Sponsored By
ROCK
HARDWARE
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Prints |
Chockstone Forum - General Discussion
General Climbing Discussion
| Author |
|
|||||
8:08:42 PM |
This is bolting Morialta style: From memory I think they're typically 24mm threaded rod in a 32mm hole 1 - 1.5m deep. They pull test these annually to 40kN and they have only had 1 fail (!). They've been there so long that they're taken for granted as being OK and... I agree. The trees have survived because they're there. There are better solutions around today but these (25 of them) were put in 1991. |
|||||
10:49:27 PM |
Thanks everyone for all your feedback. Whines and all.... It is all being taken onboard. Cheers, Tracey |
|||||
8:44:09 AM |
I doubt I have ever read more misleading bollocks about anchor testing in my life! There is only one European standard for rock anchor testing (for outdoor applications) and for good reason, 15kN axial and 25kN radial. Anything else is penny pinching, ignorance, stupidity or just plain corner cutting with other lives at stake. Top roping is where the belayer is at the anchor and bringing up a climber from below, unless access to this anchor is exclusively from below and there is no possibility that anyone ever climbs above the anchor for any reason (i.e.to walk off or set up the belay) then one bolt is sufficient with a back-up, otherwise this anchor is considered a multi-pitch anchor and two bolts are recommended. Bottom roping is where the belayer is at the foot of the cliff where one anchor with a back-up anchor (generally the next lower bolt or a chain-linked second bolt) are considered acceptable. All (commercial) users of in-situ anchors are required to be sufficiently trained to be able to assess the condition and quality of the anchors they will use on the day of use. Previous tests are not considered a valid indication of an anchors viability on the day of use due to possible rock deterioration, glue deterioration, corrosion, geological movement, damage due to rockfall or overloading, wear etc. It is the responsibility of every user to judge the suitability of an anchor at the time of use. Evaluation of the anchors is an essential requirement of the risk assesment which must be performed for every activity session. These are the current acceptable standards (and terminology) in Europe for commercial operators of outdoor venues for both the contrrolling bodies and insurance companies. We know because we install and certify this stuff every week. Either you use the European standards fully and correctly or donīt use them at all, your legal council will be able to explain this to you. Proof testing anchors in the meaning of the current discussion is worthless. If you want any help or advice then mail me at sales@bolt-products.com |
|||||
1:00:02 PM |
Hi Tracey, Can you send a link to the on line standard? The only European standard for rock anchors that I'm aware of, is BS EN 959:1997 Mountanineering Equipement - Rock Anchors - Safety Requirements and Test Methods. It specifies an axial load (pull out) of 15 kN, not 7.5 kN, and a radial (shear) load of 25 kN. It's a test of the anchor and not the installation, so it requires that the anchor be installed in a certain sized block of concrete of a particular size. I don't really understand how BS EN 959 could inform a pull out test with 7.5 kN, hence my presumption that they must be using another standard. Also, if WildWetAndSlippery wants to raise a FOI request to find out what standard they are going to use, he should go for it. No need to join the VCC for this particular reason. When is Parks Victoria going to realise that everything they try to do for climbers is bad? The best they can do for us is do nothing. They should look after the environment but no try to 'help' climbers. JamesMc |
|||||
2:16:55 PM |
I agree. I have serious concerns about Parks's Vic doing this they sound like bumbling idiots acting on the advice on a cheap lawyer who has little understanding of the issue. Has this issues discussed been raised with Park Vic Tracy? |
|||||
8:33:31 PM |
On 13/03/2010 patto wrote: >I agree. > >I have serious concerns about Parks's Vic doing this they sound like bumbling >idiots acting on the advice on a cheap lawyer who has little understanding >of the issue. > >Has this issues discussed been raised with Park Vic Tracy? More likely on the advice of Vertigo's marketing department. JamesMc |
|||||
9:11:21 PM |
On 13/03/2010 JamesMc wrote: >On 13/03/2010 patto wrote: >>I agree. >> >>I have serious concerns about Parks's Vic doing this they sound like >bumbling >>idiots acting on the advice on a cheap lawyer who has little understanding >>of the issue. >> >>Has this issues discussed been raised with Park Vic Tracy? > >More likely on the advice of Vertigo's marketing department. > > Yes I was thinking the same thing earlier though I didn't articulate it. While I suspect PV would have had their lawyers involved in consultation early on this I certainly wouldn't surprise me that Vertigo have badly advised PV. Its in Vertigo's interest that testing is done so of course they would advise for testing. As far as this testing goes this will likely reduce PVs existing liability exposure for the tested bolts. Though it will likely increase PVs liability exposure for the thousands of other bolts out there that remain untested. If I was PV I would be wary of stepping onto the slope of testing bolts. