|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Mar 18, 2004, 1:22 AM
Post #101 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
Hey everyone... sorry about the lack of response to your questions... I'm just trying to keep up with my busy days at work...
I'll try to clarify some more points here:
Kyle was rappelling Aussie style, which at this point I think we can all agree was unsafe WITH the method of belay he was using. ("Sport mode" as referred to by Mountaineering: Freedom of the Hills.) This basically means the rope was rapped around the biner, instead of the neck of the eight, but still through the larger opening. To clarify, I did not actually learn this method in 'Mountaineering," but in a 2000 Petzil catalog. At which point I consulted with several climbing friends with more experience than I had at that point. They expressed their points of concern and interest, but felt that the method was acceptable, though caution should be used as in any descent. I admit I did not use the method often, as I was a "climber" and rappelling was just a necessary evil. Nevertheless, I did discuss the method with Kyle, along with several others. We talked about anchor set ups, back up methods, and all sorts of scenarios - the dangers of crossloading, and/or lever loading of the gate was probably part of the conversation as well, because I had been aware of it for some time. Some of what we talked about was new to him, and some of it was old information... though I could hardly remember our discussions to that amount of detail. That day (two weeks before the accident) we both rappelled aussie style AND military, using several forms of belay, including the method that caused the accident.
Okinawatricam, I hope these next few paragraphs answer your two questions:
Kyle had been a recreational rappeller for some time, though he was not a regular climber. As far as I can recall, he PREFERRED aussie style to abseiling (sitting), and he was quite good at it. He checked and double checked all his points of safety just as any of us should. When he was checking the lines for a safe descent, I can only assume that he used aussie because he preferred it, along with the fact that he would there for have full view of the line below, and one free hand to work out the snags and tangles before letting any of the group descend the fixed lines. Now, I'm sure many of us have had moments of hurried anticipation where we realized that we had over looked something critical just before climbing, or rappelling... I have heard of a number of deaths due to "small" over sights that lead to big problems.
Examples:
-rappelling off the end of the rope (forgot to tie a knot in the end);
-falling from the anchors at the top of a pitch (forgot to finish the figure eight or bowline on the harness);
-forgeting to lock the gate of the caribiner (some inward force opens it);
-back clipping the quickdraw (taking a long, painful whipper);
-pulling up too much slack before a clip (I witnessed a 25' deck fall as a result);
-not wearing a helmet (getting pounded senseless by loose rock fall)
Point is, it doesn't make us stupid, just unsafe. Kyle MIGHT have forgotten to orient his biner and eight before the descent, thus resulting in inward lever forces on the gate, OR he may have leaned too far to one side or the other causing the eight to move into the levered position. I really don't know what caused the inward force, only that it occured.
Okin's 3rd question was whether or not Kyle had another experienced climber or rappeller with him... This is a very GOOD question, but I honestly don't know (nor did I know any of the other individuals there except his wife). Now that I think about it, I am quite surprised that question didn't come up in court! To be quite honest, I thought the details excracted from the testimonies were somewhat inadequate for the Jury, but I of course had no control over this. Attorneys only want to get the information they think will help them prove their case, and neither one understood much about rappelling until they took on the case. I'd like to find out who else was there, but give me some time, I don't really feel I should re-address the matter with his family for a little while.
Oh, and I agree with you Ikin... It probably would have been better to address this whole issue WITHOUT the mention of the lawsuit... But it's too late for that... plus I do like some of the points that have been discussed as a result, despite the critisism. It is probably worth mentioning (again) that the Jury WAS going to deliver a defense verdict, but for some reason HB wanted to settle before recieving it. This is sort of confusing to me, but something to think about...
|
|
|
|
|
okinawatricam
Mar 18, 2004, 1:56 AM
Post #102 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 420
|
From what I have read so far, your friend was not qualified in any way to take a youth group out. He may even have been inmature, but I do't know for sure.
