Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Anchor testing (PV)-commercial climbing sites Vic


nmonteith

8-Mar-2010
12:59:00 PM

I do find all this a bit alarming that it has already started without letting the VCC or other climber groups have a say BEFORE they started pulling out our bolts. Not even bothering to have a guide with them seems a big half assed. Lets just hypothesize that a commercial group is a running a learn to lead course - wouldn't that require the lead bolts to also be good? I've seen plenty of commercial trip leaders having to lead up things to set up top-rope anchors for their clients. How do Uni or other 'official' club trips fit into their plans? Will they be testing the strength of trees and trad anchors as well? Most cams would explode at 750kg :-)


Miguel75

8-Mar-2010
1:09:57 PM

Sorry for the thread hijack; has anyone seem the DMM vid where they lift a 1.38 ton boulder with a #5 DMM Dragon cam. It functioned just fine after he pulled it out of the crack too...

http://www.dmmclimbing.com/video.asp?id=2

Access T CliffCare

8-Mar-2010
1:23:27 PM

On 8/03/2010 Miguel75 wrote:
>Sorry for the thread hijack; has anyone seem the DMM vid where they lift
>a 1.38 ton boulder with a #5 DMM Dragon cam. It functioned just fine after
>he pulled it out of the crack too...
>
>http://www.dmmclimbing.com/video.asp?id=2
>
>
Actually it would be really great (and important) if we could keep this particular thread on topic

patto

8-Mar-2010
1:30:46 PM

First off Tracy, Thank You very much. I, and I think everbody on these forums here, appreciate your work and your effort to communicate with the climbing community. Not to mention all the other access work you organise and run. Sometimes it might be tough having concerned climbers jump on your every word!

Having said that..... :-)

On 8/03/2010 access t wrote:
>I suppose I am just trying to keep some perspective here. PV still work
>on the principle that as an individual climber you can decide whether
>or not to climb/abseil and the responsibility must be yours. Which is what
>we all try and promote isn't it?
By testing the anchors PV going a long way to taking ON this responsibility. It is entire absurd. For example what happens if in a years time due to rock changes or other reasons my anchor fails on me and I end up quadriplegic? Having tested or possibly now even installed them it is next to impossible for PV to wipe their hands of responsibility. Some lawyer or other decision maker in PV I don't think comphrehended the can of worms that was being opened.

On 8/03/2010 access t wrote:
>And will continue to do so. Self regulation.
>In the case of these particular areas, these are the ones that PV book
>commercial groups into, therefore acknowledging that there are anchors.
Its not self regulated anymore. Bookings are taking place and anchors are being tested by the land manager.

On 8/03/2010 access t wrote:
> They have a 'duty of care' therefore to make a reasonable effort to limit
>the possibility of accident (if it ever came to a court scenario, 'reasonable'
>would obviously be decided upon by the court.For PV, this is 'reasonable'
>effort.)

The duty of care they have in open parklands by people using equipment that they did not place there is quite remote. A booking system that emphasises use of the AREA of park not of the equipment would also in some way avoid creating the duty of care. If the mere act of booking or registering your presence at a location in a park the hiking and caving booking systems would be in trouble too. Instead they have stepped onto the slippery slope CLEARY indicating that they are taking responsibility for bolts on the rock.

On 8/03/2010 access t wrote:
>I would imagine that going down the 'duty of care' route for all individuals
>would be one of those big worms in the can and yes, this would definately
>put restrictions on much of what we currently enjoy. So all the more reason
>to build on our self regulations, informing climbers of their own responsibility
Informing other climbers of their own responsibility doesn't alter the fact that PV are now making themselves liable for bolt failure.

All that said the likelihood for bolt failure, particularly ones that are tested is extraordinarily slim. However it is a slippery slope and PV is no stepping onto the steeper bit. The booking system compelled PV to eventually perform bolt testing. What is this bolt testing going to lead PV to do next?

widewetandslippery

8-Mar-2010
2:45:29 PM

On 7/03/2010 access t wrote:
>HI All,
>
>Parks Victoria are currently undertaking anchor tests in a number of climbing
>areas in various parks.
>The anchors they are testing are ones that they have either been involved
>in installing or acknowledge them. Basically, what this means is that the
>climbing/abseiling areas in parks that they book commercial groups into
>are required to be checked. This will mean all the anchors, not just the
>ones specifically they have been involved in ie. Werribee Gorge. They are
>not checking any other fixed protection and as I said, only at specific
>areas. These are listed below. Anchors tested will be tagged.
>

>
>I stress, none of the other fixed protection is being checked.

