I am curious, I didn't see the time of day of the accident? Was it fatigue, rushing, or was the anchor rig hidden by the way they drapped the rope slack?

(NOT PART OF THE ACCIDENT-->)?Using the wrong device for the same lowering situation. A regular ATC, instead of an ATC guide/reverso/etc in this situation had you lost your stance and fell over the edge, rendering the lockoff unlikely. So even if there was only 10 feet of slack, you may have lost control of the belay.

etc.

There doesn't seem to be a lot that can be learned from the specifics of this accident, other than the importance of being constantly attentive to your and your partners' safety systems.

I also disagree with this. In addition to being attentive, I think this shows that climbers should develop the habbit of "pull testing". For instance, before rapping or lowering someone off your waist, yank on the rope (or sling) that you think is attached to the anchor and see if is. In particular, it seems a little odd that the climber didn't check this because even if he had been clipped in "short" he had no idea how short. It shouldn't have been fatal, but it could have been unpleasant even if there was 3 or 4 more feet of slack than he realized. Or maybe he wasn't really expecting to weight his "anchor" rope, but instead unexpectantly got pulled forward.

Another "pull test". I would like to suggest that climbers get in the habbit of yarding on the lead rope after putting it in their grigri (or other auto-locking). This would reduce the chance of belaying someone with the rope fed the wrong way. And it also gives you a heads up on how easily the rope will catch.

Good habbits (pull test before relying on it), and learning from other's unfortunate mistakes, can help prevent future accidents.

Most obvious, the belayer failed to tie into the anchor before trying to lower (directly off his waist - a basically unheard of prcedure) a person who outweighted him by 60 plus pounds.
JL

Another factor which possibly saved the belayers life (gathered from what the belayer told me) is that when said belayer got to the top, the leader let it be known that he was not especially pleased with the anchor. Using a piece of gear cleaned from the pitch just climbed, the belayer added a third piece to the two piece anchor, and equalized the whole set up as well. Note also that this equalized, three piece anchor was set in a horzontal crack.


JL

If you have the possibility of losing control, I would say it is. It is not about being cool, it is about being safe, and switching out a regular ATC, to a cinch, grigri, etc. is not a hassle.

Out of curiosity...

What are the differences between a "regular, non-autolocking tube style device" and a "regular ATC"?

Mebbe I'm missing something. It happens.

I think you're reading "switching out a regular ATC to a ..." as "switching to a regular ATC or ..."

If you have the possibility of losing control, I would say it is. It is not about being cool, it is about being safe, and switching out a regular ATC, to a cinch, grigri, etc. is not a hassle.

I'm afraid that the only thing we may take away from all this - and it is significant - is: never rush.

JL

*blush*

Yeah, I did read it that way. My bad. Good catch.

Most obvious, the belayer failed to tie into the anchor before trying to lower (directly off his waist - a basically unheard of prcedure) a person who outweighted him by 60 plus pounds.

JL

I'm trying to be nice and I'm sure your efforts are well intended but you do not have the proper base of knowledge or experience to be giving advice in such a public arena. Please stop.

The fact that you just changed your "recommended" device for lowering a climber from a reverso style device to a GriGri style mechanical assist device, after (just this afternoon) needing to have it explained to you why the reverso (in autolocking mode) is very much the wrong selection if your setting out just to lower a climber, especially off the harness, highlights this. You also neglected to observe the fact that if someone is using a reverso style device in autolocking mode, they would in all likelyhood be belaying off the anchor, removing any real chance of them being pulled off the ledge.


Edited to add: I'm not going to edit my post but I do appologise for my tone, I realize it's not helpful. If you would like to discuss this further, I will be happy to start a thread in the "technique and training" forum". I do not feel that this is the proper place for it though.

You have absolutely nothing to apologize for, in fact I thought it was a very approrpiate post. You beat me to it. I wouldn't have been nearly as controled in my response as you were.

Very appropriate, very well said.

My hat is off to you sir.

I wonder why the leader (WS) didn't secure the lead rope to the anchor and rap off, instead of having the much lighter (125 lb.) belayer try and lower him to the ground directly off his waist - a pretty much unheard of descent tactic (this basically only happens when someone seconding a pitch cannot follow and the leader must lower him to the deck or the belay below).

I wonder why the leader (WS) didn't secure the lead rope to the anchor and rap off, instead of having the much lighter (125 lb.) belayer try and lower him to the ground directly off his waist...

Another factor which possibly saved the belayers life (gathered from what the belayer told me) is that when said belayer got to the top, the leader let it be known that he was not especially pleased with the anchor.

If I understand it correctly, the second one up trailed a rope (that was going to be used to belay the third climber who was still on the ground), this rope was pulled up (until it was tight with the climber on the ground) and clipped off to the anchor (leaving 65' of slack between the anchor and the second climber).

