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

15-Mar-2010
2:43:57 PM

My thoughts exactly Wendy.

patto

15-Mar-2010
3:49:53 PM

I second Wendy's comments.

It has crossed my mind that commercial operaters may have even pressured PV into taking this action. I agree it is not clear to me that PV owed the commercial opperator any duty of car regarding these anchors.

However by taking this action PV is broadening is duty of car and increasing its liability. This is exactly what land managers should avoid as mentioned in the previously linked risk management document.

Most likely nobody will get injured from anchor failure and PV wont get sued. However percieved increased in liability for land managers has shut down crags (and caves) quite regularly in the US. I don't think Australia is that much differnt.


kuu

15-Mar-2010
5:26:04 PM

On 15/03/2010 Wendy wrote:
>
>My thoughts are that if a commercial group can't assess what is and is
>not a safe anchor, they shouldn't be operating ...
>

Exactly!

Thanks Wendy for so succinctly encapsulating what I believe many on Chockstone have thought on this issue but perhaps failed to verbalise.

It really goes to the heart of the matter. As climbers we accept responsibility for our own actions/decisions. And a commercial operator working with inexperienced people must accept that responsibility on their client's behalf.


D.Lodge

15-Mar-2010
6:36:45 PM

The Anchors at Royalty wall were meant to be tested on Thursday last week but on Frida there was no evidence that the had been yet ( at Big Rock they spray painted the bolts tested Red). There are going to be tags glued underneath every bolt that has been tested to tell you when they were tested at to what force.P.S Totally agree with Wendy's post before and it had always been the case with Parks before that they knew they were there but didn't want anything to do with the bolts. At least i am getting some big fat bolts to hang off now.


ajfclark

15-Mar-2010
7:16:04 PM

So they've gone from subtle machine bolts to red spots on the rock?


D.Lodge

15-Mar-2010
7:21:09 PM

Yes with a red and white plaque about 5 X 10cms glued underneath.

egosan

15-Mar-2010
7:36:09 PM

On 15/03/2010 D.Lodge wrote:
>Yes with a red and white plaque about 5 X 10cms glued underneath.

This pains me. If I wanted plastic plaques, I would climb at the gym. If I wanted spray paint, I would climb in Melbourne lane ways. Worse, none of this visual pollution will change the necessity for any user commercial or recreational to inspect and treat with suspicion any fixed pro they use. Every time they use it.

Sigh.

patto

15-Mar-2010
7:37:08 PM

I missed this bit earlier.

On 8/03/2010 D.Lodge wrote:
>I guide in the Youies quite a bit....

Would you mind commenting on whether you think this may have arised due to guides requests of PV rather than PV doing this of their own volition?

(This is just baseless speculation on my behalf.)


D.Lodge

15-Mar-2010
9:01:54 PM

I had nothing to do with it :0. I t supposedley has arisen because of the closure of the Cathedral ranges and then the re-opening and checking of the anchor areas around there. Also because a lot of the guiding moved down this way so Staughton Vale and Werribee gorge have already been done. I was perfectley happy with the way things were, i have done some bolting out at the Youies my self so had no problem checking the bolts and other anchor points myself.
Judging by the way the Ranger told me the other guides that contacted him spoke they had nothing to do with it either. So i think it was all from PV's end.

patto

16-Mar-2010
12:52:53 AM

Fair enough D.Lodge, that makes sense.

On 15/03/2010 egosan wrote:
>On 15/03/2010 D.Lodge wrote:
>>Yes with a red and white plaque about 5 X 10cms glued underneath.
>
>This pains me. If I wanted plastic plaques, I would climb at the gym.
>If I wanted spray paint, I would climb in Melbourne lane ways. Worse, none
>of this visual pollution will change the necessity for any user commercial
>or recreational to inspect and treat with suspicion any fixed pro they
>use. Every time they use it.
>
>Sigh.

