Rappelling Thread

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1 - 55 of total 55 in this topic

jstan

climber

Topic Author's Original Post - Jul 25, 2012 - 06:36pm PT

We have been getting death after death in rappelling accidents. When something happens so consistently one has to ask,

"Am I doing something wrong? Is there something I should be doing?"

Maybe. First of all we need to face the liability. If you tell someone they are doing something dangerous or wrong and they take your advice - and get killed - you have a huge psychological problem, if not a legal one. How you do what you do is more important than what you do. You can't proceed simply out of the egotistical notion what you do is the only correct way. That said....

As in all cultures, there is much in our culture that is out of kilter. Until Alex came along what you usually saw on TV was someone joyfully bounding down a rappel. Because of the lack of redundancy rappelling is one of the most dangerous parts of climbing. That fact never seems to come to the surface in a way that can be seen by the uninitiated. As people who have been through it all, it is our job to give this some visibility.

Have we been doing our job properly?

It seems inevitable that counsel for the public on this matter has to be constructed by an organization or cooperative group of organizations whose lawyers inform their process. Given that, the best minds and people with a wide range of experience need to hammer out the actual guidance. Then there has to be an effort to make this counsel available generally and to give it visibility as a critical public issue.

A number of wonderful writers are also climbers. If the guidance included well written descriptions of some of the really scary rappelling situations we have gotten into, it would be an account no one could put down. It would be a page turner. Its message would be that you can never tell what kind of a bind you will get into.

And when it happens you better know how to decide what has to be done.

That is the message that has to be gotten across.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Jul 25, 2012 - 06:56pm PT

Good points, JS.

Not to hijack this thread, but another wrinkle of this, where we are "not doing our jobs," and something for which I was just talking about with Bob Gaines, one of America's most experienced guides, is that there is currently no standardized protocol in place to investigate and document fatal climbing accidents. Like the recent death John is referring to on this thread - the woman dying at Suicide Rock a few days back.

As is, mostly well-meaning investigators rarely take enough detailed photos or sufficient notes to actually submit to record the crucial information. A comprehensive check list, with specific details provided, including measurements and so forth, would be an easy task if an on-line protocol was available for law enforcement and rangers to easily access.

As is, gear gets moved and untied and unclipped, few photos are taken and the result is that hard information is so lacking that reverse engineering things to a probable cause - usually not that difficult with the sufficient data - is often difficult if not impossible.

Anecdotal evidence (what people remember) is notoriously flat wrong in these cases. And so little to nothing is learned and we emerge from these deaths no wiser than before. Crime scene investigations have stringent protocols per most every aspect of inquiry. Same should apply here. It's not that hard.

I'll probably approach the AAC about working up something in the near future. I've often been asked to weigh in on these cases and find myself at a loss, or just guesstimating, for the lack of coherent data.

Any ideas are most welcome.

JL

Tony Bird

climber

Northridge, CA

Jul 25, 2012 - 07:14pm PT

the AAC's been investigating and reporting accidents in north american mountaineering for decades--without developing such a protocol?

TGT

Social climber

So Cal

Jul 25, 2012 - 07:22pm PT

Reporting.

Their investigation is of necessity confined to post accident documents.

John's talking about first responder protocol.

Don Paul

Big Wall climber

Colombia, South America

Jul 25, 2012 - 07:32pm PT

There would have to be an autopsy and an autopsy report for each. But these may not be available through FOIA due to personal privacy concerns. The exact details of the injuries probably wouldnt tell you much. How does the body get from the accident scene to the morgue? That's who you need to talk to.

In Apartado where I work there are several competing funeral homes. They are all shady and all believed to dispose of murder victims by cremation, for a price. When someone is killed it seems they race to be the first on the scene to get the business. No doubt, competition in that bueiness is pretty ruthless. Well, in one of my cases, one of the funeral homes was tipped off about the murder, so they could beat their competitors and get there first. They actually arrived before the person was killed, and all kinds of people saw them waiting.

In Yosemite I suspect it is the YOSAR group that does the body recovery. Your idea sounds like something that should interest at least some of them.

looking sketchy there...

Social climber

Latitute 33

Jul 25, 2012 - 08:44pm PT

Protocols are overdue. John and Bob are exactly right that in the absence of these, often important evidence that would assist in reconstructing the series of events leading to the accident is lost.

WBraun

climber

Jul 25, 2012 - 08:47pm PT

In Yosemite I suspect it is the YOSAR group that does the body recovery. Your idea sounds like something that should interest at least some of them.

YOSAR is a branch of NPS Law Enforcement.

All incidents are investigated and run by LEO.

YOSAR is not an independent entity in any shape, way or form........

Jan

Mountain climber

Okinawa, Japan

Jul 25, 2012 - 09:19pm PT

I think it has to be attacked at many levels. I am appalled when people find out that I used to rock climb and their first question is, "did you rappel?". It's in the same category as people saying. "You lived in Nepal. Did you climb Mt. Everest?". Most armchair adventurists know now thanks to Krakauer, that getting off a big mountain is as difficult as going up. Somehow rock climbers have not conveyed the same idea to the public and they need to.

