This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
We got a lot of positive feedback from Mike 'Twid' Turner's article ACCIDENT REPORT: Please don't tell my Mum
Mike was witness to this incident and helped out, wrote a report about it including his assessment of what was done wrong and tips on how avoid a similar episodes.
This is a request to anyone who has been involved in a climbing accident or was witness to one to write a similar report; What happened? What went wrong and tips on how such an accident could have been avoided?
Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/
Mike was witness to this incident and helped out, wrote a report about it including his assessment of what was done wrong and tips on how avoid a similar episodes.
This is a request to anyone who has been involved in a climbing accident or was witness to one to write a similar report; What happened? What went wrong and tips on how such an accident could have been avoided?
Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Was actually writing one before Mike's report. Only really comment on what happened after the fall as I didn't see and wasn't involved in what happened but still think there are some useful lessons to be learned. I'll dust it off and try to submit it soon.
Was actually writing one before Mike's report. Only really comment on what happened after the fall as I didn't see and wasn't involved in what happened but still think there are some useful lessons to be learned. I'll dust it off and try to submit it soon.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Is this really a good idea? People who have just had an emotional and possibly harrowing experience might not neccessarily appreciate having their motivations and abilities publicly dissected. Caution required I feel.
Is this really a good idea? People who have just had an emotional and possibly harrowing experience might not neccessarily appreciate having their motivations and abilities publicly dissected. Caution required I feel.
In reply to Jamie B.:
Also - who is writing these discussions? Twid is a highly experiences guide and climber who can make an objective account of what occured.
CAn joe public?
Also - who is writing these discussions? Twid is a highly experiences guide and climber who can make an objective account of what occured.
CAn joe public?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
It is a great idea. I always wondered why this was not more common in the mountaineering World. In Chamonix you have to know people in the rescue services to have any inforamation. What is so secret about it?
In the aviation World, every incident in recorded officially with lessons of what could have been done better. It makes very good reading and is very useful for other pilots.
It is a great idea. I always wondered why this was not more common in the mountaineering World. In Chamonix you have to know people in the rescue services to have any inforamation. What is so secret about it?
In the aviation World, every incident in recorded officially with lessons of what could have been done better. It makes very good reading and is very useful for other pilots.
In reply to francoisecall:
Totally agree. It's a responsible thing to do and I think it is commonly done in the US
Totally agree. It's a responsible thing to do and I think it is commonly done in the US
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: I think this is probably a bad idea. If i or a mate of mine had, had an accident while obviously id be keen to know what went wrong and learn from it and may even ask advice on UKC. But i wouldn't want someone, who may have not even seen what went wrong to write a report about it so mistakes could be pointed out by the armchair critics posting on here.
Im not completely against them but i think theyd have to have full consent from the injured climber(s) and be written by someone who knows what they are talking about. Not necessarily just mountain guides, but anyone else would have to have exceptional experience, and actually have been there not just watching from a distance.
Also im not sure if UKCs really the place for serious issues like these its better suited to hear say, rumour and celeb gossib imho.
Im not completely against them but i think theyd have to have full consent from the injured climber(s) and be written by someone who knows what they are talking about. Not necessarily just mountain guides, but anyone else would have to have exceptional experience, and actually have been there not just watching from a distance.
Also im not sure if UKCs really the place for serious issues like these its better suited to hear say, rumour and celeb gossib imho.
In reply to JoeL 90:
Completely agree.
> i think theyd have to have full consent from the injured climber(s)
Completely agree.
In reply to Jamie B.:
I agree. I was involved in an incident about 18months ago, and did choose to report it on the OutdoorsMagic website http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/news/article/mps/uan/4397 (since most people I was with on the trip were users of that site rather than this one). However I wrote a report purely to stop speculation of what did and didn't happen, and even asked people not to dissect our every move since we had already done enough of that.
I think if there has been a lot of speculation about what may or may not have happened (as in the case of Ian and Dave's recent incident on the Ben), then it can set the record straight if someone who was there writes a factual, non emotional report. In this case, it is for general interest and to stop the rubberneckers.
What is not helpful (in my view), is that someone writes such a report and is then attacked by the rest of the forum users, and told "you should have...." etc, etc. Much the same way as after the Touching the Void incident, it wasn't helpful for people to say "you shouldn't have cut the rope". Were they there? No. So the only report that matters is that of someone who was.
I agree. I was involved in an incident about 18months ago, and did choose to report it on the OutdoorsMagic website http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/news/article/mps/uan/4397 (since most people I was with on the trip were users of that site rather than this one). However I wrote a report purely to stop speculation of what did and didn't happen, and even asked people not to dissect our every move since we had already done enough of that.
I think if there has been a lot of speculation about what may or may not have happened (as in the case of Ian and Dave's recent incident on the Ben), then it can set the record straight if someone who was there writes a factual, non emotional report. In this case, it is for general interest and to stop the rubberneckers.
