This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
As Chairman of the UIAA's training panel I would like to inform readers that we are trying to form channels of information so that we can all learn from near misses and accidents, and also from the research and advice of the UIAA's Safety and Mountain Protection commissions. I guess this message could go in several of the forums but the climbing discussion seems as good a home as any.
In case you are not aware, we have already published an international Alpine Handbook, which brings together many of these elements, and we will regularly revise and update this. The current edition is already available in the UK through the BMC shop, and is intended to supplement rather than replace existing technical books. We intend also to publish this soon as an app that can be used on smartphones and tablets worldwide, with hyperlinks to informative videos. The main content will be accessible offline. This collates best practice from all over the world.
As an example, we will incorporate advice about the benefits of dynamic cow tails for abseiling, and the importance of checking insitu gear and tape/cord - replacing it if not certain. Static loading is very different to the forces involved in only a tiny slip if there are no shock-absorbing stretchy bits in the system. This means that we can get away with it for years until one day the shock load occurs and the belay fails. This is just one tiny example of information that can lead to life-saving changes in behaviour, but on the other hand we would not wish to undermine the freedom to improvise when necessary.
We are working with various stakeholders to pull together and disseminate the best advice that we can gather (guidance, not rules!). These include IFMGA, ICAR, universities, federations' safety committees, manufacturers and instructor associations such as the AMI. We are already working on various ways to pool information from near misses, as these are less emotive to dissect and also less prone to issues of litigation.
Its not that the information isn't out there, the problem is that we are bombarded with information and opinions from so many directions that it is hard to see the wood because of the trees. The internet makes this even harder. For example there are some quite brilliant facts and informed opinions within the UKC forums, but there is also a lot of wine-fuelled speculation, and it takes quite a lot of experience and expertise to recognise which is which! Youtube and vimeo have loads of videos giving advice about climbing; some are excellent, some are downright dangerous or at least outdated. Censorship would be the wrong solution because sometimes the naive question or "beginner's mind" finds the solutions that the "experts" have missed. So we will continue to trawl these forums and other websites around the world as one of our means to try to highlight and collate the information and advice that best matches current best practice - practice that we will continue to challenge and revise, because mountaineering is a dynamic community, and we are constantly evolving and learning.
In case you are not aware, we have already published an international Alpine Handbook, which brings together many of these elements, and we will regularly revise and update this. The current edition is already available in the UK through the BMC shop, and is intended to supplement rather than replace existing technical books. We intend also to publish this soon as an app that can be used on smartphones and tablets worldwide, with hyperlinks to informative videos. The main content will be accessible offline. This collates best practice from all over the world.
As an example, we will incorporate advice about the benefits of dynamic cow tails for abseiling, and the importance of checking insitu gear and tape/cord - replacing it if not certain. Static loading is very different to the forces involved in only a tiny slip if there are no shock-absorbing stretchy bits in the system. This means that we can get away with it for years until one day the shock load occurs and the belay fails. This is just one tiny example of information that can lead to life-saving changes in behaviour, but on the other hand we would not wish to undermine the freedom to improvise when necessary.
We are working with various stakeholders to pull together and disseminate the best advice that we can gather (guidance, not rules!). These include IFMGA, ICAR, universities, federations' safety committees, manufacturers and instructor associations such as the AMI. We are already working on various ways to pool information from near misses, as these are less emotive to dissect and also less prone to issues of litigation.
Its not that the information isn't out there, the problem is that we are bombarded with information and opinions from so many directions that it is hard to see the wood because of the trees. The internet makes this even harder. For example there are some quite brilliant facts and informed opinions within the UKC forums, but there is also a lot of wine-fuelled speculation, and it takes quite a lot of experience and expertise to recognise which is which! Youtube and vimeo have loads of videos giving advice about climbing; some are excellent, some are downright dangerous or at least outdated. Censorship would be the wrong solution because sometimes the naive question or "beginner's mind" finds the solutions that the "experts" have missed. So we will continue to trawl these forums and other websites around the world as one of our means to try to highlight and collate the information and advice that best matches current best practice - practice that we will continue to challenge and revise, because mountaineering is a dynamic community, and we are constantly evolving and learning.
57
In reply to Steve Long:
I am a bit surprised to see the phrase " best practice " used. This implies that all other methods are not as good, and that only using those in the UIAA handbook would be a defense against criticism or prosecution. The risks in climbing are dynamic and many methods may be valid. "Good practise" could be a better phrase.
I am a bit surprised to see the phrase " best practice " used. This implies that all other methods are not as good, and that only using those in the UIAA handbook would be a defense against criticism or prosecution. The risks in climbing are dynamic and many methods may be valid. "Good practise" could be a better phrase.
29
1
4
86
In reply to zimpara:
Pointing out something is undesirable is not pedantry. The use of the phrase "best practice" has long been been discouraged in discussion of technical matters concerning climbing.
Pointing out something is undesirable is not pedantry. The use of the phrase "best practice" has long been been discouraged in discussion of technical matters concerning climbing.
55
2
In reply to jimtitt:
I think this is good and has been lacking for a while, especially with the example set by the American alpine club.
In response to the comment on best practise, I think it is appropriate, but refers to a generic response to a situation. As soon as the situation is specific you can show how a specific risk meant that the generic solution was not most appropriate which meant that an alternative to best practise was used.
I think this is good and has been lacking for a while, especially with the example set by the American alpine club.
In response to the comment on best practise, I think it is appropriate, but refers to a generic response to a situation. As soon as the situation is specific you can show how a specific risk meant that the generic solution was not most appropriate which meant that an alternative to best practise was used.
Post edited at 11:44
3
In reply to zimpara: Maybe, but it's a valid point in our increasingly litigious society which most of us want to try and keep out of climbing as much as possible.
3
1
In reply to jonnie3430:
I think in any kind of legal situation it would be easier to show that you had used one of a range of good practices rather than having to show why you didn't use the best practice. Much easier to defend against negligence with "I used my judgement to use this technique out of the 'good practice' toolkit" - someone can then say that your judgement was poor and that a different practice would have been better, but more difficult to show that you were negligent. Likely to be much easier to show negligent with "why didn't you use best practice".
> In response to the comment on best practise, I think it is appropriate, but refers to a generic response to a situation. As soon as the situation is specific you can show how a specific risk meant that the generic solution was not most appropriate which meant that an alternative to best practise was used.
I think in any kind of legal situation it would be easier to show that you had used one of a range of good practices rather than having to show why you didn't use the best practice. Much easier to defend against negligence with "I used my judgement to use this technique out of the 'good practice' toolkit" - someone can then say that your judgement was poor and that a different practice would have been better, but more difficult to show that you were negligent. Likely to be much easier to show negligent with "why didn't you use best practice".
Post edited at 11:52
8
1
In reply to Michael Hood:
I agree, but for beginners and part time climbers coming in and out of the sport over 20 years, it is easier to learn best practise and adapt that, than to be overwhelmed with many techniques, and the tweaks to them that come with time. Keep it simple.
I agree, but for beginners and part time climbers coming in and out of the sport over 20 years, it is easier to learn best practise and adapt that, than to be overwhelmed with many techniques, and the tweaks to them that come with time. Keep it simple.
1
1
In reply to jonnie3430:
I disagree, because even in specific situations normally there is no independent expert witness there to asses it. Usually the only people in the 'specific' situation are the climbers themselves. You only have one account of whether weather pressure was weighed more heavily than multiple backed up abseil for instance. Its still subjective open to individual interpretation.
> In response to the comment on best practise, I think it is appropriate, but refers to a generic response to a situation. As soon as the situation is specific you can show how a specific risk meant that the generic solution was not most appropriate which meant that an alternative to best practise was used.
I disagree, because even in specific situations normally there is no independent expert witness there to asses it. Usually the only people in the 'specific' situation are the climbers themselves. You only have one account of whether weather pressure was weighed more heavily than multiple backed up abseil for instance. Its still subjective open to individual interpretation.
In reply to jonnie3430:
Be careful what you wish for.
11mm ropes are stronger, less likely to be damaged than 9mm ones according to the UIAA. Since belay devices designed for two 11mm ropes are commonly available and using two ropes reduces the risk of cutting according to the UIAA then they will have to recommend best practice must be to always climb on double 11mm ropes.
I´ ll stick to good practice.
Be careful what you wish for.
11mm ropes are stronger, less likely to be damaged than 9mm ones according to the UIAA. Since belay devices designed for two 11mm ropes are commonly available and using two ropes reduces the risk of cutting according to the UIAA then they will have to recommend best practice must be to always climb on double 11mm ropes.
I´ ll stick to good practice.
