|
troutboy
May 27, 2009, 7:39 PM
Post #4 of 31
(7576 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2003
Posts: 903
|
jakedatc wrote: I thought majid was not supposed to be allowed to just post a link?? Copying and pasting the first sentence of a poorly written article is not "Content"
Not that I like defending the whipping boy for rc.com, but I know the practice in other internet forums I read is to do what Majid has done - post the article's beginning sentence, then provide a link for the rest. This is done to avoid copyright infringement issues.
I really don't see the problem here.
TS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny_Fang
May 27, 2009, 8:11 PM
Post #7 of 31
(7522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2006
Posts: 289
|
i also feel weird defending majid but i see nothing wrong with his post. i'm glad he posted it, and i'm glad he left out any comments and only included the first sentence. i have been wondering what was the cause of the fall in the gorge. now i know. it is good to document these things. if you aren't there to give a firsthand account, and if no one else from rc.com there to give a firsthand account, then an account through the newspaper is the best data available to the peanut gallery of rc.noob.
this was totally appropriate to post, and he didn't call anyone a hillbilly.
thanks majid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny_Fang
May 27, 2009, 8:29 PM
Post #12 of 31
(7471 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2006
Posts: 289
|
i would have never known about it had it not been posted here when it originally happened. i'm not about to make a note to myself everytime i hear of an accident to google it every few days looking for the results. i'm not THAT dedicated to it. majid is dedicated to it, morbid and creepy though it may be, and it serves a purpose for people like me who retain an interest but not the drive to follow-up every few days.
your argument is twofold: there is no analysis, and this serves no purpose on the forum.
posting this article served a purpose to me (and it sounds like a few others) hence, one of your arguments is faulty.
there is an analysis of what occurred, it is in the newspaper article. hence, your second argument is faulty.
i think your bitterness here stems more from majid's past behavior and his generally irritating tone. that's understandable, but don't let it override your rationality.
even news articles pre-analysis, just articles mentioning a fall, have been helpful in the past when people who were involved, who never had posted on rc.com and were likely never TO post on rc.com, have responded with details which led to analysis.
it's OK to admit you were wrong about this one, but to say that majid really needs to keep it in control. like he did here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 27, 2009, 10:57 PM
Post #14 of 31
(7217 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Johnny_Fang wrote: i would have never known about it had it not been posted here when it originally happened. i'm not about to make a note to myself everytime i hear of an accident to google it every few days looking for the results. i'm not THAT dedicated to it. majid is dedicated to it, morbid and creepy though it may be, and it serves a purpose for people like me who retain an interest but not the drive to follow-up every few days. your argument is twofold: there is no analysis, and this serves no purpose on the forum. posting this article served a purpose to me (and it sounds like a few others) hence, one of your arguments is faulty. there is an analysis of what occurred, it is in the newspaper article. hence, your second argument is faulty. i think your bitterness here stems more from majid's past behavior and his generally irritating tone. that's understandable, but don't let it override your rationality. even news articles pre-analysis, just articles mentioning a fall, have been helpful in the past when people who were involved, who never had posted on rc.com and were likely never TO post on rc.com, have responded with details which led to analysis. it's OK to admit you were wrong about this one, but to say that majid really needs to keep it in control. like he did here.
Ok, here is my analysis based on MY OWN by reading the original report in April 5 and what I posed here today.
This accident involved with two fatalities. One of the climbers was an instructor and very well experienced. The other was student with least climbing knowledge based on my take; both climbers were above a route some 50 feet high of the deck setting up an anchor for TR or rappelling purpose. The instructor was probably planning to place a three piece anchor and installed the first nut in a crack and secured the student and himself with some sort of static cord ( ie Webbing).While she was working to place the addition passive or active gear, one of them (not sure who) lost his or her footing and fell directly in to anchor( only one nut) shock loading the entire anchor causing it to fail. Since both climbers were tied-in to the same anchor with one cord, the falling climber pull the other down in chain reaction.
How could they have prevented this accident?
