UKC

Saw the helicopters from Krokan this morning around 10. Apparently the report came in at 9.15... The rescue was ongoing at 13:00. A quick chat with the rescue guys revealed the climber was not good at all.

Unfortunately ended in tradgedy!

http://www.thelocal.no/20150222/ice-climber-falls-to-death-in-norway

In reply to GarethSL:

According to a local newspaper (TA) a huge lump of ice collapsed and the climber fell 30-40 m down on a ledge 60-70 m above the valley floor. Helicopter rescue was not possible because of the narrow valley, however other climbers reached him when he was still alive and yielded first aid. Tragically he later died of his injuries.

http://www.ta.no/N_detatene_rykker_ut_til_isklatrerulykke-5-50-41999.html

According to Norwegian television (NRK) the deceased was an italian climber. May he rest in peace.

In reply to Sir Stefan:

Amen

In reply to GarethSL:
I was one of the 'tourists' in this report - actually an Oslo resident. I just wanted to clarify/correct a couple of points from the news reports. I was at the debrief with nearly everybody concerned. The partner of the injured climber understandably wasn't present. Jakob from the Old School Inn chaired it and is acting as spokesman. I thought it appropriate that I should respond here though.

We weren't at the viewpoint. We were climbers who stopped the car in the road to look at ice conditions in the upper part of the Upper Gorge. We heard a loud crash of ice just prior to approaching the road barrier and it was immediately obvious that the hanging icicle on the first pitch of Lipton had collapsed. It had fractured right at the top. We could hear shouting coming from the area immediately after. Then we spotted a climber hanging on a rope beneath where the icicle had sheared. He had fallen around 10m, based on his last ice screw placement, a short distance above the shearing point. He was lowered down to the ground. Police and ambulance crews arrived at the road above the gorge very quickly. We descended to the scene at this point, arriving soon after another Italian, who had been nearby in the area.

The ambulance asked me over the radio how high the climber had fallen from, to which I replied from 30-40m height, although did point out that he had not hit the ground and had been lowered off. I think some confusion arose about the distance of the fall as a result of this conversation.

The injured climber was resting at the base of the route, which lies maybe 20m above the frozen ice pool via a short scramble. The 60-70m ledge was somehow wrongly reported.

We did all we could for the climber but it was clear that he had a lot of injuries. A Sea King was dispatched but couldn't access the gorge safely. Ultimately his injuries were fatal. He could not have been saved, even if injured outside a hospital, was the clear consensus from the medial team present at the scene.

More climbers had been arriving during the morning period and there was a really good team effort to bring the climber out of the gorge on a stretcher. Particularly given that few people knew each prior to the incident.

A couple of very high calibre climbers, who arrived at the scene mid-morning, had also planned to climb the route that day.

The climbing partner wasn't present at the debrief so the exact details of the accident couldn't be clarified. The evidence strongly suggested a screw in the falling pillar had whipped the climber off at high velocity.

Thoughts obviously go out to the relatives and to his climbing partner. The response from all the volunteers concerned though was touching and there was nothing that could have been done to change the outcome.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

Tremendously sad news, but thanks for the detailed update chap.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

Thanks for your detailed repport! Sad news!

In reply to Mr. Lee:

A very sad end to a great festival weekend indeed, but again, thanks for the detailed report!

In reply to GarethSL:

Really sorry for this climber, his friends and family. Lipton is an incredible route and the upper gorge is an amazing place. I have huge respect for any climber who has the courage and ability to attempt that route. I've always understood that one never places an ice screw or other protection in free-hanging ice. If it is true that the climber did place gear in the feature which collapsed, and was pulled-off as a result, then it is a terrible reminder to us all not to do the same.

In reply to GarethSL:

Finalised NKF report here:

http://www.klatring.no/Portals/84/Dokumenter/Sikkerhet/Ulykkesrapporter/rju...

In reply to Pete_Frost:

They've just updated the report. See pages 3-5. The photos tell the story. It's almost beyond doubt now that there was a screw in the falling ice. The forces must have been massive. Poor guy.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

I agree, that is the most plausible cause.

Another theory could be that since he did the first 2 pitches in one, one of the ropes could have become entangled in the ice curtain, and when it broke off it pulled the climber off.

I don't understand why this was not included in the original report, they could have gotten some local´s to ab the route sooner, or waited to publish the report until this was done.

Sad story indeed...

