Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 76 of total 76 in this topic |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Feb 8, 2007 - 12:15am PT
|
jstan mentioned statistics in a previous thread... a quick look (which I might do a little more research in later when I have some time, Friday evening?) uncovered the following for estimates.
The number of "rock climbers" in a year is a difficult number to determine. In 1994-1995 the USFS conducted one of its periodic "National Survey on Recreation and the Environment" in which they asked who had gone "rock climbing." The answer was answered positively for 7 million respondents (over the age of 15). This was reported in an interesting thesis: [url="http://faculty.weber.edu/tgrijalva/therese%20cavlovic%20dissertation.pdf"]Valuing the Loss in Access: An Institutional And Welfare Analysis of Rock Climbing on U.S. Public Lands[/url] by Therese Anne Cavlovic.
The Accidents in North American Mountaineering statistics for 1994 and 1995 can be averaged:
number of accidents: 163
number of people involved: 344
number injured: 133
number killed: 32
For all years, 61% of the accidents occured on rock. For the purpose of estimating, multiply the above numbers by 0.61 to get the numbers for rock climbing:
number of people involved: 210
number injured: 81
number killed: 20
This year was before the popularity of indoor climbing gyms, so lets assume that the people who said they were rock climbing actually did it outside. Further, I would assume a small fraction of foreign climbers compared to 7 million.
An estimate of the probability of being:
-in an accident 30 in a million,
-injured 12 in a million,
-killed 3 in a million.
How many times have you gone rock climbing? In 30 years, say you go climbing at the same rate as those did in 1994-1995.
...Then you have expected to have been involved in an accident about 0.1%, have an injury about 0.04% and been killed 0.009% in that time period.
Everytime you go out you roll the dice...
|
|
climbingjones
Trad climber
grass valley,ca
|
|
What isnt a roll of the dice? Nothing. I am not even going to mention the driving odds. The only thing that is safe is posting on this cozy forum. Unless Whitey starts flailing and hits you with some childish insult. And that can really do some damage.
Or what about the everpresent "Bushbot Brownshirt Neocon" blast?
That'll leave a mark.
Climbing is as safe as you make it.
I think...........................
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
I seem to be an anomaly. It's got to be climbing with Locker.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2007 - 12:31am PT
|
assuming a 2 person party,
the accidents are reported when one is injured (80% of the reports)
or killed (20% of the reports)...
...Woody'd be an anomoly if the accidents were reported and made it to ANAM somehow... did you guys get written up ever?
|
|
spyork
Social climber
Land of Green Stretchy People
|
|
Ed,
What are the odds of being hit by gunfire when driving thru Oakland, CA?
I don't know, but my car got hit by a bullet last year, which missed my head by 1/4".
This stuff is all random, I figure I just need to live my life and let the dice fall where they may.
Steve
|
|
Todd Gordon
Trad climber
Joshua Tree, Cal
|
|
You'll never get out of this life alive........
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Every time you go out you roll the dice.
Nope, never works like that. There is intelligence behind it and there is a controller. There are no accidents.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Not an excuse, you caused it.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Thanks, Ed! This is really interesting stuff, though as you remark, climbing can ALWAYS kill or injure you. And, as was noted on another thread recently, just because you've done something 1,000 times safely, doesn't mean the 1,001st time is any less risky than the first time.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of reliable information on this topic. There was a report about it in one of the magazines about ten years ago, which I'll try to find.
There are some significant definition problems:
 What is a climber?
Distinguishing between the various subspecies of climbers and mountaineers, and their respective incident rates.
What is climbing?
My guess also is that a lot of accidents aren't reported, in AINAM or anywhere, and that the number of climber-days (climber-pitches? climber-mountains?) per year isn't well known. Whether it could or should be further sub-divided, e.g. by difficulty or type of environment is also a challenge.
I'll keep looking - somewhere I have copies of articles, or even links, about this.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
yeah, but, how many times did each of those 7 million climb? is that 7 million people/days?
What is an inury?
what is an accident?
I have climbed over thirty years, a lot by some measures, but I suspect way less than 7 mil climber/days. Though I feel I am relatively pristine, all things considered, I have had both accidents and injuries, nothing that has kept me away from the crags for very long, though.
Am I a statistical anomally? I'm off the chart by those numbers above (too many accidents) but a lot of people who have climbed less than me are more banged up.
What really are the odds? how do we measure them? I haven't waded through the link and I'm looking for the clif notes, so excuse a possibly niave question. Has anyone done this sort of inquiry in some meaningful way, beyond the anecdotal?
are there numbers for soloists?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Well Chuckcar you said "It was meant to happen, there was nothing I could do about it."
You always have choices to make to do something about your life BEFORE the result.
You are the architect of your destiny.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2007 - 01:04am PT
|
The accidents reported in ANAM are "signficant" accidents, reported by the SAR team in the area that conducted the operation or by the team when self-rescue happened.
The thesis discusses what the definition of "climber" and "climbing" is... there may be "number of times" data in the report, but I didn't try hard to get a copy, yet.
While we all get banged up at the cliffs, we don't always report it. However, if it happens at a serious enough level, it is reported by someone.
This topic is nibbling around the issue raised concerning the probability of catastrophic failure of the climbing protection system... more later. This is just the baseline.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Now Chucky do you even read and think?
It might take you a few lifetimes before fully understand what I just told you above. It's not so simple as black and white for us to understand in one sitting as we do with our limited senses.
Good luck.
|
|
marky
climber
|
|
wbraun, do you try to be trite or is that just your shtick?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
I'm telling the truth whether you understand or not.
You can accept it or reject it. It's up to you. I'm not here to try and change anyone. Only you can do that.
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
Hey Ed, that fatal climbing accident at Sunny & Steep in Red Rocks a few years back (we were stuck on the highway getting back to the campground for over an hour as the helicopter staged off of the road) did not make it into ANAM. So I guess the local sheriff and/or BLM didn't report it. I would guess that a good number of real climbing accidents don't get reported.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
LA, Ca
|
|
"..Nope, never works like that. There is intelligence behind it and there is a controller. There are no accidents. .."
Werner, this sounds so dogmatic. Show me the reason.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
"..Nope, never works like that. There is intelligence behind it and there is a controller. There are no accidents. .."
" Werner, this sounds so dogmatic. Show me the reason "
I will give this a shot.
It is based on the understanding that everything is interconnected, everything is God. Therefore there are no coincidences or accidents. You draw into your life those experiences you need based on Karma. I don't really understand where rockfall fits into this except to understand that it is balancing some action in your past. This action may not have occured in this lifetime. It may have occured in a previous lifetime.
That is basically how I understand it.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Very good John.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
Thanks Werner. These are new concepts for me as I was raised strict southern Babtist. I like my current teacher. Things are making a lot more sense to me. I still get the willies when I try to get my mind around a new concept, but that is easing up. Those teachings that you will burn in hell for eternity were driven into me.
" Wow, that's harsh "
No more harsh then Gravity. Just a law to live by. Without gravity, there would be no purpose in climbing. If you open yourself up to understanding Karma then life becomes a lot easier. You end up working with it instead of against it and then you can " go with the flow ".
