UKH

The report is now out.

http://www.climbingyosemite.com/portfolio/accident-report-double-climber-fa...

The old UKC thread.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/destinations/sad_el_cap_news-686637#x8796...

In reply to Offwidth:

What a horrible accident. I haven’t ever climbed anything like that and am struggling to understand the report. 

I understand short fixing as both potentially climbing, with the rope tied to a belay between the two climbers so one climber will not be pulled off by the other’s fall. But they both fell... The report says that there was no evidence that the leader placed gear, so in that case they would have been simul climbing on the same rope with nothing between them and one pulled the other off. So where does the broken rope come in? Were they tied to a belay behind them?

In reply to Gone:

As I understand it, the rope between them briefly snagged on a boulder. This may account for the cut rope.

Horrendous.

In reply to Offwidth:

Very open discussion within month of the event, impressive candour

In reply to John Kelly:

Which highlights again the difference with the culture here. 

 

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Agreed. We need this sort of approach here because it's the only way to learn. Not talking about the accident for fear of being called a rubbernecker (see El Cap accident thread linked to in OP) or upsetting the families involved is ultimately counterproductive.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I also agree this sort of approach is excellent. However, nearly all the comments on rubbernecking and upsetting the family (some from me) I've seen on UKC are because of uninformed speculation immediately following the accident. If you look at the Supertopo and UKC threads this incident had some of the same dumb and hurtful speculation (being hit by a dropped haulbag... being involved in a speed ascent etc). The biggest message from the analysis is the same big message from the John Dill article: the unexpectedly large risk of experienced climbers having a fatal accident on what was for them easy terrain (the easiest 250' of the entire route).

https://www.friendsofyosar.org/climbing

In reply to Offwidth:

Though it seems that the complaints about rubbernecking and upsetting the family often start before any uninformed speculation.

Why is the suggestion that they were hit by a dropped haulbag either "dumb" or "hurtful"? 

The suggestion may not have been true, but it did arise from parties at the scene [Quoting the above report: "Also of note was that a few reporting parties stated seeing a haul bag dropped off of the Shield Head Wall just before the accident. Extensive follow up found these claims be untrue."]

As for being involved in a "speed ascent", a one-day ascent of the Salathe is relatively rapid and would usually involve compromises between speed and placing gear.  

Indeed, the report that you linked to has "take aways" headed: "Haste, Speed Climbing – Moving quickly on big walls often decreases a team’s margin of safety." and "Lack of adequate protection – The follow up investigation indicated that no gear was in place prior to the fall."

Do you regard these conclusions as "dumb" and "hurtful"? 

 

In reply to Coel Hellier:

There is a difference between immediate post-accident speculation - potentially 'dumb and hurtful' - and the results of careful inquiry at some remove from the event isn't there?

In reply to Bob Kemp:

"Potentially" dumb and hurtful, yes, but that doesn't mean that all such discussion is so.

As it is, in the UK, we have a culture of not talking about accidents "out of respect" for family and friends.  But this is at odds with best practice for creating a safety culture.

In reply to Gone:

The third person was jumaring a rope fixed to a belay.  A further belay appears to have been made (camalot) a bit higher.

The upper pair leader was attempting to run two pitches together, but this required his second to move up from the belay and unclip from the camalot.  So now you have the third person simply tied off to belay and then camalot and disconnected from the upper pair. 

The upper pair are now tied together, but not attached to the rock, 60m apart.  One of them slipped.  The rope snagged but sawed and broke.

----------

The only thing I'd add regarding the accident itself is that moving together with no slack left is harder than moving together with a couple of metres in hand because any movement from the second that isn't directly in line with the rope results in an unexpected pull on the leader and any upward movement of the leader results in a pull on the second.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Don’t agree, idle gossip and speculation on forums like this by the uninvolved and often inexperienced is potentially hurtful. No best practice accident investigation ever took place here! That happens with sober and experienced people who examine the facts to find root causes, either human factors, objective dangers or equipment failures and make recommendations to help avoid reoccurrence.

Whilst the report is useful I also wouldn’t characterise it as best practice either, as there are some omissions which are notable, rope diameter, equipment list, human factors (preparation, team dynamics and function on the climb).

