|
welle
Apr 15, 2009, 1:26 AM
Post #2 of 28
(10496 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2008
Posts: 212
|
what the hell is a belay spike?
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Apr 15, 2009, 1:52 PM
Post #3 of 28
(10392 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
Isn't the coroner's job to find the medical reason for the death (which in this case seems to pretty clearly be falling a long way and impacting hard surfaces)? I wouldn't think they have any business hypothesizing what someone in another field should or shouldn't have done leading up to the cause of death.
And I know nothing of the mountain or route other than what I just read on wikipedia, but it doesn't sound like a hike ("highest mountain in New Zealand" and "challenging ascent, with frequent storms and very steep snow and ice climbing to reach the peak"). Is it common for guides to take people who can't even belay up these things?
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Apr 15, 2009, 2:01 PM
Post #4 of 28
(10377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
welle wrote: what the hell is a belay spike?
Probably a picket, or a screw.
mojomonkey wrote: Isn't the coroner's job to find the medical reason for the death (which in this case seems to pretty clearly be falling a long way and impacting hard surfaces)? I wouldn't think they have any business hypothesizing what someone in another field should or shouldn't have done leading up to the cause of death.
I think their responsibilities may vary somewhat by jurisdiction. In general, they are responsible for determining the cause of death, which need not stop with the specific direct trauma that killed the person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a-e-jones
Apr 15, 2009, 2:41 PM
Post #6 of 28
(10321 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2008
Posts: 295
|
in this case it sounds like they were talking about a belay plate
|
|
|
|
|
anonymi
Apr 15, 2009, 3:40 PM
Post #12 of 28
(10200 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2006
Posts: 21
|
As I understand it, the Coroners job is to determine the manner of death (i.e. murder, suicide, accident, who's fault is it etc) , as opposed to the cause of death (blunt force trauma due to impact with ground, etc) which is determined by pathologists, forensic anthropologists or medical examiners.
So the coroner will have taken evidence from experts, and determined the manner of death to be accidental, and human error, as opposed to equipment failure etc which would be open to litigation by relatives.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 15, 2009, 3:47 PM
Post #14 of 28
(10179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Its New Zealand right? Decent enough chance the cororner is a climber too.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Apr 15, 2009, 4:31 PM
Post #17 of 28
(10065 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
This is a highly moderated forum, and personal attacks of any sort are not acceptable. I've hidden the posts unrelated to this accident.
Please keep on topic.
Thanks,
Tiffany
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 15, 2009, 6:04 PM
Post #18 of 28
(10011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Thank you. Hopefully yall will continue to do this. Its totally out of hand and it has to stop.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
nkane
Apr 15, 2009, 6:16 PM
Post #19 of 28
(9993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2006
Posts: 143
|
What did i miss??!!
I'm not speaking from a position of knowledge here, but it's my understanding that NZ has a centralized administrative system of tort liability (similar to worker's comp in the US). So perhaps the coroner's ruling has something to do with determining whether the victim should be compensated.
But like I said, i don't really know what I'm talking about. And I hope that he considered that in the mountains, the speed of a hip belay is often preferred to slower placement of a picket.
|
|
|
|
|
james481
Apr 15, 2009, 6:41 PM
Post #20 of 28
(9943 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2007
Posts: 201
|
Wait, I'm having trouble understanding this. A guide w/ client decides to climb a (presumably) exposed slope without a belay. The guide then falls, unfortunately to his death. Who's "fault" would this be other than the guides? And what does this have to do with liability? As I read it, the client was unharmed. So, it seems like an unfortunate accident (obviously), but not a liability or tort issue. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Apr 15, 2009, 7:06 PM
Post #21 of 28
(9904 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
In reply to: Mr Wopereis was one of five guides leading a client on the Linda Glacier route...
FIve guides for one client?!?!?
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Apr 15, 2009, 7:43 PM
Post #22 of 28
(9856 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
acorneau wrote: In reply to: Mr Wopereis was one of five guides leading a client on the Linda Glacier route... FIve guides for one client?!?!?
Yeah, they worded it all funny.
In reply to: No fault lay with his client or any of the other four guides and their clients.
I think they each had their own client.
|
|
|
|
|
pyrokiwi
Apr 28, 2009, 2:59 AM
Post #23 of 28
(9367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2005
Posts: 2
|
We have ACC over here which pays out for any accident related injuries (including workplace ones). Because of this the government has quite an interest in accident related deaths and these are normally investigated by a coroner. Guides here frequently climb either unbelayed or full pitches with no / few runners on routes like these (I think, I am not a guide though so could be completely mislead).
Because coroners generally aren't well versed with technical aspects of various sports they tend to try and investigate by researching. However this can lead to reports somewhat confusing to the rest of us, made further so by media which have less understanding of the technical aspects of climbing reporting on a report made by someone with often limited understanding of the technical aspects. My pick on the five guides one client thing would be they had a client each. Cook is our highest mountain and therefore very popular to be guided up. Because the route is largely "non-technical" clients with little previous experience end up climbing it. I'm not a guide and merely a recreational climber so don't know enough to really explain their systems or pass comment on them though. They generally have a good reputation and I have found most guides to be friendly and helpful when I have been out climbing.
The route up Cook that the incident occurred on is while relatively simple (many experienced climbers will solo many sections) has a few objectively dangerous areas one is forced to travel in (under icefalls / up nasty glaciers etc). Another reason why guiding techniques that allow faster movement increase safety I imagine.
|
|
|
|
|
kiwiprincess
Apr 28, 2009, 3:34 AM
Post #24 of 28
(9340 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2007
Posts: 307
|
It was a 1 on 1 guiding situation.
The other guides had their own clients.
The guide soloed up to put up a top rope.
He was very good and very experienced.
The ice gave way leading to this tragic situation.
The coroner always investigates deaths here, and in this case decided it was avoidable had he been belayed.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 28, 2009, 1:56 PM
Post #25 of 28
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Its useful to understand the vast majority of the rockclimbing.com readers don't have any snow climbing experience whatsoever, don't know what a running belay is or how clients are typically guided on big snow and ice peaks. There is also a near-complete lack of understanding of just how profoundly DANGEROUS mountain climbing really is.
Rock climbers tend to associate climbing accidents with 'mistakes.' After a high profile accident witness the extended hand-wringing to assign a cause, point the finger and say ah HAH! They did THAT wrong.
Its hard for folks with this mentality to understand that simply setting foot on the mountain, with no mistakes, no slips, hire the best guide, all the best gear - and still get killed through no fault of anyone.
Hard to fathom - easier to assign blame.
The questions about the guide 'soloing' (oh MY!) reflect this ignorance.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