From a legal standpoint these are very important to limit their risk they have now exposed themselves to. Without such plaques clearly identifying the tested bolts then their liability could much more easily be argued to extend to other nearby untested bolts. Still if they were going down this path they should have left the commercial companies to do it, a 3rd party-removed testing some select bolts is far better than the land manager directly employing the 3rd party to test some select bolts. Still the ridiculous of ugly plaques atop a cliff just exemplefies that once you start down this path things can quickly become absurd.

Reminds me of the time when I was doing some anchor rigging atop a building and I was rung up and told I couldn't use the 100kN rigging eyelets that were affixed to the roof. But there were no objections for attachments to be made to any else! I could use anything but the items that were designed for this very purpose! I understood why legally this was the case but still, it was quite ridiculous. Im pretty sure the frantic guy that rang me up had realised that he hadn't organised the scheduled yearly tests.

patto

16-Mar-2010
1:06:20 AM

Back to the topic at hand, at least the bolting seems to be being done correctly. However if a report lands on PV's desk that states 20% of the bolts pulled and had to be replaced what do you think PV should do with that report?

(Given the type of test, it would not surprise me if carrot bolts would fail quite this easily. That said I know little about bolting, I'm sure others can comment more.)

Despite my attitudes of self responsibility, I as a climber would see that it is totally negligent for land manager undertaking a bolt testing to fail to take action if it has information suggesting that 20% of bolts are not fit for climbing.

There is a reason why most land managers completely avoid anything to do with equipping or maintaining cliffs.


gordoste

16-Mar-2010
8:07:06 AM

read the document i just sent you (and hotgemini)

to quote:

In what situations have land managers been held liable for accidents? – Where they actively take responsibility for and encourage the activity, but are then negligent .

the document then cites a case

Access T CliffCare

16-Mar-2010
8:34:21 AM

Hi All,

There have been some changes and developments - I have another meeting this week and will bring you up to speed on the situation by Friday - realistically the next time I will have the opportunity to sit down and type something up.

Cheers,

Tracey


ajfclark

16-Mar-2010
8:47:15 AM

Could you drop me a copy too please Gordoste?

hotgemini

16-Mar-2010
9:00:40 AM

Andrew, I've uploaded it to the climb.org.au site

http://climb.org.au/src/lib/functions/file.php?uid=23&aca_doc=1


The good Dr

16-Mar-2010
11:29:02 AM

On 15/03/2010 D.Lodge wrote:

>I was perfectley happy with the way things were, i have done some bolting
>out at the Youies my self so had no problem checking the bolts and other
>anchor points myself.

As a commercial operator, what criteria/tests do the commercial operators use to assess fixed protection? Do they have documented training in the assessment of fixed protection?

Were these bolts for recreational climbing or guiding? If they were for guiding then how did you decide what was appropriate and how did you document it?

It seems that the guides are abrogating their responsibility and hoping that nothing happens.

One Day Hero

16-Mar-2010
12:01:07 PM

On 16/03/2010 The good Dr wrote:
>Were these bolts for recreational climbing or guiding? If they were for
>guiding then how did you decide what was appropriate and how did you document
>it?
>
>It seems that the guides are abrogating their responsibility and hoping
>that nothing happens.
>
What the shit are you talking about? Bolts which are good enough for climbing are good enough! If this was my local area and some dipshits moved in to make money and then started banging massive bolts and cert plaques all over the rock.......I would make it my job to drive the f---wits out of business!

The simple solution is to send the f---ing commercial groups back to the gym and get rid of the perceived need for all this 'safety'

widewetandslippery

16-Mar-2010
12:22:33 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)

I like wendy and one days comments.

I see no reason that anchor assessment if started will not progress to the land managers responsability for anchor failure or missuse. Whats next a youies safe work (climbing) method statement, a site induction, compulsory personal protective equipment. no climbing above 2 metres without at least fall restraint and we can all wear yellow flouro vests. This has happened in the rope access industry. Just because there is a standard it does not mean the standard cannot be exceeded to minimise/eliminate liability as much as possible. Large organisations specialise in such arse covering exercises. Large arsehole organisations such as government.

widewetandslippery

16-Mar-2010
1:48:38 PM

off topic a bit but noyt so much.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1051747/UIAA_and_mountaineering_freedom

Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 5, 2010 - 07:12pm PT
If you are not laughing, you probably believe the incessant lies of your self-serving organization and government leaders.