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
Nope, don't have an answer. Still learning.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
" Sounds like an 'eye for an eye' to me "
That would be true if you didn't know about Grace. Grace is God's get out of Jail free card. All it requires is you understanding your mistake and vowing not to do it again. The vow must be made with a true heart. You can't cheat God.
Learn by Grace or learn in the school of hard knocks. It is your choice.
Crowley, it currently looks like the United States is heading for the school of hard knocks. Arrogance and pride will eventually catch up with us.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
So I am only left with "Dang!"
Couldn't have said it better myself. Of course there is always the hope that more people will wake up and realize that war and greed and pride are not the answers to lifes difficulties. I certainly spent a good deal of this lifetime asleep. Maybe others will wake up.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
" What if this is as good as it gets? "
Impossible, Too many saints have demonstrated that there is more. That plus even though things look bleak at times, humanity has raised its consciousness. 500 years ago the U. S. constitution coudn't have existed. Nor could the Bill of Rights. Too many imperialist Kings.
Yes, right now we are going through a phase in which our fears are being revealed to us, but this is actually an opportunity to grow out of them. As we reveal how our fear is causing us to give up our freedoms and our lives, then we have the chance to wake up and say to heck with the fear. We want a better way to live. We want more out of life then just responding with anger and fear.
Then, when enough people have woken up, change can happen.
Of course, with the way things look in America, things may get darker before the dawn. Too many people are holding on to their fears and just don't see it.
Bush is just revealing our fears to us. No reason to hate him for that. We are responsible for our fate. This does not mean that we have to go along with his program of fear. It means that we have a chance to learn and do better. Grace is possible, but the lesson must be learned before it is given.
|
|
mcreel
climber
Barcelona, Spain
|
|
Back in '88 or '89 or so, I was climbing on Arch Rock, and I kicked a rock off the top. Once we got down we saw that Peter Croft and Werner were soloing up a couple of routes. Who's karma was good that day, mine or theirs? Another time we drove down to the valley with a haulbag packed, planning on doing the Salathé, but there were 4 or 5 parties on it already. I said I didn't want to do it since there was too much risk of rockfall. But my partner convinced me to do Freeblast, which as many of you know is out of the fall line of the major part of the Salathé. As I was following the slab pitch, we got bombarded by baseball sized rocks, a very close call. It turned out that there was a really incompetent party above the Silver Dollar. I believe in luck, not karma.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
These stat discussions are seriously compromised because without seeing the data spread and knowing more about the sort of climbers involved and the rock they were on you can't really do anything but mislead yourself.
For instance, climbing on solid slab that is well traveled, with no tourons at the top or climbers above you, you will likely never see rockfall.
Climbing on a choss pile with climbers above and rock tossing tourons above, you will see a lot of rock fall, and there will be some rock fall related accidents at this god forsaken crag.
lumping both areas together just makes a mess.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
karma, shmarma!
|
|
MisterE
Trad climber
White Van
|
|
The more risk one takes, the greater your awareness of danger becomes, the more one can avoid/respond to said risk.
This combined with one's karmic balance are what really determine your chances out there.
I plan on living a long, mildly dangerous life.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2007 - 11:28am PT
|
I agree with you to a point dirt but the idea is to get an estimate of the odds, which I think the numbers probably do a good job at.
In the past these considerations were limited by the denominator... "how many people were climbing" rather than the numerator, how many accidents. I can look in the ANAM and generate a detailed breakdown of the types of accidents, and we can debate forever what does and does not constitute a "climbing accident."
The real problem is to get a sense of how many people climb. So what are you odds given a total climber population, of being involved in an accident, being injured or being killed.
I don't think the numbers are at all compromised. The question is: do they have any meaning? I think yes, simply because our experience is that reportable accidents are rare, though a reportable accident almost always has a serious injury or death associated with it.
Reporting to ANAM is not comprehensive, as Greg mentioned above. Given 10's of reported accidents a year in North America, you might guess that 10% of all accidents that should be reported are not. That looks like a reasonable ball park. Still, this provides a starting point for the discussion on risk.
As far as luck, karma, divine intervention, fate, humor, etc.... it is a natural reaction which absolves the accident victims, and the community of responsibility. "Hey, his number was up, nothing we could do about it," and then we continue to practice climbing in the same old ways without consideration of what these "accidents" mean.
The next level of analysis puts the blame at the individuals, "hey, he had it coming, we was a real hotdog, irresponsible, testosterone fueled, ... climber" translates to the idea that individual choices determine the accident, "I would never do that." Of course, when you find yourself in a similar situation it might just be too late to do anything about it.
I'd have to say that for what it is, climbing seems to be relatively safe, statistically. Given all the potential hazards. However, we have the opportunity to consider how to make it safer with every accident. A careful analysis of all the parts of climbing is time well spent. John Long did us all a great service in authoring those two books on anchors. He would admit that it was a "work in progress" in terms of suggesting specific solutions to the "anchor problem." I think we should take advantage of this and build on it with continued efforts to analyze our practices and make them even more safe.
Certainly no one here can argue with that.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
I'm all for analizing practices, and I'm also for meaningful stats, but let's have a correct interpretation of those stats.
As for figuring out if climbing is risky or not, it really depends largely on the climbers involved. IT's no good to be a dare devil, what-me-worry kind of guy, look at the low death per 1000 stats of climbing, and think, hey I should go climbing, it's safe!
On the other hand, if you are careful, you have training, and you climb with good safe climbers, not many sporting activities are safer.
To me, a meaningful look at stats would be by the area, and would involve how much rockfall an area sees, and how many people climb in an area, what experience and training the accident victims had, and what sort of rock is there, for starters.
I just see too many pitfalls in global stats for them to be very useful for anything other than the most general statements.
|
|
Magritte
climber
|
|
Part of what Werner may be addressing (he can correct me if I'm wrong) is there are basically three contributors to these events. One; user error, two; equipment failure, three; natural event/act of God.
I believe in God. I believe that man or woman can put him/herself in a place of wreckless danger. We do this knowingly either by ignoring good practices or not educating ourselves about such practices or just being lazy because of fatigue or arrogance.
It's surprizing to see a discussion of when to retire gear only have three posts. One of the posts being a timeline (three to five years).
Climber practices include everything from trying to keep the new-car smell on your gear to gear thrown in a heap in a car in the sun, filthy with dirt and food or whatever.
I was in Bend at Metolius one year and Doug Phillips, the owner, was on his way out to Smith Rock one day to do maintenance on some bolts he noticed needed to be replaced. He did this on a regular basis. Impressive to me because it was as though he had an attitude of ownership, not of a crag, but as a climber.
Two of the three things that can take your life or hurt you, and your loved ones, you have a great deal of control over. I think that's what Werner was also saying. If you just blow off your responsibility to replace your gear, or maintain routes, or get educated about good climbing hygene and protocol. It sounded like he was saying you have waaaaaaay more control over this than you think.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Discussion of rockfall here suggests some of us are including subjective danger in the discussion and others may be limiting themselves to objective danger only. The two are defined by the difference in our ability to control danger. Weather, rockfall, and a belayer who is ticked off fall into one class. Into the other falls all our other mistakes.
