I've seen numbers as high as 30-50 accidents a year, but I need to confirm this. A few high profile climbers have been hurt (most notably Dick Williams while taking wingers during a photo-shoot, but the statistics I've seen are a vast majority of the injuries are on the 5.4 to 5.8 climbs that are G/PG.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I am guessing;
most of these accidents were

1-Majority of them were gym climbers who wanted to try trad
2- During lead or it was caused by a leader fall.
2- Climbers had less than 2 years of outdoor climbing experience (5.8 or less)
3- Most accidents were involved with multiple protection failures
4- Inexperienced belayer

I am very interested to know if #1 and #3 are accurate.

hey no fair,.... there are two number 2's. Try the first number two and 3 as being accurate from the statistics I've seen.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I am guessing;
most of these accidents were

1-Majority of them were gym climbers who wanted to try trad
2- During lead or it was caused by a leader fall.
3- Climbers had less than 2 years of outdoor climbing experience (5.8 or less)
4- Most accidents were involved with multiple protection failures
5- Inexperienced belayer

I am very interested to know if #1 and #3 are accurate.

I've seen numbers as high as 30-50 accidents a year

From ANAM:

2004: 18 Ascending accidents with one fatality (on a 5.7), 5 rappelling accidents.

2005: 15 climbing accidents, all leader falls, 8 involving inadequate protection, 1 fatality. Average age, 35, most routes of moderate difficulty.

2006: 10 ascending accidents, 1 rappel accident, one downclimbing accident. 6 of the ascending accidents involved no or inadequate protection. Average age of climbers 37, average difficulty 5.6, average level of experience moderate to experienced.

The ANAM does not get all the reports nor publishes every one of them in their yearly book. Due to gov agencies red tape , some of the reports never makes to AAC. I know that for fact cause I work for such agencies and in many causes we are not allowed to talk about such incidents to public.

as Chas noted, protection opportunities are not continuous as they are in a crack-climbing environment, and I would add that Gunks protection tends to come from the smaller part of the rack, which raises the probability of failures for all climbers, regardless of experience. Third, there are a lot of features to hit on your way down, and this is more true on the easier climbs. Finally, the easy climbs in the Gunks tend to be harder than easy climbs elsewhere. 5.2's and 5.3's can have real moves that are not no-brainers.

These features are somewhat unique to the Gunks.

As Gail mentioned, I was at the "Arrow" accident.

I am fairly certain I've got this right. A partner in the climbing team who was managing the rescue before professionals got on the scene said:
- The second fell as she went over that roofish move at the beginning of pitch 2.
- She fell less than a body length, and hit the ledge.

With the leader at the top, that's a lot of rope out(stretch). Even with a taut belay, falling there would probably bring you back to the ledge, I'd think...

Rockclimbchar,

I agree with many of your points. Yes, the Gunks can be crowded, and gear may not be as straight forward, or as readily available as gear in other climbing areas or especially as on crack climbs. And easier climbs are usually not safe to fall on due to all of the blocky ledges.


But to say that a 5.5 route will have a 5.8 move or more on it is crazy. All of the routes at the Gunks are rated by the hardest move on the route, just like other climbing areas. Not based on a sum or average of all of the other moves. This is why the Gunks is home of so many "one move wonders". For instance, 5.10s that have one or two 5.10 moves followed by cruiser (in comparison) .7 or .8. In fact, most of the routes (of course there are exceptions) are not sustained at the grade they are rated.

Some say that ratings at the Gunks are stiffer than other areas, but you simply can't compare ratings of a sport crag to an area with as much history as a trad climbing meca like the gunks. Yes, Gunks ratings are harder than Rumney, but through my experience, Gunks ratings are no harder than the ratings in other traditional climbing areas, such as the Adirondacks or North Conway.

Feel free to disagree.

Since you helped on a few of these , What are the common problems involved with these type accidents ?

Protection failures ?
Lack of experience ?
Belay error ?
others ?

Very Well! I disagree!

I've climbed in areas all over the country and feel quite comfortable in saying that there are MANY routes which exceed the given rating when compared to most areas I've been to. There are quite a few factors involved including subjective opinion, but I think I've spoken with enough climbers about this to feel comfortable making this general statement. I've done a fair amount of routes that we're 'averaged out' as well.

As far as Eastern trad areas, the first ascentionists were often the same people and/or same time period and similar ethics and the grading, as a result, is "somewhat" similar.

-Jason

Not with enough force to cause a compound fracture, I wouldn't think. I've done Arrow a fair number of times--and IMO, there almost certainly had to be some sort of belayer error involved in this accident.

If you are shorter than a certain height, there's actually a pretty tricky move on Arrow right off the belay ledge (GT ledge) and well below the 5.7 overhang 20' above the ledge. Discussion on gunks.com has confirmed that the injured climber did indeed fall on those opening moves and not up at the overhang as everyone assumes.

But to say that a 5.5 route will have a 5.8 move or more on it is crazy.

Now I disagree that G-rated routes can have sections of R on them . Most G- rated routes are perfectly G. As you get higher in the grades your ability to find and place gear needs to improve.