Sponsored By
ROCK
HARDWARE
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Prints |
Chockstone Forum - General Discussion
General Climbing Discussion
| Author |
|
|||||
3:34:31 PM |
Yes I have no huge problem with the charging for some things. Though I would prefer careful consideration before that takes place. Tassie charges left right and centre for its parks. I don't think the US it too bad actually once you get outside of the NP system then the US is pretty good. But certainly most NP rangers seemed to be trained arseholes. (all this is getting off topic tho) |
|||||
12:39:48 AM |
On 16/03/2010 access T wrote: >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 Bump. Any news? |
|||||
10:41:23 AM |
Hi Patto, Yes, just finishing off my report. Will be up soon |
|||||
11:27:20 AM |
Hi All, As I mentioned on this post earlier this week, there have been some changes and developments in regards to the anchor testing at a number of commercial climbing sites around Melbourne. I have had a number of meetings and discussions with PV and Vertigo, reiterating some of the previous concerns many of you have and further discussing other points of concern I have noted on Chockstone and other feedback I have since received. I shall try and provide as much information as clearly as I can. Excuse me if it seems dry but I am trying to present the information as discussed, questions and answers and taking into account the present situation with these sites and commercial groups rather than what would have been a better way to handle it in the past. Also, please excuse me if I’m explaining to some of you, how to suck eggs. This may sound a little (condescending, but it’s not meant to) it’s just that others don’t have as much background info. The following information is in regards to commercial climbing activities. At the end I will make some note of the separate issue of recreational (that’s us) climbing PVs STANCE This testing is in direct response to the relationship and responsibility that PV has with the commercial groups it books into certain areas where in order to use the area they need to use fixed anchors as there is little or no opportunity to use natural (such as the case with Summerday Valley, Araps etc). The impetus for this has no connection with recreational climbing although of course, we use the same areas and therefore what happens to that area does impact on us. Commercial group booking system – this is a system that is already in place and has been for quite a while. The booking system was originally set up to help manage the various commercial groups to be able to access and use the areas fairly and efficiently. Before this, numerous commercial groups would all flock to the same areas on the same day, trying to arrive early in order to set up their ropes and guarantee their jobs. For the groups, this meant often trying to resolve issues with other groups. The areas noted are the prime ones for commercial groups for a variety of reasons – ease of access, short distance, easier routes. Their choice of anchors to use is pretty much limited to what is installed. So the booking system is in place and therefore PV, by booking them into that area where the only anchor to use is a fixed one, does have a duty of care to ensure, that to the best of their knowledge, there are anchors in place which match an acceptable standard(and yes, this is a grey area) TESTING Test is: as previously noted a 7kn pull test for 2 minutes. The area of standards and tests, as those who know, can attest to, is one that does have grey areas. And especially in rockclimbing. Australia at present time does not have a standard for rock anchors. So the accepted one widely used is European standard EN 959. EN 959 of 15kN in the axial direction and 25kN in the radial. Australian industry standards state it must meet 50% of the total load.(Feel free to correct me here as I am explaining in laymans terms!) This test hasn’t been randomly picked out of the sky. It has been discussed with those already in the business of anchors, testing, load bearing and PV were advised accordingly that this was best practice for standards currently used. You can find more info and reference to this standard on the following links VCC bolting policy - http://www.vicclimb.org.au/index.php?location=downloads CSIRO testing - http://www.vicclimb.org.au/index.php?location=downloads Steven Hawkshaw sandstone bolting - http://www.sydneyclimbing.com/SandstoneBolting.pdf |
|||||
11:28:08 AM |
OUTCOMES In all of the areas marked for testing, there are a variety of anchors. Some such as Werribee Gorge have bollards installed by PV, others at Staughton Vale have some anchors that have been professionally installed using the EN 959 standard already. There was little concern that these would fail. The main concern was for the anchors at the You Yangs sites. Predominantly carrots, their history is unknown – bash in, glue in, many are very old. They don’t conform in a number of ways to the EN standard. The other added concern with testing carrots is that while many may pass the pull test, there is the chance that the bolt placement can be comprised by the test and there is no way of knowing. Big Rock anchors were tested – most passed but a few failed with very low loads. Original procedure was to test the anchors. What failed would be removed and then placed under review for replacement. Since the testing began and along with the feedback from everyone and further discussions with Vertigo, PV under advice, will now only test the anchors that are not carrots. Due to the concerns of compromising the integrity of the carrot anchors, these will not be tested. All the anchors that are carrots and were due to be tested in the commercial group sites will be