|
pinsandbones
Apr 26, 2007, 12:35 AM
Post #1 of 354
(54077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2007
Posts: 5
|
"First off, thanks to all for the positive thoughts. Second, sorry for the delay in getting back to the forum, I am not a regular, and have been very busy catching up with life (i.e. finishing a 16 credit semester without the use of my dominant hand/arm). Now, about the alien. I will attempt to answer many of the questions posted. It was not a broken stem due to an edge or any other strange action on the cam. It was a vertical placement and broke at the head. Where it broke, was well into the crack. It was NOT A RECALLED ALIEN. I was seventy feet up or so when I fell from just a few feet above the piece. i will be posting pictures of the alien, but not yet. Just know that it did not fail because of an edge or any other contortion. It was a good clean placement.
Thanks again for the concerns and I will post more when I have all of my facts together.
P&B
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
Apr 26, 2007, 1:04 AM
Post #2 of 354
(54035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
Thanks for volunteering the information, and sorry to hear about your trouble.
I wonder why it is that the focus of your post is on the broken alien?
As far as accident analysis is concerned, I'm not interested in the alien. Accidents generally require multipul failures, so what else went wrong, judgment?
If you were 70 feet up,
and you hit the ground - then you must have run it out pretty far up to the alien placement, right?
So that's the question on my mind, runout  or human error ?
pinsandbones wrote: " I was seventy feet up or so when I fell from just a few feet above the piece. P&B
Btw, lately people have been calling me an asshole because of my posts, and if that is true of this post as well - then just ingore me and stop calling me a fucktard.
|
|
|
|
|
climboard
Apr 26, 2007, 1:27 AM
Post #3 of 354
(54006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2001
Posts: 503
|
What is CCH's take on the incident?
|
|
|
|
|
bent_gate
Apr 26, 2007, 1:43 AM
Post #4 of 354
(53980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2620
|
This thread is a spin-off thread of:
Souders Crack (11d) ground fall
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1575796
The belay failure is primarily addressed in that thread. A spin-off thread was requested to discuss just the broken Alien portion of the accident.
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
Apr 26, 2007, 3:55 AM
Post #5 of 354
(53934 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
bent_gate wrote: A spin-off thread was requested to discuss just the broken Alien portion of the accident.
j_ung wrote: As far as I'm concerned, the deal is that I'd rather carry a rack of slung wine glasses than a rack of Aliens.
Well, even though Jay recently called me an asshole, I can't help but agree with him on this one.
With the exception of the recent broken OP Link-Cam post, which frankly we all knew would come sooner or later, Aliens are really the only cams we hear reports of failing - time and time again.
When I was a kid, none of the old guys carried Aliens because the first local dude to fall on one exploded it - that was over 10 years ago.
I don't know how you can trust--a very expensive peice of gear--that catastrophically fails in, what consistantly seems to be, chicken shit falls.
|
|
|
|
|
m2j1s
Apr 26, 2007, 4:08 AM
Post #6 of 354
(53911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 8, 2006
Posts: 77
|
Here's a question... Was the alien marked "Tensile Tested"? If so that could raise some serious problems.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 26, 2007, 6:05 AM
Post #7 of 354
(53853 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
pinsandbones wrote: It was NOT A RECALLED ALIEN.
I think what those of us who have been following the Alien QC issue really want to know is this:
1. Do you know for a fact whether it was a "dimpled" Alien, or not?
2. What was the month and year of manufacture stamped on the unit?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Apr 26, 2007, 1:35 PM
Post #8 of 354
(53797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
First, I would like to wish you the best in your recoveries. I empathise and sypathise with your injury and recovery. And I appreciate you taking the time to post details of your accident.
The one question on my mind is the placement itself. I'm aware that Souders Crack has bad protection due to an expando flake on the climb. So was the Alien in good solid rock past the flake, or could a bad placement have contirbuted to the Alien failure?
Hope that you're healing well and get back to climbing soon. You are both a very lucky and unlucky guy.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Apr 26, 2007, 1:58 PM
Post #9 of 354
(53770 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
(Fulton, I don't think your post in this thread was asshole-ish at all. Sorry for my own asshole responses to you in the other thread.)
However, I disagree with you on the main point at issue. Yes, there were likely other, more subjective, hazards at play in this scenario, but I for one prefer to worry about those and not have to worry about catastrophic gear breakage, too.
Pinsandbones, thanks for getting back to us. I'll be patient waiting for responses. Here are my remaining questions:
1. Is there a date stamp on your alien and, if so, what is it?
2. If there isn't a date stamp, when did you buy it?
3. Did you buy it new or used?
4. Is it possible your Alien sustained damage to the stem at some earlier time? In other words what's the fall history of this unit?
