UKH

Just posted on the BBC website, 3 deaths on the Aonach Eagach in Glencoe. Very tragic and not what you expect this time of year. Something must have gone seriously wrong. Multiple mountain deaths are thankfully quite rare. I don't know any more details yet as the story is just breaking. Sad news indeed.

Link - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66427686

There but for, and so forth.

Worth highlighting that this site is known to news teams, who aren't above pinching a quote or two from what's posted.  Stay respectful, chaps.

T.

It’s a place where if things go wrong it can go very wrong. The area is not very forgiving 

Awful... Their poor families...

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23710291.glencoe-climbers-were-roped-to...

I think it's too early to be discussing this on a public forum given the sensitivity, but I hope at some point we can get some more information. It's important that accidents like this are discussed to inform best practice and hopefully prevent something similar happening again.

Joint statement from BMC, MS, AMI & MT:-

https://thebmc.co.uk/joint-statement-regarding-the-tragic-accident-that-too...

I think that pretty much says it all for the moment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-66475608

Very sad. 

Will wait for the report.

Few Fatal Accident Inquiries are held into deaths occurring in mountain accidents. This is because they rarely fall into a category listed for mandatory inquiry and the circumstances of the death have been sufficiently established. However, occasionally, FAI have been conducted into mountain accidents. 

In this case, it has been reported (Herald, posted by magma, above) that one of the deceased was "acting in the course of the person's employment or occupation" and therefore a FAI is normally triggered by the following part of the legislation.  

Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016
Section 2, Mandatory inquiries
(1)An inquiry is to be held into the death of a person which—
..(a)occurred in Scotland, and
..(b)is within subsection (3) or (4).
(3)The death of a person is within this subsection if the death was the result of an accident which occurred—
..(a)in Scotland, and
..(b)while the person was acting in the course of the person’s employment or occupation.

However, Section 3 of the same Act allows for an exception from mandatory inquiries when a Health and Safety Executive investigation has sufficiently established the circumstances of the death. 

While such an investigation may well sufficiently establish the circumstances, at Section 4 the Act also allows for discretionary inquiries if the Lord Advocate "decides that it is in the public interest for an inquiry to be held into the circumstances of the death."

It might be that the HSE will conduct a piece of work that leads to an exception from mandatory inquiry. At that stage, those with a close interest in mountaineering activities, many having a broader view of mountaineering and extensive direct experience of many of circumstances of the accident, might wish to make a case to the Lord Advocate that a FAI would be in the public interest. 

In cases where people come to harm on such well trodden routes, I think the routes themselves should be inspected for any changes- movement of large blocks, loose vegetation, that sort of thing. Perhaps using local guides who know the route inside out.  

I think the local guide who died really did know the route inside out. He would have known of any changes. 

They will, it's always a little retrospective as you can't fully treat 3 people on a hill side like a crime scene when it's an initial mrt job, but photos will be taken, statements recorded of those on scene as to harnesses, roped up etc... the probable route down searched and the ridge, failed anchor placements etc. No stone unturned. 

Plus it's often fruitful to speak to old clients who've been guided along that route by them, as an instructor myself i know the places where I'll belay, protect, spot, direct belay around a block etc on dozens of trade routes. I will literally use the same spots every time. 

But mountains are lose, things happen and we all play a game of chance to some degree, we just continually aim to push those odds in our favour. Better to let those do their investigation and not speculate, especially as the press stalk here and whilst it's almost old news on here, 3 families will very much not have come to terms with any of it yet. 

RIP

Mountain Instructor, MRT and Ex Mil SAR

I think that inspection regime does partially exist in an informal way (and will be occurring tomorrow on one well-known ridge) and that I suspect is as good as it gets. Blocks the size of buses do occasionally slide off the side of Scottish mountains even if somebody checked the route yesterday. 

That's true. But an inspection to determine if any sections of the route were significantly altered either just before, during, or even shortly after the incident, just to make the public aware. A gentle heads up really, nothing more.

I somewhat disagree with you. Mountains are piles of more or less glued together bits of rocks/earth/vegetation.

Treat it as if it was crumbling all the time. No gentle reminders about it. You go, it’s your judgment on that day! The whole thing could decide to go overnight and you might not be any the wiser for it. Dangerous road to take to remove the “make your own call” tag!

As regards the accident, I have no clue what happened. It could one of dozens of random reasons. We might never know. I am not convinced we will find out any particular faults. 
 

Really sad for all concerned. That’s the only certainty we have.

No doubt you'll have read a guidebook in your time for route finding, hazard awareness, etc? All I've proposed is updating the route description if needed. But I think I understand your point; of wanting the experience to remain pure? Which is a lovely thing for some climbers/scramblers/mountaineers. But maybe not for the hundreds of hillwalkers who traverse the Aonach Eagach ridge each year, many of who are past their prime (no disrespect, I'm 44 and well past my own). 

I think his point was you can't highlight ever potentially loose bit, you'd have to rewrite most books after every winter, if under any doubt you knock every hand hold or anchor block with the heel of your hand or foot. It's the only way, it's that step up from walking to scrambling, where you look well to each step as the saying goes. 

