UKC

Anonymous Climbers Incident/accident Reporting Website

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Firestarter 27 Sep 2014

Due to some recent threads/accidents/incidents, I am considering setting up a website that will give climbers the opportunity to report near misses, incidents or accidents in order to have these analysed and then (in an anonymous newsletter) published for the climbing community to view. I see many benefits in that it could raise awareness amongst climbers to potential issues, and perhaps even influence climbing equipment manufacturers.

Apart from setting this up, I envisage needing support from experienced climbers willing to form a 'review panel' who can objectively view each report and summarise it (I'm thinking 10 should do it).

Every quarter a newsletter would be posted with a breakdown of each event.

Worth pursuing?
Post edited at 19:59
 Offwidth 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

Unless its linked in to climbers or organisations with some authority on these issues I suspect all you will get is scraps. From an educational perspective its better to post here in my view.
 FactorXXX 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

How would you investigate any accident unless you had full access to the scene at the time and had the equipment to examine for possible faults, etc.
You'd also need to question all the individuals involved, which probably is not going to happen
 ChrisJD 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

Sounds like a good idea - is it something you could pitch to the BMC for them to host?
In reply to Firestarter:

If you could put a solid easy to query database together, well connected to search engines and social media, advertised on all relevant portals you'd be-able to collate some good data, if not you'd have another one of the tumbleweed of little frequented www.somethingorother addresses out there.
OP Firestarter 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

The reason I was considering not linking it to UKC or BMC is because nothing seems to stay objective on either for very long. Which in my view stops being educational quite quickly? An anonymous way of reporting, sanitised by those who have seen the report, might lead to people being more forthcoming? As mentioned earlier in this thread, look at CHIRP. No vitriole or condemnation, just facts and answers. And I envisage links to MRT and any other organisation involved (if willing to share information) to ensure all facts are considered.
OP Firestarter 27 Sep 2014
In reply to FactorXXX:

I don't see it as an investigation. The whole idea is people openly and honestly report on what went wrong/nearly wrong. Plenty of posts on UKC/Mountain Project time and time again about 'near misses' but they still seem to happen. Focus attention in one place rather than diluting them through various forums - what would be better?
In reply to Firestarter:
Persist! for if it prevents one injury or saves one life it will have been worth doing.
This is not accident investigation to apportion blame it is a learning process to prevent further misery.
Post edited at 20:18
OP Firestarter 27 Sep 2014
In reply to The Mystery Toad:

Agree entirely. I will be asking for some help!
OP Firestarter 27 Sep 2014
In reply to ChrisJD:

Thanks, good starting point! Found it 'busy' though - I think it needs to be more straight forward. Google CHIRP, that's more like I have in mind.
In reply to ChrisJD:

Well spotted - and more relevant because it is an American source. If even they - with their litiginous culture - can support such a site then a UK one must be worth setting up.
OP Firestarter 27 Sep 2014
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Thank you. I see you don't accept emails. Would you mind sending me a message? No worries if not.
In reply to Firestarter:

I didn't know that I was uncontactable! I have sent you my details. Now to try and make myself more visible - always a risky business!
 mattrm 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

Yup, I think it's a good idea and I've been thinking of something similar.

I was more aiming at getting some stats with a side aim of incident reporting. So you'd upload your routes (from UKC) or add a list in of routes from a spreadsheet or similar. Then you could tag the routes which had near misses, accidents etc.

It would also be possible to provide an accident report. If you chose to have allow comments you could have people commenting on the accident and conclusions could hopefully be drawn from that. Which would be useful as well.

Which could generate useful stats eg, 500 routes climbed in a year, 2 near misses and no accidents. Even if we only have a few 100 people submitting data it will provide some meaningful stats.

I doubt UKC or the BMC will be able to provide financial help, but I suspect if it's not too much effort they'd be willing to help out.
 Skol 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:
Sounds a good idea. But will it (the website)and it's study of incidents, be valid in differentiating the incidents made by wall climbers (who have just progressed outdoors, and who clearly are not very safe) and true outdoor climbers whose equipment may be at fault?
OP Firestarter 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Skol:

Good question. If it's done correctly, every type and style of climbing will be covered, from indoor bouldering to multi-pitch winter. From the 'doh' moment to the 'why the f**k did that fail'. Wide-reaching and all-encompassing I hope.
 Skol 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:
And I envisage links to MRT and any other organisation involved (if willing to share information) to ensure all facts are considered.
This may be hard to obtain. Most Grough posts on incidents from a local MRT, just state ' taken back to base for pizza and a debrief'

 cwarby 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

And therein lies the problem. Who's "facts"? Its going to be very subjective and statistically irrelevant. Routes get a reputation (the Russian at Symonds yat) and people will add to it. I would not see it as reputable, especially if anonymous. Chris
 Skol 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

> Good question. If it's done correctly, every type and style of climbing will be covered, from indoor bouldering to multi-pitch winter. From the 'doh' moment to the 'why the f**k did that fail'. Wide-reaching and all-encompassing I hope.

A bit like the Jeremy Beadle Show of climbing incidents/accidents? No piss take meant there
OP Firestarter 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Skol:

Grough post?
OP Firestarter 27 Sep 2014
In reply to cwarby:

The facts of those who were there. And as has been pointed out to me already, confidential rather than anonymous would most likely elicit more responses. Routes are irrelevant, it's about what happened on them that counts?
 Skol 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

> Grough post?

Oh come on! Don't you read Grough? It has all climbing accidents and incidents reported on it.
If you're starting a website look here first. Most MRT reports end up in the MRT base with ' pizza and a debrief'. Presumably this is a bollocking and what went wrong encounter ?
 cwarby 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

And they will be subjective. Given these facts are coming from those involved, they will be skewed possibly in defence of a mistake and wanting to blame something/someone else. Chris
OP Firestarter 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Skol:

That's the whole point mate, no show just honest explanations. Whatever anyone did wrong or something happened unexpectedly they could let people know without fear or favour.
OP Firestarter 27 Sep 2014
In reply to cwarby:

Which is why I was suggesting that the report is reviewed by a panel of experienced climbers, for an objective view.
OP Firestarter 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Skol:

Had never heard of it before, so thanks! Not sure about how MRT debrief, but I've had more bollockings than pizza!
 Skol 27 Sep 2014
In reply to cwarby:

> And they will be subjective. Given these facts are coming from those involved, they will be skewed possibly in defence of a mistake and wanting to blame something/someone else. Chris

Mmm. I think most experienced climbers are honest , and would not seek to blame others or their equipment. New climbers and those progressing from indoors may do?
 jimtitt 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

> Unless its linked in to climbers or organisations with some authority on these issues I suspect all you will get is scraps. From an educational perspective its better to post here in my view.

Yup, without peer input it will have no relevance whatsoever and could well be misleading as well. We already know what causes accidents from exhaustive and professionally overseen accident reporting such as from YOSAR and DAV/ÖAV.
OP Firestarter 27 Sep 2014
In reply to jimtitt:
Which is why I suggested a panel of experienced climbers to review the reports at the beginning of this post......and sorry, I have absolutely no idea about YOSAR and the rest you quote, nor do 'we' I suspect. But willing to learn, if it 's beneficial.
Post edited at 22:56
 Skol 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:
To be honest, I've just re read your OP, and it seems a really good idea. You may get some opposition from people with 'heads in troughs', but I wouldn't let it put you off. After all, in these days of elf and safety , anything that prevents accidents is worthwhile?
OP Firestarter 27 Sep 2014
In reply to Skol:

Nurries mate
 mattrm 27 Sep 2014
In reply to jimtitt:

> Yup, without peer input it will have no relevance whatsoever and could well be misleading as well. We already know what causes accidents from exhaustive and professionally overseen accident reporting such as from YOSAR and DAV/ÖAV.

I suspect most British climbers have never heard of either. Surely a British version of those would be useful.

