This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
An extremely serious accident took place on Saturday, 13th June, when my climbing partner, a very experienced climber, took a 12m ground fall while being lowered off from the top of Impact Imminent(6b) on the Impact Walls at Trevor Rocks, Llangollen. Evacuation to Wrexham hospital took place by Air Ambulance. My friend sustained a serious spinal injury and a potential loss of limb injury to one leg and, following emergency surgery, has now been transferred to a specialist orthopaedic unit in Manchester.
Post accident inspection suggests that the fall appears to have been caused by a 'failure' of the in situ lower-off maillon which is shared with Sudden Impact(4). The maillon concerned is a 7mm steel long type, normally used for rigging in caving or as a bail biner in climbing. Somehow or other the maillon opened during the lower off, then suddenly become detatched from the lower-off chain. The shock somehow resulted in the lower off rope coming out of the maillon, resulting in the fall.
It is open to debate as to whether this small type of maillon is suitable for use on a lower-off anchor but, irrespective of suitability, such maillons should NEVER open under load. They should be permanently glued or torqued shut. Until such time as this maillon is replaced or made safe, it would be advisable to inspect this maillon and take extreme care when lowering off from either of these two routes, or perhaps consider abseiling off instead.
I would like to sincerely thank the three climbers who quickly assisted with emergency first aid as well as the crew of the Welshpool based Wales Air Ambulance who attended the scene within 20 minutes.
Post accident inspection suggests that the fall appears to have been caused by a 'failure' of the in situ lower-off maillon which is shared with Sudden Impact(4). The maillon concerned is a 7mm steel long type, normally used for rigging in caving or as a bail biner in climbing. Somehow or other the maillon opened during the lower off, then suddenly become detatched from the lower-off chain. The shock somehow resulted in the lower off rope coming out of the maillon, resulting in the fall.
It is open to debate as to whether this small type of maillon is suitable for use on a lower-off anchor but, irrespective of suitability, such maillons should NEVER open under load. They should be permanently glued or torqued shut. Until such time as this maillon is replaced or made safe, it would be advisable to inspect this maillon and take extreme care when lowering off from either of these two routes, or perhaps consider abseiling off instead.
I would like to sincerely thank the three climbers who quickly assisted with emergency first aid as well as the crew of the Welshpool based Wales Air Ambulance who attended the scene within 20 minutes.
In reply to Dave Williams:
A sort of similar accident happened in Finland about a year ago: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=299075
A sort of similar accident happened in Finland about a year ago: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=299075
In reply to Dave Williams:
Dave, my thoughts are with you and your friend; that is something no climber wants to witness.
Dave, my thoughts are with you and your friend; that is something no climber wants to witness.
In reply to Dave Williams:
Dear Dave,
Very sorry to hear of the accicent. Extremely grateful foryou to put the information here, must be harfd given the circumstances. I often teach intro to sports there. So I'll be even more carefull with a pre-climb maillon check next time.
Hope the healing is quick with no long term affects.
Simon Wells
Dear Dave,
Very sorry to hear of the accicent. Extremely grateful foryou to put the information here, must be harfd given the circumstances. I often teach intro to sports there. So I'll be even more carefull with a pre-climb maillon check next time.
Hope the healing is quick with no long term affects.
Simon Wells
> Post accident inspection suggests that the fall appears to have been caused by a 'failure' of the in situ lower-off maillon which is shared with Sudden Impact(4). The maillon concerned is a 7mm steel long type, normally used for rigging in caving or as a bail biner in climbing. Somehow or other the maillon opened during the lower off, then suddenly become detatched from the lower-off chain. The shock somehow resulted in the lower off rope coming out of the maillon, resulting in the fall.
>
>
I was climbing at trevor on sunday and noticed that the lower off crab was worn approximately half way through, whilst ok now it also highlights an issue of who changes it and when, liability and all those other questions on sport climbing equipting of routes. Does the bmc lookout for these things?
I would say the crag is far more popular since the new photograph type guides were released, any funds from these guides that profit from the climbers that visit the crag get put back into maintainece?
In reply to joolskilly:
Perhaps this shows the danger of trusting in-situ gear? I've always felt a little wary of lower offs as the system effectively doubles the load on the gear compared to a normal abseil and obviously results on wear on the link after a while. Caution is still required.
Perhaps this shows the danger of trusting in-situ gear? I've always felt a little wary of lower offs as the system effectively doubles the load on the gear compared to a normal abseil and obviously results on wear on the link after a while. Caution is still required.
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Good point, It is nice though when sport climbing to have a quick change round. The best solution would obviously be to use propper lower off fixings which do not wear like ordinary climbing crabs which are made to light weight specs. Also the free ring like attachments which are free to rotate do not concentrate the rope running in the same point every time.
1
In reply to Dave Williams:
That's the problem with maillons, smaller ones especially. If you orientate them 'correctly', ie screw 'barrel' down, then the rope risks rubbing against it and unscrewing it, if it's running in that direction. If you turn it the other way to provide more room for the rope, then they can unscrew with gravity if not zapped up really tight with a spanner. However, it's not clear (to me anyway, but I might be missing something...) if the maillon came down with the rope or if it remained on the belay - you say it became detached from the chain, but also said the rope came out of it. The rope could come out of an open maillon if it was twisting and forming curly 'pigs tails', but this is less likely when actually loaded in a lowering situation. The problem with glueing them up is that it's difficult to replace them when they get worn. Tell us more, and in the meantime I hope things go well for your friend.
People shouldn't get hurt sport climbing. Personally I only use FIXE belay systems. Things can still go wrong and they can still wear out, but at the moment they (and other brands) are as good as they get. That of course doesn't help your mate.
That's the problem with maillons, smaller ones especially. If you orientate them 'correctly', ie screw 'barrel' down, then the rope risks rubbing against it and unscrewing it, if it's running in that direction. If you turn it the other way to provide more room for the rope, then they can unscrew with gravity if not zapped up really tight with a spanner. However, it's not clear (to me anyway, but I might be missing something...) if the maillon came down with the rope or if it remained on the belay - you say it became detached from the chain, but also said the rope came out of it. The rope could come out of an open maillon if it was twisting and forming curly 'pigs tails', but this is less likely when actually loaded in a lowering situation. The problem with glueing them up is that it's difficult to replace them when they get worn. Tell us more, and in the meantime I hope things go well for your friend.
