|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Sep 12, 2005, 8:05 PM
Post #1 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
Around 1pm on Saturday a climber took about a 20' leader fall when they attempted to rest on a tri-cam they placed, which pulled out when weighted. They fell, hitting a ledge on the way down, resulting in a severe compound fracture to their left ankle.
To their luck, there were over 7 WFR's (3, including myself, less than 50' away and able to respond at the time he fell) 1 EMT, 1 WEMT, and a National Guard Medic able to treat. That day there were over 80 people at the crag, more than I've ever seen before. The National Guard also had a Stokes Basket for evac, speeding things along quickly. Ambulance services were waiting at the trail head, and the patient was out within 2 hours of the incident.
Any other day, the 8 of us WFR's and WEMT's would have handled that exclusivly, and it'd have taken probably another 2-3 hours to get them out. We wouldn't have had a litter made, and the trail is difficult to carry a litter down. If us WFR's weren't there, the situation could have been very dire.
The person involved was an experienced traditional leader, and thought the placement was sound. The fall was not the belayers fault or anything like that. The top piece pulled, and the next peice was too far below to arrest the fall. (was only available gear)
Let me stress, an experienced leader fell less than 20' and needed to get littered out. This could happen to any of us. If there wasn't a litter available, and dozens of people to help carry, the situation could have been much more threatening to the person involved.
Be careful guys!
Jim
for more info, click here :http://www.bangordailynews.com/.../templates/?a=119867
*edited to clarify why the first piece didn't hold, and the availabilty of protection.*
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Sep 13, 2005, 7:04 AM
Post #2 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
The laws of physics specially falling down to earth exist all the time. Placing few pieces few feet apart is normal in lead climbing, what is so unsafe with none fixed protections ( cam, nut etc) is placing one pieces too far from each other ( Saving stuff !!!!!). Most dynamic ropes are designed to stretch from 10% to 30% in length. and with perfect belayer to lock the falling leader, you could still add min of 2-3 feet to the length of the rope every 10 feet high . This could mean nothing if you are on a vertical wall 50 feet up however when you are close to a ledge or ground, it could make a difference between life and death.
My Question to you
DID HE WEAR A HELMET?
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Sep 13, 2005, 9:20 AM
Post #3 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: ...what is so unsafe with no fixed protection (cam, nut etc [trad]), is placing pieces too far apart from each other ( Saving stuff !!!!!)
There is nothing whatsoever unsafe about climbing on gear. Taking responsibility for your own safety means making decisions - make poor decisions and you can get hurt; but in that case it is the climber that is "unsafe" - not trad climbing.
We had a somewhat similar accident happen here in in PDX a couple of weeks ago and thankfully the climber only suffered relatively minor injuries from a much longer fall and came through the experience with a great attitude and much smarter about his foot movements.
One lesson from the incident out this way was to be aware that "taking" may not necessarily be a viable option for you on a trad route the way it typically is on a sport route.
------------------------------------------
"Place thy protection well, lest the ground rise up and smite thee..."
Sage wisdom from an old "Devil's Lake Trial and Error School of Rock Climbing" tee shirt...
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Sep 13, 2005, 9:28 AM
Post #4 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
In reply to: My Question to you DID HE WEAR A HELMET? |
|
|
|
|
reg
Sep 13, 2005, 12:24 PM
Post #5 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
let's say he didn't smash his ankle but flipped over and smashed his head! was he wearin a helmet? i think it's a good question.
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Sep 13, 2005, 1:25 PM
Post #6 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
I think what jim was pointing out is that even experienced climbers can make mistakes and get hurt. i am suer the guy didn't start out with the intention of running it out and then hanging on a single piece. maqby he couldn't get anything good in for a ways and by the time he did get somthing in he was toasted. It could happen to anyone except curt who never is wrong or makes a mistake :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
pneumoped
Sep 13, 2005, 6:03 PM
Post #7 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2004
Posts: 32
|
Did he wear a helmet?
The question is a good one in my opinion. Hypothetically, the climber could have hit his head in addition to smashing his ankle and if he was wearing his helmet it may have prevented a serious head injury.
Just because a head injury was not reported does not mean he didn't hit his head in the fall.
|
|
|
|
|
notch
Sep 13, 2005, 6:51 PM
Post #8 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 599
|
In reply to: The person involved was an experienced traditional leader, and thought the placement was sound. The fall was not the belayers fault or anything like that. The top piece failed, and the next peice was too far below to arrest the fall.
Did the piece fail, or did it pop? I'm pretty sure you mean pop, but I'm just curious. I can't really imagine a tricam failing.
Also, I've seen some bad spelling on this site, but this thread may be setting a record. :?
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Sep 13, 2005, 9:06 PM
Post #9 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: Did he wear a helmet? The question is a good one in my opinion. Hypothetically, the climber could have hit his head in addition to smashing his ankle and if he was wearing his helmet it may have prevented a serious head injury. Just because a head injury was not reported does not mean he didn't hit his head in the fall.