Also climbing accident statistics don't seem to abound, so even if it's just finding out an idea of how many accidents happen each year. Surely that would be useful?
 jimtitt 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

Mountain Rescue in the UK and YOSAR (the rescue service in Yosemite) report on all the incidents they are involved in so you get a more realistic picture of what is happening. The DAV/ÖAV report on all incidents involving mountain rescue and/or involving medical treatment and insurance claims in Germany and Austria so catch a far higher percentage of the incidents that occur. They know fairly well which percentage escape the net (for example boulderers twisting ankles) as well from surveys performed in the past.

The problem with self-reporting systems is they are selective, only those who want to report do so. Websites are even worse as they depend on the person being an internet user as well and even knowing the website exists.
Therefore you will only get a view of the incidents and accidents which occur to people who use self reporting websites, not the general climbing population. At the simplest level if 50 climbers go soloing this afternoon and die they can´t report so you won´t know.
llechwedd 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Skol:


> If you're starting a website look here first. Most MRT reports end up in the MRT base with ' pizza and a debrief'. Presumably this is a bollocking and what went wrong encounter ?

I wonder if the amount of pizza correlates with the degree of bollocking.

Could incidents then be represented as a pie chart for easy comparison?

 Tom Valentine 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Skol:

Climbing without a rope -does that qualify as a near miss or do we assume that anyone soloing is competent enough not to fall off their chosen route? History suggests otherwise.
 Offwidth 28 Sep 2014
In reply to jimtitt:

Add to all that humans are human: from psychology we know memory isn't what we think it is (see the recent post where a couple swore an autobelay failed when from reliable independant witnesess they hadnt even clipped in). Sadly a desire to help in tragedy drags out even less reliable reports (I've read spontaneus web and press statements that must have been hallucinations or made up that related to serious incidents Ive been involved with).

The final problem is cost of doing it properly and the relative benefits compared to the more serious places where it does help, like the Alps and Yosemite. On the benefit side I strongly suspect we will know most of what it will tell us from things like existing mountain rescue records and BMC safety work. Some talk about how useful it would be but where does the money come from and how do we stop funding competing with the charitable contributions to mountain rescue or with say existing BMC safety work which does have strong benefits. If people really want to help: analyse the existing data and repost the lessons we already know.
 Skol 28 Sep 2014
In reply to llechwedd:

> I wonder if the amount of pizza correlates with the degree of bollocking.

> Could incidents then be represented as a pie chart for easy comparison?

Yes. And if the incident wasn't too bad do the rescued get extra toppings, or conversely just frozen, cheap cheese and tomato if they were very daft?
 Skol 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Firestarter is starting the website. Perhaps he's the man to ask?

I had a friend who soloed a route within his grade but fell off and was hospitalised. He reckoned that it was the choice of footwear that caused it.
 Tom Valentine 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Skol:
Choice of footwear is important, of course. I wonder where roller skates would come in a risk assessment?
(Or inquest?)
Post edited at 10:46
 BrainoverBrawn 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

I'm thinking this is good.
Tentative conclusions about unverified witness accounts will need in each case a theoretical re-run or deeper analysis, stated approach probably important. That can be done.

However I think as a page in a climbing mag with links is better than a dedicated newsletter, or a newsletter but behind a reader friendly 1 or 2 page summary of anything you need to share.
Jimb
 andrewmc 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

For climbing walls, but...

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-climbing-wall-accident-reporting-database

You could volunteer to a) make this information/part of this information more available to the public by publishing news stories (the BMC already sometimes does this), b) extend it to outdoor climbing, and c) extend it to 'near-miss' scenarios (which happen far more often than accidents).

I think the BMC is the right organization to collate this kind of information.
 Skol 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> Choice of footwear is important, of course. I wonder where roller skates would come in a risk assessment?

> (Or inquest?)

Well. There was a climber who climbed Little Cham' in roller skates and boxing gloves. He didn't fall off, but I think he's dead now?
 Tom Valentine 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Skol:

It was McHaffie I was hinting at. When the crag inspectorate start cataloguing "incidents" where will behaviour like this be recorded?
 Skol 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> It was McHaffie I was hinting at. When the crag inspectorate start cataloguing "incidents" where will behaviour like this be recorded?

As I've said. It's the OPs baby, not mine.
I'm sure he could enlighten us.
Do you think it's a bit 'big brotherish'?
 Tom Valentine 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Skol:
Well, I did think I just heard a clock strike thirteen. Perhaps it meant 1 p.m.
Post edited at 13:15
 Skol 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> Well, I did think I just heard a clock strike thirteen. Perhaps it meant 1 p.m.

Strange clocks in your house buddy.
 Tom Valentine 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Skol:

Orwell, never mind.
 Skol 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> Orwell, never mind.

Oh well, never mind? I try not to read fiction. It just isn't fact.
 Michael Ryan 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

Get in touch with the BMC, it needs to be done through them.

It's a great idea and as you know has been done for years in the USA: http://www.americanalpineclub.org/p/anam

It's a great way for us to learn from the mistakes of others, if done right.
Pan Ron 28 Sep 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

I've been banging on about the need for something like this since I started climbing.

It is normal practice in the aviation community and I've self-reported my own accident on the British paragliding associations own self reporting system. By all impressions people post very accurate accounts of what happened, what went wrong, and where they were at fault. Information may be sketchy but it is very informative to see general patters of where and when accidents occur.

If such a system came in to existence for climbing it should be actively promoted, with a view that even if you forgot to clip in or caught a near accident before it occurred you would report it. Takes a couple of minutes online and goes a long way to replacing assumption with more accurate stats.
 Tom Valentine 29 Sep 2014
In reply to David Martin:

What if the stats come up with a result that shows soloing to be a safer form of climbing in terms of fatalities than roped climbing?
OP Firestarter 29 Sep 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:

I don't see it as being about statistics, more about learning from mistakes. It isn't intended to be 'the crag inspectorate' or anything Orwellian. As for the advice above, I shall be contacting The BMC to see if it's something they see as worthwhile. At the end of the day if people do/don't want to highlight issues, it's entirely up to them. But if it stops an accident from happening surely it can't be a bad thing?
Pan Ron 29 Sep 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:

I'm sure people are capable of making their own interpretations.

But if you see constant cases of recurring incidents then that should be enough to focus the mind and hopefully prevent repeat incidents. There are a lot of assumptions in climbing about what is and isn't safe practice. A lot of it is bullsh1t. Anything that can help correct that would be a good thing.
 climbwhenready 29 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

It's a great idea. As you know, we tend to learn from the US because they record this sort of thing, and we don't. MRT tend to report the rescue - starting with "An injured climber was rescued from 20 m below a belay..." - and not the incident.

There's some weird comments on this thread, though. Crag inspectorate? New climbers might fabricate the facts? Come on.
 mattrm 29 Sep 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

>If people really want to help: analyse the existing data and repost the lessons we already know.

Ok, where is the existing data?

 GrahamD 29 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

Without wishing to sound too negative, I suspect you will really struggle to get your site to be an automatic port of call for 99% of UK climbers. I suspect UKC actually only hits 50% or so built over many years.
 andrewmc 29 Sep 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Then our amount of knowledge would be increased, and roped climbers would hopefully recognise that it is a more dangerous activity than some people seem to treat it as?
 jimtitt 29 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

UKC started accident reporting in 2008 and worked with the BMC on the theme. It was rapidly dropped.
You can read two sides of the argument here; http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1110 and here; http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1099
Pan Ron 29 Sep 2014
In reply to jimtitt:

What makes climbing different from other sports that do operate a voluntary reporting system?

I can't see any good reason not to have it, and many good reasons for it. While there is a chance it might not work, I don't think that is reason enough not to try and promote such a system. And if it does succeed I suspect our current way of operating (safety culture via Chinese whispers) will be looked back on in horror.
 ByEek 29 Sep 2014
In reply to David Martin:

> I can't see any good reason not to have it, and many good reasons for it. While there is a chance it might not work, I don't think that is reason enough not to try and promote such a system. And if it does succeed I suspect our current way of operating (safety culture via Chinese whispers) will be looked back on in horror.