In reply to alpinestar_no1:

I guess the rope could have become entangled. But given that a screw remained above the first hanging curtain it seems pretty clear that the climber was placing screws on the traverse. Plus a screw with a built-in extender was also found loose at the scene. It probably blew from the falling ice as it became loaded, saving the remaining screw/quickdraw/sling and ropes from failure.

In reply to Mr. Lee:
I have to say that I think the damage to the blue sling has been caused by crushing, the falling ice from above impacting the ice boss below trapping the sling between. It is remarkable that ice stayed in place and held a screw and held the fall. Those photos of the sling are very clear, if weighting was to cause that damage I think it would have continued to stretch and snap. This guys luck seems to have been like a catch 22. Had the sling snapped he would have decked with tons of ice. Has it held and he was traversing, a long pendulum fall plus being hit by big ice, we know the outcome. Very sad.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

Such sad news. Thanks for helping on the scene on the day. If indeed there was screw on the hanging ice, we can all make a judgement error, he might have thought it was above the fracture line, who knows. But I for one, I can learn something from this unfortunate accident. My thoughts go to his family and his climbing partner, which I cant even imagine what it is like to witness something like that happening to your mate.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

Thanks for the considered report (press reports on climbing accidents are commonly wrong) but can everyone else please stop this morbid public speculation so soon after the accident; otherwise we are no better than those lazy journalists in magnifying greif.

My condolences to family and friends.

In reply to Offwidth:
I'm sure everyone is saddened by this but when should people discuss it ? Something good can come from understanding / discussing what has happened. If you wait weeks, months it's just not going to happen. To analyse an accident is not morbid it is necessary to hopefully understand what happend. I don't see why a forum like this should not discuss it and maybe a good message, will be helpful to someone in their future climbing.

In reply to Climbingspike:
Are you analysing though, if you were not there you are most probably speculating or maybe just plain virtual rubbernecking? How would you feel if someone close to you died and a virtual community that could add great support (as UKC has done many times), because they understand the inherent risk in climbing, instead immediately started playing CSI because they must "think of the children". There is only moral compulsion to stop people following the baser human responses and behave like a prick, like many of the lazy journalists or the motorway voyeurs, or even the neutral but still potentially hurtful responses like just being autistically insensitive.

In reply to Offwidth:

It does seem every time there's some discussion about an accident you jump in to remonstrate people for conducting some analysis. You also oppose the suggestion that any kind of formal, journaled analysis is a worthwhile exercise. Personally if I meet my end while climbing I hope there is plenty of analysis done on the hows and whys, because for every rubbernecker I hope that there is a young or inexperienced climber who might learn from something I did wrong. Some may do it for morbid pleasure. But so what if they do? We learn from our own mistakes - why shouldn't we also learn from the mistakes of others as well?

I do not know these climbers, nor do I know their families. You speak of some "moral compulsion" to stop people discussing what went wrong, as if somehow looking at an accident or discussing death is wrong. It isn't. I can express my sympathies to the relatives on the one hand, and on the other hand look at the circumstances to try to figure out whether there aren't lessons to be learned from it. It's important to do so with sober judgement but also to do so reasonably soon after the incident to ensure that memories are fresh - and especially in climbing, where others might be venturing out in similar areas or similar circumstances or similar weather soon.

As a relative novice to ice climbing I learned something extremely valuable (though quite graphic) about placing protection on free-hanging icicles and the dangers of doing so. Knowing what could happen, and seeing the circumstances in which it occurred, means when I'm in a similar situation I will consider my protection options differently. It may be cold comfort to a relative or survivor of an accident at this point, but the very fact that this accident report has been compiled, and that it has been discussed here, might have saved lives that would otherwise have been lost.

In reply to Offwidth:
Rant as much as you want, I and others look for something good and positive to come from incidents like this.
Abuse and nasty comments help no one.

In reply to nclarey:

Sadly, whenever there are accidents and tragedies, there are posters who start threads that are nothing more than rubbernecking.

Offwidth has a right to challenge motives and I have to point out to you that you misquoted or misrepresented him. Offwidth did not "speak of some "moral compulsion" to stop people discussing what went wrong". In fact I am fairly sure that Offwidth would agree with you that there are generally some learnings to be shared from accidents that would benefit other climbers.

The real question is probably too difficult to answer. Take the line below for example:

"Just saw a rescue helicopter over Stanage, anyone know what happened?"

Is that rubbernecking? A concerned individual who has been affected? A climber who is worried that something has happened on a route that we should all know about?

