Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - Accidents & Injuries

Report Accidents and Injuries

Author

Rockfall resulting in chopped anchor report


ajfclark

25-Feb-2015
10:48:26 AM

On 25/02/2015 kieranl wrote:
>That's where I think it's being misinterpreted, confusing cause and effect. The cause of the incident was that the anchor was exposed to rockfall, it wasn't that a leg of the anchor was cut.

What I mean is, this anchor had an issue so what would happen to a different anchor in the same situation seems like a reasonable extrapolation to me.

Yes, rockfall is bad. That's a pretty easy and obvious lesson to learn. Protecting the anchor from rockfall is good. What different anchors would do in the same situation isn't as obvious and hence gets for more discussion.


shortman

25-Feb-2015
10:58:55 AM

Really this thread is just showing that we all need to get inside the gym more often, :)

martym

25-Feb-2015
11:12:35 AM

On 25/02/2015 kieranl wrote:
>I'm utterly bemused by the way this thread keeps coming back to talking
>about the sliding-X, which wasn't even a feature of the incident.

"I want to share this because although anchor construction and connections are endlessly debated there is no question that having a pre-equalized, redundant anchor, that would not extend, saved my life. Had I used a sling with a magic x which is popular when anchoring to two bolts I would have went for a long unsurvivable, ride. I rarely use or think that the magic x the best tool for most anchoring situations because it can extend if one of the pieces blows. Rarely if ever have I considered what would happen if it got the chop. If I ever use one it the future it will be with 2 slings so that it is redundant."
By cdec
From SLC and Moab, ut
Feb 17, 2015

This is why I asked the question.

martym

25-Feb-2015
11:32:46 AM

On 25/02/2015 ajfclark wrote:
>Perhaps it was the Croft/Honnold talk about Risk and Reward?
>
no it was from National Geographic, "To Climb the World" - the climbers involved were Jimmy Chin & Mikey Shaffer.

Here's the bit where he talks about the rope cut.

& Jimmy's expression when he finds the end of the rope:


ajfclark

25-Feb-2015
11:46:38 AM

I have not seen that before, nor has it been posted on Chockstone (until just now).

martym

25-Feb-2015
11:57:37 AM

On 25/02/2015 ajfclark wrote:
>I have not seen that before, nor has it been posted on Chockstone (until
>just now).
I probably watched it in the "related videos" after one of your many other uploaded films.


shortman

25-Feb-2015
12:06:00 PM

Fark martym!

stuart h

26-Feb-2015
10:10:34 AM

On 25/02/2015 ajfclark wrote:
"Yes, rockfall is bad. That's a pretty easy and obvious lesson to learn. Protecting the anchor from rockfall is good. What different anchors would do in the same situation isn't as obvious and hence gets for more discussion. "

I agree that this anchor is an interesting example but regarding what is obvious and what would make the most valuable subject for discussion, I see things quite differently.

What different anchors would do in the same situation is entirely obvious. It is easy to visualise (or sketch or model). It is a static question that essentially asks which approaches to 2 point anchor construction have more redundancy and do they have points without any redundancy?

That is just a question of technique and arguably technique - or at least the selection of one over another - is very rarely the key factor in accidents. (This is a curiosity b/c it is a key factor in outcome here, although perhaps not in the accident itself.)

Much more interesting and uncertain are the subjective questions, which you dismiss as easy or obvious but which are actually the central factor in this incident. There are indications a stance is not a good spot - what do you do?

What indications might suggest that a stance is subject to rockfall? In this instance, for example, why not use the anchor as a (directional) runner (on both pitches if necessary) and belay on the stance out to the side? (perhaps even if you can't place an anchor out there?) Long tie-ins help to give you more room to move and dodge - was this a deliberate choice in this case? How much exposure does it take to make a less convenient anchor a worthwhile choice? Here it seems like there was another good anchor accessible, but how could the exposure be mitigated if there weren't an alternate anchor in place? Without knowing the route, would it be better to simul-climb to link pitches rather than belaying in the corner/gully? How much other risk and of what kind might be worth accepting to reduce an unknown level of potential rockfall hazard?

(this "invalid or suspicious input" thing is pretty annoying - trying to post more to this but not getting through)


IdratherbeclimbingM9

26-Feb-2015
10:26:38 AM

On 26/02/2015 stuart h wrote:
>(this "invalid or suspicious input" thing is pretty annoying - trying
>to post more to this but not getting through)
>

See P2 of the spam-hack-attack thread for a couple of posts listing some of the suspicious words to avoid...

http://www.chockstone.org/Forum/Forum.asp?ForumID=9&Action=Display&MessageID=2532&PagePos=0&Sort=

and

http://www.chockstone.org/Forum/Forum.asp?ForumID=9&Action=Display&MessageID=2533&PagePos=0&Sort=

stuart h

26-Feb-2015
10:30:15 AM

(if this posts it is because M9 is a guru)

These subjective questions about identifying and trading-off competing risks seem much more interesting and complex - as well as being central to how the accident might be avoided - as they require the imaginative application and adaptation of climbing principles in the con-text of terrain.

In contrast, techniques are pretty static and objective. In terms of avoiding catastrophic anchor failure, redundancy is almost always considerably more important than load sharing. In terms of commonly used techniques, connecting to the two points separately with two ropes would potentially provide the highest level of redundancy, followed by a sling tied off with an overhand (or otherwise make it two slings), followed by a sliding-x with extension limiter knots and finally a sliding-x without knots. This is not very complicated or likely to be the difference between getting killed or not by stonefall or any other cause. (connect a second time with the rope if you are nervous? Move/change route/bail if really nervous?)

I almost never use a sliding-x, but when I do (and in contrast to most discussions), I don't tend to tie extension limiting knots because I am much more likely to use a sliding-x to save the time of tying and untying knots than because of any concern with load sharing.

Climbers should try to have an understanding of the limitations of their rigging, but I agree with Kieran because I think that recognising that somewhere is not a very good place to be and coming up with ways to mitigate that hazard without introducing unnecessary new risks is probably an approach more likely to help avoid an accident and in a lot of ways this could be more complex than tying a knot.

There are 30 messages in this topic.