removed and replaced. They will be replaced with Petzl Batínox http://www.petzl.com/en/pro/rock-and-concrete-anchors/batinox These are large solid rings, conforming to the EN959 standard. They will be glued in, using adhesive that conforms to the standards set by Petzl for best practice for that product. These are also the rings that are used at the top of many European cliffs. In order for the commercial groups to know the anchors that have been tested in the commercial site, they will be tagged. I have been informed that this will be a small plaque that will be glued to the rock close to the anchor. For employees of the commercial groups, they will be able to identify them easily. As far as ongoing maintenance, at this stage, the advice is a visual test yearly and five yearly physical test. My apologies for stating incorrectly that the test will not be made public. They will be – the plaques being evidence of this. TIMEFRAME The two anchors that failed at Big Rock will be replaced next week. The rest of the carrot anchors – 32- will be removed and replaced in approximately 5 weeks when hardware arrives. It was stressed that no other fixed protection at those sites or any other sites will be tested, removed or replaced. If commercial groups wish to engage in lead climbing, there or elsewhere in the parks the responsibility is theirs. They should be aware of the protection that is there and make the choice whether to use it or not. As noted, it is only when the only option for an anchor in a booked commercial site is a fixed one. THE ABOVE IS FOR COMMERCIAL GROUPS AND THE CLIMBING SITES THAT PV BOOK THEM INTO NAMELY: You Yangs – Big Rock Urinal Wall Gravel Pit Tor Nightfall Pinnacles Cathedral Ranges – Main Wall Sugarloaf Boulders Werribee Gorge Staughton Vale So, while many of you will still not be happy with the state of play, ie PV testing commercial climbing group sites, your concerns re the carrots compromised safety and loss of some anchors has been taken on board. |
|||||
11:28:47 AM |
RECREATIONAL CLIMBING All of the issues and concerns that have been raised by visitors to this forum and outside feedback I have received, have been put forward and discussed. The issues of recreational climbing, its responsibilities, liabilities etc. whilst entwined in the areas affected, are separate issues and ones, that from my discussions anyway, PV are keen to work with us on, and it is not linked to the action that is being taken at these particular commercial sites. While I did briefly discuss commercial groups and their responsibilities, to be honest, this is a separate ball game and one that needs to be discussed and developed between PV and those commercial groups. It’s important to be aware obviously, of the big picture because it can and does impact on us – as this episode has shown. MY RANT I, as much as anyone have concerns that this is the thin end of the wedge. But what I also believe, is that as far as recreational climbing goes, we have the opportunity to put more effort into setting things in place, be it better education about fixed protection – placing it and using it. And the age old, age old I always quote – looking after the areas that we do use. Having an understanding also, that there are some areas that should be left as is. For the most part and for many years, we do and have self regulated but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t room for self assessment. And being proactive about issues before an issue actually explodes. As I have mentioned in various reports over the years, due to events and issues that have occurred, there has always been suggestions, questions and queries from those I deal with at PV on how we can best work together. So that those,especially on the ground, can deal with us, and us with them, fairly. What I don’t have, or at least haven’t had, is demands of ending this or ending that or of herding everyone into small contained areas. And I will be doing my best to do as much as I can to ensure this doesn’t happen. It would be a lie to say that I don’t experience resistance in discussions I do have and it would be a lie also to say that some PV employees don’t take as kindly to climbing as others do. And the same for other user groups that we have to work with and share the park with. Anyone, who wants or is interested in putting effort into areas like Codes of Conduct, and Memorandum of Understanding for the different areas we use - it would be great to have your input and help. And that doesn’t just mean VCC members. I would hope that, at least for some issues, that we are all pretty much on the same page….or thereabouts. Getting involved in working groups on possible future issues. It’s about being prepared. Cheers, Tracey |
|||||
2:57:53 PM |
Wow impressive work tracy. Thanks. PV seems to be intent on going down this path and at the end of the day all we can do is watch it unfold. What they are doing at this stage is going to have minimal impact on recreational climbers. Sure we have some shiny new bolts and ugly plaques but not much else is a problem. As far as the future holds we'll just have to wait and see. If they do realise 5 years down the track that they are on the slipery slope lets just hope they decide to climb back onto safe ground rather than the easy slide down. I start to feel like I'm repeating myself. But that said: I firmly believe that it is not in PV's interest to go down this path. The advice PV has recieved from its lawyers totally ignores recommended risk management across the world. Do we really think parks booking system is so unique that i requires unique treatment? Commecial guides book need to for many national parks across the world. On 20/03/2010 Access T wrote: >So the booking system is in place and