Demystifying Australia’s Deadliest Mountain – An Assessment of Risk on Federation Peak

In a country not known for its gnarly mountains, Federation Peak stands out. Its mere height of 1224m isn’t much on paper, but positioned just 20km from the sea and in direct fire of the roaring forties, a somewhat innocuous peak on paper becomes one of Australia’s most difficult.

After a pilgrimage to the famous spire, Josh Hamill of Better Hiking is here to offer a more cautious take to ill-equipped bushwalkers.

Federation Peak is undoubtedly Australia’s most notorious mountain. It doesn’t take a lot of digging to realise why: abysmal access, near-vertical drops of 700m (on the formal ‘track’ that sidles the peak, not to mention the climbing route itself), a gruesome history of fatalities that rank it as (potentially) Australia’s deadliest mountain, and the overall technical difficulty of what is still widely regarded as a ‘bushwalk’.

It isn’t.

When it’s not obscured by thick cloud and persistent rain, Federation Peak seems shrouded in a mist of intrigue and mystery. Is it as hard as it’s made out to be? Is the climb truly that exposed? To know the answers, you have to know the context.

The author gazes out toward Federation Peak in Tasmania’s Southwest National Park

How hard is Federation Peak, really?

Federation Peak isn’t a bushwalk in the accepted sense of the word; its technical difficulty borders on that to be expected in mountaineering – it’s not a suitable mountain for the average bushwalker, nor even that of a climber (as I was to find out).

The Southern Traverse – the route used to sidle the enormous mass of Federation Peak’s main summit on the Eastern Arthurs Traverse, as well as to reach the Direct Ascent route – is an incredibly exposed and consequential scramble unlike any other formal (or even informal) route found in Australia. 

Looking down the precipitous Direct Ascent

The Direct Ascent route itself isn’t considered a bushwalk, rather, it’s listed as a Grade 5 rock climb. Formally, the summit of Federation Peak is not a bushwalk at all. An easy rock climb, sure, but that’s only one dimension of the challenge. Let me give you some insights from my most recent attempt this February.

Prior to my now second attempt at Federation Peak (the first failed due to group circumstances, which in hindsight I’m quite glad was the case), I’d just spent two weeks in New Zealand. I’d climbed the classic (and exposed) Remarkables Grand Traverse (NZ 2+) along with the Northwest Ridge of Tititea/Mount Aspiring (NZ 2), New Zealand’s southernmost 3000m peak and the most stunning mountain I’ve had the privilege to climb.

To summit Mount Aspiring is no easy feat. Although it ranks low on the technical scale of mountaineering in New Zealand, it’s highly exposed and requires a broad range of mountaineering skills for a successful summit.

Traversing a snowy section on Tititea / Mt Aspiring’s North West Ridge

Two weeks later and I was in Tasmania, staring directly down Geeves Gully on the Southern Traverse – no rope, no external assurance, and no ‘option B’. I was acutely aware of my situation, and all 700 meters of air more or less beneath my feet. 

‘How is this considered a hiking route?’ I thought. There’s a particular state of mind you need for this kind of climbing, regardless of the objective difficulty; above all, you have to be focused on your actions. 

I was focused on the drop. The exposure ate away at any semblance of confidence I had, and I was terrified; unwilling to commit to a climb that I would normally walk up. That’s the Federation Peak effect. If you’ve had more exposure to such… exposure (haha), you’d find the climb technically trivial, and perhaps even a lot of fun. But these experiences are few and far between here in Australia, and even in our most mountainous state of Tasmania, Federation Peak is still a cut above the rest. 

There really isn’t much else like it, and that’s why the peak is so alluring.

A History of Notoriety

Federation Peak wasn’t climbed until January 1949. It was summited by a Victorian team from Geelong College led by John Bechervaise, who reached the summit via the ‘Climbing Gully’, a grade 12 grovel up a dank looking chimney with less than optimal rock. This route, however, avoids a lot of the exposure of venturing out onto the south face, which you do on the Direct Ascent.

The ‘dank chimney’ that avoids the exposure of the Direct Ascent

It took an aerial survey in 1947 for summit hopefuls to gain the necessary perspective to be able to plan a route through the primordial forest of Southwest Tasmania. Such hopefuls were Bill Jackson, Nancy Shaw, and Leo Luckman, who in January of 1947 came within less than 100m of the summit, approaching the peak by pioneering the route up Moss Ridge, which even today is a horrific slog up vertical mud walls and a maze of contorted tree limbs – imagine what this would’ve been like back in 1947! Bechervaise utilised the efforts of previous attempts in his successful summit, climbing to the upper mountain via Moss Ridge as well.