In reply to Coel Hellier:

We will respectfully have to agree to disagree. My views were formed by being with families and friends after accidents where such speculation happened: when a climber speculates incorrectly or worse still unfairly critises this is hurtful at a very difficult time. Linking a possible factor into being something causal is dumb. In this case there were no dropped haulbags let alone causal results... I'd find it hard to descibe this as not dumb. British journalism often amplifies such unhelpful 'noise'. 

The culture of not talking about climbing accidents in the UK is a myth. Here we are again both talking and talking about the talking. Some people just want discussions informed by proper investigations so that the lessons learned are the correct ones and people don't have to face the initial phase of greiving with a cauldrum of bullshit about their loved ones in the background. Sadly like the gossip we get in our daily news, too few look at the final analysed reports on what actually happened. That to me almost defines rubbernecking. It's why I post such reports. I'll link the usual links analysing UK accidents in a while.

The speed comments to me, in the context of the accident, clearly refer to the tactics which left them at risk from a fall on, what was for them, easy terrain. So you can feel smug but I think you are wrong. It was not a speed ascent as they were not trying to climb the route as fast as possible, as some accused them of in the aftermath of the accident (not even realising there were 3 people on the ascent). Many climbers of their ability have climbed that same 2 pitch 5.7 section using similar speed tactics.

Here is a quote from our very own jon from the earlier thread

"I'm beginning to agree with you having just had a look at the supertopo thread which has now spiralled completely out of control and is now at the personal insult stage. Just about the most unpleasant thread I've ever seen - despite excellent contributions from people such as Largo and rgold. Must be said it would never have been allowed to get to that stage on UKC."

In reply to Coel Hellier:

So much for a UK culture of not wanting to discuss accidents:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/near_misses_and_your_accidents_...

https://wpetecallaghan.wixsite.com/incidentreportstrial/single-post/2018/05...

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/how-dangerous-are-climbing-and-hill-walking http://www.mountain.rescue.org.uk/information-centre/incident-statistics

http://www.mountain-training.org/latest-news/2014-incidents-and-near-misses http://www.mcofs.org.uk/research.asp

One important point on how many people read these things was made by Jim Titt, one of the most experienced UKC posters on climbing safety.

" It´s worth considering that the publisher has not considered it financially worthwhile to translate into English the definitive three volumes on mountain risk and accidents, written by a full-time professional mountain safety officer with 32 years experience, backed by the painfully accurate accident statistics and investigation work by the German and Austrian Alpine Clubs Safety Commision (and their seemingly endless wealth) which is currently in it´s 8th edition. Since Rother publish translations of many of their other titles perhaps they feel either the market isn´t interested or the sales are not financially worthwhile. I´ll bet the AAC don´t find sales exactly swell the coffers!"   

In reply to Offwidth:

Sorry but a lot of you seem to assume that after a climbers death or accident, their families immediately start reading forum threads and news posts.  I can state with experience this is not the case. I would rather there be open discussion and the potential to learn, than be completely in the dark, which let me tell you sucks.  Even if some of the facts arent true, newer climbers reading might see things they've never thought of, or not considered.  Being involved in this sort of thing, i cringe, and i can tell immediately that those doing the moaning about the discussion have not experienced this, and frankly I wish you'd just go bother somebody else. I'm sure there's a thread about drones you could be throwing your oar into. 

In reply to Donotello:

I understand and appreciate your thoughts.  It’s also important for us all to recognise and understand not everyone has the same experience of tragedy - what works for you doesn’t necessarily work for everyone else. My view, if something is causing pain to someone but not to others, then that’s a reason to stop doing it.

In reply to Offwidth:

So because a family member may have found themselves on a climbing forum reading things they may not like, the entire rest of the climbing community shouldn't benefit from information and education regarding the accident?

In reply to Offwidth:

I've just started reading a few accident reports on that Yosemite website. I find them to be very informative and clearly, by the 'Take Aways' section, directly aimed at encouraging climbers to think twice and educating those perhaps new, or whom may have become complacent with time.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It depends whether you're talking about idle uninformed speculation or not. That's not useful and is arguably counter-productive in that it could allow falsehoods and myths to proliferate. 