Scrambling guides very rarely have that level of detail in anyway. Sometimes you get descriptions which will flag significant amounts of loose rock, but you usually don't have it flagged as "loose block 2/3 along the ridge". The most you would get out of this would likely be someone saying "it's still 'reet, there is a mountain at either end", anything more than that would probably make someone who hadn't done the route before spend more time looking for the missing thing (if something did fall off the route) than they would focusing on the scrambling.

Should a crazy pinnacle have toppled over and gouged out a big down then up-climb requiring proper climbing and ropework, then I'm sure a hillwalker would appreciate being forewarned of such a change. And if only a few pebbles have been kicked off the path etc then of course, no further action required. That sort of thing.

Climb descriptions are updated when key holds come away. A key change in the route = update to the route description.

If a road layout changed at it's most complex section but the road signs didn't, we'd be asking why not (someone out there will surely be tempted to take umbridge at this perfect peice of sense).

Do you mean to try to ascertain the cause of the fall? or, as others commenting seem to think, to update people's knowledge of the route instead of reading an old guidebook?  I think a post-accident inspection to see if there's an obvious likely cause of the accident is sensible.

And the Aonach Eagach is not a climb, it's a scramble that is over a mile long. You don't get that level of detail for climbing routes half that length (The Chasm and the Long Climb come to mind).

No, I mean a marked changed to the route. It's not unrealistic to expect that at some point that ridge could change from being manageable by a hillwalker, to not. So, just a check to see if this has been the case in this instance. No disrespect or finger pointing.

Nobody is saying that it's fundamentally impossible for a scramble to change enough to merit mention, it's just very rare and therefore extraordinarily unlikely to have happened in this case. The scale of scrambles, and the comparably small scale of descriptions, means they can only be described in very broad strokes, which also means any change would have to be enormous to be relevant. Given the number of movement options available on a typical scramble, the concept of a "key hold" barely even exists. A thousand holds could fall off most scrambles and still leave myriad options. In the unlikely event that the ridge now requires a wild 6b dyno, I'm sure we'll hear about it soon enough. There's no mountain patrol to send out for an official inspection and road signs aren't a good analogy for a whole host of reasons.

An experienced mountain guide and 2 clients have died on a grade 2 ridge. A check of that ridge seems like a fairly sensible course of action to take. And should a marked change to that ridge be identified, announce it. For the sake of the hillwalkers mostly.

I suppose it could be a question of definition but I wouldn’t advise someone who called themselves a hillwalker to tackle this route without a professional guide or at least an experienced friend competent in using a rope on such terrain.

The likelihood that anything has changed is miniscule. I don't want to speculate as to the cause of the accident because of journalists looking on here, but anything relating to a large volume of loose rock to make this an issue is highly unlikely. 

If a scrambler comes across something they can't get past they turn round just the same as it's been since people started walking between the two mountains. 

Regardless of the likelihood of a significant change; and let's be clear that there is a 100% chance that it will happen someday, then as mentioned before the 100's of hillwalkers who travers this ridge each year would surely appreciate this potentially life-saving piece of beta.  

This is all that really needs to be said for the time being. 

There's no speculation. For the time being, a check to make sure the ridge has suffered no significant changes for the sake of the lives of other hillwalkers and guides.    

Although superficially attractive, this is far from practical. We are responsible for our own risk assessment (usually very much a dynamic process) and that's a key part of our lifelong mountain apprenticeship.

How much of a change is "significant"? How do we get that knowledge out there? Signs are unwelcome outside of car parks and often cause more legal complexity than they help. Does someone else become legally responsible for the assessment - and if an accident occurs after an assessment, what does that mean for the assessor? How do they examine the whole ridge and pull on every hold - might be fun on a good day but not without risk.

Might I respectfully suggest we drop this line of discussion under the circumstances please?

b

Sorry, I've come to the conclusion you're a walker, not a climber or scrambler, as you're making comments as though you've never read and followed a route description and expect mountain scrambles to sanitised, monitored and new descriptions published. If you want to mention every loose rock or changing feature here, don't ever try a traverse on skye. 

Sorry, but you're inconsiderate of other people. You can name-call or whatever you want all day pal. Humans died. Better to help that not happen than just allow it to, becaus of what? Elitism? Yeah we're done. End of.

All detailed in numerous messages above, if you'd take a read.

Discussing forewarning hillwalkers if a newly developed obstacle now exists? That was the discussion.

I'm deleting my profile on here. Because to be quite frank, on a subject of providing hillwalker with potentially lifesaving advice, the attitude is clearly- f-them, because they are not climbers. 🤦

I'm not really sure what you're advocating here?

When major rock falls or other important changes occur word gets out pretty quickly. This is especially true of routes like the Aonach Eagach that get many crossings each week.

Usually this happens on-line, sometimes through official channels like MRTs, the BMC or a UKC article. If it's still an issue when the next guidebook is written it will be included in that. I also have a vague memory of an addendum being issued for one of the Highland Scrambles guides to reflect loose rock on some routes.

