Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
wbw
climber
'cross the great divide
|
|
Couchmaster, the accident that you are refering to at Smith, all those years ago involved a close friend of mine. She was the person at the top of the climb, and if I remember correctly, her anchor failed. Deb had a wonderful spirit about her, and her death touched many in a very profound way.
At the memorial service, there was a poem that was printed for those of us that were grieving. It had Deb's picture, and I know I have it saved somewhere; I do not know if I can find it in a timely manner, so I'll paraphrase the poem in the hopes that it helps Woody's family and friends. It really helped me 23 years ago.
When I'm gone
Think of me
But not too much
Cry for me
But not too much
Do not let your sadness at my passing
Prevent you from smiling at my memory.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
We don't know the details yet, but it's possible the accident here in WA Sunday involved folks who were sport rappelling as opposed to climbing. That doesn't make it any less tragic or alter the need to follow some basic protocols when operating near an edge, but simply that the technical analysis may be somewhat less relevant. But this was definitely another heartbreaker in that the third in the party who was not injured lost a wife and brother; and the children of the brother who died were in close proximity and witnessed the accident.
We lost another NW stalwart, Jim Anglin, not that long ago at Smith as he was walking from the parking lot taking the first step on to the descent trail down to the lower gorge. As the trail went from lawn to the edge, and from perfectly flat ground to the 'trail', he stepped down about a foot or so where you also have to make a ninety degree turn at the same time and lost his balance. It appears he may have simply carried too much forward momentum into that turn due to the pack of gear he was wearing. The point being we should all be reminded to watch the details from moment you leave your car until you return to it - it's not necessarily just the 'climbing' per se that's hazardous.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Jstan, definitely. As another old guy who preaches 'stance-as-craft' with anchors as backup, I too find today's reliance on anchors a fairly remarkable. It's definitely a result of our wealth of gear and the rise of bolting not unlike the art of belaying suffering in the rise of autolocking devices.
My father is a retired UAL 747 captain and I still remember his off-the-cuff comments about an accident at O'hare in Chicago back in the 80's. It as an LA-bound American DC-10 that crashed on take-off after one of the engines fell off due to the mechanics having used a forklift to put it back on damaging the engine mount in the process. I asked my father about it before any of the details were known and he said, "it must have been young pilots".
I asked him why and he said the DC-10 could have finished the flight to LAX with no problem relative to power and control alone, that the accident happened because the pilots, following American Airlines flight rules, throttled back to come around causing the affected wing to fall out of the sky. Dad said older WWII pilots learned to fly in single engine aircraft and anytime there was the slightest problem with their aircraft they instinctively step on the gas to gain altitude, or as he said the old saying goes - 'altitude is time'.
He said he knew they must have been younger, post-WWII pilots who came up learning on multi-engine planes and who took having more engines for granted so tend to be more casual or cavalier about an engine failure or loss and because of it decided to follow the company's flight SOP for such an incident. He said any older pilot would have instantly jumped on the pedal and finished the take-off gaining altitude so they could assess the problem - company flight policies be damned.
Both the climbing and in flying examples illustrate generational changes in approach to some extent, even if in the case of climbing most older folks have also dropped stancing in exchange for the convenience of anchor tension. Even in cases of gear or bolt anchors I've personally placed I still always strive to be able to hold a fall, or lower a lead or second, purely from my stances unless there is just no possibility of establishing a stance.
As John says, there's definitely merit in [re]calibrating your thinking to where you treat you anchors as a backup rather than as the primary means of you stopping, holding, or lowering a partner.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
In industrial bakery environments, the rookies are the safest. They're scared of all those moving belts. It's the old timers that lose fingers, hands and arms.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Lovegasoline,
The the two posts above related to the NW accidents and the aviation comparison are the first two posts I've made relative to this accident. On the whole, I'm somewhat aghast at the way the ST community has reacted on-line to this whole affair. I expect this sort of debacle on rc.com or cc.com - I don't on ST and have been unpleasantly surprised in that regard, and stunned folks couldn't simply wait for the official technical analysis before devolving multiple threads into unrestrained sprayfests.
Clearly a combination of technical, personal, and circumstantial elements play into any accident. That's why we do 'technical' analyses to segregate out those elements and focus on 'the facts' rather than the personalities invovled. I know the rc poster you're speaking of and I'm sure he was being forthright regardless of what 'line' he may have crossed for some folks in the matter - but it may not have been the best idea posting what he did when he did. Personal history relative to previous 'incidents' or 'behaviors' may or may not be relavant in any particular accident - and again, that's one of the things that can often be established by a good technical analysis and why they're worth waiting for.
Ditto in this case, Woody's 'tempermant', attitude, or level of 'casual/cavalier' may or may not have been relevant. From what I gather from the facts Woody's role and responsibility in the accident could only entail two possibilities: a) interrupting Al who likely was in the process of getting established at the anchor to bring up Wendell and b) failing to doublecheck Al's situation relative to the anchor before being lowered. Checking knots and harness rigging is one thing, checking anchoring is yet another as is patience relative to simply waiting for Al to bring Wendell up before being lowered.