The other lesson is that people seem to be relying too much on technology, assuming the rappel devices take care of everything and human attention is not needed. The Sierra Club used to have a standardized way of teaching everything, it seems we need to do that again with setting up rappels and lowering systems.

Given the age, a video of the process would probably have more impact that climbing writers. How about a series on rapelling, including how to document an accident scene, on utube ? Given the preponderance of cell phones with cameras, if people were aware, they could easily take a photo of the harness and rappel devices before they were removed if they only were aware to do so.

Curt

Boulder climber

Gilbert, AZ

Jul 25, 2012 - 09:21pm PT

As is, gear gets moved and untied and unclipped, few photos are taken and the result is that hard information is so lacking that reverse engineering things to a probable cause - usually not that difficult with the sufficient data - is often difficult if not impossible.

Anecdotal evidence (what people remember) is notoriously flat wrong in these cases. And so little to nothing is learned and we emerge from these deaths no wiser than before. Crime scene investigations have stringent protocols per most every aspect of inquiry. Same should apply here. It's not that hard.

Hey John,

I did a fairly detailed accident analysis of a friend's fatal rappelling accident here in Arizona in 2005 and I recall discussing that analysis with you.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1322431

Better documentation of that particular scene, including photos, before anything had been altered or moved could have perhaps aided a good deal in determining what actually went wrong in that case.

The general problem, as I see it, is that often accident victims are alive when good samaritans and professional first responders arrive on the scene and their first priority is obviously to provide medical assistance--and rightly so. If this means that the accident victim is made more comfortable by being moved or untied from the rope, removed from their harness, etc., that takes priority over everything else and thus critical information related to the accident analysis is lost.

Curt

Don Paul

Big Wall climber

Colombia, South America

Jul 25, 2012 - 09:29pm PT

In case you missed it, here's a scholarly paper about rock climbing accidents, in Boulder County, Colorado.

Jan

Mountain climber

Okinawa, Japan

Jul 25, 2012 - 09:49pm PT

Reference to the accidents in Boulder County?

Meanwhile jstan made the suggestion on another thread that rapelling should always be a two person endeavor with both people checking the systems before hand, especially when someone is likely to be distracted by giving a demonstration to a class.

That seems to be one of the major changes from trad to sport climbing. With trad two people or even three were on the ledge together while sport climbing is one person up high and another on the ground who may or may not be paying attention to the belay or the lowering process. Emphasis on individual performance and technology has not proven to be safer than the old style partnerships.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Jul 25, 2012 - 09:53pm PT

I wasn't talking about the cause of death, per se, but the cause of the anchor failure or whatever resulted in climbers falling to their deaths. The reason I know a first responders protocol (for fatal accidents) is needed is because I have many times been asked to try and reconstruct a probable scenario from sketchy or totally missing data simply because the first people on scene didn't understand the need to systematically document the accident.

In most cases the body could be cut away from the harness (easy) and removed from the scene. Body positions notwithstanding, it's mostly the configuration of the gear that will tell the tale. But unless that is thoroughly documented, you'd need someone like Curt to spend hours noodling what could likely be worked through in short order given the right data - especially pics.

The scenarios change dramatically with injured climbers, whose lives should always be given top priority.

JL

Ghost

climber

A long way from where I started

Jul 25, 2012 - 09:59pm PT

I'm not sure I understand what is being suggested. It sounds like you (John S) are saying that the climbing community has a duty to ensure that an extremely detailed analysis of every rap accident is done in order to protect the public.

Why?

Do you need a detailed analysis of every motor racing, or diving, or paddling accident to know that you shouldn't emulate a race driver until you've got some experience? Not trying to be a dick here, but I really don't get it.

There are relatively few ways to die rappeling. That there are so many deaths doesn't mean there are a thousand ways to die, just that a thousand people have died in three or four ways. How is a detailed analysis of every accident going to shed more light on this?

johntp

Trad climber

socal

Jul 25, 2012 - 10:05pm PT

Protocols are overdue. John and Bob are exactly right that in the absence of these, often important evidence that would assist in reconstructing the series of events leading to the accident is lost.

Maybe I'm missing something here. There are so many subjective variables involved on any climb, unless it involves equipment failure or protection practices that defy physics (i.e., triangle of death), the benefit of "CSI" type investigations does not seem to have any real value.

TGT

Social climber

So Cal

Jul 25, 2012 - 10:15pm PT

I've lived thru exactly one sample, but here are a few things gleaned from it.

1. The first on the scene are the survivors and they will have priorities much more pressing than preserving evidence.

2. The configuration of the gear may reflect that and have nothing to do with the accident and be totally misleading as to the proximate cause.

