August 09, 2020, 04:00:30 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Dyatlov vs. Chivruay  (Read 1960 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

May 13, 2020, 12:13:43 AM
Reply #30
Online

Nigel Evans


i think inexperience combined with the proximity of safety created a deadly result in failure to turn back, the fact that they attempted to access their sleeping bags and clothing but lost everything is either paradoxical undressing or hints at something stranger. If they were inside this tent for shelter (using it as a bivi) then how could they lose all this stuff?

May 13, 2020, 01:12:08 PM
Reply #31
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Is hard to blame any of the leaders for what happened there, they die because it was something as "perfect storm". Something similar to tragedy on Everest in 1996 or Peak Lenina in 1974 (nice article, worth of reading: https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/01/sport/russian-climbers-peak-lenin-spt-intl/ )

Great article. I finally found the time to read it. Nice presentation and, really, I haven't heard of this tragedy before. It is interesting as a tragedy that happened to very experienced group of strong willed climbers. Nature always has the last word. And the first. I thing it has the whole sentence :)

May 13, 2020, 04:08:40 PM
Reply #32
Offline

PJ


Nigel, they bivy bag was small, no chance to keep backpacks inside so if they wanted to take out something from it, they did it outside, in full wind. Very easy to lose things on the wind, specially when your hands are frozen already.

Teddy, exactly, even very experienced climbers do mistakes like that. And on Peak Lenin the wind was about 125kh/h and during Chivruay Incident minimum 150km/h.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2020, 02:02:08 AM by Teddy »

May 14, 2020, 02:05:01 AM
Reply #33
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
And the description of the Russians tents: tarpaulin, toggles and wooden poles, they were not much different than Dyatlov's tent 15 years earlier.
https://dyatlovpass.com/controversy?flp=1#tent

May 19, 2020, 10:16:52 AM
Reply #34
Offline

PJ


In the context of our recent discussion about going to mountains in bad weather the current situation on Mt. Everest is very interesting...

This Spring season the Nepal side is closed(no climbers at all) and from Tibet/China side only one Chinese expedition is on the mountain.
-they want climb it to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China - high political pressure on climbers
-nobody else is climbing this season so the achievement will be much bigger, not often happens this days to be "alone" on Mt Everest - more pressure on climbers ego

They made already one unsuccessful attempt some days ago, have to abandon it because of avalanche risk, for this week is planned another summit push but...
There is Superstorm forming in the Bay of Bengal and it will move towards Mt. Everest, European Meteo Agencies predict possibility of very high winds and snowfall on Mt. Everest tomorrow and Thursday, China’s National Meteorological Centre gives some warnings but predict much more optimistic weather... so situation is developing...
As every year monsoon is coming to Mt.Everest region around middle of June but sometimes is early as end of May so maybe this is the last chance for summit push in this week...
Climbers already in high camps, first group planning summit push on Wednesday/Thursday night...
Unfortunately history likes to repeat again and again and again, I hope it will not happens this time and all will be safe. Answer will come in few days...

May 19, 2020, 10:39:42 AM
Reply #35
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

"The more than two dozen Chinese climbers tackling Mount Everest were expected to reach the advanced base camp at an altitude of 6,450 metres (four miles) on Friday, expedition operators in touch with the China Tibet Mountaineering Association (CTMA) said on April 3."

So they are like 25? They are on camp 4?
Where are you reading this, all the sites I find are crap.

May 19, 2020, 10:55:37 AM
Reply #36
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
And if it is just them will we ever know what happened.
I am referring to their first ascent in 1960 on the North side.

May 19, 2020, 12:32:57 PM
Reply #37
Offline

PJ


For high mountains news I mostly use: https://explorersweb.com/

oh, and I messed up, they was celebrate the 60 years of first climbing Mt.Everest from Tibet side for the first time (if it wasn't done already in 1924 by Mallory and Irvine - I believe that they did it haha) not the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China( this was last yet :P )

May 19, 2020, 02:24:41 PM
Reply #38
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Thanks for the link. So the assault is planned for Friday, May 22.

