|
cracklover
Nov 14, 2005, 5:02 AM
Post #51 of 75
(12034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Oh, and do I? No. I'm not against it, I just haven't been in a scenario where it's been called for yet. GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Nov 14, 2005, 5:15 AM
Post #52 of 75
(12034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Oh, and another scenario not mentioned in MC's article - I'd add an upward pull piece to my anchor if the regular anchor was made solely of downward slotted nuts placed in cracks without any constriction to hold an outward pull (such pull as might happen on that big ledge I just mentioned). GO
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Nov 14, 2005, 7:33 PM
Post #53 of 75
(12034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
In reply to: agreed, unless the belayer is on a significant ledge, and the leader falls past it. Yes, there are some scenarios in addition to the horizontal traverse that might load a tight up-down anchor excessively. But remember that if the ledge is big enough to create a significant outward component, the leader is going to have trouble falling past it. Maybe if the terrain above overhangs severely? Furthermore, it is possible in some cases to anticipate such loads and adjust the tension on the downward directional to allow the belayer to move forward enough for the load to align with the anchor strands, but a possible problem with this is some downward directionals have to be under tension to stay in place. There is also a second misconception in MC's article, that attaching the downward pull piece to the belayer rather than to the power point will alleviate the force-multiplication problem. I don't see why this should be true (in the relatively rare cases when there is such a problem). If the slings in question still make an angle close to 180 degrees, the same issue will be present. It is, perhaps, worth noting that there are two potentially distinct reasons for the downward directional piece. One is to keep the belayer from being lifted, and the second is to keep the anchor from having to withstand an upward pull. It is certainly possible, although usually impractical, to rig an anchor so that the pieces are held down but the belayer is not. If you are forced to use an anchor with vertically slotted nuts placed, say, at chest level, then you might feel the need to have such a set-up. A final comment: I think the idea that a cam in a vertical crack is a "multidirectional" piece is the climbing equivalent of Russian Roulette. Of course, a cam might turn out to be multidirectional while a vertically slotted nut will not, so such a cam is way better than nothing, but if you really need to count on a piece resisting an upward load, assuming a downward-oriented cam will pivot and hold an upward force is very dicey.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 14, 2005, 7:44 PM
Post #54 of 75
(12034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: ...assuming a downward-oriented cam will pivot and hold an upward force is very dicey. I think that if you are competent at placing gear you can tell. A sufficiently deep placement in a parallel-sided crack should behave well, whereas shallow pacements and flares might not. The leader can try rotating the cam by hand and see what happens. If the cam walks and expands, I wouldn't count on it to hold an upward pull, but if it pivots nicely, it ought to. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
Nov 14, 2005, 11:05 PM
Post #55 of 75
(12034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
In reply to: The zipper effect is real. If you are not going to climb over solid gear why do you place any at all? If an outward pull will dislodge your piece, then you'd better not pull out on it, and you'd better reconsider that stupid practice of short slinging gear. This "outward pull when you don't think it can happen" stuff does happen, and it happens a lot more often that most people realize. If you think a short slung cam can't be walked out of a placement, you might be in for a rude awakening one day. Can I learn something from you again ? So what you saying is that a cam in vertical crack is not enough as "anti zipper" Right? Would the same go for a tricam in horizontal ? Would you recommend building "anti-zipper at the bottom of each climb. Thank - you for your help Does this sound like something that Noob would say ? 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 14, 2005, 11:13 PM
Post #56 of 75
(12034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
I am not a scientist, although I did study industrial design and elementary physics. Moreover, I have been building anchors and designing structural apparatus for thirty years. What I get from many of the theories in this thread is that they are based on specific conditions. This is rarely the case in real-life situations. Consequently, jt's comment about an experienced and competent climber being able to tell is very true. An example of an engineer thinking too theoretically occurred while I was building a climbing structure at the Boulder Rock Club. I had designed it on paper and had considered the basic forces that would affect it before I even purchased the materials. Shortly after completing the structure, I was publicly confronted by one of the members, who happened to be an engineer. He chastised me for using decking screws instead of nails, because, as he put it, the shear strength of the screws was insufficient to withstand the forces that would be exerted against the structure. Having built at least a dozen walls, hitherto, I assured him that the wall would withstand any forces likely to be impinged upon it. I didn't want to engage him in a lengthy public debate for obvious reasons. What he failed to realize was that under controlled testing, of course the screw would have sheared before the nail, but there were many variables keeping the screws from shearing, e.g. the malleability and flexibility of the wood, the fact that there were hundreds of