|
kathy
Mar 16, 2004, 10:00 AM
Post #76 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 123
|
First of all, let me join the others in offering you and your family my sincere condolences for your loss.
Why has the point of the thread moved from "let's learn out of tragedy and how to avoid it" to "who and when one should sue"?
I will not voice an opinion on whether I agree or not with the court case - what's done is done... BUT, I am learning information which could be beneficial to me and my climbing mates .. isn't this what this web site is meant to be about.
let's not politicize the issue - and if someone wants to discuss the ethics of suing - why not start another thread and allow those who want to learn to be spared of insults being thrown at a mourning man.
K
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Mar 16, 2004, 10:10 AM
Post #77 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
In reply to: let's not politicize the issue - and if someone wants to discuss the ethics of suing - why not start another thread and allow those who want to learn to be spared of insults being thrown at a mourning man. K
Bullsheet.
His original post was not one of mourning but of soap boxery.
I was insulted by the original post.
Get back on the porch, little doggie.
|
|
|
|
|
kathy
Mar 16, 2004, 10:13 AM
Post #78 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 123
|
[quote="drkodos
Get back on the porch, little doggie.
yep! very stylish - when you disagree... insult - hope no offence was intended, becuase none was taken.
K
|
|
|
|
|
okinawatricam
Mar 16, 2004, 10:13 AM
Post #79 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 420
|
In reply to: This was an ACCIDENT, but Kyle was a safe, responsible individual. He was in the process of making his second descent for the day, and was in the process of checking both lines to make
This part here doesn’t make much sense to me. Could you clarify it for me?
1.Second decent: he had already been down the rope once, and he was still not sure it was safe. I have never heard of checking the safety of a rope by rappelling on it before. Can you explain to me how that is done?
2.Why rappel face first when taking a youth group out? He was obviously there to teach them the safe and accepted technique, or was he?
3.Was another experience rappeller or climber with him, or was he alone with this youth group?
In reply to: Clearly it was not the safest method of rappel that could have been used, and because his family was brave enough to take this to court, we can all talk about it and learn from it today.
1.We could have talked about this even more objectively if the court case was not mentioned. Why did you mention it? Why not just mention the accident?
2. If it is not the safest method, was use it when teaching a youth group?
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Mar 16, 2004, 10:25 AM
Post #80 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
In reply to: [quote="drkodos Get back on the porch, little doggie.
yep! very stylish - when you disagree... insult - hope no offence was intended, becuase none was taken.
K
Twas not an insult but a request for you to keep your meek, PC, sycophantic rhetoric to yourself, and a reminder that should you choose to address me I shall repond in whatever manner I see fit.
If you need a buffoon such as the original poster to learn from, you should put away the climbing rope and pick up knitting thread instead.
|
|
|
|
|
kathy
Mar 16, 2004, 11:32 AM
Post #81 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 123
|
Drkodos, there is a difference between not politically correct and plain rude.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Mar 16, 2004, 1:10 PM
Post #82 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
My condolences to the family.
This thread has value, as it points out the dangers of the Aussie rap method, and warns about problems with a way of using the figure 8, as well as a weakness of the screw gate carabiner.
While you have to have some bad luck to get all three failures to happen at once, it did happen.
What this tragedy says to me is, rappel is dangerous, aussie rappel is more dangerous, and failing to use a rappel backup is taking a big chance.
Since one person mentioned they might consider using the munter hitch rap method now. but they were concerned that the gate coudl be pushed open, and since I am a munter hitch rappel fan, I did something unusual for RC.com.
I took a Petzl William biner, and a rope, and set up a right handed brake side rappel with a munter hitch. Here is the result:
When the gate is on the left side adn the brake line is on the right side of a muner hitch, with the 'loop' of the munter on the side of the biner opposite the climber, in a descent the rope moves in the same direction as the gate tightens, at the point where the rope comes closest to the gate.
One more thing, this idea of opposing gates on a munter hitch is not right. To rap on a munter in the correct way, you need ONE HMS style biner. IF you are paranoid, use two, but do not oppose the gates. THe brake line might be riding right over one gate if you oppose gates, and if you use the double wrap on the brake side for extre friction the ropw will absolutely be rubbing on one of the gates.