Like others, I don't want to speculate about what caused this accident but I am pretty sure that if there was a large scale instability representing a continuing risk that the MRT would have made that info public.

Exactly right. I imagine Glencoe MRT will, if a major change to the route has occured, likely make a public statement on that, as was my suggest which apparently some here view thas sacrilegious. So I'm out of ukc. 

I don't think they do, I think the disagreement arose because it sounded like you were suggesting some sort of micro scale survey of routes following an accident. That would be neither necessary nor desirable.

A survey of the Aonach Eagach for the sake of hillwalkers was suggested. With some hypotheticals to explain why it is not such a bad idea. 

By merely suggesting this it's like I've pee'd on some people's chips. 

Also, the HSE see it as necessary and desirable.

This whole ridiculous argument is predicated on the ASSUMPTION that rock broke away. There is zero evidence for that. Any number of things could have happened. There will be an investigation for the reasons mentioned early in this thread, that a working professional was involved. That is all we can say for now. Glen Coe MRT have made widely reported statements to the press which have mentioned neither rockfall or any other potential cause. 

Here's my original message-

'In cases where people come to harm on such well trodden routes, I think the routes themselves should be inspected for any changes- movement of large blocks, loose vegetation, that sort of thing. Perhaps using local guides who know the route inside out.'

Just for the record.

I disagree. If there is some reason to think it was rockfall related or the investigation/MRT say so, then absolutely. Otherwise there are going to be a lot of rocks to look at across the land..

I agree that the discussion has got a bit ridiculous but everyone has been at pains to say they are not speculating about the cause of this accident.

That’s fair, but the focus has been completely on the rock itself, as opposed to conditions, equipment or anything else. 

I would guess that by now, several people have been along the ridge since the accident; some of whom may have done it before.

I suspect we'd have heard about it if any of those noticed significant changes (or if newbies found it different to the many published descriptions).

A repeater who found it the same as before would be less likely IMO to spread that information unless they were actually aware of this thread.

For the sake of subsequent attempts to traverse the ridge, a heads up on any significant changes to the ridge- to the extent that a new and more difficult obtsacle now exists for hillwalkers, would in my mind be a well-judged course of action to take given recent events. This of course would require a survey of the ridge. Nothing fancy. Nothing too official. Just local guides or MRT assessing whether or not a new more dangerous hazard now exists, and a statement made. Perhaps also a sign at the car park as a courtesy. 

The HSE are suggesting the inspection of climbing or scrambling routes? Where are you getting that from?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-66475608

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-66475608

People are disagreeing with you for various reasons:

There is no evidence to suspect a rockfall has occurred.

If there were major issues with rock stability observed by the MRT they would very likely have said something.

Hillwalkers are usually intelligent people, if something has changed and they can't continue along the ridge they can turn round and go back, if they aren't competent to do this they shouldn't be there in the first place.

Someone did the route the day after and didn't see any reason to comment on the condition of the route.

What you are asking for is impractical and raises lots of questions around liability:

Who pays for the familiar local to look at the route?

Is the familiar local going to be held liable if someone pulls some rock off? Are you expecting them to check every possible line on the ridge (on most scrambles you can take several different lines on the same feature, on a given line you will likely not need all of the holds, are they expected to check every single one?

There are often demands for information and speculation about causes after an accident, they have always been distasteful. I remember a load of comments being spouted about an accident I witnessed at Chapel Point a few years ago which had caused a significant downturn in my depression (beating myself up about the efficacy of my first aid delivery and communication issues with the emergency services delaying the evacuation of the injured climber), all from people who weren't at the crag given that the only people there were the injured climber and her partner, myself and 2 friends. They were demanding more information in a very entitled manner wanting to confirm that no route had been damaged, someone blaming the competence of the climber etc etc. It felt awful seeing that thread when I had memories of the accident going through my mind repeatedly.

"Won't somebody think of the hillwalkers" smacks of the same attitude, that your need for knowledge is greater than the need to respect the wellbeing of the people involved (including the MRT members who recovered the bodies). What you want is very difficult to provide and will have no meaningful impact on anyone's safety. There are probably other reasons you have met such a hostile response, but the above covers most of the reasons I suspect.

Edit: HSE are looking at the cause of the accident as one of the individuals was working at the time, not because they are worried about the safety of hobbyist climbers/ scramblers/ walkers on the ridge.

And nowhere in that BBC item does it mention that the HSE see inspection of the ridge as necessary and desirable.

It merely says that the HSE is investigating, which as has already been mentioned, is due to a professional guide being involved.

You can't traverse the Aonach Eagach without scrambling; anyone doing so is a scrambler.

A scrambler has to assess difficulties and dangers relating to route, conditions, companions, available kit, and whatever else, for themself - and adjust plans accordingly, including turning back if necessary.

There's no reason to think the route has changed at all here, and if it had done so significantly we would have heard.

Nobody should be responsible for setting signs at car parks - where would that end? The hills are full of risks and dangers, and anyone heading for a scramble should already know this and be constantly assessing them.

Things go wrong sometimes, unfortunately, even for the most competent; in the context of a paid, professional guide, it's right that should be investigated. That's quite different from the route itself being investigated.