screws in the structure, and also that the structure was fastened such that it did not move. Needless to say. the wall stayed up for more than a decade, without any hint of a loss in structural integrity. I would have lasted indefinitely, had they not torn it down to renovate that area of the gym. My point is that the same applies to climbing anchors. There are many variables that can contribute to the same basic system working more or less effectively in different circumstances: friction and strength of rock, precise placement. weight of climbers, type and angle of fall, etc. This is why, as I said earlier, there is no substitute for experience. This is why I always advocate testing real scenarios. We had to do it, extensively, while getting certified to teach and guide. It is a good practice, and knowing from personal experience how an anchor will behave can instill much confidence. We are never too experienced to test new systems and to reacquaint ourselves with ones that we use infrequently. Our lives depend on it. Here are some photos of the wall in question. I am certain that many of you have actually climbed on it. http://i9.photobucket.com/...kencangi/BRCWall.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Nov 15, 2005, 2:29 AM
Post #57 of 75
(12034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: In reply to: The zipper effect is real. If you are not going to climb over solid gear why do you place any at all? If an outward pull will dislodge your piece, then you'd better not pull out on it, and you'd better reconsider that stupid practice of short slinging gear. This "outward pull when you don't think it can happen" stuff does happen, and it happens a lot more often that most people realize. If you think a short slung cam can't be walked out of a placement, you might be in for a rude awakening one day. Can I learn something from you again ? Maybe, if there was a first time even.
In reply to: So what you saying is that a cam in vertical crack is not enough as "anti zipper" Right? Yep, and I believe rgold alluded to the same thing. I've actually seen cams fail to hold at all, or walk into miserably difficult to extract predicaments, in such placements. I disagree with jt that you can tell which ones will behave.
In reply to: Would the same go for a tricam in horizontal ? Could be rabbit, but I'd expect that either a cam or tricam in a horizontal would resist chicanery from a dead vertical pull much better than the same pieces in a vertical crack under a dead vertical pull.
In reply to: Would you recommend building "anti-zipper" at the bottom of each climb. Yes, whenever it is possible, and not just at the bottom, but whenever it seems like a good thing to do. Also, opposition is not dead. See the upcoming film! Thank - you for your help Does this sound like something that Noob would say ? 8^) You're welcome, but I have no idea what Noob would say.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 15, 2005, 2:52 AM
Post #58 of 75
(12034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I've actually seen cams fail to hold at all, or walk into miserably difficult to extract predicaments, in such placements. I disagree with jt that you can tell which ones will behave. By that "logic" you shouldn't ever place a cam for an upward or a downward pull. Afterall, you've actually seen cams pull out or walk. You just can't trust those damn things; it's as if they've got a mind of their own. Well, they don't have a mind of their own. Their behavior under a load is dictated by physics and is therefore predictable. Any cam that has walked too deeply into a crack, or has failed to hold a fall was badly placed. Competent leaders don't place cams like that, unless, perhaps, there are no better options. If you can't tell whether your cam could walk or not hold a fall, then you shouldn't be placing cams at all. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Nov 15, 2005, 3:15 AM
Post #59 of 75
(12034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
I can't say that I have even specifically rigged an upward pull piece but I certainly think that any anchor on a multi-pitch should be rigged to withstand an upwards pull. Most multipitches I have set anchors up on have had enough protection options to enable at least two if not three pieces to by omni-directional. Horizontal cams, threaded nuts and nuts curved around corners can work for pretty much all directions.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Nov 15, 2005, 3:28 AM
Post #60 of 75
(12034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: In reply to: I've actually seen cams fail to hold at all, or walk into miserably difficult to extract predicaments, in such placements. I disagree with jt that you can tell which ones will behave. By that "logic" you shouldn't ever place a cam for an upward or a downward pull. Afterall, you've actually seen cams pull out or walk. You just can't trust those damn things; it's as if they've got a mind of their own. Well, they don't have a mind of their own. Their behavior under a load is dictated by physics and is therefore predictable. Any cam that has walked too deeply into a crack, or has failed to hold a fall was badly placed. Competent leaders don't place cams like that, unless, perhaps, there are no better options. If you can't tell whether your cam could walk or not hold a fall, then you shouldn't be placing cams at all. Jay Oh get over yourself. I guess I'm not comnpetent Like I care about the opinion of a sport climber about my gear placing ability, hahaha! BTW, you'logic' isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 15, 2005, 3:36 AM
Post #61 of 75
(12033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In the spirit of trying to maintain a constructive dialogue, for the benefit of those who actually need the information, Why don't all those with advanced experience state specific examples of how their anchor systems have succeeded and fails in various situations and configurations. There is no value in turning this into a community thread.