Cheerily,
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
Ed, you are right, the denominator is important. Likewise, how you define the denominator depends on what probability you wish to calculate.
For example, you might want the probability of accident per pitch, per day, per year, or even per climber, or any of a multitude of others.
An insurance company writing a term policy might want to use a climber-year.
|
|
Doug Hemken
climber
Madison, WI
|
|
Ed,
Well, I'm really interested in where numbers come from and what they mean.
The Forest Service asked people if they had been climbing in the last year. My experience with collecting survey data on outdoor recreation suggests to me that the number who say "yes" is a bit higher than the reality. A shorter recall period would be more accurate ... but then the USFS data would not be comparable to surveys they have going back to the 1950s. Take 7 million to be on the high side, not the low side as estimated by Cordell et al.
My experience with accidents and Accidents is that the quality and consistency of reporting varies enormously from reporting unit to reporting unit. Reporting from a place like the Tetons or Rainier is very consistent from year to year, while reporting from places like Devils Lake can be great one year and non-existent the next. Accidents has reported on maybe 10% of the accidents I have been in or seen myself. So take the numbers from Accidents to be on the low side. My gut says you need to multiply them by a factor of 2 or 3 at least.
Despite which, your main point that climbing accidents are rare events is, I think, a reasonable conclusion.
I wouldn't agree that 1 person in 10 involved in an accident is killed. I think this high ratio should give you an idea of what kind of reporting bias there is in Accidents.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
HI Ed,
" As far as luck, karma, divine intervention, fate, humor, etc.... it is a natural reaction which absolves the accident victims, and the community of responsibility. "Hey, his number was up, nothing we could do about it," and then we continue to practice climbing in the same old ways without consideration of what these "accidents" mean. "
This would be a misunderstanding of Karma. Karma means you can control your experience. Because the universe is so vast many people define events as luck, but this only means they are unaware of the laws of Karma. There is much to be learned from the laws of karma. The problem is that it is often much more complicated then simply, " the climber should have stayed on belay or the climber should have replaced his gear ". But just because it is more complicated does not mean that you can't still observe that these were contributing factors and work to avoid them. That is part of the lesson of Karma. If you refuse to learn the laws of life, then you will eventually suffer the consequences. Everything we do interacts with everything else. So pay attention to learning the physical laws of life, ie gravity hurts if you ignore it, and pay attention to learning the spiritual laws of life, ie, karma is a bugger if you also ignore it. They both have play.
Moosie
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Fattrad that was funny.
John M and Margritte, very good.
And Ed I apologize if it looked like I threw a big wrench in your thread. Sorry.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Intellectuality is another casualty of the bewildering age of Kali.
Modern so-called philosophers and scientists have created a technical, esoteric terminology for each branch of learning, and when they give lectures people consider them learned simply because of their ability to speak that which no one else can understand.
In Western culture, the Greek Sophists were among the first to systematically argue for rhetoric and "efficiency" above wisdom and purity, and sophistry certainly flourishes in the twentieth century. Modern universities have very little wisdom, though they do possess a virtual infinity of technical data. Although many modern thinkers are fundamentally ignorant of the higher, spiritual reality, they are, so to speak, "good talkers," and most people simply don’t notice their ignorance.
From the symptoms of Kali-yuga.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2007 - 04:38pm PT
|
Not so difficult to explain karma to an LLNL physicist who has more than a passing understanding of karma and the philosophical well from which it springs.
Interesting that Chuckcar feels the need to resort to sterotyping as a way of understanding the members of the ST Forum. I forgot to welcome you when your first posted September 19, 2006...
And Werner, you always have appropriate comments, and I do not doubt for a minute your genuine interest and significant contributions to safety over the years. I do worry that there are Forum responders that might use your arguements as a way to say... let's not understand accidents and how they effect climbers.
As far as criticizing the statistics, well, we really have only ourselves to blame, really. We do not go for "regulating" climbing so we have data from which we can infer statistics. But to explain what the key issues are to study, we have to have some information that goes beyond our own, gut feelings. So we start with what we have. Doug has some experience with this... I did see the WI report but I couldn't get my hands around the numbers easily, the quick reference I found on the web didn't contain the numbers I needed to quote instantly. But I will try to dig a bit deeper later.
Anyone else know of studies that could shed some light on some of these numbers?
One thing I thought of were the yearly statistics from the 'Gunks regarding the total number of climbing passes sold. They sell both yearly and daily passes. The ratio of these gives insight into who climbs a lot (yearly passes make sense only if they are cheaper than the sum of daily passes, at least that is how I thought of it when I used to get them)... answering a part of the question.
We can also estimate climb lengths, etc, mostly from the distribution of climbers to various regions (where different types of climbing are engaged in).
So any help is worthwhile.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
I wonder what statistics the insurance industry uses in order to justify the significant riders that they impose on life insurance for climbers? As part of my divorce settlement three years ago, I had to get life insurance with my daughter as the beneficiary. The fact that I was a climber (I told the truth) raised my premiums to over double what they would be otherwise. And of course I'm thinking, what about the fact that we are in (quite a bit) better shape than the average Joe?
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
If God decides who dies and when they die then we have no choice. If that is the case then statistics mean nothing and there is no roll of the dice. Just wait your turn and do whatever you choose.
On the other hand, if you can take action to keep from bad things happening by deciding to get proper training and to not climb K2 then those statistics become very important.
Most religeuous people seem to beleive in an active God when it is convenient and sometimes they believe in people instead. At times, people get themselves killed by their own actions and at other times, God takes them in an untimely manner. It's all very strange how it changes depending on how well you know the person who died. Their age seems to be a major factor too. Babies are always taken by God and old criminals and mountain climbers always do themselves in.
But I love those statistics. Makes me want to climb more and drive less (knowing the odds of getting killed in the car).
Dave
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
Hi Dave,
" If God decides who dies and when they die then we have no choice."
Your understanding of God is similiar to others but not necessarily correct. In your explanation God treats us like we are puppets. Yet the major religious teachings explain that God made us in his image, meaning we have power, we have choice and we have free will. God placed us in this domain with certain laws. Some laws are physical laws, such as gravity. Some laws are spiritual laws, such as Karma.
You have most likely heard of the law, " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you ". Perhaps you do not believe it is a law, yet many people do and choose to live their lives accordingly. Just because you might not believe there are spiritual laws does not mean they do not exist and that your life is not subject to them.
It is funny to me how people can only see God in the extreme. Either there is a God and he makes all choices. Or there is no God.
What if there were a third option? What if God actually did give us free will and set us here with certain guidelines. And what if God were willing to help us if we asked? Perhaps not as a magician, but as a guide. And it was our choices that dictated the kind of life we lived. Not some capricious God living off in the distance, but our own choices inside a set of laws. And what if God offered His/Her help? Then the choice of how we live and how we die would up to us, at least in how we interact within the laws of this universe.
