|
reno
Apr 7, 2009, 1:51 AM
Post #26 of 129
(14496 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
asellers98 wrote: notapplicable wrote: A regular (non-autolocking) tube style device is not the "wrong device" for lowering a climber. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
d0nk3yk0n9
Apr 7, 2009, 2:02 AM
Post #27 of 129
(14489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2009
Posts: 182
|
reno wrote: asellers98 wrote: notapplicable wrote: A regular (non-autolocking) tube style device is not the "wrong device" for lowering a climber. 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 ..."
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Apr 7, 2009, 2:14 AM
Post #28 of 129
(14472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
d0nk3yk0n9 wrote: reno wrote: asellers98 wrote: notapplicable wrote: A regular (non-autolocking) tube style device is not the "wrong device" for lowering a climber. 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 ..."
*blush*
Yeah, I did read it that way. My bad. Good catch.
Still don't think using an ATC to lower a climber is necessarily bad, but....
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Apr 7, 2009, 2:16 AM
Post #29 of 129
(14469 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
asellers98 wrote: notapplicable wrote: asellers98 wrote: (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. A regular (non-autolocking) tube style device is not the "wrong device" for lowering a climber. 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 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.
(This post was edited by notapplicable on Apr 7, 2009, 2:31 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Apr 7, 2009, 2:21 AM
Post #30 of 129
(14460 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
vivalargo wrote: I'm afraid that the only thing we may take away from all this - and it is significant - is: never rush. JL
Yeah, it seems that people got comfortable and started skipping steps. Not something any of us can afford to do but probably something that happens way more often than any of us would like to admit.
|
|
|
|
|
d0nk3yk0n9
Apr 7, 2009, 2:43 AM
Post #31 of 129
(14424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2009
Posts: 182
|
In reply to: *blush* Yeah, I did read it that way. My bad. Good catch.
Don't feel too bad. The only reason I was able to pick up on it so quickly was because I initially made the same mistake myself.
(This post was edited by d0nk3yk0n9 on Apr 7, 2009, 2:43 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 7, 2009, 3:24 AM
Post #32 of 129
(14392 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
vivalargo wrote: 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
John, since you talked to the belayer (Al), did Al untie after topping out? If so, do you know why: was he planning to walk off, or rap off after Woody belayed the third climber? I'm wondering if there was some change of plans after Al finished the climb that might have added some confusion to the situation. For instance, perhaps the plan was for Woody to belay the third climber, and for the party to walk off together, and then Woody called an "audible" and asked Al to lower him.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Apr 7, 2009, 3:32 AM
Post #33 of 129
(14380 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
John, What route were they on? And thanks for your updates on the incident.
Rob.calm
P.S. And, Jay, thanks for initiating this thread to avoid the confusion inherent in the older thread.
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Apr 7, 2009, 4:23 AM
Post #34 of 129
(14339 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
notapplicable wrote: asellers98 wrote: notapplicable wrote: asellers98 wrote: (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. A regular (non-autolocking) tube style device is not the "wrong device" for lowering a climber. 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 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.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Apr 7, 2009, 4:58 AM
Post #35 of 129
(14308 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
socalclimber wrote: 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.
Thanks man.
I just got to thinking about the fact that these are supposed to be educational forums (I've learned a lot here over the years) and perhaps actual explanation and discussion would be more appropriate. If everytime I was wrong in the past someone just called me an idiot instead of taking the time to explore the issue at hand (after calling me an idiot of course), I would be a lot worse off today. It can be hard to resist that knee jerk though.
|
|
|
|
|
king_rat
Apr 7, 2009, 12:19 PM
Post #36 of 129
(14224 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 365
|
vivalargo wrote: 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).
Lowering a climber in this manner is not completely unheard, but I would say rather that it is a matter of local convention. In areas where it’s common to top out and belay from the top of the climb, its not unheard of to simply lower your second down, and then strip the belay and make your own way down. I could see this happening particularly where a third person wants to climb and the second climber may not want to sit round twiddling their thumbs.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Apr 7, 2009, 1:06 PM
Post #37 of 129
(14195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
An attempt to sketch out some context of the part of the lowering that was controlled:
a) "Woodys liturgy was old school, based on the stance, he didnt make Al sit down. He was also rushing things and never checked the anchor. "
ST.com source
b) "After Kwok had lowered Stark about 35', Kwok probably shifted his weight forward"
OP, based on ST.com info.
c) "Woody Stark led a 100' climb "
OP, based on ST.com info. (edit: before 'a')
d) "Kwok fell 65' (approx.) and was held by the second rope at this point .... During the 65' fall, Kwok did not lose control of the lowering device. Stark fell 100' total to the ground"
OP, based on ST.com info.
e) "Out, out brief candle! 10 a/b X 2005; This is one of Woodys routes only a few feet from where he died. "
ST.com source
f) picture of the formation
Thoughts: The measurements of 'b' through 'd' may not be truly independent observations. That said, it seems likely that the picture painted is Kwok at the edge of the cliff managing to lower Al's full body weight a significant distance based on stance alone; that is, at the start of the lowering, direction of pull was probably down through Kwok's feet where the difference in weight between the two was not so critical. Also, 'e' suggests the climb was at the right side of the formation (edit: somewhere on the right half) although this would be good to confirm since the source statement may not have been intended as factually accurate.