26
2
In reply to jonnie3430:
I rather think that the point is that 'best practice' is to have a range of sound approaches to hand, from which one selects the most suitable in the circumstances, rather than to rely (and be expected to rely) upon a definitive methodology.
I rather think that the point is that 'best practice' is to have a range of sound approaches to hand, from which one selects the most suitable in the circumstances, rather than to rely (and be expected to rely) upon a definitive methodology.
5
In reply to jimtitt:
That suggests that they can't conduct a risk assessment. Using your arguement, because 20mm ropes are more resistant than 11mm, then they should be used instead.
That suggests that they can't conduct a risk assessment. Using your arguement, because 20mm ropes are more resistant than 11mm, then they should be used instead.
3
1
In reply to nniff:
Which is then best practise, no?
> ' is to have a range of sound approaches to hand, from which one selects the most suitable in the circumstances,
Which is then best practise, no?
2
1
In reply to GrahamD:
My understanding is that as long as the risks are weighed up, and a decision made you'll be legally clear. What the courts don't like is when risks aren't weighed up. You can do the worst risk assessment in the world and be in the clear (but a nincompoop,) because you tried.
My understanding is that as long as the risks are weighed up, and a decision made you'll be legally clear. What the courts don't like is when risks aren't weighed up. You can do the worst risk assessment in the world and be in the clear (but a nincompoop,) because you tried.
In reply to jonnie3430:
'Best practice' tends to be defined as nearly always the best way. But sometimes some ways are 'better' than others depending on specific circumstances and sometimes a range of different ways are equally applicable.
'Best practice' tends to be defined as nearly always the best way. But sometimes some ways are 'better' than others depending on specific circumstances and sometimes a range of different ways are equally applicable.
2
In reply to jonnie3430:
No; the point being that the method is not sanctioned in advance and elsewhere as THE best solution, but is open to the application of judgement.
'Best practice' might say, for example, that you should replace old tat with new. Which is fine so long as you have a knife, the tat isn't buried in ice and that you have something suitable to replace it with. Good practice would include the above, assessing the condition of the tat and using it if judged sound, adding something thin and possibly inadequate on its own to strengthen the bunch of tat, or adding a nut (which may be considered for removal if a live test of the old tat is successful)
> Which is then best practise, no?
No; the point being that the method is not sanctioned in advance and elsewhere as THE best solution, but is open to the application of judgement.
'Best practice' might say, for example, that you should replace old tat with new. Which is fine so long as you have a knife, the tat isn't buried in ice and that you have something suitable to replace it with. Good practice would include the above, assessing the condition of the tat and using it if judged sound, adding something thin and possibly inadequate on its own to strengthen the bunch of tat, or adding a nut (which may be considered for removal if a live test of the old tat is successful)
4
1
In reply to jonnie3430:
There you have it, you just introduced a better "best" practice.
Climbing relies on risk or value judgements suited to the situation in hand, there is no "best" practice just a lot of "good" or "acceptable" practices and another set of "bad" ones. Even which are which is often a matter of opinion, much debated, and subject to change, the hand-up or hand down recommendations for Italian Hitch belaying is a case in point.
> That suggests that they can't conduct a risk assessment. Using your arguement, because 20mm ropes are more resistant than 11mm, then they should be used instead.
There you have it, you just introduced a better "best" practice.
Climbing relies on risk or value judgements suited to the situation in hand, there is no "best" practice just a lot of "good" or "acceptable" practices and another set of "bad" ones. Even which are which is often a matter of opinion, much debated, and subject to change, the hand-up or hand down recommendations for Italian Hitch belaying is a case in point.
6
2
In reply to jimtitt:
Mr tit,
Can I just say, that due to the very egotistical nature of climbing, it is unlikely to be able to prune any relevant information from near misses as no one would ever own up, for fear of losing face. Seeing as we are unable to find out anything that results in actual accidents because people never own up for fear of losing face.
Mr tit,
Can I just say, that due to the very egotistical nature of climbing, it is unlikely to be able to prune any relevant information from near misses as no one would ever own up, for fear of losing face. Seeing as we are unable to find out anything that results in actual accidents because people never own up for fear of losing face.
Post edited at 17:23
2
58
In reply to jimtitt:
think you taking 'best practice' to literally. Best could be to "always back up an abseil device" how you decide to that is up to the person making the decision at the time to suit the circumstances. "It is generally best practice to use more than 1 piece of rock gear when constructing climbing anchors", again there is scope for flex based on climbing judgement. Or perhaps "always tie off an Italian hitch with at least 2 hitches", we know one will hold it, but best or ideal would be two or more . Best practices are good guidelines for those with less experience to follow until they have a larger range of experience to base decisions on.
> Climbing relies on risk or value judgements suited to the situation in hand, there is no "best" practice just a lot of "good" or "acceptable" practices
think you taking 'best practice' to literally. Best could be to "always back up an abseil device" how you decide to that is up to the person making the decision at the time to suit the circumstances. "It is generally best practice to use more than 1 piece of rock gear when constructing climbing anchors", again there is scope for flex based on climbing judgement. Or perhaps "always tie off an Italian hitch with at least 2 hitches", we know one will hold it, but best or ideal would be two or more . Best practices are good guidelines for those with less experience to follow until they have a larger range of experience to base decisions on.
3
In reply to zimpara:
Sorry, but many outdoors centres operate 'near miss' books, some openly, others anonymously. Others share events during weekly wash ups. At a professional level many folk share their own close calls with their peers either socially or on training days. All people willingly participate because apart from helping themselves operate safely, it helps prevent their friends and colleagues from making the same mistake or error.
> Can I just say, that due to the very egotistical nature of climbing, it is unlikely to be able to prune any relevant information from near misses as no one would ever own up, for fear of losing face. Seeing as we are unable to find out anything that results in actual accidents because people never own up for fear of losing face.
Sorry, but many outdoors centres operate 'near miss' books, some openly, others anonymously. Others share events during weekly wash ups. At a professional level many folk share their own close calls with their peers either socially or on training days. All people willingly participate because apart from helping themselves operate safely, it helps prevent their friends and colleagues from making the same mistake or error.
17
6
In reply to zimpara:
This is false as a general statement. Not only are there many examples on the internet in which people have posted their screw-ups as cautionary tales, but one can find such voluntary accounts in virtually every year's issue of the AAC accident reports.
> Mr tit,
> Can I just say, that due to the very egotistical nature of climbing, it is unlikely to be able to prune any relevant information from near misses as no one would ever own up, for fear of losing face. Seeing as we are unable to find out anything that results in actual accidents because people never own up for fear of losing face.
This is false as a general statement. Not only are there many examples on the internet in which people have posted their screw-ups as cautionary tales, but one can find such voluntary accounts in virtually every year's issue of the AAC accident reports.
20
In reply to Steve Long:
It isn't in the BMC shop, or at least not readily found: http://www.bmcshop.co.uk/searching.php?search=alpine+handbook
It isn't in the BMC shop, or at least not readily found: http://www.bmcshop.co.uk/searching.php?search=alpine+handbook
In reply to summo:
Good point and despite what I wrote above, perhaps shows that the terms often mean different things depending on context. In a way 'best practices' are just what one should ideally strive for. Does calling something 'good practice' imply that doing otherwise is 'bad practice'? Not necessarily, but again it depends on the context. There's nothing wrong with not backing up an abseil device but in some circumstances it is sensible to do so (e.g. where loose rock is present, or if it is not known whether the ropes will reach a good ledge).
Good point and despite what I wrote above, perhaps shows that the terms often mean different things depending on context. In a way 'best practices' are just what one should ideally strive for. Does calling something 'good practice' imply that doing otherwise is 'bad practice'? Not necessarily, but again it depends on the context. There's nothing wrong with not backing up an abseil device but in some circumstances it is sensible to do so (e.g. where loose rock is present, or if it is not known whether the ropes will reach a good ledge).
1
23
In reply to Steve Long:
I think the project is a wonderful idea and wish you the best in carrying it out!
I do think the concept of "best practice" is a fraught term that may not be the most productive approach to disseminating the "wisdom" you refer to. The simple adjustment of making "practice" plural would be at least a step in the direction of acknowledging that most practices are context-dependent .
The example of rappel back-ups has already been raised, so consider the options.
1. Backup or no backup, including how to think about devices that (may or may not) lock when released.
2. If backup with friction knot, then (a) using Prusik, Kleimheist, autoblock, Bachmann, Hedden, etc., and (b) friction knot above or below the device.
3. If below the device, then with friction knot on leg loop or on belay loop.
4. If friction knot on leg loop, then extending or not extending the device.
I think each of these options is worth a bit of discussion in which the pros and cons are elucidated, and in particular potentially surprise "gotcha's" described (e.g. putting the friction knot on an adjustable leg loop in a position that might, when loaded, release the buckle).