1-The answer has been said in this forum at least a dozen times by me as the term “two meter death zone”.
2-What is two meter death zone?
Simple, any climber that is within two meter of any fall which they may get hurt should anchor themselves to a secure anchor via proper cord.
3-What is a secure anchor?
An anchor that is not made of single piece two or three but strong enough to withstand a fall factor two for party of two climbers falling off an anchor at the same time. Again, I have said that a bunch times while everyone else joked about my min 20kn anchor requirement (see current two piece thread in general).
4-What is proper cord?
Any material that can secure two falling climber to a solid anchor (climbing rope, proper size Purcell prussic etc).
5-The instructor failed by allowing a student to be near a two meter death zone when their anchor was not fixed.
6-A student should never be linked to an unsafe anchor. Not when instructor is building or showing how to place an anchor.
7-This accident was easily avoidable if both climbers were anchored with a rope and away from the edge during anchor setup.
My deepest condolences to the family member of both climbers
MS
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on May 27, 2009, 10:59 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 27, 2009, 11:10 PM
Post #15 of 31
(7188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
majid_sabet wrote: Johnny_Fang wrote: i would have never known about it had it not been posted here when it originally happened. i'm not about to make a note to myself everytime i hear of an accident to google it every few days looking for the results. i'm not THAT dedicated to it. majid is dedicated to it, morbid and creepy though it may be, and it serves a purpose for people like me who retain an interest but not the drive to follow-up every few days. your argument is twofold: there is no analysis, and this serves no purpose on the forum. posting this article served a purpose to me (and it sounds like a few others) hence, one of your arguments is faulty. there is an analysis of what occurred, it is in the newspaper article. hence, your second argument is faulty. i think your bitterness here stems more from majid's past behavior and his generally irritating tone. that's understandable, but don't let it override your rationality. even news articles pre-analysis, just articles mentioning a fall, have been helpful in the past when people who were involved, who never had posted on rc.com and were likely never TO post on rc.com, have responded with details which led to analysis. it's OK to admit you were wrong about this one, but to say that majid really needs to keep it in control. like he did here. Ok, here is my analysis based on MY OWN by reading the original report in April 5 and what I posed here today. This accident involved with two fatalities. One of the climbers was an instructor and very well experienced. The other was student with least climbing knowledge based on my take; both climbers were above a route some 50 feet high of the deck setting up an anchor for TR or rappelling purpose. The instructor was probably planning to place a three piece anchor and installed the first nut in a crack and secured the student and himself with some sort of static cord ( ie Webbing).While she was working to place the addition passive or active gear, one of them (not sure who) lost his or her footing and fell directly in to anchor( only one nut) shock loading the entire anchor causing it to fail. Since both climbers were tied-in to the same anchor with one cord, the falling climber pull the other down in chain reaction. How could they have prevented this accident? 1-The answer has been said in this forum at least a dozen times by me as the term “two meter death zone”. 2-What is two meter death zone? Simple, any climber that is within two meter of any fall which they may get hurt should anchor themselves to a secure anchor via proper cord. 3-What is a secure anchor? An anchor that is not made of single piece two or three but strong enough to withstand a fall factor two for party of two climbers falling off an anchor at the same time. Again, I have said that a bunch times while everyone else joked about my min 20kn anchor requirement (see current two piece thread in general). 4-What is proper cord? Any material that can secure two falling climber to a solid anchor (climbing rope, proper size Purcell prussic etc). 5-The instructor failed by allowing a student to be near a two meter death zone when their anchor was not fixed. 6-A student should never be linked to an unsafe anchor. Not when instructor is building or showing how to place an anchor. 7-This accident was easily avoidable if both climbers were anchored with a rope and away from the edge during anchor setup. My deepest condolences to the family member of both climbers MS
If you put this in the first post you would eliminate 90% of the flames that you get. even from me.