I don't want a reporting system. The OP suggests that it would be anonymous, but those involved would be able to distinguish incidents associated to themselves by location and time. There is also the fact the proposed system is informal meaning that most of the comment would be prejudiced and hearsay.

Climbing by its nature is dangerous but if a basic level of common sense is applied no harm needs to occur. And in those situations where bad luck plays its part i.e. dodgy rock - well that is just bad luck. It doesn't matter how many "lessons learned" are consumed - someone will always hit the ground harder than anticipated.
Pan Ron 29 Sep 2014
In reply to ByEek:
Why is that a problem? You might not use it. You don't have to. And so what if people can figure out who you are? Sounds like you want everything swept under the carpet and no one to learn from your mistakes simply on account of embarrassment. That's a less than mature way of viewing a safety culture.

My own direct experience of both self reporting and seeing reports is entirely positive. This was on a site designed for a sport which is just as dangerous, if not more so, and where blind luck plays an even bigger role. It is equally unregulated and with a far smaller community is even easier to deduce who the unfortunate victim has been than in climbing. Unless the accident involves serious injury or death the reporting system simply takes the submitters entry as they have reported it. The system works.

> if a basic level of common sense is applied no harm needs to occur. And in those situations where bad luck plays its part i.e. dodgy rock - well that is just bad luck. It doesn't matter how many "lessons learned" are consumed - someone will always hit the ground harder than anticipated.

Sorry, that is just wrong and is exactly the culture that has been stamped out in other similarly dangerous lines of entertainment. Bad luck is forgetting to do up your crab, bad luck is toppling off the a climb after topping out, bad luck is rockfall. Equally they are all avoidable and if a half way decent reporting system goes some way to quantifying and reminding us of the relative risks it can be very useful. You only have to look at some of the debates that rage on UKC and elsewhere about knot types, anchor setups, and so on, to see common sense is either not common or not a solution.
Post edited at 13:47
 mattrm 29 Sep 2014
In reply to jimtitt:

> UKC started accident reporting in 2008 and worked with the BMC on the theme. It was rapidly dropped.

Well if you're going to allow anyone in the forums to post on accident reports, it's going to go badly for you. I would never post something like that on here. Unless the post was going to be heavily moderated.

Any accident reporting system will either need to have moderated replies, or only to allow sensible folk (maybe through a stackoverflowesque reputation system) to post replies.

Pan Ron 29 Sep 2014
In reply to mattrm:

I'm not sure it requires a huge amount of moderation. Simply have an online form, one that takes 5-10 minutes to complete, which should be enough to discourage time wasters while encouraging use. The event can then be summarised.

Here is an example of outputs.
http://www.bhpa.co.uk/documents/safety/informal_investigations/
 jimtitt 29 Sep 2014
In reply to David Martin:

> What makes climbing different from other sports that do operate a voluntary reporting system?

What makes climbing different from other sports which don´t operate volountary reporting systems?

Pan Ron 29 Sep 2014
In reply to jimtitt:
I'd imagine those that don't have an already established safety culture, accidents are visible and become a public issue, they operate with a pretty clear set of instructions on what is safe and what isn't, possibly not requiring the same level of technical knowledge that climbing does. All or some of the above, no doubt more.

Climbing is completely unregulated, individuals can (and in many ways are encouraged to) push themselves in to areas they likely lack experience or expertise, there is a huge amount of misinformation on what is safe or dangerous, differing schools of thought, and plenty of advice that is simply conveyed by word of mouth and potentially very outdated. Guidbooks and manuals are being re-written to account for this but many people wouldn't go near them. And where do we get our lessons from: UKC, maybe someone does an S/MPA (what percentage would?), indoor walls, or maybe we get to climb with someone who does rope access or possibly some bloke we met at work/pub/wall/uni who says he knows what he's doing? All seems a bit haphazard to me.

Do you have any idea how many people decked out this weekend? How many times and under what conditions gear has failed this last year, how many cams have broken, have any bolts snapped, fallen out, or been unscrewed? Which crags are currently dangerous due to bad rock or bad in situ equipment? How did most abseiling accidents happen? Do any accidents really occur where knots undo or back-clipping? etc etc etc. You could literally have a spate of accidents, at the same location, with the same cause, happen over several days and no-one would have a clue.

There is so much to learn, yet you would have to go hunting around for this information across dozens of sites to get even a vague idea. Instead we operate purely on assumption, word in the pub or what some guy told me 20 years ago.

Doesn't seem like a sensible way of operating and if someone is willing to put some effort in to producing something better, good on them. I can't understand the negativity.
Post edited at 15:29
 ByEek 29 Sep 2014
In reply to David Martin:

> Why is that a problem? You might not use it. You don't have to. And so what if people can figure out who you are?

I have a problem with it because as is very much the case on UKC "he did this that or the other" type threads. In such cases the facts aren't actually known so the whole thing becomes a gossip + "I am holier than thou" type discussion with a load of self-righteous crap to boot.

Climbers are a bit like drivers. The bad ones would never admit to being bad and are unlikely to use such a resource. Then there are the proponents like yourself who probably don't need it anyway because safety is up there in your mind. Then there are folks like me who want to enjoy a days climbing without the feeling that what I am doing is being scrutinised and discussed at length afterwards.

Climbing is not rocket science. You could probably write down basic safety for climbing in about 5 rules and most of them are common sense. I really can't think of any scenarios or accidents where wider lessons can be learned that require a complete change of attitude to the prevailing concepts of climbing safely.
 chris fox 29 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

I think it's a good idea to have something in place for people to read and learn. Even if one inexperienced climber reads about one incident and makes them think a little more before climbing, or, when setting up a belay and this averts an incident, then it's a positive.

The one thing to differentiate between something like this and something like CHIRP is, CHIRP is run by a professionally well funded organisation, and the majority of the people that send in reports are skilled/professional people. I have not had to send a CHIRP in yet and I have witnessed multiple incidents that still require reporting but not to the extent of sending to the CAA.
Aside from CHIRP reporting scheme, in aviation there are other reporting avenues,
EOR - Enginering Occurance Report

ESR - Engineering Safety Report

ASR - Airworthiness Safety Report


I have personally had to send in reports on incidents that cover each of these categories. These do not go to an organisation like CAA, but go to my companies Quality Department, the Airline in questions Maintenance and Quality departments for review.
Maybe look along something similar to this direction. If you want copies of blank report forms to get an idea of how they are laid out I can supply you with something similar.

Chris
Pan Ron 29 Sep 2014
In reply to ByEek:
UKC is a different kettle of fish. It is a discussion forum and hence why threads degenerate.

An accident reporting site is something entirely different. On most there is no room for discussion, or if there is it can be locked out or kept separate.

In the example site I posted you will find accidents and incidents entirely self reported. There is no room to debate, just the best recollection of what occurred, and presented for all to see. For such a site, the "bad drivers" won't bother posting. Short of the sport becoming licensed there is nothing we can do about that, but its probably a blessing anyway.

I think you'd be surprised at what can be learnt by analysing the weird and wonderful ways, or sequences of events, that cause accidents. That aside, a glance through the accident reports periodically is a great way to focus the mind on all those little possibilities you hadn't thought of. I'm not particularly safety conscious at all and have taken stupid risks before. But returning to accident reports refocusses the mind on what is important. Chances are any accident that will happen has happened previously, and chances are the person who it happened to never anticipated it or thought it would happen to them. Having it out there, in a little book of experiences, is a great salve.