Both physical laws and spiritual laws exist. The key is to understand how they coexist and live your life accordingly. Not ignoring either.
Of course, then one could get into the relationship of the two sets of laws. Which has precedent over the other? Jesus revealed that spiritual laws have precedent over physical laws. He walked on water. He changed water into wine. He healed the sick.
Modern Christianity teaches that Jesus was extra special and therefore we can't do what he did. Yet Jesus himself said that we could do everything he did and more. John 14:12
So if we are not able to, then the question becomes, " Why?".
And there begins a whole nother quest. One which I am not prepared to try and answer right now so will leave to those better prepared then myself. That plus this is getting long and I don't wish to bore you. haha... I know that there are those who cringe at the mere mention of someone like Jesus. Oh well. I apologize for disturbing your day.
Peace
|
|
Jay Wood
Trad climber
Fairfax, CA
|
|
I talked to a girl at the gym last night- hadn't seen her for a bit. She has a cast on her leg. Got out of bed in the morning when her foot was asleep, and stood on it wrong. What odds?
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
Yes, I tore my achilles tendon while dancing with a 70 year old women in church. Still can't walk properly as I couldn't have it fixed do to problems with blood clots. What are the odds.
It is kind of funny because I was raised devote southern babtist in a church that believed dancing was a sin. Uh oh.......cursed....my bad luck....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 9, 2007 - 02:54am PT
|
OK, more statistics...
from this interesting paper about an injury rate estimate for indoor climbing
http://www.allenpress.com/pdf/weme_17_308_187_1901.pdf
significant injury rate: 3.1 per 1000 hours
if I go to the gym for an average of 2 hours per session, then I'd expect to a significant injury in 150 times to the gym. Assuming I go twice a week, average, this would take 75 weeks or about 1.5 years between "significant injuries." This seems almost reasonable.
This paper refered to a paper on outside injury rates: Outdoor injury rates:
[url="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1026367&blobtype=pdf"]Rock-Climbing Injuries in Yosemite National Park[/url]
in which the number of climber-days are estimated to be 25,000 to 50,000 in Yosemite in 1987 (Dill, private communications).
The 1988 ANAM had the following 5 accidents reported for Yosemite National Park:
solo ice climb
stuck in weather on "Great White Book"
ground fall on p1 of Steck-Salathe
RNWFHD - fatal rock fall
ground fall solo "Peruvian Flake"
the accident rate would be something like 1 in 5,000 to 10,000 climber days. With fatalities being something like 1 in 25,000 to 50,000.
How many climber days in a year? a weekender maybe 70 days? so the accident rate in the Valley would be 1 in 70 to 140 years for a climber, that is, almost never. And the fatality rate 1 in 350 to 700 years.
If this is the number per year, then the probabilities are something like:
0.01% to 0.02% probability of accident per year
0.004% to 0.002% probability of fatality per year
most interesting quote from this paper:
"The most unusual sources of injury included a bat bite and an episode of assault by another climber with a piton hammer."
Anyone know the assault story?
In 1990 it was estimated that there were between 150,000 and 500,000 active rock climbers from:
Webster 1990 (1990, November-December) To bolt or not to bolt. Sierra Magazine, pp. 30-36
Gooding in Moser, 1990 (Moser, S. (1991, April) A tenuous hold. Outside Business, pp. 27-29
The 1991 ANAM had the statistics:
136 accidents
245 persons involved
125 injured
24 deaths
Take the 61% fraction of accidents being from rock climbing... then
83 accidents
149 persons involved
76 injured
15 deaths
translates into:
0.03% to 0.1% people involved in an accident per year
0.02% to 0.05% injured per year
0.003% to 0.01% killed per year
In a 30 year climbing career?
0.9% to 3% would have been involved in an accident
0.6% to 1.5% would have been injured
0.09% to 0.3% would have been killed
Pretty low rates, actually..
OK, for the Shawangunks 50,000 climber visits/year (2007)
And the statistics?
2005 ANAM
fatal leader ground fall (failed cam)
17 climbing accidents
2004 ANAM
fatal leader fall
23 climbing accidents
2003 ANAM
29 accidents
so:
0.05% accidents per year (with injuries)
0.001% fatalities per year
similar to the Yosemite values above...
Bottom line, significant injury accidents (reportable) seem to occur at a rate of about a few in 10,000 per year, and deaths a few in 100,000 per year.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Thanks for the statistics.
You have interchanged per day and per year for Yos and Gunks.
Yosemite
"0.01% to 0.02% probability of accident per year
0.004% to 0.002% probability of fatality per year"
These numbers are for days, not years. 1 fatality in 25,000-50,000 climbing days.
Webster
"0.03% to 0.1% people involved in an accident per year
0.02% to 0.05% injured per year
0.003% to 0.01% killed per year"
1 fatality per 10,000-33,000 particapants per year.
Shawangunks
"0.05% accidents per year (with injuries)
0.001% fatalities per year"
These are also per day. The fatality number is incorrect or you used data without showing it.
1 fatality per 75,000 days given the data.
"Bottom line, significant injury accidents (reportable) seem to occur at a rate of about a few in 10,000 per year, and deaths a few in 100,000 per year."
You have made a misstake by changing per day to per year for yosemite and gunks.
If we assume 70 climbing days for the averega climber. A pretty high number. We get.
Yosemite
1 fatality per 350-700 climbers per year.
The gunks
1 fatality per 1000 climbers per year.
Webster
1 fatality per 10000-33,000 participants per year.
The first two are actually very bad numbers compared to other aktivites. The bad numbers are probably there because most people dont climb 70 days per year.
Statistics for hg/pg is about 1 fatalitity per 1,000-5,000 participants and year.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 9, 2007 - 11:24am PT
|
Thanks, never post late at night.. the statistics are difficult in light of the fact that we don't know how the participation numbers were generated.
My guess is that the 'Gunks and the Yos statistics are telling us the number of climbers, total for a year, based on some method of calculating climber visits... in the 'Gunks it's just the total revenue for climbing passes, where they sell a certain number of season and day passes, and try to figure out from those stats the total number of "visits" for a season. The people sitting at the Uberfalls don't off season, if I recall correctly.
Similarly for Yos, where "day" replaces "visit" in the 'Gunks scheme. I thought this would make sense simply because of the reputation of the places, the proximity to large cities, and the ease of access. The numbers of climbers at the 'Gunks and at Yos around the same time could very likely be similar, that is, somewhere in the mid 10,000's per year.
So the stats should be per visit I believe:
Yosemite
0.01% to 0.02% probability of accident per "visit"
0.004% to 0.002% probability of fatality per "visit"
Webster estimates are for a total population of climbers that during a single year the probabilities would be:
0.03% to 0.1% of climbers involved in reportable accidents
0.02% to 0.05% of climbers are injured in reportable accidents
0.003% to 0.01% of climbers are killed
Since the accidents are "per visit" the above represent an estimate of what would happen on a given visit.