I'll get to that, but first, CLIMBING HELMETS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO PROTECT FROM ANYTHING BUT FALLING OBJECTS!!! They protect you from falling rocks/ gear, not from a side impact from a fall. Some of the new helmets with foam do this a little better eg. Petzl Meteor/ Elios. If your worried about hitting your head on the way down in a leader fall, wear a whitewater/ skateboarding helmet. If they offer you some protection, it's a side effect. Ever push on climbing helmets on their sides and see how much they flex? They'll offer you some impact protection just because there's something to take the hit before your head, but then again so will dread-locks.
Second, I didn't mention anything about any head injury, he landed on his ankle then his ass.
But yes, he did wear a helmet.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Sep 13, 2005, 9:09 PM
Post #10 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: The person involved was an experienced traditional leader, and thought the placement was sound. The fall was not the belayers fault or anything like that. The top piece failed, and the next peice was too far below to arrest the fall. Did the piece fail, or did it pop? I'm pretty sure you mean pop, but I'm just curious. I can't really imagine a tricam failing. Also, I've seen some bad spelling on this site, but this thread may be setting a record. :?
Sorry for that mix up. The piece pulled out. I'll edit that post to show that. Tri-Cams have failed before, they had a recall for those cracks in the pins a while back, FYI.
The leader thought it was a good placement, put it pulled out when weighted.
And just so you all know, there wasn't any place to put gear in between his first piece and where he placed the TriCam. He didn't knowingly run it out.
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
cowpoke
Sep 13, 2005, 9:44 PM
Post #11 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2005
Posts: 142
|
Although I do not have the expertise to doubt Jim when he states In reply to: CLIMBING HELMETS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO PROTECT FROM ANYTHING BUT FALLING OBJECTS!!!
In reply to: Activities at height carry a serious risk of head injuries from falling objects and impacts with stationary objects. Wearing a helmet reduces this risk substantially, and one should of course be worn. |
|
|
|
|
qulith
Sep 13, 2005, 10:14 PM
Post #12 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2005
Posts: 106
|
In reply to: Although I do not have the expertise to doubt Jim when he states In reply to: CLIMBING HELMETS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO PROTECT FROM ANYTHING BUT FALLING OBJECTS!!! , it is interesting that climbing helmet manufacturers imply otherwise. See, for example, http://www.petzl.com/ProduitsServices/A01_ECRINROC_A01950-H_.pdf from which I stole the following text: In reply to: Activities at height carry a serious risk of head injuries from falling objects and impacts with stationary objects. Wearing a helmet reduces this risk substantially, and one should of course be worn. I added the italics. Nonetheless, I don't see the logic in asking whether someone with an ankle injury was wearing a helmet, unless we are to follow every post (accident or not) with that question.
UIAA testing of helmets only covers falling objects and the ability for the helmet to stay on:
http://www.uiaa.ch/...06Helmets01-2004.pdf
http://www.uiaa.ch/...6-EN12492Helmets.pdf
I am not saying they may or may not prevent other injuries, but as jimdavis said, in general, climbing helmets are designed to protect you from falling objects.
|
|
|
|
|
cowpoke
Sep 13, 2005, 10:27 PM
Post #13 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2005
Posts: 142
|
thanks, qulith...I didn't doubt Jim, I just think the manufacturer implying reduced risk is interesting
|
|
|
|
|
lumberg
Sep 13, 2005, 10:49 PM
Post #14 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 21
|
"And just so you all know, there wasn't any place to put gear in between his first piece and where he placed the TriCam. He didn't knowingly run it out."
I might argue otherwise. Climbing past that first piece to the point where you realize you need to place another piece if you want to protect yourself, and then realizing that you can't and then concluding "oh well, when in doubt, run it out," is definitely "knowingly" running it out in my opinion. Perhaps he didn't go through this thought process and so he did not run it out "knowingly." But leading above the point on a climb where you know you are safe is inherently dangerous. Downclimbing before committing himself to the ledge fall may have prevented the accident.
In general, I think this speaks to an issue that climbers hardly ever admit out loud: there are MANY times on lead that we trust our lives to a single piece of pro, thereby completely violating our principle of redundancy. This might be something we want to at least discuss out loud: is it worth it to trust your life to a single piece of pro while leading a route that is anywhere near your limits? Obviously this is going to happen while hiking 3rd class sections of pitches, etc., but if this guy had to weight his piece, I am guessing he was leading near his limit.
If the answer to this question is Yes, it is worth it to lead in this fashion, then is this accident an "accident" or is it an inevitable eventuality when climbing like this? I am not suggesting there is a right answer, but the least we could do is make decisions like this consciously, rather than let "accidents" just happen and then speculate as to why.
|
|
|
|
|
thisflash
Sep 13, 2005, 11:05 PM
Post #15 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2004
Posts: 64
|
I think you guys just like to argue. This thread isn't asking a question or trying to start a debate. So just read it and take it for what it's worth.
|
|
|
|
|
lumberg
Sep 14, 2005, 12:01 AM
Post #16 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 21
|
In reply to: just read it and take it for what it's worth.