People shouldn't get hurt sport climbing. Personally I only use FIXE belay systems. Things can still go wrong and they can still wear out, but at the moment they (and other brands) are as good as they get. That of course doesn't help your mate.
In reply to Dave Williams:
Dave, that's grim - I'm sorry for your mate (and for you); I hope they make a full and speedy recovery.
As for the maillon, yes, they should be glued shut but often aren't...and not everyone knows how important it is to thread the rope so that the way it runs during lowering (which needs careful, focused thought) is so as to tighten not loosen the nut.
J
Dave, that's grim - I'm sorry for your mate (and for you); I hope they make a full and speedy recovery.
As for the maillon, yes, they should be glued shut but often aren't...and not everyone knows how important it is to thread the rope so that the way it runs during lowering (which needs careful, focused thought) is so as to tighten not loosen the nut.
J
In reply to Dave Williams:
Hi Dave,
Sounds grim. Hope all turns out well in the end.
I'm struggling to picture the scenario you describe though - surely the quickdraw below the lower off should have prevented a ground fall ?
Hi Dave,
Sounds grim. Hope all turns out well in the end.
I'm struggling to picture the scenario you describe though - surely the quickdraw below the lower off should have prevented a ground fall ?
In reply to Dave Williams:
I wish your partner a full recovery.
Could you clarify exactly what happened. IIRC the climbs aren't much more than 12m high here,surely his top quick draw should have caught him before he reached the ground?
> An extremely serious accident took place on Saturday, 13th June, when my climbing partner, a very experienced climber, took a 12m ground fall while being lowered off from the top of Impact Imminent(6b) on the Impact Walls at Trevor Rocks, Llangollen. Evacuation to Wrexham hospital took place by Air Ambulance. My friend sustained a serious spinal injury and a potential loss of limb injury to one leg and, following emergency surgery, has now been transferred to a specialist orthopaedic unit in Manchester.
>
> Post accident inspection suggests that the fall appears to have been caused by a 'failure' of the in situ lower-off maillon which is shared with Sudden Impact(4). The maillon concerned is a 7mm steel long type, normally used for rigging in caving or as a bail biner in climbing. Somehow or other the maillon opened during the lower off, then suddenly become detatched from the lower-off chain. The shock somehow resulted in the lower off rope coming out of the maillon, resulting in the fall.
>
> It is open to debate as to whether this small type of maillon is suitable for use on a lower-off anchor but, irrespective of suitability, such maillons should NEVER open under load. They should be permanently glued or torqued shut. Until such time as this maillon is replaced or made safe, it would be advisable to inspect this maillon and take extreme care when lowering off from either of these two routes, or perhaps consider abseiling off instead.
>
> I would like to sincerely thank the three climbers who quickly assisted with emergency first aid as well as the crew of the Welshpool based Wales Air Ambulance who attended the scene within 20 minutes.
>
> Post accident inspection suggests that the fall appears to have been caused by a 'failure' of the in situ lower-off maillon which is shared with Sudden Impact(4). The maillon concerned is a 7mm steel long type, normally used for rigging in caving or as a bail biner in climbing. Somehow or other the maillon opened during the lower off, then suddenly become detatched from the lower-off chain. The shock somehow resulted in the lower off rope coming out of the maillon, resulting in the fall.
>
> It is open to debate as to whether this small type of maillon is suitable for use on a lower-off anchor but, irrespective of suitability, such maillons should NEVER open under load. They should be permanently glued or torqued shut. Until such time as this maillon is replaced or made safe, it would be advisable to inspect this maillon and take extreme care when lowering off from either of these two routes, or perhaps consider abseiling off instead.
>
> I would like to sincerely thank the three climbers who quickly assisted with emergency first aid as well as the crew of the Welshpool based Wales Air Ambulance who attended the scene within 20 minutes.
I wish your partner a full recovery.
Could you clarify exactly what happened. IIRC the climbs aren't much more than 12m high here,surely his top quick draw should have caught him before he reached the ground?
In reply to timjones:
if someone is seconding a route they would have cleaned it of quickdraws as they went up.
Comiserations to your friend, Dave - I'll pass the info about the lower-offs on to a couple of friends who might not see this.
if someone is seconding a route they would have cleaned it of quickdraws as they went up.
Comiserations to your friend, Dave - I'll pass the info about the lower-offs on to a couple of friends who might not see this.
In reply to joolskilly: you climb the route, you assume responsibility. we have enough litigation, insurance, rules etc in this country... you dont like the gear, you change it.
1
In reply to ksjs:
Of course you do but that doesn't seem that was the direction of his post. It was more alerting other climbers to the problem.
But the nature of what happened does need to be clarified.
Of course you do but that doesn't seem that was the direction of his post. It was more alerting other climbers to the problem.
But the nature of what happened does need to be clarified.
In reply to Dave Williams: from your post it sounds like the route had been cleaned and your partner was lowering from a single maillon. this is not best practice but if done carefully (barrel screwed tightly and oriented correctly) i cant see how the rope could come out, especially over 12m? even if the maillon was 'open' i would have expected it to perform under static loading (if anyone knows that a 7mm maillon does / can fail under this kind of stress if open please say).
In reply to jon: i was replying to somebody else's post which talked about litigation and whose responsibility fixed gear is etc.
In reply to ksjs:
Sorry, must have missed that.
> (In reply to jon) i was replying to somebody else's post which talked about litigation and whose responsibility fixed gear is etc.
Sorry, must have missed that.
In reply to ksjs:
In the 'similar' thread linked above it seemed the open maillon had uncurled under the load of lowering. IIRC that was 6mm (I didn't bother re-reading the thread in full) and I too was surprised it'd open out at so low a load, I'm guessing it's pretty low strength steel.
OP: I hope your friend makes a full recovery. Some of the details in your initial post might be worth clearing up at some point, it's a little unclear in places.
jk
> ...even if the maillon was 'open' i would have expected it to perform under static loading (if anyone knows that a 7mm maillon does / can fail under this kind of stress if open please say).
In the 'similar' thread linked above it seemed the open maillon had uncurled under the load of lowering. IIRC that was 6mm (I didn't bother re-reading the thread in full) and I too was surprised it'd open out at so low a load, I'm guessing it's pretty low strength steel.
OP: I hope your friend makes a full recovery. Some of the details in your initial post might be worth clearing up at some point, it's a little unclear in places.
jk
In reply to jkarran
I'm guessing that a small maillon is going to be particularly at risk of coming unscrewed with a loaded rope running past the nut on a regular basis.