therefore PV, by booking them into >that area where the only anchor to use is a fixed one, does have a duty >of care to ensure, that to the best of their knowledge, there are anchors >in place which match an acceptable standard(and yes, this is a grey area) PV was never, and should never be in a climbing service. Requiring bookings for area of opperations of commerical groups does not by default add a duty of care. If PV's lawyer thinks it is a grey area then they have now removed all greyness about it and admitted a duty of care. >It was stressed that no other fixed protection at those sites or any other sites will be >tested, removed or replaced. If commercial groups wish to engage in lead climbing, >there or elsewhere in the parks the responsibility is theirs. So PV can't seem to decide. Are safe bolts their responsibility or not? This totally contradicts their stance on top roping bolts. It seems that they are trying to pick and choose. There seems to be little legal basis for this disctinction. To top it all off through their actions and now their WORDS they are admitting they have a duty of care owed to climbers climbing with a commerical group. A climber climbing with a commecial group isn't much less removed from PV than a recreational climber. It could easily be argued that if PV owes a commecial group climber a duty of care then it also owes a recreational climber a duty of care. Its all a slipery slope. |
|||||
6:33:48 AM |
Whether or not Australians accept different standards to the rest of the world is naturally their own affair but to claim that the bolts are being tested to a European standard is just misrepresenting the quality of the bolts. The European standard EN 959 calls for a 8kN pull to be made 10 times in 10 minutes and then pull to failure. This applies in both radial and axial where the minimum allowable failure values are 25kN and 15kN. To claim that a pull of 7,5kN is to a "European standard" is just complete bullshit no matter which way you look at it. |
|||||
7:13:49 PM |
On 21/03/2010 jim titt wrote: >Whether or not Australians accept different standards to the rest of the >world is naturally their own affair but to claim that the bolts are being >tested to a European standard is just misrepresenting the quality of the >bolts. >The European standard EN 959 calls for a 8kN pull to be made 10 times >in 10 minutes and then pull to failure. This applies in both radial and >axial where the minimum allowable failure values are 25kN and 15kN. >To claim that a pull of 7,5kN is to a "European standard" is just complete >bullshit no matter which way you look at it. Yes it was a bit confusing for a start, but now we know exactly what's going on and I am pretty sure nobody is making that claim any more. The test is not a European standard, but all the newly installed, tagged anchors will meet European standard (at least according to Petzl). |
|||||
11:29:48 PM |
Besides the exact testing is probably not overly concerning. As long as it is done properly to a rational standard then they should be covered legally. | |||||
8:41:17 AM |
On 20/03/2010 Access T wrote: >Original procedure was to test the anchors. What failed would be removed >and then placed under review for replacement. Since the testing began >and along with the feedback from everyone and further discussions with >Vertigo, PV under advice, will now only test the anchors that are not carrots. I presume they mean they will not test bash in carrots as opposed to glue in carrots? Many of the Youies anchor bolts are glue in carrots (installed by me about 6 years ago). >In order for the commercial groups to know the anchors that have been >tested in the commercial site, they will be tagged. I have been informed >that this will be a small plaque that will be glued to the rock close to >the anchor. For employees of the commercial groups, they will be able to >identify them easily. Lets hope they don't start testing lead bolts or the cliff will look VERY ugly with all the little signs. >It was stressed that no other fixed protection at those sites or any >other sites will be tested, removed or replaced. If commercial groups >wish to engage in lead climbing, there or elsewhere in the parks the responsibility >is theirs. They should be aware of the protection that is there and make >the choice whether to use it or not. As noted, it is only when the only >option for an anchor in a booked commercial site is a fixed one. This is certainly the most bizarre statement which totally contradicts themselves. So, what about lead bolts used in a top rope situation but used as directionals when a route doesn't go straight up and down? Why can't the commercial groups take on the responsibility of the top rope bolts, just like they are asked to take on the responsibility of the lead bolts? The commercial groups should be the ones installing the new bolts. This management plan can never be reversed. Once in place we are stuck with it. Just like when cliffs are banned because of loose rock, its hard to argue that the cliff has suddenly got safer over time. |
|||||
11:56:05 AM |
Just an update on the situation at The Youies. Nothing! has been done to the anchor bolts as yet, but i am still waiting too see how it all comes out. | |||||
10:07:54 AM |