I almost always back up my rappel. Hanging upsidedown by one leg loop is a situation I find preferable to being a bloddy mess on the rocks. I can deal with the former much better than I can with the latter.
I am not advocating the munter as a primary rap method for anyone, but if you are going to use it, do it right. Verify what I have said here through reliable sources.
|
|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Mar 16, 2004, 7:20 PM
Post #83 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
In reply to: In reply to: ...those accusing me, (not just drkodos), are guilty of arrogance and gross audacity of climbing knowledge and superiority of self AND of vocabulary. I consider this prideful and immature, regardless of whatever wisdom and stature you may have. Welcome to rec.climbbbb...errrr...rockclimbing.com. The weather report for tomorrow calls for more insults, cawksureness in the face of overwhelming ignorance(eh, dr.?), with scattered nastiness in the morning, turning into more general degradation by evening. A low pressure front lingering over the area should result in the pattern continuing .
Ha ha! creative... I'll agree with you that this is a definate pattern in many forums... All part of the whole weather system I suppose...
As far as the storm... It has been suggested that my original post was a soap box, for which I apologize. It was not intended to be so, but I will make no changes to it and let everyone else judge that accusation as they may. What would we do without these types of accusations? RC.com would be pretty boring without the kind of political catalysts we get from people like dr. kodos. I wouldn't change a thing about him! (However, I would save this kind of ranting and intellectual banter to another forum so as not to disrespect the deceased.)
To clarify a question by another post, Kyle descended a second time to check thesecond line before sending anyone down either one. (He had two ropes going).
|
|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Mar 16, 2004, 7:34 PM
Post #84 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
In reply to: Twas not an insult but a request for you to keep your meek, PC, sycophantic rhetoric to yourself, and a reminder that should you choose to address me I shall repond in whatever manner I see fit. If you need a buffoon such as the original poster to learn from, you should put away the climbing rope and pick up knitting thread instead.
What is it with telling people to hang up their climbing endeavors? If you ask me, this kind of attack is no more intelligent then "I know you are but what am I?" No matter what kind of fancy jibber-jabber you throw in to the language of it all... it's still childish. You're attempts to portray yourself as some gifted antagonist is nothing but. If you can't see this, then you're failing to see the big picture. You may continue to insult and degrade with your overinflated intelligence, and I'm sure we'll all keep reading in disgust trying to think of an intelligent response. But I'm sure many will back me up on this point -- "we don't give a rats."
Don't get me wrong, I love to debate, but like kathy put it, "there is a difference between not politically correct and plain rude."
You're a part of the climbing community bub, quit trying to shape it into what you think it should be. We're climbers and we're here to stay.
Yours trully,
the "Buffoon"
|
|
|
|
|
climberchic
Mar 16, 2004, 8:54 PM
Post #85 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2000
Posts: 2077
|
In reply to: You may continue to insult and degrade with your overinflated intelligence, and I'm sure we'll all keep reading in disgust trying to think of an intelligent response.
Ahem...
I, personally, don't think there is any kind of intelligence to his insults. He is just on his bipolar down side or forgot to take his meds this week, because "dammit, I don't NEEEEEED 'em!"
Kodos~
The truly intelligent man will tell you that the whole reason for speaking...check that.... the whole reason that language was even INVENTED, was to communicate a thought, idea or feeling to another.
When you open your mouth to express said thought, idea, or feeling, and use meaningless* words of which you know the receiver has no knowledge, and therefore, no use of....not only are you not successfully communicating, you are just blowing hot air.
Either that, or you are just trying to showboat your seemingly vast intelligence instead of communicate. But....
How intelligent would that be?
~Erica
*Before you start in with the dictionary defintions of all said meaningless words, please realize,
In reply to: "we don't give a rats." |
|
|
|
|
cedk
Mar 16, 2004, 9:56 PM
Post #86 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2001
Posts: 516
|
I think Okinawatricam is asking the right questions.
|
|
|
|
|
mattiem
Mar 16, 2004, 10:42 PM
Post #87 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 104
|
All the people who have been saying "Wow i never thought of that" you should have. If you are climber you have to understand your gear. If there is ANY part of your climbing system you HAVEN'T scrutinized, STOP CLIMBING until you take the time to do it.
You are responsible for these issues. Everyone here saying they are extremely safe and competent climbers yet never thought about inward forces on their gates aren't as safe as you thought you were.
