Most of us see a very large difference. In almost thirty years of climbing, I have known many competent, experienced climbers who unknowingly screwed up by not finishing their knot or clipping the wrong rope. Most of those incidents turned out ok. A few turned out tragically.

In almost thirty years of climbing, in the US, Canada, and Europe, I have never, ever known a competent, experienced climber who injured (or nearly injured) themselves by hucking volunteer lobs on ledgy, low-angle terrain.

That's the difference. Hearing about Woody's accident (or Angry's near miss), most of us on this site with both competence and experience could nod and say, yeah, I need to watch and make sure I don't mess up something like that.

But neither I nor, I am willing to bet, Curt or RGold or Angry or DMT or anyone else I can think of at the moment, is likely to look at this episode and say, yeah, that could've been me. Because it couldn't have been. No one I know or have ever known who is both competent and experienced would play crash test dummy in that scenario.

As best as I can tell from your post, you wouldn't have either. Your argument is that an involuntary fall is equivalent to a volunteer lob. But it isn't. Volunteer falls occur to n00bies because they are n00bs and have to survive a certain amount of time during which they are always in the death zone simply because they are n00bies. After they've acquired experience and competence, they may move into a new zone, one in which they are willing to take calculated risks on particular climbs in order to succeed.

But no one competent is going to deliberately court those risks in simple training situations-- who would just go out and stand in the shooting-gallery couloir to see if their helmet could turn a falling rock? Who is going to huck a volunteer lob on ledgy ground just to see what would happen if their gear pulled?

In my life, I;'ve known maybe two folks who were skilled climbers but who also would do those sorts of things. They both died young, and foolishly, and pointlessly, without having ever lived up to their talent.

Climbing is about taking risks and some of us are willing to take greater risks than others. If it wasn't risky it would not be as rewarding. He was completely aware of the cost of failure and went for it anyway.

Not agreeing means the climber is off belay. You're cool with that?

I don't think that's what the belayer meant when he said that he "reluctantly agreed." Obviously he is going to keep the guy on belay.

In saying that he "reluctantly agreed," the belayer is implying the the leader sought his approval to catch a deliberate fall, and he gave this approval.

What alternative is there? How about, "Dude, don't be a fucking idiot." "I'm fucking serious. Don't do it. You want to walk home? You want to climb again?"

Most of us see a very large difference. In almost thirty years of climbing, I have known many competent, experienced climbers who unknowingly screwed up by not finishing their knot or clipping the wrong rope. Most of those incidents turned out ok. A few turned out tragically.

In almost thirty years of climbing, in the US, Canada, and Europe, I have never, ever known a competent, experienced climber who injured (or nearly injured) themselves by hucking volunteer lobs on ledgy, low-angle terrain.

That's the difference. Hearing about Woody's accident (or Angry's near miss), most of us on this site with both competence and experience could nod and say, yeah, I need to watch and make sure I don't mess up something like that.

But neither I nor, I am willing to bet, Curt or RGold or Angry or DMT or anyone else I can think of at the moment, is likely to look at this episode and say, yeah, that could've been me. Because it couldn't have been. No one I know or have ever known who is both competent and experienced would play crash test dummy in that scenario.

As best as I can tell from your post, you wouldn't have either. Your argument is that an involuntary fall is equivalent to a volunteer lob. But it isn't. Involuntary falls occur to n00bies because they are n00bs and have to survive a certain amount of time during which they are always in the death zone simply because they are n00bies. After they've acquired experience and competence, they may move into a new zone, one in which they are willing to take calculated risks on particular climbs in order to succeed.

But no one competent is going to deliberately court those risks in simple training situations-- who would just go out and stand in the shooting-gallery couloir to see if their helmet could turn a falling rock? Who is going to huck a volunteer lob on ledgy ground just to see what would happen if their gear pulled?

In my life, I've known maybe two folks who were skilled climbers but who also would do those sorts of things. They both died young, and foolishly, and pointlessly, without having ever lived up to their talent.