Still don't understand the whole checking ropes on rappel thing, maybe I am dense. Could Kyle have been showing off?
|
|
|
|
|
acrophobic
Mar 18, 2004, 5:49 PM
Post #103 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2002
Posts: 368
|
I can't help but compare this case to someone suing a cam manufacturer because it blew out of a crack due to bad placement. Yes a cam can save your life, if used correctly.
From what I have read:
1) The safety concerns of this rappel are widely known
2) Kyle knew it was not the safest method, but used it because he enjoyed it.
3) Crossloading problems with a figure 8 is widely known. ( I would compare it to the falure in quickdraws if you backclip or z-clip.. only works if you use it right)
4) Was he certified to be teaching? If he was, he should of been aware of the documented problems.. if he was not, then he shouldn't of been teaching a youth group.
5) He obviously did something wrong (like not checking his gear positions)
It is not surprising that the court would rule in favor of the defense really. I would guess they settled to avoid bad press. (i can see the headlines now: "Climbing Gear causes death: Victims family's case shut down!") The media loves to gobble up human intrest stories like that.
This is why I always tell my family that what I do is dangerous and if I were hurt or killed, it would probably be due to an error on my part.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Mar 18, 2004, 6:43 PM
Post #104 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
i agree against the lawsuit.. gear that fails due to human error is right on the package the fault of the user
Even my Rumney Guidebook! "... If you do screw up and get hurt, don't even think about blaming someone else. you made the decision to walk up to the cliff and get on a particular route......Hae fun, but climb safely, and take responsibility for your own actions."(pg4)
In reply to: I can only assume that he used aussie because he preferred it, along with the fact that he would there for have full view of the line below, and one free hand to work out the snags and tangles
There is nothing you cannot see or fix while using a sit rappel rather then aussie style.. you always use one hand for braking and can see just as much sitting as going face down...
Jake
|
|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Mar 18, 2004, 7:44 PM
Post #105 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
The accident occured in Papago Park, the Trial took place in Phoenix...
|
|
|
|
|
cfnubbler
Mar 18, 2004, 7:55 PM
Post #106 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: Still would like to know what city the trial was held in.
Pheonix. I have a friend who testified as an "expert witness" for the defense.
-Nubbler
|
|
|
|
|
okinawatricam
Mar 19, 2004, 1:37 AM
Post #107 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 420
|
Someone posed the question about whether or not he was certified. I America, there is no reconized certification program. I have met plenty of people who went through a certification program that I wouldn't trust.
They are some groups who offer certications, but you don't need it. Overall I have mixed feelings about that.
Rappelling is dangerous, Aussie is useless, aussie style while teaching a youth group is recklace. "Guides/instructors" like this give the rest of us in the guiding community a bad image.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 19, 2004, 1:43 AM
Post #108 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Someone posed the question about whether or not he was certified. I America, there is no reconized certification program. I have met plenty of people who went through a certification program that I wouldn't trust. They are some groups who offer certications, but you don't need it. Overall I have mixed feelings about that. Rappelling is dangerous, Aussie is useless, aussie style while teaching a youth group is recklace. "Guides/instructors" like this give the rest of us in the guiding community a bad image.
Hey okinowa,
I know little about guiding, but isn't AMGA the certifying entity in the US?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
okinawatricam
Mar 19, 2004, 1:44 AM
Post #109 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 420
|
Someone posed the question about whether or not he was certified. I America, there is no recognized certification program, although some are recommended over others. I have met plenty of people who went through a certification program that I wouldn't trust.
They are some groups who offer cortication, but you don't need it to guide. Overall I have mixed feelings about that. The public doesn’t know enough about the guiding industry to check into it, and some dangerous people are printing business card up and guiding.
Rappelling is dangerous; Aussie is useless, Aussie style while teaching a youth group is wreck lace. "Guides/instructors" like this give the rest of us in the guiding community a bad image.
HOW LONG HAD HE BEEN RAPPELLING WHEN HE TOOK THE GROUP OUT?
