|
|
|
|
ambler
Apr 8, 2009, 2:20 PM
Post #76 of 129
(12944 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
rudder wrote: vivalargo wrote: All in all this is a totally bizarre accident, including the surreal way that the facts were kept private and only partially disclosed, how the disclosure of an "accident report" was mixed with emotional confessionals from friends and next of kin, blaming and taking sides on what should and should not be said, and when it should be said, and lastly, the confusing medly of oversights that led to the accident. JL What John said...
I lost a friend to a climbing accident last year, and even as the shocking news hit, I strongly wanted to understand just what happened. Nothing judgmental or morbid about that response -- it felt like completing a life's picture, and not leaving such a black hole in my mind. "Closure" might be the right word. The family seemed to feel the same way, and told the whole story to his friends and others right away. That struck me as strong and brave, and I think that it helped the family in their grieving as well.
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Apr 8, 2009, 2:24 PM
Post #77 of 129
(12941 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
One other big lesson here regards partnerships. Woody was known to get impatient and testy at times. For some, this can be unnerving and intimidating. Woody was apparently hot and tired and wanted down NOW. This may well have affected Al's judgement.
How you and your partner interact with one another is a very important factor in safety.
Don't let others pressure you into bad decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Apr 8, 2009, 2:40 PM
Post #78 of 129
(12922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
socalclimber wrote: One other big lesson here regards partnerships. Woody was known to get impatient and testy at times. For some, this can be unnerving and intimidating. Woody was apparently hot and tired and wanted down NOW. This may well have affected Al's judgement. How you and your partner interact with one another is a very important factor in safety. Don't let others pressure you into bad decisions.
Bill
(This post was edited by billl7 on Apr 8, 2009, 3:26 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Apr 8, 2009, 3:09 PM
Post #79 of 129
(12898 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
jt512 wrote: brotherbbock wrote: jt512 wrote: "6. Kwok fell 65' (approx.) and was held by the second rope at this point (the haul loop on the back of his harness was strong enough). [Edit:] During the 65' fall, Kwok did not lose control of the lowering device. Stark fell 100' total to the ground, receiving a fatal head injury. Jay I can't believe the haul loop held in a 65 foot fall. Kwok is lucky to be alive. Al's got nine lives. Seven remaining, by my count. Jay
Jay, are you suggesting that Al was lucky in two ways here, or that something like this has happened before?
|
|
|
|
|
el_layclimber
Apr 8, 2009, 3:09 PM
Post #80 of 129
(12896 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Posts: 550
|
billl7 wrote: That is a very good point - it can/does become a significant distraction. If this were a confessional then I'd have more to say. Bill
I know that no one wants this to turn into a blame session or personal attacks. But if this accident was arguably part of a pattern of behavior, that would be important for understanding why it occurred and how we can try to avoid repeats.
|
|
|
|
|
sed
Apr 8, 2009, 3:11 PM
Post #81 of 129
(12891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2003
Posts: 356
|
Has there been an actual statement given by Kwok indicating that being tied into 65 feet of slack was a mistake? I just find it hard to believe that he could of made this mistake, given that he rebuilt the anchor and given that it's really hard to disregard 65 feet of slack sitting in front of you, especially if I am assuming it was a different color/style of rope than the other rope up there with him. I simply wonder if we are doing them a diservice by assuming they made an error of omission when in fact this may have simply been a judgement call to belay directly from a stance being tied in (very) long.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Apr 8, 2009, 3:36 PM
Post #82 of 129
(12874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
I too have lowered and belayed from above through stance alone, but not without being anchored in short enough to prevent from going over the edge, and its hard to believe Al would either. Seems more likely that he was unaware of how much rope was out between his tie in and the anchor, believing he was tied in shorter than what he was.
|
|
|
|
|
crodog
Apr 8, 2009, 3:55 PM
Post #83 of 129
(12854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 39
|
“It is better to be careful 100 times than to get killed once.” Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Apr 8, 2009, 4:01 PM
Post #84 of 129
(12851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
sed wrote: ... I just find it hard to believe that he could of made this mistake, given that he rebuilt the anchor and given that it's really hard to disregard 65 feet of slack sitting in front of you...