I'm guessing that a small maillon is going to be particularly at risk of coming unscrewed with a loaded rope running past the nut on a regular basis.
In reply to jkarran:
5mm I think. Funnily enough we were at the crag where that accident happened on Saturday, talking about it.
> IIRC that was 6mm (I didn't bother re-reading the thread in full) and I too was surprised it'd open out at so low a load, I'm guessing it's pretty low strength steel.
5mm I think. Funnily enough we were at the crag where that accident happened on Saturday, talking about it.
In reply to TobyA:
Yeah, I just skimmed through it again, 5mm is pretty thin. I'd be quite shocked if an open 7mm one had uncurled under normal lowering load. Sounds like a very nasty accident however it happened.
jk
> 5mm I think. Funnily enough we were at the crag where that accident happened on Saturday, talking about it.
Yeah, I just skimmed through it again, 5mm is pretty thin. I'd be quite shocked if an open 7mm one had uncurled under normal lowering load. Sounds like a very nasty accident however it happened.
jk
In reply to Dave Williams: Dave, thanks for posting some details. Those of us in Ireland who are following the progress of your injured partner (I assume he's asked to keep a low profile?) are very keen to hear exactly what happened. He's a pretty safe kinda climber usually - if a little bold at times - and it would certainly be informative to have the full story.
In reply to jkarran: i understand 7mm is the min diamter rated for this purpose (and i stress that these things are not really intended to be used in this way but the fact is they are often present on lower offs and used if bailing out on sport routes) and i would be REALLY surprised / shocked if an 'open' properly rated / tested 7mm maillon uncurled under this kind of load.
1
Sorry, I now realise that I was a bit too vague in my original post and thanks for all the expressions of concern. The outlook for my friend is a bit bleak at the moment but he's in very good hands. The immediate medical priority is to try and save his right leg, then attend to the spinal injury.
OK, as to what could have gone wrong .... There was no gear on Impact Imminent when he fell and he was in the process of stripping gear from Sudden Impact (which we'd earlier climbed as well, but not stripped) when he fell. So the rope was only running through the maillon at the top. He'd just taken off the second quickdraw from the top of Sudden Impact (in descent) when he fell. I heard a metallic sound of metal hitting rock as he began falling. I was extremely concerned as what had happened and so climbed up Sudden Impact to inspect the lower off before heading off to the hospital. This is what I found:
The chain attached to the top bolt was hanging free. I think the metallic sound I heard was the chain whipping against the rock after it had come out of the maillon. The maillon was still attached to the bottom bolt and the gate was fully open. The maillon was correctly orientated, i.e. screw 'barrel' down. Having thoroughly checked everything, I reattached the maillon and chain, screwed the maillon hand tight and abbed back down.
For what it's worth and having talked with my friend, this is what I think may have happened. When he got to the top of Impact Imminent, he threaded the rope through the maillon. He assures me that the gate on the maillon was definitely screwed shut. I hate to think this but there's a real possibility he may have threaded the rope in such a way that rope rub in such a small maillon (which may even be smaller than 7mm, as suggested earlier in this thread) would then have opened the gate. But IMHO the gate can't have been securely glued of torqued shut in the first place for this to happen. Anyway, his twisting about on the end of the rope while degearing Sudden Impact then somehow caused the loaded chain as well as the rope to come out of what I guess was by then an open maillon.
I have climbed on Trevor Rocks a number of times and have done quite a few of the grade 4, 5, 6a and 6b routes. For what it's worth, I personally dislike the way the lower offs have been set up and I agree that a Fixe (or similar) lower off system would be both better and safer.
I hope all this is of some help. As Jon has said earlier on, people shouldn't get hurt while sport climbing and my reason for posting this thread in the first place was to simply try and prevent someone else having a similar accident at Trevor Rocks.
OK, as to what could have gone wrong .... There was no gear on Impact Imminent when he fell and he was in the process of stripping gear from Sudden Impact (which we'd earlier climbed as well, but not stripped) when he fell. So the rope was only running through the maillon at the top. He'd just taken off the second quickdraw from the top of Sudden Impact (in descent) when he fell. I heard a metallic sound of metal hitting rock as he began falling. I was extremely concerned as what had happened and so climbed up Sudden Impact to inspect the lower off before heading off to the hospital. This is what I found:
The chain attached to the top bolt was hanging free. I think the metallic sound I heard was the chain whipping against the rock after it had come out of the maillon. The maillon was still attached to the bottom bolt and the gate was fully open. The maillon was correctly orientated, i.e. screw 'barrel' down. Having thoroughly checked everything, I reattached the maillon and chain, screwed the maillon hand tight and abbed back down.
For what it's worth and having talked with my friend, this is what I think may have happened. When he got to the top of Impact Imminent, he threaded the rope through the maillon. He assures me that the gate on the maillon was definitely screwed shut. I hate to think this but there's a real possibility he may have threaded the rope in such a way that rope rub in such a small maillon (which may even be smaller than 7mm, as suggested earlier in this thread) would then have opened the gate. But IMHO the gate can't have been securely glued of torqued shut in the first place for this to happen. Anyway, his twisting about on the end of the rope while degearing Sudden Impact then somehow caused the loaded chain as well as the rope to come out of what I guess was by then an open maillon.
I have climbed on Trevor Rocks a number of times and have done quite a few of the grade 4, 5, 6a and 6b routes. For what it's worth, I personally dislike the way the lower offs have been set up and I agree that a Fixe (or similar) lower off system would be both better and safer.
I hope all this is of some help. As Jon has said earlier on, people shouldn't get hurt while sport climbing and my reason for posting this thread in the first place was to simply try and prevent someone else having a similar accident at Trevor Rocks.
1
In reply to Dave Williams:
Hope your mate makes a full recovery.
I have occasionally lowered off a light gauge maillon, or rather I have abbed off as the smallest versions do not have the necessary safety margin for lowering off, could make all the difference one day...
Hope your mate makes a full recovery.
I have occasionally lowered off a light gauge maillon, or rather I have abbed off as the smallest versions do not have the necessary safety margin for lowering off, could make all the difference one day...
In reply to Dave Williams: i hate to pick but i still cant see how this happened - if the rope is running through an open maillon (which, subsequent to the accident, remained in place and was intact) under load then the circumstances to dislodge the rope and chain must have been pretty freaky. if however when cleaning a route some distance to the right or left then perhaps the sway / pull caused the now open maillon to orient in such a way that the rope / chain came out yet the maillon remained in place. it would be useful to see / know the actual size of the maillon involved. perhaps we just wont know what actually happened.