May 19, 2020, 05:58:03 PM
Reply #39
Offline

PJ


The group of 12 surveyors that want to measure Everest plan to summit on Friday, probably on Thursday some of guides could summit already or at last fix the route close to summit.
Generally it mean that they must be already very high on the mountain, to make summit push on Friday, all must be in the last camp at 8300 on Thursday. If it will be hit by very bad weather it could be not so good there :/

May 20, 2020, 11:47:24 AM
Reply #40
Offline

Teddy

Administrator

May 22, 2020, 03:33:38 AM
Reply #41
Offline

alecsandros


Hello,
On the Chivruay versus Dyatlov comparison - I seem to remember reading about the Chivruay victims that some of them , discovered in May/June (4-5 months after the tragic events) had missing eyes, the same as two unfortunate souls from Dyatovlav. Is that true ?
Best,

May 22, 2020, 03:48:17 AM
Reply #42
Offline

Teddy

Administrator

May 23, 2020, 03:50:09 AM
Reply #43
Offline

alecsandros


Thanks.
Regarding Chivruay, I read that the bodies of the five skiers that were found outside the tent were found at various distances from the tent, between 300m to 2000meters IIRC.
Is it known if they arrived in those positions by themselves, or if they were thrown by gushes of wind ?

May 23, 2020, 04:04:25 AM
Reply #44
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
by themselves

May 24, 2020, 01:19:46 AM
Reply #45
Offline

WAB


I think that it not happens suddenly.

This quite natural assumption.

I could understand that they didnt want go back to Chivruay Valley so after climbing on Chivruay Pass they keep going as long as they could, they do not allow the option(critical mistake as we know today) that the wind will be too strong for continuing the hike on the plateau.

Yes.

When they find out it is not possible go further they still try to find out other way down instead all returning to Chivruay Valley(another critical mistake),

It is difficult consider it as error. At them was only two real variants of a way: or in a valley of Kitkuai, or in a valley of Kuftuai. In Chivuruaj and on lake Seid they did not want to go down, because they again would break control term to Kirovsk. So was last (1972) year. To go down in a valley of Chivruai it was unsafe, because pass there was only on very narrow site. It was very difficult to get there. However Lida Martina with his the partner tried reconnoiter it. I so think. And not only I so thought in 1973.

after splitting it was matter of minutes they all get lots and were not able to return because of wind.

No. Time at them was much more, but it was not boundless. Therefore it has not sufficed.

In 1996 on Everest

I do not know this case in details. Please give me reference to complete description.

and on Peak Lenina in 1974 they made the same mistake: Not take into account the fact that the weather will be very bad, just keeping false hope that will be not that bad as long as it was too bad and too late to do anything.

I know this case very well and from the very first source - Vladimir Shataev.

And on Everest and on Peak Lenina the climbers were much more experienced than on Chivruay Pass.

These are absolutely different cases and absolutely different conditions. I so think that in both cases experience of participants could not that that to change. It is similar to trigger situation. It is enough get to those conditions and already that is almost impossible that to change.
Miscalculation. The most common cause of accidents in the mountains.

Yes, it and exists.

May 26, 2020, 11:42:55 AM
Reply #46
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
The group of 12 surveyors that want to measure Everest plan to summit on Friday, probably on Thursday some of guides could summit already or at last fix the route close to summit. Generally it mean that they must be already very high on the mountain, to make summit push on Friday, all must be in the last camp at 8300 on Thursday. If it will be hit by very bad weather it could be not so good there :/

Happy Everest 2020!!!
https://explorersweb.com/2020/05/26/everest-summits/

May 26, 2020, 05:28:04 PM
Reply #47
Offline

PJ


It is difficult consider it as error. At them was only two real variants of a way: or in a valley of Kitkuai, or in a valley of Kuftuai. In Chivuruaj and on lake Seid they did not want to go down, because they again would break control term to Kirovsk.

The fact that they not consider any other variant/possibility because they would break control term to Kirovsk was mistake that cost them the highest price. Going back to Chivruay Valley was the only chance to survive that weather.