|
|
|
|
|
locker
Nov 15, 2005, 4:42 AM
Post #62 of 75
(12033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2004
Posts: 130
|
this is of course.........RockClimbing.com... I almost forgot!!! So I will toss in my two cents... If am single pitching and my first piece is a "Nut", I often place for an upward pull to avoid the dreaded "Zipper"... If multi-pitching IMO you'd be pretty stupid to not make a solid "multidirectional" anchor... and of course...........I have been "Stupid" as many of us are, thinking that it is not necessary etc... Tell that to those that found out the hard way... It's always best to be as safe as possible. Complacent behavior all too often catches up..........
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Nov 15, 2005, 6:06 AM
Post #63 of 75
(12033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Rufus, some of us who have mentioned what you call "theories" are also experienced climbers with just as much practical experience with gear as you describe in your building scenario. And when you say, somewhat mysteriously, that some of the theories are based on "specific conditions," I would note that some of the "practical claims" are either true by definition or else are equipped with escape clauses. For example, JT says, "any cam that has walked too deeply into a crack, or has failed to hold a fall was badly placed." Fair enough, but this is just a definition of "badly placed." It shouldn't be mistaken for a conclusion of any sort. "Competent leaders don't place cams like that, unless, perhaps, there are no better options." In the same spirit, this is just a definition of "competent leaders." In this system, by definition, competent leaders do not make "bad placements" and so failed gear is the exclusive domain of the the incompetent masses. Of course, if a cam placed by a undeniably "competent leader" fails, then escape clause B is activated and the failure is due to the fact that "there were no better options." I think the climbing world is a world full of "no better options." It could even be a definition of trad climbing: making your way in a environment with "no better options." And in that world of "no better options," I still think a cam oriented downwards is a gamble for holding a significant upward jolt. If you've got a perfect placement, then more power to ya. But you know what? I don't know for sure. I have never relied on a cam to rotate 180 degrees and hold a significant load, and I don't know of anyone who has done so and had their placement tested. I do know a little physics, and agree (again, as a matter of definition) that the behavior of cams "is dictated by physics," but I'm less sure that that means their behavior is therefore predictable. After all, the weather is dictated by physics too. My practical sense is the more the stupid thing rotates, the less predictable the outcome. But that's just a theory.