3. First responders are actually second responders and are typically volunteers and not trained investigators even when pros. They may disturb valuable evidence, but they may also inadvertently preserve misleading artifacts. They are also not generally trained in interviewing wittiness and have more pressing priorities than to do so.

4. Statements from eyewitnesses may get swallowed up in the LE / Coroners protocol and not be accessible to investigators. (this is where some policy changes would be in order)

5. All news reports and initial official statements need to be disregarded. Those least likely to know, have the big megaphones.

A better analogue than a crime scene would be an aircraft crash. The aviation community does not expect an instant analysis of an incident. We shouldn't either. Possibly establishing a protocol would benefit most from input from the aviation investigating community on the physical evidence side and from LE on the witness interview portion.

Just a few thoughts.

jstan

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Jul 25, 2012 - 10:18pm PT

No. Apparently I was not very clear. I am focussing on how rappelling is perceived by the public. Irene+'s thread would be an excellent first exposure for uninitiated people who have heard about rappelling and want to learn how to do it. Rappelling, like Russian Roulette is a fundamentally dangerous activity wherein anything can happen. And I make the point there really is no standard counsel out there on what precautions need to be taken.

Furthermore, present day climbers have the job of insisting that this vacancy be filled and filled properly.

apogee

climber

Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy

Jul 25, 2012 - 10:39pm PT

A more structured approach to accident investigation and documentation could certainly yield better information from which to learn, adjust habits, and improve techniques & equipment. The challenge to this is a practical one, as Curt has suggested.

Many (most?) incidences don't involve immediate fatalities...or if they do (as in the case of yesterday's Suicide fatality), the death occurs after the person has been evacuated. Until then, the priority is on scene safety, medical first response and evacuation.

Photographic documentation, as a part of first response, could help preserve some of the information that is otherwise lost during the scene & medical response, but this again poses a practical challenge: no-one's first priority is going to be to photograph the scene.

Still, a set of steps around approaching, documenting, and preserving information at an incident could be integrated into the types of climbing resources that are commonly in use: guidebooks, how-to's, and websites like this. There isn't much need to re-invent the wheel in developing these steps- Jed Williamson (longtime editor of ANAM, AAC) has well developed matrix of accident data. No doubt the broader insurance (& law enforcement) have templates that could serve as good starting points.

Don Paul

Big Wall climber

Colombia, South America

Jul 25, 2012 - 11:02pm PT

Jan the reference is an embedded link, in the words "scholarly paper" above. It may be hard to see. They did not go into a lot of detail and I think the unroped climbing category includes people who are not experienced rock climbers, but here is the basic breakdown:

Climbing fatality by climbing activity (1998 –2011)

Activity type Victims (%)

Unroped climbing 9 (39)
Lead fall 5 (21.5)
Lower off 3 (13)
Anchor failure 2 (8.5)
Rock fall 2 (8.5)
Mountaineering 2 (8.5)
Total 23

WBraun

climber

Jul 26, 2012 - 12:12am PT

no-one's first priority is going to be to photograph the scene.

I remember video documenting on scene drowning rescue and cpr and medical aid trying to revive the victim during a YOSAR call.

A bystander came up to me and said I was heartless assho_le for running the camera and I should turn it off and go fuk myself.

It was actual video documentation of evidence of the drowning and rescue with evidence of trying to revive the victim as a non public case file only.

Sometimes people just plain flip out not knowing what's really going on ......

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Jul 26, 2012 - 12:44pm PT

The fact that you can't see any real value is not a case of there not being value there, but rather, so long as people are out there just winging it, conclusions that might lead to preventative measures can simply not be drawn.

And again, if you were ever called on to try and sort through one of these accidents, you'd welcome good data and documentations - you can easily see why.

JL

Don Paul

Big Wall climber

Colombia, South America

Jul 26, 2012 - 12:59pm PT

I would think that any first responder should be taught that once they determine they cannot save the person, the accident scene should be treated as a potential crime scene until LEOs arrive and everything there should be treated as evidence. The police are well aware of the importance of preserving evidence, in fact it is a crime to destroy evidence (obstruction of justice). Any climber could probably sue his partner for negligence although what kind of loser would do this, I don't know. But the point is, it's potential evidence no matter whether they think a crime was committed or not.

John what about contacting the right person at the NPS, explaining the problem, citing some examples, and offering a solution that doesn't conflict with their policies and existing obligations. Maybe Werner can help you identify who determines these policies, learn what you can about the person, then call them up and get a meeting. I think it helps if you have some organizational affiliation to show you're not alone. Maybe they would want to do it themselves, and you could just offer your expertise.

mueffi 49

Trad climber

Jul 26, 2012 - 01:07pm PT

As I understand John L., his suggestion is more in the direction of evaluating the "probable cause" which led to the accident, such as:
1. top anchor failure
2. improper use of repelling device / locking carabiner or harness
3. lack of end knot / running through the rope
4. not tied in at belay while engaging / disengaging repelling device
5. Lack of personal experience with repelling ( frequency of repetition )
6. etc. etc

My gut - feeling is that a lot of the above listed mistakes might be the
" root cause " - only some form of record keeping might lead us to a better understand and hopefully reduction of these accidents.

