UKH

I read via an MRT's Facebook page today of another tragic accident where a climber fell and was killed. As always, it sounded just awful for all involved. There was a similar report not long ago from a Welsh team also - and these weren't the first two fatal accidents I've read about this year, I'm sure.

I know we have no centralised register of climbing accidents unlike in some other countries/regions, and I know most MRTs have historically published annual reports that include basic information about call outs - including whether fatalities were involved, but does any organisation collate the figures from different regions and nations of the UK? I'm pretty certain the BMC and Mountaineering Scotland don't, I don't know if the national body for Mountain Rescue teams does, but then most MRT call outs are not for climbing accidents anyway.

Purely from MRT reports - mainly on Facebook - I have this sense that I've read about more fatalities in roped climbing in the last couple of years than before (I've been climbing for 30 years, have always followed the climbing media, both printed and then online, and even studied media representations of mountain rescue stories as part of my first degree). But I also fully accept I could be reading about them more simply because more MRT's are using social media to report their activities and to fund raise. 

I know accident reporting has been discussed at length over the years on UKC, and accept how it could both be really helpful and open to misuse and cause further hurt to the bereaved. I hope I'm asking something simpler and less emotionally fraught here, which is really: do we (or at least 'does anyone') know if the most severe accidents in climbing are increasing; increasing only in line with participation increases; static or decreasing? 

There are more people climbing than before, so therefore there will be more accidents purely down to the larger numbers of people partaking in the sport? The BMC have their near incidents and near miss logbook thing which may be of some use for trends? 

MREW used to put out annual statistics reports and they'd be as good a source as any for serious incidents vs near misses/self rescue. but the last one I could find online was 2017, google MREW incident reports.

It does track incidents by group (climber vs hillwalker vs biker etc) but the report does not tell you much about the severity of the incidents related to each user group. Though I'm sure the raw data behind the report could highlight this. 

access to the raw data would be interesting, a UKC article on outdoor accident statistics could be an educational read. 

I don't think the database required for inferring a temporal trend in severe climbing accidents in the UK exists. What would be needed would be something as exhaustive as possible, like American Whitewater's accident database. (https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Accident/summarize/recent/20)

BMC's Incidents & Near-Misses database is great for sharing and learning lessons vicariously, but started recently (and is very selective), and so isn't useful for this sort of analysis. https://www.incidents.thebmc.co.uk/responses

There's an accident report system on BMC which I used to report a recent fatality, which I thought was all climber used to report 

Do you mean this https://www.incidents.thebmc.co.uk/responses Ramon? There don't appear to be any fatal accidents listed (unless its under one of the "serious injury requiring medical treatment" classifications). I do wonder if they aren't going to list fatalities there due to the added sensitivities around them.

As you say, without getting stats on participation rates it's going to be hard to come to any defensible conclusions. You'd probably also have to distinguish between participation in bouldering, outdoor sport, indoor, trad (leading) and winter since they all are likely to have different accident rates and consequences. I suspect (aka 'have no edivence') that any participation increase is in bouldering and indoor climbing so 'shouldn't' have impacted the fatality rate too much.

In the absence of hard evidence we have only anecdotal evidence. In my own case I've lost three friends through climbing in the course of nearly 50 years.  I've lost a similar number to cycling accidents.  Of course, that's operating very much at the punter end of the spectrum and I'm sure others have fared a lot worse.

The BMC database relies on self-reporting and it is questionable whether anyone involved in a really serious accident will want to relive it.

I'm not sure even inquests are entirely reliable.  We were unhappy with the outcome of the inquest into one friend who died at Beck's Point in Pembrokeshire when he was apparently hit by a falling rock and ended up in the sea.  We thought the coroner placed too much weight on the evidence of walkers on the coastal path, but whilst they may have had a better view of the incident they probably didn't have sufficient knowledge of climbing to interpret what they saw.  They described him as "climbing" without a rope, which is what the coroner decided.  His friends thought this very unlikely, and believe he was simply moving around on the wide ledge at the foot of the crag, probably deciding which route to do, when he was hit by a rock.

What a weird story - surely he must have had a climbing partner who could have said what was going on?

jcm

There was a collation of SMR call outs from a few years ago. I’m pretty sure heather morning did it and it was published in Scottish mountaineer and the SMC journal. It’s not comprehensive though because of the the 3 ismr teams. You can get the info from SMR but the independent teams don’t publish (and they’re the busiest teams). Would be interesting to see the stats though as other have said it’s hard to tell user volume. 

He'd abbed down to the ledge, everyone else was still at the top of the crag from where he was out of sight. The next person down the ab rope found him in the sea.

MREW have a statistics officer - so if you contact them they may be able to help. Climbing accidents are a small part of many teams work and getting smaller as the lines blur between traditional MR incidents and everything else teams get involved in these days so overall callout numbers won’t tell you much.

You’d think the coroner would have been able to conclude from that that he hadn’t just set off up the route leaving his mate to abseil down and find no-one to climb with. Still, non-climbers, eh?

jcm

Exactly. None of the climbers had seen anything of what had happened. The walkers saw someone clambering on the rocks. To them he was "climbing".  Any climber knowing the area would have understood he was on a wide easy ledge where it is usual (and usually safe) to be unroped, and would have made the distinction between that and soloing.  Possibly it is a distinction which is only significant to climbers, but they show different levels of risk and risk acceptance.