This is why I compare this to tragedies on Everest in 1996* and Pik Lenin - in all this cases they following the plan that was made days before, did not allow the option that the weather could be very bad and simply keep going till was too late.

* on Everest in 1996 two commercial expeditions and other climbers start summit push and keep going to the summit despite the fact that they received info about blizzard coming shortly, they even see the clouds but keep hope that they will be able to made it to the summit and back to camp IV. 8 people died on that day/night. Is a lot of books and movies about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Mount_Everest_disaster

May 27, 2020, 12:00:28 PM
Reply #48
Offline

WAB


It is difficult consider it as error. At them was only two real variants of a way: or in a valley of Kitkuai, or in a valley of Kuftuai. In Chivuruaj and on lake Seid they did not want to go down, because they again would break control term to Kirovsk.
=======================================

The fact that they not consider any other variant/possibility because they would break control term to Kirovsk was mistake that cost them the highest price. Going back to Chivruay Valley was the only chance to survive that weather.

1. It is Always easier say that already happens, than have full idea that will take place then.
2. If weather has changed, when they have already risen on plateau and have passed to place where there was tent, to them remains only 1,5 … 2 km before where they could go under any weather conditions.
3. People always consider that there should be more optimistic scenario, than the nature can create it. They went there in hope that weather will be better. As it was at all the others (some hundreds) groups which went this pass, as to them, and field them. I went there 7 or 8 times and never such weather met. As well as is the others some hundreds groups.

This is why I compare this to tragedies on Everest in 1996* and Pik Lenin - in all this cases they following the plan that was made days before, did not allow the option that the weather could be very bad and simply keep going till was too late.

In each of these cases a situation very different, therefore compare them it is impossible. For example, in high mountains all becomes complicated hypoxia (you should know about it very well). In a case with Shataeva group on Pamir in 1974, was sharp deterioration of health at several participants of group which they have hidden from base camp, and then weather has deteriorated even more, than expected. That is, there is some generality at "Chivruay" and "Pamir" - both groups have got to conditions which were limiting on survival rate. But it is everything that they have the general.
" Chivruay " Group this typical hit in a situation which exceeds group possibilities. They have got in unique for this place and the general statistics position which did not expect. And which do not expect anybody from those who was to them and will be after.
It is necessary to have a wide experience and impossible intuition what not to get to such position.

* on Everest in 1996 two commercial expeditions and other climbers start summit push and keep going to the summit despite the fact that they received info about blizzard coming shortly, they even see the clouds but keep hope that they will be able to made it to the summit and back to camp IV. 8 people died on that day/night. Is a lot of books and movies about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Mount_Everest_disaster

Thanks. I read before the book of Krakauer and Bukreev. Unfortunately after 1973 and to 1997 I be taught at universities abroad Russia and did not watch till 2000 these publications.
In Russian-speaking article about this case there is detailed analysis of this incident with which I agree almost completely. It is result of bad weather and, partially, some errors at the initial stage of commercial mountaineering on the Himalayas.
The general in all three cases there is that after hit in extreme situation nobody could make so what avoid victims. It did not depend on will and possibilities of heads or other participants.

May 28, 2020, 06:07:19 AM
Reply #49
Offline

PJ


Happy Everest 2020!!!
https://explorersweb.com/2020/05/26/everest-summits/

And few more yesterday, the group of surveyors. I am very interested what is the new height of Everest :)

May 28, 2020, 12:33:49 PM
Reply #50
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
I am very interested what is the new height of Everest :)

I bet it is going to be less than 8,848 m.

May 29, 2020, 12:36:30 PM
Reply #51
Offline

WAB


I am very interested what is the new height of Everest :)

I bet it is going to be less than 8,848 m.

Or more low...? :)))))

May 29, 2020, 02:37:54 PM
Reply #52
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
I am very interested what is the new height of Everest :)

I bet it is going to be less than 8,848 m.