Where are you reading that the anchor was rebuilt? I can't find any mention of this on the supertopo threads.
d.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Apr 8, 2009, 4:02 PM
Post #85 of 129
(12850 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
el_layclimber wrote: billl7 wrote: That is a very good point - it can/does become a significant distraction. If this were a confessional then I'd have more to say. Bill I know that no one wants this to turn into a blame session or personal attacks. But if this accident was arguably part of a pattern of behavior, that would be important for understanding why it occurred and how we can try to avoid repeats.
This appears to be a problematic issue. I don't know if you saw the first thread on this accident but someone made a rather lengthy post describing another accident involving Woody and his complacency in protecting leads and anchor building. Locker over on SuperTopo has repeatedly confirmed the observations that Woody was (in Lockers own words) "often complacent".
The post was obviously ill timed and there is no telling if it would be better received now that the accident report is out but it highlights an interesting question. Is a persons behavioral history relevant enough in cases like this, to make it worth the "dragging their name through the mud" kind of feeling that surrounds discussing it
Lovegasoline made an interesting and lengthy post on this issue and the need for a more objective, less emotional approach to accident reporting. http://www.supertopo.com/...id=827432&tn=160
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Apr 8, 2009, 4:12 PM
Post #86 of 129
(12831 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
I will doubtless regret even posting to this thread, but I have to make a few points here before the train goes entirely off the tracks.
First, "post-climb" accidents are notoriously common, whether down climbing, lowering, or rapping. As are car accidents on the drive home. It's not over til you're on the couch.
Second, lowering off the top of JTree climbs, from a summit belay, is a common local practice. The summits are typically rounded with anchors well back from the edge. There are seldom cold shuts-- this isn't your gym. The "walk-offs" are frequently dicier than the actual climbs.
Third, you should always and immediately tie yourself into the anchor when you arrive at belay. Do not have someone else do it for you unless you are injured. Do not designate some third party as the tie-in specialist. Always check both your and yr partner's arrangements.
Fourth, accident victims frequently have little or no memory of the accident. Moreover, what "memories" they do have, should be viewed with some caution. We are unlikely ever to know exactly what the belayer thought had happened. Most likely scenario is that he thought the leader had clipped him into the anchor with the lead rope and didn't realize it was the trail line with 65 feet of slack.
Fifth, I strongly disagree with John Long's comments that the family, friends and first responders acted inappropriately by not immediately releasing a public report-- independent of and prior to any done by the NPS or other institutions. In this case, the NPS released a hasty preliminary report w/o properly interviewing Wendell or Al. As a result, the burden fell on Wendell-- one of the climbers involved --to prepare something like an account of what had happened based upon his memories and conversation with Al.
It is unreasonable to expect accident vicitims who are not themselves trained or even semi-professional SAR, LEO or First Responders, and who are suffering from real trauma, to drop everything else in their lives (including their jobs), and crank out a report ASAP for the gawkers here on the internet. Yes, accident reports can be important, and ANAM, for instance, is a useful resource. Yes, a good report, prepared by trained professionals, take some time to deliver. And in cases where unusual factors might pose imminent threats to other members of the climbing community, there ought to be preliminary reporting of some sort. But that wasn't the case here. The account became public in less than a month. That is much faster than is common for professional agencies. I do not see a credible case for the argument that we'd have alleviated human suffering or prevented other accidents had this report come out, say eight or eleven days sooner.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 8, 2009, 4:17 PM
Post #87 of 129
(12823 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
scrapedape wrote: jt512 wrote: brotherbbock wrote: jt512 wrote: "6. Kwok fell 65' (approx.) and was held by the second rope at this point (the haul loop on the back of his harness was strong enough). [Edit:] During the 65' fall, Kwok did not lose control of the lowering device. Stark fell 100' total to the ground, receiving a fatal head injury. Jay I can't believe the haul loop held in a 65 foot fall. Kwok is lucky to be alive. Al's got nine lives. Seven remaining, by my count. Jay Jay, are you suggesting that Al was lucky in two ways here, or that something like this has happened before?