What is not helpful (in my view), is that someone writes such a report and is then attacked by the rest of the forum users, and told "you should have...." etc, etc. Much the same way as after the Touching the Void incident, it wasn't helpful for people to say "you shouldn't have cut the rope". Were they there? No. So the only report that matters is that of someone who was.
In reply to Caralynr:
I think if reports are going to be published then people will dissect them. Some will be supportive, some will be constructively critical and some will inevitably be unduly harsh.
I do think the discussion is important though and would be part of the process of learning from the accident. The reports needn't necessarily have names attached or even enough information to identify the persons involved.
I think if I was involved in an accident I'd be happy to have my name attached to a report of it but that's easily said as a hypothetical.
I think if reports are going to be published then people will dissect them. Some will be supportive, some will be constructively critical and some will inevitably be unduly harsh.
I do think the discussion is important though and would be part of the process of learning from the accident. The reports needn't necessarily have names attached or even enough information to identify the persons involved.
I think if I was involved in an accident I'd be happy to have my name attached to a report of it but that's easily said as a hypothetical.
In reply to Luke90:
Maybe it depends on whether a) you messed up and b) you reported what happened before having to come in and set the record straight?
I remember someone on here was avalanched earlier this year and wrote a very honest report that was informative and useful in regard to mistakes made. Had he returned from his trip to a 200 post thread about "some fkn idiot" then maybe he would have been less willing to do that.
Maybe it depends on whether a) you messed up and b) you reported what happened before having to come in and set the record straight?
I remember someone on here was avalanched earlier this year and wrote a very honest report that was informative and useful in regard to mistakes made. Had he returned from his trip to a 200 post thread about "some fkn idiot" then maybe he would have been less willing to do that.
In reply to Caralynr:
>Much the same way as after the Touching the Void incident, it wasn't helpful for people to say "you shouldn't have cut the rope".
Everybody knew he cut the rope, but having the rest of the story put it in perpective. They took too little gas, Joe was careless when he fell. Knowing stuff like that is useful imformation and can help prevent future accidents.
I Think that most of the objections seem to be because of fear of ill considered responses on the forum. That's something that is unfortunate but not to be taken to heart or used to justify censoring examination of the reasons behind an accident.
>Much the same way as after the Touching the Void incident, it wasn't helpful for people to say "you shouldn't have cut the rope".
Everybody knew he cut the rope, but having the rest of the story put it in perpective. They took too little gas, Joe was careless when he fell. Knowing stuff like that is useful imformation and can help prevent future accidents.
I Think that most of the objections seem to be because of fear of ill considered responses on the forum. That's something that is unfortunate but not to be taken to heart or used to justify censoring examination of the reasons behind an accident.
In reply to Jamie B.:
It probably is a good idea but as you say, there's some editorial caution required.
On the other hand, there's so many "Accident at XYZ today..." threads already I guess this is just an effort to generate useful (if a little morbid) content for the non forum reading users?
jk
> Is this really a good idea? People who have just had an emotional and possibly harrowing experience might not neccessarily appreciate having their motivations and abilities publicly dissected. Caution required I feel.
It probably is a good idea but as you say, there's some editorial caution required.
On the other hand, there's so many "Accident at XYZ today..." threads already I guess this is just an effort to generate useful (if a little morbid) content for the non forum reading users?
jk
In reply to Caralynr:
That's certainly true. I just think that if you're going to have accident reports there's no way to prevent discussion. Obviously you'd hope people would be considerate but we all know that's often not the case (on internet forums especially).
That's certainly true. I just think that if you're going to have accident reports there's no way to prevent discussion. Obviously you'd hope people would be considerate but we all know that's often not the case (on internet forums especially).
In reply to Luke90: Discussion is definately important. But not necessarily a discussion on UKC with people contributing who are really quite ingorant or offensive. Also the severity of the accident would be important in how acceptable such a discussion would be. For example if someone had died and some ill-informed punter writes and article on here, having maybe seen a bit of the accident from an adjacent route article on here without the consent of the victims family. Then this would be completely unnaceptable.
In reply to JoeL 90: It is true that in the aviation world the incidents are reported by the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) with comments from their experts, but then nobody comments further on a forum.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
While it was quite a measured and responsible account, full of useful information, the 'please don't tell my Mum' line in the piece, and the headline, was unnecessary, I thought, given that virtually everyone on the forum knew exactly who was involved. I'm surprised also that the author didn't try to contact the person he was writing about, as a combination of accounts from both of them would have made a far better piece (and possibly avoided some of the slanging that followed). When Ian did eventually post with great humility on the thread, a more complete picture of events emerged.
I think if you're asking for submissions, then ask people to keep it absolutely straight, with no assumptions at all, or descriptions of the distress of those involved.