Or more low...? :)))))

You are on Vlad! The most recent official Chinese survey in 2005 measured the peak at 8,844.43 metres, not including the snow and icepack on the summit, while Nepal’s official figure includes the Everest’s frosty crown and is four metres higher.

So it is basically 8,844 without the snow cap, but I say that the new measurements will be 8,843 m. Anybody else?

May 29, 2020, 11:33:34 PM
Reply #53
Online

sparrow


Does anybody know if there is an official way of measuring mountains that most countries use?

May 29, 2020, 11:58:07 PM
Reply #54
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
I asked a friend geologist, he works in Disaster Risk Management in one of the larges open mines in Europe. Special interest in earthquakes, lived many years in Japan. Also interested in Dyatlov Pass incident.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2020, 08:48:46 AM by Teddy »

May 31, 2020, 11:21:08 AM
Reply #55
Offline

WAB


I am very interested what is the new height of Everest :)

I bet it is going to be less than 8,848 m.

Or more low...? :)))))

You are on Vlad! The most recent official Chinese survey in 2005 measured the peak at 8,844.43 metres, not including the snow and icepack on the summit, while Nepal’s official figure includes the Everest’s frosty crown and is four metres higher.

So it is basically 8,844 without the snow cap, but I say that the new measurements will be 8,843 m. Anybody else?

Yes, thank you for the clarification (for other readers).
I read this back in 1980 and 1981, when the First Soviet Expedition to Everest was being prepared. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F .
I hope that in this year's Chinese surveyors using space technology will give more accurate results. Judging by publications in technical journals, they can give accuracy of up to +/- 30 cm. But I don't know how they will take into account the thickness of snow, because they can only install the instrument on its surface.
We'll wait for the results. And the details of this experiment.

May 31, 2020, 10:02:36 PM
Reply #56
Offline

PJ


But I don't know how they will take into account the thickness of snow, because they can only install the instrument on its surface.
For sure they measured how big/deep is the snow cap this season so will know how many meters over the rocks all the instruments are installed.
Is easy to check snow deep with Ultrasonic Snow Depth Sensor.

June 01, 2020, 07:17:24 AM
Reply #57
Offline

WAB


But I don't know how they will take into account the thickness of snow, because they can only install the instrument on its surface.
For sure they measured how big/deep is the snow cap this season so will know how many meters over the rocks all the instruments are installed.
Is easy to check snow deep with Ultrasonic (US)* Snow Depth Sensor.

That it is possible measure in this way is understandable, but it would be good know exactly how and by what method they measured it (snow depth). US devices require some power on the transmitter, and as far as I know, at these altitudes and these (negative) temperatures current sources (or power supply - PS) are very capricious and unreliable. They are tried to be kept warm (inside clothing), but usually even for radio stations the energy is scarce.
But let's be optimistic and hope for the best. I would wish them success in such work.

rem *) - it is my adding

June 04, 2020, 02:24:07 PM
Reply #58
Offline

dilov


Does anybody know if there is an official way of measuring mountains that most countries use?

Teddy asked me for a comment on this, so here it is.

When the matter involves cutting edge science and engineering, there is no official way for anything. According to the famous MIT physicist Walter Lewin, any measurement given without its error is a pure rubbish. If we look at the Chinese measurement of the height of Mt Everest from 2005, we can see the number as 8844.43 m +/- 0.21 m (no snowpack on the summit). That at least puts the measurement in a certain range, which could be taken as scientifically rigorous.

While trying to figure out what Chinese surveyors did with the Mt. Everest altitude measurement this year, I was not able to find any publication, showing pictures of their surveying equipment, except one picture taken on the summit with something like a reflecting geodetic prism (see here https://abenteuer-berg.de/en/chinese-surveyors-on-the-summit-of-mount-everest/ ). The Chinese links provided in the tread here do not show any equipment either. Someone can only see Chinese surveyors trying to use oxygen masks at lower altitude.

In a video posted on May 27, 2020, it is said the surveyors are going to use satellite technology.


