UKC

Hope all are well and uninjured.

Horrid day to have been stuck out on the ridge.

Commando Ridge cliff rescuers battle 70mph winds for climbers - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-34826589

In reply to rockjedi12345:

As stupid as the bloke on Ben Nevis the other day.

Fekwits.

In reply to rockjedi12345:

I Sir, summon Darwin and his team of miniature henchmen to investigate this one!

In reply to faffergotgunz:

unless they are commando's ofcourse, in which case jolly good show.

In reply to rockjedi12345:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=628663

In reply to rockjedi12345:

Erm looks like door post to me

In reply to Graham Booth:

Hence
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=628663

)

In reply to Graham Booth:

Looks like Doorway to me

In reply to EarlyBird:

^ this.

In reply to rockjedi12345:

The photo is clearly wrong. Commando ridge is a path, how do you get stuck on it!

In reply to rockjedi12345:

Some of the remarks and attitudes expressed within this thread are truly obnoxious. As one of the team of climbers (staying at the CC hut) who was first on the scene, located the lads and assisted with the rescue to the point that the coastguard could pull out one of the pair who had a lower leg injury I feel really disheartened by some of the sentiment expressed. The two guys were well equipped, had got themselves out of the wind to somewhere safe and had initiated the rescue. Nobody goes out with the intention of having an accident or being rescued. We climb because we want to experience freedom and adventure. With this aim, comes the risk at times of biting off a little more than you can chew or even just running out of luck. I for one wish Will a full recovery from any injuries and hope that himself and Matt are not put off climbing for good. I also wish for some of this sites regular users to be a little less quick to judge, particularly without access to the full facts.

James

In reply to james mann:

Yup

In reply to james mann:

There is a thing on the telly called the weather forecast.

It tells you what conditions are liable to be like in your area.

When gale force winds and high seas are forecast the sensible thing to do is not go climbing by the seaside.

You do not only put yourself at risk but also the poor bastards who are volunteers and have to come and rescue you.

There is biting off more than you can chew.

And there is being really stupid.

Which one are you?

In reply to coinneach:

Did you read my post or not really? We climbed on the main cliff at Bosi yesterday and other CC members did Bosi ridge also. Conditions were a bit wild but not excessively so. I was not rescued, but was one of the rescuers. In answer to your question; neither.

James

In reply to james mann:

I back up James on his response. I was also one of the first on the scene. This was an unfortunate accident that in theory could have happened to any of us. Who has never climbed in less than ideal conditions? The rescue was well coordinated by all involved. Best wishes to all involved.

Skip

In reply to Skip:

Cheers Skip. Hope you're feeling better.

James

In reply to james mann:

As I remarked on my other thread on the subject (referred to above) the rescuers did a great job.
I was pointing out the inaccurate reporting - which I think is something that irks a lot of people on here
Glad you/others are safe/had a good day (select whichever applies)

In reply to james mann:

I take it that the 18 likes on your previous post are the other residents in the hut.

In reply to Greenbanks:

The reporting was very inaccurate but not through any malice. Everyone was safely back by about 11:30 last night. That's all that matters in the end.

James

In reply to coinneach:

James was not one of those rescued, he was one of the rescuers. I had been climbing with James on the main cliff earlier in the day. At about 6:30 pm we were alerted at the Count House that two climbers on the ridge had failed to return after giving an expected return time of 4 pm, a sensible action in itself. On our way down to locate the stranded climbers we were informed that the coast guard had been mobilised by those stranded. We continued down the ridge and were able to locate the pair and get them to a more sheltered and accessible rescue location. A combination of experience and accurate knowledge of the ground facilitated a more coordinated and speedy rescue than may otherwise have occurred. Well done to all involved.

In reply to james mann:

So what actually happened, James?

In reply to coinneach:

I would very much doubt it. There weren't anywhere near that many people staying. I would think that most of the likes are climbers with a sense of adventure, a love of freedom and a finger that doesn't spend a good deal of time wagging at others!

James

In reply to Philip:


I wouldn't like to be on pitch 1 in a heavy sea and strong wind

Don't know if it was on that pitch though?

In reply to Trangia:

Pitch 3. A foot slip while the other foot was wedged in a crack, hence getting twisted. To the best of my understanding.

In reply to Skip:

So the news report is incorrect. It's not climbers caught out in wind, more climber gets injured and is then rescued. Quite different really.

In reply to Philip:
Yea. Along with, as has been pointed out, the wrong picture.

In reply to Skip:

Just you wait till the Daily Mail gets hold of it. That climbing should be banned, before it affects house prices....

(FWIW, was in a nearby coastguard team for several years and we avoided the press like the plague, as they were rarely interested in the facts)

In reply to Philip:

The news report doesn't say that. It clearly says that the climbers were stranded and then goes on to explain that there was an injury.

It refers to the high winds in the context of the rescue.

The picture and a reference to Bosigran confused with Commandos ridge are small inaccuracies that wont mean anything to the average reader.

I'm disgusted by some of attitudes and high horses shown here and I have nothing to do with the reporting, incident or any parties involved.

Glad no one was seriously hurt and well done to everyone who helped.

In reply to coinneach:



And there's being pompous and judgemental about a situation on the basis of an inaccurate press report.

Have you never gone out for a wild day on an easy route? You should try it some time.