With the pros, cons (including "gotcha's") described, I wouldn't find it too offensive to proclaim that if a backup is to be used, then the best practice would be to extend the rap device and install an autoblock knot on the belay loop, because the analysis suggests that this method has the most advantages and fewest drawbacks. The point is that if a recommendation is given---and there is no reason why various alternatives might not be presented as in general equally effective---then it should be in the context of a consideration and analysis of all the alternatives, and not as a prescription from on high to be incorporated into an uncritical climbing catechism.
Among the many good reasons for such an approach is the suppression of the "reinvented square wheel" phenomenon, in which someone without the requisite experience revives an already-discredited (but not mentioned) practice in the hopes that their "discovery" is some kind of improvement.
I think the project is a wonderful idea and wish you the best in carrying it out!
I do think the concept of "best practice" is a fraught term that may not be the most productive approach to disseminating the "wisdom" you refer to. The simple adjustment of making "practice" plural would be at least a step in the direction of acknowledging that most practices are context-dependent .
The example of rappel back-ups has already been raised, so consider the options.
1. Backup or no backup, including how to think about devices that (may or may not) lock when released.
2. If backup with friction knot, then (a) using Prusik, Kleimheist, autoblock, Bachmann, Hedden, etc., and (b) friction knot above or below the device.
3. If below the device, then with friction knot on leg loop or on belay loop.
4. If friction knot on leg loop, then extending or not extending the device.
I think each of these options is worth a bit of discussion in which the pros and cons are elucidated, and in particular potentially surprise "gotcha's" described (e.g. putting the friction knot on an adjustable leg loop in a position that might, when loaded, release the buckle).
With the pros, cons (including "gotcha's") described, I wouldn't find it too offensive to proclaim that if a backup is to be used, then the best practice would be to extend the rap device and install an autoblock knot on the belay loop, because the analysis suggests that this method has the most advantages and fewest drawbacks. The point is that if a recommendation is given---and there is no reason why various alternatives might not be presented as in general equally effective---then it should be in the context of a consideration and analysis of all the alternatives, and not as a prescription from on high to be incorporated into an uncritical climbing catechism.
Among the many good reasons for such an approach is the suppression of the "reinvented square wheel" phenomenon, in which someone without the requisite experience revives an already-discredited (but not mentioned) practice in the hopes that their "discovery" is some kind of improvement.
5
In reply to David Barlow:
I think it must be this (searched for 'alpine'):
http://www.bmcshop.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=7354
I think it must be this (searched for 'alpine'):
http://www.bmcshop.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=7354
1
In reply to zimpara:
Zimp, listen up 'cos this is important.
I don't mind you having a little pop at me (on yonder thread), I really don't. As I said, I wasn't taking things seriously and on a route with a reputation - or indeed any route - that's dumb, seriously dumb. If I'm in the wrong, I'll willingly put my hand up. And I did.
But this time, as others have pointed out above, you're in the wrong. And, in itself, that's not too important. We all get stuff wrong; hopefully others put us right.
Far more importantly though, you need to listen to Scott. And you need to listen to Jim. And you need to stop being rude and give them some respect - the same respect that you'd like to be given.
Because - and this is the most important bit - we're talking about a very serious subject indeed - people's survival in a high-risk activity. And whether that activity gets curtailed by ignorant, uncaring legislation.
Scott and Jim are trying their best to help. And - just trust me on this - they know what they're talking about. So please, drop the attitude, heed what they're saying and reflect on it.
Mick
> Mr tit,
> Can I just say, that due to the very egotistical nature of climbing, it is unlikely to be able to prune any relevant information from near misses as no one would ever own up, for fear of losing face. Seeing as we are unable to find out anything that results in actual accidents because people never own up for fear of losing face.
Zimp, listen up 'cos this is important.
I don't mind you having a little pop at me (on yonder thread), I really don't. As I said, I wasn't taking things seriously and on a route with a reputation - or indeed any route - that's dumb, seriously dumb. If I'm in the wrong, I'll willingly put my hand up. And I did.
But this time, as others have pointed out above, you're in the wrong. And, in itself, that's not too important. We all get stuff wrong; hopefully others put us right.
Far more importantly though, you need to listen to Scott. And you need to listen to Jim. And you need to stop being rude and give them some respect - the same respect that you'd like to be given.
Because - and this is the most important bit - we're talking about a very serious subject indeed - people's survival in a high-risk activity. And whether that activity gets curtailed by ignorant, uncaring legislation.
Scott and Jim are trying their best to help. And - just trust me on this - they know what they're talking about. So please, drop the attitude, heed what they're saying and reflect on it.
Mick
100
In reply to zimpara:
His point seems like a perfectly valid one to me, and you seem unduly rude. (To be honest.)
If something was to become seen as best practice, it could raise the chances of blame being unfairly applied to an individual involved in an accident (as well as the other reasons outlined up thread).
There's some very knowledgeable people on here, it's worth remembering that before posting.
> Well done mr pedant.
His point seems like a perfectly valid one to me, and you seem unduly rude. (To be honest.)
If something was to become seen as best practice, it could raise the chances of blame being unfairly applied to an individual involved in an accident (as well as the other reasons outlined up thread).
There's some very knowledgeable people on here, it's worth remembering that before posting.
Post edited at 19:25
10
21
In reply to rgold:
While I think I agree with you for an experienced climber ( though how many of them are systems geeks? A big question I have is on how experienced climbers deal with rescues, i.e. those that haven't attended instructional courses. It isn't readily met through normal climbing, and in the case of incidents, self rescue would be one of the last alternatives on the list, so people are unlikely to practise,) my query is for the beginner or part time climber. There is a risk that using the logic that you suggest, they are then foolish for being in the situation without knowing all the alternatives that you mention, and would be pulled apart in court. Likewise the part time climber, who learnt ten or twenty years ago and hasn't kept up with the alternatives. How much experience would someone need to know enough about the abseiling options you mention to compare them and make the correct decision? Whereas, if as you suggest, they had been taught best practise and were extending their belay plate, etc, they would be safe while learning alternatives (or not, there are a lot that abseil with backup when unnecessary, do they consider alternatives?)
Re-reading, I'm not sure if you meant that, so if not, please accept my apologies. I agree that when discussing the best practise version, the reason it is, and the drawbacks of the other alternatives should be highlighted, but the emphasis should be on learning best practise, not on alternatives.
> then it should be in the context of a consideration and analysis of all the alternatives, and not as a prescription from on high to be incorporated into an uncritical climbing catechism.
While I think I agree with you for an experienced climber ( though how many of them are systems geeks? A big question I have is on how experienced climbers deal with rescues, i.e. those that haven't attended instructional courses. It isn't readily met through normal climbing, and in the case of incidents, self rescue would be one of the last alternatives on the list, so people are unlikely to practise,) my query is for the beginner or part time climber. There is a risk that using the logic that you suggest, they are then foolish for being in the situation without knowing all the alternatives that you mention, and would be pulled apart in court. Likewise the part time climber, who learnt ten or twenty years ago and hasn't kept up with the alternatives. How much experience would someone need to know enough about the abseiling options you mention to compare them and make the correct decision? Whereas, if as you suggest, they had been taught best practise and were extending their belay plate, etc, they would be safe while learning alternatives (or not, there are a lot that abseil with backup when unnecessary, do they consider alternatives?)
Re-reading, I'm not sure if you meant that, so if not, please accept my apologies. I agree that when discussing the best practise version, the reason it is, and the drawbacks of the other alternatives should be highlighted, but the emphasis should be on learning best practise, not on alternatives.
In reply to jonnie3430:
What I meant is a full discussion of alternatives with and then either one or several recommendations. The fact that there would be recommendations means that beginners would be served. But even for beginners, the illusion of simplicity created by a "best practice" without revealing alternatives might lead to problems.
The most obvious example of this is the issue of knotting the ends of rappel ropes to prevent the rappeller from going off the ends. This is already promoted as a best practice in various places. But in very windy conditions on featured rock (in the USA Red Rocks comes to mind, where these two conditions are actually common), such knots could result in a rappel hung horizontally out to the side, a potentially very dangerous situation. For such conditions the party wants a list of alternatives with a discussion of the drawbacks of each, right?
What I meant is a full discussion of alternatives with and then either one or several recommendations. The fact that there would be recommendations means that beginners would be served. But even for beginners, the illusion of simplicity created by a "best practice" without revealing alternatives might lead to problems.