While it was quite a measured and responsible account, full of useful information, the 'please don't tell my Mum' line in the piece, and the headline, was unnecessary, I thought, given that virtually everyone on the forum knew exactly who was involved. I'm surprised also that the author didn't try to contact the person he was writing about, as a combination of accounts from both of them would have made a far better piece (and possibly avoided some of the slanging that followed). When Ian did eventually post with great humility on the thread, a more complete picture of events emerged.
I think if you're asking for submissions, then ask people to keep it absolutely straight, with no assumptions at all, or descriptions of the distress of those involved.
In reply to JoeL 90:
I agree that there could well be unhelpful or even unpleasant comments, I just don't know how to avoid it beyond having vigilant mods and I'd hope that other UKCers might shout down any particularly unnecessary contributions.
I agree that there could well be unhelpful or even unpleasant comments, I just don't know how to avoid it beyond having vigilant mods and I'd hope that other UKCers might shout down any particularly unnecessary contributions.
In reply to Luke90:
I'll answer some of the questions later. Suffice to say there is a lot of misconceptions about not only what this is about but also about the power of having any news report or article or gear review open to comment on a forum.
I'll answer some of the questions later. Suffice to say there is a lot of misconceptions about not only what this is about but also about the power of having any news report or article or gear review open to comment on a forum.
In reply to hutchm:
MISCONCEPTION NUMBER ONE:
No not at all. You know what thought did?
Some people may have known who was involved, the majority don't.
Consider that between 10,000 and 12,000 people visit this website each day. Not all visit the forums some just the news page, photos and articles.
As regards people who visit the forums, the vast majority read and do not post. There is a hardcore of people who post, between 500-1,000 people and even more who post only occasionally.
It is very easy to get wrapped up in the 'forum world' - sometimes you need to step back a little.
Mick
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> I thought, given that virtually everyone on the forum knew exactly who was involved.
>
> I thought, given that virtually everyone on the forum knew exactly who was involved.
MISCONCEPTION NUMBER ONE:
No not at all. You know what thought did?
Some people may have known who was involved, the majority don't.
Consider that between 10,000 and 12,000 people visit this website each day. Not all visit the forums some just the news page, photos and articles.
As regards people who visit the forums, the vast majority read and do not post. There is a hardcore of people who post, between 500-1,000 people and even more who post only occasionally.
It is very easy to get wrapped up in the 'forum world' - sometimes you need to step back a little.
Mick
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: The resultant article contained assumptions and added nothing to the original thread on the matter where those involved explained what happened. The article simply started another long rambling thread with much abuse going over the same ground allowing the armchair critics who missed their opportunity to get involved first time another chance.
Instead of writing about misconceptions maybe you should explain how you are going to protect peoples privacy, make sure those who publish any report dont assume and check the victims consent to any article being published.
Instead of writing about misconceptions maybe you should explain how you are going to protect peoples privacy, make sure those who publish any report dont assume and check the victims consent to any article being published.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
I think this idea needs great care. I've seen how misplaced information can lead to great anxiety to parents and friends at a time of great stess (following serious accidents or fatalities). As an absolute minimum I dont think anything should be published on UKC without the consent of those involved. Its also best being anonymous and I suggest following a good cooling off period (a few months?) before publication.
The Yosemite guidebooks provides the best example of a useful accident analysis I've seen in climbing. Anonymity, clarity, informed, surprising.
Quite frankly the Smith's route incident, if it illustrates anything, is about the higher risks for keen young climbers pushing at their levels of competence. You have to be careful about risk though... what they did is arguably less risky than an experienced climber attempting say an ascent of K2. All climbing involves some risk and I dont want to dictate to others what they should or shouldnt do unless it affects innocent 3rd parties. Also Mike's article states patently obvious problems without properly analysing or contextuallising how it came about. In particlur small interlinked problems followed by decisions which individually are not especially bad have a tendancy to build into something big and nasty when you are at your limits.
I think this idea needs great care. I've seen how misplaced information can lead to great anxiety to parents and friends at a time of great stess (following serious accidents or fatalities). As an absolute minimum I dont think anything should be published on UKC without the consent of those involved. Its also best being anonymous and I suggest following a good cooling off period (a few months?) before publication.
The Yosemite guidebooks provides the best example of a useful accident analysis I've seen in climbing. Anonymity, clarity, informed, surprising.
Quite frankly the Smith's route incident, if it illustrates anything, is about the higher risks for keen young climbers pushing at their levels of competence. You have to be careful about risk though... what they did is arguably less risky than an experienced climber attempting say an ascent of K2. All climbing involves some risk and I dont want to dictate to others what they should or shouldnt do unless it affects innocent 3rd parties. Also Mike's article states patently obvious problems without properly analysing or contextuallising how it came about. In particlur small interlinked problems followed by decisions which individually are not especially bad have a tendancy to build into something big and nasty when you are at your limits.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Its a fairly legitimate concern. People should be able to chose whether or not they want the amuter detectives on UKC reading about their every move an deciding where guilt lies.