It had no legal effect on the verdict, but it perhaps gave a misleading impression of what probably happened.

Have you seen the "Accidents" book which the AAC publish every year? It's a collection of write ups of accidents in North America with statistics, analysis and some articles on safety and it makes for very interesting reading. With the data they've gathered it's possible to look at trends and identify heuristic traps. It'd be really great if there was something similar for the UK but it would obviously be a huge amount of work and expense for someone to put together.

I imagine they are increasing, but below increasing participation rates, and that the pattern when analysed would reveal that the most susceptible to fatal/serious accidents are those who are experienced and are within their comfort zone, as this is where complacency can (quite naturally) creep in. Especially so when you are more focused on the needs of a novice partner or speed, e.g. due to descending.

I imagine there are ways of studying this without creating a huge database  and there probably is some minor research about.

I think it plays a very limited role in any technical errors, accident is a terrible word as it's a means of avoiding blaming the person directly for making a mistake. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to climb several times a week for many decades have very refined systems, we just do things instantly out of habit, knots, equalised anchors, closing screw gates... there is very little conscious thought, a bit like changing gears in car once you've driven many hours, it just happens. If anything that leaves more mental capacity to cater for the needs of others with you. 

What experience doesn’t change are external factors, the hills are in most instances falling down, albeit slowly. You can assess through experience which places are higher risk of rock fall, avalanche etc.. but it's never zero risk, just lower risk. The very low odds of an avalanche can be countered by the hundreds of hours spent every winter on snow, the same stood below cliffs.

Or even when walking along below a crag, or in the example above a sea cliff platform you see a bit of rock and think that looks fresh! 

All we can do is continually assess our surroundings and activity, modify plans on the hoof and hope an unforeseen external factor doesn't get us. The same can be said of any sport or activity though.

I'm sorry but that view doesn't match the data where it is taken.

"Most Yosemite victims are experienced climbers, 60% have been climbing for three years or more, lead at least 5.10, are in good condition, and climb frequently."

"In case after case, ignorance, a casual attitude, and/or some form of distraction proved to be the most dangerous aspects of the sport.'

http://www.bluebison.net/yosar/alive.htm

If the UK is to try something like this (it would be useful given our different range of games) it needs sponsorship.  In the past when those claiming stats never get taken they are faced by where they do (say the detailed publications in some EU countries, where membership organisations have more members and so more income). I think MR do a good job with the resources they have.

These are some personal reflections on this, and don't represent anything other than that.

I think any data would have to be explored quite thoroughly to be of any use. In my time on a very busy MR team (I'm no longer a member)  -covering nearly 3/4 of the most popular crags in the UK,  I attended a fair few fatalities and only 2 were at the bottom of crags.  Of those 2 neither were 'climbers', both were intentional or accidental falls of people not dressed or equipped for climbing, from the top of the crag. The bare facts as reported would easily lead one to think they were 'climbers'. Certainly the news reporting of these incidents bore no resemblence to what actually happened as I saw it.

In my time on the team - just short of 15 years - I can only recall a single climbing fatality. Anecdotally I'd suggest that on short single pitch crags the increases in training, use of pads & spotters, almost universal use of helmets, better equipment and wider use of instruction by novices has made this kind of climbing safer than ever. 

However Its also worth pointing out that there were many serious injuries which at one time would have been fatal, levels of pre hospital care and use of helicopter evacuation have massively increased in the last 20yrs.  On the ground Trauma care has improved with lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan.  I can think of one incident where the life was saved by the use of blood coagulating dressings that just weren't available a few years before when I first joined.  I can't offer any insight into sea cliffs or mountain crags though, and there would need to be a lot of Coastguard data used here as well as from MR.

Unfortunately there are many anecdotal reports which show that relying on habit can often lead to accidents.  Perhaps most famously, Lynn Hill's failure to tie in properly.  The Yosemite reports bear this out.  It is why many climbers have now adopted buddy checks, which were unheard of when I started out. 

Of course we need slick and well-practiced systems, but particularly in high-risk situations we also need to consciously check these.  Despite being experienced and very aware of the risks, I've made a couple of mistakes when preparing to abseil which could have ended very badly had I not made a conscious effort to check.  It takes only a moment.  "Look well to each step".

Yes, that sounds plausible - although I have absolutely no idea if it's true or not. 

This from 2014 suggests participation rates were static in the decade to the article https://www.thebmc.co.uk/how-dangerous-are-climbing-and-hill-walking is it likely to have increased in the last 8? Again, I have no real idea.

Again, it's not entirely illogical that if participation is increasing, we have more inexperienced people going climbing, possibly leading to more accidents? But - again - who knows whether that means all accidents, less severe accidents or more severe accidents.

I'd argue that a report based on an unique honey pot, that may draw some out of their depth, chase records, sleep deprived and so on, isn't representative of the uk average.

I could be completely wrong, it's purely based on my experience. I have done 15 plus years on MR and qualified as an instructor so i see it from both sides, the guy i did my winter assessment with was killed by an avalanche / cornice collapse on the Ben (rip Rupert who was with others from ukc), so I've seen it from all angles and in no way think instructors, guides, mega experienced people are unfailing. 

Errors are clearly made, but it's more often related to external factors, those that are through climbing errors tend to be far far less often, goran kopp for example. Sadly the number of experienced uk mountaineers killed by avalanches is just too many. 

