Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 04:34pm PT
|
Whether you like it or not, there are standards. For rock climbing guides, I guess the standards are very minimal as long as the waiver is sound.
The facts presented appeared to contain an argument about having protection in two cracks. I guess that's now a standard too.
Now that this very minimal standard has been set, the question remains, what have the UC's done to prevent this type of fatality in the future?
Have they improved guide training, experience requirements for guides? Only allow the lead guide to set the protection?
I hope there was some sort of overhaul because this shouldn't happen, ever.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 05:38pm PT
|
When well trained skilled professionals have to compete with wannabe heroes who are willing to guide for a pittance the result is a degradation in professional standards.
I certainly don't disagree with this and anyone who is going to take clients out should be well trained and well experienced.
But I don't think you are ever going to get to this point unless the government starts requiring licenses. And that is a road I would rather not start down. After licenses for guides would come licenses for all climbing. A ranger at the base of the Nose saying you can't lead Pine Line until you take your refresher coarse.
And even licenses (or requiring guides to be certified) wouldn't prevent all mistakes. If someone dies topropping at the Leap, then clearly someone F_up. But outdoor climbing is never going to be completely safe (certified/expert climbers can make fatal mistakes) and we shouldn't ever pretend it will be.
I don't think most climbers in the US realize how lucky we are that the government (outside of the occasional fixed anchor/access issue) takes a blind eye to climbing. I think we should guard this jealously.
|
|
emu
climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 05:57pm PT
|
When well trained skilled professionals have to compete with wannabe heroes who are willing to guide for a pittance the result is a degradation in professional standards.
Something that isn't clear to me from the thread here is whether the "instructors" were UC students volunteering their time to teach fellow students rock climbing skills, or whether they were paid guides instructing for money.
One conclusion you might make from this incident is that anyone teaching climbing must have an AMGA certification or something similar. As someone who learnt trad climbing through a (different) college climbing club I really appreciated other more experienced students volunteering their time to teach newer climbers anchoring and leading skills. Requiring such certifications might well make it too time consuming and expensive for college students to teach other students, and that thought saddens me.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 06:29pm PT
|
During the 'mock' lead exercise, the 'leader' not only was tied to a top rope, but was trailing a 'lead' rope that protection was clipped to. To my knowledge, there was a belayer tending this rope. This was not mentioned in the thread above, but was in the depos.
In similar instruction, I would do this as well to train belaying the leader, but more importantly to train the 'leader' to manage his belayer and the rope. Anyone can slam pro in a crack, but this element made it more realistic. When the 'leader' was finished, I merely had both belayers lower, that way there was no confusion amongst newbies about who was on or off. Then I had someone 'follow' and clean with both ropes; one for the TR and one that was 'in the way' with pro to clean.
During the fateful course at the Leap, the instructors ditched the 'lead' rope and belay. They stated that it was in the way and would possibly get tangled up...
I had made a point back then to the attorney, that had the 'lead' line and belay both been on, one of those pieces on the 'lead' rope might have held. 'Might' possibly wasn't a strong enough term for them I suppose. However, I know it would have made a big difference.
 ec
Edit: no pros, just volunteers
|
|
Ruthel
Gym climber
wisconsin
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 11:00pm PT
|
I really know nothing of the legalities and even less about climbing. My 16yo son has started gym climbing and I told him to look up Norm's name and see if there was some sort of club he belonged to. That's how we stumbled upon this thread. And no, I certainly was not offended by anything said. I was actually enlightened a little. Norm was one of eight siblings and his humor and larger than life personality will always be missed. It's wonderful to see my son so much like the Uncle he never met, with the twinkle of adventure in his eyes. And a little frightening too. Much love to all who in any little way tried to help him in his last moments.
Ruth
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 11:48pm PT
|
Ruth- I'm really sorry about your brother.
We talk about the legalities here, and the responsibilities of the guides. It's a cold conversation, but I hope an important one. I don't forget that there are real people involved who suffered, both the living and those that passed on. I'm sure that others here don't forget that either (except the user known as high fructose corn syrup. That individual tries to play politics with everything.) Sorry about that guy, there's one on every forum.