I am trapped by circumstances, unable to do anything more worthwhile for a day or so. You are the victim of my escape to the cool ridges, faces, couliors, summits and bare rock illusions of SuperTopo.

A few months ago the Portugese Mountaineering Association, by some such name, requested the international mountaineering community to support its opposition to a new 200 Euro, "environmental protection" tax on access to climbing areas in Portugal.

The Portugese government scam is like the US government 200 dollar "mountaineering program" tax on the right of climbers to walk (climb) on various US National Park Service mountains.

The Portugese climbing club leaders requested international climbers to support the time-proven-useless petitions and street demonstrations.

In response, the Alaskan Alpine Club (a member of UIAA) formally proposed that UIAA (International Union of Alpinists Associations) list all those nations which penalized visiting climbers with taxes to climb mountains, and all those nations which welcomed visiting climbers with free access to the mountains. The later wisely appreciate and welcome visitors, and derive foriegn source income by local people offering genuine services and products for visitors to willingly purchase. The former unwisely prove that they do not welcome visitors, especially climbers, penalizing them for showing up, taking their money for nothing of any use, and denying their own people that money for genuine services and products.

Concurrently, the Alaskan Alpine Club suggested that UIAA encourage climbers to visit countries where mountaineering exists in freedom, and avoid countries, such as the US, where a Mountaineering Police State demands fees (taxes) to pay the lying police (US National Park Service Rangers) to demand the fees to pay the lying police...

Concurrently, the Club suggested that UIAA formally denigrate the taxed mountains as any honorable credentials for climbers, and elevate the status of free mountains as worthy mountaineering credentials.

The club sent the proposal to UIAA and all of its members.

Laugh. UIAA is controlled by the few large government-controlled national clubs, most notably the American Alpine Club and its selectively distributed large sums of money. UIAA will continue to support government taxation of climbers for "environmental protection", at damage to actual climbers who do not damage the environment, while the US Park Service taxes on climbers put more money into the US Police State and War Regime. A million obscure taxes add up to a lot of money.

How else could the US come up with enough money for 5 current Presidential Ego Gratification Wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia) among others, against nations whose governments or militaries did not attack the US?

UIAA has remained silent on the proposal, as expected, with its American Alpine Club financially supported Canadian Alpine Club UIAA president who was previously a climber, until he became a "leader" flattered by other "leaders" to cause his mind to believe that he was greater than those mere rabble of low life climbers, and thus support the "fellow organization and government leaders" against the actual climbers, much to the amusement of those who watched and discussed the power-corrupted transition of his mind.

So you unquestionibng climbers keep supporting your Bush's, Obama's, American Alpine Club dolts, UIAA leaders, Park Rangers and your other "leaders" who cannot tolerate any questions of their self-serving actions, such as taxing you to exercise what was your RIGHT to walk on open public land.

And never expect the American Alpine Club controlled UIAA to do anything useful for actual climbers.

Subject to circumstance, I may remain on this route, or may not.

Keep on having entirely too much fun. It enrages the government thugs who inherently consider all free-thinking people to be enemies of the intellectually void State.

DougBuchanan.com
AlaskanAlpineClub.org


pmonks

16-Mar-2010
3:14:48 PM

In the interest of not letting one side of the story dominate - here's a reply from Dingus Milktoast (someone whom I respect quite a bit more than some random whinger on teh internets called "Doug"):

I'd tax foreign climbers too, specially those Huber dudes lol!

Why shouldn't a country charge for access to her mountains Doug? Be specific.

Why, for example, should Nepal allow rich foreign tourists to sh#t on Everest and leave their trash all over, for free?

Please be very specific.

Make your case, instead of all your clever little diversions. No Bush, no Obama, just you and me - make the case.

DMT

There are 113 messages in this topic.