In reply to Dave Williams: Dave, thanks for the extra gen. It's a bit hard to envisage because we don't really have sports climbs here in Ireland. If this is an oval maillon it is surely unsuitable for attachment to 2 anchors as the rope would then add a 3rd direction of pull. Maybe I'm wrong about this?
If it is oval and pulled in 3 directions then it's easy to imagine the gate opening, but not in a way that would leave it "closable" again.
If it is oval and pulled in 3 directions then it's easy to imagine the gate opening, but not in a way that would leave it "closable" again.
In reply to Pete Smith:
I didn't think there was any need to 'name names' as those who need to know who he is already know. I hope the info in my last post is of some help though. This is a tragic accident to have happened to anyone, but is doubly tragic when you know the person involved so well.
To all members of Colmcille Climbers who may read this thread - keep on sending the good wishes texts and I'll make sure later today that both Alan and Geoff have all the address etc for sending cards to him while he's in hospital.
> (In reply to Dave Williams) Dave, thanks for posting some details. Those of us in Ireland who are following the progress of your injured partner (I assume he's asked to keep a low profile?) are very keen to hear exactly what happened. He's a pretty safe kinda climber usually - if a little bold at times - and it would certainly be informative to have the full story.
I didn't think there was any need to 'name names' as those who need to know who he is already know. I hope the info in my last post is of some help though. This is a tragic accident to have happened to anyone, but is doubly tragic when you know the person involved so well.
To all members of Colmcille Climbers who may read this thread - keep on sending the good wishes texts and I'll make sure later today that both Alan and Geoff have all the address etc for sending cards to him while he's in hospital.
In reply to Dave Williams: Dave, I know how much you've done to keep in touch with his family and friends over here - it's much-appreciated. The whole thing has really given us a bit of a gunk.
There'll be even more enthusiasm for keeping Irish climbing bolt-free as a result of this. (That's meant as a light-hearted aside before someone goes off on one).
There'll be even more enthusiasm for keeping Irish climbing bolt-free as a result of this. (That's meant as a light-hearted aside before someone goes off on one).
In reply to ksjs:
When I saw what had happened at the top, it wasn't what I expected to see at all - I just didn't expect to still see the maillon there. He was cleaning a little to the right though before he fell. The maillon concerned is a very small long oval one, perhaps only 5mm and not 7mm as I originally thought. I cave as well as climb and I would only use this size for rigging traverses. I wouldn't use this size for rigging an SRT Y-hang and I only carry this size in the Alps to use in case of an abseil retreat. I don't think that such a small maillon is best suited to use for lowering off. But, as you say, we may never know what exactly happened.
> (In reply to Dave Williams) i hate to pick but i still cant see how this happened - if the rope is running through an open maillon (which, subsequent to the accident, remained in place and was intact) under load then the circumstances to dislodge the rope and chain must have been pretty freaky. if however when cleaning a route some distance to the right or left then perhaps the sway / pull caused the now open maillon to orient in such a way that the rope / chain came out yet the maillon remained in place. it would be useful to see / know the actual size of the maillon involved. perhaps we just wont know what actually happened.
When I saw what had happened at the top, it wasn't what I expected to see at all - I just didn't expect to still see the maillon there. He was cleaning a little to the right though before he fell. The maillon concerned is a very small long oval one, perhaps only 5mm and not 7mm as I originally thought. I cave as well as climb and I would only use this size for rigging traverses. I wouldn't use this size for rigging an SRT Y-hang and I only carry this size in the Alps to use in case of an abseil retreat. I don't think that such a small maillon is best suited to use for lowering off. But, as you say, we may never know what exactly happened.
In reply to Pete Smith:
Pete, thanks for your kind comment. You'll understand if I say it's given me a real gunk as well.
> (In reply to Dave Williams) Dave, I know how much you've done to keep in touch with his family and friends over here - it's much-appreciated. The whole thing has really given us a bit of a gunk.
Pete, thanks for your kind comment. You'll understand if I say it's given me a real gunk as well.
In reply to ksjs:
I agree, it's hard to imagine how it could have come out if the maillon was still intact afterwards and able to be screwed up, and therefore hadn't straightened out at all. Only two scenarios come to mind...
The rope unscrewed the maillon barrel. Due to the way the maillon was seated, it put twists into the rope. When a big curly twist arrives at the maillon it CAN unclip itself from the maillon. However, as I said above it's hard to see this happening whilst lowering and therefore under load. It can happen all too easily when seconding a pitch - I'm sure we've all approached a belay on a sport climb whilst on the blunt end and seen a huge twisted mess trying to pass through the belay krab... just needs one of those twists to push the gate open and the rope is no longer through anything.
The climber threaded the rope behind the chain and not through the maillon. When the maillon became detached from the chain, the rope was no longer through anything. HOWEVER, there are two things wrong with this second possibility... 1. It would be difficult to enviasge this happening under load. 2. He said he threaded the maillon.
Any other ideas? By the way, I don't see this as distasteful idle speculation at the expense of someone who is badly injured, but as a learning process to maybe ensure it doesn't happen again.
I agree, it's hard to imagine how it could have come out if the maillon was still intact afterwards and able to be screwed up, and therefore hadn't straightened out at all. Only two scenarios come to mind...
The rope unscrewed the maillon barrel. Due to the way the maillon was seated, it put twists into the rope. When a big curly twist arrives at the maillon it CAN unclip itself from the maillon. However, as I said above it's hard to see this happening whilst lowering and therefore under load. It can happen all too easily when seconding a pitch - I'm sure we've all approached a belay on a sport climb whilst on the blunt end and seen a huge twisted mess trying to pass through the belay krab... just needs one of those twists to push the gate open and the rope is no longer through anything.
The climber threaded the rope behind the chain and not through the maillon. When the maillon became detached from the chain, the rope was no longer through anything. HOWEVER, there are two things wrong with this second possibility... 1. It would be difficult to enviasge this happening under load. 2. He said he threaded the maillon.
Any other ideas? By the way, I don't see this as distasteful idle speculation at the expense of someone who is badly injured, but as a learning process to maybe ensure it doesn't happen again.
In reply to jon:
Maybe the maillon was holding something else through which the rope was threaded and it is that that failed ? hard to know.
Maybe the maillon was holding something else through which the rope was threaded and it is that that failed ? hard to know.