I was alluding to a previous injury he suffered.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dharmatreez
Apr 8, 2009, 4:24 PM
Post #88 of 129
(12809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 228
|
sed wrote: I am assuming it was a different color/style of rope than the other rope up there with him.
this has been on my mind
how similar in color the ropes were or even if they were the same? a hasty glance and it could have been assumed the correct rope / tie in was attached to the anchor
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Apr 8, 2009, 5:31 PM
Post #89 of 129
(12743 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
In reply to: "5. Kwok began lowering Stark. [Edit:] After Kwok had lowered Stark about 35', Kwok probably shifted his weight forward, expecting to be held by the second rope. Due to the slack in the second rope, Kwok kept moving forward and fell along with Stark.
A sad and sobering incident.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Apr 8, 2009, 5:39 PM
Post #90 of 129
(12724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
saxfiend wrote: In reply to: "5. Kwok began lowering Stark. [Edit:] After Kwok had lowered Stark about 35', Kwok probably shifted his weight forward, expecting to be held by the second rope. Due to the slack in the second rope, Kwok kept moving forward and fell along with Stark. Something I don't think anyone has remarked on is the fact that (per the above quote) Kwok had lowered Stark to a point where the distance between the two of them plus the 65' of slack in the rope would be exactly enough (100') for Stark to reach the ground when Kwok fell (or was pulled off). The implication is that if Kwok had only lowered him maybe 25' or less, Stark might still be alive. It seems more likely to me that when Kwok fell, he lost control of the belay and the rope ran through until Stark hit the ground. A sad and sobering incident. JL
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
Apr 8, 2009, 5:56 PM
Post #91 of 129
(12695 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
billl7 wrote: dlintz wrote: In this thread there are many references to the anchor possibly being unsound. I don't recall that being mentioned in any of the supertopo threads. Did I miss something? I could have missed it in the ST.com threads but am pretty sure it was not mentioned there; I've only seen it here: post #22 of this thread.
Well, there are/were several threads on ST. I don't immediately know where I read it, but I remember a comment to the effect:
"Woody (leader) mentioned that he wasn't thrilled with the anchor, having only one good cam. Al (second) took a couple of cams that he had cleaned from the climb and added them to the anchor and equalized it"
I don't think I imagined this out of the blue, but if I'm not recalling this correctly, my apologies.
(This post was edited by sspssp on Apr 8, 2009, 5:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Apr 8, 2009, 5:58 PM
Post #92 of 129
(12681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
billl7 wrote: Stark was untied to relieve pressue on Kwok. This implies that the belay was somehow locked off (or implies a rope tangle). What supports your thoughts that belay control was lost?
JL
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Apr 8, 2009, 6:07 PM
Post #93 of 129
(12658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
saxfiend wrote: billl7 wrote: Stark was untied to relieve pressue on Kwok. This implies that the belay was somehow locked off (or implies a rope tangle). What supports your thoughts that belay control was lost? It just seems a more plausible scenario to me than the sheer coincidence of having lowered the person the exact number of feet (no more, no less) that would produce a groundfall. That's all.
Saxfiend: You and all other posters to this site should read, with some care, the links that Jay so helpfully posted. Everyone reading this thread should try understand the context in which the "report" was produced. This is not a document generated by SAR or LEO personnel or a Coroner's Office, let alone an edited publication like ANAM. That is doubtless one of the reasons that Clint's helpful summary uses the important adjective, "approximately."
Wendell was the third climber. He had to rescue Al, who had suffered severe injuries. The clock was ticking. I very much doubt that he was in a position to measure, exactly, all of the distances involved.