>

I can understand PV testing there own cliff top anchors. As previously mentioned who and how did they decide the European standard was appropriate.

Who decided who was to test them?

My bad sentiments about this are due to the fact that once government is involved all testing is not for climbers it is for government. Government is solely self serving.

One Day Hero

8-Mar-2010
2:45:42 PM

I've worked in rope access for 5 years and can say with experience that absquealing "professionals" who aren't also climbers, bolting cliffs is bad, bad,bad!!

Don't let these kooks take over our 'safety' for us!!!

patto

8-Mar-2010
4:00:22 PM

Oh and rather having merely a chockstone whinefest can we possibly achieve something out of this thread. Possibly some direct dialogue between PV and the climbing 'community'? (whoever that community is)

As it currently stands I think PV don't know what they are getting themselves into, both in terms of the workload and the legal aspects. I'm sure they have consulted lawyers but that doesn't mean they got intelligent or informed responses.


nmonteith

8-Mar-2010
4:29:47 PM

On 8/03/2010 patto wrote:
>Oh and rather having merely a chockstone whinefest can we possibly achieve
>something out of this thread. Possibly some direct dialogue between PV
>and the climbing 'community'? (whoever that community is)

Access T is the VCC Access person - she is the climbers voice to PV. That's why she is letting us know... she has regular direct dialogue with PV/


D.Lodge

8-Mar-2010
4:33:15 PM

I guide in the Youies quite a bit and received an email just last Friday about this. So i am dissapointed that the Stuaghton Vale anchors have already been done as i was not informaed of this BEFORE the testing. I am glad that i did not have a group booked out there that day.
I was planning to take a group to Big Rock tomorrow for some abseiling but that looks like it will be pointless as there are very few options for other anchors at the top of the rock. Booked this site on Friday as was not informed of this so will be speaking to them tomorrow, at least about some communication with the guides that use the area.


Miguel75

8-Mar-2010
8:06:31 PM

>Actually it would be really great (and important) if we could keep this
>particular thread on topic

Duly noted Tracey, I'll keep my thread jacking to a minimum. It'll be interesting to see what impacts this testing will have for PV, and us the end users.

racingtadpole

9-Mar-2010
9:47:35 AM

On 8/03/2010 kieranl wrote:
>I think that there is some sort of Parks testing regime in SA. Does anyone
>know how it compares to what Parks Vic is doing?

To the best of my knowledge P&W SA only manage the bollards and chains, not the fixed gear. They do survey the fixed gear from time to time so they know what is there but dont test it.


harold

9-Mar-2010
10:18:02 AM

7.5kn sounds like a bit of overkill, that is the maximum impact force there can be when a 80KG person takes a factor 1.8 fall with a dynamic rope. Also the max upward force a person could put on a top anchor couldn't be much over 1Kn. Would this sort of test weaken a good bolt? I do hope that the replacements will be appropriate and not also major overkill.

On the other hand I can understand Parks taking some responsibility for top anchors when they are accepting a fee for commercial use. I think this it is good if they take a different attitude to these anchors as opposed to the many others used and placed by individuals not paying any fee. Also, some of those bolts on top of big rock obviously looked pretty old and rusty. And the detached block on Urinal wall was a pretty silly place to put bolts when there is perfectly solid rock at the top of the wall. Pretty dodgy looking for commercial use so good idea to replace these.

Richard Delaney

9-Mar-2010
11:00:55 AM

1. Pull-out testing is very important - even though we say we only load bolts in shear, how many times have you seen a scared leader on tight or clipped to a bolt reaching up to see what's there - thus pulling straight out. I don't mind 7.5kn as a pullout test...