In reply to Dave Williams:
From what you say, sounds like it could have happened to anyone.
I hope you're ok and that your friend has a full recovery.
Rich
From what you say, sounds like it could have happened to anyone.
I hope you're ok and that your friend has a full recovery.
Rich
In reply to Dave Williams:
Dave, I know you've probably got other things on your mind...
When you went back up and screwed the maillon up, did you notice if the chain was maybe too short between the bolts and therefore causing the maillon not to hang vertically from the bottom bolt, but to have a tendency to lie horizontally? It would be possible in this case for the rope to run over the barrel and unscrew it and for the rope to drop straight out of the maillon, instead of running in the bottom of the maillon (along it's long axis). Difficult to explain but all too simple to happen.
Dave, I know you've probably got other things on your mind...
When you went back up and screwed the maillon up, did you notice if the chain was maybe too short between the bolts and therefore causing the maillon not to hang vertically from the bottom bolt, but to have a tendency to lie horizontally? It would be possible in this case for the rope to run over the barrel and unscrew it and for the rope to drop straight out of the maillon, instead of running in the bottom of the maillon (along it's long axis). Difficult to explain but all too simple to happen.
In reply to BoltBlues:
You'd better explain that in a bit more detail. Quite a serious thing to say...
You'd better explain that in a bit more detail. Quite a serious thing to say...
In reply to BoltBlues:
What poor taste BoltBlues... I suggest you either stay very well clear of his routes or put your money where your very big mouth is a start re-equipping. Maybe get out from behind your screen and start tonight you cretinous troll.
Apologies to the OP and regards to your mate for a good recovery.
What poor taste BoltBlues... I suggest you either stay very well clear of his routes or put your money where your very big mouth is a start re-equipping. Maybe get out from behind your screen and start tonight you cretinous troll.
Apologies to the OP and regards to your mate for a good recovery.
In reply to Dave Williams:
Dave, i`m really sorry to hear this news and sincerely hope your friend will be ok.
Dave, i`m really sorry to hear this news and sincerely hope your friend will be ok.
In reply to Dave Williams:
On point of best practice, I was climbing with some Americans some months back on sport maillons in Morocco, using a system that meant that the leader was never brought down by the belayer.
Instead the leader would attach to the anchor, threading the rope through the maillon, to the half way mark, then rappelled down alone while we would start another route.
They claimed, and proved, it was faster climbing in groups, less stress on the rope and maillons and only took a few more seconds to pull the rope up.
According to them it was common practice in Colorado where they came from and climbed. We certainly used it while climbing with them, but strangely stopped when climbing back in the UK.
On point of best practice, I was climbing with some Americans some months back on sport maillons in Morocco, using a system that meant that the leader was never brought down by the belayer.
Instead the leader would attach to the anchor, threading the rope through the maillon, to the half way mark, then rappelled down alone while we would start another route.
They claimed, and proved, it was faster climbing in groups, less stress on the rope and maillons and only took a few more seconds to pull the rope up.
According to them it was common practice in Colorado where they came from and climbed. We certainly used it while climbing with them, but strangely stopped when climbing back in the UK.
In reply to richardhopton:
I've seen Americans do that too. I've noticed in the states that their anchors do tend to wear out very quickly - here think Owens Gorge. The volcanic dust there is so abrasive it'll wear your ropes out very quickly too. Red Rocks is another place with very abrasive sand at the crag base. I think this non-lowering ethic they have is somewhat due to these dry, dusty conditions. Somewhat a rarity in Britain.
I've seen Americans do that too. I've noticed in the states that their anchors do tend to wear out very quickly - here think Owens Gorge. The volcanic dust there is so abrasive it'll wear your ropes out very quickly too. Red Rocks is another place with very abrasive sand at the crag base. I think this non-lowering ethic they have is somewhat due to these dry, dusty conditions. Somewhat a rarity in Britain.
In reply to richardhopton: Ive seen a couple of Polish climbers do this as well, at Horseshoe Quarry
In reply to Dave Williams: I'm surprised we don't get a lot more accidents of this kind in the UK. The bolting and lower off's are of very poor quality compared to the European equivalent. I have seen lower off chains that the French wouldn't use to flush their toilets and the bolting on many mid Wales crags is just dangerous. Sport climbing in Britain (with a few exceptions) is just not safe and you really need to be extra careful when both clipping the bolts and lowering off.
1
In reply to Ben3838: My best wishes go out to the injured party and i hope for a speedy recovery.
Slightly aside to the threads main aim:
What i see on this thread is a strange attitude that the state of fixed equipment is the responsibility of someone else not the individual climber. This attitude seems to be creeping in with the popularity of more accesible lower grade sports climbs.
Slightly aside to the threads main aim:
What i see on this thread is a strange attitude that the state of fixed equipment is the responsibility of someone else not the individual climber. This attitude seems to be creeping in with the popularity of more accesible lower grade sports climbs.
In reply to muppetfilter:
Perhaps it is just that more mid and lower grade climbers such as myself have little experience of sport climbing in the UK and most of the anchors and lower offs we have seen have been in other countries where the fixed gear is newer and heavier duty than seems to be the case than at least some sports areas in the UK. In Finland there are increasingly lower offs even at the top of trad routes (to lower impact on cliff top flora) and they all tend to be the chuncky two bolts chain and wire krab type made by Fixe I think.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3bhSo6922y4/SMQ6uYi7_cI/AAAAAAAAAwI/-z6iaj3TjoM/s...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3bhSo6922y4/Rq9nJ56kxcI/AAAAAAAAAJw/gXzSQXq3AG0/s...
> What i see on this thread is a strange attitude that the state of fixed equipment is the responsibility of someone else not the individual climber.
Perhaps it is just that more mid and lower grade climbers such as myself have little experience of sport climbing in the UK and most of the anchors and lower offs we have seen have been in other countries where the fixed gear is newer and heavier duty than seems to be the case than at least some sports areas in the UK. In Finland there are increasingly lower offs even at the top of trad routes (to lower impact on cliff top flora) and they all tend to be the chuncky two bolts chain and wire krab type made by Fixe I think.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3bhSo6922y4/SMQ6uYi7_cI/AAAAAAAAAwI/-z6iaj3TjoM/s...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3bhSo6922y4/Rq9nJ56kxcI/AAAAAAAAAJw/gXzSQXq3AG0/s...