Data wise, you can only chat to the survivors, it's hard to speculate on the mindset, decision making and run up of events with those who perish. The MR accident reporting scheme is pretty good, the forms contain plenty info, the hard bit is dissecting and making sure each team fills them out equally on elements which might be swung by vary perspectives.

I'm not sure that really contradicts what ExiledScot is saying though.  I think ingrained good habits are what save most of us most of the time, but distraction is the big danger - being interrupted halfway through tying a knot, or constructing a belay.  The other danger area is the slowly escalating unusual situation where people are forced into taking short cuts to deal with a preceding problem.  

Also, I would say the accident statistics at Yosemite are almost certainly skewed towards good, experienced, fit climbers because that's the only sort who go there!  That wouldn't necessarily be the profile of people who end up troubling the MRT on Tryfan, for instance. 

Those are very good points DD! I suspect in many ways I was sort of thinking that fatalities are rather binary - some unfortunate person falls and dies or doesn't. But of course that doesn't take into account whether they were going to die but for the intervention of MRTs, RAF/Coastguard/Air Ambulance choppers, and medics at a hospital, and that can change.

I was thinking more about rock climbing accidents for this reason, it seemed (but probably isn't!) simpler that winter climbing/winter hillwalking accidents. When I lived in Scotland in the 90s (which was when I actually spent some time for my degree studying mountain rescue coverage in the media), many of the winter stories were more about finding people and getting to them in time to save them (this was pre-mobile phones) from hypothermia, much more so than fatal falls or witnessed avalanche incidents. But just reading a few stories that came up from recent years when googling on this, I've seen stories where the rock climber has died later in hospital, and wasn't pronounced dead at the scene. So clearly there are cases where the speed and quality of rescue (superbly quick/high considering the volunteer nature of MR in the UK) can make the difference to an accident being fatal or not. 

One interesting aspect of this lack of information is how travel and life insurance companies can decide upon level of risk and charge accordingly. What are they basing their premiums on? Is there any mechanism for customers to ensure they're getting a good deal? Having recently bought travel insurance, some of the risk categories for mountain sports versus snow and other adventure sports seems suspect.

The OP started with this question:

The rest of the thread illustrates that the answer is still 'no'.

It also shows that this question, and questions about the causes of fatalities and other accidents leading to harm, are very important ones for us. But it also shows that we basically have very little proper evidence-based knowledge about any of this and that trying to overcome that would be costly, expensive and complex.

I guess all we can hope is that reflecting on it, individually and together, even though we are forced to do so with imperfect 'data', will help to keep everyone as safe as possible. And I guess also that our reflecting isn't done in a way that causes further trauma or distress to anyone.

......just to return to trends in fatal climbing accidents for a moment

Before retiring I regularly used to negotiate business insurance coverage for my company. I learned a lot through this about who knows what.

Whilst the BMC/SMC may not publish a lot of accident information, it doesn't mean that they don't have records. I was required to advise my insurance provider of each an every event that I knew of that may result in a claim. I'd be surprised if the BMC don't have a similar requirement to inform the provider of third party insurance cover for their membership.

The insurer, or re-insurer, will have an actuary who keeps detailed records of events that lead to claims so that future forecasts can be made and premiums negotiated. If they didn't do this they would have already gone bust. The actuary uses multiple sources to follow risk/accident trends, and claim trends, so that the premiums charged cover the insurance payout liabilities.

So somebody does know the information that you're asking about, it's their job. Finding out who that person is and getting the commercially sensitive information will be another story.

good luck with that.......Jeff

The so called golden hour often hold fast in terms of getting to hospitals, but many teams have experienced paramedics and doctors on them, so I wouldn't under estimate the complexity of care that can be given on the hill, rapid evacuation is still more important than stay & play. 

Liken a fallen climber to a car crash victim, the impact might not kill you, but you could have a broken leg which is bleeding, multiple chest or abdominal injuries bleeding slowly internally, perhaps a lung punctured by a rib and some head injury, you won't die instantly and even if you were evacuated by helicopter rapidly plus were canulated to give fluids once at hospital it might just be too much to recover from or treat even once on the operating table. 

Best advice, if you climb, cycle, ski, kayak.. always wear a helmet and a decent one. 

I know you've posted that before but the website looks very old and this bit says "With these questions in mind, the National Park Service (NPS) recently examined most of the serious accidents that occurred in the park during the years from 1970 through 1990." Is your understanding that the deaths and accidents they are talking about were up to 32 years ago? I've never climbed in the US, but I imagine lots of things have changed since then like they have here? For example I think it was DerwentDiluted who said something like "near universal use of helmets". I climb with quite a few different people each year, and I can only think of one person I climb with who doesn't normally wear a helmet - sport or trad - and he is a hugely experienced veteran who climbs to a high standard. And even in that case he has bought himself, relatively recently, a very swish Petzl lid and sometimes puts it on without seeming to think too much about it! My love of helmet wearing might even be rubbing off, eh Dave?  

Yep. Agreed.

Again, yes. But also - as you nod towards - I suspect all of us who have been doing this for some time, feel a bit grubby wanting to understand what happened in someone else's tragedy. It's very difficult to separate being a climber - and wanting to understand what can go wrong and what we can do to try and stop that from happening - from being a member of the climbing community, and even if we do not know the people involved in an accident, knowing exactly what it is like to know people who have been through similar awful events. 