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Less defending an immediate forum chat but more posts such as those on the Yosemite info web page.  MFB seemed to have straight away taken offence to the report and the follow up discussion. I've not climbed big walls but the reporting made sense to me, discussion afterwards, with the facts in front of everyone, should be welcomed. I'm reading through them and I already feel like i've learnt a lot. Over a year and a half later and i've still no idea why a climber ahead of me on a route fell 300ft on severed ropes, because this is the U.K and we apparently can't talk about that stuff.   

*I realise I've been replying to Offwidth and not the post posters! Apologies.

In reply to Donotello:

The problems I experienced wasn't predominatly with forums, it was the press taking forum comments and putting false information into the general public domain. Climbers who die climbing do usually have friends on these forums and maybe you should read that linked supertopo thread and see if you are comfortable with that type of discussion.  I have no problem with discussing accidents immediately if those involved and their family are happy with that and such that the information is accurate (being self reported... obviously where there was someone to report). No one can stop such discussions on UKC other than the forum moderators (which they have done  on a few occasions and rightly so in my view). I don't think anyone gains from uninformed discussions in tragic circumstances.

I'm curious about the accident you witnessed... is there really nothing on the MR site?

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't often agree with you, but I do in this case.

There are usually two types of discussion following an accident.

1) Informed analysis based on facts.

2) Gossip.

As a climbing community, we should be in favour of the former, but avoid the latter.

In reply to Goucho:

It had to happen (I suspect if we met, differences indicated from internet discussions would be much less in person  ... best of luck with the Op btw.

In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks

My bark on here is much more like a purr in person 

In reply to Offwidth:

I think you're being overly pedantic about what a "speed ascent" is, and indeed contradicting yourself when you say they were using "speed tactics".

From the report: "However, to be efficient and move quickly on the route, the team was using an advanced climbing technique popular among speed climbers on El Capitan. [...]  Climbers commonly refer to this style of climbing as “short-fixing”."

To then suggest that it wasn't a "speed ascent" because they were not trying to set a record is silly -- they were using "speed tactics". 

In reply to Offwidth:

I'll give an example:

Several months ago there was a sad fatality at an Exeter wall.   I have been told by a climbing partner who is a local at that wall that the climber (an experienced climber, leading a roped climb) had tied a figure eight, then tucked it round his harness as normal, but not then completed re-threading it (presumably owing to being distracted).  If so then the signs should have been obvious (a figure 8 knot left in the end of the rope, with no sign of equipment failure or other fault).  

If experienced climbers are prone to making this mistake then more people might want to include a buddy check in their standard routine, so there is a legitimate reason for the cause of the accident being known.

And yet, owing to the culture of not discussing such things, the cause of this accident is not generally known.  What I've said could be ill-informed and wrong speculation of the sort that people object to.  If so I apologise. But that's basically my point: in this country, in contrast to Yosemite, for many accidents there is no authoritative information as to cause, only the grapevine. 

 

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Really? There are endless examples of climbers admitting errors when tying in that could have been fatal, including some very famous names lucky to escape alive (like Lynn Hill). Why would immediate uninformed speculation on an accident at a commercial wall be needed to further such an obvious message? Everyone should be using buddy checks.

If you read those links I included there is plenty of informed analysis in the UK and thats before you look at Mountain Rescue reports on the individual accidents.

A UKC Exeter accident thread from the time is here ... how did it helps us? Note the view of NaCl a friend and fellow club member). Irrespective of what NaCl asked, nothing stops anyone talking about anything safety related on UKC unless it breaks site guidelines (by for example making unfounded and unfair accusations).

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rocktalk/climbing_wall_fatality-686125#x8...

People on UKC/Supertopo threads linked the two dead climbers with a speed ascent, implying that was causal in their death, it was not. People linked the death to those trying for the record on the nose and to some NIAD accidents, both of which were irrelevant in this accident. Other unfair reports were also made. Moving together on easier terrain is indeed a speed tactic but its often used on otherwise non speed ascents by those with the ability to do so.  Soloing up lower grade approaches to a tricky climb is also a speed tactic. Speed tactics on big walls or alpine routes reduce risk of being caught in storms,  worsening snow conditions, rockfall etc. John Dills article doesn't say climbers should avoid such tactics: however, the evidence is that climbers can lose focus on such terrain and have preventable accidents. The key message for me is more about staying focused on easier terrain, and to be careful, not necessarily slowing down or increasing protection to the maximum (those climbing too fast for their ability might well need to slow down... I certainly witnessed a NAID pair on the Grey Bands on the Nose taking what I regarded as crazy risks for the leader's ability....amongst a big bunch of very competant looking NAID pairs, a mesmerising practice run for the Nose record and a pair of Europeans behaving less than perfectly and rushing and taking an uneccesary lead fall in a 2/3 day ascent)

 

In reply to Offwidth:

Says someone with a track record of posting on such threads, trying to shut down any discussion of what went wrong. 

