|
not_the_moth
May 1, 2007, 10:39 PM
Post #1 of 70
(11738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2006
Posts: 8
|
I was down at the bathrooms by Boston when someone decked from about 35 to 40 feet on either apoplexy or coronary. It looked like all his pieces zippered except for a green alien, does anyone know what ever happened to this guy he looked like he wasn't in too bad of condition when they threw him in the tacoma on a backboard but who knows
|
|
|
|
|
taino
May 1, 2007, 10:54 PM
Post #2 of 70
(11712 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
I spoke with one of the first responders (made the 911 call as other, more skilled people responded on person). He was on Apoplexy, five pieces pulled, he decked from about 50 feet or so. He landed on his pack on his right hip/side, bounced, and landed on his front. He was awake and aware as he was being checked out and loaded onto the backboard, straightening his left leg gingerly; his right leg was quite swollen.
So far, that's all that is known.
T
|
|
|
|
|
not_the_moth
May 2, 2007, 12:28 AM
Post #3 of 70
(11607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2006
Posts: 8
|
Yeah when I looked down the carriage path I could see he was laying on his stomach and responding to people talking to him, I walked by to go boulder under the low roof and he seemed like he was in a responsive, aware mode and would be fine
|
|
|
|
|
clayman
May 2, 2007, 1:00 AM
Post #4 of 70
(11557 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 296
|
taino wrote: He was on Apoplexy, five pieces pulled, T
5! wow that's scary
|
|
|
|
|
muslmutt
May 2, 2007, 2:38 AM
Post #5 of 70
(11479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2004
Posts: 103
|
Reverse zipper? Did they pop out from the top down? Both?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 2, 2007, 3:40 AM
Post #6 of 70
(11425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
muslmutt wrote: Reverse zipper? Did they pop out from the top down? Both?
Yeah, that's a good question. Generally 5 pieces pulling out would indicate that the gear wasn't placed all that well.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
Dillbag
May 2, 2007, 1:37 PM
Post #7 of 70
(11316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2007
Posts: 93
|
Does anyone have any additional information on this accident?
From what I have gathered:
Climber was 50/60 ft up Apoplexy when he fell pulling between 3 and 5 pieces. The rope was stopped by the piton below the flake and a green alien.
Climber landed on a pack and rope at the base on his right side, was conscious and responsive during the entire ordeal.
-----
Would like to find out:
What pieces pulled. Where were they placed. How far above the last piece was the climber. Why did they pull. How is the climber doing (we're all hoping for the best).
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
May 2, 2007, 7:06 PM
Post #8 of 70
(11169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
Wow, I doubt we'll get to hear an analysis anytime soon regardless how curious we all are.
I hope his injuries weren't too bad, best wishes.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 2, 2007, 7:39 PM
Post #10 of 70
(11100 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
curt wrote: muslmutt wrote: Reverse zipper? Did they pop out from the top down? Both? Yeah, that's a good question. Generally 5 pieces pulling out would indicate that the gear wasn't placed all that well. Curt
If a pin was involved or a lower piece remained did not pull, then it's pretty safe to say it didn't "zipper" from the bottom. The implication being all the pro that pulled above the pin/low piece was poorly placed.
In general, "zippering" happens when a belayer is too far out from a first piece, which is not omnidirectional and so pulls in a fall - it happens from below - a string of gear pulling from above just means a bunch of poor or marginal pro pulled.
(This post was edited by healyje on May 2, 2007, 7:59 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Dillbag
May 2, 2007, 7:54 PM
Post #11 of 70
(11056 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2007
Posts: 93
|
taino wrote: muslmutt wrote: Reverse zipper? Did they pop out from the top down? Both? Unknown at this point - or, at least, no one is talking. In the course of my conversation, it came out that "the piton, and a cam above the piton, held." I've never been on the route, so I don't know if that's significant or answers any of the reverse zipper questions. T
It is probably unlikely that there was a "reverse-zip"... See the photo below (borrowed from http://www.mountainproject.com/...the_trapps/105840572)
In the photo, you can see the two peices in the horizontal, the piton is in the horizontal just below those (and is visible here) and most likely the cam that was mentioned in the reports was in one of those two horizontals.
