Mount Adams

Quote: Pacomartin

The National Park Service says "Climbing Mount Olympus should only be attempted by experienced mountaineers who have glacier travel and crevasse rescue skills and gear."
Distance: 4-6 miles from Glacier Meadows to summit
Elevation change: 4,400 feet to 7,980 feet

But it looks like Olympus is an easier climb than Mount Hood, partly because of the much lower altitude

Olympus is a peak that only hard core mountaineers attempt. Not only is it technical but I hear it is a long approach to get close to the base because that part of Washington is very rugged and rainy. I have a fair bit of glacier travel experience including being part of a rope team twice. If I had the opportunity to climb it with a group I would consider it but it isn't exactly on my "list."

I understand that the walk in takes two days, and the summit day involves some technical ice and rope work during a very long day. Based on your previous experience, I think you could do it Wizard. The hardest part is getting in shape for it, and I think you could easily step up your workouts to include some wall climbing.

Quote: Wizard

Olympus is a peak that only hard core mountaineers attempt.

Well, my casual reading I thought it was easier than Mount Hood. Since it was ranked #10 and you already have #11 and #12, I figured you could bag an even dozen of the most prominent peaks in the lower 48.

Quote: Wizard

I've climbed every peak on that list except Elbert and Baker, which are both on my list.

Once you bag those two, I guess your bragging rights will include the top dozen in the lower 48 except for Olympus.

But a big one in your list will be Pico de Orizaba
Elevation (18,491 ft)
Prominence (16,148 ft)

That is #3 in both elevation and prominence in all of North America outside of Denali and Mount Logan.


Then you have Aconcagua in Chile for when you've gone completely insane at (22,838 ft)

Quote: Pacomartin

But a big one in your list will be Pico de Orizaba
Elevation (18,491 ft)
Prominence (16,148 ft)

Yeah, I'm thinking of returning Mexico to do that one next year.

Quote:

Then you have Aconcagua in Chile for when you've gone completely insane at (22,838 ft)

That one is tempting too. I am already kicking around the idea of combining it with a total eclipse on July 2, 2019 in Chile and Argentina.

Quote: Wizard

That one is tempting too. I am already kicking around the idea of combining it with a total eclipse on July 2, 2019 in Chile and Argentina.

The summer may make it more possible. Would you carry oxygen just in case? I would hate to expend that effort and just end up having to give up because of altitude sickness. The biggest problem for you would probably be finding a week to acclimatize.

Quote: Wikipedia

In mountaineering terms, Aconcagua is technically an easy mountain if approached from the north, via the normal route. Aconcagua is arguably the highest non-technical mountain in the world, since the northern route does not absolutely require ropes, axes, and pins. Although the effects of altitude are severe (atmospheric pressure is 40% of sea-level at the summit), the use of supplemental oxygen is not common. Altitude sickness will affect most climbers to some extent, depending on the degree of acclimatization.

Even if the normal climb is technically easy, multiple casualties occur every year on this mountain (in January 2009 alone five climbers died). This is due to the large numbers of climbers who make the attempt and because many climbers underestimate the objective risks of the elevation and of cold weather, which is the real challenge on this mountain. Given the weather conditions close to the summit, cold weather injuries are very common.

Plaza de Mulas is 14,340 ft, arguably similar to Base Camp at Everest 17,600 ft. Probably the smartest thing is to spend 3-5 days at Mulas so it is easier to make the ascent. There are several meal tents, showers and internet access.

Quote: Pacomartin

The summer may make it more possible. Would you carry oxygen just in case? I would hate to expend that effort and just end up having to give up because of altitude sickness. The biggest problem for you would probably be finding a week to acclimatize.

No. I climbed Iztaccihuatl at 17,160 feet without too much trouble. Granted, Aconcagua at 22,838 is a lot higher, I think with a week to acclimate the altitude wouldn't be too much of an issue. The thin air causes, in me at least, a feeling of dumbing down, like Hal at the end of 2001. On Iztaccihuatl I felt like I was running only on four cans of a six pack mentally. As you noted, Aconcagua is pretty much a walk up the whole way, so I won't need to think sharp. Anyway, I've heard you need to allow for 3 to 4 weeks to do Aconcagua. Hopefully I can find that much time in two years. It would help if a lot of money came my way.

Quote: Wizard

The thin air causes, in me at least, a feeling of dumbing down, like Hal at the end of 2001.

Hal got psychotic and then senile. He was never dumb.

Quote: Wizard

As you noted, Aconcagua is pretty much a walk up the whole way, so I won't need to think sharp.

I was talking to a guy who was doing a test at Lake Travis in Texas (210' deep). A clasp had come undone. He decided that if he dove that deep he would probably get "narced up" from the excess nitrogen. But he didn't need to be a rocket scientist to reattach a clasp. The effects of nitrogen narcosis vanish once you come to the surface, so he thought it was worth the risk. It would be very time consuming to mobilize an UAV.

Well he got down there and he was so narced that he was just holding the clasp in front of his face just trying to figure out what he was supposed to do.

Anyway, it just goes to show you how dangerous it can be to think you will just accomplish routine tasks while you are in an incapacitated state.

Iztaccihuatl is a mile less in elevation than Aconcagua. That's a big difference.

The problem with acclimation is that it is by nature a time consuming process. You simply have to log the days.

There is a small village at 9000' where you can rest.


BTW the standard rule for certified recreational scuba diving is you can't go below 100'. It used to be 130', but they decided that the extra danger was not worth it. If you get "resort certified" they won't let you dive deeper than 60'. It's difficult to get the bends if you don't go deeper than 60' in two dives. Most resorts move the boat to shallow water (20' to 30') for the second dive so that it almost impossible.

Quote: Wizard

On Iztaccihuatl I felt like I was running only on four cans of a six pack mentally. .

So that would be a good time for me
to play poker with you while I was
secretly sucking oxygen on the side.

Quote: Pacomartin

BTW the standard rule for certified recreational scuba diving is you can't go below 100'. It used to be 130', but they decided that the extra danger was not worth it. If you get "resort certified" they won't let you dive deeper than 60'. It's difficult to get the bends if you don't go deeper than 60' in two dives. Most resorts move the boat to shallow water (20' to 30') for the second dive so that it almost impossible.

Do you think it is dangerous or can you advise me on dangers of receiving hyperbaric oxygen in a chamber? Any thoughts?

I have been advised I need to do so, but know nothing about it and it scares me a little. Do you think it is possible that if the chamber screws up while I'm in it, I might get the bends if it loses pressure to fast?