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 15, 2005, 6:30 AM
Post #64 of 75
(12033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: Rufus, some of us who have mentioned what you call "theories" are also experienced climbers with just as much practical experience with gear as you describe in your building scenario. And when you say, somewhat mysteriously, that some of the theories are based on "specific conditions," I would note that some of the "practical claims" are either true by definition or else are equipped with escape clauses. For example, JT says, "any cam that has walked too deeply into a crack, or has failed to hold a fall was badly placed." Fair enough, but this is just a definition of "badly placed." It shouldn't be mistaken for a conclusion of any sort. "Competent leaders don't place cams like that, unless, perhaps, there are no better options." In the same spirit, this is just a definition of "competent leaders." In this system, by definition, competent leaders do not make "bad placements" and so failed gear is the exclusive domain of the the incompetent masses. Of course, if a cam placed by a undeniably "competent leader" fails, then escape clause B is activated and the failure is due to the fact that "there were no better options." I think the climbing world is a world full of "no better options." It could even be a definition of trad climbing: making your way in a environment with "no better options." And in that world of "no better options," I still think a cam oriented downwards is a gamble for holding a significant upward jolt. If you've got a perfect placement, then more power to ya. But you know what? I don't know for sure. I have never relied on a cam to rotate 180 degrees and hold a significant load, and I don't know of anyone who has done so and had their placement tested. I do know a little physics, and agree (again, as a matter of definition) that the behavior of cams "is dictated by physics," but I'm less sure that that means their behavior is therefore predictable. After all, the weather is dictated by physics too. My practical sense is the more the stupid thing rotates, the less predictable the outcome. But that's just a theory. I agree with essentially everything you just said, which leads me to believe that you misunderstood my analogy or that I did not articulate it well enough. My point was that making blanket statements, such as that upward placements are safe, unsafe, etc, based on specific laws of physics and admonitions from a tech books and articles is a recipe for trouble. I was trying to get the point across that there are many variables at play, which cannot be measured by those specific physical formulas, and that better evaluations can almost always be made through actual field experience.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 15, 2005, 4:34 PM
Post #65 of 75
(12033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: And in that world of "no better options," I still think a cam oriented downwards is a gamble for holding a significant upward jolt. If you've got a perfect placement, then more power to ya. But you know what? I don't know for sure. I have never relied on a cam to rotate 180 degrees and hold a significant load, and I don't know of anyone who has done so and had their placement tested. I don't know what you mean by "significant load," but I have "tested" many cams for an upward pull in this manner. I have placed nuts in opposition as a first piece no more than 6 times in my life. On almost every gear route I have climbed I have placed a cam as the first piece instead. I basically have always sport climbed on gear, and have thus taken numerous falls on pitches on which the first piece was a cam, and those cams have always done their job of protecting the protection system; no cam has ever pulled. Here, I'll make a claim for the sake of discussion: A cam positioned for a downward pull in a parallel-sided vertical crack will rotate upward with little if any walking when subjected to an upward pull. Now, can anyone provide exceptions or evidence to the contrary? BTW, TCUs rotate more freely than FCUs, so if you're worried that your cam won't rotate, make your first piece a TCU. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
stickyfingerz
Nov 15, 2005, 6:33 PM
Post #66 of 75
(12033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2005
Posts: 110
|
In reply to: I think the climbing world is a world full of "no better options." It could even be a definition of trad climbing: making your way in a environment with "no better options." Interesting, a similar discussion has taken place in John Long's Climbing Anchors Book Thread. When is good, good enough? As I stated earlier in this thread, it seems dangerous to me to speak in absolutes when it comes to climbing. (ie. always do x, never do y) In fact, you will probably never see two leaders protect the same climb the same way ever. What is comfortable for one, may not be so for another, and there are always additional factors to consider besides pure engineering theoretical strength. One leader may prefer to place a cam early in order to reserve more pieces for later in the pitch. Another might place a cam if there is no good stance to fiddle with locking in opposing nuts and she doesn't want to pump out. Another, with a good stance, may choose to place opposing nuts in order to lock in the placement and conserve cams for later in the pitch. Ultimately, we are all responsible for making the best choice for a given place, at a given time, to achieve a given objective. Unfortunately, these debates usually become rather academic as it is nearly impossible to factor in all of these variables theoretically. It seems to me that awareness of the various forces involved in climbing and knowledge of alternatives to address them should be the real goal of educated leaders. Then we can all make choices based on what we're comfortable with.