I'm not familiar with the climb in question, but not wanting to wait for Wendell to come up could have been about crowding at the anchor or impatience or both - I'm not sure it mattered either way. Not checking Al's anchoring may or may not bring up another generational aspect of climbing involving old guys. In that regard of checking each other's harness, knots, etc., I for one still cringe when someone wants to check my business or have me check theirs - I rope-solo for half of all my free climbing and do double check all my business and it also just grates against all of my old school sensibilities and notions of what climbing is 'all about' relative to self-reliance. I still tend to view such safety tactics as a [necessary] attribute of climbing as a group / social activity in today's world and probably a very necessary component of a scene where everyone is distracted socializing. It could be Woody had similar sentiments and so didn't check Al on that basis alone - we'll never know and there's probably a lesson and warning in there for me to not be so onerous about other folks checking my business.
But, back to the point, Woody's history as a climber or belayer didn't appear to play into this accident in any way - he was being lowered. From what I can tell the onus was on Al, regardless of any interruptions by Woody, to insure he was setup safely at the anchor whether for just being there, bringing up Wendell, or lowering Woody. I would suspect distraction was more or less the sole culprit here and that attitudes, histories, and the interactions of personalities were very minor contributing factors at best.
Also, with regard to highly experienced old guys and 'casualness' - it's a two-faced sort of deal. Yes old guys can be as prone to it as anyone else, but on the other hand they are operating from a wealth of personal history and experience which lets them know and recognize the true parameters and boundaries of what constitutes 'safety'. Sometimes something may alarm your sensibilites around what is 'safe', but in reality they are completely fine.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
In that regard of checking each other's harness, knots, etc., I for one still cringe when someone wants to check my business or have me check theirs...
Your system is my system, you can be damn sure I'm going to check it. And I appreciate it when someone keeps an eye on me.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
"Your system is my system, you can be damn sure I'm going to check it. And I appreciate it when someone keeps an eye on me."
Again, there are many generational aspects to this side topic. You can take my comment out of the context of my post to make your comment, but it doesn't change the fact there are differing subjective opinions on this tactic or approach to safety. Those may or may not have played into this accident.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
healyje, not sure what context it was taken out of, but I hope I did not misinterpret your remark.
Double checking was beat into my head by old timers. The ritual of signals, likewise. I'm a recent technical climber, but was mentored by old hands on trad routes, not in the gym.
In 10 years of climbing, I've caught one tie-in slip up. That person wasn't insulted.
|
|
atchafalaya
climber
Babylon
|
|
After reading almost every issue of ANAM and different internet boards regarding accidents, I always learn the same simple lesson; climbing is dangerous, pay attention and be careful.
However, mistakes still happen. Its not generational, or a paradigm shift. Mistakes will always happen.
Perhaps the lesson is avoid accident reports and the technoweenie analysis/speculation threads, and keep trying to be safe while climbing.
|
|
Karen
Trad climber
So Cal urban sprawl Hell
|
|
healyje, you offered some very valid points, you seem to get it...!
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
re: Woody's history as a climber or belayer didn't appear to play into this accident in any way - he was being lowered. From what I can tell the onus was on Al, regardless of any interruptions by Woody, to insure he was setup safely at the anchor whether for just being there, bringing up Wendell, or lowering Woody. I would suspect distraction was more or less the sole culprit here and that attitudes, histories, and the interactions of personalities were very minor contributing factors at best.
i have no interest in starting any arguments here, but you guys are now assigning blame, and drawing conclusions, all based upon speculation.
IMO, what happens after a climber comes off of belay at the anchor, everything that happens after that moment, is a team effort. if there is not a guide/client or a mentor/noob dynamic, then all responsibilities are shared, including (and especially) the responsibility to communicate clearly about every critical act or decision that impacts any aspect of the safety system.
the the only way it would have been entirely one party's "fault" (and not the others) is if one guy was off taking a piss over some edge and then returned and the other guy said "here tie in i've gotchya".
(even then, the returning climber really ought to say "lemme see")
otherwise, everyone is right there, and everyone is responsible for everything. it's called redundancy, and it's a critical part of the system.
i for one have NEVER been lowered off (or rapped off) of anything that i had not personally checked out.
none of that is an attack on woody.
it's just that neither of them were up there alone, so far as i am aware...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Matt: "... but you guys are now assigning blame, and drawing conclusions, all based upon speculation."
No, I'm not - there was and is no 'blame' - there was only an accident in which sequence of unfortunate events unfurled.
