|
Rocquestar
Oct 22, 2011, 2:18 AM
Post #126 of 144
(10271 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2011
Posts: 14
|
socalclimber wrote: I have to disagree here. This whole argument about teaching beginners to do buddy checks builds complacent beginners. If you even have the vaguest clue of how to teach you make sure to entrench the model of self sufficiency. I do it all the time with my clients and beginners I sometimes climb with. A classic example is when I do basic classes. After the initial knots portion is done, they have to tie it themselves. Of course we check them, but when they ask "How does this look", or "Is this good enough", I always answer the same way. "Is it good enough for you?". Sorry, but buddy checks are essential and important, and the lack of them was a mitigating factor in this accident.
+1 more for your answer to that nagging question.
|
|
|
|
|
theguy
Oct 22, 2011, 5:34 AM
Post #127 of 144
(10251 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2004
Posts: 469
|
socalclimber wrote: Sorry, but buddy checks are essential and important, and the lack of them was a mitigating factor in this accident.
So you're doing JimTitt one better and claiming that the accident would have been worse with buddy checks? Now I understand why the climber miraculously survived 
(This post was edited by theguy on Oct 22, 2011, 6:02 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
theguy
Oct 22, 2011, 5:45 AM
Post #128 of 144
(10246 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2004
Posts: 469
|
bearbreeder wrote: theres a very simple selfish reason one should do buddy checks IMO ... if your buddy misses something, falls and gets hurt .. youre up shiets creek and at best need to call in the SAR chopper, at worst needs to self rescue leaving all your shiet behind ...and at the very worst, make plans to attend a funeral, god forbid ... theres absolutely no reason to not check the other persons as well ... at least until REAL data comes forth about checks reducing safety ...
Interesting illustration: brings to mind diving, where it's routine to carry an octopus since not only could it save your buddy's life, but it could save yours since your regulator is the first thing they'll grab when they're asphyxiating.
To the JimTitt assertion, I don't recall hearing any arguments that the octopus breeds a lack of personal responsibility and contributes to diver asphyxiations. Any more experienced divers care to chime in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 24, 2011, 4:18 PM
Post #130 of 144
(10178 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
viciado wrote: rrrADAM wrote: Setting up a rap, double or songle rope... You thread the station, tie knots in the ends, and toss your line(s) over... You ask someone at the bottom if your lines are on the ground (buddy check). Good practice, or not? Or, someone on the bottom climbing a route next to you offers up that your lines are or are not reaching the bottom (buddy check) ... etc. Your examples are fine in as much as they demonstrate how a buddy check can help, but a buddy check can never be the first line of risk management.
NOBODY has said this is the first line of defense, or primary anything... It is simply an additional layer of protection, that when available SHOULD be encouraged and utilized.
In the nuclear industry we address "Human Performance Errors"... One way of doing this, is through "Independent Verification", as people can and do make mistakes. Now, this isn't the primary defense, as training, testing, certification, mock-ups, experience etc. are all part of it.
Even in science... When discoveries are made, or even often when tests performed, they are immediately validated through independant verification. Ask yourself why, given that they are very well trained, and follow strict procedures.
To put it simply... There is a nonzero chance that any of us (climbing, nuclear, what ever) will make a mistake. If there is a way to reduce it even more, it should be encouraged and used.
Again... NOBODY is saying 'buddy checks' are the first line of defense, but simply an added layer that may further reduce that NONZERO chance that a mistake was made. If it is avaliable, it should be taken. If one's ego is such that they cannot accept them, then their nonzero chance is MUCH greater than one who has less ego and appreciates the input.
(This post was edited by rrrADAM on Oct 24, 2011, 4:32 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jbone
Oct 24, 2011, 4:51 PM
Post #131 of 144
(10163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2002
Posts: 463
|
Wow, everyday I see this post refreshed on the boards I am amazed.
What if this is just proof that some people put less a value on life than most.
We all do it, some more than others, the significant contribution to this scenario is that it happened during an activity that one would assume their life was at risk at all times.
Same thing happens when you see that kid on the freeway texting away while swerving through traffic.
People take situations for granted and put their life on the line everyday. Why do we try so hard to look for the answer in the situation when its entirely on the person?
