|
emartinblue
Aug 22, 2006, 12:57 AM
Post #1 of 194
(42548 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 5
|
Unfortunately another CCH Alien has failed this time resulting in a serious injury. Although at this time I will not go into specifics concerning the accident, the cam was an orange CCH, it had an early 2004 manufacture date. I do know that this cam did not have a “dimple” located at the base of the ball on the socket (as is listed on the CCH website).
The only reason that I am providing this information is so that others will discontinue their use of newer CCH products until they can be properly tested.
|
|
|
|
|
emartinblue
Aug 22, 2006, 1:01 AM
Post #2 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 5
|
Unfortunately another CCH Alien has failed this time resulting in a serious injury. Although at this time I will not go into specifics concerning the accident, the cam was an orange CCH, it had an early 2004 manufacture date. I do know that this cam did not have a “dimple” located at the base of the ball on the socket (as is listed on the CCH website).
The only reason that I am providing this information is so that others will discontinue their use of newer CCH products until they can be properly tested.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 22, 2006, 1:13 AM
Post #3 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Why the lack in details?? you have zero credibility without them.
Also, the new cams ARE being tested.. the cam you are talking about is from '04 why are you attacking CCH's NEW cams for an issue with an OLD cam?
i'd say post up some details or don your flameproof jacket
also, one forum is plenty of coverage for a weak ass story..
|
|
|
|
|
capn_morgan
Aug 22, 2006, 1:34 AM
Post #4 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 565
|
I was not a witness to the accident. I spoke with someone who was and who helped in the evacuation of the injured climber. I believe he was the person who cleaned the gear from the route and gave the cam which failed to the sheriffs dept for their investigation. He specifically mentioned that it did not have the dimple....which if it was made in early 2004 it would not.
If anyone has any news on the condition of the climber I would be interested to hear it. It sounds as if the actions of those who were around that day probably helped his chances greatly....they had him to an accessible area before the rescue squad got there. It certainly makes me feel better knowing that there are people who have the knowledge and experience to provide that level of support for a fellow climber.
I am being specifically vague as I do not know specifics and do not feel that the area and time are of consequence to this thread.
I have, up until this point, been supportive of CCH and have been using my aliens, ( dated from late 03 and early 04). I understand the types of circumstances that could lead to that type of oversight as a small company tries to expand and meet demand. It appears the the problem is not limited to the cams brazed by that particular vendor. The report that CCH has made available on their website indicates that it was improper cooling that may have caused the defect in the braze. With a 100% inspection process in place, as they seem to be implementing, these types of defects would be caught as they would fail. I intend to have have my Aliens tested, either through CCH or on my own so that I will feel comfortable climbing above them.
I usually try to protect climbs such that the failure, either due to a bad placement or a mechanical failure such as this, will not result in me hitting something harder than I am. This is sometimes impossible or Impractical in certain situations and on certain climbs.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 22, 2006, 1:47 AM
Post #5 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Do either of you guys know if this cam failed at the braze?
|
|
|
|
|
tagaustatoppen
Aug 22, 2006, 1:49 AM
Post #6 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2005
Posts: 93
|
for someone with 5 posts thats a brave comment
|
|
|
|
|
stevematthys
Aug 22, 2006, 2:02 AM
Post #7 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2000
Posts: 1248
|
that sucks, did the cam fail on you?
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 22, 2006, 2:05 AM
Post #8 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Jeremy thanks for sharing what you DO know. That is far better than sounding the alarm and running away. That is great that the first responders acted quickly and got them to help.
Jay my thoughts exactly.. there is a huge difference between a cam failure and a placement failure.. that is the kind of detail that needs to be shared.
|
|
|
|
|
breaksnclimbs
Aug 22, 2006, 2:06 AM
Post #9 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2003
Posts: 203
|
That does suck!!! :shock: :shock:
It seems like it's THE ORANGE Ones that have failed.
IIRC It was an orange one that started the whole mess. . .
Too bad I hope your friend is OK. Why no specifics??
