ben nevis no4 gully

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 stuart58 07 Jan 2015
What happened to the debate about the no4 incident
 JLS 07 Jan 2015
In reply to stuart58:

Got buried under an avalanche of name calling and acrimony.
 climber34neil 08 Jan 2015
In reply to JLS:

You could tell it was just going to snowball!
 davy_boy 08 Jan 2015
In reply to stuart58:

think walter mitty was found out
Jim Crow 08 Jan 2015
In reply to davy_boy:

He has now changed his profile - seems no longer to be a guide, climbing Moonflower, E5 etc...........................................! Should have changed it to WAMitty perhaps.
 RedFive 08 Jan 2015
In reply to stuart58:

It's a shame as there was a good debate about reading conditions in amongst the bile from 'that guy'.

It seems on UKC we can name and call rapists whatever we like (a good thing by the way), but can't question the moral stance of someone purporting to be something he clearly was not. The glass house quotes were spot on and he should have left it there, but obviously went crying to the moderators when his name change didn't work.

Clearly he was clever enough to work out that posting that stuff with his real name wasn't going to be great for finding clients to take them on 'fist' ascents.

The rules state you can't post 'what happened to the thread ....' so expect this one to disappear sometime soon.
Lusk 08 Jan 2015
In reply to RedFive:

He couldn't stop digging!
Mind, he likes digging holes though
 Dr.S at work 08 Jan 2015
In reply to stuart58:

Its a consistent problem with threads about accidents/incidents.

Would it be worth considering a forum for this type of discussion which is very heavily moderated, perhaps using a system of pre-authorisation like the BBC one?
Calski 08 Jan 2015
In reply to Dr.S at work:

Completely agree. Many safety critical industries have long supported 'no blame' post incident analysis which aims to identify root cause and future prevention strategies - this would be really helpful but people almost certainly will not be open and honest if they're going to be personally criticised in the manner that the previous poster went about it. Constructive analysis and suggestions for prevention = good; slagging people off is - I propose - a route to bringing up defences and preventing useful lessons from being learned.

So, totally support the idea of a heavily moderated accidents / lessons learned forum, with pre-submission moderation probably a good idea. I'd even hold my hand up as a volunteer to help with it.
1
 steveshaking 08 Jan 2015
In reply to Dr.S at work:

Really good idea.
How about it UKC?
There might be cost issues. Perhaps the BMC should take an interest. But it should be on ukclimbing as that's where the debates are.
Just before the thread was pulled someone posted this link. http://www.powder.com/human-factor/index.php?chapter=1&utm_source=Alpin...
I am not suggesting any of these factors are relevant. Don't have enough information. But it looks like another useful resource.
OP stuart58 08 Jan 2015
In reply to steveshaking:

was this guy operating as a professional guide if so he should be brought to task over it before he does some damage
 Jamie B 08 Jan 2015
In reply to stuart58:

> was this guy operating as a professional guide if so he should be brought to task over it before he does some damage

I got the impression that he was presenting himself as such, but not actually "guiding".

1
 Offwidth 08 Jan 2015
In reply to steveshaking:

No its not a good idea, its a good intentioned but problematic idea that has been discussed at length here and elsewhere many times with no clear conclusion.
Calski 08 Jan 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

I'm genuinely interested...why is it not a good idea, in your opinion?

The fact it is problematic and has been discussed many times with no conclusion just makes it more challenging, not directly a bad idea...
1
 wbo 08 Jan 2015
In reply to stuart58:

Would it be a thread (stickied) or some kind of separate form format. If not a thread, how to avoid it filling with debate and commentary, making it immensely long and obscuring the facts
 gethin_allen 08 Jan 2015
In reply to stuart58:

Any chance of someone providing a quick summary of what the original thread was about (in a way that won't get this thread pulled) as I was without internet for most of last week and it's all rather confusing me.

Thanks.
 DaveHK 08 Jan 2015
In reply to gethin_allen:
It was a discussion of the avalanche in No.4 which was caused by a team abbing off the cornice causing it to collapse. This swept some others down. Minor injuries only. One individual was very critical of them having been on the Ben himself that day. Some agreed. Others queried his judgement. His profile claimed he was a guide but this seems to have been untrue. Mild insults ensued.
Post edited at 21:20
 gethin_allen 08 Jan 2015
In reply to DaveHK:

Thanks very much, I had seen reports about an avalanche but I wasn't sure if the "guide" in question was involved in starting it or was being called out for taking people into an obvious avalanche risk zone or similar.
 fmck 09 Jan 2015
In reply to gethin_allen:

There was no guide involved. This guy posted this post previously

http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=599125

I suspect his claims of being a guide, climbing E5 & having done a number of Andes first ascents were probably to impress the lady! Afterwards he probably liked the idea of living in the land of make believe.