The very notion of 'Blame' is completely misplaced in such circumstances as far as I'm concerned. Both objective hazards and pilot-error occur in climbing. While, as you point out, everyone involved played a role, that doesn't mean [technical] causality can't be assigned. BUT, that should in no way be confused with 'blame' or 'judgment' - those are terms wielded by living and provide no good service to the dead or to those survivors we are are all lucky to still have with us.
|
|
Fingercrack
Trad climber
Just left of there
|
|
Matt is correct
The "loweree" has the responsibiliy to check the "lowerer" and vice-a-versa.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
The topic of reciprocal partner checks clearly has easy-to-implement, commonsense utility in climbing, would likely have prevented this accident, and is certainly relevant in any thread titled "The Lesson", but I sense in this discussion it is now being used to play a somewhat different 'blame game' relative to explicit technical causality. Yes, we are all individually and collectively responsible, but don't confuse 'responsibility' with causality. There is no more point in using that rubric to either avoid, distribute or deflect specific elements of causality than there is in attempting to assign 'blame' or cast 'judgments'.
The focus should be on grieving our losses, healing our survivors, and [as always and again] learning our individual and collective lessons.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
This just occured to me, and although someone if not many may have mentioned it already, it has not been woven into this thread like it ought to be:
THIS ACCIDENT HAPPENED ON THE DESCENT.
Rappelling and lowering accidents happen with alarming frequency in the mountains and on the crags. It's easy to understand why - when you are leading the climb, you are focused on the lead, and because of your focus you are far less likely to make a stupid mistake.
But then you reach the top, and you relax a bit. You made it. You knocked the bastard off. You're cool, you're a hardman. You relax your mindset. You're tired, you're ready to go home, have a beer, you start thinking about the next climb, whatever.
You relax your guard, you make mistakes. I do knott know if it is true that "most" accidents happen on the descent, but we all know that a helluva lot of them do.
So be careful when you're climbing - it's dangerous, and there is always the possibility that you will end up dead if you blow it! And be especially careful after you have completed your climb, and are relaxed - this is a great time to make a simple but costly mistake.
DFU.
|
|
the Fet
Supercaliyosemistic climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
"I for one still cringe when someone wants to check my business or have me check theirs - I rope-solo for half of all my free climbing and do double check all my business and it also just grates against all of my old school sensibilities and notions of what climbing is 'all about' relative to self-reliance."
Everyone is entitled to their opinions and here's mine. I appreciate it every time someone double checks me. If you are uncomfortable with someone double checking you, get over it, they may just save your life. I have caught harness buckles not doubled back and unlocked biners on a few occasions. When I solo or I'm at the top of a pitch by myself I mentally clear my head for a second then double check my system from end to end before I climb, lower, or belay. A second set of eyes with a fresh perspective is better than you double checking yourself. When you climb with a partner your safety is their safety. If you get killed halfway up a climb you put your partner in jeopardy too.
I'm don't know the statistics in rock climbing, but if the chance of a person screwing up the system resulting is death is say 1 in 10,000 if two people check it the chance is 1 in 10,000 times 1 in 10,000. 1 in 100 million is much better odds than 1 in 10,000.
I try to remember to double check even when I "know" it's not needed. It should be part of your routine and you decrease your odds of a problem by a huge amount.
"From what I can tell the onus was on Al, regardless of any interruptions by Woody, to insure he was setup safely at the anchor whether for just being there, bringing up Wendell, or lowering Woody."
Wrong. The onus was on both of them. They were partners, they both had the responsibility to make sure the setup was safe. I double check my partners no matter how experienced they are.
"I would suspect distraction was more or less the sole culprit here and that attitudes, histories, and the interactions of personalities were very minor contributing factors at best."
With all due respect there is a lesson to be learned here and it was stated in the first post.
|
|
the Fet
Supercaliyosemistic climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
"But then you reach the top, and you relax a bit. You made it. You knocked the bastard off. You're cool, you're a hardman."
So true. I have made it a point to recognize that feeling and tell myself it's not over until I get back to flat ground. I have also said that to my partners, e.g. "we're not done yet".
It's not just rapping/lowering too, the North Dome Gully, the Kat Walk, etc. can be dangerous if you let down your guard.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
"It ain't over til you're in the parking lot."
And your car starts. And you have a beer in hand.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
"And your car starts. And you have a beer in hand."
And then the cops show, and then ......
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Well Fet, I never said there weren't lessons to be learned - I'd say in this case there are quite a few of them. But I personally think if you or others want to have an extended discussion on reciprocal partner checking you would likely be better served by a separate thread. As to the differences between my opinions and yours, we disagree, which is o.k. by me, but sorry, there is nothing 'wrong' about anything I've written here. Before any notion of 'collective' responsibility kicks in we are each ultimately responsible for ourselves and our actions which we contribute to the whole.
EDIT: Again, if you are concluding I am assigning 'blame' or judgment in by the phrase "...the onus was on Al to..." you are entirely mistaken - my discussion was purely related to technical causality. In this or any other case, and regardless of presence or absence of any safety checks, each and every one of us is 'responsible' for securing ourselves to an anchor at the top of a pitch and checking to insure that we accomplished that as well. That's a 'fact' and not a matter of 'blame' or a 'judgment' call. And if people can't or don't recognize that, then the trend over time will be that folks will become overly reliant on reciprocal checks as a first line of defense against mistakes when such checks should really only be a last line of defense against edge cases where a mistake has somehow escaped ruthless self-checking.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!