If I was ever in an accident I would be only too happy for my fellow climbers to go over what I had done, to try and understand whether I should or could have done something differently - and hopefully learn from it. But I also completely understand that partner and my kids might well not want to see that. 

Yes that one. They definitely keep a record as I had prompt correspondence with them. I email my report to them, it hasn't been updated in this public record, but I'm sure if you email them they can share. I don't think the rescue or coastguard are the people to keep records or reports as in my instance the climber died later in hospital and they wouldn't have known about that. Also, I found the rescue in this country to be very amateurish and outright incompetent in two of rescues I've been involved, so expecting an accurate report from them would be misleading and inaccurate. I think the best reports come from climbers involved in the accident/rescue and that they report back to BMC, as they would have jurisdiction on what to do about education about the crag and its potential dangers (like loose rock in Pembroke and climber still not wearing helmets sometimes).

That's very interesting, as I've not heard that before. What part of them seemed incompetent: the bit involving MRTs (or possibly RNLI if at a sea cliff) who are technically amateurs as they are volunteers, or the professional part (coastguard, ambulance, NHS)?

I think you are right, complacency plays a major part in many of these instances. As Exiled Scott says as a rock climber of many years experience you will become slick with our ropework, etc, but then what happens when you reach the top and start the descent scramble? Suddenly that intense concentration and totally keyed up state can go, because you've done the hard bit – this is “just” a scramble, and you've relaxed. The risk has in fact intensified because your concentration may have as well. You're thinking about the pint waiting for you at the bottom, what are you going to have for supper etc.

My first climbing partner was killed whilst descending a so called “easy” descent scramble having just led a 3 star HVS, it was the second time he had done that descent that day, having led another HVS before it. We will never know why he fell, but I've often wondered why it why it happened on something he knew and well within his capability, we will never know but I have often wondered if he failed to follow Whympers famous quote and advice to “...remember that courage and strength are naught without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a life time. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step, and from the beginning think what may be the end”?

Also there's hill walking as opposed to rock climbing or winter mountaineering. If you are experienced in the latter two is there a tendency to regard the former as a bit “tame” in comparison, yet more walkers are reputed to die in hill walking accidents than in rock climbing.

Then there are my two friends who vanished during a trip to Chamonix.in the 1980s. It was two weeks before we knew they were missing, when they failed to return home. It's a long complicated story, before the days of mobile phones, but basically boiled down to no one knowing what they were planning to do or where they were going, apart from vague suggestions that if conditions were good they might attempt the west face of the Dru, or maybe have a go at doing the Haute Route, coupled with the fact that by the time we knew they were missing, it was far too late for the Chamonix Mountain Police to have any idea as to where to search. Despite this the police were magnificent in launching wide spread helicopter searches along with their Swiss counterparts. The primary problem was that they had failed to carry out the basic precautions of telling people where they were going. Something we should all do. Their bodies have never been found.

I have lost many climbing friends and acquaintances in the last 60 odd years, and when I look back at it not one of these accidents occurred whilst doing that part of the sport they excelled at. Some of the deaths were due events to totally unconnected with climbing like car crashes, and illness. But where it involved our sport, it was always something else and unexpected in the hills and mountains that bit them.

Of the climbing fatalities among people I've known, three were killed abseiling (anchor failing for one reason or another), and two more because of some sort of screw up lowering off a sport route.  One person swept away by another falling climber (Tour Ronde incident), one probably by an avalanche.  One guy I vaguely knew was reputedly killed putting his crampons on too late in an awkward spot, and another soloing at Pembroke while compromised. 

I can't think of one killed in the normal course of climbing a route, but abbing/lowering seems disproportionately represented.

Although I expect at least a few of you will have looked these up already, I don't see the links posted on here, so I'm adding links to relevant resources for those who are interested: 

Mountain Rescue England and Wales (MREW): https://www.mountain.rescue.org.uk/incident_statistics/
(stops after 2017)

Scottish Mountain Rescue (SMR):
https://www.scottishmountainrescue.org/facts-and-statistics/
(only 2021 available, couldn't find an archive, but you may be able to get earlier reports on other websites that capture PDF files)

I couldn't find one for Independent Scottish Mountain Rescue (ISMR), which is unfortunately as  it covers some major climbing areas (Cairngorm, Glen Coe, Lochaber, and Tayside). 

Also of interest are:

• 2007 report for SportScotland on mountaineering incidents 1996 - 2005: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/48363761/scottish-mountaineering-inc...
• Association of British Climbing Walls (ABC) accident reporting database: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/ABC-climbing-wall-accident-reporting-database
• British Cave Rescue Council (BCRC): https://www.caverescue.org.uk/about-cave-rescue/incident-reports/
• Cave Rescue Organization (CRO): https://cro.org.uk/historical-incident-reports/

While the annual reports that are available are very detailed and well produced, what's missing is a comprehensive UK-wide view of the data. Putting something together with "all climbing-related incidents" as the scope would be a significant challenge. As well as data from the three mountain rescue bodies, you might also need data from all the other organization involved in mountain rescue operations. For example, in areas such as Yorkshire, you often have the cave rescue teams involved in incidents out on the fells. See the following two links to get a picture of how expansive this list would need to be: 

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_rescue_in_England_and_Wales
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Rescue_Committee_of_Scotland

Even then, that only covers mountainous areas. It's of course possible for there to be fatal accidents at roadside crags and other venues. So to get an accurate picture of "all climbing-related incidents" would likely mean including police and ambulance service data. 

