|
|
|
|
billwright510
Jul 2, 2010, 9:10 PM
Post #126 of 133
(5350 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2010
Posts: 3
|
No need for any apologies. If I came off as a braggart, then I came off as a braggart. I certainly lapse into that at times, despite being nothing special... Strange, huh? Pride...just another thing to work on...
To answer your question, would I have been at peace with a different style? Of course, but that wasn't the game we were playing. We weren't going for any record, really. The most I knew about was when Buzz and I did 51 the previous year. No one is keeping track of the number of pitches like they do with the Nose record. We just thought 100 was a nice goal. A stopping point. We could have made the goal 12 hours and stop after 12 hours, but we didn't.
Simul-climbing, as mentioned earlier in this thread isn't just for records. It is commonly used in alpine climbing as an alternative to soloing. In the mountains being able to move fast can make you safer. It's all trade-offs.
One person earlier in this forum said I was crazy to think that a lead fall while simul-climbing is similar to a traditional lead fall. They are similar. If the second isn't that close to another piece, the falls are similar with a softer catch and a slightly longer fall, provided the lead gear placed is bomber. That's the difference, because if all the lead gear rips, there is no belay to catch the climbers, but then you could ask, "What if the belay ripped?"
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Jul 2, 2010, 10:01 PM
Post #127 of 133
(5327 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
How is your knee, Bill? I recall you hit it when you were pulled up.
I imagine a simul-climbing lead fall can feel to the follower a little like a single-pitch lead fall (trad or sport) where the belayer is not anchored ... less the relief afforded by slippage through the belay device.
Bill L
Edit: I make the above single-pitch comparison in the context of a fall that has a relatively low fall factor.
(This post was edited by billl7 on Jul 2, 2010, 10:05 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jul 4, 2010, 6:12 PM
Post #128 of 133
(5210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
An incredible tale, documented with a very rare blend of honesty and humility. Most sites have been overwhelming supportive, with rc.com bringing up the rear in terms of criticism and second-guessing, which is not to say that valid points have not been raised.
My sense is that the generally more experienced climbers on the other sites have a clearer sense of the limits of preparation and control in climbing, and understand that things can go wrong for even the most highly skilled parties. The generally less experienced rc.com crowd seems to have the highest level of interest in understanding the principles that govern climbing systems and the best way to employ those systems. Underlying this interest may be an exaggerated sense that when things do go wrong, the explanation can always be found in some systemic failure. If only the party had used this method or carried this gear, their accident could have been prevented or the consequences could have been mitigated.
Such observations can be valid, but they typically fail (or refuse) to take into account the fact that the party made various choices about the risks they were willing to take, choices that may have been necessary for the realization of their goals, and that their accident, although unexpected, was something that, at least before the actual event, they had accepted as a possibility, albeit a very remote one.
This acceptance of unlikely but catastrophic outcomes is, like it or not, an ingredient in every climbing outing, now matter how apparently casual, and it is at the very least bad karma to launch critical barbs at an unfortunate party. Any of us could be next---don't ever forget that.
With that introduction, here are some more specific comments on the accident.
1. The purpose of simulclimbing is to speed up climbing without entirely giving up the safety of rope and protection. If one takes the long perspective, this incident shows that everything worked as it should; a hold broke and the party survived a major fall.
2. The more detailed view suggests that, having been unlucky enough to have had to deploy their system, the party was exceptionally fortunate to have both survived. A huge leader fall, only two pieces of pro separating the party members, nothing pulled, no injury at all to the second, non-fatal injuries to the leader with no serious internal or external bleeding in spite of an enormous drop, and the presence of a ledge the leader could be quickly lowered to that eliminated the potential for fatal orthostatic shock.
3. There has been a lot of discussion about what the second should or might have done. In fact, getting the fallen leader onto the ledge was by far the most important single thing they could have done. Although there may be some psychological reasons for wanting to join an injured partner, there is often very little that could be done in such circumstances except perhaps reducing severe external bleeding. Even with more gear, most self-rescue practices are impractical, time-consuming and ultimately inadequate for dealing with a fully incapacitated climber. Starting down that road, as opposed to immediately calling for help, will in many cases jeopardize the safety of the party and the injured climber.
4. Continuing in this line of discussion, the question was raised about how this situation might have been handled in a remote setting. Of course, it is possible to expound on various clever ways to disentangle from the system and lower the injured climber. Whether there would be any point in a remote setting is moot; once you've had a serious injury in such an environment it is likely to become a fatality, and the risks involved in the self-rescue process might well turn it into a double fatality.
5. A more interesting question is whether the party would have undertaken such a challenge in a remote setting, realizing that their system could perform but that they might not be able to recover from the consequences anyway. If not, then one could not avoid the conclusion that the availability of a relatively quick and highly competent rescue was among the (possibly unconscious) reasons the project was undertaken. This opens up the difficult and controversial topic of the extent to which our willingness to push our limits is conditioned by the availability of rescue resources.