In reply to rockjedi12345:

Just to add a little more info - Bosi Ridge was perfectly reasonable adventurous objective for the day providing that the bottom pitch and sea level approach to it was avoided (as the party did) - I was climbing on the main cliff at the time - very exciting with the wind and the sea crashing below and incredibly atmospheric. Two other parties completed the ridge ahead of the pair that needed to be rescued and two more parties were on it on the Sunday in similar conditions. The accident was a small slip leading to a damaged ankle, (who hasn't done something similar, I certainly have). The climbers involved were well equipped and had the sense to get themselves as much out of the wind as possible.

I think the attitude of going out to have an adventure in "full" conditions is to be applauded. Often on this site, we hear old gits like myself moaning about the younger generation who only want to pull on plastic or clip bolts.

In reply to james mann:
Well said. Who looks at the weather before going outside and thinks "Hmm, best not, because there's a slim to zero chance that something bad might happen then I'll have to explain why I risked the lives of MRT volunteers when I should clearly have told them to "f*ck off, we're fine", and then I'll have to explain myself to hundreds of people on social media who clearly only go outdoors once or twice a year in glorious sunshine, if at all."?

In reply to chrisdevon:


The BBC updated that page. It originally didn't mention an injury, it just said got into difficulty.

In reply to rockjedi12345:
I ws one of the team of 8 from the Count House who went out to assist the two climbers and can only confirm what James Mann and Skip have already posted above. I am also compiling a report on the incident which will be reviewed for accuracy by all 8 of us who were present and then submitted to the coastguard and the BMC.

We arrived at Bosigran Ridge about half an hour before the Coastguard Cliff Rescue Team (CCRT), three separate units in all, and by the time they had assembled on the grassy area adjacent to the Commando memorial plaque we had established the approximate location of the two climbers and had decided on a course of action. 2 of our team, later joined by a third crossed the ridge just below the "Armchair" pitch near the top, safely negotiated the steep easy downclimb to the usual descent path on the far side and continued down to the top of the normal third pitch. Another pair scrambled down to the notch below the plaque, also a popular crossing point of the ridge to maintain visual and voice contact with the first team. The others remained near the plaque to liaise with CCRT. I actually stood next to the Team Leader as he radioed Control to explain the situation and to receive authorisation to continue with the rescue. His instructions were NOT to attempt any form of technical climbing and a request for evacuation by helicopter was made. Neither Culdrose nor Chivenor SAR were able to respond and so our team continued with the rescue whilst CCRT set up their lamps and ropes.

Meanwhile we had established that one of the two climbers had damaged his ankle but was capable of moving with assistance. Both were very well equipped and were able to cross the ridge to a point where they could be safely reached by CCRT. At which time they were evacuated without further incident.

Some facts:

Neither of the the pair were in any way reckless. They were extremely well equipped, including a vital headtorch which enabled us to locate them quickly, and made all the correct decisions following the injury sustained by one of them.

Our team also had head torches, climbing equipment but, crucially were all experienced climbers with a good knowledge of the terrain. The fact that we continued to conduct search and rescue operations after the arrival of CCRT speaks for itself about our competence.

If we had not been available, the rescue of the two climbers would have been severely delayed in my opinion, because the CCRT did not have authorisation to attempt to reach them and evacuation by airlift was not available. They may well have spent an uncomfortable night awaiting rescue in deteriorating weather conditions. Because we were able to reach the pair quickly and safely we were able to assess their injuries and then get them to a better location for rescue.

As far as I'm aware none of the CCRT were rock climbers with any experience of the terrain. In fact at least one guy was wearing wellies! This is not to criticise these volunteers, they generally do a great job, but they have to operate under strict H&S protocols. As climbers all our rules are unwritten. We are free to make our own judgments. It is only natural to try to help each other when things go pear-shaped. Some of the remarks made earlier on this thread by people who were nowhere near the scene are completely out of order.

If this incident had taken place in any of the areas covered by our volunteer MR teams, the two climbers would have been safely and quickly evacuated with minimum fuss. Perhaps, given the popularity of the Cornish seacliffs, with tourists, fishermen and climbers alike, it may be time to consider setting up a volunteer but fully trained and experienced Cliff Rescue team made up of climbers and also to suggest that members of the CCRT should have the capability of undertaking technical climbing.

Finally, apart from us all being highly experienced climbers, we had a fully qualified off duty para medic as well as a recently retired GP, a fully qualified guide and climbing instructor, who regularly provides courses on self rescue, and at least two who had served on MRTs in the past in our party! We can and should look after our own whenever possible. IMHO we did exactly this. I am disappointed that no mention of our contribution to this successful rescue was made by the official spokesman for the Coastguard service, and the BBC and other media might consider checking their sources before sending out inaccurate news reports. Some hope!

In reply to Iain Peters:

I'd like to pay a little praise to the folks involved in the rescue. It's great to know that, if you get into trouble, people will come and help.

Good work guys.

In reply to Iain Peters:
As one of "the team of 8" present , I can confirm the facts within Iain's posting/report, and support his opinions completely. All ended well, but had the medical injuries been severe, the non-availability of airborne SAR could well have severely compromised the lives of casualties. Worrying.

In reply to Iain Peters:

Excellent summation, Iain: thank you. As somebody who spent a few years in Aggie Coastguard team (I suspect you'll know many of us by sight / name), I'd offer a couple of observations about what the teams can do (and what they can't):

We do quite a bit of casualty recovery from cliffs, and it's generally done quickly and efficiently - and above all, safely. But the set-ups are based around vertical recovery and commando ridge is, well, horizontal. This will require a different approach, which the teams are not equipped or trained to deal with. And as the MCA (the overreaching body) is technically part of the civil service, deviations from protocols aren't allowed. Officially.