You'd also need to be sure there was a way to differentiate between "incidents related to climbing" and "incidents in areas where climbing occurs". There are plenty of anecdotes in this thread and elsewhere on UKC that show these two often get conflated. 

I'm not saying all of this is impossible, just that putting something together like this the right way is likely to be more of a challenge than people expect, and that's likely why the various organizations involved haven't achieved this (at least in a public-facing format) yet. 

Well in my view it's all very disjointed, whereas in Europe it's all one body. The first rescue in Pembroke first the coastguard showed up, the cable man was incapable to clip into our belay and retrieve the casualty, a very common procedure in rescue in, say, Spain or France for example. Then RNLI showed up, nothing they could do, the were bobbing around the water for ages. Then the Bosherton rescue showed up and took about 2hrs to bang in the stakes to mount the A frame, all the meanwhile refusing a medic to go down to give the patient pain relief, baring in mind he had a broken leg and in pain for about 4hrs. That specific medic was trained in cliff rescue, we chatted to him, he reported the Bosherston rescue team for not allowing him down, we spoke to him. Me and another fella rescued the guy from the cave inside Preposterous tales, he was dangling above water with a broken leg, god knows how the rescue team would have got in there without the climbing skills. In total there was two boats, a chopper, 3 ambulances and about 12 rescue team member, none of which would have been able to get the guy out if it wasn't for us who attended the call first. 

The second rescue in Pembroke recently, that went better as it was an easier situation and managed to get the victim airlifted off the scene pretty quickly. Unfortunately the victim passed later in hospital

The one in Lochnagar was another cluster, where rescue 151 (I think it was) refused to fly up to the base of the buttress even if we cleared the victim well away from the cliff and visibility was good. It was one of the Brimstow choppers I think?. The pilot sat smoking fags at the Coire base by the chopper landed there whilst we joined two 60mts ropes and made belays to descent the victim on a stretcher all the way down to the chopper. It was hilarious, what could have taken 5min rescue turned into a 5hr epic. 

So yes, I think rescue in UK is pretty shambles to be honest. So many bodies involved and not very efficient use of resources. Also when it gets really technical you just need really good climbers in teh team, which Bosherston rescue team don't have for example, but they have the authority to take over the rescue once they show up.

Just to be clear on all this rescues I just assisted as I was first on scene, only the one with that involved me was the one with the fatality.

I have no knowledge of the rescue situation in Pembroke but I doubt that Rescue 151 wouldn't fly up to you without good reason. Rescue 151 has a very good record of taking people to and from interesting places. You may have seen the short video of a recent rescue on Centurion. That was 151.

Is that actually the case?  From what I can gather in Europe it varies considerably from country to country, and may be a mixture of professional and volunteer teams.  In France, for example, as well as PGHM you also have the CRS Montagne and the Sapeurs-Pompieurs. In some areas private organizations are also involved in mountain rescue.  Switzerland has REGA, but in Valais rescues are by Air Zermatt or Air Glaciers.  Yes, rescues are usually coordinated through the police, but so is mountain rescue in the UK.  Volunteer MRTs in the UK are now very highly trained and I've not heard many complaints about them, if any.

Coastal rescue in the UK does seem to be different, as that falls under the Coastguard, which is a public agency. Cliff rescue is only part of their remit and I don't know how capable they are of dealing with the sort of extreme situations that climbers can get themselves into, rather than the general public.  

No it's not. By Europe you mean mainland europe, the eu? Either way there isn’t one body.

I won't bother dissecting the rest.

Maybe they were just unfortunate on the day, certainly from an MR perspective I've done stuff training wise where with coastguard cliff rescue teams we've taken a stretchered casualty mid cliff, down to the sea into a rnli rib, then transferred into their offshore boat, then up into SAR helicopter. Deliberately overly complex just so all agencies become accustomed with differing skill sets, safety systems, radio frequencies etc... 

You may not hear many complaints about MRTs but that doesn't mean they're infallible. People usually appreciate being rescued even if it's a bit cack-handed at times. In my old team there was certainly a vast range of experience and abilities, particularly in the area of steep ground and vertical rescue. Some team members are exceptionally competent mountaineers and some are hill-walkers who don't see themselves as climbers at all. Since a great deal of MRT call outs in many places don't require technical rope work this is fine, as long as there's a big enough pool of competency to respond when necessary.

In general, I think most teams, particularly the less busy ones, would appreciate more climbers who have the time applying to join.

Well not sure if it was exactly 151 or another number but I can guarantee you the chopper was sitting at the bottom of the coire whilst we were lowering her over a 20 degree slope, over and over, until we reached a very flat an open ground where he finally lifted and came to get her. It was hilarious to be blunt, that in spain would have been a 5min job, it took us the best part of 5hrs. 

Well it is in Spain anyways. What I mean is that 3 bodies turned up in Pembroke with none being able to extract he victim quickly from the cave, it was us who did it. I'm sorry my post ruffle some feathers but the rescue is this country from my experience is a bit of shambles. 