I was puzzled why the leader didn't rap this line, since it was already set up as a fixed line. But maybe the leader didn't trust rapping directly off the anchor (even after it was beefed up by the second), and hence wanted to be directly lowered by the second. Still seems a bit strange though.

Based on the original report, I got the impression that Kwok assumed Stark had anchored him to the belay and Stark assumed Kwok had anchored himself in. Given what you just said, it is very strange that Kwok rebuilt the entire anchor and didn't realize he was not adequately attached to the power point. Perhaps he did realize it and simply forgot to attach himself after completing his rebuild of the anchor.

It happens all to easily and I've done something very similar myself. Luckily I walked away with just a broken arm and a severely bruised ego. Unfortunately Woody was not so lucky.

I'm afraid that the only thing we may take away from all this - and it is significant - is: never rush.

Perhaps someone can clarify how the timing of step x) anchoring the second rope and step y) reconfiguring the anchor fit into the steps/timeline of the OP of this thread. It is not clear to me that Kwok ever thought he was not anchored. The sequence could have been (speculation): Kwok arrives up top, Stark ties in the second rope to the anchor, Kwok thinks he is properly anchored, Kwok reconfigures the anchor without affecting the power point and the tied-in rope, etc..

With only ~65 feet available, the second rope was likely too short for the cliff (~100 feet).

Bill

As for chosing to lower off instead of rap: rapping a fixed lead rope probably means I have to wait for the belay of the third to finish before I get the lead rope.

Used a Gri Gri for a rappel last weekend, and, threaded it backwards. Loaded up, rope slipped through, caught it no problem. Had I launched...yikes.

"6. Kwok fell 65' (approx.) and was held by the second rope at this point (the haul loop on the back of his harness was strong enough). [Edit:] During the 65' fall, Kwok did not lose control of the lowering device. Stark fell 100' total to the ground, receiving a fatal head injury.


Jay

Bill, the second rope was 165' long. 65' of slack was pulled up, which left 100' of rope down to the 3rd climber, who was tied in.

The second had trailed a rope that was already fixed to the anchor. So the leader could have rapped without waiting for the third to come up. And the third has to wait either for the leader to rap or the second to lower, so there is little time difference there.

I was answering the question "I was puzzled why the leader didn't rap this line" where "this line" was the second line ... answer being that there wasn't enough slack in the second line for the first to rap. I could have been clearer. Thanks Clint.

Bill, he could have rappelled single strand on the 100' part of the second rope, but the third climber (on the ground) would have probably needed to untie.

Very true. Edit: thanks for helping me see that.

Still, I don't know that this would be faster than being lowered on the rope to which he was already tied by involving a person (Kwok) who was easier to talk to.

Am open to other reasons not presented for why Stark chose to lower instead of rap.

Bill

I can't believe the haul loop held in a 65 foot fall. Kwok is lucky to be alive.

I can't believe the haul loop held in a 65 foot fall. Kwok is lucky to be alive.

Thanks for the diagram. If this is, in fact, how things happened ... man, what a collosal and tragic mistake.

A reminder to self: when climbing with 3, triple to check my systems.

Lowering someone directly from your harness while standing(or sitting) places a lot of pressure on you and when an anchor is available I don't know why I would do that.

Lowering someone directly from your harness while standing(or sitting) places a lot of pressure on you and when an anchor is available I don't know why I would do that. Maybe someone could suggest a reason.

notapplicable, I'm not sure if you mean you've caught leader falls where the leader remained above you and the force on you was upward, or if you are talking about multipitch where the leader fell and went past you and the force was downward.

notapplicable, I'm not sure if you mean you've caught leader falls where the leader remained above you and the force on you was upward, or if you are talking about multipitch where the leader fell and went past you and the force was downward. There is of course a long history of body/device belaying from stances from the beginnings of climbing to current times. I'm not refuting that it can be a useful alternative when no others exist, I'm just saying that, given an anchor that was apparently just rebuilt, I would not choose to belay directly from my body without being weighted on the anchor, nevertheless it seems like that was done intentionally. Is this, to your knowledge, a fairly common practice?

I belay a 2nd directly from my harness on occasion as well. When I do so I am also tied directly to the anchor, whether it's questionable or not. Leaving slack between the belayer and the anchor because you think the anchor is poor doesn't make sense to me. It's sort of an out of sight out of mind solution but in reality only compounds the problem. If you are in a good stance (preferrably sitting)and attached to a bad anchor, the anchor will at least assist in resisting the seconds fall. In the same scenario if there is slack between you and the anchor and the second falls, you may be able to absorb it safely but if not and you are pulled off then you are shock loading a weak anchor with two people.

I'd also agree that even when belaying from above, being tied into the anchor is a good idea.