I ASK BECAUSE ONE OF YOUR COMENT ABOUT TEACHING HIM TO ANCHOR MAKES ME THINK HE WAS NEW O THIS, MAYBE A MONTH OR SO.
Some comments you have made also make me wonder how experienced you are?
I know lots of people who have been "climbing" for %&^%years, but have learned nothing in that time.
|
|
|
|
|
okinawatricam
Mar 19, 2004, 1:48 AM
Post #110 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 420
|
No, AMGA would like to be, but they are not.
To guide legally in America, you contact the landowner and make the arrangement with them.
National parks and Forrest have criteria’s that you as a business/guide need to meet, most revolve around Liability insurance. Beyond that, anyone can guide.
AMGA helps in many cases, but many long time professional guides won’t have anything to do with them.
Many big guide services offer their own internal certification programs. Some are good, some are lacking.
|
|
|
|
|
moondog
Mar 19, 2004, 4:33 PM
Post #111 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 196
|
A few quick notes on this thread:
1. Gate-leverage carabiner failure mode
Good to see some discussion on this - noteworthy that knowledge of this phenomenon does not appear to be common among climbers. One thing not widely discussed is the fact that very little force is required to break the locking sleeve when leverage is applied. Though some carabiners may resist 500 lbs under certain test conditions, the leverage created by a fig. 8 or other rigid device can easily reduce the sleeve breaking force to significantly less than bodyweight.
2. "Sport Method" of belaying
A method is shown in the technical notice for Petzl figure 8s (http://www.petzl.com/...ervices/PS_188_1.pdf) that some may be referring to as the "sport method". This method is described by Petzl for use on toprope only, and as an "Exceptional use requiring great experience" in contrast to "Recommended" techniques. Also shown is the gate-leverage failure mode mentioned above.
3. Runaway litigation
There is a perception in the US that its population (esp. lawyers) have become overly litigious. One famous case often held up as proof of this is the McDonald's coffee case (Woman spills coffee on self - sues and gets $3 million!). Anyone who thinks this suit was frivolous is simply ignorant of the facts. The facts of the case clearly show McDonald's pattern of negligence and its culpability in the burns rec'd by the vicitim (3rd degree burns over 16% of her body). The vicitim was also held partly liable because she spilled the coffee. See http://www.centerjd.org/...ree/MB_mcdonalds.htm for more info.
My condolences to Kyle's family. Be careful out there...nobody's perfect...it can happen to you, too.
hank
----
> opinion expressed in this post is mine, not Petzl's <
|
|
|
|
|
montgomerywick
Mar 19, 2004, 4:50 PM
Post #112 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 60
|
let me add what I know about the McDonald's case, bearing in mind I read about the case along time ago and it is second hand info, so facts may be fuzzy or out right wrong...
the reason McD's got tagged was largely b/c they knew this was a problem among their franchises but did not do anything to warn them..McD's are franchises...but the corporate franchisor McDs was collecting this burn info from its franchises, not warning them, and then denied they knew it was a problem...classic scenerio to have a jury "burn" you in return.
I have refrained from commenting about the aussie rappel method, but I agree with the above poster that it is reckless to use it, esp. in that setting...I have been climbing for 11years and never once use it...the second time i went climbing back in '93, I saw someone do it and my mentor said it was stupid, reckless and asking for trouble...that was all I ever neeeded to know.
|
|
|
|
|
bflank
Mar 19, 2004, 5:26 PM
Post #113 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2003
Posts: 48
|
In reply to: Rappelling is dangerous, Aussie is useless, aussie style while teaching a youth group is recklace. "Guides/instructors" like this give the rest of us in the guiding community a bad image.
I can't disagree with you that it is bad form at best to demonstrate aussie style rappel for a group of newbies. But I do disagree with your statement that Aussie is useless. It is exceptionally useful in a situation with the need to have a hand free and be looking down while rappelling. However this need is typically limited to police and military who need that hand free for a weapon - in which case additonal risk of the technique is balanced by a tactical requirement.