'Gunks
0.05% accidents per visit(with injuries)
0.001% fatalities per visit
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 10, 2007 - 01:17am PT
|
ok, now how about anchor failures?
I went through the ANAM for Yosemite (the Valley as well as Tuolumne Meadows) and came up with this list:
2005 10 accidents,
2004 9 accidents, 1 anchor failure
2003 5 accidents
2002 5 accidents, 1 catastrophic belay anchor failure
2001 13 accidents, 2 anchor failure
2000 10 accidents, 3 anchor failure
1999 12 accidents, 2 anchor failure
1998 9 accidents, 3 anchor failure
1997 6 accidents, 2 anchor failure
1995 11 accidents, 1 anchor failure
1994 10 accidents, 1 anchor failure
1992 8 accidents, 1 anchor failure
1991 4 accidents, 1 anchor failure
1990 4 accidents
1989 9 accidents
1988 6 accidents
----------------------------------------------
131 accidents of which 18 had anchor failures as a cause.
That is, 14% of the reportable accidents had anchor failure as a contributing cause.
What is not known is how many falls were taken in which the anchors held, and there was no reportable accident.
What we do know also comes from ANAM.
Through 2005 there were 2887 accidents caused by a "fall or slip on rock". There were 183 accidents when an anchor pulled out. If we assume that anchors were used for all 3070 accidents, then almost 6% of the anchors "tested" in falls severe enough to cause injuries pulled out.
These two types of accident causes represent 39% of the total ANAM accident reports.
The possibility that 3 anchors would fail when sequentially loaded with a big fall would be something like (0.06)^3 = 0.0002, the dynamics of the fall is an important consideration, this calculation assumes that each anchor feels the same force, probably not correct.
Of course the one catastrophic belay anchor failure (on the DNB) may not quite have happened this way, we'll never know. However, if the forces were equalized on the three anchors the failure probability would have been reduced considerably. The sequential probabilities are not as small as you'd like.
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2007 - 10:27am PT
|
The possibility that 3 anchors would fail when sequentially loaded with a big fall would be something like (0.06)^3 = 0.0002, the dynamics of the fall is an important consideration, this calculation assumes that each anchor feels the same force, probably not correct
Actually, the assumption is that the probabilities are independent. There are no assumptions about force.
By "3 anchors", do you mean 3 pieces of a single anchor? If so, then the independence assumption probably gets weakened, since you have perhaps selected from the population of serious falls a subset of very serious falls. That would cause the probability to rise.
But if you are getting at the issue of anchor safety, I think RG's previously expressed idea of having climber built anchors tested at various force factor falls would be better, since the probability of two piece failure is complicated by the pre-stretch in the rope which would increase the load at the second piece, but reduced by the energy reduction from the first failure.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 10, 2007 - 11:36am PT
|
I'm all for experimental data, but an analytic setting can help guide our understanding. I'm all for testing! I think I know, however, how it will turn out.
The anchors independently resist the force, with the first blowing, then the second, then the third, with the force being essentially the same in all three cases.
The fact is that the force changes as each piece is blown, "the dynamics," but just how that happens is not specified and probably depends on why each piece blows.
I can thing of two ways of expending energy in a "blown piece:"
1) the friction of dragging the piece out of its placement.. essentially the normal force times the distance dragged is the work done by the pull. The energy is dissipated as heat and reduces the energy of the fall, so subsequent pieces are dealing with less energy.
2) the failure of a piece of protection, or the rock, where the material can be thought of as deforming elastically to the inelastic limit where it fails, the energy stored in the compression of the material is then lost.
This sort of thing requires an actual measurement as the physics involved can be calculated in only ideal, probably non-realistic cases.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2007 - 12:00pm PT
|
In a test once I had my nose about 18” from a blowing piece. Thought I might be fast enough to see how it happens. Sparks and dust all over the place and the pin got warm. Until there is motion however, there is no “work” as we define it at an anchor.
I keep coming back to the dissipative rope though. You can imagine the situation where the pin(non extending anchor) fails just as the leader is bought to rest, and all the energy has been absorbed in the rope and friction over biners. Then, at the peak force the first anchor blows leaving the second piece to deal only with the weight of the leader and any subsequent upward acceleration. We are seldom, if ever, at such an ideal case so the assumption of equipartition of force across all anchors seems a good conservative approach.
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2007 - 01:47pm PT
|
jstan is right on the energy dissipation. It is the integral of the force times the stretch, plus the factors that Ed mentions.
I was not suggesting so much measuring the forces, etc. as statistically evaluating anchors built by climbers, which I think is in keeping with the thread - but rgold put this idea up on ST before, IIRC. That is measure the probability distribution of failure of climber-built anchors as a function of the fall factor.
As far as independence, what I was getting at is that the probability of a two piece anchor blowing (serially) is perhaps not the product of the probabilities of a single piece blowing for the reasons that I mentioned - an event selection mechanism that is biased toward the serious events (the first piece blowing) (increasing the odds of failure of the second piece) mitigated by the energy reduction of the first of serial failures.
But the analysis presented so far is interesting and somewhat consistent. Is it consistent by selection, or is this all of the data collected?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 10, 2007 - 02:21pm PT
|
But the analysis presented so far is interesting and somewhat consistent. Is it consistent by selection, or is this all of the data collected?
I am posting everything that I have hoping that you all will look critically at it and help develop an interpretation that makes sense. If you know of more or different data post up!
If you work the numbers differently, or see that I did something incorrectly, post up!
This is not an easy thing to understand. In the calculation of 6% anchor failure there are a lot of assumptions... it is an estimate, but it may be invalid. I invite you all to think about it and question it... being critical is the only way to make progress in understanding this problem.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 10, 2007 - 02:25pm PT
|
work is being done in compressing the rock, even though you can't detect the deformation by eye... because the Young's modulus is so large...
the energy stored in the rope is dissipated also, but the rate of dissipation depends on the rate of elongation, once the elongation stops, the dissipation stops. Ropes are "over damped," they don't store much energy in the extension. The energy goes into heat production which occurs faster than the stretching or releasing that happen in a fall.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2007 - 03:05pm PT
|
Well you know,
I've seen guys put anchors in boulders that that you can kick with your boots and they move. Now if those had failed it wouldn't be the gear which was at fault but the .......
You know who.
So does that kind of stuff figure into the statistics?
And then I've seen guys belaying with no anchors at all .....
|
|
Tomcat
Trad climber
Chatham N.H.
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2007 - 03:17pm PT
|
Has a lot to do with where. In thirty years of climbing both rock and ice I've pulled people off the cliffs twice,rendered aid to injured on cliff one other and done about nine carry outs.Of those I think four were reported in AINAM.The capper was a guy that fell off the last pitch of High Exposure,went through the trees,landed on jagged talus and broke his ankle.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 10, 2007 - 03:19pm PT
|
Werner, it is a good point, the anchor technology is good, the anchor practice isn't... the statistics only tell the tale of woe because people get in a situation where their "bluff is called."
You know the bluff... you hear it all the time... "that pro is just psychological," "my partner won't fall," "I've done that route a million times."