The most obvious example of this is the issue of knotting the ends of rappel ropes to prevent the rappeller from going off the ends. This is already promoted as a best practice in various places. But in very windy conditions on featured rock (in the USA Red Rocks comes to mind, where these two conditions are actually common), such knots could result in a rappel hung horizontally out to the side, a potentially very dangerous situation. For such conditions the party wants a list of alternatives with a discussion of the drawbacks of each, right?
6
In reply to Steve Long:
Hi Steve. Thanks for the post and the work.
I'm nervous about 'best practice' for the same reasons as described above but also because it flies in the face of climbing being a deliberate risk activity; some games climbers play are very risky indeed. Alongside good practice an open mind within the risk of the activity for alternatives for dealing with the unexpected are important.
I'd also rephrase "because sometimes the naive question or "beginner's mind" finds the solutions that the "experts" have missed". I've never heard of a single example of such a naive discovery being useful, although daft questions can make the experienced listen,, think and lead to useful results in dealing with the naive. Sadly on the internet such statements just encourage the noisy and naive to dilute and drown out sense. Id be glad to be wrong if you have examples.
I've heard endless views about how vital and useful accident information can be on the internet. In my view its often only properly useful if informed by experts.. most posted stuff here on UKC about accidents is ill informed and sometimes plain wrong and too often looks like rubbernecking (with a few notable exceptions where UKC linked with the victim and did a really good feature/article) . The vast amount of information already available is seemingly only ever read by a small minority ( or if it is read more than I suspect, it must be like Peter Cooke famously said "Ive learmt from my mistakes... I can repeat them exactly".). The Yosemite accident analysis give clear messages to experienced climbers about mistakes, most seem not to have learnt, that happen again and again. Still, they will help some climbers who did have the sense to read the reports and honestly review their practice.
Hi Steve. Thanks for the post and the work.
I'm nervous about 'best practice' for the same reasons as described above but also because it flies in the face of climbing being a deliberate risk activity; some games climbers play are very risky indeed. Alongside good practice an open mind within the risk of the activity for alternatives for dealing with the unexpected are important.
I'd also rephrase "because sometimes the naive question or "beginner's mind" finds the solutions that the "experts" have missed". I've never heard of a single example of such a naive discovery being useful, although daft questions can make the experienced listen,, think and lead to useful results in dealing with the naive. Sadly on the internet such statements just encourage the noisy and naive to dilute and drown out sense. Id be glad to be wrong if you have examples.
I've heard endless views about how vital and useful accident information can be on the internet. In my view its often only properly useful if informed by experts.. most posted stuff here on UKC about accidents is ill informed and sometimes plain wrong and too often looks like rubbernecking (with a few notable exceptions where UKC linked with the victim and did a really good feature/article) . The vast amount of information already available is seemingly only ever read by a small minority ( or if it is read more than I suspect, it must be like Peter Cooke famously said "Ive learmt from my mistakes... I can repeat them exactly".). The Yosemite accident analysis give clear messages to experienced climbers about mistakes, most seem not to have learnt, that happen again and again. Still, they will help some climbers who did have the sense to read the reports and honestly review their practice.
Post edited at 20:14
5
5
In reply to Offwidth:
I think there is a misunderstanding from yourself and Jim about best practise (and I'm looking forward to the two of you thundering in with my misunderstandings!) There are many deliberate, high risk activities that are undertaken with best practise all the time. The surgeon and operating room staff are aware of the best practise for the operation they are about to carry out, they are also aware of the best practise responses to unexpected issues to control the situation. Have you seen the film about the plane crash in the Hudson? I haven't, but I've read about it and know the first thing they did was ensure they were following best practise for dealing with it. It almost seems as some think best practise means to remove all risk, whereas I don't think it does, it is too recognise and mitigate risks using as much intelligence and experience as you can before the event.
> Hi Steve. Thanks for the post and the work.
> I'm nervous about 'best practice' for the same reasons as described above but also because it flies in the face of climbing being a deliberate risk activity; some games climbers play are very risky indeed. Alongside good practice an open mind within the risk of the activity for alternatives for dealing with the unexpected are important.
I think there is a misunderstanding from yourself and Jim about best practise (and I'm looking forward to the two of you thundering in with my misunderstandings!) There are many deliberate, high risk activities that are undertaken with best practise all the time. The surgeon and operating room staff are aware of the best practise for the operation they are about to carry out, they are also aware of the best practise responses to unexpected issues to control the situation. Have you seen the film about the plane crash in the Hudson? I haven't, but I've read about it and know the first thing they did was ensure they were following best practise for dealing with it. It almost seems as some think best practise means to remove all risk, whereas I don't think it does, it is too recognise and mitigate risks using as much intelligence and experience as you can before the event.
1
17
In reply to zimpara:
Anyway, before everybody launches in on zimpara maybe it's worth considering that maybe this is his opinion, and that of those like him, so they should be considered as one of the serious target audiences that the OP is trying to reach with his best practise recommendations.
If he doesn't want to lose face by asking how to do something, then make sure the information he needs to teach himself is easily accessible and clear to understand. A bit of an attempt at understanding where others come from always goes a long way, and as Barak Obama says "get there early."
> Mr tit,
> Can I just say, that due to the very egotistical nature of climbing, it is unlikely to be able to prune any relevant information from near misses as no one would ever own up, for fear of losing face. Seeing as we are unable to find out anything that results in actual accidents because people never own up for fear of losing face.
Anyway, before everybody launches in on zimpara maybe it's worth considering that maybe this is his opinion, and that of those like him, so they should be considered as one of the serious target audiences that the OP is trying to reach with his best practise recommendations.
If he doesn't want to lose face by asking how to do something, then make sure the information he needs to teach himself is easily accessible and clear to understand. A bit of an attempt at understanding where others come from always goes a long way, and as Barak Obama says "get there early."
7
In reply to jonnie3430:
Can you not count either?
Whatever the validity of your or zimps opinions, he totally blew it with his miscounting of the number of T's in Jim's surname.
Can you not count either?
Whatever the validity of your or zimps opinions, he totally blew it with his miscounting of the number of T's in Jim's surname.
12
In reply to Rick Graham:
I judged him for it, but I don't think it's the end of the earth. He's being childish on a fairly anonymous internet forum, he is still still representative of climbers in the UK.
I judged him for it, but I don't think it's the end of the earth. He's being childish on a fairly anonymous internet forum, he is still still representative of climbers in the UK.
In reply to Rick Graham:
Slow it down a bit will you.
I for one am sick of pedant little fellas sandbagging routes. How about the UIAA set some standards and best practices for grading routes. Because Egos and false humility from you lot are probably responsible for more hospitilisations than whether a dynamic cows tail was used for abseiling. Which I have proved by abseiling on a honking boot lace that even a knotted 22kn sling is BEST GOD DAMN PRACTICE.
Slow it down a bit will you.
I for one am sick of pedant little fellas sandbagging routes. How about the UIAA set some standards and best practices for grading routes. Because Egos and false humility from you lot are probably responsible for more hospitilisations than whether a dynamic cows tail was used for abseiling. Which I have proved by abseiling on a honking boot lace that even a knotted 22kn sling is BEST GOD DAMN PRACTICE.
1
48
In reply to jonnie3430:
The problem in the examples you use is "somebody" decided what best practice was going to be and if the people don´ t follow the "rules" they can expect to be punished. As long as they follow best practice they are effectively exempted from any consequences no matter the outcome.
By establishing only one "best" practice (and there can by definition only be one "best") then anyone using any other practice could possibly be held liable, in particular guides instructors etc. However we know in rock climbing there are many equally "good" practices which have their time and place.
The chances of all the national federations, the various guide and instructional bodies, the industry and the interested user groups agreeing on anything are zero anyway so it´ s all a bit academic really
> I think there is a misunderstanding from yourself and Jim about best practise (and I'm looking forward to the two of you thundering in with my misunderstandings!) There are many deliberate, high risk activities that are undertaken with best practise all the time. The surgeon and operating room staff are aware of the best practise for the operation they are about to carry out, they are also aware of the best practise responses to unexpected issues to control the situation. Have you seen the film about the plane crash in the Hudson? I haven't, but I've read about it and know the first thing they did was ensure they were following best practise for dealing with it. It almost seems as some think best practise means to remove all risk, whereas I don't think it does, it is too recognise and mitigate risks using as much intelligence and experience as you can before the event.
The problem in the examples you use is "somebody" decided what best practice was going to be and if the people don´ t follow the "rules" they can expect to be punished. As long as they follow best practice they are effectively exempted from any consequences no matter the outcome.
By establishing only one "best" practice (and there can by definition only be one "best") then anyone using any other practice could possibly be held liable, in particular guides instructors etc. However we know in rock climbing there are many equally "good" practices which have their time and place.
