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

Access T CliffCare

7-Mar-2010
6:11:33 PM

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.

Vertigo have been engaged to do the testing. The test is a pull test at 7.5kn for 2 minutes and using the European standard test for rock.
Should the anchor fail the test it will be removed. Unless there is feedback to the contrary that the anchors are still required, they will be replaced. So this means they are under review. As I mentioned this is primarily because of PVs responsibility/duty of care to the commercial groups they book into using an area. They will be getting feedback from the commercial groups as to any anchors that fail and whether they are used by them.

Areas to be tested:

Brisbane Ranges – Staughton Vale
You Yangs – Big Rock
Urinal Wall
Royalty Walls
Gravel Pit Tor
Nightfall Pinnacles
Werribee Gorge
Cathedral Ranges – Main Wall

Tested so far:
Staughton Vale – all anchors passed test
You Yangs – Big Rock West – 2 anchors failed and removed

The anchors that failed at Big Rock West were very old, didn’t look particularly good for the job. They pretty much pulled out and the readings were so low that the meter didn’t have a chance to record a level. At this point they didn’t have a guide so I can’t tell you what routes they serviced.

Next up,most likely next week, is Urinal Wall. There is one set of anchors there that I have been advised will be removed as they are set back on a large boulder at the top. When they were originally put in, the boulder would have been more solidly set in the ground whereas now there has been a loss of about 25 cm of ground due to erosion.

So where do we, as individual climbers fit in? They would also like our feedback. Along with commercial groups we also use the areas. Although it is a bit difficult to ascertain without knowing the specific routes the anchors serve, any thoughts you have on anchors in these areas would be really helpful. They now have a guide so I can be informed if any of the anchors fail and what routes they serve so that we are aware. Are there any anchors that are redundant in anyones opinion due to new and better anchors having been put in more recently? Which routes are the most popular and therefore imperative that the anchors are replaced? I know this all seems a little general - If anyone has knowledge of the anchors at all/or any of these areas, please get in touch. The guide doesn’t give too much info on anchors. I am waiting back for answers on more questions and hopefully will have some more specifics on the routes

One of my concerns was that if anchors were removed, how would climbers doing the routes be aware that they were gone, especially until I know which ones are affected. Response was all of these areas are accessible via walking to the top and that due to the fact that commercial groups use the area there are always a minimum number of anchors available – another one could be used in the mean time until replacement. So, if you know any anchors that do not fall into this category, ie no other anchors close by, let me know.
As much feedback as possible would be great so that I can try and ensure that any anchors that do fail have the minimum amount of time before they are replaced.

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

Thanks,
Tracey


nmonteith

7-Mar-2010
7:24:35 PM

I'm a but mystified. Are commercial groups using the normal climbing anchors at these locations? So they are testing anchors that some random climber (including most likely myself) have installed. Will the report of each anchor test be made pubic?

Access T CliffCare

7-Mar-2010
7:46:21 PM

Hi Neil,

From my understanding of our discussions, all anchors will be tested - PV don't book the commercial groups in on selected routes, they book them into the area which means they need to check them all. History and knowledge of all the anchors is scattered to say the least.So, yes, random climbers. From the description of the old failed anchors on Big Rock west, they were old and appeared to be ones that hadn't been officially installed Anchor tests are not being made public. It would be interesting to speak to the commercial climbing groups that do use the area and what particular routes/anchors they use. As with most things to do with climbing and because of the issues and restrictions that seem to be inherent with it, nothing is simple, nothing black and white. I certainly can't comment with any authority, but I would think it highly unlikely that every commercial group has only ever used 'official' anchors that were supplied for them. But I could be wrong and just wildy assuming here


nmonteith

7-Mar-2010
7:50:34 PM

I know of no 'commercial' or 'official' anchors in the You Yangs. They are all just installed by local climbers. So if an anchor fails is Vertigo installing new anchors? I wonder what system they plan to use...


nmonteith

7-Mar-2010
8:00:32 PM

Just thinking out loud here...

Most of the anchors at the top of the cliff in the You Yangs would be bash in carrots placed on horizontal or very slabby terrain. The usual load direction is sideways on these anchors, rather than an outward/upward force. These old carrots will all very likely fail if you put big outwards loads on them (750kg is a big load). I reckon these tests would be flawed - as they are testing anchors which are totally fine for their intended purpose. There would be potentially hundreds of them in the Youies - they are above almost every route. Sounds like a very major task is they plan to test and replace them all!