Few team members are active climbers, although most will have had some exposure to the sport. As you've seen, the way that teams are trained to approach a casualty situation requires no actual climbing knowledge or ability and, indeed, any climbing at all is strictly forbidden: all upward and downward movements are controlled through manual winching. Wellies, though, are not allowed - we're issued with safety boots - so I suspect someone will be having a quiet word. If it was who I think it was, though, s/he probably came straight from milking cows - this is Cornwall, after all.

Under the circumstances, the decision-making algorithm would have left calling for a chopper as the only choice to make. Technically, Cornwall Rescue might have been able to help, given that they're a non-government group, but the team leader wouldn't have been allowed to task them for a hazardous rescue. But I have to say, in all the years I asked for a helicopter, I don't ever remember one not being available. A sign of the times, or just unfortunate timing?

So, really that left you guys. In these days, we find it hard to accept that a fully-functioning MRT isn't available, but Cornwall is fairly unique in terms of terrain (Cornwall Rescue is nickname the 'Slight Slope Group' ) and Commando Ridge is unique within that. Had the accident happened on Bosigran main face, the Coastguard would have been in like a shot as they'd have had above-the-casualty vertical access.

Good job you guys were there, but it also illustrates the point that we should all be aware of our self-rescue options: once the emergency services are on scene, your autonomy to make a decision as a casualty is somewhat reduced.

But all's well, etc. Good on you.

In reply to Iain Peters:

I'm a member of the Pembroke coastguard rescue team, and have a few comments on what you say.

'His instructions were NOT to attempt any form of technical climbing'

The coastguard never engage in any form of technical climbing. Their rescue techniques are based on lowering team members from metal stakes or other solid belays such as trees, and hauling them back up again. Obviously I don't know why they were instructed not to attempt a rescue, but I would suggest that maybe the problem was that it is not possible to hammer a substantial steel stake into Commando Ridge above the injured climber. Obviously this is a limitation in the service that the Coastguard provide.

'it may be time to consider setting up a volunteer but fully trained and experienced Cliff Rescue team made up of climbers and also to suggest that members of the CCRT should have the capability of undertaking technical climbing'

It's not going to happen. The team have to be recruited from people who live within a 15 minute drive or so of the area that they cover, and certainly in Pembroke there are very few climbers living that close. As for suggesting that they should have the capability of undertaking technical climbing, that's equally unrealistic - climbing is a potentially dangerous pastime that people engage in for their own satisfaction.

'at least one guy was wearing wellies'

We are issued with good quality leather boots that have a good grip on wet rock. The coastguard in charge should have sent him back for the boots he had been issued with.

Climbing incidents are a small percentage of the incidents that we respond to. We are involved in searches (our search skills are sufficient that we are occasionally called out by the local police to assist in inland searches), rescuing dogs that have fallen from cliffs, carrying injured people from beaches or coastal paths to ambulances or helicopters, assisting the lifeboat with boats in distress, dealing with military explosives that have been washed up on the shore, etc etc. The majority of the members of the team have full time jobs. It is unrealistic to expect too high a level of climbing expertise from them. I'm not denying that H&S can be over the top, but I'm sure you can see that the worst possible response to an incident is for one of the would-be rescuers to be injured himself.

In reply to coinneach:

Being that
1. they had a headtorch
2. left an expected time back with others
3. those others know the place very well indeed and included people with medical training

I'd say they did it by the book. And better than 99% of us.

I normally solo the ridge in shorts and without even telling the wife I'm going climbing.

In reply to John2:

Points taken, but how is it that MR teams conduct extremely complex SAR operations often requiring climbing skills very successfully?

The climbing in question was little more than a short steep scramble to gain terrain that was in fact less dangerous than the location where they were. They had all the equipment to deal with it safely.

Perhaps the the reason why climbing only constitutes a small proportion of the call outs is due to the fact that most climbers know what they're doing!

I do not question the dedication and commitment of the volunteers, I just believe that if the service can be improved in order to save lives that has to be a good thing. No-one would question the skills of the RNLI volunteers who provide an immensely professional service that goes way beyond H&S protocols. Is it not reasonable to suggest that given the nature of much of the British coastline and its popularity with visitors, training and knowledge of how to move and operate on steep rock and mixed ground might be an asset worth acquiring?

I actually think that having 20 or more people basically hanging around on potentially dangerous terrain increases the chances of an accident to a volunteer. Sure, they set up lights, massive belays and the like, but the actual main part of the search and rescue was achieved by an ad hoc group of climbers who happened to be available. We could have equally rescued a dog, or a walker who had strayed off route and fallen.

I hope as a result of this incident, given that there are a number of extremely competent climbers resident throughout Devon and Cornwall, all within your 15 minute drive, it may be possible to form a cliff rescue team/s that do have a capability to operate on steep terrain, or perhaps change your H&S protocols to allow a suitably trained and qualified volunteer to be able to undertake the relatively simple task we accomplished safely and efficiently. I reject your statement that "it ain't going to happen". Watch this space!