The climber in this photo is just approaching the crux which is the roof, below the roof there are several good cam placements.
Again, it would be great to learn more about what happened...
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
May 2, 2007, 7:59 PM
Post #12 of 70
(11038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
From what I recall of that route, the pin wouldn't do anything to keep you off the deck from 35'. A piece in the horizontal above might, but from 50' I don't think it would matter.
As a recall, there is plenty of good gear once you reach the 40-50' level, which is about where the climber is in dillbag's photo.
I could definitely understand how you could rip a nut out from behind the creaky flake.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 2, 2007, 8:04 PM
Post #13 of 70
(11011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Dillbag wrote: Again, it would be great to learn more about what happened...
Pretty clear what happened, a string of poorly placed pro pulled. Without seeing each placement before it pulled I'm not sure how much there is to be learned given folks familar with the climb are saying good pro is available.
The point about the pin wasn't that it would prevent someone from decking, but that it would prevent pieces above it from being "zippered" [from below].
|
|
|
|
|
Dillbag
May 2, 2007, 8:07 PM
Post #14 of 70
(10999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2007
Posts: 93
|
scrapedape wrote: From what I recall of that route, the pin wouldn't do anything to keep you off the deck from 35'. A piece in the horizontal above might, but from 50' I don't think it would matter.
True! The pin and the gear in the 2nd horizontal basically will get you through the flake move, and maybe a foot or two above that... With a really, really good belayer!
scrapedape wrote: As a recall, there is plenty of good gear once you reach the 40-50' level, which is about where the climber is in dillbag's photo.
(Umm... Not my photo, but thanks...) And yes! There is good gear at that level, take a look at this photo... http://www.mountainproject.com/...091_large_12bf17.jpg Make sure to view it full size... you can clearly see three pieces above the flake and one piece protecting the crux roof (which the climber has just cleared).
scrapedape wrote: I could definitely understand how you could rip a nut out from behind the creaky flake.
|
|
|
|
|
jacurry243
May 2, 2007, 8:32 PM
Post #15 of 70
(10937 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2005
Posts: 18
|
Jacurry243 will not speak his mind on this one. But you know what he's thinking.
Bobbruef. Where are you?
|
|
|
|
|
kmc
May 2, 2007, 8:50 PM
Post #16 of 70
(10902 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2006
Posts: 252
|
Best wishes for a full and speedy recovery. Sounds like a good sign that he was still aware as to what was going on after the fall.
As was said earlier, a zipper sounds highly unlikely, b/c the 1st piece u can get off the ground is a perfect cam placement. The second piece would be a piton which is in great shape. I would assume it was b/c of poorly placed gear. But I wasnt there, so all I know of this accident is what im reading here.
With the section of the creaky flake and a little bit of climbing above that, the gear on this route is great, and the stances for placing pro for the most part are good as well.
When that flake finally does fall off, it will change that route a lot, since there will be no way of protecting that section, and really no holds either.
|
|
|
|
|
Smikey
May 3, 2007, 2:12 AM
Post #17 of 70
(10783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2007
Posts: 19
|
No way having 5 pieces pull is anything of the norm on that route. Its not "G" gear, but it is "PG" with out any voodoo involved. (Thats with not using the nut behind the flake..which is a joke)
Ironically the Gardiner Rescue squad was out training over on the guides slab's when this happened.
Here's to a speedy recovery for the guy..
(This post was edited by Smikey on May 3, 2007, 2:21 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jajen
May 3, 2007, 5:28 AM
Post #18 of 70
(10717 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2006
Posts: 81
|
Second hand info from a buddy climbing on Nosedive when this occurred: 5 pieces ripped - 2 cams, 3 nuts. Top piece was a nut and the climber was moving through the roof when he popped. As previously stated, there are some very good placements and nice stances, especially in the dihedral below the roof. I generally consider the route G-PG
Best wishes for a complete and speedy recovery.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 3, 2007, 5:41 PM
Post #19 of 70
(10631 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
jajen wrote: Second hand info from a buddy climbing on Nosedive when this occurred: 5 pieces ripped - 2 cams, 3 nuts. Top piece was a nut and the climber was moving through the roof when he popped. As previously stated, there are some very good placements and nice stances, especially in the dihedral below the roof. I generally consider the route G-PG Best wishes for a complete and speedy recovery.