Access T CliffCare

7-Mar-2010
8:25:42 PM

On 7/03/2010 nmonteith wrote:
>I know of no 'commercial' or 'official' anchors in the You Yangs. They
>are all just installed by local climbers. So if an anchor fails is Vertigo
>installing new anchors? I wonder what system they plan to use...

Regardless of whether they are official ones or not, it is the areas as detailed which require them all to be checked - by booking groups into the areas they acknowledge the anchors. Yes Vertigo will be installing. System they are using - waiting on the answer to that

>Most of the anchors at the top of the cliff in the You Yangs would be bash in carrots placed >on horizontal or very slabby terrain. The usual load direction is sideways on these anchors, >rather than an outward/upward force. These old carrots will all very likely fail if you put big >outwards loads on them (750kg is a big load). I reckon these tests would be flawed - as >they are testing anchors which are totally fine for their intended purpose. There would be >potentially hundreds of them in the Youies - they are above almost every route. Sounds like a very major task is they plan to test and replace them all!

Agreed - a major task. But only the areas I noted are being checked. Still a big task though. Re the load direction - obviously not my area of expertise so didn't think to discuss that. Shall enquire further in regards to that

patto

8-Mar-2010
9:24:26 AM

On 7/03/2010 nmonteith wrote:
>Just thinking out loud here...
>
>Most of the anchors at the top of the cliff in the You Yangs would be
>bash in carrots placed on horizontal or very slabby terrain. The usual
>load direction is sideways on these anchors, rather than an outward/upward
>force. These old carrots will all very likely fail if you put big outwards
>loads on them (750kg is a big load). I reckon these tests would be flawed
>- as they are testing anchors which are totally fine for their intended
>purpose. There would be potentially hundreds of them in the Youies - they
>are above almost every route. Sounds like a very major task is they plan
>to test and replace them all!

That was my immediate reaction too. I've never bolted before in my life but I would have thought that many carrots would be close to failure at 750kg outward force.

This sort of decision sounds like it was made before consideration was take to the scale of the task was considered. Poor PV is going to go overbudget.

Furthermore how did they get into their head that they are responsible for the condition of the bolts. If recent legal discussion indicated that then surely it would have been far more sensible to take steps to wash their hands of responsibility. Now they are up for massive costs and INCREASE legal reponsibility.


nmonteith

8-Mar-2010
9:52:00 AM

And I think it really opens a massive can of worms. So they are only testing top anchors at specific crags... but what if a lead bolt fails at one of their tested crag or anchors at another crag? Couldn't people sue because NP didn't test these bolts? I would think so.

kieranl

8-Mar-2010
10:49:52 AM

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?

Access T CliffCare

8-Mar-2010
11:04:37 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?
Hi Kieran,

I think maybe what you are thinking about is CALM (dept of Conservation and Land Management) in Western Australia. They test the anchors and tag them. Again it is only certain areas. I have a photo of some of them that Cameron took when he was climbing there. See if I can dig it up. Trying to find a link to CALM. Yes, does sound similar and could very well be based on their example.

widewetandslippery

8-Mar-2010
11:30:20 AM

access T, Vertigo or anyone else: what is the "European" standard? being used and is it online? Surely a rope access standard is not being used as it would be highly inappropriate.

I agree with Neil that this sounds bad.

kieranl

8-Mar-2010
11:42:51 AM

Hi Tracey,
It may well be CALM in WA though my memory is telling me SA. I was wondering if there was any consistency in approach between authorities? Are different states using a similar policy-base to design their management strategies for anchors or is each one making it up as they go along?

Access T CliffCare

8-Mar-2010
11:44:06 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?
Apologies Kieran,
There does appear to be some testing that has gone on at Morialta, though am having difficulties finding any real info on it. OK, just found some I think. google - Morialta Rock Climbing Area DRAFT Concept Plan

Access T CliffCare

8-Mar-2010
12:11:49 PM

On 8/03/2010 widewetandslippery wrote:
>access T, Vertigo or anyone else: what is the "European" standard? being
>used and is it online? Surely a rope access standard is not being used
>as it would be highly inappropriate.
>
>I agree with Neil that this sounds bad.

