|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 19, 2011, 12:22 AM
Post #76 of 144
(11833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
JimTitt wrote: Buddy checks are clearly a good idea if they are done by someone competent to check, if there is someone there to do them and if they are actually done. The rest of the time they are clearly worthless as we have seen.
Again, no offense here, but as we have seen, not using the buddy check contributed to this accident...
What started this thread was a climber who fell when climbing with a GUIDE as a belay, who did NOT check her knot before she left the ground. You stated that you purposely do not teach the use of buddy checks, thus non was done... I would not say that the buddy check was worthless in this situation, as it would most likely have averted this entire situation.
Good to see you are coming around to understanding that buddy checks are a good thing, when added as another link... I.e., redundancy
I hope that you will consider teaching it as a "good practice"... To be honest, I cannot think of ANY reason to not encourage people to check one another as an additional layer of safety. It can only add to safety, not detract from it. Conversely, to proactively avoid it, or purposely NOT TEACH it, seems reckless.
Again... "Redundancy"... In climbing, it's a good thing.
(This post was edited by rrrADAM on Oct 19, 2011, 12:48 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
sandstone
Oct 19, 2011, 12:41 AM
Post #77 of 144
(11824 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2004
Posts: 324
|
drector wrote: The difference is that the pilot works very hard to learn the proper way to do things and does them without compromise less they die in a fiery crash. Climbers just go out and climb and many are not taught about how serious their inaction might be if they screw up.
patto wrote: If that is the case, and in many situations I believe it is, then the solution isn't to introduce buddy checks. If the problem is complacency then the solution isn't another complacent person check 25% of the life critical aspects.
What is your approach Patto? Best I can tell, you think it is possible to operate at a level of 100% perfection, where you can never make a mistake. Airplane pilots never reach that level, even with hundreds of hours of training. There are graves (many of them filled with passengers who died due to simple pilot errors) to prove that point.
No one has said that buddy checks are a solution to everything -- that would be ridiculous. Of course buddy checks can't help you all the time, because many times no buddy is there. Those are hollow arguments you are making.
If a quick and simple buddy check will give me and my partners a better chance at avoiding a few potentially fatal mistakes, then that's what I'm going to do. I would be a fool not to.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Oct 19, 2011, 1:09 AM
Post #78 of 144
(11808 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
rrrADAM wrote: Again, no offense here, but as we have seen, not using the buddy check contributed to this accident...
Not tying ones knot properly contributed to this accident. Not checking ones own knot contributed to the accident. To blame it on buddy check is a joke.
sandstone wrote: What is your approach Patto?
I concentrate on what I am doing. I check myself. I check myself again. And I check myself.
How is having a buddy check me once for a small aspect of my climbing better than having me check myself multiple times for ALL aspects of my climbing?
Anyway. If people want to do buddy checks then that is fine with me. I'm not stopping you. Every little bit can improve safety. In my opinion there are more important aspects to focus on.
(This post was edited by patto on Oct 19, 2011, 1:11 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Oct 19, 2011, 3:06 AM
Post #79 of 144
(11787 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
patto wrote: rrrADAM wrote: Again, no offense here, but as we have seen, not using the buddy check contributed to this accident... Not tying ones knot properly contributed to this accident. Not checking ones own knot contributed to the accident. To blame it on buddy check is a joke.
I don't even know how to respond to this. There's clearly no point after that statement.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Oct 19, 2011, 3:23 AM
Post #80 of 144
(11778 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
socalclimber wrote: patto wrote: rrrADAM wrote: Again, no offense here, but as we have seen, not using the buddy check contributed to this accident... Not tying ones knot properly contributed to this accident. Not checking ones own knot contributed to the accident. To blame it on buddy check is a joke. I don't even know how to respond to this. There's clearly no point after that statement.
It all strikes me as something of a romantic ideal that no one here stands a chance of achieving it.
As I said before, spitting in to the headwinds of human nature has a long and storied history of not working out so well for those doing the spitting. I wish them the best of luck though!
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Oct 19, 2011, 3:34 AM
Post #81 of 144
(11769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
the simple fact is that a simple buddy check COULD have saved the person from screwing up ...
it takes a few seconds, and has no costs except to ones ego if they get caught messing up ... either way anyone who has mistied a knot, or threaded through the rope through only one loop is grateful for their partner pointing it out
this includes myself having put the rope through the lower tie in loop, if it wasnt caught, i would have inverted
complacency kills, and no one is perfect all the time ...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 19, 2011, 3:50 AM
Post #82 of 144
(11768 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
drector wrote: majid_sabet wrote: There are reasons on why planes come with two seats in the front and why two pilots are required on most flights one guy is to check and another guy to double check both flying and climbing have one thing in common gravity is their biggest enemy NO! The co-pilot is there because a large plane that requires two pilots has enough work to do that one person can't do it alone inthe time required to get things done. It is NOT because one guy checks the other although there is some amount of working together to be more efficient at a single task like going over checklists. It is quicker to have one guy read a checklist and the other check things, than to have one guy both read and check things while the other sits around waiting. It is about efficiency, not redundancy. Except in the situation where one of the pilots eats the fish. In a slower plane with one engine, the FAA has no problem requiring only a single pilot. I know this from experience as I have a private pilot license for S.E.L.