In another video, 53 surveyors are mentioned to take part in the expedition.
https://www.scmp.com/video/china/3083376/china-sends-surveyors-top-mount-everest-bid-measure-worlds-tallest-mountain
Traditional and modern equipment are credited to be used for the feat.

In a publication from May 28, 2020, there is some more information and pictures. One can see a beacon, but it is not clear if it was brought to the summit. The beacon might be incorporated within the reflector geodetic prism I mentioned above, but that is not clear. Eight surveyors are credited to have reached the summit for measurements.
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-05-27/Chinese-measurement-team-reaches-Mt-Qomolangma-summit--QPczn2tmAo/index.html

In principle such measurements are routine and performed for more than two centuries, while the accuracy increases from many tens of meters down to millimeters nowadays. In order to complete a measurement, someone needs a theodolite, which is an optical precision instrument for measuring angles along a horizontal and a vertical planes. The theodolite is placed over a point on the Earth’s surface, which has its cördinates calculated. Level staff is placed on the point of interest that has to be measured. After taking readings, the calculation is trivial, as it relies on simple trigonometric functions as sine and cosine. The real struggle comes with errors determination which are of different types (temperature, humidity, Earth’s gravity, etc. for both points – the referent and the measured ones, and if possible for several points in between.

Modern instruments can work without a level staff, as they emit light or radar signals and measure the time necessary for the reflected signal to return back. They can measure distances directly to visible points on a rock surface, but to strengthen the return signal someone has to place a reflecting prism on the point of interest.

In order the errors in the measurement to be decreased, the point of interest has to be measured from different points, viewing the point of interest at different angles. The reference points has to be with their known cördinates. Such endeavor in high mountainous rugged conditions is a hard task, as heavy equipment has to be carried along long distances, and different teams to work simultaneously from several points beneath the peak, in order to fit the measurement into the short window of opportunity (2.5 hour as said for the surveyors that have reached the summit with their equipment). In addition there should be clear direct visibility between lower points of observation and the point on the summit. According to a friend of mine, who is a professional surveyor, the hurdles in such measurement, by means of a ground method, would be unsurmountable for obtaining a result in the centimeter accuracy. He would expect a tens of centimeters accuracy, with using the most modern equipment and measurements across distances larger than say about 2 km. The shortest horizontal distance between Mt. Everest and any rock ground, north of the summit, that I was able to measure on Google satellite maps, was 3.8 km. The real distance, along an oblique line, would be in the range of 5 km.

All mentioned so far leave space for only one method to be used here – the satellite GPS one. It uses the same basic principles – measures distances between a referent point and a point of interest. Here the accuracy that can be achieved is in the range of millimeters. The points of reference are where the GPS satellites are at the moment of measurement. Their position is constantly measured while satellites fly above Earth at height of 20,000 km. Satellites emit a radar signal and measure the time for the reflection to come back. With light speed known, measurement is easy on the first step. Again, here the most important are the errors, which are numerous – the Earth geoid’s shape, which affects the gravitational force, the direction of satellite movement (ascending and descending), positions of the Moon and Sun, the presence of large snow packs (glaciers = added more gravitational force), etc. All these are aggregated and clients get their real position on the ground. Precision depends on ground instruments and the stationary time at the point of interest. Longer time = more satellites connected = higher precision. If the measurement could be helped by a ground-based geodetic mark with high precision cördinates, the accuracy becomes even higher. That is why the Chinese team used the help of their telecom operator and Huawei – to secure reliable connection for high speed data transfer. To increase the reflectivity from the point of interest reflecting prisms are placed on the ground. They shine bright when radiated by the satellite emitter.

Finally, a few words about tectonics and earthquakes.

The height of Everest is globally accepted as 8848 m. It is measured by an Indian team in the middle of 20th c. In 1975 and 2005 the same height is confirmed by Chinese teams. The second time the reading is 8844.43 m +/- 0.21 m, but if counted the snowpack on the summit as 3.5 m we get the same height of 8848 m. In 2019 the height was measured by a Nepalese team, but results were not announced yet. Nepal and China agreed to announce both results from 2019 and 2020 together.