My two main points are the inaccurate quote by the CG coastguard official source who emphasised what a fantastic rescue effort they accomplished without a single reference to any of those who actually succeeded in getting the casualties to a point where conventional rescue techniques were possible, and the unavailability of helicopter SAR evacuation, which was not due to the existing weather conditions, but may be connected to the recent privatisation of this service.

In reply to Martin not maisie:
As I've posted here, I was one of the 8 on site and spent most of my time on the grassy plat by the plaque, in the presence of HMCG. From discussion , and from what radio chatter I overheard, they were taken aback by the very mucky access to that point ... certainly made it tough for them carrying gear in ... and were very thrown by the non-vertical recovery prospect. Even before they knew the nature/severity of the casualty injuries, the prospect of non-vertical recovery and difficult mucky extraction led them to feel airborne recovery was necessary. I got the impression they weren't very impressed by its non-availability! As it turns out, assistance and advice from the other climbers present, as well as what turned out to be relatively minor injury/disability of the casualty, helped towards a happy outcome. It wouldn't have taken much different (e.g. medical situation, weather conditions, chill factors, less well-equipped casualties, lack of local-knowledge climbers on site) to have led to a very unpleasant outcome. The "happy ending" does not in any way diminish the importance of learning from the incident, particularly around HMCG being appropriately supported by other services ... in this case, airborne support... on their request.

In reply to John2:


With respect, so is walking the dog or climbing Snowdon in high heels, rescuing these might well require technical climbing skills!

In reply to Patrick Moore and Iain Peters:

Welcome to the working life of the modern coastguard. Given your understandable consternation over the limitations of the service, I'd advise you to put yourself in the position of CG volunteers themselves. Imagine their frustrations - several of them would probably have been happy to jump in, if only they were allowed. I suspect if the rescue had been time-sensitive, with a deteriorating casualty, they would have done - and hang the consequences.

Iain, it may be that your role in the rescue was played down simply because if the higher-ups find out that members of the public were involved - with a degree of risk - in facilitating the rescue, then a downward sh*t shower will be on the way. The local team leader might have to deal with some questions. Not your fault, obviously, and the situation was almost certainly improved by your presence, but there may be an internal inquest.

The CG can't expand its remit without significant inputs of time and money, neither of which are available. And given that it's a government department, the only decisions which are taken quickly are those which save money. Added to this, the government have never been able to work out in practical terms whether coastguards are volunteers or civil servants, which means it's never been certain what duty of care is required, or how far liabilities go. So equipment is set in stone, as are protocols. Deviations mean no backup; major deviations mean expulsion, even if it went well. It used to be that things could be handled low in the food chain, but the service was overhauled about ten years ago and it's now impossible to hide. So not name checking you may have been an attempt to avoid too much scrutiny.

If you're interested in forming a climbing rescue organisation, count me in - but also talk to existing service providers. But it may be that the CG aren't allowed to task you anyway. This is different to, say, Snowdonia, where the emergency services recognise the MRT as THE service provider.
Once the government-sanctioned service provider becomes involved, it's difficult for them to invite involvement from private organisations. The obvious exception is the RNLI (and anybody of the opinion that the government should provide for lifeboat services, rather than leaving it to a private charity, should really talk to a lifeboat volunteer first).

Don't feel put out - the answer may be more complex than you think. I bet the actual CG team were *extremely* grateful for your input.

In reply to Martin not maisie:
I guess that the fact that the CG is a government organisation, which reports up through the Maritime & Coastguard Agency, whereas (my understanding is that) MRT's are voluntary organisations coordinated by the Police means that there are less "strict" controls on the actions of the individual members in particular situations.

However, it begs the question of what should the correct procedure be for rescuing climbers in situations in coastal situations?

There have been many threads on here that in the event of any kind of issue for a casualty involving climbing that you should *not* phone the ambulance service but should instead dial 999 and ask for the Police and let them coordinate appropriately. For example: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=598833

Was the issue here that the climbers called 999 and asked for the coastguard?

How would a rescue take place if you were cragging a multi-pitch route in a quarry somewhere in Cornwall and got injured/into serious difficulty (leader knocked out)?

In reply to zebidee:



Not many climbers are as competent as they should be in managing multi-pitch incidents. Granted if both parties are in a bad way it is a different issue all together but if the leader got knocked out, there are ways of getting to him/her, making them safe and starting the lowering process (assuming your quarry scenario ie with no tides etc to cause problems

In reply to zebidee:

I believe that the cornwall search and rescue group will deal with rescues inland. Cg have president on coastal areas. I believe the coast path may be the defining line. (Could be wrong of course).

The cornwall search team train for such incidents at places such as cheeswring devil's jump etc

In reply to rockjedi12345:


That's more or less how it pans out:

Up to high tide mark - lifeboat
High tide mark to tarmac - coastguard
Tarmac inwards - police/fire/ambulance

Cornwall rescue - inland and general SAR around the coastline, but not officially tasked to any vertical terrain on the coast.

In reply to Martin not maisie:

Good reply! Many moons back I was involved in the search for a number of young squaddies who died in a blizzard on Dartmoor. They passed by my house earlier in the evening, already in a bad way. I suggested they stayed at my place in view of the deteriorating weather and I'd phone their CO and explain. They refused on the grounds that they would face a charge! They died, and following that local walkers and climbers got together to form the Dartmoor Rescue Group. All I'm suggesting here is that there seem to be gaps in the way seacliff rescues are carried out and that it might be possible for experienced local climbers to contribute to ways and means for filling those gaps. This is not the first incident I've witnessed in the area.