And your Private–SEL license makes you qualified to discuss cockpit management in a commercial airliner? Who knew! I have a Private, SEL, MEL, IA, and I had no idea was I was qualified on that subject!
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Oct 19, 2011, 5:13 AM
Post #83 of 144
(11755 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
SIGH.
An argument for "more safety" is an easy one to make and a hard one to refute. But the fact remains the comes a point where we cannot take on every safety concept. If we did so we wouldn't even leave the ground let alone take on the sport.
Nobody has begun to answer the hard questions of why they insist on buddy checking when personal checking is largely identical with a stronger vested interest. Not to mention that most life critical decisions can't get buddy checked.
But no there is a mindless mantra that buddy checking will save personal mistakes which meanwhile breeds the very complacency that causes such accidents. 
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 19, 2011, 8:15 AM
Post #84 of 144
(11741 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
patto wrote: Nobody has begun to answer the hard questions of why they insist on buddy checking when personal checking is largely identical with a stronger vested interest.
*raises hand* Because if I mis-tie my knot, and forget to check it, my partner might catch my mistake.
In reply to: Not to mention that most life critical decisions can't get buddy checked.
Fallacy of irrelevance.
In reply to: But no there is a mindless mantra that buddy checking will save personal mistakes which meanwhile breeds the very complacency that causes such accidents.
Data to show that buddy checks in climbing increase complacency?
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Oct 19, 2011, 6:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 19, 2011, 11:05 AM
Post #85 of 144
(11729 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Your sig is appropriate, Jay. 
|
|
|
|
|
ACJ
Oct 19, 2011, 12:45 PM
Post #86 of 144
(11715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2008
Posts: 162
|
patto wrote: Nobody has begun to answer the hard questions of why they insist on buddy checking when personal checking is largely identical with a stronger vested interest. Not to mention that most life critical decisions can't get buddy checked.
I'll answer that hard question... Climbing is an inherently chaotic activity. When we leave the ground we are engaging in a very unique and in some ways difficult to predict form of recreation. We don't always know the rock will hold, where the gear is at, how hard the catch of a fall will be, or even what the movement will feel like, how our body will respond, or what our mind is going to be doing during the climb.
This chaos, although I don't talk about it much, is a big part of what is attractive to me and other folks in climbing. It's what makes it adventurous. That's why when I feel shaky on lead I'll top rope a few routes to allow my mind to relax, stop calculating variables, and just engage in the outrageously low risk situation of top roping.
In an attempt to control this chaos, we have all this crazy new gear, harnesses, ropes, helmets and super sticky shoes. There are also new belay techniques and devices to ensure the best belay. All of these things attempt to control chaos. Even look at the double backed buckle... There are TONS of people who have forgotten to double back. I even saw a video of a guy taking a horrible lead fall on ice that resulted in multiple fractures, even a broken skull while wearing a helmet. His harness wasn't double backed though, and it didn't slip at all (falling from the top of the route almost to the ground). Yet, we don't advocate not doubling back right?
When we store our gear, we don't treat it like crap, leave it in a moldy basement corner, weave our rope into a rug for the off season, or soak in in battery acid, only to bust it back out a year later at the crag. Gear that is dropped gets replaced. Gear that is old gets retired.
I do all this stuff and I'm willing to bet that most people who are avid climbers do a lot of the things I mentioned, have experienced some of these thoughts, and have the new gear.
So why do I insist on buddy checks? It's just one more simple way to control the chaos of climbing. There is no way I would look to my best friend lying there in the dirt next to me after taking an 80 foot fall from an anchor and think "idiot, should have checked his knot." I would expect that there is plenty of guilt in the guides heart that he didn't check his friend, just as I would have if I blew it in such a terrible way.
Buddy checks are great and I don't think there is a legit argument against them. If you don't want to use them that's fine, I bet your partners feel the same way. I do however think it's irresponsible to advocate in any way against them.
Several times during this thread I've heard the whole
"Not to mention that most life critical decisions can't get buddy checked." comment.