We don't know, and without additional qualifying commentary we will never know. But even if there are learnings to be had I don't think many of the threads actually get to these learnings or even document them in a way that is helpful to other climbers. This is partly because they include so much speculation, discussion and irrelevant comments but also because they are not captured and centralised anywhere - unlike, say, a Mountain Rescue log.

I think that in over 10 years of being on this site I have seen very few threads about accidents that have given me specific information that has altered the way I climb, my safety processes or the routes/crags I have chosen. I'm not saying it has NEVER happened but what is more likely is that I have read something with interest and made a mental note, but I can't point to a single learning gained from an accident report on this site. Perhaps someone else has. More specific, focused and pertinent topics/articles have been of much more value to me from a safety perspective - some bolting information when I wanted to put up new routes for example.

It's important to treat the information as data and the UKC users as customers of that data. If that data is not relevant, timely, accurate or accessible then the value of that data diminishes very quickly. Hence my comments about capturing learnings from accidents and making them more accessible in log format.

It's an interesting discussion though. I wouldn't flame Offwidth for calling out rubberneckers because there are plenty of them out there but similarly I wouldn't flame UKC users for asking about accidents because there are genuintely concerned ones out there too.

In reply to Rampikino:

It's not a flame, and I didn't misquote - from his post, copied and pasted:

"There is only moral compulsion to stop people following the baser human responses and behave like a prick".

It is a base (and frankly helpful) human instinct to look at the death of another human and try to work out whether you might end up suffering the same fate and what you can do to avoid it. Discussing this is not morbid. We have a slightly bizarre attitude (especially in this country) around the discussion of death, as if somehow by mentioning it we hasten our own mortality. Or somehow we bring untold pain on relatives ("won't someone think of the relatives?") Offering genuine sympathy and conducting helpful analysis are not mutually exclusive, and conflating the two seems to me an absurd attempt to shut down discussion.

There's inevitably going to be some picking over images and drawing on our own experiences in trying to figure out what led to something happening. Again, saying "you weren't there and you'll never know" is ridiculous. From this kind of brainstorming and open discussion can come useful observations. Clearly an authoritative source of information is better - some kind of journal a la American Alpine club - but short of that what else have we got? We have some pictures and we have an accident report to try to draw some lessons from.

I don't think we're in disagreement in any case. I think a more formal logging of accident reports would be good (I'd subscribe) but can appreciate that the BMC doesn't have staff or time to do so.

In reply to nclarey:

Search my posts and give some evidence. I don't criticise analysis at appropriate times; I criticise speculative commentary and potential rubbernecking or insensitive diversions of condolences posts. I feel we are lucky enough to have some genuine experts on climbing safety and many experienced climbing practioners contributing to this site (too often dismissed by those who feel all internet opinions are equally valid) and the site has facilitated much debate pretty sensitively over the years. I certainly don't oppose formal, journalised analysis: I support and recommend the high quality accident analysis made in many countries, including that in the UK (that only a tiny minority of climbers ever read). What I have criticised recently is Mick suggesting the BMC should fund a UK overview (and worse still that the guidebook series editor I worked so very hard alongside, as a co-editor, is poor value for money and should abandon his actual job to do this); reproducing much work already being done elsewhere, at significant expense for little obvious benefit. The oh-so-concerned people "thinking of the children" often didn't seem to realise this analysis even existed, let alone having read it (best-seller material some claimed it would be). You should look at the definition btw... the pain of family and friends is real.

I also thanked Big Lee who reported what happened, to clear up some press misreporting.

When you read the existing accident analysis (which is carefully collated after examination by experts and usually sensitively anonymised) you realise too many climbers wilfully don't learn; so what exactly do we honestly think ill-informed speculative posts realistically have to add? I have had climbers tell me they have learned, after I explained dangerous practice, only for them to subsequently follow Peter Cooke’s famous humorous aphorism. These of course are just my opinions; having once worked in a student club (for nearly 20 years) alongside the BMC experts, UIAA guides and Mountain Rescue (and in this having dealt first-hand with some serious accidents and their horrible emotional fallout): nothing stops others having their own views and posting them here (within site guidelines) even if they are stupid and insensitive (so yes I stand by that particular statement on moral compulsion and understand degree and where people object to my view claiming honourable aims I might naturally wonder "The lady doth protest too much, methinks")

I do know public support on sites like UKC can really help those close to a climber deal with death or serious injury; and I also know that having a whirl of speculation often has the exact opposite effect. I would hence recommend people post personalised condolences but park technical comments or questions for a few months, unless it’s crucial and urgent like a potential new equipment failure (where the BMC or similar maybe are best contacted first as they can usually handle such announcements better).