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
Nov 15, 2005, 8:44 PM
Post #67 of 75
(12033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
In reply to: In reply to: I think the climbing world is a world full of "no better options." It could even be a definition of trad climbing: making your way in a environment with "no better options." Interesting, a similar discussion has taken place in John Long's Climbing Anchors Book Thread. When is good, good enough? Very good points. Whenever there are discussions about something being dangerous. I always ask myself, are there reports of climbers being injured/killed from this in Accidents of North American Mountaineering? Just because some particular type of accident hasn't been reported, doesn't mean that it is impossible, but I still think it is a good starting point for keeping perspectives. From my [foggy] memory, it seems to me that trad anchors completely failing are pretty rare. Since the majority of trad anchors that I see (from climbers in Yosemite) do not have a piece for upward pull and since trad anchor failures seem pretty rare, this doesn't strike me as of big a safety issue as say, wearing a helmet, which a signficant number of parties in Yosemite don't do either. Doesn't mean that I think an upward piece is a bad idea and there are certainly many situations where it would be dumb not to...
|
|
|
|
|
slcliffdiver
Nov 16, 2005, 11:33 PM
Post #70 of 75
(12033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 489
|
In reply to: In reply to: Very good points. Whenever there are discussions about something being dangerous. I always ask myself, are there reports of climbers being injured/killed from this in Accidents of North American Mountaineering? ANAM is useless for statistical purposes. They only report those accidents that are interesting to the (one) editor. Not only in the stories, but even in the collated statistics. GO I think ANAM and accident analysis in general would probably under report anchor failures due to this for two reasons. Low survival rate (fewer living witnesses with total anchor failure) and not much trace evidence. If the gear rips out from an upward pull, what do you have but a string of pieces still connected to the rope/anchor material. How are you going to determine which way all the pieces were oreinted? I'm guessing "if" this happens with any type of frequency most often it'll be catagorized as total anchor failure with unknown cause (are these less frequently reported in ANAM?). Edit: I don't know why my brain waits to engauge until after I post. I thought of at least a couple of possible indicators that might provide clues just after I posted. I caught a fairly spectacular fall that impressed me with the forces possible early on in my climbing career. Since then if there is a remote possibility of someone even close to my own weight or heavier flying past me, I can't even imagine considering not protecting the pieces in the anchor above me from being ripped out by me as the belayer flying if possible. Not scientific but some things leave an impression on you.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 16, 2005, 11:50 PM
Post #71 of 75
(12033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: From my [foggy] memory, it seems to me that trad anchors completely failing are pretty rare. Since the majority of trad anchors that I see (from climbers in Yosemite) do not have a piece for upward pull and since trad anchor failures seem pretty rare, this doesn't strike me as of big a safety issue as say, wearing a helmet, which a signficant number of parties in Yosemite don't do either. Check out this link, it may stir your memory and it is certainly close to home I bet: http://groups.google.com/...=en#e66d74675cb73d3b DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 16, 2005, 11:54 PM
Post #72 of 75
(12033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
It can happen to our betters, it can happen to us too: Taken from the rec.climbing thread linked above. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From Boulder Daily Camera: (from 2001) http://www.bouldernews.com/news/local/18ldead.html Boulder woman may be fall victim Two climbers who died last week following a 1,000-foot fall on a popular climbing route in Yosemite National Park are thought to be from the Denver metropolitan area. Investigators with the Mariposa County Sheriff's Office have not officially identified the climbers who died on Thursday, but family and friends say they are certain they were Monika Eldridge, 40, of Boulder and Tom Dunwiddie, 50, of Denver. "We're still waiting for dental records," Assistant Sheriff Jim Allen said Tuesday. Friends and family gathered at Eldridge's Table Mesa home Tuesday evening to plan her memorial service. Those who were close to her say she died doing what she loved. "She was quite an advanced and devout climber," said Galen Parker, Eldridge's former roommate. "Her life was climbing. She lived, ate and breathed climbing." Longtime friend Leland Keller said Eldridge -- who held degrees in mechanical and aerospace engineering from the University of Delaware and served on the city's Environmental Advisory Board -- would rise at 5:30 a.m. for her daily five-mile run. Lunches were often spent riding her bike up Flagstaff Mountain. "She loved living in Boulder ... and did so many big, big climbs," Keller said. "She built a climbing wall in her basement." Friends said Eldridge and Dunwiddie had climbed in Yosemite before. The screensaver on Eldridge's computer was a photograph of her running