Because we do not want to think its possible that people would act in such callus disregard for their own or any other life. Especially in an activity that so obviously exhibits its hazards like Climbing.
The truth is people don't want to think they are mortal till their lives depend on it.
|
|
|
|
|
sandstone
Oct 24, 2011, 7:23 PM
Post #132 of 144
(10123 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2004
Posts: 324
|
jbone wrote: Wow, everyday I see this post refreshed on the boards I am amazed. What if this is just proof that some people put less a value on life than most.
I haven't seen anything in this thread that would make me think the people involved in the accident, nor the people who have commented on it afterward, have put a lesser value on life.
In reply to: We all do it, some more than others, the significant contribution to this scenario is that it happened during an activity that one would assume their life was at risk at all times. Same thing happens when you see that kid on the freeway texting away while swerving through traffic.
That analogy doesn't work. To make it work, the victim in this accident would have had to have been intentionally tempting fate by intentionally climbing with a partially tied knot. From what we know that was definitely not the case.
Nobody is surprised when they find that a swerving car is being driven by a kid who is texting, but I'm sure everyone at the site of this accident was very surprised when it happened.
In reply to: People take situations for granted and put their life on the line everyday. Why do we try so hard to look for the answer in the situation when its entirely on the person?
A simple distraction (a situation) can cause someone to forget to finish their knot, and to forget to check it before climbing. In a different situation, the climber would have not made the error, or would have caught it in a self-check. On another day, that same climber may have responded differently to the same distractions. I don't see a clear black and white dividing line between situation and person.
In reply to: Because we do not want to think its possible that people would act in such callus disregard for their own or any other life. Especially in an activity that so obviously exhibits its hazards like Climbing.
I have read nothing about this incident that would make me think that any type of "callus disregard" was involved. That comment seems way out of line to me.
In reply to: The truth is people don't want to think they are mortal till their lives depend on it.
We do indeed take serious things for granted, however I think that is part of our very nature. Familiarity can cause us to be complacent, even though we know our life is on the line. Your example of driving is a good one. That's the single most dangerous thing most of us do on a regular basis, yet all of us are guilty at one time or another of not giving it the attention it deserves. Have you eaten and driven at the same time? It doesn't make any sense does it? Yet we do it. We get familiar and comfortable with driving, and the danger isn't as immediate as it was to us when we were just learning to drive.
An experienced climber in a familiar situation may be at their highest point of risk.
|
|
|
|
|
ACJ
Oct 27, 2011, 2:09 PM
Post #133 of 144
(10023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2008
Posts: 162
|
sandstone wrote: An experienced climber in a familiar situation may be at their highest point of risk.
I agree. I think it's at it's worst when you think you are safe...
One of my most memorable climbing experiences was right at the end of my first year of climbing. I was working a toprope site with a long time local NC climber named Jeep. I asked him if we had to use tethers while near the edge of the cliff and breaking things down at the end of the day. His response?
Jeep: "No, you don't have to use a tether if you don't want to. Just remember that this is a great way to get yourself killed."
5 years later I rarely use a tether to break down a toprope, but I do commonly say to myself, "this is a great way to get yourself killed." Then I go about my business with a little extra care to not do anything stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
IsayAutumn
Oct 27, 2011, 2:51 PM
Post #134 of 144
(10015 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Posts: 355
|
Has anyone heard any more about how this climber is doing?
|
|
|
|
|
viciado
Oct 27, 2011, 5:58 PM
Post #135 of 144
(9974 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 429
|
Adam,
I agree with the concept that buddy checks are important. I also indicated upthread that I overstated my point in a poor attempt to respond to what I perceived as a polarized discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience.
edited to bump the more important point:
IsayAutumn wrote: Has anyone heard any more about how this climber is doing?
(This post was edited by viciado on Oct 27, 2011, 8:20 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
srwings
Nov 4, 2011, 11:39 PM
Post #136 of 144
(9794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2004
Posts: 247
|
So Majid, the comment about hanging, is that just hyperbole or is that the professional judgment of a professional guide?
(This post was edited by srwings on Nov 4, 2011, 11:40 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Nov 4, 2011, 11:55 PM
Post #137 of 144
(9785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
srwings wrote: So Majid, the comment about hanging, is that just hyperbole or is that the professional judgment of a professional guide?