Also articles with general conclusions such as that one on Smiths route are fairly useless. Things like build good belays and dont just use a single 8 are obvious to all including those involved and had already been discussed on the thread at the time.
Also articles with general conclusions such as that one on Smiths route are fairly useless. Things like build good belays and dont just use a single 8 are obvious to all including those involved and had already been discussed on the thread at the time.
In reply to JoeL 90:
Of course they should, who said they shouldn't!!!!!!!!!
Guilt!!!
What's that all about.
Like I said, I'll deal with you later ; o )
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) Its a fairly legitimate concern. People should be able to chose whether or not they want the amuter detectives on UKC reading about their every move an deciding where guilt lies.
Of course they should, who said they shouldn't!!!!!!!!!
Guilt!!!
What's that all about.
Like I said, I'll deal with you later ; o )
In reply to JoeL 90:
Really.
You are wrong, but I'll get to that later.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> Also articles with general conclusions such as that one on Smiths route are fairly useless.
>
> Also articles with general conclusions such as that one on Smiths route are fairly useless.
Really.
You are wrong, but I'll get to that later.
In reply to JoeL 90:
You obviously didn't read the accompanying thread - lots of people learnt things as a result.
> Also articles with general conclusions such as that one on Smiths route are fairly useless
You obviously didn't read the accompanying thread - lots of people learnt things as a result.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
You put it in the headline, FFS.
> (In reply to hutchm)
> [...]
>
> MISCONCEPTION NUMBER ONE:
>
OK. No need to shout. Plenty of people knew who this guy was. Stepping back, as advised, I'd say that was enough to consider the tone of any piece you run. Even if that tone impacts on just one person. The person in hospital recovering from their injuries, who may or may not find it an additional blow to have their distress described on a forum frequented by their friends, climbing partners and others.> [...]
>
> MISCONCEPTION NUMBER ONE:
>
You put it in the headline, FFS.
In reply to hutchm:
Mike was in touch with the two lads, they were fine with the piece and even joined in the debate.
Mike was in touch with the two lads, they were fine with the piece and even joined in the debate.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: I don't think dave was and it was more defending themselves, than enjoying it, me thinks.
In reply to Toreador: Ians post was very good and cleared up what happened but it didn't really teach people any new things.
In reply to Franco Cookson:
Guilt, Defence...Jeez!
We muck up, we learn - get over it.
Try and squash your ego and pride: this is all about education - not pointing fingers.
Accident Analysis is a very important part of climber education the world over but poorly covered in the UK.
Guilt, Defence...Jeez!
We muck up, we learn - get over it.
Try and squash your ego and pride: this is all about education - not pointing fingers.
Accident Analysis is a very important part of climber education the world over but poorly covered in the UK.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
OK, that's fair enough then. Strange how the two accounts of the accident as Twid saw it, and Ian experienced it and later described it, appeared slightly different to me. I felt that Ian joined the debate much later in order to clear up a few things. If you'd have said that the piece was written with input and approval from Ian, then I'm sure you'd have avoided the barney that followed.
OK, that's fair enough then. Strange how the two accounts of the accident as Twid saw it, and Ian experienced it and later described it, appeared slightly different to me. I felt that Ian joined the debate much later in order to clear up a few things. If you'd have said that the piece was written with input and approval from Ian, then I'm sure you'd have avoided the barney that followed.
In reply to JoeL 90:
Dude - how the hell do YOU know what people learned and what they didn't?
You don't.
FORUM CROWD MISCONCEPTION NUMBER TWO
Speak for yourself, not others.
> (In reply to Toreador) Ians post was very good and cleared up what happened but it didn't really teach people any new things.
Dude - how the hell do YOU know what people learned and what they didn't?
You don't.
FORUM CROWD MISCONCEPTION NUMBER TWO
Speak for yourself, not others.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: As a member of a MRT, we get to hear about lot's of daft,stupid and damn right dangerous incidents.
Highlighting accidents, looking at the cause,then aiming to at least impart best pratice may...may, stop someone else getting hurt or dieing. Information is power!
It's shouldn't be a free for all to slag someone off and I'm sure anyone who kicks off can be removed from the forum.
Remeber, no-one deliberately goes out to have an accident, although sometimes you do question when some put themselves that far out on a limb...
If the involved parties can report, as truthfully and factually as possible lessons can be learnt.
The benifits must out way any down sides... if in doubt, names need not be used and just Man A or daft nicknames could shelter the parties involved.
Highlighting accidents, looking at the cause,then aiming to at least impart best pratice may...may, stop someone else getting hurt or dieing. Information is power!
It's shouldn't be a free for all to slag someone off and I'm sure anyone who kicks off can be removed from the forum.
Remeber, no-one deliberately goes out to have an accident, although sometimes you do question when some put themselves that far out on a limb...
If the involved parties can report, as truthfully and factually as possible lessons can be learnt.