In reply to Offwidth:

I've never felt that comfortable talking about it because I feel what I witnessed and how it made me feel and the long lasting mental effects to me and my partner pail in comparison to what happened to the climber and his friends / family, which is hard to be honest. 

You're right about mis-information in the news, they don't have a clue, in a recent accident they claimed the climber was climbing 'holds stuck to the wall'..

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'm originally from Exeter and didn't even know about this until now. I do wonder if that's a good or bad thing.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

And in complete denial that speed might have been a contributory factor. I don't see  why there's a problem in conceding this.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Twaddle. The only thing I post against is idle gossip and I have no power here to stop anyone saying anything.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Speed on that section was obviously a factor but my point was they were not speed climbing tbe route as some unfairly claimed, (and were using to illustrate their pet theory that the fashion for speed ascents, like the recent record attempts on the nose, is irresponsible). Nasty ignorant stuff in my view.

In reply to Offwidth:

Trouble with you is, is that you see yourself as some self-appointed guardian of decency about what people post on the internet. 

In reply to Offwidth:

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you. They were not specifically speed climbing BUT they were using standard speed climbing techniques. Such techniques are inherently riskier. 

In reply to Pedro50:

Soloing or moving together on the 2000 ft mod on the top of Snake Dyke is also in theory inherently riskier than pitching it or fast easier climbing approaches and descents on alpine terrain. Moving together the way they did on 5.7 terrain  should have been problem free for such climbers and was and will remain common practice on such routes. So called  speed techniques on easier terrain are normal when you want to get on with things on big routes to reduce risk overall or the need to haul. How many big walls climbers or fast alpinists do you actually know to be such an expert on such risk?

In reply to Lusk: I think it comes from a good place, from him having been with/had dealings with people connected with those who have had accidents, and I think he makes a valid point in mentioning news organisations (in acts of poor journalism) taking what's speculatively written on here as something to spice up their newspaper column.

 

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Short fixng is not only used in speed ascents, it is used to increase efficiency on multi-day ascents too.

 

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You should not need speculation on accidents to encourage you to buddy check your partner.

In reply to timjones:

We all need reminding now and then of what is good practice and what goes wrong when it's ignored.

The UKC solution to its "no rubbernecking" policy was a very popular, but one-off and now defunct, thread for people to post their non-lethal near misses. That is a poor substitute for regular accident discussion and reporting.

In reply to Pan Ron:

I'm not sure how or why we need reminding what can go wrong when it's too soon in terms of avialability of reliable information to actually know what went wrong. In terms of this accident we will never know what exactly went wrong.

John Dill's article is taken very seriously by big wall climbers but, as I've said many times here, some speed tactics are neccesary for some types of standard ascents. The report is carefully worded to ensure those using such tactics (no one sensibly informed about big wall climbing sees these tactics as wrong) are aware of the consequencies and the dangers of complacancy... ie the need to stay focussed as possible and  keep reassessing risk.

"Haste, Speed Climbing – Moving quickly on big walls often decreases a team’s margin of safety. Risk of falling may be increased while climbing fast in vertical terrain, and it is important to continually assess risk. Limiting the amount of gear climber’s use increases the consequences of an accident. The last two years have seen multiple accidents that were the result of speed climbing tactics.

Comfort – Expertise and familiarity with terrain often lead to complacency regarding low-risk, high-consequence situations. The accident occurred on the easiest 250’ of terrain on the 3000’ route."

I'd agree the self reporting on UKC and the BMC website was useful. I've linked one of those threads above. The failure to buddy check leading to errors (and serious consequencies luckily avoided in most cases) was high up on that list. When I watch climbers, indoors and outdoors, obvious buddy checking is only evident in a small minority. My point on this is that the huge number of climbers who clearly need to learn such lessons are not aware and/or not interested and any amount of published safety information probably won't change that. Horses to water 'n' all that.