What decisions are these? Perhaps I do a different style of climbing compared to you or others but I don't face that many dramatic "life critical" situations in climbing. Both climbers on the ground is a life critical point, covered by the buddy check. Cleaning an anchor, test the system, aka buddy check from a distance. On lead, buddy watches the rope around my leg and gives me a heads up. Other than that I can only think that leading an entire route runout on manky gear is really "life critical" and out of my buddies hand from the ground. Yet, my buddy should know me well enough to say that I shouldn't be leading in that situation, so again a buddy check. Perhaps if you can expand upon this category of decisions I'll have more clarity into what you have to say. Honestly though, I have my systems dialed in and have NEVER felt like I had to make a life critical decision completely on my own in climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Oct 19, 2011, 1:23 PM
Post #87 of 144
(11706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
robdotcalm wrote: "JimTitt wrote: The first clip is the first time your knot (good or bad) will be of any use to you and the first clip is the first opportunity you have to clip into the piece with the entire rest of your rack, sit back, reflect and make corrections. Or climb back down. This is better than checking the hard way at the top.. I can't believe you are serious about this. You're 8 meters up and about to make the first clip and find that your knot is bad so you "sit back" or down climb. Both are potentially dangerous options. Rob.calm
Ok, Both you and Adam are missing the fact that you can clip in direct with a quick draw, sling, etc that should be on your harness... especially if it's a sport route. If it's a trad route then you'd hope you have a decent piece for your first piece but a marginal piece at a good stance would be enough to re-tie a knot.
|
|
|
|
|
kappydane
Oct 19, 2011, 1:51 PM
Post #88 of 144
(11694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 119
|
Given that it's a good thing to do buddy checks. Hard to argue against BUT have all of you done it 100% of the time? Your buddy is on top rope, you turn around to get a drink, they turn around and make a move or two up the rock while you finish your drink. Did you check their knot? You weren't there so you don't know what happened at the start. Now all you perfect people: Do you watch your leader 100% of the time? Do you notice every time his leg is behind the rope, every time he back clips? Have you ever let the loop of slack get a little too long? Have you ever short roped your leader? Do you carry on conversations while belaying? He is your responsibility, right? Can you argue against paying attention 100% of the time while belaying? If not, then you are a bit self-righteous with a type of momentary inattention we may have all, unfortunately, done to some degree in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Oct 19, 2011, 2:51 PM
Post #89 of 144
(11675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
ACJ wrote: Climbing is an inherently chaotic activity.
Chaotic activity?
Wow that is a bizarre notion. Certainly along way from the climbing I know. The climbing I know involves calculated thought and control of ones environment. Compare to most sports this climbing is a long way from chaotic.
But thats just me.
|
|
|
|
|
sandstone
Oct 19, 2011, 3:27 PM
Post #90 of 144
(11658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2004
Posts: 324
|
patto wrote: Chaotic activity? Wow that is a bizarre notion...
By definition it is chaotic. There's no need to try to explain that further, ACJ laid it out quite clearly.
In reply to: Certainly along way from the climbing I know. The climbing I know involves calculated thought and control of ones environment.
It's already pretty clear you think you can overcome your basic human nature. Now you are saying you can control the environment you climb in. I'm sorry dude, but both of those are truly bizarre notions. You can exercise some level of control, but never enough to completely overcome the chaos that is natural (both human nature and the natural environment we live in).
In reply to: But thats just me.
Apparently so. I sincerely wish you the best of luck. You're gonna need it.
|
|
|
|
|
ACJ
Oct 19, 2011, 3:37 PM
Post #91 of 144
(11656 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2008
Posts: 162
|
patto wrote: ACJ wrote: Climbing is an inherently chaotic activity. Chaotic activity? Wow that is a bizarre notion. Certainly along way from the climbing I know. The climbing I know involves calculated thought and control of ones environment. Compare to most sports this climbing is a long way from chaotic. But thats just me.
Your answer makes me smile.
|
|
|
|
|
vencido
Oct 19, 2011, 4:05 PM
Post #92 of 144
(11644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2011
Posts: 21
|
patto wrote: I concentrate on what I am doing. I check myself. I check myself again. And I check myself.
Patto,
If I were to ever climb with you, I would check you for the fourth time.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 19, 2011, 4:29 PM
Post #93 of 144
(11635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
jakedatc wrote: robdotcalm wrote: "JimTitt wrote: The first clip is the first time your knot (good or bad) will be of any use to you and the first clip is the first opportunity you have to clip into the piece with the entire rest of your rack, sit back, reflect and make corrections. Or climb back down. This is better than checking the hard way at the top.. I can't believe you are serious about this. You're 8 meters up and about to make the first clip and find that your knot is bad so you "sit back" or down climb. Both are potentially dangerous options. Rob.calm Ok, Both you and Adam are missing the fact that you can clip in direct with a quick draw, sling, etc that should be on your harness... especially if it's a sport route. If it's a trad route then you'd hope you have a decent piece for your first piece but a marginal piece at a good stance would be enough to re-tie a knot.
Actually, I wasn't missing that... I was wondering if he would commit to statically "anchoring into one piece", and hanging from it while retying his knot. And if the counter was, 'well hey... we all do this if we hang or fall on the first piece', there is a reason we don't build anchors with just one piece.