Slagging off folks unfortunately involved in an accident is pretty poor. I was involved in an accident near to gully 4 31 years ago and there were more than plenty climbers all wanting to assist. This individual hopefully regrets his actions now and maybe has learned something.
 gethin_allen 09 Jan 2015
In reply to fmck:

> There was no guide involved.

I'd got that, that's why I put in the " ".

 planetmarshall 09 Jan 2015
In reply to fmck:

> I suspect his claims of being a guide, climbing E5 & having done a number of Andes first ascents were probably to impress the lady! Afterwards he probably liked the idea of living in the land of make believe.

The guy's been shown up, probably feels a bit foolish. Maybe time to give it a rest now, before it gets unpleasant. Again.
 Cuthbert 09 Jan 2015
In reply to gethin_allen:

It opens up a wider discussion of what to call oneself. I'd be in favour of people using "guide" if they are actually qualified as one. If not, they call themselves the title they have been awarded.

"Guiding" is of course a general term which could be done by anyone regardless of qualification.

I think the recommendations of the Sheriff after a recent Fatal Accident Inquiry may prove interesting with regards to who can lead who etc.
 davy_boy 09 Jan 2015
also the guy claimed to have witnesses the event from the douglas gap after digging test pits himself 100m from top of observatory gully. to then slate the people caught up in the avalanche is the whole glass house scenario being on similar aspects himself. also neglected to say if they went to assist the party in no 4 or just sat and watched it.
 drunken monkey 09 Jan 2015
In reply to davy_boy:

The guy was/is a complete fud and ran away when the water in here got a bit warm.
 DaveHK 09 Jan 2015
In reply to gbloomer:

That kind of nonsense is what got the original thread pulled.
 Dr.S at work 10 Jan 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

> No its not a good idea, its a good intentioned but problematic idea that has been discussed at length here and elsewhere many times with no clear conclusion.

Having been involved in a lot of critical incident discussions I recognize its not an easy thing to do - especially avoiding slagging folk off - which is why any forum based system would have to be very heavily modded.

Pre-authorisation of posts would allow for that, but would require a clear policy, and a big time commitment.

When this type of thing works well, it's really useful.

When it works badly, it's disastrous!

In reply to steveshaking:

I'm the guy who posted the link to the Human Factor. I'm mostly into ski-touring/expeditions in winter so avalanche issues are important to me & I keep an eye on posts about the Ben in case there's a chance to get up there although usually it's easier for me to get to the Alps.
I think those of you who have expressed your interest in finding a forum for useful debate on this and other issues are right to be concerned about the way UKC threads so often degenerate into a lot of useless name-calling.
That encourages the tendency to put accidents down to bad luck. "Accidents happen" and "standing up" for the victims is often presented as a reason not to scrutinise the behaviour that led to such accidents.
At it's worst there is a certain pride in having epics that is really worrying when all the studies show that the heuristic traps that lead to bad decision making are responsible for most accidents. For example, around 95% of all avalanches involving death or injury to the victim are triggered by that victim.
I'm out of the country a lot but I might visit UKC more often if debates were conducted in a more useful manner so good luck to those calling for a reform of at least some part of UKC.
 Offwidth 10 Jan 2015
In reply to Calski:

The negative side includes that: a few sad folk make stuff up (Ive seen it in serious and fatal accidents); others get the wrong impression from incomplete information (see most press coverage) so post control of some kind is vita. I agree with vetted accident assessment by experts but its not cheap and I dont want say a big lump of my BMC subs going on this (happier if it was fully sponsored). Where it works well, say the yosemite analysis, its a good idea but sadly history there shows that despite this resource, those who need to learn are not doing so and the same mistakes happen again and again anyway.
 Lucy Wallace 10 Jan 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

Its worth taking a look at the reported avalanches page on the SAIS website. Most are just descriptions of observed debris but human triggered ones make it in there too- with eyewitness accounts and events/decisions running up to the avalanche: http://www.sais.gov.uk/avalanche_map/

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...