He did not think placing a cam serves better under a roof vs. putting a nut ?
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on May 3, 2007, 5:42 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 3, 2007, 6:00 PM
Post #20 of 70
(10576 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
majid_sabet wrote: He did not think placing a cam serves better under a roof vs. putting a nut ?
Without knowing the specifics of the individual placements that blew, and the specific gear opportunitites at each of those spots, it is impossible to conclude a cam would have served them better than a nut. Even if that proved to be the case in this particular instance, the bias in your statement (however common) is unhealthy and naive relative to the appropriate use of gear. And given both cams and nuts blew blew in this incident, it's hard to see how your innuendo would have done much to change the outcome regardless.
This climber simply needs to learn to place pro following a competent leader or do some serious ground school and aid placements on their own before resuming free flight on lead.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
May 3, 2007, 6:04 PM
Post #21 of 70
(10567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
healyje wrote: majid_sabet wrote: He did not think placing a cam serves better under a roof vs. putting a nut ? Without knowing the specifics of the individual placements that blew, and the specific gear opportunitites at each of those spots, it is impossible to conclude a cam would have served them better
Maybe impossible to conclude, but good speculation!
All things being equal, I try to get cams under roofs lif possible. Roofs can push you and your line outward, and if it is big enough, even a nut slung with a runner can get pulled outwards and up in a fall, a potential zipper situation.
Not speculating on the situation at hand, but I think it is a good issue for leaders to consider.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 3, 2007, 6:05 PM
Post #22 of 70
(10564 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
^ Expect a barrage of majid_sabet PMs on how rope drag affects nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
May 3, 2007, 6:10 PM
Post #23 of 70
(10551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
healyje wrote: majid_sabet wrote: He did not think placing a cam serves better under a roof vs. putting a nut ? Without knowing the specifics of the individual placements that blew, and the specific gear opportunitites at each of those spots, it is impossible to conclude a cam would have served them better than a nut. Even if that proved to be the case in this particular instance, the bias in your statement ( however common) is unhealthy and naive relative to the appropriate use of gear. And given both cams and nuts blew blew in this incident, it's hard to see how your innuendo would have done much to change the outcome regardless. This climber simply needs to learn to place pro following a competent leader or do some serious ground school and aid placements on their own before resuming free flight on lead.
Your point may have some validity, Majid. The innuendo was is unfounded although too often found in posts by more than yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
May 3, 2007, 6:17 PM
Post #24 of 70
(10527 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
j_ung wrote: ^ Expect a barrage of majid_sabet PMs on how rope drag affects nuts.
Really? cool!
I just want to say, majid is THE MAN! FREE MAJID in the I&A forum!!
i honestly chuckle when I see how riled up everyone gets about his posts. maybe i just enjoy his flavor of troll.
|
|
|
|
|
nthusiastj
May 3, 2007, 6:24 PM
Post #25 of 70
(10509 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 3, 2002
Posts: 1994
|
majid_sabet wrote: jajen wrote: Second hand info from a buddy climbing on Nosedive when this occurred: 5 pieces ripped - 2 cams, 3 nuts. Top piece was a nut and the climber was moving through the roof when he popped. As previously stated, there are some very good placements and nice stances, especially in the dihedral below the roof. I generally consider the route G-PG Best wishes for a complete and speedy recovery. He did not think placing a cam serves better under a roof vs. putting a nut ?
We're talking about the gunks here. Alot of people lead routes totally on passive gear there. How good that gear is may be another story. Long live the cowbells!!
Perhaps he should have placed an Alien. I'm sure that would have exploded and killed people all around immidiately upon contact with the rock though. Aliens are like nitroglycerine these days.
Speedy recovery dude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