Far from feeling like you are being scrutinised, accident reporting sites are actually very liberating. It fosters a culture of getting it out there rather than pretending it never happened, it helps emphasise that even the most experienced make mistakes, that it is normal to do so, and sometimes things just creep up on you. Of the two incidents I've reported, one being entirely my own fault, it felt incredibly cathartic submitting that to the outside world with full knowledge there was no judgement being made - all I received was a response from the site administrator, thanking me for my submission and saying they were happy to hear I was in one piece.
Post edited at 17:31
 jimtitt 29 Sep 2014
In reply to David Martin:

However the site you linked to is not volountary, reporting is a legal obligation. And the reports are "sanitised", not the innacurate gibberish the internet is full of. And still realistically of no use.
Professionally acquired information with correct statistical anylysis is incredibly useful which is why some of us are familiar with the accident reporting from other countries and use them regularly. A website organised by someone who appears to know not even the basics can only be a disaster. Even a website run and moderated by far more experienced people showed why this doesn´t work.
The OP asked if it was an idea worth pursuing, if he didn´t want our opinion he shouldn´t have asked. He is welcome to set up his site but should at least be informed of some of the potential pitfalls and why a large proportion of the climbing community will probably ignore it.
OP Firestarter 29 Sep 2014
In reply to jimtitt:
I welcome all opinions - why do you suggest I don't?

And as for 'not knowing the basics' - a bit of a quantum leap as you know nothing about me whatsoever?
Post edited at 18:13
 Skol 29 Sep 2014
In reply to David Martin:
An excellent and thought out post David. Some people either, have their head in the sand, are risk averse, or unable to reflect on incidents?
 jimtitt 29 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

You told us you don´t know how MRT reports, you don´t know who the most detailed accident reports and anylysis come from (YOSAR, ÖAV/DAV,AAC) and you don´t know that UKC/BMC have already covered the issue. I´d call that not knowing the basics.
OP Firestarter 29 Sep 2014
In reply to jimtitt:

Or maybe I knew that someone would prove my point by announcing the internet can be used to collate information concerning climbing incidents, but the UK doesn't have one in a single, accessible place? I must admit I was a little sneaky - maybe I should have announced that when I worked in the Highlands I did a MRT medics course.
 jimtitt 29 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

> maybe I should have announced that when I worked in the Highlands I did a MRT medics course.

Ah, so you´ll know I´m an member of the BMC technical commitee, corresponding manufacturer to the UIAA and probably the one of the most prolific researchers into the technical safety aspects of fixed protection, belays and belay devices in the world
 Skol 29 Sep 2014
In reply to jimtitt:

Are 'heads in troughs' rattled by this innovative concept?
OP Firestarter 29 Sep 2014
In reply to jimtitt:

Pretty much, yes. And what you might consider to be basic, I suspect, is at a far higher level than your average climber (commensurate with your knowledge and experience as you have highlighted, of course!).

I think my point stands though, there isn't a one-stop, easily accessed site in the UK- as you point out, there are in other countries. So, whilst it is apparent that I would not have the resources to deal with this in any meaningful way, I still think it would be beneficial on the whole.

Thankyou for the links you provided above. Haven't had time to read them yet, but I will.
 jimtitt 29 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

They aren´t one stop internet sites, the examples given are all data collection by professionals which is why they are well respected and useful.
OP Firestarter 29 Sep 2014
In reply to jimtitt:

Ok, but there are people doing it in these countries, and not in the UK.
 jimtitt 29 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

Well yes, I´ve discussed this with the BMC but there are good reasons why this doesn´t happen, that´s for them to tell you though not me. I´ve also sugested a world-wide database on fixed equipment so we can get useful information on bolt life expectancy but the UIAA aren´t interested in that either. Such is life.
 ByEek 30 Sep 2014
In reply to David Martin:

I'm still not convinced. I am no expert but of the page you posted, almost all the incidents seem to be down to something completely unavoidable like freak weather patterns.

Similarly, many climbing incidents are down to bad luck with nothing to learn, and those that aren't are usually down to muppetry.

I had to go to A&E on Sunday due to missing the spade when trying to dig up a shrub. Lessons learned - I am a muppet. How does that benefit anyone other than offer a bit of a giggle to those reading? Similarly in climbing.
 ChrisJD 30 Sep 2014
In reply to ByEek:

> I had to go to A&E on Sunday due to missing the spade when trying to dig up a shrub. Lessons learned - I am a muppet.

Love it.

But at least you'd know you are not the only muppet

(from another lifetime muppet of doing stupid things)

Pan Ron 30 Sep 2014
In reply to ByEek:

Most of it isn't bad luck. They are avoidable circumstances. Bad weather is the same as climbing some chossy route that falls apart on you. See enough of those accidents reported and you will likely be more cautious about it, or at least not assume having an accident in such circumstances is just bad-luck. Its also useful to have a sense of proportion - what amount of broken spines are a result of weather, stupidity, equipment, or any combination of those.

As I've said before, in the aviation industry this sort of thing is the absolute norm. And this is a sector that had historically been one of the most conservative, gung-ho, if we see you screw-up your sacked, never admit errors, "emergency parachutes are un-gentlemanly" and "crashes are normal" cultures. They realised there was a problem and have gone completely the other direction. It is no doubt a hard pill to swallow and represents a major cultural shift. But if they could do it, I don't see it as insurmountable for climbing.
 ByEek 30 Sep 2014
In reply to David Martin:
I really don't think you can compare the aviation "industry" with its fringe amatuer enthusast element to climbing. For a start you have to be licensed and once licensed have legal responsibilities and obligations as well as a duty of care and a huge amount of third party insurance.

> It is no doubt a hard pill to swallow and represents a major cultural shift. But if they could do it, I don't see it as insurmountable for climbing.

It is indeed. But I don't really know what benefit it would have. We already have comprehensive and authoritative guides on climbing safely by bodies like the BMC. There are a myriad of books and guides on how to climb and courses abound. Vibrant posters encouraging you to check your knot leap out at you in climbing centres. You can even look up accident logs on Mountain Rescue sites and of course there are regular cautionary tales on UKC and other social networking sites. Yet accidents will happen.

How one more yet another resource would improve things is beyond me.
Post edited at 11:25
Pan Ron 30 Sep 2014
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
In reply to Firestarter:

I'm just going to give a quick reply to this thread, to let you know that it isn't being ignored.

We last looked at this issue back in 2008, and decided then not to proceed. When you delve into it, it's actually a far more complex subject than it seems. A system which works well in Yosemite isn't necessarily a good idea to have here, for example.

We are revisiting whether this is a worthwhile facility to provide, they key questions we need to answer will be:

Will it make any difference to the number of accidents?

Will there be any negative consequences, and can these be mitigated?

What format will it use, and what resources are needed if we go ahead?

Remember that there is already plenty of good advice and info out there. The BMC publish reports on failed equipment, host advice pages and videos on our website, and there are great handbooks and resources from Mountain Training and others out there. The best way to stay safe is to gain knowledge and experience, always be open to learning, and don't become complacent.

I'll report back here once we've had our discussion.
 Offwidth 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Dan Middleton, BMC:

Thanks Dan. Of course people could offer significant donations to the BMC to set this up and run it if they feel so strongly but the internet is full of folk trying to spend your organisation's hardly overflowing resources for their own pet issue. I suspect there is little to learn and too much resource required to learn it but I could be wrong. The sort of useful constant lessons of similar mistakes made by experienced climbers illustrated on the sites overseas certainly don't seem to apply as much to our smaller adventures: bad luck and incompetance seems to more to the fore. Despite the excellent information the BMC provides silly basic mistakes are all too common, indoors and out, and if we want to cut accident rates challenging every such event with polite advice would be a more useful start than telling tales on the net
 Bruce Hooker 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

Sounds like a good idea, whenever accidents are reported on ukc any attempt to look into the causes and discuss them is met with a hail of posts saying that the families could be hurt, it's "not the right time". When it is the "right" time, whatever that may be, everyone has forgotten the subject and are heavily into the price of housing, or their car rattles, so no analysis is ever made.