I've been around a lot of this stuff over the years. I even used to guide for the UC's.
While it apparently did not meet the technically legal standard in this case, the UC is ultimately responsible. The guides made an unacceptable mistake. More experience would have helped, but still might not have made a difference.
Everybody loses here. I can only imagine the pain of those that caused this situation. The grief of the family of the deceased can only be intimated. I'm a father. My brain short circuits before I can imagine losing my boy.
None the less. The guides here had to have lived through a nightmare, of lesser intensity, but a nightmare all the same. They know what happened shouldn't of happened. They must feel responsible. Do they feel better that there was a waiver? Probably not.
The issue to me- is that the UC's hire these people, and tell them they are guides if they take a weekend course. More experienced "guides" judge them and deem them solid or not. I did this for four years during college. It's a bunch of 5.9, 5.10 trad leaders with two to three years experience taking clients up 5.6 and 5.7.
When I used to guide Bear's Reach, I was comfortable enough on the climb to solo it. Does that mean I should guide paying customers up it? Soloing and placing good gear are different ballgames.
Real good anchors require that the climber has seen bad anchors, seen anchors fail, been scared, and decided to do better. Young people recruited by the UC may not have the experience. In fact, they may be young and extra dumb, because they are young and confident.
I ramble on, but my question remains- what did the UC's do to make sure that this doesn't happen again?
What improvements were made? As a former guide for the UC's, I can imagine quite a few that could have been made, but I graduated. I moved on. I bet this is what always happens. The "guides" graduate and move on, leaving a new crop of inexperienced climbers to run the show.
|
|
Kalimon
Trad climber
Ridgway, CO
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 11:56pm PT
|
Tom,
Have you no sense of restraint? Your legaleeze is of no comfort to a grieving family.
I distinctly remember hollow flakes on the Bear's Reach . . . what an awesome solo route!
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 12:34am PT
|
If I've offended, I apologize.
I meant to explain why we are talking about this in the first place. I also hope to find out, for my own curiosity, and possibly for a search of truth, whether the UC's changed their ways.
I did not mean to kill this thread.
How can we discuss something like this, to make improvements, without being improper?
Also- Kalimon. My understanding is that this accident was not on Bear's reach proper.
I guided for the UC's. In retrospect, they were an accident waiting to happen. When I was doing it? I felt we were just fine. Youth is a funny thing.
|
|
Gilroy
Social climber
Boulderado
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 12:50am PT
|
Ruthel, I cannot tell you how important your contribution to this thread is to me and, undoubtedly, to others who were involved, as well as those reading and posting here. Every death in this community is felt deeply, still more by some than others.
I never had my offspring take off into the lead on a climb but I thought about it, having raised a few. You should be little concerned as long as you strive to ensure they receive good instruction. The standard of instruction is much higher today IMHO than even a decade ago. It's like anything else really, biking, skateboarding. Hell, just breathing continually can be a risk to kids, it seems.
Ruthel, your compassionate and magnanimous attitude about the circumstances of your brother's passing stands as a balm and testament to those of us who have engaged in educating neophytes in the outdoor skills. A mistake can catch any of us, and has befallen many in mountaineering.
One of my life's centering moments is holding Norm that day. How could it be any different?
I leave judgement to others in this case. IMHO, ec completed a thorough investigation of this unfortunate accident's technical climbing points and, from what I remember of that day, I agree with all he has said or written to this point.
Keith
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 01:49am PT
|
John, thanks for the clarification. That didn't make much sense.
-----------------
If you want better guides throw out the wannabes and pay guides like somebody who holds your life in his hands like, say, a doctor.
Heh, Heh.
----------
ec, you said:
During the fateful course at the Leap, the instructors ditched the 'lead' rope and belay. They stated that it was in the way and would possibly get tangled up...