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Jul 26, 2012 - 01:17pm PT

There may be a lot to gained from a detailed analysis and comparison of rappelling accidents, and how we can improve. At the same time, always emphasizing that climbing and rappelling inevitably entail significant risk, no matter what people believe or are told. Our ever-cheerful "Yer gonna die!" being a good example of truth in advertising.

Avalanche researchers have learned quite a lot about the sociology of avalanche accidents over the last few years, and it turns out that it can be a significant factor. Sociology, and other environmental factors, need to be included in the analysis.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Jul 26, 2012 - 01:28pm PT

My gut - feeling is that a lot of the above listed mistakes might be the
" root cause " - only some form of record keeping might lead us to a better understand and hopefully reduction of these accidents.
---

The idea is to build a data base from "probable causes" and arrive at some rules of thumb. Though not strictly definitive, if, for example, we know that 50% of all catastrophic anchor failure comes from small to medium cams jammed into incipient horizontal cracks, we can state quite certainly that extreme vigilance must be given to anchors built to this sketchy configuration.

Having had to write all those anchor books, I was amazed with how little was really compiled that might lead to such rules of thumb. Basically, the more info and data we can compile, be it social or ecological or technical or subjective of reptilian - just bring it on.

Also, he wrote:

John what about contacting the right person at the NPS, explaining the problem, citing some examples, and offering a solution that doesn't conflict with their policies and existing obligations.

First, I'm not talking about YOSAR, where everyone knows what's going on. If you get out into the sticks, it's pretty doubtful that there is any policy at all, other than what rangers and LEO's just make up on the spot. I have spoken to many who have been totally overwhelmed by these situations for the lack of any coherent strategy about how to even approach the situation.

JL

Majid_S

Mountain climber

Bay Area , California

Jul 26, 2012 - 01:36pm PT

I been tracking climbing accidents and fatalities for the past 10 years and not all of these records were published by ANAM and from what seen, just in 2010, more than 17 climbers were killed by rappelling accidents alone and more climbers die from it than from any other activities (other than avalanche).Almost all of these accidents involved experienced climbers and I personally refer this to "pilots switching to auto-pilot mode" and forgetting the basic check list.

pilots no matter how much experience they have, they are suppose to pull and follow the check list to make sure everything is done by order cause one mistake can be fatal.From anchor failures to using the wrong middle marking on the rope to falling from end of the line .......there is no end to this

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Jul 26, 2012 - 01:42pm PT

When I first started climbing in Yosemite, virtually every major accident was either a rappelling accident or a jumaring accident. Within my first year, I was confronted with the Madsen tragedy and the broken rappel sling on Goodrich Pinnacle. These changed two things I did:

(1) I never made another "blind" rappel without a big knot with a carabiner at the end of the rope; and

(2) I got a lot less stingy in replacing webbing at rappel stations.

If I understand what John S is saying, we need a compendium for the general public and those new to climbing to convey both the danger of rappelling (because it's the only terribly exposed thing we all do unbelayed) and some "best practices" to optimize the risk.

If I understand what John L is saying, we could use a more systematic method or reporting accidents in order to obtain as much information as possible to distill "best rappelling practices."

Both seem like good ideas, but I feel a little like the mouse agreeing that belling the cat is great -- I like the idea, but I'm unqualified to help. I hope those that can work to bring this about.

There is, of course, the most likely possibility, namely that I simply misunderstood one or both of you.

John

hillrat

Trad climber

reno, nv

Jul 26, 2012 - 03:08pm PT

From a noob-
Seems to me that these topics were pretty thoroughly vetted in the books i,ve read, including FotH, another whose title i,ve forgot, a couple more, then driven home in a single issue of Ax in N Amer Mtneerg. From my limited perspective it seems like people forget or never understand that they actually face death. Ignorance and complacency appearing to be common social factors. Thus the greater problem than simply defining best practices would be actually getting people to listen.

Something else i notice is the trend of fresh new gym climbers heading outside thinking a little TR practice and a lead class is sufficient. No book, no anchor class, no rap lessons. Maybe a whole different can o worms, but still...

Say you get a system of reporting developed and identify these best practices, still how do you reach people?

rgold

Trad climber

Poughkeepsie, NY

Jul 26, 2012 - 03:32pm PT

I think that significant societal trends underlie some of the problems we see in climbing. We live in a technological age, in which we regularly use engineering products we do not understand. We are pretty much forced to have faith in the engineering, and by and large that faith has been justified. Automotive progress, with its combination of braking, steering, and restraint technologies provides a good example.