In reply to GarethSL:

My thoughts are with those close to him.

It is remarkable how many posts are concerned with analysis in favour of condolence. There is a place for analysis but is it here? Is it better placed in an article with its own associated thread? I don't know the answer.

In reply to Offwidth:

You're part of every thread I've read that deals with an accident, telling people to stop discussing it and to "think of the relatives". I'm arguing that now, while it is fresh in memory and we have some good clear facts, is the right time to discuss what has happened. I have no doubt that the grief of families in this situation is real and awful, having known people going through the process myself, but at the risk of repeating myself - offering condolences and performing analysis are not mutually exclusive. Parking it for a few months is pointless, because people forget too quickly - once facts come to light (which they have in this situation) why shouldn't they be discussed?

That some people don't learn is a poor reason for inhibiting or discouraging analysis and discussion when facts are available. Some people don't, some people do. So what?

Accident analysis for this country, wherever it is, is not accessible to the average climber. Show me where I can find them and I will focus my energies there. I've read of several accidents over the last 12 months happening on UK crags and have seen no analysis, anywhere. So where is it?

In reply to nclarey:
Those who respond to rescues or deaths work very hard to get and record the best information on what happened at the time and the idea that we might forget such visceral events is odd and would make our Inquest system pretty pointless. The psychology research on witnesses shows most damage is usually done at the start as our brain forms a narrative and sneakily adjusts memories to fit this. Yet sometimes information is so poor we can only make plausible guesses.

On climbers and learning, of course we should try harder to inform and educate in the face of clear evidence of so much dangerous ignorance. Its very frustrating that you seem to miss the point that time and time again those shouting loudest here about the need for such information (on UKC immediately after an accident) have all too often done nothing to read what already exists for similar accidents as analyed by experts, or ever hired a guide to learn properly or used the excellent lectures, books, dvds etc that organisations like the BMC produce. Baseless outrage and rubbernecking is a common enough problem in the UK public, that newsparers like the Daily Mail make millions out of, but its not a good attitude in a risk sport like climbing. Tell us what you have done to inform yourself for instance, lest we mistake you for a fool (I've said how I came to my views... read and watched most and taught by some of the best)

It beggars beleif that you have read my contributions on all these threads, such that you feel the need to complain, and yet can't find any of the many links I and others have provided to the accident analysis sites in such posts. You could also try Google or contact numerous organisations involved with safety. Information on accident analysis is the most available it has ever been for the ordinary climber: you need to be blindfolded almost to miss it.

Your " think of the relatives" may seem clever to you but I see it as exceedingly low given the real pain involved but of course, as you intimated, learning from mistakes takes precedence, so stuff them.

I have seen so many intelligent contributions on this subject over the years with well argued methodology to extract lessons from accident information, from climbers who know the research and fully understand the sensitivity of the subject area. Why not try following their lead as an alternative to childish ad hominem attacks from a base of apparent ignorance of research of a subject you claim to be passionately interested in, and a seemingly broken empathy .

In reply to Offwidth:

"Sometimes information is so poor we can only make plausible guesses" - and perish the thought that evidence might be reviewed here, amongst those most likely to benefit from it and not in an ivory tower somewhere, to be buried in a coroner's report.

The fact that you might think me a fool makes little difference to me. I climb for me and nobody else. I climb with my family and do my best to ensure I impart whatever wisdom I'm able to glean from those who went before me and augment that with reading. I don't hire guides but am not against it in the right context. I learned through a club which I support and with many older and wiser heads than mine in attendance. I read on the topic. A lot. I absorb every piece of data I can get my hands on and do my best to rely on good evidence and not idle rumour. I appreciate that it is a sport with risks and I undertake it with that in mind, enjoying the adventure and managing that risk using the knowledge available to me.

For accidents in this country there is no single place to go to where I can read accident reports relevant to the sport. I have to dig it out from a combination of UKC posts, MRT reports and press clippings. This is not the practice in other countries and it's disappointing that we haven't got some way to centralise things better here. I'm sure the BMC is shortstaffed, but it's a shame that although in popular areas we have a choice of several different guidebooks we don't have a good centralised resource of accident summaries. If this were available we might both be satisfied - you for your concern out of analysis for the sake of relatives (people wouldn't feel the need to dissect things here) and me for concern for better availability of these things to mere punters such as myself.

Your thinly veiled implications concerning my character, my intelligence, my motivations and my lack of empathy are pretty disappointing - and make a mockery of your suggestion that somehow my posts are full of ad hominem attacks against you. Heal thyself, physician.

