Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - Accidents & Injuries

Report Accidents and Injuries

Author

QUT and affiliates sued for $8m Kangaroo Point

BBSR

19-May-2017
1:23:31 PM

On 18/05/2017 rightarmbad wrote:
>I agree, as a belayer I don't take anybody off belay unless specifically
>asked to and have a second confirmation.
>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.
>
>I will never take my safety off until I have confirmed verbally that I
>am on belay and feel the rope take my weight.
>If not then I then have the choice to clarify the situation and rectify
>it or simply rap clean myself.
>Doesn't matter what the belayer does once I reach the anchors, my fate
>is in my own hands.
>The only way I can get hurt in that situation is if I fruck up myself
>or my belayer lets go of the rope after starting to lower for some inexplicable
>reason.
>First rule, look after thyself.
>At the anchors I have every tool required to not get hurt.
>
One thing I do is to pull up on the anchor and ask the belayer to take. Then I rest my weight on the rope, before I remove my (now loose) safety from the anchor. If I abseil I do something equivalent.

I must say I never have liked being lowered, as I tend to have a low level of trust. I abseil quite a bit, as that is the way I learned. That said, I think that being lowered is supposed to be safer overall.

Wendy

19-May-2017
2:43:23 PM

On 19/05/2017 One Day Hero wrote:

>I've seen enough of uni climbing clubs to get the general idea.
>
>It's either; a) bumblies (who first put rock shoes on 2 years ago) teaching
>fresh bumblies how to die, or b) pathetic dudes in their mid 20s to mid
>30s lingering around because it's their only avenue to experience a smidgen
>of power, or get a bit of pussy (or a mix of the two motivations).
>
>Is there anything I missed? Maybe you can tell us why you're involved?

I can see at least one thing you've missed. The age range. I've known men into at least their 40s lingering around uni clubs.
>
>


gordoste

19-May-2017
10:29:10 PM

The article here is very interesting

Waiting For Romeo

Particularly pages 9 (starting at "Anchor failure in practice) to 13 (discussing Everest 1996)


Flano

20-May-2017
9:32:47 AM

ODH

I don't think anyone can disagree with your comment a) but it certainly don't canvas the leaders in my club (I can't comment on any other uni adventure clubs though). I was one of those bumblies when I first joined my club and I didn't know my elbow from a climbing shoe.

I've been involved in my club for about 8 years I think??? My involvement over the past four or five years has been working on and for the committee and it's been many years since I last facilitated a trip for bumblies.

The point you made in a) is extremely valid to MartyM's topic but I fail to see how b) contributes to the incident that occurred in QUT.


Goshen

20-May-2017
10:21:50 AM

Can't we just speculate that the climber involved in the original accident simply yelled down "safe" upon reaching the anchors, and the belayer, upon hearing that, took the climber off belay...?

Sure, it's just the same miscommunication from another angle; but it is generally accepted in climbing (I'd say a golden rule, some may disagree) that "Safe" is a term for specifically communicating that you are now ACTUALLY Safe (and responsible for your own safety).

I've heard people say "safe", when they reach the anchors, and the belayer doesn't take them off, because they know they are being lowered... I think this is dangerous for the exact reason of this topic. I'm not saying they 'should' be taken off. I'm saying that using the word "safe" to indicate you are "in-hard" is a no - no.

Safe, O.K, Off Belay*, O.K, Climbing, O.K.
These are the key words that are or should be drilled into any new climbers from day one.

*Some use this instead of "Safe"; but I don't want to get too far off topic.

johnpitcairn

21-May-2017
7:52:36 AM

We've been using "on you" to indicate we are ready to be lowered.


Eduardo Slabofvic

21-May-2017
10:26:53 AM

Here's a radical idea you might like to try. Decide what is going to happen once you're at the top in discussion with your belayer before starting to climb


Eduardo Slabofvic

22-May-2017
8:42:38 AM

On 21/05/2017 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 21/05/2017 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote:
>>Here's a radical idea you might like to try. Decide what is going to
>happen
>>once you're at the top in discussion with your belayer before starting
>>to climb
>
>Sure, you talked about rapping down, and you can see that your partner
>is clipped to the anchor, but they haven't said 'safe'.
>
>Do you take them off belay? Because if you do, you're a fuchwit.

