sweet’ spot where there are enough deaths to make it feel spectacularly dangerous, but not so many you think it’s going to happen to _you_.
PinguTS 3y ago
Alan Arnette is a well recognized mountaineer for years. He summited Everest, K2, and all the 7 summits. He is well recognized and connected within the community for years. He knows how it works. Did you also read the last sentences of his blog post?
aredox 3y ago
There is certainly a sweet spot where they can increase the price of permits and still get more money in total. If an economist would do some good in the world, they could help the Nepali government find this sweet spot. It would improve Nepalis'livelihood and save some lives.

michaelt 3y ago

> Climbers have successfully used GPS devices for many years, but they are not 100% reliable. [...] Sometimes, it will send incorrect coordinates because the signal bounces off the mountain walls. Also, they require a clear sky view Somewhat, but GPS receiver performance has improved greatly in the last 25 years. Back in the day, you'd put a carefully oriented GPS antenna on the top of your car and still expect to lose signal when going between tall buildings. These days a backseat car passenger with a metal car roof between them and the sky, paying no attention to the antenna's orientation, can almost always get a fix even in the densest of built up areas. And it's not just wifi or cell tower tracking - it's a proper satellite fix, with the precision to give turn-by-turn navigation instructions in good time. A mountaineer's personal locator beacon might not get the full benefits (unlike a smartphone in an urban area, they probably won't get the fast fix A-GPS provides) but I'd still expect them to get the high sensitivity and multipath rejection modern receivers provide.

asdaq1312512 3y ago
I thought the same, but I was pretty surprised how bad my phone's GPS performance was next to cliffs. Especially altitude was off significantly. When thinking of turn-by-turn navigation, keep in mind that car navigation will snap your position to roads. For a better comparison, try e.g. Google Maps in pedestrian or bicycle navigation mode. At least in my experience, the perceived "accuracy" drops significantly.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  If you have a USA phone, bear in mind most are sold with glonass and beidou and support disabled. Buy a phone or GPS from elsewhere in the world and you'll get to use all the networks and get much better accuracy.
  - asdaq1312512 3y ago
    EU phone, but yeah, good to point out GNSS isn't just GPS anymore. I also agree that the accuracy is insanely good most of the time; I'm just objecting the "accuracy test" using car turn-by-turn navigation :-)

blutack 3y ago

Interesting article, be helpful if there was a breakdown of why the author thinks people are dying. Seems from the article like there are three problems: - SAR teams knowing where people are - SPOT/inReach, PLB, Recco (at a push) - SAR teams knowing that someone is in trouble: SPOT/inReach, PLB, VHF, Satphone - Members of a climbing team knowing where each other are: SPOT/inReach, VHF, Satphone, Meshtastic (or something of that style) I imagine that SAR is really really hard on Everest even if you do know where the casualty is so knowing where other members of a climbing team are might be the most important one?

mthoms 3y ago
You're right on what some of the major problems are but, there are no SAR teams on Everest. Your SAR team is the expedition outfit you signed up with. Many are under-manned and under-equipped but even the best ones won't be able to facilitate a rescue much of the time (due to weather, altitude and manpower issues). The climbers all know this. Many of the bigger outfits do co-operate on rescues where they can, but aside from that there is no official rescue organization.

alfanick 3y ago

RECCO is better than nothing, but it has very minimal value for saving anyone, it's helpful used for body recovery (as mentioned in the article, recco is just a pasisive reflector antenna) - it requires active scanning from SAR team, which takes time and is prone to environment conditions. I thought that having gps sat locator (like inReach etc) was already obligatory in Himalaya, but maybe it's just a good practice, and not mandatory.

isolli 3y ago

These are the solutions that Alan recommends instead: 1. Require all climbers to have summited 7000 meters or higher before issuing them Everest permits. 2. Require all “guides” to be IFMGA certified or at least have taken climbing, medical and rescue courses at the Khumbu Climbing Center taught by proven, qualified Everest guides 3. Require that every person climbing Everest carry a handheld radio 4. Each team monitor and write down every climber’s (member and support) precise location when above base camp. 5. Establish a central monitoring team at Base Camp and Camp 2 to monitor emergency frequency 6. Position trained search and rescue resources at Base Camp, Camp 2 and on a rotating basis at the South Col during summit pushes 7. Limit foreign permits to 400 qualified members 8. Limit team size to 25 members with 1:1 Sherpa support. BC Staff is additional. 9. Ban any operator for one year if they have a client who is “missing” at the end of the season Most seem like common sense. Number 2 could lead to economic capture, but is probably worth it. Number 7 is the most difficult; there would have to be a way to distribute work and revenue among the community to make up for the losses. It would probably increase prices, which would help. Number 9 is the only one I would strike. It's most likely unenforceable (sketchy operators would just change names) and it would only serve to penalize reputable operators because accidents are inevitable. Either way, even just implementing 1 to 6 and 8 would already be tremendous progress.