The net effect is that, dangerous as driving is, most of us feel removed from any immediate danger, and this enables all kinds of inattention---there doesn't seem to be any limit to what has been reported---with texting while driving the one of the most astonishingly idiotic in an almost endless list of potentially fatal behaviors.

When people come to climbing, they do not automatically shed their faith in technology and sense of being well-cushioned from harm. And there are forces within climbing that help to keep the faith in technology unabated. For example, in sport climbing, we trust our lives to equipment installed by anonymous others whose actual skills and qualifications are unknown to us. Going outside climbing, there are various adventure industries that provide thrilling experiences at height, requiring the participants to willingly suspend their fear of falling by putting faith in the engineering and technology of artificial environments.

The problem is that, although engineering has made great contributions to climbing, the safety margins are still miniscule. Your Gri-gri does not come with front and side airbags and crumple zones to protect you if you screw up. And so, as you step out of your car and onto the rock, you have to initiate a massive paradigm shift about your exposure to danger, and it should not be surprising if sometimes we fail to make that critical accommodation.

It is natural as well for climbers to strive for engineering solutions for their safety issues. Rappel back-ups in case you let go and knots in the end of the rappel ropes in case you aren't looking where the ends are. I'm not arguing against these things, just observing that they are part of a very comprehensive trend to take the fallible individual out of the equation as much as possible.

But there is a possible unintended side-effect, as we see in texting while driving. The fallible individual adjusts their behavior because of a sense of remoteness of danger brought on, in part, by the very measures developed to protect from danger. And those adjustments can be dangerous.

Jstan suggests some collective responsibility of the climbing community for this state of affairs. He seems to go further and suggest individual responsibility for anyone proposing procedures that are not "safe" from some perspective. This is some very delicate ground indeed.

I don't know whether the climbing community, assuming there is such a thing, is capable of swimming against the societal stream. The case has to be made that climbing is dangerous in a way that is not easily dismissed or rationalized away. Dangerous in a way that is not remote and hypothetical, but immediate and concrete. Dangerous in a way that cannot be ameliorated by engineering and still requires sustained and acute personal awareness.

Not only does this sense of immediate danger run contrary to commercial interests, but it may also be in conflict with individual psychological adaptations, and so meet with vigorous resistance. Look at the ease with which climbers dismiss the safety advice of gear manufacturers (mere liability-avoidance warnings, they say) for an example of this rationalizing tendency at work.

So: procedures are important, but attention much more so. How to we get others---indeed how do we get ourselves---to pay better attention. This is my understanding of the import of jstan's question.

Ghost

climber

A long way from where I started

Jul 26, 2012 - 03:48pm PT

When people come to climbing, they do not automatically shed their faith in technology and sense of being well-cushioned from harm.

+10 to that!

A guide friend offered an interesting insight into that idea following a bad accident at Squamish around fifteen years ago.

In that case a climber had fallen from the crux of the Sword pitch of the Grand Wall, ripped three cams, and decked on the top of the Split Pillar. I don't believe he died, but there sure was a lot of blood still there a week later.

The corner below where he fell takes absolutely bomber cams, so, I wondered aloud, how could he have ripped three of them? What my friend said was interesting and very much underscores rgold's comment. His view was that people new to trad climbing were far more likely to screw up cam placements than stopper placements. Why? Because cams were complex-looking machines that, like the car-braking systems rg mentioned, would never fail. Just plug them into a crack and you were safe. Stoppers on the other hand, were just simple lumps of metal, scary and completely untrustworthy.

So the beginner placing a stopper was likely to work and work and work at placing it until s/he was absolutely certain it was safe, whereas a cam was assumed to work automatically and not require any attention to its placement.

rectorsquid

climber

Lake Tahoe

Jul 26, 2012 - 04:11pm PT

...just in 2010, more than 17 climbers were killed by rappelling accidents alone and...

17 people died in a year because they were rappelling?

I think that the reason that the LEO's and paramedics don't treat a climbing accident like a crime scene is because these things are uncommon from their point of view. Sure, it may be a lot of climbers dying per the total number of climbers but per capita, it's insignificant. I think that 6x that number of kids are abducted by strangers every year and 400x that number of people are killed by drunk drivers in a year.

Heck, snake bites account for upwards of 20,000 deaths a year. I would worry more about snakes than the knots at the end of my rope if I were a betting man.

Dave

P.S. Statistics came from internet sources and might be completely wrong.

jstan

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Jul 26, 2012 - 04:12pm PT

Rich:
I pretty clearly described the delicate issue that you raise. If you tell someone what to do you had better be right and you had better be sure your suggestion is properly implemented. Neither of which you can sure of.

Your discussion of how we are affected by the culture in which we are submerged, is quite comprehensive. That is what I was raising. I keep hearing we are the smartest creatures who have ever lived( on this planet). I am taking this to be apt. Really smart creatures would not simply wring their hands with every new rappelling death. They would look for proximate and underlying causes. And then would do something about it.

Once a population of people exceeds some number, around forty, each person has available the rationalization, "By myself I cannot do anything about that."