Personally I don't think many accidents are random or fatalities, many could have been avoided or at least reduced in number with the right precautions so a public discussion would be very useful, especially with a few statistics to help. After a few years they would accumulate usefully. Are you volunteering to do the work though? That could be the problem.
OP Firestarter 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Dan Middleton, BMC:
Dan,

Thanks very much for your response, much appreciated. As with most things, what seems relatively simple never is!
Post edited at 16:19
OP Firestarter 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Too much work, coupled with not enough bandwidth or time! I appreciate everyone's comments though, both for and against. Whatever form it may or may not take in the future, I agree that UKC would not be the best platform!
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Dan Middleton, BMC:

Thanks for the reply. I think it could be a useful resource - there appear to be a lot of accidents out there - often featuring easy routes/inexperienced climbers.

Collating call-outs of the MR teams would be an obvious place to start - teams already have their own brief notes on events,


Chris
 Offwidth 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Chris Craggs:
What do we learn from that on a database though? Its almost a given that inexperienced climbers make errors and that falling off low grade routes (easy is a grade equivalent to a grade I scramble) is a very bad idea, as you hit things like ledges. We can make a difference by intervention at the time we view dangerous practice, in the background we already recommend courses or climbing with experienced climbers as part of the gammut of best practice for trad, or in guidebooks we can help by taking grades seriously by checking them.

The yosemite reports in particular contain information experienced climbers need to think about and maybe wouldn't have noticed otherwise. I dont see an obvious equivalent in the UK.
Post edited at 17:22
 andrewmc 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

> What do we learn from that on a database though? Its almost a given that inexperienced climbers make errors and that falling off low grade routes (easy is a grade equivalent to a grade I scramble) is a very bad idea, as you hit things like ledges.

But does this actually happen? Are there lots of climbers falling off easy routes? Per climb, what grades are the most dangerous? Are better climbers more likely to injure themselves than less good climbers? Or the reverse?
 BarrySW19 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

> Despite the excellent information the BMC provides silly basic mistakes are all too common, indoors and out,

Well, for a start, we don't really know if that's true because no-one is collating accident reports. What percentage of accidents are "silly basic mistakes" which could have been avoided if BMC advice was known? I don't know, and neither do you.

And even if that did turn out to be the case after analysing the data, then the BMC would have a plan of action: put more effort into ensuring the relevant basic information gets to new climbers before they have an accident.
 Offwidth 30 Sep 2014
In reply to BarrySW19:

You get a good idea from mrt reports. Most are non climbing related and in climbing related accidents lower grade and abseils seemed the most common problem where I'd looked in detail. Last time was a few years back though.
 Tom Valentine 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

So, what constitutes "dangerous practice" and "intervention"?

As someone who spent a fair time soloing during my career I am interested in the actual way that this would work.

This might also apply to routes with a "necky" grade.

 Offwidth 30 Sep 2014
In reply to andrewmcleod:

If we had full stats they couldnt answer all your questions as you need to know how many ascents occur without problems or things like how many near misses happened. Simon Lee's article linked above covered this pretty well


 Offwidth 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Most of us know what real dangerous practice is: things like complete misuse of belay devices, terrible gear placements, climbers clearly out of their depth on lead on a climb, death belays (and, certainly not daft issues of good practice like always using locking crabs on belays). Timing can be a matter of judgement as you dont want to cause an accident by trying to prevent one and sensitivity gets the message over better than being overly forceful. Soloing is normally fine as long as its not incompetant and doesn't impinge on others (in the UK, winter soloist being perhaps the most naughty in this respect, overtaking parties and knocking ice down on them when maybe the lead party would have chosen another route rather than face this). Necky routes also obviously fine unless the climber is very clearly out of their depth.
Post edited at 19:13
Pan Ron 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

> You get a good idea from mrt reports.

From the few I looked at a while ago I got a different impression. They appeared to be more for MRT's own records and seemed to be of the "climber fell, friend called MRT, carried victim out over rough terrain" style. I suspect its not really MRT's remit to do detailed post event followup or even ask too many questions at the time.

There will obviously be a sampling issue in any stats. But that bias doesn't undermine the central benefit: identifying the myriad of events that cause/lead to incidents. To not have a reporting system simply because entirely accurate stats would also require everyone to electronically log every climb they make is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 Michael Ryan 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Chris Craggs:

> there appear to be a lot of accidents out there - often featuring easy routes/inexperienced climbers.

...and also featuring climbers of all experiences on all types of routes...you or I may be next Chris.

Accident reports and analysis are invaluable (just don't try to quantify that value).

I used to read Accidents in North American Mountaineering regularly - the print version. It has been published since 1948.

It isn't just Yosemite, but the whole of the USA.

It describes the circumstances of the accident, then a brief analysis.

It WAKES up climbers as to what can go WRONG.

The format is as a story - very readable - often written by those involved or sometimes by the rescue services. There is an element of rubbernecking to it, but importantly you learn ---- to check that nest of slings you are abseiling off, to put more gear in when you are close to the ground, to check your partners knot, to stand closer when belaying, to make sure your belay is bomb proof, to retreat off that alpine slope if you feel doubt about conditions...

I think the BMC should go for it: and sell a yearly subscription to media that want to run the reports (they should want to run it as an obligation and a service) as a way of funding it ..... plus produce a yearly print report, again that climbers could subscribe to.

It could be self-financing - fund itself - and would be invaluable to all climbers.

Mick
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Michael Ryan:

Agree pretty much with all you say there. I have never understood our reticence to examine what went wrong when someone gets hurt,


Chris
 Michael Ryan 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Chris Craggs:

> Agree pretty much with all you say there. I have never understood our reticence to examine what went wrong when someone gets hurt,

Probably an English thing Chris.

It's so bloody obvious that this should be done, it should have been done years ago.

Mick

OP Firestarter 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Michael Ryan:

I have to say how encouraging it is to read the positive posts such as yours. Every day is a 'school day', and no matter how experienced you are there is always something to be learned, as far as I'm concerned. Interesting to see the results of BMC discussions.
 Michael Ryan 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

Good subject, good forum thread Firestarter.

Such an endeavour could also help fund Mountain Rescue teams - they participate, they get a return.

It should also encompass hill walking as well.

It should be a joint collective effort between the BMC, Mountain Rescue, the outdoor media and climbers.

And like I said before, self-funding probably by subscription - the media pays to run regular stories - warning tales...hot click bait content - and also subscription from climbers, they subscribe to the printed annual report - £10 a year.......30,000 of us!.......there are around 250,00 climbers in the UK....goodness knows how many hill walkers.

This funds the compilation of reports. One full time person.

You may even get 20 x £1000 donations from UK climbing companies. All that would take is a few phone calls.

End result is that we all become more aware of what can go wrong and why.

And hopefully, just hopefully, accidents decrease - again, you won't be able to quantify that.

Mick
 Offwidth 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Michael Ryan:
How about a pledge of £1000 from you Mick, to kick things off, as you must have made way more than the average of workers in the UK climbing scene through your past involvement with UKC and Rockfax and you are so keen for it to happen and given your assertion we would save lives with such confidence, what is money in comparison afterall? I'm ready to be proved wrong that it can be significantly self funding through sponsorship and prove more useful than I suspect but would be strongly lobbying against this being mainly at the expense of ordinary BMC members or some of the benefits the BMC provide on a tight budget. Even commercially, money is tight so its obvious the good works these potential donating organisations already do will have to be cut if they wish to support it.

Those US reports contain many alpine and big wall statistics where the lessons are more important, to cut rescue risks as much as anything. The ability to fund is higher as well. We dont really have that level of climbing risk very often in the UK or the same affordability. Being public records we can (and do) benefit from their more equivalent trad lessons without the cost of duplication.
Post edited at 22:55
 Offwidth 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Chris Craggs:
The reticence is about building a centralised beurocracy with unproven cost benefit. Evidence on accidents is already examined and much information is produced as a result for climbers.

If employees of UKC see it as so important why not do it yourselves? You could even link it to the databases that no one else in the UK has.
Post edited at 22:51
 Tom Valentine 30 Sep 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

"Soloing is normally fine..."