(This post was edited by rrrADAM on Oct 19, 2011, 4:29 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
durangoclimber
Oct 19, 2011, 4:34 PM
Post #94 of 144
(11633 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2008
Posts: 179
|
Is there any word on her condition?
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Oct 19, 2011, 4:48 PM
Post #95 of 144
(11627 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
I was born in 1952, not yesterday.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Oct 19, 2011, 4:59 PM
Post #96 of 144
(11623 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
rrrADAM wrote: jakedatc wrote: robdotcalm wrote: "JimTitt wrote: The first clip is the first time your knot (good or bad) will be of any use to you and the first clip is the first opportunity you have to clip into the piece with the entire rest of your rack, sit back, reflect and make corrections. Or climb back down. This is better than checking the hard way at the top.. I can't believe you are serious about this. You're 8 meters up and about to make the first clip and find that your knot is bad so you "sit back" or down climb. Both are potentially dangerous options. Rob.calm Ok, Both you and Adam are missing the fact that you can clip in direct with a quick draw, sling, etc that should be on your harness... especially if it's a sport route. If it's a trad route then you'd hope you have a decent piece for your first piece but a marginal piece at a good stance would be enough to re-tie a knot. Actually, I wasn't missing that... I was wondering if he would commit to statically "anchoring into one piece", and hanging from it while retying his knot. And if the counter was, 'well hey... we all do this if we hang or fall on the first piece', there is a reason we don't build anchors with just one piece.
I'll hang off a bolt at a major sport crag all day.. you don't make a sport anchor out of one bolt but you'll hang dog up a route while working it.. same amount of hanging if not less.
sunday i was rapping off a trad route and realized my ends weren't even.. i stopped on a ledge, placed a piece, clipped in and fixed it. 1 cam, good ledge.
For me, I try to check my knot by pulling a foot or so from the knot to see that it's tied and is through both tie in points. I also tie in from top down so that even if i miss the 2nd tie in i'm through the waist belt not the leg loops. There are plenty of times, especially cleaning anchors where you are not able to be double checked. backup when it's available.. sure.. but habit and repetition should have you checking yourself. Also when able, I feed a bight of rope through the rings/links and use a fig 8 on bight and locker instead of untying.
as it relates to this thread.. if you are bringing out a noobie then you should be checking them and if they are out of sight confirming everything before they weight the rope.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 19, 2011, 6:24 PM
Post #97 of 144
(11586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
JimTitt wrote: I was born in 1952, not yesterday. Jim
I know, Jim... It is apparent that you are knowledgeable.
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Oct 19, 2011, 10:45 PM
Post #98 of 144
(11529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
rrrADAM wrote: JimTitt wrote: Buddy checks are clearly a good idea if they are done by someone competent to check, if there is someone there to do them and if they are actually done. The rest of the time they are clearly worthless as we have seen. Again, no offense here, but as we have seen, not using the buddy check contributed to this accident... What started this thread was a climber who fell when climbing with a GUIDE as a belay, who did NOT check her knot before she left the ground. You stated that you purposely do not teach the use of buddy checks, thus non was done... I would not say that the buddy check was worthless in this situation, as it would most likely have averted this entire situation. Good to see you are coming around to understanding that buddy checks are a good thing, when added as another link... I.e., redundancy I hope that you will consider teaching it as a "good practice"... To be honest, I cannot think of ANY reason to not encourage people to check one another as an additional layer of safety. It can only add to safety, not detract from it. Conversely, to proactively avoid it, or purposely NOT TEACH it, seems reckless. Again... "Redundancy"... In climbing, it's a good thing.
"not using the buddy check contributed to this accident..."
Really?
Hypothetically, getting in my car this morning contributed to my being in a car accident, as did talking to my wife for five minutes longer than I might have, but I'm not going to change that aspect of my life. I will change the fact that I made a left turn in from of oncoming traffic by not doing it again!
Failing to tie in was a mistake.
I would agree however that a guide in a teaching situation who does not check their client is 100% at fault in any accident. For climbers in a partner-partner situation, each person is one their own and checking the other person is secondary to doing things right and double-checking yourself.
Or is the buddy check for non-guide situations now another rule of climbing? I climb to get away from rules and oversight.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Oct 20, 2011, 12:07 AM
Post #99 of 144
(11508 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
JimTitt wrote: I was born in 1952, not yesterday. Jim
Big deal! I was born in 1930.
Robertus Vetus
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 20, 2011, 12:47 AM
Post #100 of 144
(11503 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
robdotcalm wrote: JimTitt wrote: I was born in 1952, not yesterday. Jim Big deal! I was born in 1930. Robertus Vetus
^^^^^^^^^
Rob's so old that at the time of his birth people were still actually speaking Latin.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