Don't complain saying no one ever told you about the gate strength you should have thought of it on your own.
If you lack the skill to make critical evaluations of your gear then DON"T CLIMB.
peas
matt
|
|
|
|
|
okinawatricam
Mar 16, 2004, 10:45 PM
Post #88 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 420
|
In reply to: Quote: This was an ACCIDENT, but Kyle was a safe, responsible individual. He was in the process of making his second descent for the day, and was in the process of checking both lines to make sure they were safe for descent. (He was with a youth group). This part here doesn’t make much sense to me. Could you clarify it for me? 1.Second decent: he had already been down the rope once, and he was still not sure it was safe. I have never heard of checking the safety of a rope by rappelling on it before. Can you explain to me how that is done? 2.Why rappel face first when taking a youth group out? He was obviously there to teach them the safe and accepted technique, or was he? 3.Was another experience rappeller or climber with him, or was he alone with this youth group?
In reply to: To clarify a question by another post, Kyle descended a second time to check thesecond line before sending anyone down either one. (He had two ropes going).
I don’t think you answered the most important part of the question, how do check the safety of the rope by rappelling (Aussie) on it?
Question 2 and 3 were not even touched, but I think they could clear up some issues. Would you answer them for me?
In reply to: Clearly it was not the safest method of rappel that could have been used, and because his family was brave enough to take this to court, we can all talk about it and learn from it today. 1.We could have talked about this even more objectively if the court case was not mentioned. Why did you mention it? Why not just mention the accident? 2. If it is not the safest method, was use it when teaching a youth group?
These two questioned were overlooked too.
I don’t want to attack you or you friend’s credibility and experience. I am trying to understand the whole situation, at this time I don’t. Could you clarify some those issues?
|
|
|
|
|
csoles
Mar 16, 2004, 10:50 PM
Post #89 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2002
Posts: 329
|
This mode of carabiner failure has been public knowledge for nearly a decade. It was mentioned in Rock & Ice magazine in '97 in the carabiner review. And the BMC issued an advisory before that. Probably is in ANAM as well. It's strictly the result of user error and has nothing to do with defective design.
Pointing to a picture in the chapter on BELAYING in FOTH doesn't help the ludicrous argument that a sport belay can be used for a rappel. That method is certainly not shown in the next chapter on RAPPELING where they also describe how to backup rappels.
There aren't any climbing books that even describe how to do an Aussie Rappel. You won't find any accredited climbing schools teaching it either. Or any climbing harnesses designed for it. It's well known as a dangerous technique and has no place in the climbing world.
So this is a case of ignorance upon ignorance upon ignorance combining to kill someone. Sad. But I wouldn't call it an accident, just an inevitable. The fault was in the education and supervision, or lack thereof.
Even sadder that the rest of the climbing community will pay the price of the blood-sucking lawyers and gutless insurance companies for a frivolous lawsuit settled out of court. Was this case in Phoenix?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 17, 2004, 12:11 AM
Post #90 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: This mode of carabiner failure has been public knowledge for nearly a decade. It was mentioned in Rock & Ice magazine in '97 in the carabiner review. And the BMC issued an advisory before that. Probably is in ANAM as well. It's strictly the result of user error and has nothing to do with defective design. Pointing to a picture in the chapter on BELAYING in FOTH doesn't help the ludicrous argument that a sport belay can be used for a rappel. That method is certainly not shown in the next chapter on RAPPELING where they also describe how to backup rappels. There aren't any climbing books that even describe how to do an Aussie Rappel. You won't find any accredited climbing schools teaching it either. Or any climbing harnesses designed for it. It's well known as a dangerous technique and has no place in the climbing world. So this is a case of ignorance upon ignorance upon ignorance combining to kill someone. Sad. But I wouldn't call it an accident, just an inevitable. The fault was in the education and supervision, or lack thereof. Even sadder that the rest of the climbing community will pay the price of the blood-sucking lawyers and gutless insurance companies for a frivolous lawsuit settled out of court. Was this case in Phoenix?
Very well put, Clyde.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
okinawatricam
Mar 17, 2004, 1:30 AM
Post #91 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 420
|
Thanks Clyde, I couldn’t agree more with you on this.