In reply to Offwidth:

To be fair, from the limited number of your posts that I've read on this subject, you've been consistently pretty negative.

I am involved in MR and professionally with crisis and emergency management - there is nothing stopping useful feedback and lessons learned via this type of forum. It can be done effectively and well - all it takes is some thought and planning.

Lastly, I think there is plenty of scope to avoid some of the accidents, serious injuries and deaths that typically trigger a formal review process through considering the root cause of more minor issues. That is where this type of analysis would be really useful, but it does require a degree of maturity often missing from anonymous forums (sweeping generalisation not targeted at you!) hence some form of active and robust screening would be required.

In reply to Calski:
I think this sums it up well for me Calski. Notwithstanding the minor spat between the two posters above, I'm sure we could all agree that there are things we would want and things we wouldn't.

Things we would want would include:

Empathy/sympathy
Lessons learned
Issues arising from the incident that may affect climbing on an ongoing basis (rockfall, access, other hazards)
Carefully thought out analysis

Things we would not want would include:

Simple rubbernecking
Unfounded speculation
Accusations
Incomplete or misleading information

I said before that I wasn't aware of any accident discussed on UKC that gave me any value, but that's not to say that it wouldn't.

In reply to Rampikino:

That represents a good summary from my perspective.

In reply to Calski:

Again check my posts. I'm on the record for supporting such analysis/discussion here or elsewhere if the analysis is done and moderated by experts and preferably, in my view, done after a reasonable pause, after the shock of the event has passed... if you talk to some of the proponents I've even emiled offers of help. I'm often 'negative' on recent accident/news report threads because I think wild speculation from the ignorant can be hurtful and rubbernecking is distasteful.

In reply to Offwidth:

I decided to be a bit snoopy and checked your posts. Unless I'm mistaken the last time you commented about accident reporting was 5 months ago, so it's hardly a regular thing. Then the post you were commenting on was regarding an accident database and what you said seemed very constructive and reasonable.

Probably took me all of two minutes to learn that

In reply to nclarey:
No-one learns much from poor data in my view but no one buries anything it all gets logged and looked at. Centralising the analysis seems to me to only be wise if the decentralised information is a mess: that is not the case in the UK. For example (there are other links)

http://www.mcofs.org.uk/research.asp

http://www.mountain-training.org/latest-news/2014-incidents-and-near-misses

http://www.mountain.rescue.org.uk/information-centre/incident-statistics

http://www.ldsamra.org.uk/accidents.aspx

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/how-dangerous-are-climbing-and-hill-walking

Thanks for being honest about your sources. The accident analysis shows that 'wise heads' are all too often not so wise. I tried to be as wise as I could in my club but recognised people like The BMC and UIAA Guides could do a better job, so tried to get as many students as possible to take direct note of what they said. Maybe you should consider that for yourself: courses, events, lectures, books, DVDs etc. I still can't think what you can have read that wouldn't have led you to this conclusion for yourself if this is a serious interest.

You attacked me first and painted a very unfair picture of my views, whereas I chose to be less than 100% certain as it was not "apparent" where you got your information from.. I have no idea who you are but I have been on this site for almost as long as it has been around and many people know me and my guidebook and club work and my strong feelings on climbing safety.

Incidently for those that are interested this was the most recent thread calling for a Mountaineers Guide to Death and Disaster with some expert viess from the UK, US and Europe.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=608842&v=1#x7984721

I also agree with Rampikino's lists but the interesting Psychology question is why do so few ever see themselves in the bad half?

In reply to Offwidth:

In your first post you said people should "stop this morbid public speculation so soon after the accident" but I think the accident report is generally pretty thorough rather than speculative. The report actually finishes by saying:

"We hope the report and the addendum can help us to understand better what happened in the accident, that we can all learn a bit and hopefully avoid similar accidents in the future."

I would agreed that there are clear lessons that can be learnt from the incident and there is a difference between baseless speculation and objective discussion based on the findings of the report. I'm not of the level where I am climbing hanging ice much, however I feel I've leaned something from this incident. I'm sure others will have as well, which if I were a family member I would probably find this consoling to know.

Btw, the sixth paragragh stated "it is not known whether an ice screw was attached to the falling ice, or whether the ice screw came loose as the ice collapsed", which read a little confusing as it didn't mention "the ice screw" was a screw found at the scene. Hence why I mentioned it in the 14:42 Tuesday post.