There are variables, however if you're a sar pilot I'll bow to your expertise and judgement of what you saw on the day. Cliff angle, rotar diameter, local wind speed and direction etc.. all play a part tip strikes are very bad for the aircraft, crew and those wanting to be rescued. If time isn’t critical then moving the casualty lower down is the best course of action. A pilot won't risk the aircraft for a casualty.

Spain I've seen video footage of a Winchman and casualty there going down the crag together after they became detached, no one is perfect. Many countries don't winch, they long line and fly out until they can land. 

Yes I meant Europe, you know, the big continent. You don't get three bodies turning up either in Spain, Italy or France, just one rescue body. There might be police or ambulances at the bottom but they don't actually rescue you. I had three bodies turning up at Pembroke, none of which were able to rescue the dangling victim in the cave. We did. That would not have been the case in Catalonia for exmple, yes in Europe. That was my point anyways. But you sound somehow irritated about my post, I was just replying to Toby anyways with my account not to you

Wrt to your criticism of the Bosherston team (who I don't know) responding as a rescue team can be far more complicated than getting involved in a rescue independently. I don't know anything about the incident you're talking about.

I've been frustrated several times by not being able to do something I would have happily done had I been on my own, but I understand well enough that there are good reasons for it. For insurance purposes and ethically the MRT has a duty of care to its members and to members of the public. It will probably have some pretty strict operating procedures, eg a twin tensioned system for a pick off, that are more complicated and take longer to set up and operate than an improvised rescue such as you might carry out. If there are no life or limb threatening injuries then the casualty might well have to wait some time in discomfort if the team leader thinks the risk needs to be mitigated before sending a team member in.

My experience of Bristows has been that they have some excellent pilots and they're prepared to push hard to evacuate casualties. They've certainly saved us from some pretty harrowing stretcher carries in the past, but unfortunately it doesn't always work out and you have to do it the hard way.

The uk is in Europe.

Let's just consider italy, the Corpo Nazionale Soccorso Alpino e Speleologico(cnsas) is a volunteer mrt, there are paid agencies too. However there is sub group 700 volunteers within the cnsas called the  South tyrolean mountain and cave rescue organization. And on it goes:

Other organizations, who may directly carry out an operation on site, are:
– Esercito (Army), with the units of the Carabinieri and the Alpini;
– Aeronautica Militare (Military Aviation);
– Guardia di Finanza (Border Police) which now incorporates the rescue staff of the Corpo Forestale (Forest Service);
– local units of Vigili del Fuoco (Fire Brigades)

Sorry but you are simply wrong. 

I don't disagree with you about the issues around inter agency co-operation. Sometimes it works well sometimes not so well. It often depends on individuals. 

As far as 151 is concerned having worked with it since Bristow's took over from the RAF I have never known it not to do it's best. It may irritatingly naff off to refuel or decline a job as being outside it's remit but once on the job it is quite impressive.

All good resources, need to add a mechanism for accidents that don't involve MR teams - self rescues or ambulance recoveries for instance.  

Well, I was wearing it when it mattered recently, so peer pressure must work for me!

In terms of sea cliff rescue you will almost certainly always get coastguard and RNLI in attendance in the UK simply because it's invariably fastest and easiest to lower a casualty into a boat  - hauling them up is often a complete ball-ache.  Then you have the aspect that the casualty was stuck in a cave.  This is about the most difficult place to get someone out of as you can't easily get access from above for hauling.  Rescue agencies won't generally use other people's belays for trust reasons- should the belay fail and the rescuer(s) be hurt then things like inquests happen.  Belays also have to take higher loads than a climbing team would exert - you're looking at a casualty, stretcher, and 2 rescuers, possibly being hauled on a force-multiplying system.  There is little scope for improvisation in cliff rescue as everyone needs to know what is happening and everything needs to be tried and tested to prevent unpleasant surprises. As climbers we'd often use a poor belay or just bundle someone out of a situation and get away with it. Or we might not. Rescue services can't normally afford to take that chance.

Reminds of a rather time critical job I had once and I'll declare my hand slightly.

Background: Davy Jone's Locker E7, Ogmore. It's a route named after a big cave it's in, 30m ish deep, pretty wide at the entrance, the first pitch is the roof 25m, the second from the lip of the roof up to the top of the rock and start of 45 degree grass. You can only access the rear of cave for long enough on spring tides, but tidal range then is 12m, so discounting the lull on the turn that's 2m vertical height/hour! 

Anyway, couple of guys do first pitch, I seem to recall they said they were spent(this was around 2001 my memory fades) and planned to ab off the lip of the cave before the water was too deep, anchor failed and one decked, tib and fib of one leg at least wrecked, perhaps it was both, either way not a happy bunny... so short while later on scene from Chivenor pretty quick, cas legs traction splinted/collar/spinal board, entonox, stretcher and up before tide got everyone, by the time second climber was up the water was chest high. Long winches very close to cliff. Cas was great and likely endured a bit of pain in the haste to beat the tide.

A rnli rib could have got them, but not sure how far the Porthcawl team got towards us, but it's not far away. Anyway sometimes a crew like his winge about the job in the corrie will decide against a risky winch as time isn't critical and other times you play the margins a little closer when it matters.

Hope the guys weren't too put off and are still cragging. Ogmore is ace, sadly that route at E7 is out of my league.

The BMC accident reporting system is voluntary and unchecked. It is not a reasonable source for accident data!