Giving up that rationalization is painful. But it is a good pain. Not like the pain of helplessly viewing one rappelling death after another.

graniteclimber

Trad climber

The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division

Jul 26, 2012 - 04:42pm PT

Maybe. First of all we need to face the liability. If you tell someone they are doing something dangerous or wrong and they take your advice - and get killed - you have a huge psychological problem, if not a legal one. How you do what you do is more important than what you do. You can't proceed simply out of the egotistical notion what you do is the only correct way. That said....

Yes, but how often does that happen? Whenever I this happening, the advise was always to do something safer. Giving advise to make things safer saves lives.

A much bigger problem is when you see people doing something dangerous and wrong and say NOTHING.

Majid_S

Mountain climber

Bay Area , California

Jul 26, 2012 - 04:59pm PT

rectorsquid

Visit rockclimbing.com and I posted many of them there. last few weeks alone, we had three fatality

As I said before, as long as climbers switch in to auto-pilot without their check list, there will be fatalities especially while rapping

Ghost

climber

A long way from where I started

Jul 26, 2012 - 04:59pm PT

Really smart creatures would not simply wring their hands with every new rappelling death. They would look for proximate and underlying causes. And then would do something about it.

I'm still not sure about all this. It seems to me -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that there is no real mystery about rappel deaths. They occur in only a very few basic ways, and those ways are not hard to understand.

If it was only beginners who were dying, then yes, there might be some point in a safety campaign. But my impression is that a lot (most?) of the deaths occur when experienced climbers simply fail to pay attention.

Weight your system before unclipping? Yup, that'll save you from dying because you forgot to connect to the anchor or thread both sides of the rope.

Make sure the two strands are the same length? Yup, that'll keep you from plummeting.

Tie knots in the ends? Yup, that'll keep you from rapping right off your rope.

But most of the people who die rappeling already know all that. So I'm not sure why you should feel guilty when I (or any experienced climber) die by rapping off the end of my rope. Or what sort of campaign you envision that could prevent my death.

Now lowering and top-roping accidents are a whole other thing. There is a place where a major safety campaign could maybe make a difference.

DanaB

climber

Jul 26, 2012 - 07:02pm PT

For example, in sport climbing, we trust our lives to equipment installed by anonymous others whose actual skills and qualifications are unknown to us.

Yes, indeed. I've posted this before, but very few people in the 'Gunks seem to check rappel slings or what they are attached to. They simply "clip into the anchors."
Drives me crazy.
They are not anchors.

A bit of drift here.

I don't know if people introduced to climbing in the last (pick a time frame) practice their climbing less safely than climbers who have been climbing (pick a time frame). But from what I have observed, they definitely have the perception that climbing is basically safe.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Jul 26, 2012 - 07:44pm PT

It's my impression that most rap accidents were caused by conditions leading up to incident, usually involving a distraction, and a lack of mindfulness per the details which long ago became rote.

So while we can die only if the anchor blows, or we come unhooked from the line, or rap off the end somehow, there are 10,000 ways to get distracted and overlook some basic thing that will render us a Mother's Lament.

JL

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Jul 26, 2012 - 08:35pm PT

JL is correct, there is no great mystery regarding the causitive factors of rappel deaths. They have have always occurred and they will continue to occur at about the same frequency and there is little we can do about it.

rgold

Trad climber

Poughkeepsie, NY

Jul 27, 2012 - 01:10am PT

Every three years I take a defensive driving course. It seems kinda worthless to me, but my insurance company gives me a nice rate reduction for it. They are, of course, onto something I'm missing. Trivial as it may seem, they have actuarial data indicating that people drive more safely after taking the course, regardless of what the people thought they were or were not getting.

In terms of content, it would be easy to make up an analogous course for climbers. A bunch of facts and some illustrative videos. They'd all say, as I do with my driving course, that they already know all this stuff. And then, if the insurance company experience is right, they'll go out and be more attentive for a year or two or three, at which point they'll need a refresher.

The problem is motivation. I get 10% off my total insurance premium, so it is well worth my while to give up two evenings and be a little bored. What would get climbers to do the same thing? I'm sure the insurance companies come out ahead as a result of the accident reductions. But who would profit from better climbing safety? In general, no one that I can think of. But there is the insurance company mechanism for those who join the AAC and avail themselves of the rescue insurance. What if that cost could be reduced for suitable course participation?

The only other avenue would seem to be some kind of charitable mechanism, a store or gym giving discounts for climbers who take the course. One might argue that fewer injured climbers means more sales and memberships, but it is far from clear that there would any kind of noticeable commercial effect.