The chances of all the national federations, the various guide and instructional bodies, the industry and the interested user groups agreeing on anything are zero anyway so it´ s all a bit academic really
8
In reply to jimtitt:
I think " Zimp" is perhaps a tad confused as to which Titt he is talking to. My understanding is that there are two well respected Titts and rest of us are just egoistical tits, with some being better endowed than others if recent ukc offerings are anything to go by.
I think " Zimp" is perhaps a tad confused as to which Titt he is talking to. My understanding is that there are two well respected Titts and rest of us are just egoistical tits, with some being better endowed than others if recent ukc offerings are anything to go by.
Post edited at 23:07
1
In reply to Steve Long:
Ha, ha. When i read the OP my first thought was "great idea". My second thought was "oh man, i hope they don't just fixate on one way of doing things like a freshly qualified SPA does under the pretext of best practice". Then i read the second post, and the whole thread spiralled out of control. UKC never dissapoints
Ha, ha. When i read the OP my first thought was "great idea". My second thought was "oh man, i hope they don't just fixate on one way of doing things like a freshly qualified SPA does under the pretext of best practice". Then i read the second post, and the whole thread spiralled out of control. UKC never dissapoints
5
In reply to zimpara:
What on earth are you talking about? I can't think of a single incident, involving a very popular and often climbed route (that you found tricky) being responsible for an accident. Accidents often occur as a result of doing something that could have been done better. Perhaps rather than witter about sandbagging, you might find it beneficial to work harder at becoming a well rounded climber rather than a self appointed expert. Both Jim and Scott have a great deal of expertise which they freely share for the good and safety of all. Listening more to the words of those who have something to actually say and posting less drivel might see you better educated and informed. All people on this forum deserve to be treated with a basic level of respect and you have overstepped the mark here. If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, then don't say it here!
James Mann
> I for one am sick of pedant little fellas sandbagging routes. How about the UIAA set some standards and best practices for grading routes. Because Egos and false humility from you lot are probably responsible for more hospitilisations than whether a dynamic cows tail was used for abseiling. Which I have proved by abseiling on a honking boot lace that even a knotted 22kn sling is BEST GOD DAMN PRACTICE.
What on earth are you talking about? I can't think of a single incident, involving a very popular and often climbed route (that you found tricky) being responsible for an accident. Accidents often occur as a result of doing something that could have been done better. Perhaps rather than witter about sandbagging, you might find it beneficial to work harder at becoming a well rounded climber rather than a self appointed expert. Both Jim and Scott have a great deal of expertise which they freely share for the good and safety of all. Listening more to the words of those who have something to actually say and posting less drivel might see you better educated and informed. All people on this forum deserve to be treated with a basic level of respect and you have overstepped the mark here. If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, then don't say it here!
James Mann
33
In reply to 99ster:
Thanks for looking it up. That is indeed the book. We did manage to get a lot of stakeholders to agree to support its content, and it is not prescriptive. It is based on 10 years of negotiations and testing, and it would be nice to get some feedback from somebody who has actually read it.
http://www.bmcshop.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=7354
Thanks for looking it up. That is indeed the book. We did manage to get a lot of stakeholders to agree to support its content, and it is not prescriptive. It is based on 10 years of negotiations and testing, and it would be nice to get some feedback from somebody who has actually read it.
http://www.bmcshop.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=7354
Post edited at 23:29
2
In reply to james mann:
There is not always a best practice because there is more than one way to skin a cat!
What's next, a competence steward at Stanage Pop car park to check all you grit croutons have the latest guidelines under your hats. Pfft What happened to survival of the fittest anyway, it would ease the pain of finding a parking spot at stanage.
There is not always a best practice because there is more than one way to skin a cat!
What's next, a competence steward at Stanage Pop car park to check all you grit croutons have the latest guidelines under your hats. Pfft What happened to survival of the fittest anyway, it would ease the pain of finding a parking spot at stanage.
31
In reply to zimpara:
Y'know, rereading the original post, it speaks of "[collating] best practice...guidance (not rules)," so there seems to be no intent to be prescriptive and perhaps some of the reaction deserves to be moderated. That said, agencies, insurance companies, and other entities that might try to regulate climbing are likely to seize on anything with an official (should I say "officious?") label and enthrone the "guidance" provided therein as "rules."
The AAC has recently promulgated a "Universal Belay Standard" that has generated discussions similar to the one here. Although the materials have some very silly moments, they do show tolerance for a range of belaying styles, rather than christening one particular one as the best practice. (According to US tradition, the UK method of taking in slack hand-over-hand is "bad practice," but the UBS materials describe it without prejudice as one of several options.) Sadly, the AAC was not satisfied to distribute information and appears to be undertaking a certification program to go with the materials.
PS: I ordered the book. Apparently, the English translation is published by the Canadian Alpine Club. A number of references describe the original document as the work of the "Petzl Foundation," but the UIAA label is on the cover.
Y'know, rereading the original post, it speaks of "[collating] best practice...guidance (not rules)," so there seems to be no intent to be prescriptive and perhaps some of the reaction deserves to be moderated. That said, agencies, insurance companies, and other entities that might try to regulate climbing are likely to seize on anything with an official (should I say "officious?") label and enthrone the "guidance" provided therein as "rules."
The AAC has recently promulgated a "Universal Belay Standard" that has generated discussions similar to the one here. Although the materials have some very silly moments, they do show tolerance for a range of belaying styles, rather than christening one particular one as the best practice. (According to US tradition, the UK method of taking in slack hand-over-hand is "bad practice," but the UBS materials describe it without prejudice as one of several options.) Sadly, the AAC was not satisfied to distribute information and appears to be undertaking a certification program to go with the materials.
PS: I ordered the book. Apparently, the English translation is published by the Canadian Alpine Club. A number of references describe the original document as the work of the "Petzl Foundation," but the UIAA label is on the cover.
Post edited at 04:12
1
In reply to Steve Long:
Steve,
if you send me a copy I will read it and comment directly to you.
I was a bit surprised of the choice to use paper. I would suggest readership would be much higher if this was a free pdf. Maybe the app will be free?
Steve,
if you send me a copy I will read it and comment directly to you.
I was a bit surprised of the choice to use paper. I would suggest readership would be much higher if this was a free pdf. Maybe the app will be free?
2
1
In reply to zimpara:
Try putting up some routes yourself and see if you always get the grades right.
Try putting up some routes yourself and see if you always get the grades right.
4
In reply to Steve Long, jimtitt et.al.:
I'm interested by the mention of dynamic cow's tails for abseiling. I'm familiar with the (often discussed) issues of extension, leg loop or belay loop backup, etc., but this is new to me. I assume the reasoning is that there are possible scenarios in abseiling where the "give" in the system is so small that a short length of dynamic rope makes a significant difference. Could anyone give an example or two of such a scenario?
I'm interested by the mention of dynamic cow's tails for abseiling. I'm familiar with the (often discussed) issues of extension, leg loop or belay loop backup, etc., but this is new to me. I assume the reasoning is that there are possible scenarios in abseiling where the "give" in the system is so small that a short length of dynamic rope makes a significant difference. Could anyone give an example or two of such a scenario?
3
In reply to zimpara:
Well that's enlightening. And bollocks.
Perhaps you could contribute an account of what you learned when you took your dog down a seacliff...
jk
> Can I just say, that due to the very egotistical nature of climbing, it is unlikely to be able to prune any relevant information from near misses as no one would ever own up, for fear of losing face. Seeing as we are unable to find out anything that results in actual accidents because people never own up for fear of losing face.
Well that's enlightening. And bollocks.
Perhaps you could contribute an account of what you learned when you took your dog down a seacliff...
jk
6
In reply to jonnie3430:
Is he? He seems like an outlier to me but then the climbers I know are mostly from a similar background so themselves, perhaps an unrepresentative group.
jk
> I judged him for it, but I don't think it's the end of the earth. He's being childish on a fairly anonymous internet forum, he is still still representative of climbers in the UK.
Is he? He seems like an outlier to me but then the climbers I know are mostly from a similar background so themselves, perhaps an unrepresentative group.
jk
4
In reply to bpmclimb:
I suspect it’s not the abseil part specifically, but the preparation stages when you’re walking about, connecting to the ab rope and testing the device and prusik are locking and can release, where the dynamic cowstail comes into it.
> I'm interested by the mention of dynamic cow's tails for abseiling
I suspect it’s not the abseil part specifically, but the preparation stages when you’re walking about, connecting to the ab rope and testing the device and prusik are locking and can release, where the dynamic cowstail comes into it.
1
In reply to zimpara:
Can I offer you some well intended personal advice.
If you go through life permanently on 'transmit' you will disadvantage yourself enormously. Try listening once in a while, you do not know everything, nobody does.