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I can see the court case now: 'Why is it that PV thought some bolts at crag X deserved to be tested and checked while leaving others nearby completely untouched. PV was well aware that some of the existing bolts were substandard as indicated by their own testing. However they failed to act on this information on bolts that were present at the very same cliff. It is entirely foreseeable that after the failing of some of the tested bolts that some on the non tested bolts also could fail. It is entirely foreseeable that if one of these unchecked bolts should fail then someone could be injured or killed. PV's failure to act on this information lead directly to the injury of the plaintiff who is now quadriplegic. Its failure to act despite its knowledge of substandard bolts is one of total negligence. This court rules in the favour of the plaintiff...." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I don't have a law degree but this is a slippery slope. If you are going to choose to take responsibility you better damn well not do the job half arsed! The fact that Parks Victoria think they are responsible for bolts on a cliff yet also think they can pick and choose WHICH bolts on the cliff they are responsible for is disturbing. |
|||||
11:12:35 PM |
If a tag is left on that clearly states that this bolt passes, then yes they are only taking responsibility for the tested bolts. If it ain't got a tag then they hold no responsibility. |
|||||
11:04:27 AM |
Remember, the inspection and testing is being conducted for anchors used by commercial groups. These groups have a duty of care to ensure that their clients and employees have a safe environment in which to operate. Parks Vic also has a duty of care in relation to providing a safe environment for the commercial groups to operate. The anchor testing is not aimed at recreational users. How do the commercial operators decide that an anchor is adeqaute for the purposes? Do they: - Look at it and 'reckon it is OK', - Believe that it is OK as it has been used before, - Use an inspection regime prior to use - Inspect and test the anchor themselves. If their is an accident and an employee is killed or injured, Worksafe get involved and the subsequent investigation is likely to have significant ramifications through the industry. If a client is killed or injured, the Coroner and lawyers will be crawling all over it and the subsequent investigation and litigation is likely to have significant ramifications through the industry. The only real way to ensure the integrity and adeqaucy of an anchor is to inspect and test it against an established criteria/standard. Word on the street is that some of the anchors that have been tested have failed at scarily low forces (as low as 1kN, approx 100kg force). Were these adequate for commercial operators to use? Given that the commercial groups are unlikely to put their hand in their pockets and provide certification for the anchors they are using, someone else has taken the responsibility (ie Parks Vic). Vertigo just happen to have been awarded the contract. There are a number of other companies with trained personnel and suitable equipment who could have conducted the work. |
|||||
2:06:04 PM |
On 13/03/2010 rightarmbad wrote: >If a tag is left on that clearly states that this bolt passes, then yes >they are only taking responsibility for the tested bolts. >If it ain't got a tag then they hold no responsibility. I'm not sure if you are being serious or sacastic. This all comes down to duty of care, and asking does Parks Victoria have a duty of care towards climbers using bolts on the land it manages. Right now we hope that the answer is a definate NO, otherwise its would have serious implications for the freedoms we have climbing. Some climbers/bolters might think that the attitude of 'climbers beware' absolves everyone of liability but this is far from reality. The fact is currently bolters owe other climbers a duty of care. The Bunny Bucket Butress incident from last year seems an open and shut case of negligence. By installing bolts Parks Victoria will now forever hold a duty of care over the safety of those bolts. The next question is does PV owe a duty of care to climbers concerning the other bolts? The questions that need to be asked are: * The harm which occurred must be a reasonable foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct; * A sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood exists between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage; * It is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. Before this Vertigo action Parks Victoria could easily claim that it has no knowledge that existing bolts were substandard and more importantly the relationship between parties is not proximate -PV has little influence or involvement in climbing on its land. By choosing to start testing bolts PV has dramatically shrunk the distance of the relationship between it and climbers. PV's action demonstrate that it itself believes that already may have a duty of care towards commerical operators using top rope anchors. It isn't a big step to argue that it also has some duty of care toward other climbers using lead bolts and other untested top rope anchors. Furthermore if testing reveals a plethora of substandard bolts according to their testing regime then the would be negligent if they did not take action over the rest of the bolts. This is quite clear. By action I mean ban climbing, wide spread bolt removal or widespread bolt replacement by PV. NONE of these outcomes are desirable for climbers. |
|||||
2:29:18 PM |