The benifits must out way any down sides... if in doubt, names need not be used and just Man A or daft nicknames could shelter the parties involved.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: i don't doubt it is, but the idea people didn't realise it was about us is ridiculous and the article was factually wrong. they accepted their mistake, but people don't seem to get that we didn't make the mistakes you think we made.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: All sorts of accusations were flying around on those threads. There was a need to dispell the myths and rumours.
A report such as that in Reids Yosemite Select for the main climbing areas in Britain would be much more useful showing statistics and the reasons behind injury/death. Accounts of epics make good stories but aren't so useful in explaining how to improve unless the issues are very specific.
A report such as that in Reids Yosemite Select for the main climbing areas in Britain would be much more useful showing statistics and the reasons behind injury/death. Accounts of epics make good stories but aren't so useful in explaining how to improve unless the issues are very specific.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: misconception number three:
all articles on here are factually accurate.
Does that not bother you?
all articles on here are factually accurate.
Does that not bother you?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
hoorah for that! Just because *I* feel a particular way, doesn't, it turns out, mean that everyone else does too. It's baffling how such a simple concept can be so hard for people to grasp.
> (In reply to JoeL 90)
> [...]
> [...]
>
> FORUM CROWD MISCONCEPTION NUMBER TWO
>
> Speak for yourself, not others.
> FORUM CROWD MISCONCEPTION NUMBER TWO
>
> Speak for yourself, not others.
hoorah for that! Just because *I* feel a particular way, doesn't, it turns out, mean that everyone else does too. It's baffling how such a simple concept can be so hard for people to grasp.
In reply to Franco Cookson: Franko, not my fight this one, but has this not highlighted to the general readership the hazard of winter mountaineering?
It's good you corrected the article but have you learnt from the experince...will others not benifit from any wisdom so imparted?
I know one of the guys who helped out in your incident, they were far more critical than most about the cause of the incident, I might be wrong but you had a near miss the day before as well didn't you?..
It's good you corrected the article but have you learnt from the experince...will others not benifit from any wisdom so imparted?
I know one of the guys who helped out in your incident, they were far more critical than most about the cause of the incident, I might be wrong but you had a near miss the day before as well didn't you?..
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Tke some deep breaths Mick, you're going a funny colour
jk
> Dude - how the hell do YOU know what people learned and what they didn't?
> You don't.
> FORUM CROWD MISCONCEPTION NUMBER TWO
> Speak for yourself, not others.
> You don't.
> FORUM CROWD MISCONCEPTION NUMBER TWO
> Speak for yourself, not others.
Tke some deep breaths Mick, you're going a funny colour
jk
In reply to jkarran:
It takes a bit of repetition for people like Franco and Joel to 'get it' - not that they will anytime soon.
It takes a bit of repetition for people like Franco and Joel to 'get it' - not that they will anytime soon.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
> (In reply to JoeL 90)
> [...]
>
> Dude - how the hell do YOU know what people learned and what they didn't?
>
The mistakes were obvious, everyone knows theyre a bad a idea even those involved. If a winter climber learnt anything from the article they didn't know they shouldn't have done any winter climbing. However these sort of mistakes are made through a love of climbing and doing routes. Knowing things are unsafe doesn't always stop the keenest of climbers - maybe this was the articles greatest contribution, highlighting the dangers of liking climbing a bit too much. Though this could be drawn from the original thread. There seemed no need for another. > [...]
>
> Dude - how the hell do YOU know what people learned and what they didn't?
>
In reply to timmy-ts: Like I said before we have learnt- from the mistakes we made, not the one's higlighted in the article we didn't make. I did have a near miss- although I was actually hit and that would have made far better content for an article as I made a remedial mistake.
In reply to JoeL 90:
I love that .. 'obvious' ...... and 'everyone knows'
Classic.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> [...]
> The mistakes were obvious, everyone knows theyre a bad a idea even those involved.
> [...]
> The mistakes were obvious, everyone knows theyre a bad a idea even those involved.
I love that .. 'obvious' ...... and 'everyone knows'
Classic.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
look, Mick, you seem to be forgetting that sweeping generalisations are what made this nation great
<cough>
I'm interested in how these articles pan out. Seems like a tricky line to tread, but if people learn from it in a more managed way than some of the judgemental rubbernecking that's happened on here in the past, then hurrah.
look, Mick, you seem to be forgetting that sweeping generalisations are what made this nation great
<cough>
I'm interested in how these articles pan out. Seems like a tricky line to tread, but if people learn from it in a more managed way than some of the judgemental rubbernecking that's happened on here in the past, then hurrah.
In reply to Franco Cookson:
Does it matter that mistake were highlighted that you didn't make? The article wasn't written for you to learn what you did wrong, as you clearly know what you did wrong, but for others. So the more that people can from it the better no?