You may be surprised how bigger advantage it would give you. A lesson I learned the hard way many years ago.
Can I offer you some well intended personal advice.
If you go through life permanently on 'transmit' you will disadvantage yourself enormously. Try listening once in a while, you do not know everything, nobody does.
You may be surprised how bigger advantage it would give you. A lesson I learned the hard way many years ago.
Post edited at 11:35
18
3
21
In reply to zimpara:
Yeah and you're a know it all with a hard lesson coming. So what?
Details matter.
jk
> UKC = Pedantic
Yeah and you're a know it all with a hard lesson coming. So what?
Details matter.
jk
Post edited at 12:01
19
2
In reply to SenzuBean:
This video is a good overview of what (I think) they're referring to:
youtube.com/watch?v=DpWKrghSLao&
> I suspect it’s not the abseil part specifically, but the preparation stages when you’re walking about, connecting to the ab rope and testing the device and prusik are locking and can release, where the dynamic cowstail comes into it.
This video is a good overview of what (I think) they're referring to:
youtube.com/watch?v=DpWKrghSLao&
4
In reply to zimpara:
See http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=655804&v=1#x8469347 for an example of people openly discussing mistakes and near misses. There have been lots of similar threads over the years.
jk
See http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=655804&v=1#x8469347 for an example of people openly discussing mistakes and near misses. There have been lots of similar threads over the years.
jk
2
In reply to 99ster:
Interesting and informative video. I wonder what weight they were dropping, it's clearly a lot stiffer than a seated human. Still, the comparative results are clear and the low peak force of 6kN for the dynamic rope lanyard, FF2 seems rather impressive.
jk
Interesting and informative video. I wonder what weight they were dropping, it's clearly a lot stiffer than a seated human. Still, the comparative results are clear and the low peak force of 6kN for the dynamic rope lanyard, FF2 seems rather impressive.
jk
1
In reply to 99ster:
Brilliant video. To be pedantic, common sense says that adding a figure 8 to a sling to shorten it for abbing, introduces the same mechanics that induce a fig 8 to roll when joining two ropes no?
I think yes
Brilliant video. To be pedantic, common sense says that adding a figure 8 to a sling to shorten it for abbing, introduces the same mechanics that induce a fig 8 to roll when joining two ropes no?
I think yes
11
In reply to zimpara:
Not necessarily. Generally the fig8 in a shortened sling is not loaded in the same way it would be were that knot incorrectly used to join abseil ropes: with both tails exiting the same end of the knot. Either way, the slings don't appear to be failing due to the knots rolling but as a result of uneven stress distribution around the small radii bends formed in the knot.
jk
> Brilliant video. To be pedantic, common sense says that adding a figure 8 to a sling to shorten it for abbing, introduces the same mechanics that induce a fig 8 to roll when joining two ropes no?
> I think yes
> I think yes
Not necessarily. Generally the fig8 in a shortened sling is not loaded in the same way it would be were that knot incorrectly used to join abseil ropes: with both tails exiting the same end of the knot. Either way, the slings don't appear to be failing due to the knots rolling but as a result of uneven stress distribution around the small radii bends formed in the knot.
jk
5
10
In reply to jonnie3430:
" he is still still representative of climbers in the UK."
Just to make clear - he doesn't represent me.
" he is still still representative of climbers in the UK."
Just to make clear - he doesn't represent me.
17
In reply to james mann:
Not all routes are popular (or indeed will be due to location). You could visit somewhere off the beaten track and end up on a second ascent of a route and get into trouble as Zimpara suggested. He does have a valid point in this case.
> What on earth are you talking about? I can't think of a single incident, involving a very popular and often climbed route (that you found tricky) being responsible for an accident.
Not all routes are popular (or indeed will be due to location). You could visit somewhere off the beaten track and end up on a second ascent of a route and get into trouble as Zimpara suggested. He does have a valid point in this case.
2
In reply to Toerag:
You still have to think what is responsible for the accident. A GUIDEbook or the climber's judgement ?
You still have to think what is responsible for the accident. A GUIDEbook or the climber's judgement ?
5
In reply to 99ster:
How many people are going to die because they untie the wrong Figure of 8?
Surely a lot more than the number who currently die from taking a 11kn fall onto a sling to break it, or rip/break the gear.
> This video is a good overview of what (I think) they're referring to:
How many people are going to die because they untie the wrong Figure of 8?
Surely a lot more than the number who currently die from taking a 11kn fall onto a sling to break it, or rip/break the gear.
14
In reply to Toerag:
He was talking about Flying Buttress at the popular end of Britain's most climbed at crag!
James Mann
He was talking about Flying Buttress at the popular end of Britain's most climbed at crag!
James Mann
4
1
1
14
In reply to james mann:
He certainly seemed to be talking about grit which while usually very well travelled does still have a lot of sandbags, and that includes the popular routes! I don't think they lead to accidents though, just bruised egos.
He certainly seemed to be talking about grit which while usually very well travelled does still have a lot of sandbags, and that includes the popular routes! I don't think they lead to accidents though, just bruised egos.
2
In reply to 99ster:
Yes, good video, but actually quite familiar - the disadvantages of non-stretchy materials for attaching to belay anchors. The mention in the OP made it sound like it was specifically for abseiling, not just attaching to anchors, hence my question.
> This video is a good overview of what (I think) they're referring to:
Yes, good video, but actually quite familiar - the disadvantages of non-stretchy materials for attaching to belay anchors. The mention in the OP made it sound like it was specifically for abseiling, not just attaching to anchors, hence my question.
In reply to zimpara:
At long last, we finally agree. I was terribly worried for a moment that it might be hard to find some common ground but there it is!
James Mann
> You don't know what the f*ck I was talking about.
At long last, we finally agree. I was terribly worried for a moment that it might be hard to find some common ground but there it is!
James Mann
13
In reply to jkarran:
That particular little gem of a video appears to have been removed from youtube. Funny that...
> Well that's enlightening. And bollocks.
> Perhaps you could contribute an account of what you learned when you took your dog down a seacliff...
> jk
That particular little gem of a video appears to have been removed from youtube. Funny that...
Post edited at 06:02
1
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Sorry Michael but that is complete bs. There are simply no sandbags at all on any popular grit routes below VS in the BMC guides as I (and others) climbed every one, checked against past concerns and UKC logbooks and dealt with them all. Rockfax are also clear of popular classic sandbags in their latest editions. There are a few obscure sandbags in the Peak mainly in grubby quarries and less travelled Moorland venues and a few more in Yorkshire (where the grading is slightly harder anyhow). In contrast in the 1989 BMC Stanage guide there were quite a few, including two routes that were Diff that are now VS
The zimp has only ever climbed a few very popular grit routes on damp winter days as a neophyte completely lacking key skills. You can't grade routes for people climbing in bad conditions lacking skills as the whole system would be full of logical inconsitencies. As well as the need for basic crack, cleft and friction skills, grit can also be harsh for the short (but less so than many other rock types as the BMC and Rockfax highlight the especially nasty examples).
Stanage Popular is almost certainly the best graded low grade venue in the world.
Sorry Michael but that is complete bs. There are simply no sandbags at all on any popular grit routes below VS in the BMC guides as I (and others) climbed every one, checked against past concerns and UKC logbooks and dealt with them all. Rockfax are also clear of popular classic sandbags in their latest editions. There are a few obscure sandbags in the Peak mainly in grubby quarries and less travelled Moorland venues and a few more in Yorkshire (where the grading is slightly harder anyhow). In contrast in the 1989 BMC Stanage guide there were quite a few, including two routes that were Diff that are now VS
The zimp has only ever climbed a few very popular grit routes on damp winter days as a neophyte completely lacking key skills. You can't grade routes for people climbing in bad conditions lacking skills as the whole system would be full of logical inconsitencies. As well as the need for basic crack, cleft and friction skills, grit can also be harsh for the short (but less so than many other rock types as the BMC and Rockfax highlight the especially nasty examples).
Stanage Popular is almost certainly the best graded low grade venue in the world.
Post edited at 09:50
27
In reply to Offwidth:
I know that Straight Ahead was one - what's the other one?
> In contrast in the 1989 BMC Stanage guide there were quite a few, including two routes that were Diff that are now VS
I know that Straight Ahead was one - what's the other one?
In reply to Scotch Bingington:
There is something odd about how it's listed but it is still there with his name above it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmFhbwajAqo&t=46s
jk
> That particular little gem of a video appears to have been removed from youtube. Funny that...