I had made a point back then to the attorney, that had the 'lead' line and belay both been on, one of those pieces on the 'lead' rope might have held. 'Might' possibly wasn't a strong enough term for them I suppose. However, I know it would have made a big difference.
I'm not sure I buy your reasoning, which is basically that a top-rope system is basically an unsafe system, and should categorically not be used alone.....meaning that anyone who climbs a top-rope route should be on two separate rope systems, belayed by two different people. No one believes that. Yes, if they had not disconnected the lead line, it would have saved him, but that doesn't mean that having two lines should be standard practice.....is that what you are advocating?
Their explanation is actually reasonable, and is a reasonable CHOICE. The way that you explain doing it is also a reasonable CHOICE.
I don't think you can reasonably advocate that there is only one way to go about this.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 02:08am PT
|
Ruthel, my condolences for the loss of your brother.
One of the things that goes on in the climbing community is the rather cold examination of any accident, especially any fatality, that happens. We all want to learn from the circumstances, we all want to do better.
I'm a physician, and I am used to discussing horrible circumstances clinically for the purpose of understanding and learning.
Some of the things we talk about just go beyond any understanding. Just wrong place, wrong time. Almost never does gear fail, it is almost always "operator error" of some kind.
I suppose the morbid part of it is the realization, often, that it could have been any one of us.....and we search a case for justification that it could not have been. Probably a lot of times we just fool ourselves.
Our sport actually published a book each year: "Accidents in North American Mountaineering", which summarizes many (but not all) of the accidents of the previous year, with expert analysis of what went wrong, and how to avoid it. Sometimes there is no answer: why did the 100-ton boulder decide to fall, when it had been sitting there for a century?
Often, the only solace we take is knowing that one of our comrades perished doing something that they loved.
We kick ideas around, but we don't really know. I am sure that we check anchors more carefully the next time we go out.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 05:01am PT
|
I'm not sure I buy your reasoning, which is basically that a top-rope system is basically an unsafe system, and should categorically not be used alone....Ken M
'Not my resoning at all. If you read it correctly, all belays remained active in this particular activity for a training/learning purpose (edit: mainly the lead belay). Do you lead? Have you belayed a leader? Much different than belaying a TR. When being lowered, the belays remained on to avoid confusing signals to inexperienced belayers. 'Nothing to do about the security of the TR system.
ec
Edit: not that a TR system is unsafe, newbie belayers can be. Ken M, this was in the scope of a 'learn to lead' course. This would be the only scenario where anyone would do this...I suppose you did not catch this. You are a Dr?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 08:20pm PT
|
Not my resoning at all. If you read it correctly, all belays remained active in this particular activity for a training/learning purpose (edit: mainly the lead belay). Do you lead? Have you belayed a leader? Much different than belaying a TR. When being lowered, the belays remained on to avoid confusing signals to inexperienced belayers. 'Nothing to do about the security of the TR system.
ec
Edit: not that a TR system is unsafe, newbie belayers can be. Ken M, this was in the scope of a 'learn to lead' course. This would be the only scenario where anyone would do this...I suppose you did not catch this. You are a Dr?
teach all of those. I don't disagree with your reasoning about the issues of confusing signals, and inexperienced belayers. However, that was not the issue involved with this accident.
The accident had EVERYTHING to do with the security of the TR system,so it appears that you are advocating that the obvious answer is the use of the lead system that was in used in this class......and on the face of it, that is true. But that supposes that there is a problem with the TR system. In reality, as we both know, the TR system is actually the backup for the much more suspect lead system, that is why it is there and we use such things.
If one thought the TR system was potentially faulty, of course, one would not be teaching leading on a separate system that might require that TR as a life-saving backup.
The whole logic of it falls apart, when the backup anchor failed.
Yes, am a doc.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 09:31pm PT
|
If one thought the TR system was potentially faulty, of course, one would not be teaching leading on a separate system that might require that TR as a life-saving backup.
No sh*t.
I dunno how the logic falls apart. There was pro in the crack that might have saved him, even though that was not the intent of the second line. This seemed a profound observation on my part having facilitated this type of activity differently.