Couldn't agree more.

But when it's not fine it becomes the most dangerous activity in climbing and all the issues about karabiners and equalising belays and using a bowline become secondary in comparison.

"As long as it's not incompetent..". Well, that's a whole new can of worms, and as I hinted at before, who's going to be the one to tell an aspirant solo climber that he really isn't up to the challenge?
 Offwidth 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Its not so hard to lead a horse to water and what are complaints if water is needed? Drinking is the horses choice though. Personally I'm more worried about the 'what would I feel after an accident if I didn't say something' than any potential aggro and in any case lead climbing problems are way more common in my experience than wild new soloists. Experienced soloists do make mistakes or can be unlucky but thats a calculated risk they take that isnt any of my business. If we really want true maximum risk reduction in climbing we all need to stop right now and thats the elephant in the room with these safety obessed drives.
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

> If employees of UKC see it as so important why not do it yourselves? You could even link it to the databases that no one else in the UK has.

I have ever been an employee of UKC,



Chris
 jimtitt 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Michael Ryan:

Seems to be some contradiction there Mick, if climbers have to pay to read the annual report then how do we all become more aware, surely only those that paid will know what´s happened?

The doubts many of us have are twofold. Every example given of where such a system might be useful gives examples of occurances which we already know are dangerous, nobody in their right mind needs an accident report to know that decking out is bad news, that rotting ab tat is potentially dangerous and so on.

We also have considerable doubts that the information gathered in the way discussed would be of any statistical value. David Martin has twice raised the issue of bolt failure and as we already have exactly the scheme in place which is being mooted of volountary reporting to the BMC we can probably see if it is a reliable and effective way of collecting data. As far as I know one bolt failed and it caused no injury, since it was installed by the UK´s most experienced bolter we could conclude bolt failure is rare, it has no consequences and only inexperienced people should install them. Or that the reporting scheme isn´t telling the whole story and that it is dangerous to draw conclusions from it.

A reliable scheme involving professional data gathering and investigation might give useful information which is why all the other schemes used as examples are well regarded, an anonymous stream of near misses would be useless.

Currently we have a system where the information filters through an extensive network of professional or involved mountain users, discussed and analysed and a course of action (or inaction) decided on. Finding a more effective system will be difficult in a country where climbing is unregulated, mountain rescue is not centralised, incident investigation is not the responsibility of the authories and accident insurance isn´t part of the organising bodies remit.
Removed User 01 Oct 2014
In reply to jimtitt:
I just don't see why anyone would be interested in getting a publication like this, even if it were free. It'd be like compiling a list of car accidents. Am I meant to get it and read through it? Take it out with me whenever I drive?
Post edited at 10:24
 Offwidth 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Removed User:

Just read the thread above. The utility may be questionable and the motives suspect but the interest in some quarters is clear.
 Bruce Hooker 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

> Experienced soloists

Does such a beast exist? I'd say it was a bit of a contradiction in terms

Personally I think anyone who encourages people to solo should be shot, or maybe handed over to ISIS as a hostage, something very nasty anyway.
 Bruce Hooker 01 Oct 2014
In reply to jimtitt:

Accident reports can throw up unexpected results though, ones that go against received wisdom. An example is the frequent debate about the use of a backup system, prusik knot for example, when abseiling, considered generally to be vital and prescribed by the BMC et al, and yet statistics from N America, can't remember if it was Canada or the USA showed there had been as many accidents caused by people getting tangled in their back-up and having an accident as a result than people falling in a case without a back-up. I seem to remember that the sample was small so it's not worth debating the exactness of the example but clearly further research could have been useful (which obviously was not done as all the books would have to been rewritten etc).

That's why some actual facts and figures would be interesting, but collated by an independent body, not the same giving advice like the BMC.
 Offwidth 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
So the thousands who enjoy soloing from time to time, most of whom have been climbing for a decade or more are inexperienced?

I hope Jim can answer you prussic point as he is more likely to know what exactly it is you have likely misunderstood to come to that odd conclusion (which simply cant be true as you state it or recommendations through training bodies would have changed).
Post edited at 11:31
 Dave Garnett 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Skol:
> (In reply to jimtitt)
>
> Are 'heads in troughs' rattled by this innovative concept?

Very cryptic. If it's 14 letters it's obviously an anagram.

Otherwise I have no idea what you mean.
 GrahamD 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Pretty much all easy Alpine ground is soloed. Its the safest way.
 Dave Garnett 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to ex0)
>
> The utility may be questionable and the motives suspect

I agree.

> but the interest in some quarters is clear.

Maybe, but not from me.
 Dave Garnett 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Offwidth)

> Personally I think anyone who encourages people to solo should be shot

Who's encouraging it? But if you want to do it surely that's your business?
 Bruce Hooker 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

> So the thousands who enjoy soloing from time to time, most of whom have been climbing for a decade or more are inexperienced?

> I hope Jim can answer you prussic point as he is more likely to know what exactly it is you have likely misunderstood to come to that odd conclusion (which simply cant be true as you state it or recommendations through training bodies would have changed).

You have provided perfect proof as to why such an independent data base is a good idea... one in another country provided "proof" that seemed to demonstrate that perceived wisdom could be wrong, their accidents, real live accidents (in fact I think deaths were involved) showed a different result than what the books said and you are ready to lead the crowd with pitchforks and flaming torches to attack this report rather than even imagine the books could, and I repeat could, be in need of a revision.

As I said lets not open the discussion on the example as I haven't even a reference to give on the report but it is an example from real life and I'm sure there could be other "rules" that can be discussed. Proof also that the accident data base would be best run by people who have nothing to do with giving advice as the danger would always be that if the data showed the advice to be wrong or doubtful they might be tempted to say our data must be wrong or keep it out of sight.

As for the question of soloing, please read what I wrote, I didn't say soloists should be sent to the firing post I said "anyone who encourages people to solo should be shot" not anyone who solos. Soling is something many of us do but it comes from a personal decision based on enough experience for us to decide we can do it and accept the risk, which is an absolutely undeniable risk. My problem is with braggarts who encourage others with less experience to allow themselves to be pushed towards it as if it was a banal alternative form of climbing.

I'm pretty sure that accident data would confirm the dangers of soloing. In absence of this, the story of Paul Preuss, one of the pioneers of hard climbing is proof enough, all his life he was a fervent, fanatical even, advocate of soloing as the only pure form of climbing but it got him in the end.
 Dave Garnett 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Offwidth)
>

> I'm pretty sure that accident data would confirm the dangers of soloing. In absence of this, the story of Paul Preuss, one of the pioneers of hard climbing is proof enough, all his life he was a fervent, fanatical even, advocate of soloing as the only pure form of climbing but it got him in the end.

What kind of data do you need to alert you to the fact that if you fall off without a rope it's likely to end badly? I'm pretty sure that the incidence of solo climbers falling would compare favourably with the incidence of leader falls but that would be a meaningless statistic too, in view of the consequences.
 Bruce Hooker 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Data has it's limits but as the data base grew we would see a certain number of accidents in which the climber was unroped, and if it was done properly we would know the age, experience of the climber, the conditions etc. and anyone reading would be able to draw their own conclusions.

In fact it could, after a few years, give at least a glimpse of an answer to the old question "is it better to move together or climb unroped on easy ground?" I know that conditions and so many other factors are involved but at present everyone has their own answer, often no more than "it depends", based on anecdotal evidence from their own experience so it could be the sort of question which a few statistics based on hundreds of events could enlighten. The ambition wouldn't be to answer all questions, IMO, just provide a little enlightenment.

As all it's conclusions, if it were decided to go this far, would be eminently debatable and if it's true that ukc is less used than before (a present thread suggests this) it could give a nice little boost to posting, and on a subject to do with climbing for a change.
 Offwidth 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Come off it Bruce, I replied to what you also said: " Experienced soloists....Does such a beast exist? I'd say it was a bit of a contradiction in terms " I simply chose not to answer the second bit as it's an exceedingly childish and spiteful view, even given you rightly have concerns with those who encourage unsafe practice in this respect.