I actually find the way that you have moved the discussion away from the original incident and onto things such as 'rubbernecking' rather tasteful. Rather than just putting your point forward you've chosen to repeatedly argue and argue it and maybe this wasn't the right thread to do it on. Given the original subject matter.

In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks for the links.

The raw stats are not actually particularly useful, unfortunately - what I certainly feel I would find useful are summarised incident reports, such as the one linked on this thread. General statements from the BMC about how dangerous climbing is compared to other things are helpful in convincing e.g. grandparents that actually you aren't about to drop their grandchildren off a cliff, and that actually putting them on a horse is far more dangerous - for outsiders I suppose useful but not that helpful for people already climbing.

I don't rely purely on my club to teach me to climb, but yes, if I'm honest they are my primary source of knowledge for outdoor climbing. I have watched quite a lot of the BMC online video content and from other sources, as well as reading their publications, but it's supplementary rather than primary. I suppose this is because it's less expensive than paying for a course or a guide and I "learn on the job". I would think most climbers who do so regularly got into it this way.

I don't think levelling criticism of your attitude to the subject of discussing these incidents here constitutes an "attack", nor do I think I have mischaracterised you. I'm quite sure you're an intelligent grown-up who can handle a robust question. The link you posted is a thread I browsed with interest originally, because I did genuinely find it a good idea. I didn't feel your criticism of it was valid, and yes that was part of the source of my complaint; yes, uni students might not read it but those of us who started doing it while older might indeed find it quite an eye opener and helpful and informative. You're a man entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to question whether it's a reasonable one. Similarly, I have absolutely no idea who you are - the time you have spent on this site, or the guidebooks you have edited, or the length or extent of your logbook does not raise you to a level beyond which your statements can't be questioned.

Regarding your final comment, I think it's best for us to generally assume that people are asking questions for good reasons, out of a desire to learn - in other words, I don't think it is anywhere near "half", I think it's a tiny minority.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

I was referring to the speculation of some of the posters after your post, not the original report, nor pretty obviously your clarification, which I thanked you for. I'm sorry you find my posts distasteful but I feel I had important points to make. I find it distasteful to see the all too common speculation and rubbernecking tendancies on threads following accident reports on this site and then I had to face someone making false accusations.

I guess someone is always going to feel upset on such emotive threads, so trying to make something positive out of this, maybe in the future if there is a genuinely useful and detailed information of the type you made, contacting the UKC site direct might be advisable as they might then deal with it as an article; if they decide not to, at least moderators could then close the thread after such posts are made to preserve the impact, by forcing any indirect discussion to a new thread elsewhere. I'm not goimg to stop making these points on such threads and others are not going to stop theirs in opposition.

In reply to Offwidth:




Just sayin'

In reply to Gareth
As a slight tangent from current, gear/runner speculation....the winter over here has had an average or normal amount of snow, but it has been relatively mild, proper winter where it is permanently below zero was late in coming, Oct/nov was mild and wet so the ground never got very cold, before the snow... So as soon as the temperature rose a little run off is quite rapid, moisture isn't locked into the frozen ground to any depth.. there has been stuff in the press about weak lake ice too, people measuring the ice thickness then taking cars/tractors out only for the ice to break, as much of the visible ice was actually very aerated or slightly metamorphosed snow, but not solid like water ice... So I would not presume too much, as only those who may have abed down and observed the fracture point, ice type, thickness etc can make major presumptions on what caused it to come away. But it is an interesting subject that should not be avoided.

In reply to Mr. Lee:
Hi, as regarding the screw that was found at the scene, if this was not clipped onto the rope then the idea of clipping into free standing ice would not apply, was anything clipped between belayer and runner ? Just out of interest do you know if there is any formal investigation into such incidents in Rjukan. May I say you did a great job getting those photos. Most climbers want to know if there is anything to learn these incidents.
We all live in the footsteps of those who went before.

In reply to summo:

I'm not sure if your reply is directed at me.

But I will say probably all ice in Rjukan that day was brittle as hell, most likely a fact. A week of warm weather followed by relativity cold nights (Not compared to the average day temp but a rapid drop during the night) prior to that Sunday was a recipe for disaster and one of the very reasons we stopped leading ice that day.

I give up on people's opinions of ice. Read Montagnat et al. 2010

In reply to GarethSL:

No, it wasn't specifically you, only general. I agree with you though. The ice at times needs to be viewed a bit like a snow slope and avalanches. Sometimes what you see on t surface, doesn't indicate what's beneath or It's properties.