Do you mean don't engage in discussion in this discussion forum? :wink:
But seriously, I hate arguing, but I do like to engage in meaningful discussion about life-and-death issues related to our great sport...
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
Sep 14, 2005, 12:26 AM
Post #17 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2001
Posts: 464
|
In reply to: Most dynamic ropes are designed to stretch from 10% to 30% in length. and with perfect belayer to lock the falling leader, you could still add min of 2-3 feet to the length of the rope every 10 feet high .
You know, I was going to dispute the 10% to 30% number, but according to BD's website the elongation of a typical rope on the first fall is ~35%. I guess that this number comes from one of the newer UIAA tests. Static elogation is typically <10% though which is the number that I was going to quote here.
A very interesting thing to know. I guess this only applies to the UIAA test conditions which would likely be the same as the # of falls caught test, so 80kg on basically FF 2. Would be interesting to see how this number corelates with FF. Anyone know? Theoretical guesses?
On a different note. Majid, while you generally have a point to make in these accident discussions, you sure take an holier than thou attitude about it. Try to chill out a bit and people might respect what you have to say more. As I noted my initial reaction was to dispute a technical point in your comment, mainly because your attitude irks me. YMMV.
Best wishes for the injured, cheers to the rescue team. Nice to see people helping like this.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
marsenault
Sep 14, 2005, 12:28 AM
Post #18 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2005
Posts: 13
|
Jim- What climb was this on?
-Matt
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Sep 14, 2005, 12:42 AM
Post #19 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
The fallen leader is an idiot and the op is a gumbie.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Sep 14, 2005, 1:11 AM
Post #20 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: The fallen leader is an idiot and the op is a gumbie.
Pretty harsh - what's the deal...?
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Sep 14, 2005, 2:47 AM
Post #21 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: Jim- What climb was this on? -Matt
What's up Matt. It was left of Rainy Day Woman, and just right of Homeward Bound. It goes up that little roof, right where that tree is growing.
Hope to see you around this semester,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Sep 14, 2005, 2:57 AM
Post #22 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: The fallen leader is an idiot and the op is a gumbie.
And who the fuck are you?
One thing your not, was THERE when it happened. Another thing your not, is someone who knows how experienced the climber was.
You don't know what the rock type is at Clifton, what the placement looked like, or even my experience.
I posted about this so people could learn from this, and maybe think twice about a potential dangerous decision. But if you want to be a fuckin tool about it, write some piss-angry PM to me about it and leave it off the boards.
Why don't you go to the guy's hospital bed and tell him he's an idiot?
I'll extend you the same courtesy should I hear that you take a nasty fall.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
lumberg
Sep 14, 2005, 3:06 AM
Post #23 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 21
|
In reply to: The fallen leader is an idiot and the op is a gumbie.
I am all for free speech, particularly in a public discussion forum, but I don't think free speech needs to include total ass-wads making useless, hurtful comments. Can't this person be censured/banned/warned or something? Moderator, what's up?
I personally appreciate the original post very much. The leader was not an idiot, he made a decision (mistake?) that we all make routinely and luckily usually don't end up having to pay for.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Sep 14, 2005, 3:21 AM
Post #24 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: The fallen leader is an idiot and the op is a gumbie. I am all for free speech, particularly in a public discussion forum, but I don't think free speech needs to include total ass-wads making useless, hurtful comments. Can't this person be censured/banned/warned or something? Moderator, what's up? I personally appreciate the original post very much. The leader was not an idiot, he made a decision (mistake?) that we all make routinely and luckily usually don't end up having to pay for.
He is a Mod, just not in this forum.
And while I respect that the climber did only have 1 piece protecting him from a ground fall at that height...he did have 2 peices of gear in, within the first 20' of the route....I think there are many climbers that do this all the time.
That's part of the reason I posted this, because I think there are a lot of people that make these choices, and I think we/ they should be reminded of the potential consequences.
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
lumberg
Sep 14, 2005, 3:51 AM
Post #25 of 56
(9484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 21
|
In reply to: He is a Mod, just not in this forum.
Yikes...
In reply to: And while I respect that the climber did only have 1 piece protecting him from a ground fall at that height...he did have 2 peices of gear in, within the first 20' of the route....I think there are many climbers that do this all the time. That's part of the reason I posted this, because I think there are a lot of people that make these choices, and I think we/ they should be reminded of the potential consequences. Cheers, Jim
I completely agree and that was the point I was trying to elaborate on (albeit, not very clearly). We all do it all the time and rarely admit (at least not in my experience) to one another or ourselves the type of situation we are putting ourselves in. It is one thing to say to oneself "I am going to put myself in a position where I might hit the deck and that's worth it because___" and it's another to just do what most other climbers do, without really thinking about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