In reply to TobyA:
Even with good well thought out belay systems such as FIXE, RAUMER, Jim Titt's BOLT PRODUCTS etc, it's still up to the equipper to install them correctly. Sometimes it's hard to believe the cock-ups that some climbers make with a simple and apparently foolproof bit of kit.
Even with good well thought out belay systems such as FIXE, RAUMER, Jim Titt's BOLT PRODUCTS etc, it's still up to the equipper to install them correctly. Sometimes it's hard to believe the cock-ups that some climbers make with a simple and apparently foolproof bit of kit.
In reply to TobyA: That sure is a chunky bit of kit, but in the 2nd photo you can see signs of rope abrasion (even just polishing ends up as wear in the end).
In reply to Pete Smith:
That's a standard FIXE unit that I was referring to. The wear that you point out is the grey paint wearing off. Time to worry is when it looks like this: http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=115364
That's a standard FIXE unit that I was referring to. The wear that you point out is the grey paint wearing off. Time to worry is when it looks like this: http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=115364
In reply to Dave Williams:
Sorry to hear of your mates accident I hope he makes a full recovery.
I think it is important to analyse what happened and to arrive at solutions to prevent or minimise such things happening in future.
It has made me more aware of a problem with lower-offs that had not occured to me and I shall be more cautious in my approach to them in future.
It also reminds me that sports climbing is not necessarily safe climbing. I am not suggesting this of you or your mate but I think many people coming to sport climbing from indoor wall climbing have an expectation that things are safe and a, perfectly natural, complacency with regard to fixed gear and bolts. I say natural because you wouldn't climb a route if you thought that each bolt could potentially pop out and after climbing a number of sports routes it would be easy to spend less attention on inspection of gear, especially if you were pumped or desperate for the clip. Maybe because I came to sports climbing from trad I always feel a certain caution about bolts and gear I haven't placed myself. When placing gear myself I always think "what would happen if....?" the gear took a sideways pull, an upward pull, the flake took a leader fall etc. This constant appraisal has kept me safe, so far, but I think I also carry this attitude over into sports climbing. "does the bolt look rusted? Does it feel secure? etc. Somethings like a maillon coming undone may not occur to me (does now)and in the end accidents can still happen. I am not even saying that trad is better or worse than any other style of climbing but I do think that anything that encourages people to make there own personal risk assessment each time they climb is a good thing.
Sorry to hear of your mates accident I hope he makes a full recovery.
I think it is important to analyse what happened and to arrive at solutions to prevent or minimise such things happening in future.
It has made me more aware of a problem with lower-offs that had not occured to me and I shall be more cautious in my approach to them in future.
It also reminds me that sports climbing is not necessarily safe climbing. I am not suggesting this of you or your mate but I think many people coming to sport climbing from indoor wall climbing have an expectation that things are safe and a, perfectly natural, complacency with regard to fixed gear and bolts. I say natural because you wouldn't climb a route if you thought that each bolt could potentially pop out and after climbing a number of sports routes it would be easy to spend less attention on inspection of gear, especially if you were pumped or desperate for the clip. Maybe because I came to sports climbing from trad I always feel a certain caution about bolts and gear I haven't placed myself. When placing gear myself I always think "what would happen if....?" the gear took a sideways pull, an upward pull, the flake took a leader fall etc. This constant appraisal has kept me safe, so far, but I think I also carry this attitude over into sports climbing. "does the bolt look rusted? Does it feel secure? etc. Somethings like a maillon coming undone may not occur to me (does now)and in the end accidents can still happen. I am not even saying that trad is better or worse than any other style of climbing but I do think that anything that encourages people to make there own personal risk assessment each time they climb is a good thing.
1
I was also at trevor this weekend and climbed the 6b in question on the sunday. I hope your friend has a full recovery.
In reply to Pete Smith:
Yep - of course there is wear but clearly a big lump of steel will last longer than some small maillon. Also the lower-offs are all painted to more closely resemble rock colour so the lower-off krab tends to loose paint quickly, but even on older routes I've not seen particularly bad wear. I think it also has a lot to do with soil/dirt at the bottom of the crag. Have a look at: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3bhSo6922y4/R7hq9AUM6wI/AAAAAAAAAeM/1eQ8uyx_N2k/s... that is obviously a aluminium krab, not steel, but that krab was pretty new before my friend took it on I think a 3 week climbing trip in the American west. Supposedly krab wear ultra fast in places like Indian Creek because the sandy soil that gets on the ropes is very abrasive. Finnish soil doesn't appear to have anything like that effect, nor does climbing in the UK from my experience.
But see Jon's linked picture of the Italian lower off krab - obviously popularity of a route is also a big issue in wear. Most Finnish routes get 4-6 months off each year - its called winter!
> That sure is a chunky bit of kit, but in the 2nd photo you can see signs of rope abrasion (even just polishing ends up as wear in the end).
Yep - of course there is wear but clearly a big lump of steel will last longer than some small maillon. Also the lower-offs are all painted to more closely resemble rock colour so the lower-off krab tends to loose paint quickly, but even on older routes I've not seen particularly bad wear. I think it also has a lot to do with soil/dirt at the bottom of the crag. Have a look at: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3bhSo6922y4/R7hq9AUM6wI/AAAAAAAAAeM/1eQ8uyx_N2k/s... that is obviously a aluminium krab, not steel, but that krab was pretty new before my friend took it on I think a 3 week climbing trip in the American west. Supposedly krab wear ultra fast in places like Indian Creek because the sandy soil that gets on the ropes is very abrasive. Finnish soil doesn't appear to have anything like that effect, nor does climbing in the UK from my experience.
But see Jon's linked picture of the Italian lower off krab - obviously popularity of a route is also a big issue in wear. Most Finnish routes get 4-6 months off each year - its called winter!
In reply to Dave Williams:
Firstly best wishes for your mate's speedy recovery.
Secondly thank you for posting and continuing to respond on this thread. Grim as it may be we all learn from the analysis.
I always make a point of checking maillons before lowering off - I have on a couple of occasions found loose barrels which I've tightened by hand and double-checked the rope couldn't run over before lowering. I have also subsequently returned to routes with extra maillons and a spanner where a lower-off has been less than ideal. If you were to check the top of my rucksack now you would find a bit of cord with a maillon ready for just this scenario. Fixed gear is EVERYONE's responsibility - it's not up to the FA or the BMC to maintain routes. It's up to us as climbers to leave things as we'd like to find them.