Sometimes, positive criticism of worthwhile voluntary organisations combined with practical suggestions for improvements can produce a result. That's where I'm at and if ruffling a few governmental feathers is required so much the better. As Patrick pointed out the non availability of a chopper played a significant part in this particular incident.

In reply to Martin not maisie:

I suspect if the rescue had been time-sensitive, with a deteriorating casualty, they would have done - and hang the consequences.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7183017.stm

bit like this
A volunteer coastguard who was nominated for an award for rescuing a schoolgirl from a cliff has resigned after a row over health and safety. BBC 2008

In reply to Name Changed 34:

looks like they patched things up
http://paulwaugh.co.uk/2010/10/21/rescues-seakings-excercises/cliff-sign/

In reply to Iain Peters:

Iain,
You may be aware of this bunch:
https://www.facebook.com/CarbisBayCrew/
Although primarily an underground exploration group, they've recently been involved in searching for missing animals, and have also voluntarily removed debris that had been fly-tipped over a cliff.
It just shows the level of skills and knowledge that are out there in the local community, but at the present time, there doesn't seem to be a way to deliver this to the point of need, as in the present example.
Excellent work BTW!
N (RNLI crew, 22years)

In reply to cousin nick:
No I wasn't. Just shows how raising questions publicly can actually help to address issues. If nothing else this incident may lead to intelligent and informed discussion, even a resolution, to what all eight of us present on Saturday evening agreed was a significant gap in cliff rescue policy in West Cornwall. The two guys were OK, but we established that through direct contact with them. I do not know how the coastguards would have found out if we hadn't been there and surely the first principle of any accident has to be ascertaining the casualty's injuries and location? many years ago now, local climbers living in West Penwith were contacted by the police to advise and assist where necessary on incidents involving sea cliffs. People like ex Commando climbers such as "Mac" McDermott and the late Jim Smith, both active climbers and professional guides with massive experience locally and elsewhere attended many cliff rescues and were responsible for the speedy and safe evacuation of many who had fallen foul of gravity, climbing or otherwise. The system worked and maybe could work again in this age of H&S and fear of litigation.

In reply to Martin not maisie:

Not put out at all ... and I intend no discredit on nor criticism of the CG teams who attended ... merely to comment on a Significant Event in the hope of stimulating discussion leading to improvements in the provision of Cliff Rescue wherever in the country, to the benefit of the rescuers as well as the rescued. If we "say nothing" then the mandarins will engineer further cuts to service on the grounds that "no one is complaining so it must be ok", whereas incidents such as this one may indicate that funding and support need increasing. The privatisation of airborne SAR is in its infancy and surely while the new provision is still young this is the time to help it develop into a service we may have faith in.

In reply to Name Changed 34:



*Exactly* like that. I remember the fuss and bother, and there were others of which we were more aware that didn't make it into the press. Quite a few CGs have had to quietly pack up and leave over the years, for doing exactly the things which made them good candidates for rescue work in the first place.

In reply to Iain Peters:

MR teams tend to be made up of experienced climbers who live in the relevant area. There are not necessarily a large number of experienced climbers living in coastal areas.

Others have pointed out that the Coastguard is currently organised in a manner which does not encourage individual initiative - until 10 years ago or so, they operated with crown immunity which basically meant that as long as they did not act with malicious intent they would neither be criticised nor prosecuted.

In this instance, the most important question is why was neither of the local helicopters available? The helicopter rescue service in Cornwall is currently operated by the armed forces, although that is due to change next year.

In reply to John2:

Actually there are a significant number of experienced climbers living in Cornwall and Devon coastal areas, and in recent years a number of qualified guides and instructors are based all along the West and North coastline. They regularly run courses in rescue and first aid. One of them was in our ad hoc team.

I agree about the helicopter cover being a serious issue, and was under the impression that the service in Cornwall has been transferred but may well be wrong. What I do know for certain as I heard the radio exchanges, later confirmed by the Team Leader, that the Culdrose helicopter was engaged at another incident and that the one based at Chivenor could not attend due to a possible mechanical issue. The TL was very clear that an evacuation by air was not possible. Perhaps in this transitional period there may well be gaps in helicopter cover and that these will soon be closed. I hope so, but our concerns with regard to the teams' inability to undertake a relatively straightforward assessment and evacuation through no fault of their own remains. We carried out the initial and most important part of the rescue operation. That is a fact and it has not been acknowledged in public by the official spokesman for the Coastguard Service in interviews with the media. By putting our side of the story out we do not wish to attack the coastguards but hopefully to initiate a dialogue that will lead to more co-operation between the climbing community and the emergency services. I have documentary evidence of other unrelated incidents here in the SW where there have been significant delays in rescues involving climbers and lack of communication and co-ordination and that should be addressed.

In reply to rockjedi12345:

Dear All,

It may well be that my original reply to this post was somewhat harsh in that I read the link and stupidly believed that the BBC were correct.

I also may well have been 2/3 of the way through a rather tasty Shiraz.

Apologies to those involved and a speedy recovery to the injured party.

Regards

Grumpy Old Bastard

In reply to Iain Peters:

If you believe that it is possible to organise experienced climbers in your area into an effective rescue team, then perhaps you should initiate a process to bring this into effect.

I am not claiming that the organisation of the coastguard is perfect - patently it isn't. Again, if you believe that there is a lack of communication and co-ordination that should be addressed, then that is a matter that can be pursued.