5. Do you still have photos of the broken Alien? If so, would you post them, please?
Thanks man, and again, I'm very glad you're in one piece for the most part. Judging by the look of Souder's, it's a pretty bold lead. Even though the risk didn't pay off, good on ya for stepping into the ring and taking your lumps.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Apr 26, 2007, 2:07 PM
Post #10 of 354
(53756 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
From the other thread:
jt512 wrote: j_ung wrote: IHowever, it's important to note that cable-stemmed cams are vulnerable to some extent to sharp edges Really? I don't recall ever having heard of the cable stem of a cam breaking because of a sharp edge (or any cause, for that matter). Jay
Nor do I. But I've seen cable stems crimp when loaded over sharp edges and I've retired a couple cams with this problem. One of many things I wonder about in all this is the fall history of this particular unit. Next to the braze, which is where it sounds like this one broke, it would be a little more susceptible to this than in any other spot along the stem (think trigger wires breaking at the swage).
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Apr 26, 2007, 2:09 PM
Post #11 of 354
(53752 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
climboard wrote: What is CCH's take on the incident?
Also from the other thread:
j_ung wrote: I don't know why I'm bothering with this, since I don't own any Aliens and I don't intend to ever buy any under any circumstances, but I called CCH and asked what's up. Understand, I'm not acting as a journalist in this case, like I was during the original recall episode. I'm just curious to hear what's going on. CCH was indeed contacted by, I assume, pinsandbones, in regard to the failure of his Alien. Said contact included pictures of the failed unit, which, apparently showed a broken cable stem, not a failed braze. So this failure is not the same as the recall failures. That MIGHT actually be bad news, since it may -- MAY -- point to an entirely different problem. However, it's important to note that cable-stemmed cams are vulnerable to some extent to sharp edges, of which it appears Souder's Crack has plenty. Without any additional information, I'll allow this failure might be due to that. To me, it's beginning to appear that this is not the result of any shortcoming on CCH's part. Dave Waggoner also told me that he requested additional contact from the pinsandbones several days ago, but has not gotten it. Not sure where pinsandbones is, but he's not here either. Hey, pinandbones! Post up your pics, mate! Lastly, I suggested to Waggoner that he post up with an update on this. I told him that, even if he has no additional information, a lot of people would appreciate some kind of proof that they care about what people think. It kinda seemed like that hadn't occurred to him. Waggoner's exact words were, "Yeah, I should probably go ahead and do that today." Though the limited information available appears to vindicate CCH, at least in this particular incident, I'm not seeing a whole lot to make me change my mind about them and Aliens. Quality assurance aside, they still seem to be unaware of or indifferent to the legitimate fears of their customers. Instead of responding to worst-case scenarios, as I believe they should, they still seem to act (or not act as the case may be) based on what they hope is true. Aliens remain the only cam on the market today above which I refuse to climb.
Because there's STILL no word from CCH, even just to acknowledge that a question exists, I'm left thinking that they just don't care what any of their customers think.
(This post was edited by j_ung on Apr 26, 2007, 2:14 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
skinnyclimber
Apr 26, 2007, 2:15 PM
Post #12 of 354
(53734 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 406
|
j_ung wrote: Aliens remain the only cam on the market today above which I refuse to climb.
...Removes green alien from rack. Clips to old gym harness given as gift and left in gear cabinet forever....
oh well not sure if I'll ever use it again...
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Apr 26, 2007, 3:43 PM
Post #13 of 354
(53672 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
pinsandbones wrote: I was seventy feet up or so when I fell from just a few feet above the piece.
Sounds like he had to run it out about 25 feet before placing the Alien -- last piece at 65 feet and previous at roughly 40 feet -- for him to deck. Is there really no other pro or did something else happen (belayer failure, more pieces blew, etc)?
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Apr 26, 2007, 4:20 PM
Post #14 of 354
(53635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
To add to J_ung's list of questions:
Did you ever have the cam pull tested?
I think the previous use history of the particular cam is also very important.
Hope the rest of the semester goes well.
|
|
|
|
|
nnowinowski
Apr 26, 2007, 7:50 PM
Post #15 of 354
(53544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2003
Posts: 84
|
bump. Where is this guy? He is about as vague as can be.
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
Apr 26, 2007, 9:33 PM
Post #16 of 354
(53446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
nnowinowski wrote: bump. Where is this guy? He is about as vague as can be.