I'll end with some personal reflections on simulclimbing, which some people may find interesting. I mean none of this as any criticism of the party in question, which had other objectives and made other choices.
I find it devilishly difficult to simulclimb with the "proper" mental attitude. On the one hand, the rope and the gear are there, which tends to put you in the ordinary leading frame of mind or perhaps more sensibly the roped solo frame of mind. But the reality is that simulclimbing is far closer to soloing than either of those activities, and requires something closer to a soloing mentality, most especially for the second. But I if were to adopt what is, for me anyway, the full-on soloing mentality, then I would slow down so much (due to ups and downs at the cruxes) that the speed advantages of simulclimbing would be substantially diminished. The result is that I have to climb with an exquisitely tuned sense of what risks to take, a sense that I find nearly impossible to maintain.
Because of this, my personal approach to simulclimbing is that the rope connecting the climbers means that the party can as quickly as possible, if not always instantly, revert to belayed climbing whenever either member feels the need. The set-up that works for me is to use a full-length rope, half of which is carried by the second. Both leader and second climb with the rope threaded through their belay devices and ready to go; the rope is then tied off in front of the devices so that the devices don't take the impact of a simulclimbing fall. The idea is that either member can call for a belay and the other member will, hopefully, be able to get to some kind of stance relatively quickly. The extra rope carried by the second makes it possible, if necessary for the leader to climb belayed after the second has stopped and anchored. It also gives the second some free rope to work with in the event of a simulclimbing leader fall.
Again, I have only added this for whatever interest it may provide; I am not suggesting that the party in question, which needed to go very light and travel very fast, should have been using such a system.
My best wishes to Tom for a full recovery.
(Edited for typos.)
(This post was edited by rgold on Jul 4, 2010, 9:39 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Jul 4, 2010, 9:23 PM
Post #129 of 133
(5164 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
Am both humiliated as an RC.com lurker and honored for having your thoughts, Mr. Goldstone. Thanks for both.
Bill L
(This post was edited by billl7 on Jul 4, 2010, 9:33 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 6, 2010, 6:29 PM
Post #130 of 133
(5021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
billwright510 wrote: No need for any apologies. If I came off as a braggart, then I came off as a braggart.
I didn't see that at all in your writing. What I saw was exactly what RG describes as "honesty and humility".
In reply to: Pride...just another thing to work on...
In your climbing? Maybe. Sure, why not? All of us are proud of our accomplishments, and hopeful about even bigger things to come. I don't think that's anything to be ashamed of.
As for pride coming before the fall, I guess that's just another one of the subjective risks we all have to guard against, like tying our knots correctly, and choosing the right protection.
But I'll be damned if I can see anything *you* did that seems seriously out of whack for your abilities. Least of all in your writing up of the events!
Cheers,
GO
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Jul 7, 2010, 8:42 PM
Post #131 of 133
(4881 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
The first link below is an account by Bill of his re-climbing the Redgaurd Route and his conclusion that a broken hold caused the fall (of course, while highly likely, it’s by no means certain since fresh rock breaks are common in Eldorado). The second link is the Rocky Mt Rescue Group’s report on the climb.
http://web.me.com/...10/7/3_DSC00005.html
http://www.rockymountainrescue.org/...dguard_6-26-2010.php
Thanks to Bill for his intelligent and analytic posts concerning the accident. I’m impressed by the speed, scope and effectiveness of the response generated by the Rocky Mt Rescue Group.
Cheers,
Rob.calm
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 8, 2010, 4:54 PM
Post #132 of 133
(4786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Thanks for the additional links.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
hacksaw
Jul 16, 2010, 4:08 PM
Post #133 of 133
(4606 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2004
Posts: 169
|
This is from the NPS morning report. It is about another simul-climbing accident. Its an interesting report.
North Cascades National Park (WA)
Injured Climber Evacuated From Black Peak
Early on July 6th, rangers were alerted to an injured climber on the northeast ridge of Black Peak. Two Seattle men had attempted a one-day ascent of the peak on July 5th. When they were simul-climbing 200 feet from the summit, the lead climber fell approximately 45 feet before his protection caught him. The 28-year-old lost consciousness for 20 minutes following the accident. After regaining consciousness, the pair rappelled much of the route despite injuries that included facial trauma, a possible wrist fracture, multiple lacerations, and chest pain. Eventually the climbers bivouacked for the night and the uninjured man continued solo at dawn to seek help. Four rangers responded with the park’s contracted helicopter. A medical helicopter from Airlift Northwest also responded to the selected staging site on a flat snow slope. The injured climber was located, packaged, and short-hauled from the peak to the staging site, where rangers transferred him to the medical crew. He was flown directly to Harborview Trauma Center in Seattle. [Submitted by Kelly Bush, Wilderness District Ranger]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