I was involved in an incident. The injured did not want it on the BMC, but a 'spectator' reported it anonymously, criticised the climbers, and insinuated that he had done a rescue, when all he had done was helped to carry a backpack from the crag. The system is worse than useless because it is open to bad misreporting and ego-tripping!

I remember my dad and one of his old climbing friends saying repeatedly that abseiling was where you were most likely to die so I've always checked and checked again. You are literally trusting your life to how you've got things set up. 

I suspect this is because any mistakes abseiling / lowering are pretty much guaranteed to be punished as you have to weight the rope, whereas in leading you only get punished if you fall off. Example - Lynn Hill. Had she been climbing trad when she forgot to tie in she'd have topped out and gone 'oh dear, I forgot to tie in, good job I didn't fall off!' Forget to tie in on abseil and wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.............

Wow! Quite the rescue. I'm now intrigued as to who the climbers were. Attempting a sea cliff E7, presumably on-sight was s big deal back in 2001 I would have thought.

Yep.  You have to make two mistakes climbing, only one abseiling.

Thanks John for helping to correct the record regarding this report.

We moderate all reports coming in. Our
moderation guidelines stipulate that the reports should not contain judgemental language and if a participant does not wish the report to be published, our rules stipulate that it should not be published.

The purpose of the service is to encourage climbers,  hill walkers and mountaineers to share their experiences for the benefit of our community.

For the service to be trustworthy, it must provide the authors' accounts in their own words, which is why we can only publish or unpublish reports. We cannot change them.

Our hope is that a service like this will help encourage a culture of constructive sharing and openness that will contribute to safer experiences on rock and hill.

I agree some of Yosemite is unusual  but most climbing there isn't and the stats still showed bad decisions from experienced climbers causing accidents on the shorter trad and sport routes there.

My view from a keen interest in climbing safety over my climbing time (from two years in, I spent two decades as a student club safety rep dealing with the student union, with at times essential BMC help, to stop unsafe SU advice) is that too many experienced climbers get complacent away from climbing that requires a strong focus. There are thngs we can do.... like buddy checks and mental notes to stay focused... on say the scrambly bits... but the majority don't seem to consistently use these. In this I'm not getting at any individual and I know climbers who seem exemplary.

I've posted Dill's report many times as it shows 'blind spots' for experienced  climbers that I think are important and in my view haven't gone away. My last visits to Yosemite were pre covid but as we joined Face-lift I got to chat with the climbing guides, club officials and guidebook folk who gave no indication of large shifts in behaviour. Read the report in more detail and ask yourself why the specifics would shift (before assuming it's inapplicable or out of date). The data clearly indicates behaviour (psychology) is too often the real issue behind too many accidents and that will be a common factor anywhere. I've also complained many times here about the way too common demonstration of poor belay practices for roped climbing indoors (lack of belayer attention to the climber, issues with use of belay devices, too much slack low down, faulty communication, no obvious buddy checks,  etc) and that's not changing much either.

DAV also post stuff that's modern and many of the trends seem similar when you dig down (I''ve copied an example  of a web summary of theirs  below) but details are reported in thick books that almost no one reads.

https://www.alpenverein.de/bergsport/sicherheit/unfallstatistik/kletterhall...

as other say increased numbers on the wall, Also complacency. but on the other end a huge deficit in mentorship.

I meet more people than ever that have 1- 2days experience and were educated by a friend  who had may 2 weeks experience. Climbing is more accessible than ever and historically your way in would have been through experienced climbers or clubs etc. 

Now though I could take a snap shot of Stanage on a day and find a lot of people working it out for themselves. "just like their mates told them to".

Not realising their mates likely has a good mentor. 

And all of them would turn up to the rescue? I don't think so. I lived in Dolomites for two years and that typically only one of those bodies would turn up. Yes I might be wrong in some countries. But my point, which you pedantically fail to consider, is that in my experience in UK, 3 bodies did turned up to the rescue which none being able to actually do the job. Out of all of those bodies you listed above, at least one would be very competent (Alpini) to do a technically climbing rescue if they were to ALL turn up. In Spain would be the Guardia Civil Mountain Rescue (only body), Catalunya the GREA firefighters (one body) and France the PGHM (one body usually), and so on...

Yes I normally I only hear and had good experience with them, this was an isolated case I guess.

Spain: greim is actually also made up of them plus, sereim and ereim, some are regional components, but they do all fall under one command structure. They have some additional excellent bits like their training centre, competition teams (skiing etc) and an overseas expeditionary component. I wasn't doubting their abilities, although no one is perfect, only your comment that all of 'Europe' has one agency. 

You probably know this - are both of those examples just state funded? i.e. Paid for by taxation just like 'normal' firefighters and cops? 

It's a funny thought what it would be like if there weren't MRTs in the UK. I guess maybe the fire service would be expected to do more? I think they are lead on flood rescue...

I saw today that there was a fatal accident in North Wales this past weekend, and the MRT report said it was someone known to many on the team. Just terribly sad. It does 'feel' like I'm seeing these reports more, but again very hard to know if it is exactly that, I'm seeing the reports, or that the incidents being reported on are happening more regularly. 

Just tried to search back and see if the report (Accurately specified in the e-mail response to you) has been removed. For some reason the search function will not bring up any climbs for the period involved. 

I am not worried that historic incidents are not available as I do not really consider the system particularly useful, but I would like to know if the appalling report has been removed.

I wonder how many of the other reports are as bad!