All pretty far-fetched, I know. My point is that there may be things that actually can be done to get people to pay better attention, perhaps even in spite of themselves.

phylp

Trad climber

Millbrae, CA

Jul 27, 2012 - 08:44am PT

I agree with this statement. At some level, the vast majority of rappelling accidents are caused by user error, not objective danger like a rock falling from the sky and cutting ropes while on rappel. Like Majid said, there is a very basic checklist. You check the anchor and its soundness, your equipment and how it is configured, and you follow basic protocols for staying clipped in. Many people do not follow the checklist they know, systematically, or they never learned it properly, or they deliberately chose to omit steps to save time.

In my view, placing gear on lead requires far more experience and subtlety than rappelling.

Don Paul

Big Wall climber

Colombia, South America

Jul 27, 2012 - 10:12am PT

few people in the 'Gunks seem to check rappel slings or what they are attached to

The gunks is a place many people learn to climb, and people probably assume that if everyone else is using a rap anchor it must be safe. If you look for Gunks videos on youtube, there's some pretty frightening stuff. Its because you have a high concentration of beginners in one place.

I'd agree that most accidents, climbing or other kinds, result from inattention. I personally don't go into autopilot mode when rapelling, in fact I get paranoid because it disturbs the normal safety systems. I'd be much more likely to space out while swinging leads and reracking the gear.

jstan

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Jul 27, 2012 - 12:06pm PT

More often than not when you hear of a problem it involves either rappelling or people on a descent. Psychologically people are all amped for an ascent and their faculties are fully engaged. Trouble is expected. Coming down people are like a horse headed for the barn. The effort is all over. We assume no trouble ahead.

The new climber may actually consider rappelling the first phase of climbing to learn, since it is so easy. But it is the part of climbing with no redundancy. Any rappeller who does not check everything twice amd begin planning for the possible stuck rope, is in a dream world.

Going up you can generally rectify any mistakes, getting off route, manageable falls, whatever, because the error is visible in time and you know the ground. You get off route on a descent you are committed. Suddenly the barn is not the prospect. The prospect is a huge roof below which you have no idea where the next anchor may be. Or the weather is getting only worse. Plus you just came down the ground never looking it over to see whether you could get back up, with the energy you have left. How many of us get beta on both ascent and descent? Once on top the barn becomes the whole point. It is all over.

As far as simple risk is concerned we have climbing exactly backwards. We should start at the top do the descent and only then do the ascent. It is the same for the experienced and for the noob. Very democratic.

Tom Rohrer may be one of the few people who have it right.

When you have a single anchor, how many of us leaves gear for the last person? Few if any.

There is nothing we can do?

In fact, we are the only people who can do something about it.

Edit:
I have not been back to the Gunks since 86. I hear that few people now walk back along the top and prepared anchors are present. Bad idea I think. Gives people exactly the wrong message and greatly increases overall risk.

Never mind it increases the amount of time a party ties up a route.

cliffhanger

Trad climber

California

Jul 27, 2012 - 12:41pm PT

Excellent ideas.

Direct experimentation could resolve many safety issues. For example the Death Knot, is it really worth while? Find a ledge and do some test pulls. Hang ups seem to happen only when the rope is making a sharp bend over an edge. I think a fast pull will carry any knot past the ledge edge and hang ups elsewhere, as the momentum keeps the rope going thru rough spots and the speed means the rope bounces off the wall reducing contact with hazards. One way to reduce the chances of a hang up is to use twin ropes, but instead of 2 separate ropes use just 1 rope, twice as long, doubled up. Then there is no knot to catch on the pull.

Dee ee's solution to the edge hang up problem: "always extend the anchor to below the topmost edge if you can, no matter how many runners or pieces of chopped off rope it takes. Get the rap point over the edge. "

Poll and compile information. For example I don't think anyone has had a deadly hang up because of knots tied in the end of the rope. The potential problems of a knot in the ends of the rope are far far less than the danger of rapping off the end. In low wind conditions any rope jam will be close to the fall line and it would be a simple matter to swing over and unjam it. Only with strong winds will there be a serious problems with the ropes getting stuck far off the fall line and then, even an unknotted rope is in danger of jamming. In strong winds you need to have all of the rope with you (clip the ends to the harness), to be fed out as you go.

Experiment on out of the ordinary scenarios. Such as descending a thin single rope that may even be new and shiny slick. Ways to add extra braking. Try the wrap the rope around the thigh trick.

A little experimentation while on belay would show how dangerous the Dulfersitz rappel really is. Change your orientation a bit and the rope can easily ride up out of the crotch and you're airborne.

Have results confirmed or refuted by other experimenters.

DanaB

climber

Jul 27, 2012 - 02:03pm PT

I hear that few people now walk back along the top and prepared anchors are present.

Nobody walks off. People rap off the top of Horseman, and the walk off from there is very short and very easy.

Again, thread drift.

About a month ago there was a discussion on Gunks.com. about a fixed anchor. The anchor in question was about 20 feet below the top of Son of Easy O, and it was the typical ragtag collection of old pins, irretrievable cams, and ratty slings, and it allowed people who have a 70 meter rope to toprope the route. Someone decided to clean all of this out and place three good pins and new slings. He also said that he will replace the slings as needed and offered to upgrade, monitor, and periodically replace and fix as needed other such anchors.