Every once and a while, nature calls you on it. And that's when you might end up in these statistics.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2007 - 04:48pm PT
|
Long ago when we switched to an entirely new anchor technology the most pressing question was, “ Is that anchor I just put in strong enough to hold the force I may apply to it?” It was a really specific question and I was not inclined to blow it off. So I built a little rig that could static load anchors to 3000# and tested a bunch of my placements up on the cliff. I got the very specific answer I needed and quickly began to trust my placements.
Later on when the camming machines came out I did not get around to testing or trusting them and did not use them. Since they move round so readily I actually would want to perform dynamic tests on those. Again for placements I had made. Those tests would be too tough to do solo. Here you would want to find an area of a cliff with a wide variety of placements, rig a boom, and get together a bunch of people who want to test their placements and to repeatedly haul the dummy up for the drop test. These new digital camera/cell phones would even allow the people down below to see each placement right before the drop. I would purposely push placements into bad orientations to see if they could move a lot and still hold. A worst case test if you will. Actually sounds like fun.
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Flatland, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2007 - 06:18pm PT
|
That's a bitchin' report. Good numbers...
I don't believe that I'm rolling the dice every time I go out to climb. I take little chance when climbing. Always within my imagined limits.
Good thread.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2007 - 07:12am PT
|
"If we assume that anchors were used for all 3070 accidents, then almost 6% of the anchors "tested" in falls severe enough to cause injuries pulled out.
...
The possibility that 3 anchors would fail when sequentially loaded with a big fall would be something like (0.06)^3 = 0.0002,
...
However, if the forces were equalized on the three anchors the failure probability would have been reduced considerably. The sequential probabilities are not as small as you'd like.
"
I think that make way to many assumptions in your argumentation and that you use a statistic in one area in an other area.
My understanding. An anchor failure in the reports is in most of the cases a single piece that blows in the middle of a pitch. Am I correct?
You make a statistic analysis that show that anchor failure (with the above definition) is quite common in accidents.
The next step is the incorrect one in my opinion. Then you take the statistics for anchor failure and try to show that the likelyhood for a belay anchor failure is not that low.
The main problem I see with this is that a lead anchor is often not a good piece of protection but a belay anchor most of the time is pretty good.
In your argument I see failure of bad pro, small nuts, small cams, heads etc, placed on lead in bad places showing that my perfect cams in my belay can fail. This is atleast how I read it.
The reason for anchor failure, both lead and belay, can be so much so statistics doesn't really show anything at all.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 12, 2007 - 11:35am PT
|
Raymond, it is certainly possible to dismiss all such considerations as "irrelevant." So let me recast my thoughts.
I was trying to estimate the rate of anchor failure in a "practical" situation, that is, as a climber does it on a route. I have two inspirations for this, one is a now forgotten Italian climber who had expert climbers place pitons, and then tested how good those placements were (much worse than expected) and jstan's test of passive gear, which ultimately convinced him, a self described conservative climber, that such gear was trustworthy.
The ANAM has at least a brief description of the accidents, even in cases where the victims died as post accident analysis, while incomplete, can help in understanding the causes. Also, the ANAM has a very long history with many accidents described. I think it is a must for every climber interested in avoiding similar accidents, it should be read as "lessons learned." It is invaluable.
Here is my reasoning: most anchors are placed and never tested in a "worst case" fall scenario. ANAM has a statitic on how many accidents occur because of a "slip or fall on rock". These slips and falls result in injuries severe enough to require rescue of the climbing team and notification of the authorities.
Assumption 1, if you are climbing on rock in a situation where you could fall, you are using roped protection.
So in these accident cases I assume that all of the protection held, otherwise, the accident would be reported as caused by a "pulled anchor".
Assumption 2, the forces involved in a "pulled anchor" caused accident were the same (or very similar to) the forces involved in a "slip or fall on rock" accident.
So, the ratio of the "pulled anchor" to the sum of the "pulled anchor" and "slip or fall on rock" gives you the fraction of anchors set on lead that failed under forces large enough to cause injury.
Not all the accidents read like this of course, but I am trying to make an estimate.
Now on the psychology of psychological gear, we all place gear like that at one time or another in our career, but you know that if you stop to put gear in that you should really attempt to get something in that will hold, otherwise you've wasted energy and set yourself up for a potentially dangerous situation of doing something that will cause you to fall on gear that wont hold. One of my all time favorite Largo quote is "if you're going to go for it, make sure there is an 'it' to go for," which I would expand to include an anchor onto which you can make a "gravity assisted" retreat. Placing pro and saying "that's psycological pro" is all too common, sort of like not wanting to sit back on your anchor at a belay.
Many people put in bomber belays every time, they are lucky to be climbing in areas where it is possible to do. Many people think they are putting in bomber belays. How many people actually do put in a bomber belay? how many people actually put in bomber pro?
I would suggest that we do it often, but not better than 99 in 100. That is my estimate based on the rather broad set of assumptions made and the statistics as they are available. 1% failure rate on anchors is probably much larger than it needs to be, or is "safe."
I don't think this is the end of the story. I think that there is a well defined path, pointed out by our unknown Italian and jstan, to try to determine just how well we set anchors. After all, most of us are self taught. We could use a little critique, we could stand to learn the limits of our own teachings.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 12, 2007 - 12:01pm PT
|
I think I may have overstated the precision of the analysis in the above post...better to say that:
the statistical analysis suggest that the anchor failure rate for anchors subject to high force falls is in the range from 1-in-10 (10%) to 1-in-100 (1%).
Many would decry the 10% number, but I would challenge them to explain their objection. I think the 1% number might be a low end estimate.
Any other estimates out there?
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2007 - 03:00pm PT
|
A calculation I did for our good friend G Gnome and posted earlier may be worth repeating here. On the other hand it may not.
If:
1. you climb every day for thirty years
2. you take ghastly falls on two different anchors each day
3. you want to know with a confidence of between 95% and 98% that you will not get the chop,
then each of your anchors has to have a chance of failing less than or equal to one in a million.
Under these rather onerous conditions, if the chance of failure gets much above one in a million, you start dying. On the other hand if you rarely, if ever, take ghastly falls it is a very good thing. Another point. When consequences are as serious as they are here, people generally insist upon having confidence greater than 95% if at all possible. My personal opinion: any time you look at an anchor and think it has a chance of failing greater than 1%, however you determine that, start thinking about going for a beer(or a latte).
In order to determine my specification for the force an anchor had to hold, I did tests in addition to those mentioned above. I built a little load cell using 8mm perlon and calibrated it on a tensile machine. Then I threw a 165# dufflebag full of shale off the cliff and caught it with 70 feet of rope after it had fallen free about 40 feet. (At that particular cliff any fall of 40 feet will probably result in Substantial Personal Customization[SPC].) When using a waist belay the force on the top anchor was about 500#. When I tied the rope to a tree the force doubled to 1000#. At that point I was sold on two things:
1. A waist belay is inherently dynamic. I would never go directly into a pin with a belay device.
2. My design target of 3000# was adequate - at that cliff.
This was done using Mammut ca. 1972 or thereabouts.