You wait, obviously, because if you don't, then you're a fuchwit


Lingy

22-May-2017
5:45:31 PM

On 21/05/2017 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote:
>Here's a radical idea you might like to try. Decide what is going to happen
>once you're at the top in discussion with your belayer before starting
>to climb

As the nameless someone ODH was talking about (at least, I think I am), I can say with some confidence that this doesn't cut it. My partner and I clearly discussed what was going to happen immediately beforehand (i.e. lower off so I could give her a top rope belay from the ground and give pointers), yet I still idiotically called out 'safe' when I got to the top and ended up taking the ride.

Incidentally, climbing at Shipley/Porters yesterday I counted three different groups (some of whom clearly had years of experience) using the word 'safe' when they meant 'in hard'. It actually made me feel a bit nauseous. This kind of loosening up of terminology - which I've obviously been guilty of in the past - doesn't seem like much till it's too late.


Eduardo Slabofvic

22-May-2017
6:14:39 PM

On 22/05/2017 Lingy wrote:
>On 21/05/2017 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote:
>>Here's a radical idea you might like to try. Decide what is going to
>happen
>>once you're at the top in discussion with your belayer before starting
>>to climb
>
>As the nameless someone ODH was talking about (at least, I think I am),
>I can say with some confidence that this doesn't cut it.

No, no, no, no, no!

I didn't write, "Remember to breath, as you don't want to asphyxiate. Remember to open your eyes, as you'll be able to see better that way; tie your shoe laces, brush your teeth, wear sun screen and call your mother more often" .... and dozens of other things that are so bleedingly obvious that they shouldn't need to be said.

I also didn't write, "After having discussed this on the ground before climbing there is then no further communication between both parties, ever, ever, again."...... nor did I write ...... "as soon as you see your climbing partner at the anchor, take them off belay as quickly as you can and run away before they have a chance to say anything".

What I did write is "Decide what is going to happen once you're at the top in discussion with your belayer before starting to climb". This is a reasonable thing to do, and will go a long way to reduce miscommunication. This conversation might also extend to the terminology to be used and its meaning.


Lingy

22-May-2017
6:49:39 PM

On 22/05/2017 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote:

>No, no, no, no, no!
>
>I didn't write, "Remember to breath, as you don't want to asphyxiate.
> Remember to open your eyes, as you'll be able to see better that way;
>tie your shoe laces, brush your teeth, wear sun screen and call your mother
>more often" .... and dozens of other things that are so bleedingly obvious
>that they shouldn't need to be said.

Do you seriously think that's what I meant? That my comment was solely intended to say that you, Eduardo, in your ~30 words, had delivered unsound climbing advice in failing to tell the 'whole story'?? I'm perfectly aware what you said was intended to apply to the whole climb. No, I was giving a personal - and, quite frankly, embarrassing - example of when this falls apart, and I used your comment as a jumping off point. But I thought that was 'bleeding obvious' - sorry if I 'miscommunicated'.


ajfclark

22-May-2017
8:00:16 PM

I don't understand why you need to tell your belayer you're attached to the anchor. In hard, safe, whatever is just telling your belayer to stop paying attention. I clip in, call for slack, retread, call take. No need for anything else, is there?

mikllaw

23-May-2017
6:27:32 AM

On 23/05/2017 One Day Hero wrote:

>Because of your ill thought out advice and poor wording, there are now
>piles of bodies at all the crags. It's starting to smell. You are a bad
>person.

where is the Like button?


Goshen

23-May-2017
9:40:08 AM

On 22/05/2017 ajfclark wrote:
>I don't understand why you need to tell your belayer you're attached to
>the anchor. In hard, safe, whatever is just telling your belayer to stop
>paying attention. I clip in, call for slack, retread, call take. No need
>for anything else, is there?

Exactly, this is what most of us do.

Look, there's an easy solution...