I think the inevitable result of this approach is that people will less inclined to check anchors. Why should they if someone else is installing safe anchors and periodically checking them? This seems to be what most people want - at the 'Gunks, anyway. Of course, this is the norm at sport climbing areas, but these anchors won't be bolts and lower offs; they will be slings, trees, random bits of gear, etc.

Majid_S

Mountain climber

Bay Area , California

Jul 30, 2012 - 06:36pm PT

Two climbers were killed yesterday in Canada while rappelling and this bring the number of rappelling fatalities just in the past few weeks to more than 6 people in North America

CANMORE — Two climbers who fell to their deaths from rock face near Canmore were friends and co-workers from Calgary.

The bodies of the two climbers were recovered yesterday after falling nearly 100 metres while rappelling from a steep wall on the west side of Heart Mountain Creek east of Canmore.

The woman and man have now been identified, according to RCMP.

“The individuals have been identified and the medical examiner’s office are now engaged with the families,” said staff Sgt. Brad Freer with the Canmore RCMP.

“Really it’s a tragic accident. There is no foul play,” he said.

The pair were found laying a few metres apart in a dry creek bed by hikers who witnessed the fall.

“They were rappelling together on a single rope,” Freer said. “It was a rappelling accident. They were coming down the mountain on an anchored rope. The rope was anchored up top.”

Active mountaineers describe rappelling as “one of the most dangerous” backcountry pursuits.

Whereas sport climbers latch onto bolts that have been pre-drilled into the mountain, repellers often rely on their own equipment and anchors.

“You’re depending on one anchor,” said Darren Vonk, who has been sport climbing for six years. “There’s no safeguard.”

Heart Creek Trail is a popular hiking, scrambling and rock climbing area used by 100 to 300 hikers on any given day on the weekend. Climbers expressed shock Sunday. “It’s awful to hear about something like that,” said climber Adam Lindenburger. “It sends chills down the valley.”

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/rock+climbers+died+fall+cliff+were+Calgary+workers/7008920/story.html#ixzz229FDYtZS

Trad climber

JTree & Idyllwild

Aug 1, 2012 - 09:36pm PT

jstan writes

A number of wonderful writers are also climbers. If the guidance included well written descriptions of some of the really scary rappelling situations we have gotten into, it would be an account no one could put down. It would be a page turner. Its message would be that you can never tell what kind of a bind you will get into.

I'm currently writing a comprehensive book on Rappelling, to be published by Globe Pequot Press.

How to avoid the common mistakes that lead to rappelling accidents is a big part of the book, and I analyze the most common scenarios in detail,along with some specific cases.

As John Long mentioned, if you study rappelling accidents you see the same three of four scenarios played out again and again.

ß Î Ø T Ç H

Boulder climber

bouldering

Feb 14, 2013 - 07:20pm PT

[Click to View YouTube Video]

S.Leeper

Social climber

somewhere that doesnt have anything over 90'

Feb 14, 2013 - 07:33pm PT

oh phuq, that smarts.

jstan

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Feb 14, 2013 - 07:42pm PT

Facing the other way, he might well have broken his spine. Paraplegia.

Captain...or Skully

climber

Feb 14, 2013 - 08:26pm PT

Only a fool leaps into a rappel. I hope that "whack" taught him something.

Stevee B

Trad climber

Oakland, CA

Sep 2, 2014 - 11:21pm PT

My wife and I were climbing Sunday at Dozier Dome and noticed the majority of folks rapping down rather than doing the walk-off. Granted, the walk-off was a pain, but I've noticed I've become more and more averse to rappelling in recent years.

Neither of us are strange to it, we both canyoneered a ton over the years, perhaps more than we've climbed. I used to think of rapping as a lot of fun. It's just started to feel to me like it's not a justified risk as much as it used to. I think it's the aggregate of seeing so many stuck ropes, rope burns, loss of control, rockfall, etc. Anyone else noticed that drift in their descending preferences? Not taking a position on the Dozier raps, it's clearly the sensible choice and situation appropriate, just got me thinking.

clinker

Trad climber

Santa Cruz, California

Sep 3, 2014 - 06:28am PT

but I've noticed I've become more and more averse to rappelling in recent years.

I have always had an aversion to rappelling, but more of an aversion to iffy down climbs. I like to hike, so if there is a walk off I take it. I like North Dome gully, the Kat Walk not so much.

Jon Beck

Trad climber

Oceanside

Sep 3, 2014 - 07:44am PT

I used to think of rapping as a lot of fun. It's just started to feel to me like it's not a justified risk as much as it used to.

The risks in rappelling can be easily managed. The risks while actually climbing can not be managed as easily. I suspect that rappelling accidents more frequently result in death when compared to accidents that occur while actually climbing. This disparity amplifies the apparent risk of rappelling.