Yes they are taxpayer funded, just like police and firefighters. The catalans are a branch of the firefighters (GRAE) and in Spain of the Guardia Civil (GREIM), both highly skilled as they are highly sought after jobs. The Catalan one it takes about 10 years process to join, and last time I talked to my childhood friend who is now part of GRAE they require you to onsight 7a, ski to guide level, ice climb Wi5 amongst many other requirements, it's the only way they can cull applicants. When he joined there was 1 position for 2000 applicants I believe he said. You get the picture... He was the one that make the call when they found Audrey Mash, a brit, dead on scene in the Pyrenees that she could be brought back to life as he knew they had the right expertise in the Barcelona hospital. Amazing account if you can translate https://www.regio7.cat/arreu-catalunya-espanya-mon/2019/12/05/dona-amb-hipo... 

Regarding to your other point, maybe you are more perceptive about the fatalities now, but I think in general in UK there's more awareness of mountain safety because of its trad and hill walking heritage, but without looking at the data is hard to say. Which brings back to your original point about having a centralized database. I assume if the rescue teams were taxpayer funded there would be an incentive to keeps costs down and there would be more investment education on prevention perhaps? The one thing I perhaps put more emphasis on wearing helmets at all times when trad climbing, you still see many people who don't. Our friend who we buried last Friday would have survived most likely if she had worn a helmet she had with her at the base of the route. 

I'm so sorry to hear about your friend's accident - it must have been a terrible for everyone. So sad. I do think the helmet discussion is going in the right way. I think a good majority of trad climbers wear helmets now it seems, and I've done a fair amount of easier sport climbing in the last couple of years, and I reckon the majority of people I see sport climbing are also wearing helmets. That might be a reflection of everyone knowing that Peak quarries aren't beyond suspicion, when I've walked along below the Cornice and the like in Cheedale you definitely see less helmet wearing, but even there some folk do. 

The Catalan and Spanish rescue teams sounds mighty impressive! Have you ever heard moaning in the press etc. saying taxpayers have to pay for mountain rescues?

Sorry Dave, overlooked your reply.

Covered this in my reply to him.

Absolutely. Yet, I'm interested in data that shows we should do more to educate experienced climbers.

Dill shows it's much more than this. Bad planning in particular.

That's not true on the shorter valley climbs. Irrespective, I'm interested in improved education on risk assessment for experienced  climbers (where the data shows a clear need).

My view on Tryfan rescues is almost the opposite of what you imply: there is too much poor planning and decisions from experienced lower grade climbers (who should know better), which lead to too many rescues. I climb there a lot and I'll give a few common examples I've seen regularly: poor kit choices (especially no waterproofs); a desire to take an inexperienced  climber on a 'great day out' and it all going very wrong in a way the leader is not capable  of dealing with (I'd advise such leaders to be capable of soloing the route and learn rescue skills); sitting in a queue when it's obvious benightment is likely and when a sideways scramble to an alternative climb or descent is a very possible safer alternative. 

I can confirm the the report is no longer published.

I think that the search is limited to returning 200 reports, so if you select a from and to date in the search options that is close to the date you should see all the corresponding historical reports. Make sure you clear the filter to select on dates only.

Pete, is their policy of not publishing reports on the BMC system of fatal accidents? Ramon above notes he reported the incident he was involved in to the BMC but there is no note of it on the site. I can fully understand the added sensitivities around such reports, but if so it an editorial decision that should perhaps be overtly explained on incidents page.

Hi Toby. The moderation guidelines are different for reports that include fatality, but we can still publish them if the moderation rules are met. In particular we have to be sure that those involved want the report to be shared, and that any related legal or investigative process is complete.

87% of published reports are submitted by a participant.

o compare the provision in mountainous European countries, especially Alpine ones, with that in the UK. I wonder whether the number and nature of incidents in most areas of the UK would be sufficient to justify a state-funded specialist rescue service, and whether they could attract the number and calibre of applicants as the Catalunya service you describe.  I think there would be considerable public opposition to the provision of state-funded mountain rescue services, and it would not be welcomed by the mountaineering community due to fears it would lead to demands for insurance and interference by government. 

The demand may justify the provision - but so does the demand for [transplants/cancer treatment/adequate police response]. It doesn't follow that the resources will be provided to offer the service that's justified. In fact, I think it's a given with this government and in the current climate that the service would be so underfunded as to be unworkable.

My main objection would be as above (which I suppose is covered by interference by government). If we can't adequately fund universal essentials such as healthcare and policing, what chance does a niche service like mountain rescue have?

I think it is likely that, for example, the PGHM at Chamonix are having to deal with a greater number of more technical rescues in a more difficult and sometimes extremely hostile environment, compared with what most UK MRTs have to deal with, the majority of which seem to involve walkers who are lost or who have only minor injuries. These are usually well within the capacity of a volunteer service to handle, and it is questionable whether they could justify a full-time funded service.  Also, somewhere like Chamonix has an economy which is heavily dependent on year-round alpine sports and where a professional state-run rescue service can be seen as part of the tourism infrastructure.

Politics aside, I doubt any government would be interested in funding it.  There is no public demand for it - quite the opposite, judging by the comments whenever a major incident reaches the mainstream press.  The public seems to think we are suicidal idiots who don't deserve to have tax-payers' money spent to save us from our own folly (not understanding how mountain rescue is actually provided).