There is no reasonable way actually to measure failure probabilities so to a degree this is all numerology. There is a conclusion however. If you want to climb for a long time, think very hard before you get deeply into a situation you perceive as "Iffy". Your perception is your alarm bell.
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Flatland, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2007 - 08:32pm PT
|
Dude, Russ... That decent was totally calculated. It didn't look like it but it was, indeed, completely controlled, except that part where I came off the pad at the very end.
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2007 - 08:59pm PT
|
Ed, and jstan, I think you have a great message here. We aren't dying in great numbers because we aren't falling in great numbers - at least on trad anchors. And those who are falling a lot are probably doing it on solid anchors.
Ed, any stats on survivors of blown anchors? I'm guessing it's pretty much game over.
BTW Ed, my brother (M.D.) did some research on climber injuries in WV. IIRC, it was based on a survey (or hospital reports?). But his focus was on types of injuries, including death. I think he was looking at the probability distribution of injury given an event and not the probability of an event, given a climb.
If you want that type of info let me know...
Another thought here. The falls involving blown pieces may not be over-estimate the probability of failure of an anchor component, since most would choose a bomber location for building an anchor, but might toss in that psychological piece from an iffy stance. That opinion is based on lower grade climbing at the Gunks where most anchors are built on a nice safe ledge.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2007 - 05:36am PT
|
"Many would decry the 10% number, but I would challenge them to explain their objection."
I would challenge you to actually show some meaningsfull numbers.
What do we actually try to show? I place all kinds of anchors. I consider some bomber, i.e. blue camelot in perfect crack and I considers some as maybe body weigth, i.e. tied of knifeblade. Everybody place protection on lead that they dont belive is going to hold a long fall.
So what do we want to know? Do we want to have some kind of statistics that estimate how likely it is that percived sound anchors actually hold a fall? I want to know this. I already know that my tied of knife blade or small nut is not going to break a 10 m fall. I have pulled some gear but I have not trusted a single one of those to actually hold a fall.
The statistics given include all kind of anchors some percived good and some percived bad. You also have no idea how many pieces that actually hold falls. Many climbing scenarios is that a fall is going to result in no injury if the anchor holds but result in injury if the anchor pulls.
We simple dont have enough information to make a meaningsfull statistic.
I agree with you though that we simple dont know how many belay or lead anchors that actually would hold. The falls are way to few in trad climbing to actually get any real info.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 13, 2007 - 08:47pm PT
|
Raymond... you are determined not to accept the estimate assumptions, so be it...
I'm not sure what your objections are, but I'll try:
What do we actually try to show? I place all kinds of anchors. I consider some bomber, i.e. blue camelot in perfect crack and I considers some as maybe body weigth, i.e. tied of knifeblade. Everybody place protection on lead that they dont belive is going to hold a long fall.
I assume that, in general, you will place "bomber pro" if you have the opportunity. I am not sure about your last statement, however, about everyone places pro they "don't believe is going to hold." What would you estimate the number of times you have done this? compared to how many placements? And how many times have you fallen on that gear?
So what do we want to know?
What I was trying to estimate is the actual failure rate of anchors. Simply put, look at all accidents involving falls on rock, then see how many of them had an anchor failure. I have made no assumption regarding the quality of the anchors, however, where the anchor failure was a primary contribution to the accident, it was recorded as such in the ANAM.
The statistics given include all kind of anchors some percived good and some percived bad. You also have no idea how many pieces that actually hold falls. Many climbing scenarios is that a fall is going to result in no injury if the anchor holds but result in injury if the anchor pulls.
The assumption is that those falls which were severe enough to result in injuries were falls on gear. In those falls the anchors did not fail. If you say that many of these accidents are not appropriate to include in this estimate, then the estimated rate of anchor failures goes up.
We simple dont have enough information to make a meaningsfull statistic.
Is that an assertion, or are you interested in exploring the issue? The whole point about making an estimate like this is to not only see if the number makes sense, but also to define what assumptions lead to the conclusion, then question those assumptions.
The assumption about whether a leader knowingly puts in good or bad pro is an interesting one, and may be a part of the statistic in the numerator. But it doesn't matter what the answer to that question is if the leader falls and the pro pulls.
I am interested in the question regarding my placement, if I put in "bomber pro," just how bomber is it?
The accidents listed in the numerator most likely have a mix of such placements, known bad, and assumed good.
One way to test this would be a la the Italian climber's scenario, ask a bunch of experienced climbers to place pro with a variety of types in a variety of placements and then subject them to test.
When you think about that proceedure, you realize that the historic accident data might have done just that to an unwitting participant. Some of those participants paid with their lives, I feel it is important to try to learn as much from those accidents as I can, it is their final legacy to climbing, and it might help to save future lives.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 14, 2007 - 01:13am PT
|
Something odd struck me about Raymond's statement above:
"...Everybody place protection on lead that they dont belive is going to hold a long fall..."
"...I already know that my tied of knife blade or small nut is not going to break a 10 m fall..."
and Peter Haan's comments about Bridwell:
"Productive yet very careful and wise, he really set a great example for us younger climbers, who might have been willing to be far riskier in our endeavors. He never seemed to teeter between going on living and risking the current moment for a final stab at deepest meaning. In other words, he never solo-unroped anything at all to my knowledge and figured out how to protect stuff somehow, always."
When you get to a point where the pro is jingus you can do 1 of 3 things:
1) continue and hope you don't blow it,
2) retreat,
3) pound a bolt in (only if you're not on an established route).
It's not written anywhere that you must continue.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 08:26am PT
|
"Raymond... you are determined not to accept the estimate assumptions, so be it..."
I cant accept your assumption 2.
An example, take Yosemite 94.
10 accidents and 1 anchor failure. Lets assume that all accidents where reported and all accidents where due to roped falls. This might make a large error but we ignore it.
Thus we know 9 accident where the anchor hold and 1 where the anchor failed.
We have no idea how many anchors that actually hold a fall. The forces in those falls could have been higher than the falls that resulted in accidents. One common accident in Yosemite is that someone fall on the nutcracker mantle. Not a lot of forces on the anchor in that case. Accidents is not just dependent on the forces in the fall, ledges are probably a more common problem.
So we know about 1 anchor failure but have no idea about the number of actuall falls. Why should I belive any statistics taken from this data when we know almost nothing?
The next problem I have is that we dont know why the anchor failed. This could be solved though by reading reports.
The failed anchor could have been a failed beak pic on Reticent. It could have been a old pin on space bable. It could have been a small nut placed an a run out route on glacier point apron. It could ofcourse also be a red camelot placed on Moby dick.
Is it really suprising that beaks fail once in a while, that a small nut fail on a run out route? Does this really say anyting about the failure rate of a belay anchor if the anchors is considered good?
The obvious answer to all this according to me is that we cant draw any meaningsfull statistic from data given.
"I assume that, in general, you will place "bomber pro" if you have the opportunity."