Edit to correct my pre-coffee typos.

If that's what it takes to make my point. I enter in to partnerships with the implicit understanding that it's a team that takes care of each other. When the other person starts acting stupid for no good reason, the partnership is over. But, I don't think he had to go that far. He agreed to catch his unnecessary fall. He shouldn't have. Hell, you can tell it's a dicked up situation when a climber has to ask his belayer to catch his fall anyway.

But still, had he fallen, you would have still caught him, right? I mean, you wouldn't have let go of the rope, right?

Good post but you missed my point.

I agree that practice falls on ledgy terrain are stupid.

But I strongly disagree with the personal attacks on this thread from "experienced" climbers.

As someone with a background in mathematics and data analysis and a climber with 20+ years experience (I started young, i'm 27) I say that the serious accidents I have seen have been about equally distributed between very experienced climbers and new/somewhat inexperienced climbers... the just-experienced-enough-to-be-scared ones seem to be the only safeish ones.

(Actually there was a study about this a while ago but i can't seem to find it now?)

If an accident report is posted on this site the responses seem to fit into too catagories "traggic reminder" or "stupid n00b." I think that we would all be safer and better off if we view all accidents, no matter how inane as the former.

I consider myself a "safe" climber. I am experienced and aware of many risks and my notion of acceptable risk is at a level good for a 27 year old with no dependents. I don't take practice falls but I do lead a lot of hardish (5.10-5.11) low angle, often ledgy terrain onsite sometimes in remote areas with no cell service, sometimes protected by small gear or (rarely) old bolts or pins.

I am a pretty decent slab climber but I am also willing to hop on stuff that I have about a 50% of falling on provided I am reasonably certain I can fall safely. (the local philosophy is that hard slabs should be fairly well protected otherwise they will not see enough traffic to remain free of moss...I am more conservative in places like jtree etc where run outs are more the norm or in areas that are more remote or when the gear is truly questionable etc etc etc)

I have fallen (lots) doing this and if I keep doing this sort of climbing I WILL fall more. Thus I see no difference between continuing to do so and taking intentional falls, the only difference (and thus the only safety) will be in how I protect the falls, how good I am at falling and when I decide to back down.

Reading about this accident has reminded me of the great weight that rests on my notions of reasonable safety, it has caused me to go over the precautions I take on hard climbs... things like redundant solid gear, awareness of ledges, a big foam helmet that protects the back of my head and keeping legs free of the rope and below me so that they hit first, allways being prepared to land like a cat etc etc etc...

It serves as a reminder of how serious a low angle fall can be and thus hones my notion just how far I should be willing to push it before I back down.





Because of all this, my point is that by concentrating on the dangers of practice falls and personal attacks on n00bs I think lots of posters on this thread are missing the warning about the dangers of low angle climbing in general and the importance of self rescue and first aid skills. This kind of attitude breads complacency which is never a good thing.

Those are my thoughts, the may differ from the norm because of the type of climbing I gravitate towards or they may be just plain wrong. Either way I need to get back to work :/

Jeff

I have few questions for you;

1-what is the weight of your partner (including with what he had on him).
2-what type/model/brand cam was in use
3-how high was he from the last protection before he decided to take a fall
4-size /model and rope age
5-your belay device type
6-rough estimate on how much slack you think you had before his fall
7- estimate the total amount of rope in use after the accident ( from your belay to the knot at his harness).

Thanks

<a veritable tome>

Unless you drop the rope and tell your partner he's off belay, you're agreeing to catch him. There are ultimately only two choices:

1. Agree to catch him (maintain the belay)
2. Don't agree to catch him (take him off belay)

But still, had he fallen, you would have still caught him, right? I mean, you wouldn't have let go of the rope, right?

If an accident report is posted on this site the responses seem to fit into too catagories "traggic reminder" or "stupid n00b." I think that we would all be safer and better off if we view all accidents, no matter how inane as the former.

Of course I would have caught him. Then I would've lowered his ass and went home.