I am not belaboring this point in order to make you look foolish, but rather to try and stem some of the inevitable gumby armchair engineering in which well-intentioned but incompetent posters start yarding numbers out of the "report" and running them through force calculators and other useless instruments.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Apr 8, 2009, 6:15 PM
Post #94 of 129
(12640 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
From an e-mail message from one of the persons involved, the route was Desperado which is more on the left half of the formation. MountainProject.com lists Desperado as a 70 foot route, not 100 foot. No doubt, 70 feet is also an approximation.
Bill L
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Apr 8, 2009, 6:29 PM
Post #95 of 129
(12612 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
k.l.k wrote: You and all other posters to this site should read, with some care, the links that Jay so helpfully posted.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Apr 8, 2009, 6:39 PM
Post #96 of 129
(12595 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
sspssp wrote: billl7 wrote: dlintz wrote: In this thread there are many references to the anchor possibly being unsound. I don't recall that being mentioned in any of the supertopo threads. Did I miss something? I could have missed it in the ST.com threads but am pretty sure it was not mentioned there; I've only seen it here: post #22 of this thread. Well, there are/were several threads on ST. I don't immediately know where I read it, but I remember a comment to the effect: "Woody (leader) mentioned that he wasn't thrilled with the anchor, having only one good cam. Al (second) took a couple of cams that he had cleaned from the climb and added them to the anchor and equalized it" I don't think I imagined this out of the blue, but if I'm not recalling this correctly, my apologies.
No worries. I'd like to think that if the anchor was in fact rebuilt or enhanced the chances of either one noticing Al's securement (or lack of) to the anchor would have been increased. Of course my speculation doesn't really matter at this point.
d.
|
|
|
|
|
rudder
Apr 8, 2009, 7:02 PM
Post #97 of 129
(12569 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 3
|
k.l.k wrote: I strongly disagree with John Long's comments that the family, friends and first responders acted inappropriately by not immediately releasing a public report-- independent of and prior to any done by the NPS or other institutions.
John didn't say inappropriate, he said bizarre.
bi-zarre (bi zär') adj.
1. markedly unusual in appearance, style, or general character; strange; odd.
And, odd it was, like a 3 ring circus, in fact. One bizarre aspect was the friends not keeping silent about being silent. Also, I 've never found it attractive when someone thinks their posture elevates them to the point where they can idignantly heap insults on whoever they want.
I was interested in figuring out the accident just as much as anyone else. And, I doubt that any climber trying to figure out what happened had bad motives for doing so. But, because of the bizarre atmosphere I did not discuss in a discussion forum.
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Apr 8, 2009, 7:43 PM
Post #98 of 129
(12520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
saxfiend wrote: billl7 wrote: Stark was untied to relieve pressue on Kwok. This implies that the belay was somehow locked off (or implies a rope tangle). What supports your thoughts that belay control was lost? It just seems a more plausible scenario to me than the sheer coincidence of having lowered the person the exact number of feet (no more, no less) that would produce a groundfall. That's all. JL
That was my feeling as well. I tried asking for clarification on the first page but it went unanswered. It seems incredible that the distances worked out that, with rope stretch, Stark was exactly on the ground but still exerting pressure on Kwok. But not too much pressure that Smith was able to untie Stark from the weighted line. I don't know what tie-in Stark preferred, but a figure 8 would be hard to untie on a weighted line after a fall. I am not familiar enough with a bowline to know how possible it would be.
Was Stark completely on the ground? slightly above or feet down where Smith could lift to untie?
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Apr 8, 2009, 7:49 PM
Post #99 of 129
(13040 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
This fixation on rope distances really does miss the forest for the trees.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 8, 2009, 7:51 PM
Post #100 of 129
(13653 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
k.l.k wrote: Wendell was the third climber. He had to rescue Al, who had suffered severe injuries. The clock was ticking. I very much doubt that he was in a position to measure, exactly, all of the distances involved.
Just to correct one point. Al's injuries turned out to be minor enough that he could make an appearance at work the next day, though Wendell would have had no way to know that that was the case.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