There is something odd about how it's listed but it is still there with his name above it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmFhbwajAqo&t=46s
jk
In reply to zimpara:
I'm not sure why you're getting a hard time for this particular post. Your assumption that the answer is self evident and that the force must be that high to cause catastrophic failure I don't agree with but the basic question: 'what are the unintended consequences?' is valid.
jk
> How many people are going to die because they untie the wrong Figure of 8?
> Surely a lot more than the number who currently die from taking a 11kn fall onto a sling to break it, or rip/break the gear.
> Surely a lot more than the number who currently die from taking a 11kn fall onto a sling to break it, or rip/break the gear.
I'm not sure why you're getting a hard time for this particular post. Your assumption that the answer is self evident and that the force must be that high to cause catastrophic failure I don't agree with but the basic question: 'what are the unintended consequences?' is valid.
jk
Post edited at 12:31
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Just looked in my logs and funnily enough I did this immediately before Straight Ahead back in 1977 when going through all the Diffs in the green Stanage area guide. However I have to presume I did the inside variant (although I never was particularly thin) since I can't see any comment about difficulty (unlike Straight Ahead).
Don't think I've done either of them since
> Capstone Chimney (Plantation) outside variant.
Just looked in my logs and funnily enough I did this immediately before Straight Ahead back in 1977 when going through all the Diffs in the green Stanage area guide. However I have to presume I did the inside variant (although I never was particularly thin) since I can't see any comment about difficulty (unlike Straight Ahead).
Don't think I've done either of them since
In reply to Michael Hood:
What was Straight Aheads comment?
Feel free to exaggerate, truth must never stand in the way of a good story!
What was Straight Aheads comment?
Feel free to exaggerate, truth must never stand in the way of a good story!
Post edited at 13:46
5
In reply to Michael Gordon:
OK I'll give you some slack even though the routes Zimpara climbed was the context... give us all these current popular sandbags at or above VS (preferably in another thread). In the end nearly all the real sandbags are hardly known and most complaints are about routes which are maybe just a tad hard for the grade. I'd pay to watch a Zimpara video on an onsight attempt on this beast:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=16805
Still no push-over at S 4b* in Over the Moors. I think have a photo somewhere of the very experienced Wingnut seemingly stuck for ever, halfway up, in the horizontal.
OK I'll give you some slack even though the routes Zimpara climbed was the context... give us all these current popular sandbags at or above VS (preferably in another thread). In the end nearly all the real sandbags are hardly known and most complaints are about routes which are maybe just a tad hard for the grade. I'd pay to watch a Zimpara video on an onsight attempt on this beast:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=16805
Still no push-over at S 4b* in Over the Moors. I think have a photo somewhere of the very experienced Wingnut seemingly stuck for ever, halfway up, in the horizontal.
Post edited at 17:33
1
In reply to zimpara:
A mid extreme leading friend of mine had laughingly told me he nearly fell off down-climbing some obscure Diff in the area. I thought nothing much of it (he slipped off the VDiff start once when trying Brightside... its easy to lose focus as a good climber on easy terrain) Some time later, on a soloing day on my own, I noticed I probably hadn't climbed this particular route as my guidebook notes over it were of a neighbouring route. Its only short and it has a big chock so it must be OK as a solo but it looked hard for Diff. I squirmed up the cleft at the outside, mantled the chock and realised I was off-balance and had to use a good bit of body tension to stay on. After pawing about for a while for the missing holds that should have been there, swapping hands on the mantel, I realised I was in trouble and contemplated the drop and catch of the chockstone with the risk of a backwards rotating fall on a bad landing if I missed. "Calm down, use you head and widen the scope of your view" was a mantra of mine at the time. It was the first time I'd had to take it literally....I stuck my head in the crack, twisted and locked it, and despite the discomfort I was secure at last and could partly relax and recover. I released after a rest, laid off the best of the two rounded edges and soon had a leg over the chock and a tick in the bag.
A mid extreme leading friend of mine had laughingly told me he nearly fell off down-climbing some obscure Diff in the area. I thought nothing much of it (he slipped off the VDiff start once when trying Brightside... its easy to lose focus as a good climber on easy terrain) Some time later, on a soloing day on my own, I noticed I probably hadn't climbed this particular route as my guidebook notes over it were of a neighbouring route. Its only short and it has a big chock so it must be OK as a solo but it looked hard for Diff. I squirmed up the cleft at the outside, mantled the chock and realised I was off-balance and had to use a good bit of body tension to stay on. After pawing about for a while for the missing holds that should have been there, swapping hands on the mantel, I realised I was in trouble and contemplated the drop and catch of the chockstone with the risk of a backwards rotating fall on a bad landing if I missed. "Calm down, use you head and widen the scope of your view" was a mantra of mine at the time. It was the first time I'd had to take it literally....I stuck my head in the crack, twisted and locked it, and despite the discomfort I was secure at last and could partly relax and recover. I released after a rest, laid off the best of the two rounded edges and soon had a leg over the chock and a tick in the bag.
8
In reply to Offwidth:
How much?
Christ, and you still claimed the onsight for that?
> I'd pay to watch a Zimpara video on an onsight attempt on this beast:
How much?
> I stuck my head in the crack, twisted and locked it, and despite the discomfort I was secure at last
Christ, and you still claimed the onsight for that?
Post edited at 18:14
2
9
In reply to Offwidth:
What was wrong with using your elbows and knees?
> A mid extreme leading friend of mine had laughingly told me he nearly fell off down-climbing some obscure Diff in the area. I thought nothing much of it (he slipped off the VDiff start once when trying Brightside... its easy to lose focus as a good climber on easy terrain) Some time later, on a soloing day on my own, I noticed I probably hadn't climbed this particular route as my guidebook notes over it were of a neighbouring route. Its only short and it has a big chock so it must be OK as a solo but it looked hard for Diff. I squirmed up the cleft at the outside, mantled the chock and realised I was off-balance and had to use a good bit of body tension to stay on. After pawing about for a while for the missing holds that should have been there, swapping hands on the mantel, I realised I was in trouble and contemplated the drop and catch of the chockstone with the risk of a backwards rotating fall on a bad landing if I missed. "Calm down, use you head and widen the scope of your view" was a mantra of mine at the time. It was the first time I'd had to take it literally....I stuck my head in the crack, twisted and locked it, and despite the discomfort I was secure at last and could partly relax and recover. I released after a rest, laid off the best of the two rounded edges and soon had a leg over the chock and a tick in the bag.
What was wrong with using your elbows and knees?
2
In reply to Offwidth:
I can name a few, but as you say perhaps best for another thread. I imagine you'd have them in the 'a tad hard for the grade' category but to me they're sandbags i.e. wrongly graded.
I can name a few, but as you say perhaps best for another thread. I imagine you'd have them in the 'a tad hard for the grade' category but to me they're sandbags i.e. wrongly graded.
In reply to Rick Graham:
I actually tried a chicken wing but it felt too insecure to trust solo being a bit too far in front of me and in any case it seemed like I needed to be more out of the crack not in. When holding the mantel in tension I didn't feel like I could lift either leg in balance. Go try it.... its genuine fun, safe with a rope and only VS.
I actually tried a chicken wing but it felt too insecure to trust solo being a bit too far in front of me and in any case it seemed like I needed to be more out of the crack not in. When holding the mantel in tension I didn't feel like I could lift either leg in balance. Go try it.... its genuine fun, safe with a rope and only VS.
1
1
In reply to zimpara: My log entry for Straight Ahead is "A little bastard. Prominent chockstones make it possible not just facilitate the ascent." The old green guide mentioned the chockstones facilitating.
Do it on a top rope and then try and visualise poor old Offwidth and me (separately) thinking it was just going to be another simple Diff solo
Do it on a top rope and then try and visualise poor old Offwidth and me (separately) thinking it was just going to be another simple Diff solo
1
In reply to Michael Hood:
What I may do though, is every time I hear you big I AMing (Relative sense) I will refer to this comment as everyone on UKC does to my Coral seas @ harpur hill quarry log. Which is 6a, so about HVD. No sandbags on grit though... Trust a monster called offwidth to believe that.
So back to my 1st or second post on this thread, about sandbags offwidth... What you saying?
> My log entry for Straight Ahead is "A little bastard.
> Do it on a top rope and then try and visualise poor old Offwidth and me (separately) thinking it was just going to be another simple Diff solo
What I may do though, is every time I hear you big I AMing (Relative sense) I will refer to this comment as everyone on UKC does to my Coral seas @ harpur hill quarry log. Which is 6a, so about HVD. No sandbags on grit though... Trust a monster called offwidth to believe that.
So back to my 1st or second post on this thread, about sandbags offwidth... What you saying?
Post edited at 21:10
1
10
In reply to zimpara: What drug are you on?