As climbers, we all need to accept responsibility for our actions. We also need to teach our family what climbing is.
If this case had gone in front of a jury, the defense would have lost. (I'd bet on that) Of course, if the jury would have been made up of climbers, the defense wouldn’t have stood a chance.
Cases like this make it hard for those of us who try to keep climbing access on private property open to do so. In the eye of the public, this rappeller was an expert who took youth groups out.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 17, 2004, 2:16 AM
Post #92 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I'm sorry it took another death for the word to get out that rappelling using the fig-8 (or any stiff metal device with a hole that can catch on and lever the gate) is dangerous.
I'm not going to read through all 7 pages of comments, so sorry if this has been said a million times. I agree with cracklover.
The most foolproof way to avoid having your figure 8 lever open your locking carabiner on rappel is to throw away your figure 8. If for some reason you must use a figure 8, don't thread the locking carabiner through your harness's tie-in points. This practice can stabilize the carabiner in the crossloaded position, which increases the chances that the figure 8 will lever open the biner. Instead, attach the locking carabiner to your belay loop. If you harness doesn't have a belay loop, throw your harness away along with your figure 8. Always check the position of your carabiner at the start of a rappel to ensure that it is not crossloaded.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Mar 17, 2004, 2:32 AM
Post #93 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
HAHAH JT, "Take your figure 8 and throw it as far as you can and leave it there.", is the advice I gave to someone this morning.
|
|
|
|
|
joneiche
Mar 17, 2004, 3:16 AM
Post #94 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 55
|
I agree with drkodos has it right. If you choose to purchase equipment you need to understand its limitations. What happened is not something that anyone other than the user should be responsible for. This particular problem with figure eights was reported on by the UIAA as early as 2000.
http://journal.uiaa.ch/download/20003.pdf.
Check it out! Learn about your equipment!
To place the blame on the manufacturers, unfortunately, is seeming to become the "American Way". If you, as an individual, choose to trust your life to a piece of aluminum, you better damn well know how to use it properly.
Bighigaz, to trust the knowledge within a book without actual "human" education on how to properly use a product is your fault. To trust your advice was Kyle's fault, not REI's or Hugh Banner's. Minor axis strength is not gate strength. It is individual user personal responsibility to understand the limitations of thier gear. Don't blame those that sold it to you. You purchase, you PAY!
It is unfortunate that it takes a death for people to ask questions, which have been addressed, about the equipment they use and its proper use.[url
|
|
|
|
|
csoles
Mar 17, 2004, 5:28 PM
Post #95 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2002
Posts: 329
|
Still would like to know what city the trial was held in.
Also which issue of ANAM is this reported? The accident must have been 2 or 3 years ago to get this far along. If the intent of the lawsuit was to inform others, surely it's written up there.
Local papers also would have covered it so a link to articles would be helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
yay_chris
Mar 17, 2004, 6:12 PM
Post #96 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2004
Posts: 141
|
Does this whole thread mean that it's safer to use an ATC to rappel rather than a figure-8?
If a figure-8 can bust a biner that easily - I'd certainly change over to an ATC...
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 17, 2004, 6:37 PM
Post #97 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Does this whole thread mean that it's safer to use an ATC to rappel rather than a figure-8? If a figure-8 can bust a biner that easily - I'd certainly change over to an ATC...
You can certainly rappel safely with a figure 8 device, but there are more things that can go wrong while using one--so, you have to pay more attention to what you are doing. Therefore, if you define "safer" as more foolproof, then yes--an ATC or similar device is safer than an 8, since the flexible wire on these types of devices can not lever open the gate on the rappel carabiner.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 17, 2004, 7:01 PM
Post #98 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Does this whole thread mean that it's safer to use an ATC to rappel rather than a figure-8? If a figure-8 can bust a biner that easily - I'd certainly change over to an ATC...
Yes. That is exactly what it means.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
yay_chris
Mar 17, 2004, 8:59 PM
Post #99 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2004
Posts: 141
|
ATC it is then...
|
|
|
|
|
madmax
Mar 17, 2004, 9:21 PM
Post #100 of 179
(21332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2003
Posts: 354
|
I'm willing to bet that if warnings had been plastered all over the devices in question here, Kyle still would have done what he did, which, frankly, was stupid. Suing the the companies is not the direction we need to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