I think his post is vauge because he's actively trying to prevent the details of his accident from coming to light. (of course he does have a broken arm, so maybe its just hard for him to type)
For one thing, his post creates the illusion of transparency without actually saying anything.
To me this indicates that he wants someone to sue - and I hope he will convince me otherwise.
The most important detail of the accident, as I see it, is:
what was the next peice of pro below the alien, and
how far down to it.
(If he climbed up to the 50 foot mark, fired in a peice, and then continued 20 feet up to the alien, well then its only his fault.
On the other hand, if there was another peice 5 feet below the alien, then he just got a really shitty belay - but its still not CCH's fault he hit the ground)
I know people are more concerned with the details of the alien - and I don't mean to side track - but as far as the totality of the accident is concerned - a single broken peice of gear does not seem to be enough for a climber to fall to the ground from 70 feet up without at least one other failure occuring in the system.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 26, 2007, 11:28 PM
Post #17 of 354
(53404 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
fulton wrote: nnowinowski wrote: bump. Where is this guy? He is about as vague as can be. I think his post is vauge because he's actively trying to prevent the details of his accident from coming to light. (of course he does have a broken arm, so maybe its just hard for him to type) For one thing, his post creates the illusion of transparency without actually saying anything. To me this indicates that he wants someone to sue - and I hope he will convince me otherwise. The most important detail of the accident, as I see it, is: what was the next peice of pro below the alien, and how far down to it. (If he climbed up to the 50 foot mark, fired in a peice, and then continued 20 feet up to the alien, well then its only his fault. On the other hand, if there was another peice 5 feet below the alien, then he just got a really shitty belay - but its still not CCH's fault he hit the ground) I know people are more concerned with the details of the alien - and I don't mean to side track - but as far as the totality of the accident is concerned - a single broken peice of gear does not seem to be enough for a climber to fall to the ground from 70 feet up without at least one other failure occuring in the system.
Except that the central issue isn't that the climber decked. It's that a piece of gear failed, possibly due to a manufacturing defect. Even if the climber had not decked, those of us who understand the issue would still want the same information about the cam.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bishop
Apr 27, 2007, 6:41 PM
Post #18 of 354
(53256 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2001
Posts: 192
|
fulton wrote: a single broken peice of gear does not seem to be enough for a climber to fall to the ground from 70 feet up without at least one other failure occuring in the system.
From what I have heard (from one of the people in the rescue) there was a second placement below the Alien (how far I don't know) but it pulled during the fall.
|
|
|
|
|
soillclimber
May 5, 2007, 1:22 AM
Post #19 of 354
(52502 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2005
Posts: 31
|
Pictures are worth a thousand words. Some extra words that you should all know...CCH has had these photos for a couple weeks now. Allegedly, they say that it isn't a failed braze, that the cam must have been over an edge, etc. Judge for yourself. I have been using Aliens for years now and have had no problems (and have aided and fallen on all of them), but the fact that they had these shots and said nothing, really bothers me. Yes that is the actual placement still in the rock. The date stamp is 3/07 (post recall). I will be out climbing for the next few days and will not respond to any posts; so don't wonder where I am. Oh and I am doing this for pinsandbones because he is trying to get better and it is easier for me just to do it. He asked me to do it because apparently CCH is not going to and he doesn't want it to happen to anyone else. Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
|
112
May 5, 2007, 1:29 AM
Post #20 of 354
(52492 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2004
Posts: 432
|
Thanks a lot!
I hope your friend heals quickly!
|
|
|
|
|
phillygoat
May 5, 2007, 1:51 AM
Post #21 of 354
(52467 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2004
Posts: 428
|
Well that doesn't inspire confidence.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 5, 2007, 1:53 AM
Post #22 of 354
(52465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Is the piece marked as tensile tested?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
vector
May 5, 2007, 2:02 AM
Post #23 of 354
(52449 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2004
Posts: 88
|
Thanks for posting these soillclimber.
|
|
|
|
|
hanginaround
May 5, 2007, 2:05 AM
Post #24 of 354
(52441 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 126
|
Okay!!! I'm convinced!!! I just bought a yellow just like that one. I think I'll send it to CHH with those pix and ask for a refund..
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 5, 2007, 2:49 AM
Post #25 of 354
(52397 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
hanginaround wrote: Okay!!! I'm convinced!!! I just bought a yellow just like that one. I think I'll send it to CHH with those pix and ask for a refund..
I'm actually e-mailing them right now about the subject.
I'm not trying to be a jerk by any means, as I no longer even have confidence in aliens, but what is that mark on the stem of the cam unit? There are two pictures where it does look like damage was done to the stem, but I can't quite make out what that is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
