Slash, then walk?

[amashilu]

One question I have had for quite some time is this:

Assuming the cuts in the tent wall were made by the hikers and were done from the inside, this is pretty dramatic evidence that the need to escape the tent was absolutely over-the-top urgent and critical, with not one split second to grab your second boot. And then -- then -- they line up and walk. They don't run. They form a line (probably hold onto each other if it was dark outside) and calmly walk.

How can these two actions be reconciled?

If, as Glennm suggests, a slab of hard-packed snow had suddenly slipped onto the tent, flattening it right on top of the hikers and rendering the tent opening no longer a viable exit, I could see them cutting the wall and getting out that way. So now, they are all out, looking at the tent and figuring out what to do next --- what decision would you make if you were there? Let's all -- 18 hands, 9 strong people (that's 8 more than Peter Freuchen ever had) -- pull the snow off the tent and at least get our boots and jackets -- or let's just walk without our jackets or boots a mile down to the tree line?

[Senior Maldonado]

It is questionable that the hikers walked downhill. Helicopter's pilot Potyazhenko was sure that the hikers ran -- he had seen the footprints and noted that the gaps between neighboring footprints were huge. But this is not the main point.

The main point is that snow slab was not enough for the hikers to leave the tent and move down one mile to do exactly the same job they could have done at the tent's site - to dig snow. Being at the open air in those conditions meant losing warmth quickly, the guys and girls knew that very well. 40 minutes of descent immediatly decreased their chances to almost zero. Only ongoing vital threat at the tent's site would have made them to choose immediate retreat. Snow slab, which was over, does not qualify for such a threat.

[amashilu]

The main point is that snow slab was not enough for the hikers to leave the tent and move down one mile to do exactly the same job they could have done at the tent's site - to dig snow. Being at the open air in those conditions meant losing warmth quickly, the guys and girls knew that very well. 40 minutes of descent immediatly decreased their chances to almost zero. Only ongoing vital threat at the tent's site would have made them to choose immediate retreat. Snow slab, which was over, does not qualify for such a threat.

I completely agree. The snow slab theory is one of many that requires us to minimize the hikers' experience, intelligence, and skill if we are to believe it.

[GlennM]

My contention is that when the hikers levelled the base for their tent,they cut through a layer dividing two layers of snow . When the overburden became too great from additional snow deposition and ground level wind, the upper slab let loose, covering the tent. The hikers cut their way out. Next comes a decision. I reason that clearing the tent might release even more slab on the 30 degree slope. Additionally, once they were out of the tent, did they actually have a choice to return to it? A cut tent is not a warm tent and the slide that caught them the first time could certainly continue to cascade down on them.

 Arguably, even if they did excavate snow to retrieve supplies, perhaps the idea emerged that a second slide would obliterate the tent completely and they would never find it. Certainly, they are not going to have an easy time off getting to Vizhay on cached supplies only. Additionally, while they are digging, they are not making fire nor sheltering from any winds, up to hurricane force. The flashlight on the trail to the forest suggests they moved in darkness. This also reinforces the uncertainty of their circumstance. What I envision is cold,,dark,and uncertainty about what Nature will throw at them next.Their strength lies in their free will to choose what they will do next.

Once they agree to leave the slope, there is no turning back. Why? Turning back does not change the circumstance of their departure. No, it is all about getting to the woods, making fire, getting out of the wind and attempting to mark the trail back to the tent and home. If indeed there was a regularly passing aircraft, they could lay out three lines of cutting in the snow.

As Sr. maldanado points out, time is of the essence. Stalling at the tent is just running the clock down. My guess is that there was no real discussion about leaving because their survival did not depend on remaining at the tent, but instead it depended in leaving it. Even at that, we know that each one of them started to shut down. My suspicion is that the weather did not abate. It was savage when they left for the woods, and savage in the woods.

In other discussions, there has been the hint that geologists had some indirect involvement with the disaster. Is it not curious that any testimony by geologists is wholly absent from the case?