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 22, 2006, 2:07 AM
Post #10 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Can one of the mod's condense this into one thread? this is going to get stupid confusing with 2 conversations going at once
|
|
|
|
|
tagaustatoppen
Aug 22, 2006, 2:08 AM
Post #11 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2005
Posts: 93
|
didn't i just read this some where else?
|
|
|
|
|
gunksgoer
Aug 22, 2006, 2:14 AM
Post #12 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 1290
|
Was it one of the orange aliens with the improperly drilled axle holes? That would make cch look really bad.
|
|
|
|
|
zara
Aug 22, 2006, 3:27 AM
Post #13 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2004
Posts: 60
|
Is there a link to some more specific details.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 22, 2006, 3:39 AM
Post #14 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
In reply to: Is there a link to some more specific details.
no.. the OP seems to think it's a good idea to yell FIRE! and withold the details. But seems quite bitter towards CCH for no aparent reason.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Aug 22, 2006, 4:16 AM
Post #15 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
All my aliens are older, so I'm not too worried about mine. With everthing that has happened with CCH recently, especially with how public all their problems have been, I can't believe that a climber would use cams of that generation without having them pull tested (for free, by CCH).
It's not like this guy didn't know about CCH's troubles. With all the publicity, it's come full circle. No longer is it about CCH liability as much as it is personal responsibility.
Bottom line, get your 2004 and newer cams tested.
|
|
|
|
|
capn_morgan
Aug 22, 2006, 5:01 AM
Post #16 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 565
|
Good news..I was just talking to someone at the gym and it sounds as if he is doing OK. Coherent and aware of who he is at least.
I have heard several slightly different versions of what happened but they are all pretty similar..just the details are a bit fuzzy. Appears to have been a series of factors that led to him getting injured...not some serious error on the climbers part. This is a good reminder that its best to not rely on a single piece if you can help it.
As far as the cam...I did not see it but the first hand description I got was that the wire had separated from the "head" of the cam...this would seem to indicate that the braze failed. Being from early 04 it would not be affected by the recall... there was no dimple and the date was before the 11/04 date stated in the recall notice. http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/...nchor_PR_4-11-06.pdf
Several of my pieces have dates of 1004 and the like and I have been climbing on them.
If it is indeed a change in way that the piece is cooled the results in a fracture inside the braze, and therefore a very low strength, and this was a cam that was brazed by CCH and not some other shop ( I have no idea if this is the case, their report only talks about brazes failing from a particular source and does not mention whether other shops were used at other times for brazing), I feel that it is reasonable to question the integrity of even the older cams produced by CCH as it would appear there was some part of the process that may not have been controlled as well as it needed to be. As I mentioned earlier I plan on returning my aliens to service as soon as I can satisfactorily test them. Based on what I know about brazing ( which isn't a great deal, just the basics) this type of failure would be pretty easy to detect with a simple pull test, maybe even a vigorous bounce test. I have not decided what I am going to do with mine, but your best bet would be to send them to CCH to be tested.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 22, 2006, 5:46 AM
Post #17 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: Unfortunately another CCH Alien has failed this time resulting in a serious injury. Although at this time I will not go into specifics concerning the accident, the cam was an orange CCH, it had an early 2004 manufacture date. I do know that this cam did not have a “dimple” located at the base of the ball on the socket (as is listed on the CCH website). The only reason that I am providing this information is so that others will discontinue their use of newer CCH products until they can be properly tested.
Was there any particular "State" or "Area" or name of a climb that this happened at? Saying like "California" or "Utah" would help narrow down the specifics a little, but saying "Joe was on the second pitch of "Blow chunks" which as you know is in "Death Crag" in Wyoming state" would help us understand better, along with details of who was there, length of fall blah blah blah, maybe some things LIKE that.
If you can't remember any of that, could you at least let us know if this happended in "Canada" or "Mexico" or some other "Country". Like the Balukistan or Kyzikstan for christ sake.
Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
Aug 22, 2006, 5:48 AM
Post #18 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2003
Posts: 663
|
ouch
details, details...the devil is always in the details. all my aliens are 0202 with one 0102 date stamp...yet i'm sitting here staring at them, wondering wtf...
when, exactly, did REI pick up CCH ? was it in 04 ? curious how the dates line up is all...and does a static bounce in aiders really come close to the load a pull test would use ? (edit/add)
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 22, 2006, 5:54 AM
Post #19 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: didn't i just read this some where else?
Injuries. I asked if we could get some details, like which country this was in.
What area, what route, what pitch, who was belaying, who was watching, corroborating evidence, pictures, what was the length of fall, blah de blah blah blah.
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Aug 22, 2006, 5:56 AM
Post #20 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
In reply to: In reply to: Unfortunately another CCH Alien has failed this time resulting in a serious injury. Although at this time I will not go into specifics concerning the accident, the cam was an orange CCH, it had an early 2004 manufacture date. I do know that this cam did not have a “dimple” located at the base of the ball on the socket (as is listed on the CCH website). The only reason that I am providing this information is so that others will discontinue their use of newer CCH products until they can be properly tested. Was there any particular "State" or "Area" or name of a climb that this happened at? Saying like "California" or "Utah" would help narrow down the specifics a little, but saying "Joe was on the second pitch of "Blow chunks" which as you know is in "Death Crag" in Wyoming state" would help us understand better, along with details of who was there, length of fall blah blah blah, maybe some things LIKE that. If you can't remember any of that, could you at least let us know if this happended in "Canada" or "Mexico" or some other "Country". Like the Balukistan or Kyzikstan for christ sake. Just curious. |
|
|
|
|
kobaz
Aug 22, 2006, 7:07 AM
Post #21 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 726
|
What would be nice is if the poster waited until he could provide detailed information before posting about something as serious as another cam failure.
Something along the lines of: "Someone was climbing and his cam broke" is not a valid way of providing an accident report.
|
|
|
|
|
clayman
Aug 22, 2006, 2:13 PM
Post #23 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 296
|
light up those torches and sharpen those pitchforks..... :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Aug 22, 2006, 2:28 PM
Post #24 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
In reply to: All my aliens are older, so I'm not too worried about mine. With everthing that has happened with CCH recently, especially with how public all their problems have been, I can't believe that a climber would use cams of that generation without having them pull tested (for free, by CCH). It's not like this guy didn't know about CCH's troubles. With all the publicity, it's come full circle. No longer is it about CCH liability as much as it is personal responsibility. Bottom line, get your 2004 and newer cams tested.
I completely disagree that it is inappropriate for the OP and others to sound a warning without details. Given CCH's history with defects it is good that people know that there might be a problem with other cams that have not been recalled before finding out the hard way. My Aliens are all older too, but why do we trust pre-2004 Aliens? If this one failed, how do we know a cam made in 2000 or 1998 won't fail too? They claimed to have found the problem with the recalled cams, but if true, this accident would prove that cams outside of the recall are bad as well. I have to admit I am beginning to have doubts about my older (pre 2000) Aliens as well.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Aug 22, 2006, 2:30 PM
Post #25 of 194
(42546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Thanks, Phil. I agree. Considering the low level of detail available at this point, it's useless to speculate. The first thing we need is a picture or first-hand discription of the cam, because right now, it's entirely possible that this is a straight-up case of user error.
EDIT: That said, I can't help but agree, at least in principle, with this statement:
In reply to: It's not like this guy didn't know about CCH's troubles. With all the publicity, it's come full circle. No longer is it about CCH liability as much as it is personal responsibility.
The second I read CCH's infamous hoax statement, I decided on the spot that no Aliens would ever find a home on my rack. It was easy -- I was already leaning that way thanks to their denial of any safety issues arising from mis-drilled axle-holes. Even before this thread, I was of the opinion that faith in any single CCH cam that had not been tested goes beyond mere blindness and into the realm of the irrational, regardless of the date it was produced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