I can assure you that it is quite impossible from the lowest level of the coastguard to engage in an effective discussion with the higher levels - there is both an insistence on sticking to the established procedures and a complete lack of interest in listening to the climber's point of view.

In reply to John2:

^ This.

In reply to John2:

Exactly what I'm hoping to achieve. What struck me that night was the lack of understanding of the actual situation shown by the "higher levels" presumably sitting in a warm office far from the action. I do not blame the CG Team Leader in any way: he was patently shackled by regulation and that is why I aim to continue this campaign. If there are local SW/coastal climbers interested in contributing to this discussion and possibly getting involved please feel free to contact me. I have already received a couple of emails via UKC from the uncle, himself a climber, of one of the climber's involved and I'm sure he won't mind me putting it out here. I've deleted their names.

Hi Iain,
" I see from the forum that you were involved in the rescue on Commando Ridge on Saturday ? Thank you very much for your efforts here. I climb a bit myself (not enough these days) and I know
that a reassuring voice at times like this is very welcome indeed. Both are OK now, back in London."

and this:

"I could tell from the UKClimbing thread that it was just the usual armchair climbers spouting off. I certainly give more credence to folk like you, who were actually there.
Good luck raising awareness of the CCRT issues, it's always annoying when Health & Safety actually prevents a good outcome. Hopefully, this may give you some more ammunition."

I must point out that there were 8 of us involved in the rescue not just the 3 who have posted here.

In reply to Iain Peters:

Iain

Could you PM me? My outgoing messaging facility never seems to work.

Martin

In reply to coinneach:

I have sent you a pm.

Cheers

James

In reply to Iain Peters:

No one is downplaying the part that you played in the rescue, but it was the response of someone who happened to be in the area and who responded as I hope any climber would.

A number of people who are actively involved in the service, rather than being armchair climbers, have tried to explain the constraints under which low-level coastguards operate. We are available 24 hours a day to respond to incidents of any nature - just a couple of weeks ago I was paged at 2 in the morning to respond to a fishing boat which had drifted onto rocks at Angle.

As for the information on the coastguard helicopter service it is readily available - http://bristowgroup.com/uk-sar/base-locations/ .

Images of the rescue:

http://mikebphotojournalist.tumblr.com

In reply to A Random Climber:

Great shots Mike. Thanks for posting. I did suggest to the media that using a stock photo of a guy climbing on a completely different route on a different crag in broad daylight and fine weather didn't actually do very much for the authenticity of their report, but hey, didn't it demonstrate in great detail how rescues after dark on steep grass and boulders are carried out by rescue teams...not!!

In reply to Iain Peters:

Thanks Ian.
Yes, it's arguably misleading journalism. They shouldn't use an image - unless it's one that's in context.

In reply to rockjedi12345:

Slightly off but this thread contains many of the reasons that MR volunteers (and RNLI I assume) are so against govt control and funding.

H&S? no thanks, though we are trained to do vertical rescue in a control lower and raise style mostly as it sounds like the Coastguard are. That said we adapt where the risk to rescuer and and casualty can be controlled. Better asking a high crag incident team for more details on ops though, like Oggie or Edale

In reply to Martin not maisie:

I'm puzzled by your comment that "once the emergency services are on scene, your autonomy to make a decision as a casualty is somewhat reduced." If I found myself in a situation where the emergency services appeared to lack the capability to carry out a rescue I think I'd prefer to put my faith in fellow climbers. Do the emergency services have authority to insist that only they can carry out a rescue?

In reply to Howard J:

It's rather less about authority and more about duty of care. But the tone of your question implies what I think most of us (as climbers) intuitively feel: that we have absolute autonomy within a defined environment and that the freedoms we've come to expect are somehow rights.

I'm sure that the police are allowed to stop you from doing certain things if they feel you present a danger to yourself - or others. Not sure about other emergency services, although if a fireman/woman stopped you from running into a burning building, I doubt they'd be in much trouble. But by and large, rescue teams don't have any legal authority to prevent you from acting as you wish.

The problem is that once you've called out the emergency services, you have somebody on the scene who is recognised as being the official service provider, who is (hopefully) suitably qualified and experienced, and who - importantly - is covered for public liability. The team leader will owe a duty of care to everyone at the scene - his/her team, the casualty *and* any third parties who may be present. It then makes it very difficult for them to accept help from private individuals, which means that they're unlikely to task those people in. Certainly, the CG has a lot of arse covering built into its protocols. And 'help' is often of dubious usefulness (clearly not here, though).

So, if you're a stranded climber then you might like to make a choice of your preferred rescue provider; in practice, if you've gone via the emergency services route, then you have to take what you can get. In this situation, it sounds like there was an outbreak of common sense which helped all round - but having been in the service, I'm concerned that the CG team leader might have to face some questions as a result.

Hope this makes sense.

In reply to Martin not maisie:

I think if I had to choose between a slow rescue by the relevant authorities doing everything 'by the book' or a 'rescue' by a random climber who might have only ever seen a hoist in a video, I would probably choose the former... I might think differently at the time though!

If I was the official in charge of a rescue situation I can't see how I could accept the help of an unqualified member of the public of unknown skills. If they were MIA or similar it might be different. Personally I am very aware that mistakes happen as soon as you move outside your normal range of operations.

On the other hand cavers seem to do all their rescues themselves; my understanding is that each area has a very lengthy list of local cavers who can be contacted to see if they can assist with the rescue...