7mm I think is probably the minimum standard we should be using for lower-offs. Less than that increases the risk of the rope running over the barrel, increases the risk of the maillon failing if the barrel were to open, and also is not great for the rope when lowering off anyway. When installed directly on bolt hangers use two maillons linked so the rope runs through both properly without twisting the maillons / hangers.
Firstly best wishes for your mate's speedy recovery.
Secondly thank you for posting and continuing to respond on this thread. Grim as it may be we all learn from the analysis.
I always make a point of checking maillons before lowering off - I have on a couple of occasions found loose barrels which I've tightened by hand and double-checked the rope couldn't run over before lowering. I have also subsequently returned to routes with extra maillons and a spanner where a lower-off has been less than ideal. If you were to check the top of my rucksack now you would find a bit of cord with a maillon ready for just this scenario. Fixed gear is EVERYONE's responsibility - it's not up to the FA or the BMC to maintain routes. It's up to us as climbers to leave things as we'd like to find them.
7mm I think is probably the minimum standard we should be using for lower-offs. Less than that increases the risk of the rope running over the barrel, increases the risk of the maillon failing if the barrel were to open, and also is not great for the rope when lowering off anyway. When installed directly on bolt hangers use two maillons linked so the rope runs through both properly without twisting the maillons / hangers.
In reply to TobyA:
9 months of winter and 3 months of bad skiing conditions, I think you mean!
> (In reply to Pete Smith)
> [...]
>
Most Finnish routes get 4-6 months off each year - its called winter!> [...]
>
9 months of winter and 3 months of bad skiing conditions, I think you mean!
In reply to quadmyre: Equipping routes with stainless maillons and a stainless lower-off ring into each maillon is a better way to go than lowering through a maillon. This is how the routes at Pen Trwyn/LPT are being re-equipped. Same idea as the Fixe lower-offs but less expensive and you can replace the stainless rings in the future if needed.
Sounds like a worthy case for BMC funds to me.
Sounds like a worthy case for BMC funds to me.
In reply to jon:
Very sadly with the changing climate it is now more the case that in the south of Finland three months of bad skiing conditions are December, January and March.
The lower-offs get more use though, as April has been great rock climbing in recent years and I've even got rock routes done in November, December and (two years ago) unbelievably - January!?
> 9 months of winter and 3 months of bad skiing conditions, I think you mean!
Very sadly with the changing climate it is now more the case that in the south of Finland three months of bad skiing conditions are December, January and March.
The lower-offs get more use though, as April has been great rock climbing in recent years and I've even got rock routes done in November, December and (two years ago) unbelievably - January!?
In reply to jon:
This is what I'm thinking too. Hope things turn out ok. Best wishes.
> (In reply to Dave Williams)
>
> Dave, I know you've probably got other things on your mind...
>
> When you went back up and screwed the maillon up, did you notice if the chain was maybe too short between the bolts and therefore causing the maillon not to hang vertically from the bottom bolt, but to have a tendency to lie horizontally? It would be possible in this case for the rope to run over the barrel and unscrew it and for the rope to drop straight out of the maillon, instead of running in the bottom of the maillon (along it's long axis). Difficult to explain but all too simple to happen.
>
> Dave, I know you've probably got other things on your mind...
>
> When you went back up and screwed the maillon up, did you notice if the chain was maybe too short between the bolts and therefore causing the maillon not to hang vertically from the bottom bolt, but to have a tendency to lie horizontally? It would be possible in this case for the rope to run over the barrel and unscrew it and for the rope to drop straight out of the maillon, instead of running in the bottom of the maillon (along it's long axis). Difficult to explain but all too simple to happen.
This is what I'm thinking too. Hope things turn out ok. Best wishes.
One good thing is coming out of this: most people
agree that we have to take responsibility for our own safety
and trying to apportion blame to whoever put the gear there
has had short shrift.
The bloke who fell lives in Ireland and gets little opportunity
to climb on sports routes (or on walls for that matter) and I
doubt blind trust in fixed gear was the problem. He's more likely
to have assessed the state of the gear and decided it was safe enough.
We've probably all had close shaves when an accident could have, but
didn't happen. The key thing is to keep checking and checking again.
agree that we have to take responsibility for our own safety
and trying to apportion blame to whoever put the gear there
has had short shrift.
The bloke who fell lives in Ireland and gets little opportunity
to climb on sports routes (or on walls for that matter) and I
doubt blind trust in fixed gear was the problem. He's more likely
to have assessed the state of the gear and decided it was safe enough.
We've probably all had close shaves when an accident could have, but
didn't happen. The key thing is to keep checking and checking again.
1
In reply to Pete Smith:
Has anyone a picture or diagram of this particular lower-off arrangement that they could post to make the above posts a bit clearer to understand.
Is it correct that the same maillon was used both to hold the chain to the bottom bolt and to lower off from. Is this arrangement commonly found?
Isn't it more usual to have a separate maillon or ring for lowering off - sometimes passing through a link in the chain, or sometimes attached to the maillon holding the chain to the lower bolt?
Has anyone a picture or diagram of this particular lower-off arrangement that they could post to make the above posts a bit clearer to understand.
Is it correct that the same maillon was used both to hold the chain to the bottom bolt and to lower off from. Is this arrangement commonly found?
Isn't it more usual to have a separate maillon or ring for lowering off - sometimes passing through a link in the chain, or sometimes attached to the maillon holding the chain to the lower bolt?
In reply to Alan_2468: I can't give full details about the arrangement
of gear, but I've just spoken to the injured climber and he says he had
previously used the maillon with a krab either in it or in the chain (he
wasn't certain) but on the final descent he took his gear out and threaded
the maillon. He checked and double-checked that it was all done up tight etc.
and then set off. At this stage there was a sound from the fixed gear which
he didn't like so he went and checked everything again. He felt it was
OK so he set off down the crag, got about 5 feet and then
fell the rest of the way. He reckons the rope must have opened the gate
and that's as much explanation as he can give.
of gear, but I've just spoken to the injured climber and he says he had
previously used the maillon with a krab either in it or in the chain (he
wasn't certain) but on the final descent he took his gear out and threaded
the maillon. He checked and double-checked that it was all done up tight etc.
and then set off. At this stage there was a sound from the fixed gear which
he didn't like so he went and checked everything again. He felt it was
OK so he set off down the crag, got about 5 feet and then
fell the rest of the way. He reckons the rope must have opened the gate
and that's as much explanation as he can give.