in the Yosemite Valley with El Capitan in the background. Eldridge and Dunwiddie were to return to Colorado from the California park on Sunday. Park spokeswoman Johanna Lombard said the two climbers, who were roped together, died on an 18-pitch route up Middle Cathedral Rock. The male was leading when he slipped, pulling the woman down with him. Middle Cathedral is considered an intermediate-level climbing area. Lombard said investigators are looking into whether the climbers' safety equipment failed or whether the safety devices were properly placed. Dunwiddie's colleagues at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center did not want to comment until authorities rule on the deaths. Dunwiddie's wife, Nancy Zahniser, said police officers went to their Denver home Sunday and gave her the news. "I'm convinced it's Monika and Tom," she said. Dunwiddie, a professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Program in Neuroscience, started climbing when he a teenager, Zahniser said. The Wisconsin native received a doctorate in psychobiology from the University of California at Irvine in 1977. Services are pending. July 18, 2001 The Daily Camera - http://www.TheDailyCamera.com
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
Nov 17, 2005, 12:21 AM
Post #73 of 75
(12033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
In reply to: In reply to: ANAM is useless for statistical purposes. They only report those accidents that are interesting to the (one) editor. Not only in the stories, but even in the collated statistics. GO I think ANAM and accident analysis in general would probably under report anchor failures due to this for two reasons. Low survival rate (fewer living witnesses with total anchor failure) and not much trace evidence. I was not aware that they "edited" the collated statistics (if they do, I wonder why--strikes me a dumb policy). Obviously there has to be judgment whether it is a climbing accident ("hikers" vs "climbers") and obviously someone has to report it. But I thought they compiled all the accidents they received. Maybe I'll dig an old book out and look at what they say about their policy. If you have two dead climbers on the deck with some sort of anchor attached to one or both and additional gear connected to the rope with slings, I would think that this would get a lot of attention and would be included in the book. Yes, it might be very hard to figure out what ripped first and what might have prevented it. But it would be obvious that the anchor completely ripped out somewhere along the way. I will stand by my statement that this sort of accident appears to be rare compared to the most common ways that climbers get killed. Does that mean it has never happened? Of course not. And I'm not trying to talk people into building careless anchors. But I think it is good to occasionally step back and say how big of problem is this compared to others. The ANAM is full of reports of head trauma with climbers not wearing helmets. Lead falls and gear ripping in lead falls. Hypothermia etc. But complete anchor failures are pretty rare (unless huge numbers are failing and not being reported, which I still can't quite imagine the editor ignoring these). Now hopefully this is because everybody is building great anchors (which well they should), but if this is the case and if a significant chunk of the multipitch parties are not putting in a piece for upward pull (at least of the trad anchors I see other climbers built in Yosemite). Then it doesn't seem that the upward pull piece is critical (at least as far as not becoming a statistic in ANAM goes :wink: )
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Nov 17, 2005, 1:18 AM
Post #74 of 75
(12033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: ANAM is useless for statistical purposes. They only report those accidents that are interesting to the (one) editor. Not only in the stories, but even in the collated statistics. GO I think ANAM and accident analysis in general would probably under report anchor failures due to this for two reasons. Low survival rate (fewer living witnesses with total anchor failure) and not much trace evidence. I was not aware that they "edited" the collated statistics (if they do, I wonder why--strikes me a dumb policy). Obviously there has to be judgment whether it is a climbing accident ("hikers" vs "climbers") and obviously someone has to report it. But I thought they compiled all the accidents they received. Maybe I'll dig an old book out and look at what they say about their policy. Be my guest. I have it straight from the horse's mouth, via email. Also, I've personally submitted climbing accident reports that didn't make it even into the statistics (one example: climber accidentally pulled off large block, rockfall directly towards belayer, belayer dropped climber while jumping out of way, climber fell approx 25 feet). Accident occured in Massachusetts. According to all the ANAM statistics I've seen, there has never been a climbing accident in MA. I guess we're all "hikers". :) GO
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Nov 17, 2005, 1:23 AM
Post #75 of 75
(12033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
Please don't think for a moment that everyone is building great anchors. Climbers live mostly by the grace of god, and luck. If this were not true, there would be many deaths every week in climbing accidents. A visit to any local crag will bear out that boat loads of idiots are lucking out on a regular basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|