On 14/03/2010 The good Dr wrote: >Remember, the inspection and testing is being conducted for anchors used >by commercial groups. These groups have a duty of care to ensure that their >clients and employees have a safe environment in which to operate. Parks >Vic also has a duty of care in relation to providing a safe environment >for the commercial groups to operate. The anchor testing is not aimed at >recreational users. Yes these groups have a duty of care for their clients. But no it is NOTclear that Parks Vic has any duty of care towards the commercial groups. The fact that they take bookings can indicate some duty of care, but that can easily be waived by consenting and informed parties. (and its a safe assumption that the commercial groups are well aware if not more aware of the potential risks ). > >How do the commercial operators decide that an anchor is adeqaute for >the purposes? > >Do they: > >- Look at it and 'reckon it is OK', >- Believe that it is OK as it has been used before, >- Use an inspection regime prior to use >- Inspect and test the anchor themselves. > >If their is an accident and an employee is killed or injured, Worksafe >get involved and the subsequent investigation is likely to have significant >ramifications through the industry. If a client is killed or injured, the >Coroner and lawyers will be crawling all over it and the subsequent investigation >and litigation is likely to have significant ramifications through the >industry. > >The only real way to ensure the integrity and adeqaucy of an anchor is >to inspect and test it against an established criteria/standard. Word on >the street is that some of the anchors that have been tested have failed >at scarily low forces (as low as 1kN, approx 100kg force). Were these adequate >for commercial operators to use? > >Given that the commercial groups are unlikely to put their hand in their >pockets and provide certification for the anchors they are using, someone >else has taken the responsibility (ie Parks Vic). Vertigo just happen to >have been awarded the contract. There are a number of other companies with >trained personnel and suitable equipment who could have conducted the work. > None of this is PV's problem. However they now have chosen to make it their problem by testing it themselfs and opening a massive can of worms. In my googling I found this: http://www.rockclimbinghawaii.com/img/pdf/risk_management.pdf This raises the exact issues I have been raising. Parks Victoria had bitten off more than they can chew and this could have severe implications for our climbing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Fixed safety anchors have historically been installed and maintained by climbers. This has served an important role in limiting potential liability for landowners, land managers, and agencies. Over the past decade an increasing number of land managers have become involved in the management of climbing. One of the most challenging issues has been how to deal with fixed anchors, since from a risk management perspective they pose a unique challenge. As a general rule, the placement and maintenance of fixed anchors should be undertaken by climbers and climber stewardship groups, and not by the land management agency. This approach will keep land managers as far removed from potential legal liability issues as possible, and is therefore a crucial risk management consideration. The fundamental issue is that the more you regulate, the more likely you are to create legal obligations and duties. Therefore, the less an agency regulates fixed anchors, the less potential liability they will be exposed to. There are a handful of cases where agencies have chosen to be involved, at least to a limited degree, in the management of fixed anchors. Usually the respective agencies have worked in close collaboration with the local community to insure that placement and maintenance of the anchors remains the sole responsibility of climbers, thereby limiting both the agencies responsibility and potential liability. Existing statutes also indicate that land managers can further limit their liability by not becoming involved in decisions of when and where fixed anchors should be placed. Climbers and climber organizations have the expertise to install and maintain these anchors, and thus it is appropriate that climbers should provide this valuable community service. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|||||
3:15:08 PM |
I think the issue is being confused. The work is not being done for bolts used by recreational climbers for recreational climbing. The bolts being tested are those that are being used by commercial groups. When a commercial activity takes place on your land/structure, with your express consent, you are have a duty of care to ensure that that environment is safe for the proposed activity. A waiver is only useful where there is no negligence on your part. It can be easily demonstrated that Parks Vic have knowledge regarding the variable quality of fixed anchors. Knowing something is potentially dangerous and allowing an activity to progress regardless can be considered negligent, even with a waiver. As I said previously (this time with capitals for impact). THE ANCHOR TESTING IS NOT AIMED AT RECREATIONAL USERS. |
|||||
4:59:24 PM |
On 14/03/2010 The good Dr wrote: >I think the issue is being confused. The work is not being done for bolts >used by recreational climbers for recreational climbing. The bolts being >tested are those that are being used by commercial groups. When a commercial >activity takes place on your land/structure, with your express consent, >you are have a duty of care to ensure that that environment is safe for >the proposed activity. A waiver is only useful where there is no negligence >on your part. It can be easily demonstrated that Parks Vic have knowledge >regarding the variable quality of fixed anchors. Knowing something is potentially >dangerous and allowing an activity to progress regardless can be considered >negligent, even with a waiver. Express consent doesn't magically create a broad duty of care that wouldn't exist otherwise. It is entirely forseeable, in fact it is well known that recreational climbers regularly climb and use bolts. If PV owes a duty of care to one group concerning the quality of the bolts then it likely owes a duty of care to