On 20/03/2010 Access T wrote: > >OUTCOMES > >In all of the areas marked for testing, there are a variety of anchors. >Some such as Werribee Gorge have bollards installed by PV, others at Staughton >Vale have some anchors that have been professionally installed using the >EN 959 standard already. There was little concern that these would fail. > The main concern was for the anchors at the You Yangs sites. Predominantly >carrots, their history is unknown – bash in, glue in, many are very old. >They don’t conform in a number of ways to the EN standard. The other added >concern with testing carrots is that while many may pass the pull test, >there is the chance that the bolt placement can be comprised by the test >and there is no way of knowing. Big Rock anchors were tested – most passed >but a few failed with very low loads. > >Original procedure was to test the anchors. What failed would be removed >and then placed under review for replacement. Since the testing began >and along with the feedback from everyone and further discussions with >Vertigo, PV under advice, will now only test the anchors that are not carrots. >Due to the concerns of compromising the integrity of the carrot anchors, >these will not be tested. All the anchors that are carrots and were due >to be tested in the commercial group sites will be removed and replaced. >They will be replaced with Petzl Batínox http://www.petzl.com/en/pro/rock-and-concrete-anc >ors/batinox These are large solid rings, conforming to the EN959 standard. > They will be glued in, using adhesive that conforms to the standards set >by Petzl for best practice for that product. These are also the rings that >are used at the top of many European cliffs. > >In order for the commercial groups to know the anchors that have been >tested in the commercial site, they will be tagged. I have been informed >that this will be a small plaque that will be glued to the rock close to >the anchor. For employees of the commercial groups, they will be able to >identify them easily. As far as ongoing maintenance, at this stage, the >advice is a visual test yearly and five yearly physical test. >My apologies for stating incorrectly that the test will not be made public. >They will be – the plaques being evidence of this. > >TIMEFRAME > >The two anchors that failed at Big Rock will be replaced next week. The >rest of the carrot anchors – 32- will be removed and replaced in approximately >5 weeks when hardware arrives. > >It was stressed that no other fixed protection at those sites or any >other sites will be tested, removed or replaced. If commercial groups >wish to engage in lead climbing, there or elsewhere in the parks the responsibility >is theirs. They should be aware of the protection that is there and make >the choice whether to use it or not. As noted, it is only when the only >option for an anchor in a booked commercial site is a fixed one. > >THE ABOVE IS FOR COMMERCIAL GROUPS AND THE CLIMBING SITES THAT PV BOOK >THEM INTO NAMELY: >You Yangs – Big Rock > Urinal Wall > Gravel Pit Tor > Nightfall Pinnacles >Cathedral Ranges – Main Wall > Sugarloaf Boulders >Werribee Gorge >Staughton Vale > >So, while many of you will still not be happy with the state of play, >ie PV testing commercial climbing group sites, your concerns re the carrots >compromised safety and loss of some anchors has been taken on board. > Was climbing at Gravel Pit Tor on saturday and noticed the two solid rings above the large buttress to the right of the silver night pinnacle. They were tagged (with a 13 phone number to report defects - which I thought mildly amusing - I would probably be calling 000, but anyway). I am not sure who chose the location but I would suggest that they are pretty poorly placed. They were not angled for a particularly obvious rap line. Option 1 - rap down gully which we did resulting in stuck ropes in the high chockstones on the toss and retrieve owing to the reasonable breeze. Option 2 - rap down angling for Chucu chimney (sucky and probably more stuck rope potential). Option 3 - rap down main climbs (wasn't sure if rope would make it and the drag across the granite on the retrieve would probably have been horrendous). Option 4 - walk off. I will be taking Option 4 next time. I hope whoever is installing/replacing bolts out there is considering location... |
|||||
3:30:00 PM |
Considering much of this entire debacle is ill considered, hoping that subtleties like rap lines are considered is possibly wishful thinking. | |||||
3:33:11 PM |
I doubt any of the anchors will be designed as rap stations. They are to be used as anchors for top-ropes and fixed single abseil ropes for guiding. | |||||
3:49:45 PM |
On 19/07/2010 nmonteith wrote: >I doubt any of the anchors will be designed as rap stations. They are to >be used as anchors for top-ropes and fixed single abseil ropes for guiding. Well in this instance the top ropes would be over a little climbed grade 23 sharp crimp fest off the silver knight block and positioned well set back from a slabby finish thereby requiring another static line to extend out to the climb, or would be for fixed single abseil ropes for guiding where accessing the abseil station is not straight forward and the abseil provided would be sh1thouse - ie angling down across a slab to abseil a squeeze chimney or a 10 m abseil to a big ledge then abseil 2 m to another ledge then abseil at over chockstones to the ground. If they were designed to abseil the major buttress then they could have literally been placed in 100 better places. |
|||||
4:01:17 PM |
As far as I'm aware, all these bolts were placed to replace existing anchor bolts in areas where commercial operators could be booked. The grade of the climbs wasn't taken into account. | |||||
4:40:11 PM |
Well I for one would rather abseil a grade 23 than a grade 14. Makes me feel much more of a he man. ;) | |||||
7:12:32 PM |
I have not been out to the Youies for a few weeks, and nothing had been done by then, but am out there tomorrow at Royalty wall and Big Rock so will update as to whether these sites have been done. | |||||
7:35:20 PM |
I believe they have. [Edit: See July's Access Report in Argus for more details and pictures] |
| 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