The Bechervaise group in 1949 – photo via Geelong College Archives

To put the remoteness into perspective, Federation Peak was first climbed only four years before Mount Everest, which was climbed in May 1953 by a fellow with a loose connection to Federation Peak – Sir Edmund Hillary. After their success on Everest, he and Tenzing Norgay made various visits to Southwest Tasmania throughout the 60s. 

Although there’s no direct evidence to suggest Hillary made an attempt on Federation Peak, he has been attributed to the quote ‘[Federation Peak is] Australia’s only true mountain’… and iterations of much the same statement. While incorrect – as Australia obviously has other mountains worthy of the status of ‘true mountain’ – the quote highlights Federation Peak’s notoriety through the years since its first ascent.

Above all of the aforementioned traits, Federation Peak holds the title of Tasmania’s deadliest mountain (and possibly Australia’s overall – it’s hard to know for certain). Perhaps the allure is too strong for some; the environment too complex; too alien and unforgiving. Since 1982, seven people have died due to falls in the vicinity of the final summit tower, either on the Direct Ascent, or on the Southern Traverse. 

The aptly-named Bechervaise Face of Federation Peak

Three of these fatalities have occurred since 2024. Undoubtedly, online content has served to generate interest, though this doesn’t automatically translate into more incidents/fatalities – good information should counter this. Crucially, the risks need to be grounded in reality instead of twisted narratives and subjective experiences. If so, then perhaps we may see a more cautious approach taken by those who wish to reach The Peak’s coveted summit.

Read more: What’s Causing the Increasing Number of Rescues in the Aussie Bush?

But what is the cautious approach?

The ‘Bushwalkers Route’ (AKA the Direct Ascent) on Federation Peak presents a climb where the consequence of any fall is a violent plummet, bounce, and further plummet towards Lake Geeves, where death is guaranteed. 

Coupled with complex route finding where it’s easy to make mistakes and end up on even more precarious terrain, the odds start to stack against those wishing to summit. Then there’s the weather – it’s bad, generally speaking. As the route faces south, even on a perfect day of full sun, the crevasses and nooks remain damp and devoid of friction. 

The author descending the Direct Ascent

That’s if you even manage to get up there to make the most of that rare day of full sun. Normally, the area is blanketed in thick clouds and ‘mizzle’ (misty drizzle), heightening route-finding difficulties and overall danger, as wet rock is slick rock, and slick rock causes slips…

Read more: The Hidden Dangers of Modern Trail Technology

If you choose to climb Federation Peak without safety hardware (such as rope and the means to create anchors), as most do, you’re only one mistake away from falling to your death. There are lots of reasons why inexperienced hikers might feel compelled to make an attempt on climbing to the summit, and I fear the most dangerous of those is a lack of understanding of the risks – not unawareness. The sight of the drop immediately makes any climber well aware of the risk of falling, but if you don’t climb you may not understand just how fine the line is when you’re scrambling solo without a rope. Federation Peak certainly isn’t the place to be discovering this for yourself.

Most advice online errs on the side of suggesting that climbing equipment is unnecessary, but I strongly disagree. The only people climbing equipment isn’t strictly necessary for is a select group of people who are proficient rock climbers, experienced at solo climbing in an alpine environment. 

Most bushwalkers don’t qualify to this standard, and should absolutely opt to carry the extra few kilos of rope and hardware that may just save their life. Of course, they should also know how to use it, and if not, should seriously reconsider their plans.

Climbing hardware is no question on the Remarkables Grand Traverse, so shouldn’t Federation Peak be the same?

In saying this, the overwhelming majority of people who reach the summit don’t use climbing equipment, but I can’t help but consider this to be an unnecessary risk. Perhaps this may be an advantage in that the style (of using no safety equipment) filters out those who are incapable of reaching the summit safely, but this presents a fatal problem for those who confuse confidence for competence, and modern social media only serves to exacerbate this confusion.

Federation Peak is a mountaineer’s mountain. It isn’t a place for the inexperienced, and it isn’t a summit that bushwalking purists should attempt. You need alpine rock climbing skills, and perhaps even more so, the experience that comes along with acquiring those skills. You need excellent judgement of the objective and subjective hazards that are ever present within such precarious terrain – you don’t learn this from a YouTube video, or from reading a book. While many people climb to the summit each year, most so without rope, this doesn’t change the objective danger of the climb. When discussing mountaineering routes of a similar difficulty (NZ grade 1-2), a rope and light rack of hardware is suggested, so I wonder, why can’t this be the case for Fedders?

If you wish to make an attempt at climbing Federation Peak, I hope you judge the seriousness of my perhaps overly cautious take on the mountain as a sign that the climb deserves far more respect than you might think.