As someone bound for ISIS by proxy (as I often repeat that solo is just another game in the many games we play as climbers that all contain danger) it probably won't do much good to remind you: someone has correctly said above that solo is the safest form in certain alpine situations; its effectively the situation on unprotected sections of trad routes; or for that matter on a good number of "boulder problems" at Font. If you really mean we shouldn't encourage soloing in the same sense we shouldn't encourage climbing, I might agree, as I think we shouldn't push people into risk sports like climbing but should help those keen to engage (with suitable caution).

PS I still think your example is exaggerated/ misunderstood somehow. I can believe prussics have caused accidents (I've seen near misses) but not more equivalent accidents than abseils without.

PPS the yosemite data shows experienced climbers solo on the easy terrain of big routes is a surprisingly high cause of accidents. As for the pure soloist its obviously a high stakes game but so is top-end alpinism and even more so himalayan climbing, but more mundanely so is just sitting at home watching telly, eating junk food and getting no exercise.


In reply to Dave Garnett

One person's view being what it is, doesn't change the fact that other contrary views exist, which was sort of my point in challenging ex0 when he said "I just don't see why anyone would be interested...". Being blinkered to the concerns of the proponents doesnt exactly help our case, as it fits into some of the cliches portrayed above, partly in justification for such a resource. When in fact the BMC have considered this and are very concerned about learning from accidents and promoting any subsequent good practice and warming of new dangers. I'm sure just has we have some climbers who can't see any point to such statistical reports others won't be satisfied until an organisation associated with a risk activity is suffocated in the cotton wool that takes up most of their budget. In reality we have to navigate the mid-ground of reasonable expenditure for clear gains in safety, as best we can.
Post edited at 14:15
 Dave Garnett 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Dave Garnett)
> In fact it could, after a few years, give at least a glimpse of an answer to the old question "is it better to move together or climb unroped on easy ground?"

Not unless we all filed a report every time we did either and the results were entirely uneventful. At very least you would need to know about every time someone did slip and either was safely held by the rope or was unroped but safely arrested their fall in some other way. Recording accidents in which someone was hurt, killed or required rescue would tell you absolutely nothing in the absence of knowing about all the times nothing interesting happened.

Statistics only work with really big datasets and then only give you a statistical risk for doing an exactly comparable activity. Climbing just isn't like that. There are rarely exactly comparable activities.

Knowing that even extremely talented and experienced soloists very occasionally fall off and die is meaningless unless you know all the circumstances. What does John Bachar's death tell you? That you should quit while you're ahead? That you should be realistic about your reduced ability following incomplete recovery from injuries acquired in a road traffic accident? That you should leave a note saying where you are going? What does that tell me as I'm considering whether to solo Tennis Shoe for the umpteenth time? There a number of very important things I need to weigh up but I won't get any of them from some Health and Safety mindset table of statistics.
 Bruce Hooker 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

> Come off it Bruce, I replied to what you also said: " Experienced soloists....Does such a beast exist? I'd say it was a bit of a contradiction in terms "

It was light remark like saying "do old down-hill ski racers exist?"

> I simply chose not to answer the second bit as it's an exceedingly childish and spiteful view,

Sorry but this remark is bonkers, it bears no relation to what I said... cool down or sober up please.

You seem to be reading things into a remark that just aren't there.
 Offwidth 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

"Personally I think anyone who encourages people to solo should be shot, or maybe handed over to ISIS as a hostage, something very nasty anyway."

I bet the Hooker dinner table conversation is fun if this isn't considered childish and spiteful. I'm feeling cool and sober thank you very much, now go find that reference and prove me wrong.
 Bruce Hooker 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Climbing just isn't like that. There are rarely exactly comparable activities.

Which is why a large number of accident reports correlated by various aspects could be better than just basing an opinion on personal experience.

I don't agree with your theory that all successful climbs must be recorded too - statistics are kept about traffic accidents and used to make policy decisions by governments throughout the world. They don't, apparently, feel the need to record all the trips made successfully in parallel!
 Bruce Hooker 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

Dinner conversation with you must be very dire, do you start of with grace and then hold silence until soup is served to all followed by yourself making a stern speech? Really, lighten up a bit, and look up the word "spiteful" in a dictionary.

Can we stop dragging the thread off subject now?
 Dave Garnett 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

Yes, OK, I agree. Of course, it's perfectly sensible to look at incidents concerning apparent equipment failure, for instance. There we need to know whether something was being used incorrectly or whether there was some defect that might be present in other similar equipment.

However, if someone makes a poor decision based on information that everyone already has I'm not sure how that would informatively be digitised into a dataset or what it would tell us even if it were.
 Offwidth 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Dave Garnett:

The nub! Working on guidebooks in the Peak cemented things in for me. So much bad practice on view despite all the fantastic advice out their. I'd lay odds we could find lots of old mistakes and almost no new ones if we walked a busy crag like Stanage, Burnage north, Froggatt or the Roaches, on a typical summer weekend day (as I often did, to-and-from following the investigation of the likes of your latest excellent obscure recommendations)
 jimtitt 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Accident reports can throw up unexpected results though, ones that go against received wisdom. An example is the frequent debate about the use of a backup system, prusik knot for example, when abseiling, considered generally to be vital and prescribed by the BMC et al, and yet statistics from N America, can't remember if it was Canada or the USA showed there had been as many accidents caused by people getting tangled in their back-up and having an accident as a result than people falling in a case without a back-up. I seem to remember that the sample was small so it's not worth debating the exactness of the example but clearly further research could have been useful (which obviously was not done as all the books would have to been rewritten etc).

Well I´ve only seen 2 recorded fatalities from using an autobloc, one was in 1977 and involved a climber with it above his abseil device and clipped into a waist band. He couldn´t release it and suffocated. The other was a canyoneer who drowned in a waterfall and the relevance is doubtful. Since no-one records how often a back-up saved them any statistical comclusion is pointless.



 Bruce Hooker 01 Oct 2014
In reply to jimtitt:

The ones that were mentioned were somewhere in N America, maybe National Parks wardens and there were two deaths where people had got tangled up in their safety gear while abbing and fallen to their deaths and two people in the same study who had died by a fall that would have been avoided if they had been using a prusik or something correctly... But it's just and example, at the time it was involved in a debate about whether or not back-ups when abbing was a good idea or not IIRC.

But that's not really my point, which is if such an example had held true for a sample that made it statistically significant it could have contributed to the debate. It could, for example, have made those concerned take into account more the necessity of making sure that people using a back up device when abbing were fully aware of just how to use it and, if there was a single problem involved place more attention to it in pedagogical material (ie. books) or in teaching situations.

The problems involved in abbing and back-ups thereof are not my point, it's that collecting accident details might well bring to light unexpected problems that would challenge accepted notions.

Apart from that I really can't see what harm it could do! It's as if there was some kind of perpetual reluctance to learn from our mistakes by discussing accidents more openly.
 Michael Ryan 01 Oct 2014
In reply to jimtitt:

I really don't see such accident reports as a statistical thing, but more stories that climbers can learn from both on a regular basis on websites (repetition and frequency is good) and annually in a printed volume. The BMC really are missing a trick here and if they don't do it someone else will.

It could include near misses - always good to learn from.

Two sets of climbers that I know have been involved in near misses this year and their stories are cautionary that all could learn from - many have died in similar incidents - some avoidable, some not..

I myself have had two belay incidents in the last 12 months; all good stories and many could learn from them.

Such reports would be captivating reading - most like to hear about accidents and what happened and why, but many would not admit it, but all would learn something.

There have been two auto-belay deaths in the last year (not in the UK) and several injuries and near misses. Auto-belays are common in the UK, many climb on them and I'm sure most would like to know what happened - be informed - as to what the likely causes where.