One other point, as a caver I always learned that when rappelling is the primary purpose of your activity rather than incidental (as it is for climbers) the rappell biner should be a big beefy steel locker. I don't know if that would have made any difference in this instance but it couldn't have possibly hurt.
B. Flank
|
|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Mar 21, 2004, 4:11 AM
Post #114 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
Again, some excellent points and information have been expressed... that petzl catalog is excellent, and it just so happens that kyle was using the 2nd method shown on page 3. It says it can be used on top rope and lower of top rope... though rappelling on a fixed line is not addressed for any of the methods shown... This would not justify it's use at this point, of course. I think that after all the discussion that has been presented, it really doesn't matter what a book might say, the method has already been shown to be dangerous and even fatal. Let's all leave it alone...
I am increasingly impressed at the amount of information that everyone in this forum has been able to present... the defense AND the prosecution seemed to have a lot of difficulty finding a significant amount of published information on the subject, but there seems to be a lot more out there than I originally thought. Just shows what we can come up with when we all get together on a topic.
Also, it was asked if Kyle had any significant experience. Yes, he had been rappelling for some time. He bought equipment at REI 2 years prior to the accident... and he had already been rappelling prior to that. Also, he was a youth leader with a CHURCH group, and the Church is very well insured when it comes to youth activities. Also, Kyle wasn't teaching the kids Aussie Style rappelling, only using it himself as he descended the fixed lines to take out the tangles... I've used it for this purpose as well myself, and it worked pretty well for the purpose... though I prefer military/abseiling for pure recreational purposes... Really I just prefer climbing--rappelling is a necessary evil.
As for myself, I started climbing and rappelling when I was 12 years old, and when I was 17 or 18 I was certified by the Army for Military Rappell... I'll be 28 this year, but as someone mentioned in another post, that is irrelevant, as some people have been climbing for years and still know very little about the sport. I consider myself a student and novice every time I am out there, and I only share information as I think it is safe and beneficial to the receiver, and under the understanding that I am not an "expert". I shared a lot of information with Kyle that day... Some of it was new, some old. He knew what was required to be safe, but he was willing to learn more, as we all should be. Though, for me, the use of a figure eight at all has been boycotted as a result of this case, AND this forum. Hindsight is, of course, 20/20... for those of us who are fortunate enough not to be the example.
|
|
|
|
|
drunkencabanaboy
Mar 21, 2004, 5:28 AM
Post #115 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 10, 2004
Posts: 153
|
I can't believe how much disrespect people have on this thread.
guys, at the end of the day we are talking about a human life that has been cut short in a tragic accident.
leave it up to the judge/jury as to whether or not the case has/had merit. This is no place for that - and making people feel bad for testifying is just wrong - not to mention accusing them of being directly responsible for the death.
where's the good karma?
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Mar 21, 2004, 8:53 PM
Post #116 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Drunk..
from original post In reply to: I gained some important knowledge from the entire event that I think should be shared with all climbers and mountaineers. If this information is be helpful to the safety of even one individual, than I will be at ease. |
|
|
|
|
okinawatricam
Mar 22, 2004, 1:19 AM
Post #117 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 420
|
In reply to: can't believe how much disrespect people have on this thread. guys, at the end of the day we are talking about a human life that has been cut short in a tragic accident. leave it up to the judge/jury as to whether or not the case has/had merit. This is no place for that - and making people feel bad for testifying is just wrong - not to mention accusing them of being directly responsible for the death. where's the good karma?
I went through the Army Air assault school and I was certified as a “rappel master” too, I would use any off those methods for recreation. As a matter in fact, the schools stress that fact over and over during the entire process.