Of course but do we always have that opportunity?
"I am not sure about your last statement, however, about everyone places pro they "don't believe is going to hold." What would you estimate the number of times you have done this? compared to how many placements? And how many times have you fallen on that gear? "
I sometimes place pro that I belive could hold a short fall but not a long fall. I try to place pieces often in this case. Doesn't everyone that have climb a not perfectly protected climb placed gear that the are not sure is going to hold a long fall? I dont know how often. No I haven't fallen on that gear free climbing but have riped pieces aiding.
I am suprised that you seem to disagree with me on this as I am sure that you are climbing climbs with less than perfect protection.
So what do we want to know?
"The assumption is that those falls which were severe enough to result in injuries were falls on gear. In those falls the anchors did not fail. If you say that many of these accidents are not appropriate to include in this estimate, then the estimated rate of anchor failures goes up. "
You convienently ignore all falls that dont result in accidents.
"Is that an assertion, or are you interested in exploring the issue?"
I am interested about the issue.
"The whole point about making an estimate like this is to not only see if the number makes sense, but also to define what assumptions lead to the conclusion, then question those assumptions. "
Yes, I have questioned the assumptions and results. I see no useful info in the numbers, sorry.
"The assumption about whether a leader knowingly puts in good or bad pro is an interesting one, and may be a part of the statistic in the numerator. But it doesn't matter what the answer to that question is if the leader falls and the pro pulls. "
This depends on what question you want to answer. I want to know how often good looking pieces actually fail. Not how often people climb above there head on badly protected climbs.
"I am interested in the question regarding my placement, if I put in "bomber pro," just how bomber is it?"
I agree, see above.
"One way to test this would be a la the Italian climber's scenario, ask a bunch of experienced climbers to place pro with a variety of types in a variety of placements and then subject them to test. "
Could be a really good test and the result would be interesting.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 11:08am PT
|
RP:
I think this is very useful thread because of what I have seen climbers say on another site. They ask each other whether or not they have yet, “taken a real whipper”, and they seem to feel “ you are not climbing to your maximum if you aren’t falling.” Since the two questions appear together I also suspect they mean regular very serious falls. Perhaps people feel since ropes and protection are supposed to hold falls, you can assume they will. Sort of cut and dried like in the closely controlled environment of a climbing establishment. I think none of us feels this is good and many attribute it to people going into the out of doors untrained for that environment.
Now the people on ST, by and large, have been around a long time and have seen and done just about everything(several times even). When I started climbing people, like those on ST, taught me how to think about risk. Frankly knowing how to think about the risk is more critical to climbing than is knowing how to use your feet. And way more critical than what routes you have been climbing. I think people coming out of a climbing establishment sometimes don’t even know risk is an issue.
So in this thread we have very experienced people discussing the ways they themselves handled that issue. There are many unknowns. But that is what life is. Learning how to handle unknowns. It may even be that learning how to handle risk while climbing, teaches us how to handle risk in other parts of life? So what is the output of all this? The youngsters showing up are probably going to learn what they need to know from people like yourself and the others on ST. The more we have thought about this the better prepared we will be to help them.
I have, again, to thank Chloe(?) for making me do a better calculation. If you want to climb a long time and you want to have serious regular falls on your anchors, you have to have reliability beyond anything you can measure. Ergo: Not falling is your best safety. That is what I was taught. I think we need not to forget it.
PS
I have even seen discussions where "not falling" was considered. "an old paradigm that is no longer applicable".
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 14, 2007 - 11:12am PT
|
good comments, thanks....
It is not generally appreciated how large the forces actually are on falls. While we have an image of the "two screamer" fall ("...the climber fell so far he screamed twice...") you don't have to fall all that far to generate huge forces. In fact, most fall factor 2 falls are relatively short, occuring before the first piece is placed. There is a 41% probability of a limb fracture from a 10' fall (see more statistics here).
A fall onto a ledge is bad because the forces are large, even from the seemingly modest height of the mantel on Nut Cracker.
Reading the reports will reveal a lot about what pro failed. I haven't had the time to do it, but I intend to take it to the next level. Once again, my general impression is that the surviving victims were unaware that the piece they placed would fail, and of the consequences of that failure. In some of the accidents the pieced was placed and weighted, then blew. This is hardly a fall, but it does get at the discussion of how good the pro placements are (in that case, pretty terrible).
It's not that I want to ignore falls that don't result in accidents, it is just that I don't have any information at all on those falls. I don't fall that often. The last really big fall I took is when I blew the crux on the first pitch of Knob Job. I got the sequence wrong, I had placed a nut as high as I could in the left hand crack, and then worked right to get under the roof. I was pulling hard in a lay-back, realized I didn't have it right, and decided to back off to think about it. But that was too hard for me to pull off and off I went, probably not more than 10'. I managed to avoid hitting any of the knobs on the way down. Unreported.
My friend Steve was climbing in the same area later in the year and fell on something, hitting a knob with his ankle, spraining it. Unreported also. In both cases the gear held. I imagine that there are a lot of falls like this, but I don't know how to capture that, we don't report on that sort of thing, it is true.
I appreciate your interest in the details of the probability of a failed anchor. Setting aside the basis for the numbers, if the failure rate is as high as 1%, then actual testing and demonstration will be difficult to do, simply because testing thousands of anchor placements (which is what you would have to do to get a statistically relevant answer) probably just isn't going to happen. In the end we have to resort to some analysis to understand how often these relatively rare events happen.
How uniform is the training for placing an anchor? what factors in to a choice of a particular type of pro for protection (e.g. nuts, cams, etc.). Is experience a factor in the probability?
When such a rare thing does occur in real life, we need to extract the maximum information possible.
I have very strong opinions regarding this topic all of which may be incorrect when confronted by actual data. But by explaining the reasons for those opinions, and being criticized by patient souls like you, I can understand better what is actually happening.
Thanks for you time to expand your thoughts.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 12:30pm PT
|
I've not been following this thread until reading the last few comments today. From reading those comments, it's clear that unreported accidents are a significant variable and problem in coming to a satisfactory conclusion.
If I'm an example of unreported and somewhat serious falls, and if my example is common, there's an immense amount of unknown data out there. I've had four such falls in the last few years, one that put me in the hospital, that were unreported.
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 01:19pm PT
|
So far the focus has been on the probability of failure given a fall (serious fall). P(failure|fall). But, as was pointed out, we do not know the count of the set of falls. Ed's approach was to estimate the size of the fall set from the set of climbs on anchors (?).
Alternatives:
P(failure|anchored lead climb),
P(failure|climber-day), (or year)
etc. But these seem to stray from the focus on the conditional probability of a random anchor to fail given a fall.
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand, Man.....
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 01:56pm PT
|
Woddy writes: If I'm an example of unreported and somewhat serious falls, and if my example is common,
With all due respect Woody.... your ripper streak is quite amazing and I would think is not that common. If it was that common, there would be none of us left!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 25, 2011 - 08:32pm PT
|
bump for TrundleBum
|
|
| Messages 1 - 76 of total 76 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!