Yes, you can find references to it online. In my laymans terms the European standard is a standard that has been set to test anchors in rock(not rope access standard) using the figures I gave you above. As there are no other official standards this is the one that is used. Obviously all systems/standards will have flaws as they are dealing with different environments. Hopefully those that do tests have some kind of knowledge(Geoff Little of Vertigo is a climber) and can take into account differences. I'm not sure of the intricacies of this. But I guess, you need a starting point and at this stage of the game, the 'European standard' is it.
Management of fixed protection has and will continue to be a discussed topic between land managers (PV) and climbers. This standard has been mentioned by PV in general discussion at various times over the years that I have been working as Access officer.

Anything that is a can of worms sounds bad and agree in many ways, that it is just easier to leave it alone. But to be honest, I don't think its being realistic to think that PV or any other land manager will just continue to let things go on as they have been. More people out there, both climbers and other users requires re-assessing all the time from PVs perspective Through all the various incidences of climbers and the development of their sport, I hear murmurings and suggestions all the time from PV. As I mentioned last year in one of my reports, PV were going to be looking at climbing - in particular Grampians in their management plan. So working on ways that we can better self regulate(which is big in PVs ideas) is going to be a huge benefit to us - and there are definite areas for improvement for us and of course PV. A better understanding of both sides will go a long way.

This was only going to be a short reply but once I got started....... Discussion like this is good and to be honest I think this will be a year for it.


nmonteith

8-Mar-2010
12:16:50 PM

At a very very rough guess there would be over 500 bolts in the You Yangs. Good luck with that!

Access T CliffCare

8-Mar-2010
12:21:05 PM

On 8/03/2010 nmonteith wrote:
>At a very very rough guess there would be over 500 bolts in the You Yangs.
>Good luck with that!
Is that over 500 anchor bolts in the areas mentioned - Urinal Wall, Royalty Wall, Gravel Pit Tor and Nightfall Pinnacles?

mikllaw

8-Mar-2010
12:24:31 PM

There is a well discussed point of view that if you "proof-test", you may damage the anchor, and for that reason, have to remove and replace it anyway. In reality it depends a lot on the test level and possible modes of failure. High level tetsing gievs more cetainlty that the anchor WAS good, but increases the chances of damaging it.

Where anchor has a bimodal distribution of strengths (ie.e glue-ins, where they are either bomber at 25kN, or not set at 1 kN) testing at an appropriate leevl is ok.


nmonteith

8-Mar-2010
12:28:23 PM

On 8/03/2010 access t wrote:
>On 8/03/2010 nmonteith wrote:
>>At a very very rough guess there would be over 500 bolts in the You Yangs.
>>Good luck with that!
>Is that over 500 anchor bolts in the areas mentioned - Urinal Wall, Royalty
>Wall, Gravel Pit Tor and Nightfall Pinnacles?

No, but I really don't see the difference between 'commercial' areas and normal climbing areas. You can die at both of them if a bolt falls out.

widewetandslippery

8-Mar-2010
12:34:42 PM

On 8/03/2010 access t wrote:

>Yes, you can find references to it online. In my laymans terms the European
>standard is a standard that has been set to test anchors in rock(not rope
>access standard) using the figures I gave you above.

I was asking what is the specific standard. No one is interested in laymans terms apart from a man laying down. Who decided that this was the appropriate standard. Was there a tendering process involved? If none of these questions are answered I'll even join the VCC so a FOI application can (and I assume they would in the interests of climber access) be put forward or at least threatened to PV to stop this nonsense. Some one cannot just decide something outside of as/nzs is gospel. This sounds like a friday afternnon decision to me.

Access T CliffCare

8-Mar-2010
12:44:00 PM

On 8/03/2010 nmonteith wrote:
>On 8/03/2010 access t wrote:
>>On 8/03/2010 nmonteith wrote:
>>>At a very very rough guess there would be over 500 bolts in the You
>Yangs.
>>>Good luck with that!
>>Is that over 500 anchor bolts in the areas mentioned - Urinal Wall, Royalty
>>Wall, Gravel Pit Tor and Nightfall Pinnacles?
>
>No, but I really don't see the difference between 'commercial' areas and
>normal climbing areas. You can die at both of them if a bolt falls out.

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? 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. 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.)

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

There are 113 messages in this topic.