2. DEH South Australia have been testing their anchors for years as have NPWS with their canyon and abseil anchors - but this has been limited to anchors they've each had installed under contract by someone with appropriate expertise. Vertigo currently does the testing annually at Morialta.

dalai

9-Mar-2010
11:38:17 AM

On 9/03/2010 Richard Delaney wrote:
>1. Pull-out testing is very important - even though we say we only load
>bolts in shear, how many times have you seen a scared leader on tight or
>clipped to a bolt reaching up to see what's there - thus pulling straight
>out. I don't mind 7.5kn as a pullout test...

Then there goes most if not all carrot bolts...

gfdonc

9-Mar-2010
11:55:01 AM

Is it too cynical to surmise that an outwards force test is the only one that can be easily conducted?

ie following the "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" principle.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

9-Mar-2010
12:17:10 PM

Re commercial groups and anchors.
I may be wrong but at another PV site I understand the anchors were put in by a suitably qualified contractor, paid for by the commercial operator, and all to the specs that made PV happy. Again I may be wrong but I see the result of this arrangement being that the onus of safety responsibility for those anchors is firstly on the contractor, secondarily on the commercial operator, and thirdly at a long arms distance away on PV.
Those 'commercial use anchors' are padlocked by the commercial operator to stop general (climbing) public using them, and this may also be a PV request to that operator to do so?

Perhaps some of the principles involved in that arrangement can be applied to the sites identified here as acceptable middle ground?

On 9/03/2010 Richard Delaney wrote:
>I don't mind 7.5kn as a pullout test...
Dalai replied;
>Then there goes most if not all carrot bolts...

As well as other types of dodgily installed bolts (shades of Bunny Bucket Buttress tragic accident).


gordoste

9-Mar-2010
12:48:19 PM

I think this is fine as long as it doesn't affect the status quo in other areas. I guess they have been told that they are liable for accidents in an area if they accept bookings for that area. If this kind of testing is the advice they got, then they are going to follow it so that they can't be found negligent.

Thanks Tracy for your tireless efforts! I hope you don't feel this is a thankless task, I know that many people appreciate your work.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

9-Mar-2010
12:55:02 PM

On 9/03/2010 gordoste wrote:
>Thanks Tracy for your tireless efforts! I hope you don't feel this is
>a thankless task, I know that many people appreciate your work.

Hear, hear!
I second that, and not only Tracey but also thanks to VCC in general as well, for getting involved / supporting access issues.


The good Dr

9-Mar-2010
5:06:18 PM

On 9/03/2010 harold wrote:
>7.5kn sounds like a bit of overkill, that is the maximum impact force
>there can be when a 80KG person takes a factor 1.8 fall with a dynamic
>rope. Also the max upward force a person could put on a top anchor couldn't
>be much over 1Kn. Would this sort of test weaken a good bolt? I do hope
>that the replacements will be appropriate and not also major overkill.
>

The CE standard for rock anchors used for recreational climbing is based on this figure with a 2:1 safety factor, giving an ultimate capacity (ie where the anchor will deform but not break) of 15kN. It is possible to test the anchor in shear, but you need to put in another substantially larger anchors to do it. The testing in tension is actually testing the strength of the substrate and the holding capacity of the anchor in that substrate. The strength of the actual steel components in tension is substantially greater than 7.5kN (ie a 10mm bolt in tension by itself is pretty strong).

The CE standard was developed with substantial input from the UIAA, and I believe quite a few of those guys have considerable climbing and anchor installation experience (and a some of them have done some hard stuff on Grit too).

Once commercial groups are involved, the liability spreads like wildfire. Parks is only trying to limit their liability. Given the information available regarding anchors for recreational and commercial purposes, they would be well aware of anchor issues and if they did nothing ... It may well affect all of our ability to climb.

Thanks to the people working with Parks for our benefit, it is a thankless task with all the whinging 'me me me' people out there.


D.Lodge

9-Mar-2010
5:36:44 PM

Spoke to a Ranger today at the Youies. They are definantley not touching any of the bolts on the faces and are replacing the bolts as they go. They are being rplaced with some large petzl rings that are flat on the bottom with a semi circle head. A bit overkill but nothing like the big green poles at werribee gorge. They seemed very happy too get my feedback on what needed to be replaced and where.

There are 113 messages in this topic.