In reply to Dave Williams:
I have been contacted by the person who put the bolts in. The original lower-off krab was removed and someone unknown replaced it with a thin maillon. It is thought that it is this maillon which failed.
Please don't make any speculative accusations on this thread about who might have been responsible for the maillon otherwise we will be forced to remove the thread.
Registered users only from this pojnt on.
Thanks
Alan
I have been contacted by the person who put the bolts in. The original lower-off krab was removed and someone unknown replaced it with a thin maillon. It is thought that it is this maillon which failed.
Please don't make any speculative accusations on this thread about who might have been responsible for the maillon otherwise we will be forced to remove the thread.
Registered users only from this pojnt on.
Thanks
Alan
Accidents like this are terrible for those concerned, and our thoughts go out to them. They also act as a wake up call to everyone else. For my part, I have done some 10,000 different sport routes whilst making the Jingo Wobbly Europe guidebooks. I recon that I have only lowered off around 9700 of the routes. At least on 300 plus occoasions I looked at the top belay and did not like it. Sometimes it is a small mailon, sometimes the anchors are loose, other times the rock in the area is dodgy. If it is a small mailion, I will thread and abseil. Often, I will climb or lower back to the best high bolt, then thread that and abseil off that. In some cases, I have had to down climb and unclip every bolt as I go. My adage - you can't sue anyone from a coffin.
The other obvious disaster scenario, is lowering off the end of a rope! A double fig of 8, with a done up screw gate karabiner in the loop: May seem overkill, but certainly won't go through any belay device on the market.
Which mailions do I prefer: I have installed 500 mega maillons (paid for personally), which I have put all over Europe on routes that have needed them. I use the 12mm version, which are around 100mm long and as chunky as you get. These don't undo at all easily unless you use a spanner. You can't get them through chain so you need other linking mailions. A bit more cost and more hassle, but at least you still have 10mm of steel after they have worn for a few years.
The other obvious disaster scenario, is lowering off the end of a rope! A double fig of 8, with a done up screw gate karabiner in the loop: May seem overkill, but certainly won't go through any belay device on the market.
Which mailions do I prefer: I have installed 500 mega maillons (paid for personally), which I have put all over Europe on routes that have needed them. I use the 12mm version, which are around 100mm long and as chunky as you get. These don't undo at all easily unless you use a spanner. You can't get them through chain so you need other linking mailions. A bit more cost and more hassle, but at least you still have 10mm of steel after they have worn for a few years.
In reply to Dave Williams:
To the OP, hope the injured climber makes a full and speedy recovery.
Would it be possible to organise a clean up of the routes and area at trevor. I noticed in the quarry there is broken glass everywhere, even halfway up routes. this could be an ideal time to do two jobs at once???
To the OP, hope the injured climber makes a full and speedy recovery.
Would it be possible to organise a clean up of the routes and area at trevor. I noticed in the quarry there is broken glass everywhere, even halfway up routes. this could be an ideal time to do two jobs at once???
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Thanks Alan for the above comments. Having started this thread with the best of intentions I was unhappy by the tone and content of several of the subsequent posts which were 'unhelpful' to say the least.
Thanks also for the confirmation re. the maillon although I have always assumed that the lower off would not have been rigged with a small maillon originally. But experience from climbing several routes last Saturday indicated that there is no standardisation of maillons or krabs on the lower offs at Trevor Rocks. Perhaps this was the case originally but it's no longer so. There's now a variety of gear - steel krabs and different types of maillon - at the top of the routes. The condition of this gear is also quite variable.
All the routes that I've climbed at Trevor (20+) have the same lower off arrangement - ie an upper bolt with no hanger into which the link of a galvanised chain is bolted, a lower bolt with a hanger into which a maillon or steel krab is attached, the chain also being attached to this maillon/ krab. This system puts a 3 way loading on the maillon but IMHO this would not be a problem with a 10mm or 12mm maillon which had been screwed up tight with a spanner. The problems arise when the maillons are less than 7mm in size as was the case on Impact Imminent on Saturday.
I would support any proposed clean-up of the crag but in the meantime it may be prudent for leaders to carry one or two spare 10-12mm maillons and a spanner in case it is felt that a particular lower off maillon or krab needs replacing. It's my intention to replace the one on Impact Imminent asap but I won't be annoyed if someone else has beaten me to it.
Finally thanks for all the interest, constructive comments, expressions of concern and good wishes as well as the very helpful PMs. It shows that UKC really does work.
> (In reply to Dave Williams)
>
> I have been contacted by the person who put the bolts in. The original lower-off krab was removed and someone unknown replaced it with a thin maillon. It is thought that it is this maillon which failed.
>
> Please don't make any speculative accusations on this thread about who might have been responsible for the maillon otherwise we will be forced to remove the thread.
>
> I have been contacted by the person who put the bolts in. The original lower-off krab was removed and someone unknown replaced it with a thin maillon. It is thought that it is this maillon which failed.
>
> Please don't make any speculative accusations on this thread about who might have been responsible for the maillon otherwise we will be forced to remove the thread.
Thanks Alan for the above comments. Having started this thread with the best of intentions I was unhappy by the tone and content of several of the subsequent posts which were 'unhelpful' to say the least.
Thanks also for the confirmation re. the maillon although I have always assumed that the lower off would not have been rigged with a small maillon originally. But experience from climbing several routes last Saturday indicated that there is no standardisation of maillons or krabs on the lower offs at Trevor Rocks. Perhaps this was the case originally but it's no longer so. There's now a variety of gear - steel krabs and different types of maillon - at the top of the routes. The condition of this gear is also quite variable.
All the routes that I've climbed at Trevor (20+) have the same lower off arrangement - ie an upper bolt with no hanger into which the link of a galvanised chain is bolted, a lower bolt with a hanger into which a maillon or steel krab is attached, the chain also being attached to this maillon/ krab. This system puts a 3 way loading on the maillon but IMHO this would not be a problem with a 10mm or 12mm maillon which had been screwed up tight with a spanner. The problems arise when the maillons are less than 7mm in size as was the case on Impact Imminent on Saturday.
I would support any proposed clean-up of the crag but in the meantime it may be prudent for leaders to carry one or two spare 10-12mm maillons and a spanner in case it is felt that a particular lower off maillon or krab needs replacing. It's my intention to replace the one on Impact Imminent asap but I won't be annoyed if someone else has beaten me to it.
Finally thanks for all the interest, constructive comments, expressions of concern and good wishes as well as the very helpful PMs. It shows that UKC really does work.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...