The tectonic plate of the Indian subcontinent is moving northwards with an annual velocity of ca 5 cm. The collision of the Indian Plate with Eurasian Plate results in the formation of the Tibetan Plateau and its mountainous rim on its south. Part of Tibet is escaping as a triangular wedge moving to the east. In fact Indian plate is driving within the Eurasian Plate, intercalating it. This process causes the Himalayas to rise at high speed. The region of Everest is considered as rising at an annual speed of 6 cm. Since the Indian survey in 1955, 65 years have passed. This would amount to a cumulative rise of Everest of 3.9 m, for this period. If we count only the last 15 years since the Chinese measurement in 2005, we would calculate 0.90 m rise.

Simultaneously the whole mountain range together with the Tibetan Plateau compensate elastically over the Earth’s mantle due to the increase of the crust’s mass (remember India is driven in between layers of the Eurasian Plate (Tibet)). That means the region sinks to some extent, exactly as a loaded ship sinks a little bit in water, but that cannot negate the whole cumulative tectonic uplift. The deflection of the crust/mantle boundary (MOHO) is estimated as −18.3 ± 8.6 mm/year for the main part of Tibet (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JB016334)
That is about 30% of the rising speed of Everest with a negative sign. So if we remove the MOHO deflection we will get even bigger rise.

On April 25, 2015, an earthquake happened, M 7.9 (Gorkha earthquake) in the region of Everest. The earthquake is of the thrust type, what is characteristic for collisional regions around the globe. The active fault surface, which was the source of the quake, is dipping gently to the north, at 11 degrees angle with the horizontal plane (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984716300027).
The displacement along the fault surface was southward, effectively rising the whole region of Everest, located above the fault surface. The maximum displacement during the quake was of 5.2 m. The average displacement has not been calculated in the article cited above. If take, for instance, the average displacement to be at say 2.6 m, then we can get the maximum and average rise of Everest, only due to the earthquake:

5.2 х sin(11 degrees) = 0.99 m
2.6 х sin(11 degrees) = 0.50 m

Adding this to the average annual rise of Everest since 2005 we can get:

0.90 + 0.99 = 1.89 m
0.90 + 0.50 = 1.40 m

So, to answer at Teddy’s question for the Everest height after 2019 (Nepal) and 2020 (China), I would bet something between 1.5 and 2.0 m rise since the 2005 measurement.
So my expectation is the result to be between 8849.5 and 8850 m (including the snowpack on the summit).

June 04, 2020, 03:41:00 PM
Reply #59
Offline

PJ


Dilov, thank you for great article and explanation.

Just some info what they used for measurements:
"The surveyors, tasked to remeasure Everest, spent about two and a half hours on the summit, planting a survey marker and a Global Navigation Satellite System antenna.
Others measured snow depth and gravity, among other observations, from six points below the summit. The data will go through comprehensive calculations and verifications before being released — a process expected to take at least two or three months."
https://explorersweb.com/2020/06/02/everest-back-to-new-normal-deserted/

"They erected a surveyor’s beacon on the summit. Together with the BeiDou-3 Navigation Satellite receivers, 3D interactive virtual reality, an airborne gravimeter, snow-depth radar and other instruments, it will measure the exact height of Everest."
https://explorersweb.com/2020/05/27/chinese-surveyors-summit-everest/

So looks like they will use the newest Chinese BeiDou-3 Navigation Satellite plus making another traditional readings from 6 points below the summit:
"The Everest altitude re-measurement will use a BeiDou-3 Navigation Satellite System as well as advanced mapping tools. Traditional trigonometric readings will also take place from six different points along the mountain and the Rongbuk glacier. Preliminary measurements have been taking place since early March."

"China Mobile claims that the whole peak will enjoy 5G coverage, beginning this Saturday, when two more 5G stations — the world’s highest — go up at a 6,500m." - I think together with the 5G stations some GPS receivers was installed as well.

Nice photo of the antenna on the top  grin1