This is not an effort to bolster my earlier suggestion of "differing expectations" (i.e., stance versus anchored). It is just to lend some context to the final moments that triggered the accident.
Bill
(This post was edited by billl7 on Apr 7, 2009, 2:21 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
Apr 7, 2009, 5:19 PM
Post #38 of 129
(14099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
vivalargo wrote: 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.
(This post was edited by sspssp on Apr 7, 2009, 5:20 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Apr 7, 2009, 5:31 PM
Post #39 of 129
(14081 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
sspssp wrote: vivalargo wrote: 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.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Apr 7, 2009, 5:41 PM
Post #40 of 129
(14064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
notapplicable wrote: vivalargo wrote: 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 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.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Apr 7, 2009, 6:04 PM
Post #41 of 129
(14040 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
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. I mean, by the time I get down the belayer would be engaged with the belay of the third and may be unable to untie the fixed lead rope. Or maybe the fixed rope overlaps the route and so kinda interferes with the third coming up. Or maybe there wasn't enough space at the anchor to both i) start the belay of the third and ii) start the rap of the first.
If the only pressing issue is that the leader wants down ASAP, there's at least a few reasons why he might decide at that moment to lower off. I mean, the only "time consuming" step is for the second to thread the belay device.
This does not mean I'm a proponent of blanketly lowering off routes. It is just what comes to mind if I assume I'm personally in a hurry to get off a route when climbing with a party of three.
Okay, I'll hold off on anymore speculation for a bit - I've probably violated analysis protocol by having two posts in a row dedicated to speculation/noise.
Bill L
|
|
|
|
|
clee03m
Apr 7, 2009, 6:27 PM
Post #42 of 129
(14022 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 785
|
Thank you for the analysis. I had a difficult time understanding what could have happened from the original post, but it's clear now. Condolences to family and friends. It was an accident, and it could have happened to any of us. I hope Kwok doesn't blame himself too harshly for the accident.
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
Apr 7, 2009, 6:32 PM
Post #43 of 129
(14021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
vivalargo wrote: I'm afraid that the only thing we may take away from all this - and it is significant - is: never rush.
That, and take the time to double and triple check your "system".
I try to make a habit of loading up whilst clipped to the anchor. Only after I know the riggin' is correct, do I have my partner or myself unclip and then load the rope.
I could easily see how this happened. Lately, I find myself a tad more complacent than usual, for some reason (distracted, age (!), in a hurry, short cutting).
Hate being lowered. Hard on the rope, and, not as much control.
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.
So easy to blow it...
Cheers, and, be careful out there...
-Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Apr 7, 2009, 6:48 PM
Post #44 of 129
(13991 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
billl7 wrote: notapplicable wrote: vivalargo wrote: 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 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. 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..
Thats very possible, especially if the belay was at a solid stance or on a low angle "top out" where kwok would not need to weight his tie in. I can't believe we still don't know which route this took place on.
It seems the decision to have the accident report written and released by those so emotionally close to the accident, was a mistake. I understand their desire to maintain control but it has amounted to an incomplete and protracted release of info. Very unusual.
|
|
|
|
|
clintcummins
Apr 7, 2009, 8:01 PM
Post #45 of 129
(13919 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2002
Posts: 135
|
billl7 wrote: With only ~65 feet available, the second rope was likely too short for the cliff (~100 feet). Bill
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.
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
Apr 7, 2009, 8:22 PM
Post #46 of 129
(13891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
billl7 wrote: 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.
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.
(This post was edited by sspssp on Apr 7, 2009, 8:22 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
Apr 7, 2009, 8:26 PM
Post #47 of 129
(13881 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
brianinslc wrote: 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.
Once you load a grigri, this is why I suggest yanking on the rope to see if actually does catch.
As an aside, a backwards threaded grigri can be used as an atc, but regaining control (if you were caught by surprise) could be hard.
|
|
|
|
|
brotherbbock
Apr 7, 2009, 8:30 PM
Post #48 of 129
(13867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 176
|
jt512 wrote: "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
|
|
|
|
|
viciado
Apr 7, 2009, 8:44 PM
Post #49 of 129
(13847 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 429
|
Just to clarify...
My math says Woody fell about 65 feet since he had already been lowered 35' (per the report). Al's rope played out the length of 65 feet giving a total of 100 feet which equals the height of the route. Taking into account the amoutn of rope Woody's knot, we can see why Al was under tension. I am guessing that had Al lost his balance earlier the force would have likely broken his haul loop...
Too many variables in this sad incident. We make fun of people who go through the ritual checks in a gym and now mourn the loss of ones who evidently did not do so.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Apr 7, 2009, 8:51 PM
Post #50 of 129
(14355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
clintcummins wrote: billl7 wrote: With only ~65 feet available, the second rope was likely too short for the cliff (~100 feet). Bill 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.
Editted to fix quotes
(This post was edited by billl7 on Apr 7, 2009, 9:01 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