Does it matter that mistake were highlighted that you didn't make? The article wasn't written for you to learn what you did wrong, as you clearly know what you did wrong, but for others. So the more that people can from it the better no?
In reply to JoeL 90:
there's a phrase that goes something like 'assumption is the mother of all f*ck-ups'.
therefore - it's not a great idea to assume things, especially not in a climbing context. But you knew that, right?
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) They are though i dont see why this isn't clear?
there's a phrase that goes something like 'assumption is the mother of all f*ck-ups'.
therefore - it's not a great idea to assume things, especially not in a climbing context. But you knew that, right?
In reply to CJD:
Tricky line to tread? No, it is incredibly straightforward.
Learning and rubbernecking? You'll get both unavoidably. But as Timmy said above, the benefits outweigh any negatives.
This is about increasing skill knowledge which are learnt both directly through experience, and indirectly by reading/witnessing about the experience of others and a professional analysis.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> I'm interested in how these articles pan out. Seems like a tricky line to tread, but if people learn from it in a more managed way than some of the judgemental rubbernecking that's happened on here in the past, then hurrah.
Tricky line to tread? No, it is incredibly straightforward.
Learning and rubbernecking? You'll get both unavoidably. But as Timmy said above, the benefits outweigh any negatives.
This is about increasing skill knowledge which are learnt both directly through experience, and indirectly by reading/witnessing about the experience of others and a professional analysis.
In reply to DaveR: indeed, but the point is any ukc lurker would have know that the article was about us and I wouldn't even want 1000 people thinking we did something that we didn't.
In reply to CJD: Alright it was a bit of an assumption but if a inept winter climber such as myself with minimal experience of climbing in general thinks these mistakes are fecking obvious then surely it not an excessive assumption that most others on here will also think that too?
In reply to Franco Cookson:
You seem to think you're more famous than you are! I certainly didn't know who it was about until they started posting!
You seem to think you're more famous than you are! I certainly didn't know who it was about until they started posting!
In reply to CJD: i think you are being a little pedantic.
In reply to JoeL 90:
Because you are young and do not understand. We aren't all at the same level. Things are often 'obvious' in retrospect, with hindsight.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) They are though i dont see why this isn't clear?
Because you are young and do not understand. We aren't all at the same level. Things are often 'obvious' in retrospect, with hindsight.
In reply to DaveR: well as you can see, six thousand people viewed it.
In reply to Franco Cookson:
No they wouldn't. Again you are clearly focussed on yourself - it is OK, that is quite normal.
Everyone is laughing at you Franco. They think you are silly, incompetent and clearly think that you should not be let out of the house and certainly not on a big bad Scottish mountain.
Those two sentences are bullshit ; o )
> (In reply to dave657) indeed, but the point is any ukc lurker would have know that the article was about us
No they wouldn't. Again you are clearly focussed on yourself - it is OK, that is quite normal.
> and I wouldn't even want 1000 people thinking we did something that we didn't.
Everyone is laughing at you Franco. They think you are silly, incompetent and clearly think that you should not be let out of the house and certainly not on a big bad Scottish mountain.
Those two sentences are bullshit ; o )
In reply to DaveR: would you mind 6 thousand climbers thinking you made a mistake you didn't?
In reply to Franco Cookson: Hi Franco, sort of knowing second hand what happended you could tell that tale on here and see if this idea works. I think that we would all find out in short order wether it would be a constructive forum, or a complete slag fess.
However I think some may have already marked your card. You may get a negative approach, which achieves nothing but alienanting anyone else thinking of putting forward a report.
Mick means well, it should work, but needs constuctive input to issues not emotive spouting by laymen.
If you ask three people involved in an incident about it, you will get three, possibly conflicting accounts. Everyone should bare that in mind and not take a single point of view as gosple.
Tim
However I think some may have already marked your card. You may get a negative approach, which achieves nothing but alienanting anyone else thinking of putting forward a report.
Mick means well, it should work, but needs constuctive input to issues not emotive spouting by laymen.
If you ask three people involved in an incident about it, you will get three, possibly conflicting accounts. Everyone should bare that in mind and not take a single point of view as gosple.
Tim
In reply to Franco Cookson:
I've informed the BMC Franco and you will be getting a letter in the post banning you from climbing for life.
> (In reply to dave657) would you mind 6 thousand climbers thinking you made a mistake you didn't?
I've informed the BMC Franco and you will be getting a letter in the post banning you from climbing for life.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: I don't think it would be a bad idea to have accident reports, but you need to get the facts right is all i'm saying. It had been resolved by the time this article was published, but you didn't bother to change it, why?
In reply to Franco Cookson: And 12000 viewd that rescues one. I think you might maybe be sufficiently famous to be a Z list celeb
In reply to JoeL 90: but atleast 18000 people know there is dispute about the facts in the article, rather than 6,000 taking it as gosp.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Mick, obviously accident analysis needs to be done tactfully, and in a way that won't get the pants sued off someone, etc etc...