Kluggy 3y ago
I took 9 to be missing without a trace rather then missing due to an accident.
- isolli 3y ago
  Makes sense, thanks

onetimeuse92304 3y ago

I am (an amateur) sailor and every time I have a new crew I go through the same set of safety rules with them including explanation of what to do in case somebody falls overboard. We will usually also go through a training exercise (throw a weighted fender into water while underway) to cement the lesson a bit and for people to understand what they can expect in a real situation. Probably the most important task is that of the person who needs to keep pointing with the finger at the man over board and keep constant focus on not loosing them from their sight. On a small yacht and with any waves around you, it is almost impossible to find a bobbing human head unless somebody is constantly focused on tracking the victim. Trust me, once you loose the sight of the head that only shows in your view intermittently, it can be almost impossible to find them again. I am not a mountaineer, but I have red quite a bunch of mountain stories and the same theme repeats all over again -- people who die even though they could be easily rescued if just anybody knew where they got stuck. People who got caught by a blizzard and got disoriented even as close as a hundred feet from the basecamp. Rescuers going on a long and dangerous rescue mission even if the victim was almost at the door step. Rescuers risking their lives even though the victim have fallen from a great height and there was essentially no chance for a positive outcome. Rescuers waiting for a long time not knowing what to do and trying to weigh the risks of going out vs the risk to their friend who did not report to the base at the planned time. A simple GPS device could cut so much of that drama just like a simple mobile phone cut a lot of drama from meeting with somebody. Who still remembers the time when you had to meet with the other person at the prearranged time and if they were not there you faced a sometimes difficult decision to stay and wait because they might be late or go back home? As to the GPS receiver inaccuracy, even with inaccurate results the signal can be useful. You can usually tell if the signal is or is not accurate by how erratic it is. If it follows the planned path it probably is accurate. If suddenly strays off the planned path and then stays in one place while still transmitting -- that is very likely a sign of accident. Even if you don't have 100% certainty in the signal, rather than search everywhere for the victim and risk rescuers' lives, you can just go where the signal points and there is good likelihood you will not come emptyhanded.

badcppdev 3y ago

It would be useful if the Everest routes had active base stations all the way up and down the route. They could form a mesh network and precisely locate every climbers on the way up and down the mountain. Put them in place at the beginning of each season. I'm aware that this dramatically changes the 'adventure' of climbing Everest but I don't care because if it saves one Sherpa or guide then I think it will have served its purpose

RegnisGnaw 3y ago

The author is mistaken in the article. Alan says in the article: Gurung told CNN that the chips are manufactured in “a European country” but did not specify where or by which company and cost $10-15 apiece for each chip. He said that they would be sewn into the climber’s jacket. Once the climber returns, the chip will be removed, given back to the government, and saved for the next person.” No where in the CNN link does it say the chip costs $10-15 a piece. It says: He explains that climbers will pay $10-15 apiece for the chips, which will be sewn into their jackets. Once the climber returns, the chip will be removed, given back to the government, and saved for the next person. So the $10-15 is a rental price, not a per unit price. Which means it could be some of the more expensive solutions he ruled out due to cost.

mthoms 3y ago
Good catch. There's still something fishy though. I mean, does anyone here know of an an unpowered, waterproof GPS "chip" that can be "sewn" into a jacket? Also, charging a $10-$15 mandatory rental fee is weird given that an Everest climbing permit is already in the neighbourhood of $15k (up from ~$10k last year). I can't see the Nepali Government bothering with a rental fee of that magnitude, so maybe it is a cheap Recco-like device (ie *not GPS) and the fee is more of a deposit? So many questions. This mistake aside, I can't say enough about Alan and his blog/podcast for those interested in the topic. Even non-climbers.

lxgr 3y ago

I'd be very surprised if the "GPS chip" was actually RECCO. RECCO has one pretty specific use case: Being hit by an avalanche while not carrying an active avalanche beacon. This is pretty much only useful for recreational skiers straying off-slope: If you get hit by an avalance in the backcountry, chances are that anybody noticing the avalance and capable of digging you out in time, i.e. within minutes, will be your group members (hopefully you were following precautions, i.e. skiing with a lot of distance between each other on avalanche-prone slopes and are carrying shovels!) In any case, there will most likely not be anybody carrying the heavy active searching device needed for RECCO. Active avalance beacons can be switched to homing mode by non-buried group memebers; that's why skiing and mountain guides I've spoken to heavily recommend carrying these when planning to go off-slope. RECCO's range is 80 meters only in free-space (20 meters under packed snow), so it's not even remotely useful to locate lost hikers/climbers.

pankajdoharey 3y ago
Or get a Apple TAG no?
- lxgr 3y ago
  With a range of 10 meters probably not so much. Great for when you lose your car keys in basecamp, though!