Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - Accidents & Injuries

Report Accidents and Injuries

Topic Date User

QUT and affiliates sued for $8m Kangaroo Point 28-May-2017 At 6:06:04 PM mr curly

Message

I think it’s time for a lesson on comprehension, as it seems to be sadly lacking. Most people learn this stuff in 6th class.

Here’s what Right Arm Band said,
If there was a miscommunication it is simply up to the person on the rock to not take himself off safety

And below that,
Once you reach the anchors, there is only one person that can hurt you and that is yourself.

Unless there was a wrongly threaded Gri Gri and the most senior member also let go of the brake rope, the fault lies with th climber.

Let me reword the second bit,
“If (PLEASE notice the IF) the belayer does nothing wrong, then any failure is due to the climber.

The first point is essentially saying that if comms are bad, the person at risk of hitting the deck should probably err on the side of caution and remain clipped in until they are certain their belayer has them.

The second point is that, IF the belayer does everything correct, then any problems are due to the climber.

I don’t understand how anyone could have any issue with these two simple concepts. And it doesn’t matter if they were learnt 30 years ago or yesterday.

And here’s the funny bit, where you both essentially say the same thing. I love watching people have these huge arguments when IF (there’s that word again) they had actually taken the time to understand the point they’d realise they actually agree.

>But there is never a reason for the guy on the wall to fall once he has
>reached the anchors as his actions are the only ones that control his destiny.

What are you talking about, dude? I regularly get to an anchor, out of sight and talking range of my belayer, thread the thing, then bomb onto the rope. If my belayer takes me off, I'm fuching toast.

IF you don’t get it, read my re-worded version (where the IF bit is moved to the front of the sentence rather than the end). If the belayer does their job, and you thread the anchors correctly, no problem. But, if the belayer does their job, and you thread the anchors incorrectly, potentially BIG problems. In these two simple scenarios the difference is the action of the climber – and that is RAB’s point.

And then this bit
If communication is a problem, clean and rap, the belayer plays no part in your own safety.

What he is saying here, and yes, it needs to be pointed out, is basically, if you aren’t sure that someone else is in a position to lower you safely, then take care of it yourself so that you are NEVER placed in a situation, due to bad comms, where there is doubt that you are on belay.

Again, how can anyone fault this thinking. This is the essence of a key stream of the climbing ethic – you are responsible for your own safety. ALWAYS, from the gear you place, to the climbs you do, to the people you choose to climb with to what you do when comms are bad and you don’t know what the other person is doing.

And to the point mentioned a few times in this thread that NO-ONE abs off sports routes, and whether you ab or lower is ALWAYS sorted out before you climb, well, what if it’s not clear from the ground whether there are shackles on the rings. It’s the done thing to ab off rings without shackles rather than lower to reduce the wear on the rings. And if you don’t know before you leave the ground what’s up there then you will need to work it out when you get there.