As a belayer, when confronted with an obvious error in communication when the climber reaches the anchors (and perhaps, you can see what's going on), just pay out a truckload of slack, maybe even tie them off, then go about your business of making a ham and pickle sandwhich, racking gear or whatever. So if they screw up the 2nd part (slumping onto the rope without even an 'on you' ....they were going to rap, weren't they?), at least they'll take a ride they're not going to forget in a hurry.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

24-May-2017
2:45:31 PM

>'the end of pitch conversation'

Hmm.
At the risk of being contentious I think it may go hand in hand with dumbing down climbs by overbolting them!

Trad climbing, particularly multi-pitch, is where the 'safe' = 'take me off belay' terminology comes from. It facilitates efficiency in that setting because both leader and belayer/now-seconder can get on with doing the tasks required.

Pitches used to be more than half rope-length so lowering off was not an issue to be considered other than self-rescue if the leader/seconder had a mishap.

The climbing game has/is changing and the associated lexicon is being misconstrued along the way!

For single pitch trad of more than half rope-length abseiling back down was often normal and people developed habitual self checking routines to minimise complacency stuff ups...

I can see where rightarmbad is coming from and I shudder somewhat if ODH blindly trusts not being toasted if he has sidelined self checking procedures along the way; although it may not be a particular problem if he's mostly monogamous with climbing partners which often develops great rapport & efficiency, unlike a club scene where partners are changing all the time.

Heaven help us if the modern generation develop a new lexicon for their current style of climbing, ... and then take up multipitch trad!

PS Without checking, I'm pretty sure that the leader/belayer conversation thing has come up on Chockstone before.

AndreasAachen

24-May-2017
2:59:25 PM

On 18/05/2017 tnd wrote:
>A word on this from my many years' experience on the Sydney Rockclimbing
>Club committee, in the period after we ceased being able to obtain third
>party liability insurance, and so stopped running climbing trips for a
>while.
>
>When the law in NSW subsequently changed to make accidents due to "obviously
>dangerous activities" very difficult to blame on anyone else, we were lucky
>enough to get (pro-bono) legal advice on a process by which we could resume
>club-organised group climbing.

As the previously leader of the Deakin Climbing Club, I can tell you that after this accident (in combination with a smaller one which apperntly occured in one of the VIC climbing clubs later on), we were basically forced to close down the club. Due to these accidents the insurance companies 'reviewed' the the climbing club and the requirements to run a trip became completely unreasonable....


IdratherbeclimbingM9

24-May-2017
8:52:03 PM

On 24/05/2017 AndreasAachen wrote:
>>(snip) Due to these accidents the insurance companies
>'reviewed' the the climbing club and the requirements to run a trip became
>completely unreasonable....

Same thing happened to the Border Climbing Club (Albury/Wodonga) at about the same time as public liability insurance premiums were pricing-out/closing down, such dangerous pastime activity clubs as the CWA!!!

For a short while we became affiliated with VCC in order to be covered by their insurance for locally run trips, but the enthusiasm had been well dampened by then amongst those prepared to run those trips in case they were held liable by civil litigious claims.


gordoste

25-May-2017
1:24:39 PM

I was involved with Sydney Uni Rockclimbing & Mountaineering Club (SURMC) around the early '00s when UNSW (I think?) had a disastrous canyoning trip where someone froze to death under a waterfall. We ended up needing to set up a formal qualification system to clearly define what skill level is required for certain roles, and be able to prove that people have been assessed. But it was really just formalising and documenting things we were already doing. Probably a good thing really.

It would be interesting to see what insurance companies would say if you went to them and showed you have these systems in place already. It can't really be much different to aviation or rifle clubs.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

25-May-2017
3:03:05 PM

Thanks for the enlightenment ODH.
It's been a long time since I climbed in the blueys, and have always regarded climbing anything less than a rope-length as practice for the real thing...
~> Might have to update my 100 ft manilla now too!
;-)


kuu

25-May-2017
3:35:13 PM

On 25/05/2017 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>Thanks for the enlightenment ODH.
>It's been a long time since I climbed in the blueys, and have always regarded
>climbing anything less than a rope-length as practice for the real thing...
>~> Might have to update my 100 ft manilla now too!
>;-)

Wasn't your manilla rope 120ft ?

i.e. three equal length pieces cut from the 60 fathom lengths manufactured back in those days.

🙂

There are 102 messages in this topic.