I was little over acting but if I had the authority and the power, I would had removed some of the privileges or put the person under some sort of suspension till they put their acts together.
Again, this is coming for an instructor .
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Nov 5, 2011, 12:14 PM
Post #138 of 144
(9727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
Based on the attitudes of some around here, what I find more frightening than the accident is that "self reliance" excuses not using a simple check between two partners mere feet from one another before starting a climb or pitch.
Since "self reliance" is so important, and buddy/partner checks are a sure sign of complacency, I suggest you just stop using the basic On Belay, Belay On etc all together. Clearly based on the attitudes of some, these commands are worthless.
Best wishes to the climber.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Nov 5, 2011, 9:00 PM
Post #139 of 144
(9689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
socalclimber wrote: Based on the attitudes of some around here, what I find more frightening than the accident is that "self reliance" excuses not using a simple check between two partners mere feet from one another before starting a climb or pitch.
socalclimber wrote: Since "self reliance" is so important, and buddy/partner checks are a sure sign of complacency, I suggest you just stop using the basic On Belay, Belay On etc all together. Clearly based on the attitudes of some, these commands are worthless.
If I am on my own then I check my work until I am 100% confident in it. If I am not on my own then I check my work until I am 100% confident in it.
If I am 100% confident why would I get my partner to check it? If I am NOT 100% confident then I would check it or change it until I am.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Nov 5, 2011, 9:54 PM
Post #140 of 144
(9683 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
rrrADAM wrote: In the nuclear industry we address "Human Performance Errors"... One way of doing this, is through "Independent Verification", as people can and do make mistakes. Now, this isn't the primary defense, as training, testing, certification, mock-ups, experience etc. are all part of it.
I also have worked in that industry. It was interesting. The fact that someone was going to check your work did not shield you from the ensuing gang-rape if you did it wrong. Not only were you going down the sewer pipe but so was the inspector with whom you enjoyed working.
Still, this is an interesting discussion ... am enjoying hearing both sides.
Bill L
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Nov 6, 2011, 2:22 AM
Post #141 of 144
(9654 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
patto wrote: socalclimber wrote: Based on the attitudes of some around here, what I find more frightening than the accident is that "self reliance" excuses not using a simple check between two partners mere feet from one another before starting a climb or pitch. Or just do a simple check yourself without even having to ask your partner. socalclimber wrote: Since "self reliance" is so important, and buddy/partner checks are a sure sign of complacency, I suggest you just stop using the basic On Belay, Belay On etc all together. Clearly based on the attitudes of some, these commands are worthless. Your logic doesn't make sense. Some tasks necessarily involve the partnership and for those clear communication is important. I trust myself and I trust my partner. For tasks that I do myself I don't need my partner to check it for me to feel secure. If I am on my own then I check my work until I am 100% confident in it. If I am not on my own then I check my work until I am 100% confident in it. If I am 100% confident why would I get my partner to check it? If I am NOT 100% confident then I would check it or change it until I am.
My logic is sound, based on twenty years of climbing experience and guide experience.
If the system you choose to embrace works for you, that's fine. I just won't condone that attitude being asserted on new climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Nov 6, 2011, 4:22 AM
Post #143 of 144
(9621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
jt512 wrote: patto wrote: If I am 100% confident why would I get my partner to check it?Because you might be overconfident. Jay
So what saves me for the other 75% of my decisions when my partner isn't around? Is it just pray and hope my confidence is not misplaced?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 6, 2011, 4:44 AM
Post #144 of 144
(9612 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
patto wrote: jt512 wrote: patto wrote: If I am 100% confident why would I get my partner to check it?Because you might be overconfident. Jay So what saves me for the other 75% of my decisions when my partner isn't around?
Nothing. You are not infallible. You could make a mistake on one of those decisions where you can't be double checked, which could end your life. Likewise, you could make a mistake on one of the 25% of your decisions where your partner could double-check you.
The error in your logic is obvious. There is a benefit to having someone double check you. The existence of situations in which you can't be double checked doesn't negate the benefit when you can be. So why not take advantage of double checking when it is possible.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Nov 6, 2011, 4:45 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