But with those provisos, I'm amazed the UK climbing community does so little accident analysis.
Of course, after what happened to me on April 5, I'm a bit more interested in this area.... but actually I've been thinking we need to clue ourselves up more for quite a while. I was agitating a year or so ago for the MRTs, or someone, to put up a list of callout and incident descriptions on a public forum, just so that people could see what factors cause the most accidents, and think on, and learn from others' bad luck/ incompetence.
(Here's one risk factor I wouldn't have thought of: pretty much every year, at least one hillwalker gets hurt on the Scottish hills because their dog pulls them over.)
I'd support anything that gave us the makings of a What-To-Avoid Database.
Tim C.
Mick, obviously accident analysis needs to be done tactfully, and in a way that won't get the pants sued off someone, etc etc...
But with those provisos, I'm amazed the UK climbing community does so little accident analysis.
Of course, after what happened to me on April 5, I'm a bit more interested in this area.... but actually I've been thinking we need to clue ourselves up more for quite a while. I was agitating a year or so ago for the MRTs, or someone, to put up a list of callout and incident descriptions on a public forum, just so that people could see what factors cause the most accidents, and think on, and learn from others' bad luck/ incompetence.
(Here's one risk factor I wouldn't have thought of: pretty much every year, at least one hillwalker gets hurt on the Scottish hills because their dog pulls them over.)
I'd support anything that gave us the makings of a What-To-Avoid Database.
Tim C.
In reply to Franco Cookson: Im not quite sure if you can add them together but a good point anyway.
In reply to JoeL 90: lol, iy, indeed.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Come one dude! This is UKC if this isn't the place for silly conversations and pedantic corrections over the adding together of statistics then where is?
Hi Mick.
I think the accident reports are a good idea. However I agree an effort should be made to contact the persons involved before posting such an article. Mike didn't inform me about the article. I can see him justifying this, by making me anonymous. Maybe he didn't take into account my anomality was already broken, by a previous thread on UKC. If he knew he didn't have my face hidden, maybe he would of been more careful with details, or checked details with me.
The article pure intention was to teach a lesson to the public, if I had retained full anomality like intended, the details would of not mattered in lesson been taught. Obviously it didn't work out like this, with the thread attached degraded into immature slapping match, well policed by yourself. I couldn't see this been an issue in future reports, unless they were to involve more colorful and keyboard ready characters.
I believe the internet is an incredibly powerful tool, and should be a great aid in teaching and informing climbers. Iam a keen reader, and own books like "Great Mountain Disasters", I believe to develop into a safe climber we had to understand others mistakes and misfortune, and take on board there lessons.
My accident, as you can imagine messed my head, more so than my broken hand. Angry with myself, emotional, and not always sober, i refrained from posting on UKC in my defence. I was happy to sit back and watched events unfold. Fran took it upon himself to defend me, after i told him not too, a few times. Even thou not involved in the accident, in his words "it makes us all look like retards", which i could understand with Frans personality! Things boiled over, and i posted my view on events, which didn't make much sense when i re read it! If i posted early and took more time over the post, it could of avoided this. But it didn't really seem important at the time!
I lucky had great support and understanding from family friends and my climbing club, Other than them, I dont really care want people think, as long as they learn a lesson!
Ian Jackson.
I think the accident reports are a good idea. However I agree an effort should be made to contact the persons involved before posting such an article. Mike didn't inform me about the article. I can see him justifying this, by making me anonymous. Maybe he didn't take into account my anomality was already broken, by a previous thread on UKC. If he knew he didn't have my face hidden, maybe he would of been more careful with details, or checked details with me.
The article pure intention was to teach a lesson to the public, if I had retained full anomality like intended, the details would of not mattered in lesson been taught. Obviously it didn't work out like this, with the thread attached degraded into immature slapping match, well policed by yourself. I couldn't see this been an issue in future reports, unless they were to involve more colorful and keyboard ready characters.
I believe the internet is an incredibly powerful tool, and should be a great aid in teaching and informing climbers. Iam a keen reader, and own books like "Great Mountain Disasters", I believe to develop into a safe climber we had to understand others mistakes and misfortune, and take on board there lessons.
My accident, as you can imagine messed my head, more so than my broken hand. Angry with myself, emotional, and not always sober, i refrained from posting on UKC in my defence. I was happy to sit back and watched events unfold. Fran took it upon himself to defend me, after i told him not too, a few times. Even thou not involved in the accident, in his words "it makes us all look like retards", which i could understand with Frans personality! Things boiled over, and i posted my view on events, which didn't make much sense when i re read it! If i posted early and took more time over the post, it could of avoided this. But it didn't really seem important at the time!
I lucky had great support and understanding from family friends and my climbing club, Other than them, I dont really care want people think, as long as they learn a lesson!
Ian Jackson.