The point Offwidth was making is that the popular low grade gritstone sandbags have all been removed (i.e. correctly graded) from the latest Peak and Yorkshire guidebooks. Sure there may be some more obscure ones that have been missed but the ones from the main areas (like Stanage) no longer exist.
And why you're having a go at my post I don't know - YOU asked for my log description. And I added that you try it safely and have a laugh at our expense getting sandbagged on a "Diff" - where was I big I AMing (whatever that means)?
Some points...
1. Unless I've missed something, the first mention of Coral Seas on this thread has been YOU.
2. Flying Buttress is not a sandbag, it may or may not be slightly undergraded (you could maybe argue it's worth Severe rather than HVD) but that doesn't make it a sandbag. In poor conditions it may be harder, but it's not graded for that.
The point Offwidth was making is that the popular low grade gritstone sandbags have all been removed (i.e. correctly graded) from the latest Peak and Yorkshire guidebooks. Sure there may be some more obscure ones that have been missed but the ones from the main areas (like Stanage) no longer exist.
And why you're having a go at my post I don't know - YOU asked for my log description. And I added that you try it safely and have a laugh at our expense getting sandbagged on a "Diff" - where was I big I AMing (whatever that means)?
Some points...
1. Unless I've missed something, the first mention of Coral Seas on this thread has been YOU.
2. Flying Buttress is not a sandbag, it may or may not be slightly undergraded (you could maybe argue it's worth Severe rather than HVD) but that doesn't make it a sandbag. In poor conditions it may be harder, but it's not graded for that.
6
In reply to zimpara:
Thanks for the laughter - you have quite a talent. I enjoyed some of your logbook entries too. They've been very useful. For instance I've never done Pinnacle Rib because it looked well 'ard, but now I have the heel hook beta I'm good to go! Keep the standard up.
Thanks for the laughter - you have quite a talent. I enjoyed some of your logbook entries too. They've been very useful. For instance I've never done Pinnacle Rib because it looked well 'ard, but now I have the heel hook beta I'm good to go! Keep the standard up.
3
In reply to Michael Hood:
I think its very fair he can claim we sandbag, in his terms....Flying Buttress never moved from VD in the definitive. He climbed it wet and with the wrong skills/method (there is no mantel) so of course his view is highly suspect.
Yet the UKC grade votes are clearly for HVD which means to me, even allowing for confirmation bias the actual people climbing these routes are drifing in their average impression of what to me is a grade standard VD.
I think its very fair he can claim we sandbag, in his terms....Flying Buttress never moved from VD in the definitive. He climbed it wet and with the wrong skills/method (there is no mantel) so of course his view is highly suspect.
Yet the UKC grade votes are clearly for HVD which means to me, even allowing for confirmation bias the actual people climbing these routes are drifing in their average impression of what to me is a grade standard VD.
Post edited at 08:52
1
In reply to Offwidth: I've never had a problem with the grade but then I've done it loads of times so it's not graded for me. The move into the groove at the top of the slab is quite technically hard for VD but it can be absolutely laced with gear. The moves above that feel precarious because of the polish; I would expect them to feel very conditions dependent for the VD/S leader. The pull over the top is very physical/butch for the grade but again is well protected.
So I can see VD is ok, but I'm sure some people operating at that grade would be able to find some severes they found easier.
So I can see VD is ok, but I'm sure some people operating at that grade would be able to find some severes they found easier.
In reply to zimpara:
No, he logged it as using a nut for aid
> Christ, and you still claimed the onsight for that?
No, he logged it as using a nut for aid
3
In reply to David Alcock:
I missed that post...Pinnacle Rib is a route I recommend normal people avoid. Nasty and loose in places and all too easy to bomb traffic on the road with inadvertantly displaced lumps of rock.
I missed that post...Pinnacle Rib is a route I recommend normal people avoid. Nasty and loose in places and all too easy to bomb traffic on the road with inadvertantly displaced lumps of rock.
In reply to Michael Hood:
That's always the case as people have different strengths and weaknesses, especially when starting out, but what we need is a nominal average view of those who have reasonable skills in the style at the grade. Also confirmation bias is a really tricky thing to avoid. Hence the logbooks that allow full democratic weighting of votes leads to obvious logical distortions. Its all a bit complicated to explain at VD so as an example that more people will understand, the Stanage classic bottom end VS lines all drift to mid-grade on UKC votes but the lonelier moorland top end VS classics that are almost a full grade harder (but not climbed by many beginner VS climbers who go to Stanage) all still get VS vote averages (usually lower in the grade than they should be in my view). It's why I find tracking trusted individuals is so useful and why I'd love to see UKC adopt the Mountain Project attachment of usernames to grade votes. In practical terms as a guidebook worker I don't care so much about where we set the standard but a standard is a good idea (classics we all know getting an honest fixed view on their grades) so we all know what we are talking about when we grade other routes in comparison.
That's always the case as people have different strengths and weaknesses, especially when starting out, but what we need is a nominal average view of those who have reasonable skills in the style at the grade. Also confirmation bias is a really tricky thing to avoid. Hence the logbooks that allow full democratic weighting of votes leads to obvious logical distortions. Its all a bit complicated to explain at VD so as an example that more people will understand, the Stanage classic bottom end VS lines all drift to mid-grade on UKC votes but the lonelier moorland top end VS classics that are almost a full grade harder (but not climbed by many beginner VS climbers who go to Stanage) all still get VS vote averages (usually lower in the grade than they should be in my view). It's why I find tracking trusted individuals is so useful and why I'd love to see UKC adopt the Mountain Project attachment of usernames to grade votes. In practical terms as a guidebook worker I don't care so much about where we set the standard but a standard is a good idea (classics we all know getting an honest fixed view on their grades) so we all know what we are talking about when we grade other routes in comparison.
2
1
In reply to james mann:
Not always been certain but I'm now convinced he's just trolling. I intend completely ignore anything he posts from now on.
> What on earth are you talking about? I can't think of a single incident, involving a very popular and often climbed route (that you found tricky) being responsible for an accident. Accidents often occur as a result of doing something that could have been done better. Perhaps rather than witter about sandbagging, you might find it beneficial to work harder at becoming a well rounded climber rather than a self appointed expert. Both Jim and Scott have a great deal of expertise which they freely share for the good and safety of all. Listening more to the words of those who have something to actually say and posting less drivel might see you better educated and informed. All people on this forum deserve to be treated with a basic level of respect and you have overstepped the mark here. If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, then don't say it here!
> James Mann
Not always been certain but I'm now convinced he's just trolling. I intend completely ignore anything he posts from now on.
5
In reply to Offwidth:
On Tryfan?!
> I missed that post...Pinnacle Rib is a route I recommend normal people avoid. Nasty and loose in places and all too easy to bomb traffic on the road with inadvertantly displaced lumps of rock.
On Tryfan?!
1
In reply to David Alcock:
I was thinking about Pinnacle Ridge. https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=38373 since the zimp commented on that and was not unreasonable in his horror. Up with the worst 2 star VDs I've ever done.
I was thinking about Pinnacle Ridge. https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=38373 since the zimp commented on that and was not unreasonable in his horror. Up with the worst 2 star VDs I've ever done.
In reply to Offwidth:
Very nasty accident on that route not long ago, a traumatic leg amputation I think.
grough — Snowdonia route closed after rock injures climber and crashes on to road
http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2013/10/12/snowdonia-route-closed-after-ro...
> I was thinking about Pinnacle Ridge. https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=38373 since the zimp commented on that and was not unreasonable in his horror. Up with the worst 2 star VDs I've ever done.
Very nasty accident on that route not long ago, a traumatic leg amputation I think.
grough — Snowdonia route closed after rock injures climber and crashes on to road
http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2013/10/12/snowdonia-route-closed-after-ro...
Post edited at 16:10
In reply to Steve Long:
About the wording best practice vs. good practice. From the pharmaceutical industry we have sets of guidelines which are termed GxP for Good (insert term) Practice, for example Good Clinical Practice. Sometimes a letter "c" is placed in front referring to "current" as those good practices change over time. A drawback is, that no matter what, the pharmaceutical guidelines are almost the law and you have to be very sharp to deviate from them. However, similar guidelines for climbing safety can be developed and named something in the line of "current examples of good climbing practice".
About the wording best practice vs. good practice. From the pharmaceutical industry we have sets of guidelines which are termed GxP for Good (insert term) Practice, for example Good Clinical Practice. Sometimes a letter "c" is placed in front referring to "current" as those good practices change over time. A drawback is, that no matter what, the pharmaceutical guidelines are almost the law and you have to be very sharp to deviate from them. However, similar guidelines for climbing safety can be developed and named something in the line of "current examples of good climbing practice".
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...