In reply to andrewmcleod:

What happened here was more of an impasse than a slow process - from what Iain says, the CG team were effectively blocked from performing the rescue by their protocols, by the higher-ups and by the lack of a chopper.

Climbers save day, basically.

There's nothing wrong with climbers banding together to form rescues - here, it sorted the problem - but it's when official wheels have been set in motion that their participation can become problematic.

In reply to Martin not maisie:

One important point here, the climbers were on the scene and had reached the casualty (and so effectively started the evacuation) before the CG arrived. (They'd been alerted by the casualty's non-climbing friend knocking on the Count House door asking if we'd seen them, while independently, the casualty had been able to phone the emergency services.) The question is, would the climbers' help have been accepted if the CG had got there first? (I suspect not.)

In reply to Iain Peters:

Great discussion, and I'm not a local so don't want to get too involved with the detail but I do have a quick point about helo availability. I'm involved with a small Scottish MR team and know from experience that choppers are a finite resource. Jobs are prioritised, and mechanicals happen. I can think of a few occasions when they have not been available for similar reasons so this doesn't surprise me- in these cases this has been MoD SAR provision not Bristows.

In reply to Snoweider:

Chivenor is quite a distance from Bosi. When I was last there 22 squadron were flying Wessex on SAR ops. What's being flown out of there now? Whatever it is must be expected to cover quite a large area.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

That does change things, perhaps. But as the Coastguard team were effectively banned from accessing the casualties, they would always have needed outside help. Iain and co. being there saved a lot of to-ing and fro-ing and potential red faces.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

The CG are actually trained to reject outside offers of help. I have been to a training course on which we were told a story of a passer by who claimed to be a doctor and offered to help, but turned out not to be a real doctor. Even if this story is true, it must be far more common for genuine medically qualified staff to be in the vicinity of incidents. I have been present at an incident where the CG team leader rejected assistance from an ex-chief instructor at Plas y Brenin - I didn't witness what happened, but there was a bit of friction between them.

But when all's said and done, if the CG are not allowed to venture onto Commando Ridge there's not a lot that they can do to interfere with climbers who do go onto it.

In reply to Martin not maisie:



Yourself? I don't believe that is correct unless the person appears to be suffering from a mental disorder. Mental Health Act S136.

In reply to John2:

Surely that is the problem? A bespoke rescue service that is not allowed to rescue. That, in our view, is the issue that needs addressing. and hopefully by publicising this incident the M&CA will acknowledge that there is a problem and maybe work with other similar organisations and the legislators to find a solution.

Our other concern is this news release: http://www.cornishman.co.uk/Coastguard-teams-rescue-climber-Bosigran-Cliff/...
The facts are a little different.

1. One of our guys had to show the CRTs where the access path to Bosigran Ridge was and then lead them across.
2. All of us who were there were a little surprised to learn that this incident, which as far as the CRTs were concerned involved assisting a casualty to make his own way across 50 metres of boulders and grass before placing him in a stretcher for a carry of approximately 250 metres, was 'one of the toughest' rescue missions they had ever accomplished.

I don't blame M&CA for wanting to get some positive publicity about the work they do, but inaccurate press statements don't help their cause.

In reply to cuppatea:

No SAR helicopters, Chivenor has shut down and ops moved with the Bristow contract to St Athan near Cardiff where they're operating with Agusta 139s at present. They are way faster than the old Sea Kings though!

In reply to Iain Peters:


Perhaps a letter with your concerns or something in the comments section?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

In hand!

In reply to Iain Peters:

Do let us know if it is published. If the facts are as stated in this thread, the Coastguard's hyperbole leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Claiming credit for something you didn't do just seems terribly un-British, what?

In reply to climbwhenready:



It also suggests a degree of capability which doesn't appear to be borne out by the comments from those involved in the rescue. It seems odd that the CG want to claim credit for this, in the knowledge that they couldn't repeat it without help from others.

In reply to Iain Peters:

There are self-important tossers in every line of work. Press reports in Pembroke are a little more factual http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/11430633.Rescue_helicopter_diverted_... .

In reply to Martin not maisie:

I think the police have fairly wide-ranging powers, and obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty is an offence. I believe it is also an offence to obstruct a firefighter.

I'm sure in most circumstances we would be very grateful to see the emergency services arrive and would be very glad to be in their hands. However in this situation the 'official service provider' seems to have been incapable of carrying out the rescue effectively (although due to protocols rather than lack of training, experience or willing) in which case a casualty might well prefer to be rescued by someone else.

This case is possible exceptional, although there have been other reported cases of emergency services standing by while people died, because of elf & safety. There seems to be an environment where senior management are reluctant to allow rescuers on the ground to use their own judgement because of the possibility of their being prosecuted if something goes wrong. If you go by the book you can't be faulted for putting rescuers at risk, even if it results in the casualty dying.

In reply to Howard J:

Yes, I agree with pretty much all of that.

What's interesting is how the thread has progressed from a simple link to a story which seemed to imply (unfairly) that a couple of f*ckwit climbers went out in the wrong weather and had to be rescued from themselves by the Coastguard, to a fairly complex discussion involving witnesses, participants and experienced CG operatives. Who said UKC wasn't thriving (!) - you wouldn't have got this ten years ago.