A (perhaps unnecessary) scheme of what I understand it happened, based on the reports in here and supertopo. I hope I'm not too much out of line.
It's unclear, and maybe not very relevant, whether Stark (in red) belayed Kwok (in green) directly from his harness or from the anchors. I left it as a question mark.
The question is how come they went from situation B to C without noticing the potential problem. It has been already mentioned in this and ST threads that probably they both thought that Kwok was attached to the anchors. It is also unclear to me if Kwok was still tied in to the rope depicted in red, which might have reinforced his believe that he was, in fact, attached to the anchor.
Probably, being both experienced climbers, the blind confidence in each other might have played a fatal role in this accident. I tend to be less careful of the set-ups and procedures of my most experienced climbing partners, trusting that they are doing it all right. May this unfortunate accident serve as a wake up call for many experienced climbers.

[image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=3468;[/image]

Larger version of the picture

Edited to add the picture. I don't know why it shows up so big in the thread. If necessary to maintain the layout, I can upload a smaller size version... Done

All in all this is a totally bizarre accident, including the surreal way that the facts were kept private and only partially disclosed, how the disclosure of an "accident report" was mixed with emotional confessionals from friends and next of kin, blaming and taking sides on what should and should not be said, and when it should be said, and lastly, the confusing medly of oversights that led to the accident. JL

In this thread there are many references to the anchor possibly being unsound. I don't recall that being mentioned in any of the supertopo threads. Did I miss something?

What John said...

One other big lesson here regards partnerships. Woody was known to get impatient and testy at times. For some, this can be unnerving and intimidating. Woody was apparently hot and tired and wanted down NOW. This may well have affected Al's judgement.

How you and your partner interact with one another is a very important factor in safety.

Don't let others pressure you into bad decisions.

Al's got nine lives. Seven remaining, by my count.

Jay

That is a very good point - it can/does become a significant distraction. If this were a confessional then I'd have more to say.

Bill

... I just find it hard to believe that he could of made this mistake, given that he rebuilt the anchor and given that it's really hard to disregard 65 feet of slack sitting in front of you...

I know that no one wants this to turn into a blame session or personal attacks. But if this accident was arguably part of a pattern of behavior, that would be important for understanding why it occurred and how we can try to avoid repeats.

Jay, are you suggesting that Al was lucky in two ways here, or that something like this has happened before?

I am assuming it was a different color/style of rope than the other rope up there with him.

"5. Kwok began lowering Stark. [Edit:] After Kwok had lowered Stark about 35', Kwok probably shifted his weight forward, expecting to be held by the second rope. Due to the slack in the second rope, Kwok kept moving forward and fell along with Stark.

Something I don't think anyone has remarked on is the fact that (per the above quote) Kwok had lowered Stark to a point where the distance between the two of them plus the 65' of slack in the rope would be exactly enough (100') for Stark to reach the ground when Kwok fell (or was pulled off). The implication is that if Kwok had only lowered him maybe 25' or less, Stark might still be alive. It seems more likely to me that when Kwok fell, he lost control of the belay and the rope ran through until Stark hit the ground.

A sad and sobering incident.

JL

I could have missed it in the ST.com threads but am pretty sure it was not mentioned there; I've only seen it here: post #22 of this thread.

Stark was untied to relieve pressue on Kwok. This implies that the belay was somehow locked off (or implies a rope tangle). What supports your thoughts that belay control was lost?

It just seems a more plausible scenario to me than the sheer coincidence of having lowered the person the exact number of feet (no more, no less) that would produce a groundfall. That's all.

You and all other posters to this site should read, with some care, the links that Jay so helpfully posted.

Well, there are/were several threads on ST. I don't immediately know where I read it, but I remember a comment to the effect:

"Woody (leader) mentioned that he wasn't thrilled with the anchor, having only one good cam. Al (second) took a couple of cams that he had cleaned from the climb and added them to the anchor and equalized it"

I don't think I imagined this out of the blue, but if I'm not recalling this correctly, my apologies.

I strongly disagree with John Long's comments that the family, friends and first responders acted inappropriately by not immediately releasing a public report-- independent of and prior to any done by the NPS or other institutions.

It just seems a more plausible scenario to me than the sheer coincidence of having lowered the person the exact number of feet (no more, no less) that would produce a groundfall. That's all.

JL

Wendell was the third climber. He had to rescue Al, who had suffered severe injuries. The clock was ticking. I very much doubt that he was in a position to measure, exactly, all of the distances involved.

This fixation on rope distances really does miss the forest for the trees.

I don't care about the specific rope distances. The question is about what actually occurred. The synopsis notes both that
- Stark fell to the ground from some point
- was still held on belay and exerting pressure on Kwok
- but not too much pressure that another person was able to untie Stark

All working out "perfectly" seems incredible, and may indicate an error in the synopsis, regardless of specific rope/fall lengths.

This fixation on rope distances really does miss the forest for the trees.

I wonder why the leader (WS) didn't secure the lead rope to the anchor and rap off, instead of having the much lighter (125 lb.) belayer try and lower him to the ground directly off his waist - a pretty much unheard of descent tactic (this basically only happens when someone seconding a pitch cannot follow and the leader must lower him to the deck or the belay below).
JL