Sorry to have to revisit this at this point...
'won't change anything now.
ec
|
|
Ratagonia
Social climber
Mt Carmel, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 10:31pm PT
|
"Here is the key section to me:
McGowan and Veilleux each had significant experience setting anchors and they believed their system was "bombproof." Other than the anchor failure, no evidence was presented to suggest that this was a [**924] faulty conclusion, or that Veilleux and McGowan's selection of the site fell below the sport's norms for anchor installation.
Bold was added by me. NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED. Now, after the fact, people can say whatever they want. All that matters is what was said on the stand. As far as the Appellate Court is concerned, NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED."
Maybe its just me, but it seems crazy that the ANCHOR FAILING is not considered evidence of the anchor not being bombproof.
T
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 10:37pm PT
|
ec, wouldn't expect you to.
I'm fascinated in our sport, how the tinyest detail, in the most trivial way, can take on the most profound consequences under the right (wrong) circumstances.
I'll see people set up anchor systems that I can't fathom how a person could possibly tolerate (like on one point of pro), but understand that they've "gotten away" with it for years, sometimes. That sort of reinforcement tells them it is ok, but is only a trap for when something goes wrong. I'm sure we've all seen this, and been shaking our heads.
In most scenarios, there are a whole series of decisions that are made. At some point, a bad one is made. Usually, bad decisions are stacked. Seems so, here. I guess it makes the point that this stuff needs to be done thinking every step, and not on autopilot.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 10:45pm PT
|
Ratagonia, I believe that is exactly what it says, when it says "OTHER THAN anchor failure, no evidence was presented......."
That says to me that it was evidence that is was not----"the situation speaks for itself".
|
|
aspendougy
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 10:58pm PT
|
Signing an "assumption of risk" form does not negate awarding damages based upon negligence. After all, if they had used a frayed rope and it broke, there would clearly be grounds for awarding damages based upon negligence.
The big question is, were they negligent in the placement of the anchors? The answer seems to be yes, and based upon that, it seems that the court ruling was faulty. However, it is not nearly so blatant as using bad equipment, and I can see a judge who is not a climber rule the other way.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2010 - 01:59pm PT
|
At some point, a bad one is made. Usually, bad decisions are stacked. Seems so, here. I guess it makes the point that this stuff needs to be done thinking every step, and not on autopilot.
I'm all for focusing on safety. I make an effort to watch my partners tie in and look to see if they thread the grigri the correct direction, etc. However, when you do a simple, repetitive act, its not realistic human behavior to expect it to occupy 100% of your attention despite how much we might want it to. Take driving on the interstate. A show of hands of who, each time they change lanes, thinks to themselves, "ok, I got to focus 100% on making sure there is not a car in the lane I'm goint to change into"? As I thought, I don't see any hands. No, the key is to make it a 100% habbit to always look, even without thinking, before changing lanes.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2010 - 02:09pm PT
|
Signing an "assumption of risk" form does not negate awarding damages based upon negligence.
Well I think there is a difference between simple and gross negligence. It has been a while since I took torts, but I think the law also makes a similar distinguish.
I don't think a guide is, or should be, guilty if there was just the tiniest bit of negligence that caused a fatality. For instance, if you had a rope set up at Indian Creek where the anchor looked like many of the other anchors that have been around a while and everyone climbs on without much of a second thought; and the anchor failed. You could argue that the guide should only set up top ropes on anchors that the guide himself had recently put in and new 100% were ok (at least for the next couple of years). Isn't anything else at least minimal negligence?
This is a dangerous sport and even a fairly minor amount of negligence can lead to fatalities. I think we should be upfront about that and those that don't want to accept responsibility for that should not climb, whether they are guided or not.
At some point I would establish liability. Letting a client climb without a helmet for instance. Climbing on a rope that you know has a core shot. But these are much more clear cut than establishing the quality of a natural anchor.
I agree that is sounds like the incident at the Leap involved negligence but from what I can tell, it is not to the level where I would like to see a successful lawsuit.
cheers
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!