What I'd worry about for the future is helicopter availability - the UK coastline is such that med-evacs by chopper are infinitely preferable to stretcher-drags back to the tarmac (and 193 out of Culdrose would have whipped these two off without a problem), and whilst Bosigran Ridge is a unique lump of rock, the need for the helicopter isn't uncommon. I've personally been on scene on several rescues where having a casualty taken off by air was literally lifesaving.

In reply to Martin not maisie:

I don't know what the Cornwall helicopter coverage will be in the future, but in Pembroke we have already experienced rescues from the helicopters based at Caernarfon and St Athan. When Newquay goes live we will be in their range as well, so I reckon that's a pretty good situation. The larger of the Bristow helicopters is a bigger beast than the Sea King.

In reply to rockjedi12345:

From an unpromising start this thread, as somebody has suggested, has developed into a very informed, reasonable and thought-provoking discussion. Some excellent posts, and a mainly respectful set of exchanges. Not sure that 'enjoy' is the correct term about a post which initially involves an accident...but you know what i mean.

In reply to rockjedi12345:

Couldn't agree with James and skip more. We can't learn everything on a course, sometimes you just get out and do it. These guys didn't plan to be rescued, things just went wrong for them. I've climbed the ridge in the past because conditions have been crappy and wet and I couldn't do anything else. I climb for adventure as I'm sure do many others. Rescue teams don't resent those with an adventurous spirit. There is a world of difference in flip flops on the Ben in December and what happened to these lads.

In reply to Martin not maisie:

While I agree this is a very good example of what positives can come out of threads on UKC from some initially ignorant posts I see nothing that couldnt have happened 10 years ago other than the likelihood of the ignorance seed that generated the thread being less. You get in the top ten posters this week with 21 posts and thats despite the number of users increasing, the number of forums in the count being wider and site related issues on the database, news and features never being better. The climbing forums are sadly pretty becalmed.

There have been some notable incidents in recent years which indicate that if you become a casualty at an unusual location, you are far better off being rescued by volunteer enthusiasts(nay, experts) than by employed procedure monkeys who are bound by ignorant and remote management.

I would exclude helicopter rescues from this generalisation, but, as witnessed above, these are not always available, or even the best option in certain circumstances.

Volunteer teams are not (as) restricted by arbitrary H&S rules and insurance conditions. They are patronised by those with extensive local knowledge. Volunteer members are able to use their well practiced skills to improvise expert solutions to unique problems.

Good luck with any efforts you make to supplement the Coast Guard service with these qualities Iain. I bet rescues like that from Commando Ridge are not exceptionally rare and indeed are likely to occur again when winds are too high for a helicopter.

In reply to Offwidth:

Well, I beg to differ - not primarily because I think the quality of posters has improved, but because the greater numbers mean that there are more likely to be 'experts' within the vicinity of threads like this.

As to the state of the forum, you participate in it, so *you* should be looking for solutions too. Increased posts per user isn't necessarily going to be better, though.

In reply to MooseMouse:


Have you be reading this:

http://www.coldmountainkit.com/knowledge/articles/401-pembroke-being-rescue...

In reply to David Coley:

Excellent post; had me quite riveted. Pleased that the outcome was good on all sides

In reply to rockjedi12345:

For a true version of this incident, not the Sylvester Stallone one, scroll down past the b***h*t to the comment!

http://www.cornishman.co.uk/Coastguard-teams-rescue-climber-Bosigran-Cliff/...

In reply to coinneach:

I was on the BMC International Meet at the Count House a couple of years back, when the forecast for the day promised 80+mph winds, yet teams still went on Dream/Liberator, Bow Wall, etc, including someone who works on this very site! Epics predictably followed, so do we really believe a bad weather forecast?

In reply to Sean Kelly:

Climbing easy routes in horrible conditions is one of life's great pleasures. Not something to do every day, but well worth indulging in from time to time.

I think people who only go out when it is nice are missing out myself.

In reply to Sean Kelly:

...and he never stops letting me know what he thinks about my weather forecasting skills Sean! The point is the two lads involved did all the right things, in fact full marks to them for not letting a bit of wind and rain put them off a classic adventure. Sh*t happens to the best of us; what is disappointing is that a fully equipped, dedicated CRT was prevented by unnecessary regulation from giving them the simple assistance (as it turned out) that they should have had by correctly calling 999 when the situation required. The fact that the whole episode was reported by the media, based on inaccurate information provided by an official coastguard source doesn't inspire one with much confidence. The anonymous comment above which is accurate says it all.

In reply to davidbeynon:
I think that concept (climbing in rubbish conditions) is a brilliant one and I agree , folk miss out on the experience. But it seems like it's gone right out of fashion. Is it an old mans preoccupation?

In reply to Greenbanks:

I'm not sure about that. Two of the most enthusiastic bad weather climbers I know are both younger than me. Maybe it just takes most people a few years to find a suitable climbing partner.

In my case I think coming into climbing from the direction of hill walking and scrambling probably helped. I was used to being cold and wet.

In reply to Iain Peters:
Yes, you are right to be concerned that a rescue can only done from directly above. Unfortunately experience tells us that this is not always the case. In fact it was quite worrying to think that any rescue can be delayed because of stubborn reference to H&S. Should this be a discussion item for rhe next SW BMC area meeting Iain?

In reply to Greenbanks:


We went to Idwal Slabs in the pouring rain a couple of years ago but when we arrived all the easy routes had teams of students on them

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-34961799

This is perhaps more how it usually goes. Hope the guy's OK.