In reply to hutchm: I had emailed Mike, Thanking him for his help, and we returned a few emails. we discussed events but not an article.
I may of mislead mike on that one.
from my original post.
I may of mislead mike on that one.
> I was quite happy with twidds report and have contacted him through email before and after the report
from my original post.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
The only reason UKC found out who was involved in the accident was because Franco couldn't keep his mouth shut and instantly jumped in and started defending his friend. He wasn't even involved in the accident.
Maybe Franco should get the ball rolling with an analysis of his accident 2 days previous to the Smith's epic.
I personally think this is a good idea if done the right way.
The only reason UKC found out who was involved in the accident was because Franco couldn't keep his mouth shut and instantly jumped in and started defending his friend. He wasn't even involved in the accident.
Maybe Franco should get the ball rolling with an analysis of his accident 2 days previous to the Smith's epic.
I personally think this is a good idea if done the right way.
In reply to The Big Grey Man:
If he was defending his friend, then UKC obviously already knew who was involved...which was the case.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> The only reason UKC found out who was involved in the accident was because Franco couldn't keep his mouth shut and instantly jumped in and started defending his friend.
>
> The only reason UKC found out who was involved in the accident was because Franco couldn't keep his mouth shut and instantly jumped in and started defending his friend.
If he was defending his friend, then UKC obviously already knew who was involved...which was the case.
In reply to DaveWarb:
I may be wrong and can't be arsed rereading that thread but I think at that point it was still "the leader" and "the second" who were involved rather than "Ian" and "Dave"
> If he was defending his friend, then UKC obviously already knew who was involved...which was the case.
I may be wrong and can't be arsed rereading that thread but I think at that point it was still "the leader" and "the second" who were involved rather than "Ian" and "Dave"
In reply to DaveWarb: No, your right about the aftermath of the article, but anywho, and i too don't want to get dragging into it, but the point is that everyone knew about it from the 'Rescues' thread, already.
In reply to The Big Grey Man:
Who are this UKC you speak of?
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> The only reason UKC found out
>
> The only reason UKC found out
Who are this UKC you speak of?
In reply to DaveWarb:
Classic... who is this 'everyone' ? .... what you may mean is that perhaps those who read the 'Rescue" thread may know who was involved.
I certainly didn't read it.
> (In reply to DaveWarb) No, your right about the aftermath of the article, but anywho, and i too don't want to get dragging into it, but the point is that everyone knew about it from the 'Rescues' thread, already.
Classic... who is this 'everyone' ? .... what you may mean is that perhaps those who read the 'Rescue" thread may know who was involved.
I certainly didn't read it.
In reply to The Big Grey Man: Identities were discovered before I said anything. SOmeone had a look at logbooks.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
>> I certainly didn't read it.
Maybe not but 12000 did. It wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption that a few of those may have been some of the 6000 that read the other thread and even went on to realise the two involved were Dave and Ian.
>> I certainly didn't read it.
Maybe not but 12000 did. It wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption that a few of those may have been some of the 6000 that read the other thread and even went on to realise the two involved were Dave and Ian.
In reply to JoeL 90: While not everyone, its a fair assumption that MOST people who read the thread knew who it was.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
You missed a great thread, it was up for DAYS and saw THOUSANDS of views and HUNDREDS of posts...
> (In reply to DaveWarb)
> I certainly didn't read it.
You missed a great thread, it was up for DAYS and saw THOUSANDS of views and HUNDREDS of posts...
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: > (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) Its a fairly legitimate concern. People should be able to chose whether or not they want the amuter detectives on UKC reading about their every move an deciding where guilt lies.
Of course they should, who said they shouldn't!!!!!!!!!
It seems you dont think the victims need be consulted as it seems that guide didn't consult Ian and Dave. Now obviously they didn't seem too concerned but others may not like it. What will you do to prevent this? You still dont seem to have made this clear. Not everyone shares your vision for the internet been used as a tool for armchair climbers and bored at work types to pore over the minute deatails of every climbing incident and offer their expert critique based on what theyve read in 'The Climbers Handbook'.
No accident threads on here have produced anything really beneficial to peoples safety climbing. They only serve to satisfy peoples morbid interests and massage peoples egos by giving them the 'i would have know what to do in that situation, aren't i special' feeling.
Of course they should, who said they shouldn't!!!!!!!!!
It seems you dont think the victims need be consulted as it seems that guide didn't consult Ian and Dave. Now obviously they didn't seem too concerned but others may not like it. What will you do to prevent this? You still dont seem to have made this clear. Not everyone shares your vision for the internet been used as a tool for armchair climbers and bored at work types to pore over the minute deatails of every climbing incident and offer their expert critique based on what theyve read in 'The Climbers Handbook'.
No accident threads on here have produced anything really beneficial to peoples safety climbing. They only serve to satisfy peoples morbid interests and massage peoples egos by giving them the 'i would have know what to do in that situation, aren't i special' feeling.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...