all groups. PV doesn't get to pick and choose who it owes a duty of care to. Simple knowledge of the possible existance of substandand bolts yet having had no part in developing the cliff or placing the bolts does not suddenly create a duty of care. Otherwise I could be in trouble simply for reading this forum. Furthermore if I ring up the office for Mount Arapiles-Tooan State Park and reliably inform them of the numerous carrot bolts that do not meet European regulations covering Arapiles are they suddenly negligent if they do not act on this information? Rockclimbing continues to exists as a sport precisely because land owners/manager avoid liability by having a very hands off attitude to things. As I quoted earlier: ~~~~~~ "The fundamental issue is that the more you regulate, the more likely you are to create legal obligations and duties. Therefore, the less an agency regulates fixed anchors, the less potential liability they will be exposed to." ~~~~~~ > On 14/03/2010 The good Dr wrote: >THE ANCHOR TESTING IS NOT AIMED AT RECREATIONAL USERS. The achor testing is aimed at inanimate bolts in inanimate rock. Neither rock nor bolt a discerning who users it. Again, Parks Victoria cannot simply pick and choose who it owes a duty of care to. |
|||||
5:00:17 PM |
perhaps people should read this http://www.climbinganchors.com.au/blogs/climbing-spray/28282-aca-legal-faqs-for-climbers |
|||||
5:41:49 PM |
On 14/03/2010 gordoste wrote: >perhaps people should read this > >http://www.climbinganchors.com.au/blogs/climbing-spray/28282-aca-legal-faqs-for-c >imbers Link certainly isn't working for me. But I would happily read it if you or anybody else has a copy. |
|||||
9:05:39 PM |
send me your email address... sorry i didn't check the link but i do have a copy on my computer | |||||
10:07:30 PM |
Gordo, zap it back to me and I'll put it back on the ACA site. kangaroopoint@qld.climb.org.au |
|||||
11:28:59 PM |
My thoughts on this potential can of legal worms are this: 1. The can has been opened. 2. There may or may not be any worms, but never the less its best for all that PV dont know about the existence of the can or the worms. I wouldn't recommend even discussing it here as any random ranger could stumble onto this discussion and freak out and start seeing worms all over the place. 3. Disregarding the legal side of things, and assuming no-one finds out about the worms, it seems like a reasonable end result and fairly responsible action from PV. The anchors mentioned in a previous post as being replaced are certainly not up to scratch for commercial use (old bash in carrot and two bolts on top of a desk sized boulder). So good on PV for replacing dodgy anchors, lets just hope that is as far things go. |
|||||
8:31:59 AM |
On 14/03/2010 The good Dr wrote: >As I said previously (this time with capitals for impact). > >THE ANCHOR TESTING IS NOT AIMED AT RECREATIONAL USERS. But the anchors are USED by recreational climbers, and were INSTALLED by recreational climbers. So to replace them at one spot, but not an another spot could be seen as negligent. |
|||||
2:37:57 PM |
On 14/03/2010 harold wrote: The anchors mentioned in a previous post as being replaced >are certainly not up to scratch for commercial use (old bash in carrot >and two bolts on top of a desk sized boulder). > My thoughts are that if a commercial group can't assess what is and is not a safe anchor, they shouldn't be operating ... This is a personal bee in my bonnet, but I really have a problem with responsibility being moved from the actual operator to the land manager. The operator is supposedly a trained professional (although not a whore or hitman, ODH ...). They are making money out of their operations in a potential high risk environment. In choosing to make money that way, they also need to spend money on appropriately managing these risks - maintaining equipment, including any necessary fixed stuff, employing appropriate staff, ensuring appropriate training etc etc. PV isn't really making money out of the pittance that commercial operators pay them for operating in the park. If they are using existing anchors that are unsafe, they are, to make no bones about it, stupid and irresponsible. We are talking about people who, by the nature of their job, should know better. If the anchors are crap, they should recognise it and replace them or set up their own safe anchor on gear. I struggle to see any duty of care to PV at all. In issuing a permit to operate, are PV authorising these companies to use all and sundry existing anchors without any professional judgement of them? I don't think so. Duty of care is about whether a reasonable person of that level of training and experience would have the same decision. If yes, duty of care covered. If no, person is negligent. |
| There are 113 messages in this topic. |
Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia
Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.
Australian Panoramic |
Australian Coast |
Australian Mountains |
Australian Countryside |
Australian Waterfalls |
Australian Lakes |
Australian Cities |
Australian Macro |
Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo |
Landscape Photography |
Landscape Photography Australia |
Fine Art Photography |
Wilderness Photography |
Nature Photo |
Australian Landscape Photo |
Stock Photography Australia |
Landscape Photos |
Panoramic Photos |
Panoramic Photography Australia |
Australian Landscape Photography |
High Country Mountain Huts |
Mothers Day Gifts |
Gifts for Mothers Day |
Mothers Day Gift Ideas |
Ideas for Mothers Day |
Wedding Gift Ideas |
Christmas Gift Ideas |
Fathers Day Gifts |
Gifts for Fathers Day |
Fathers Day Gift Ideas |
Ideas for Fathers Day |
Landscape Prints |
Landscape Poster |
Limited Edition Prints |
Panoramic Photo |
Buy Posters |
Poster Prints