In reply to ByEek:
> I really don't think you can compare the aviation "industry" with its fringe amatuer enthusast element to climbing.
That's not really the comparison I was making. The site I posted a link to is for paragliding/hang-gliding. It is entirely unregulated. You can buy your kit off ebay and go fly, with no need for a license, training, anything. Many people are entirely self taught.
The point I was getting at was it is possible for an activity, or its representatives, to create a system for safety that completely goes against the grain of accepted practice, culture and what was many would perceive as being acceptable to its participants, and for the activity to still remain entirely unregulated at the end of it. In no small way, one of the drivers for this was to ensure the longevity and freedom of the sport: unaccountable injuries, deaths, emergency call-outs and damage to private property is a risk to the activity itself.
> How one more yet another resource would improve things is beyond me.
The current resources are sporadic and diffused. Most important however, and it is noticeable on these forums when accidents are discovered, there is a complete head in sand approach when accidents occur. It is sad that despite this, discussion forums on UKC seem to be the most reliable way on checking up on incidents and causes - that says a lot.
As I posted earlier, could you provide information on the number of bolt failures on UK rock in the last 12 months? The number of cases of people decking out? How many times gear pulls? Rockfalls? And beyond numbers the qualitative details - types of injuries, do accidents tend to happen at the beginning or end of a climb, early or late in the seans, and so on?
I certainly couldn't, I wouldn't know where to start (other than perhaps beginning a thread on UKC, which obviously would be fraught!), so we operate on a system of guesswork, assumption and rumour. I strongly suspect there are dangerous climbing practices in use every day that would be exposed by such a reporting system. It doesn't have to be perfect. Just about anything would appear to be better than what we have (don't have) at the moment.
I think the problem with the current systems you mention is they don't really deal with the complacency of "it won't happen to me". They are rules, manuals, demands that many might miss, ignore or (through experience) feel don't apply. The occaisional tale on UKC suffers from all the problems mentioned before, while mountain rescue logs (while the most useful) are spread over the net and don't appear to be provided for the purpose of learning. A register of accidents for that purpose is a quite different.
Post edited at 13:03