Such reports online would get massive page views - even the near misses - and hopefully some would learn from them.

Mick
In reply to Firestarter:

Hi there FS - congratulations on setting off a very interesting thread on this topic. I did say to you that I thought it may go in an unpredictable direction and I think it has proved me right.
Having read the dialogue over the last 134 posts I thought it might be worth reviewing my thoughts on what I still believe would be a very useful contribution to climbing safety.
However I have come to several conclusions about the idea.
Firstly I now believe that it should not be hosted/supported by a National body - BMC, MCofS etc. There are two reasons for this, firstly they both offer insurance to members and if a member owns up to a mistake there must be a question about whether their insurer can continue to cover them. Remember - confidentiality requires that the contributor provides identity to the body to whom they report their incident and although their name is not connected to their post the insurer would know their identity.
The second reason is that National bodies tend to be funded/supported by larger bodies closer to government who may more interested in statistics that prove(?) that they are effective rather than gathering & spreading genuine learning that helps individual climbers operate more safely.
So for me it has to come from someone within the climbing community with no axe to grind - even UKC may be influenced if a report included a negative reference to a product from one of its sponsors/advertisers.
As I have said previously I am willing to become involved in such a project but would prefer to offer only expertise on learning points as although I am an active (but aged) climber I am not up to date with many technical issues regarding equipment & practises.
Hope you find this useful.
 Michael Ryan 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

> How about a pledge of £1000 from you Mick, to kick things off

I'll bite Steve.

I could get on the phone tomorrow and raise £10,000 + for such a venture as seed capital.
OP Firestarter 01 Oct 2014
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Hi Keith, thanks for that. I think you have made some excellent points. I'm going to wait to see what the BMC come up with, whilst in the background doing a bit of digging. I've had really useful information from the CEO of CHIRP, and have contacted a well-known manufacturer of climbing equipment for their thoughts.

Time will tell I guess.
OP Firestarter 01 Oct 2014
In reply to Michael Ryan:

Have a look at the video accessed from the link below.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2609614
 Offwidth 02 Oct 2014
In reply to Michael Ryan:
If you are biting why are you talking "could". I see no-one here who is against the existence of such a resource: what I personaly object to is ordinary BMC members paying for most of it when its utility isn't clear value for money for them and those berating the BMC for not doing it already (given that point) and that there may be other complexities inside the BMC we are not aware of that may cause them problems implementing it. So doing it outside the BMC would probably be doing eveyone a massive favour. You even have volunteers to help.

In reply to firestarter

rgold is a bit of a star (like jim) he posts on UKC from time-to-time on US issues. His lessons in that thread are applied to the circumstances though: dumb people might think he is anti-autoblock when what he is saying in that post, is firemans/canadian belays are safer when dealing with inexperienced abseilers in the scenario described (for those who dont know this, you pull the rope hard from the bottom and it locks the abseiler off) the different techniques for safeguarding 'raps' all have their place. However this needs care: inexperienced climbers can get the wrong idea from just reading such stuff without intelligent commentary.
Post edited at 11:54
 Michael Ryan 02 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

> If you are biting why are you talking "could".

Because such a project is bigger than you, me or anyone else. I would gladly 'sell' it, as I have a reputation for doing that well when I believe in something.

It's bigger than the BMC is as well. It is a resource that could help all climbers if done well.
OP Firestarter 03 Oct 2014

> His lessons in that thread are applied to the circumstances though: dumb people might think he is anti-autoblock when what he is saying in that post, is firemans/canadian belays are safer when dealing with inexperienced abseilers in the scenario described (for those who dont know this, you pull the rope hard from the bottom and it locks the abseiler off) the different techniques for safeguarding 'raps' all have their place. However this needs care: inexperienced climbers can get the wrong idea from just reading such stuff without intelligent commentary.

So, without intelligent commentary. If the individuals concerned in an incident such as shown reported it, and all facts were considered resulting in a precis of what happened, how it could be avoided and thanking them for their open and honest reporting, would someone learn from this? Surely this would class as intelligent commentary?
Post edited at 23:15
 Daysleeper 04 Oct 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

What a huge thread and an interesting concept...while technical failures are interesting and probably already thought about I suspect in climbing like most other activities the vast majority of incidents / accidents are human in origin.
The idea of CHIRP, and the various "i learned about flying" articles hosted by pilot type magazines is to bring these human factors to the front of peoples minds. This is separate from the statistical reporting systems run by the regulator. It is also separate from the (anonymised) reports of the professional safety investigators employed by the government for Rail, Air and Marine in the UK (also a worthwhile concept but really really expensive)

As an example of the sort of stuff I might expect to see in a ClimbCHIRP:

Shortly before christmas two experienced climbers were at an indoor wall and were distracted tying in. They both set up to belay. They cross checked but saw what they expected to see, (the belays were set up perfectly) rather than what was there. One then climbed and unsurprisingly fell once at the top. Luckily only a bit bruised.
We see posters about "check or deck", but we don't really talk about the sorts of errors you will make, a novice climber will make more errors of skill tying in, they will simply tie the knot wrong. whereas for an experienced climber tying in is a motor program, the hands do it without the brain really noticing what they are doing. It's very vulnerable to running the wrong program at the right time (so setting a belay rather than a figure 8) the problem is when they check they are more likely to see what they expect to see and are less likely to be able to detect an error. In this case they were distracted by flirting with each other but it could have been a phone call, interesting view from the crag etc. Tying in is safety critical, step back from the conversation, focus on the task.

Firestarter send me a message if you want to talk further about it.
 Offwidth 04 Oct 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

Thats part of the trouble isnt it. Sometimes the climbers dont realise what they did wrong... they think they do but they dont. Then we have the recent post about the pair who both thought one of them had suffered a fall because of an autobelay failure when from witnesses who saw the incident they hadnt even clipped in (psychology research shows that human memory can be remarkably unreliable at times of stress when things happen quickly). Those links Mick put up were all analysed by experts before the information was made public which is why they are so useful and quite expensive.... we need something like that or it wont garner any real respect.
 Offwidth 04 Oct 2014
In reply to Daysleeper:

..... and for a self report......they saw the knot tied correctly so it MUST have come undone. I suspect some bowline failures have been put down to that.
 Daysleeper 04 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

> ..... and for a self report......they saw the knot tied correctly so it MUST have come undone. I suspect some bowline failures have been put down to that.

Well yes you get the ones you get and some you will never get. But the experience in aviation is that people can figure out what they have done wrong, usually just after it's too late. If they survive they are often prepared to talk about it.
There will always be ones who have no idea what happened to them, actually that's quite instructive from an investigators perspective. But in the climbing context you're not trying to capture every event, incident and accident, there's no regulatory need. It's a sample of things that have happened or could happen to you for educational purposes. So there are likely plenty of incidents where people do know what happened to them, or can be helped to figure it out over a phone call.
You just have to provide the non-judgemental supporting mechanism to allow people to talk freely and then editing it for publication so that others can get the point.
OP Firestarter 05 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

So, I've emailed Climb magazine to see if they think there is value in this, and if so would they be willing to publish reports. As you say, any report would need to be analysed by experts - as my first post highlighted. I've had a number of people expressing their wish to help. How about your good self?
 Offwidth 05 Oct 2014
In reply to Firestarter:
I admire your cheek. I'm mainly a climbing guidebook volunteer and having looked after safety stuff for a student club for years and years, I've no real interest in analysing accidents. I'll happily give private feedback on what you do if you remind me.
Post edited at 18:45
OP Firestarter 05 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:
Fair enough. I will. Thanks for your kind offer!
Post edited at 18:40
 Michael Ryan 06 Oct 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

http://www.wfaa.com/story/local/2014/10/06/14121476/

Makes interesting reading. Walls and wall organisations, and manufacturers are of course aware of this problem - this is one of two fatalities. Talk to wall staff to get an idea of how many near misses.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...