I am always leery of those who use the Military cliff assault type schools as evidence of their experience. (I currently live on a marine base in Okinawa).
|
|
|
|
|
ryanhos
Mar 22, 2004, 6:50 AM
Post #118 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 132
|
In reply to: Along this note, how difficult would it be for the manufacture to raise the quality of aluminum for the locking apparatus to be equal to that of the rest of the caribiner? Could this have made a difference? Probably.
Nearly Impossible considering the size of the shear surface and the possible forces involved. Furthremore, you could make the gate retainer stronger to resist the inward force, but then you'd just have to beef up the hinge pin. A carabiner is a give and take device. You give some strength and you take some convenience.
However, I am glad that I read this thread because it has certainly reminded me of the importance of going through force scenarios in my head while climbing/rapping/anchor setting.
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
Mar 22, 2004, 7:48 PM
Post #119 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
In reply to: US lawsystem is a farse. you can sue anybody becasue they didnt tell you not to do something stupid. like if you ran your car into a tree and sued the manufascturer for not posting "dont colide with trees or you might die" in the car manual. sounds like darwin at work to me.
Ahh, the misinformed arguing about the irrelevant with the ignorant!Overlord, you need a primer on the principles of tort law.
What do you think would happen if we didn't have the right to sue for the damages caused by defective products? Manufacturers would create unsafe products that would kill you and they would get away scot free. Do you think butchers give you clean, healthy beef because there are a few dozen meat inspectors checking them once every five years? No, its because they would suffer bigtime if they make you sick. There is a lot of exaggeration regarding frivoulous lawsuits. Many are thrown out summarily. Many, many more lawsuits are legitimate questions of liability because families are hurt by the irresponsible actions of companies.
Did you ever wonder why Bush wants to limit awards in these lawsuits? Because the big companies that support him hate being threatened by people they've wronged. They'd rather provide shoddy, dangerous merchandise and not worry about what happens to the users.
All of this has little to do with the case in the original post, because he never mentioned the disposition! But remember--tort law is our last, best defense against powerful, politically connected companies that don't give a **** about you or your family.
The TortBonger
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Mar 22, 2004, 7:57 PM
Post #120 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
yes, you should have the right to sue the manufacturer for a faulty product. but its hardly manufacturers fault if the product faile because you used it wrongly.
i agree that most lawsuits are legitimate, but some arent. and some are a joke.
i use locking biners and i NEVER assumed htat the punny little alluminium ring that locks the gate can hold any sort of a force. so i make sure that no such force is working on hte biner in question. and thats called common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 22, 2004, 9:01 PM
Post #121 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: All of this has little to do with the case in the original post, because he never mentioned the disposition! But remember--tort law is our last, best defense against powerful, politically connected companies that don't give a **** about you or your family.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
skiclimb
Mar 23, 2004, 5:50 PM
Post #122 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1938
|
For what it is worth ...I have clearly stated to all of my family that in the event of my death in climbing thay should not sue under ANY circumstances...While manufactures are capable of mistakes that could lead to my death they are in my opinion less prone to do so than I am...I have certainly done things in climbing that had I been particularly unlucky at that time would have killed me.
I would feel that my life was insulted should there be a lawsuit that detrimentally affected the sport and lifestyle I love.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 23, 2004, 7:26 PM
Post #124 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Interesting article. Can any lawyerly types comment on whether US laws are substantively different in any way from whats described (presumably British law) in the article?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
plumeria
Mar 24, 2004, 12:43 AM
Post #125 of 179
(24394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 4
|
Thanks for the very useful Petzl reference - seeing a picture certainly helps me visualize what the "sports belay" look like.
I am having a hard time understanding the diagram on page 3. What is being shown in each column of the table at the end showing Recommended, Great Experience needed to do, and Death?
I guess that the first 4 columns are for climbing (some belaying lead, some belaying second I guess) and the last 2 are for rapelling (or is one top roping)?
thanks
Peter
p.s. to counter my first point, sometimes a few words are more helpful then cryptic pictures
|
|
|
|
|
|