NOW there is a) a reason to talk more about it b) a bunch of observations and comments to begin that discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
edge
May 27, 2009, 11:13 PM
Post #16 of 31
(7181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
majid_sabet wrote: Johnny_Fang wrote: i would have never known about it had it not been posted here when it originally happened. i'm not about to make a note to myself everytime i hear of an accident to google it every few days looking for the results. i'm not THAT dedicated to it. majid is dedicated to it, morbid and creepy though it may be, and it serves a purpose for people like me who retain an interest but not the drive to follow-up every few days. your argument is twofold: there is no analysis, and this serves no purpose on the forum. posting this article served a purpose to me (and it sounds like a few others) hence, one of your arguments is faulty. there is an analysis of what occurred, it is in the newspaper article. hence, your second argument is faulty. i think your bitterness here stems more from majid's past behavior and his generally irritating tone. that's understandable, but don't let it override your rationality. even news articles pre-analysis, just articles mentioning a fall, have been helpful in the past when people who were involved, who never had posted on rc.com and were likely never TO post on rc.com, have responded with details which led to analysis. it's OK to admit you were wrong about this one, but to say that majid really needs to keep it in control. like he did here. Ok, here is my analysis based on MY OWN by reading the original report in April 5 and what I posed here today. This accident involved with two fatalities. One of the climbers was an instructor and very well experienced. The other was student with least climbing knowledge based on my take; both climbers were above a route some 50 feet high of the deck setting up an anchor for TR or rappelling purpose. The instructor was probably planning to place a three piece anchor and installed the first nut in a crack and secured the student and himself with some sort of static cord ( ie Webbing).While she was working to place the addition passive or active gear, one of them (not sure who) lost his or her footing and fell directly in to anchor( only one nut) shock loading the entire anchor causing it to fail. Since both climbers were tied-in to the same anchor with one cord, the falling climber pull the other down in chain reaction. How could they have prevented this accident? 1-The answer has been said in this forum at least a dozen times by me as the term “two meter death zone”. 2-What is two meter death zone? Simple, any climber that is within two meter of any fall which they may get hurt should anchor themselves to a secure anchor via proper cord. 3-What is a secure anchor? An anchor that is not made of single piece two or three but strong enough to withstand a fall factor two for party of two climbers falling off an anchor at the same time. Again, I have said that a bunch times while everyone else joked about my min 20kn anchor requirement (see current two piece thread in general). 4-What is proper cord? Any material that can secure two falling climber to a solid anchor (climbing rope, proper size Purcell prussic etc). 5-The instructor failed by allowing a student to be near a two meter death zone when their anchor was not fixed. 6-A student should never be linked to an unsafe anchor. Not when instructor is building or showing how to place an anchor. 7-This accident was easily avoidable if both climbers were anchored with a rope and away from the edge during anchor setup. My deepest condolences to the family member of both climbers MS
So why do you wait to be called out to respond to a thread that you created? Don't you think maybe you could avoid a lot of hate and confusion if you addressed your fatality links with something akin to empathy?
If safety is truly your major concern, then maybe you should explain yourself in your initial posts, instead of quoting non-climber news hounds.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 27, 2009, 11:22 PM
Post #17 of 31
(7170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
jakedatc wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Johnny_Fang wrote: i would have never known about it had it not been posted here when it originally happened. i'm not about to make a note to myself everytime i hear of an accident to google it every few days looking for the results. i'm not THAT dedicated to it. majid is dedicated to it, morbid and creepy though it may be, and it serves a purpose for people like me who retain an interest but not the drive to follow-up every few days. your argument is twofold: there is no analysis, and this serves no purpose on the forum. posting this article served a purpose to me (and it sounds like a few others) hence, one of your arguments is faulty. there is an analysis of what occurred, it is in the newspaper article. hence, your second argument is faulty. i think your bitterness here stems more from majid's past behavior and his generally irritating tone. that's understandable, but don't let it override your rationality. even news articles pre-analysis, just articles mentioning a fall, have been helpful in the past when people who were involved, who never had posted on rc.com and were likely never TO post on rc.com, have responded with details which led to analysis. it's OK to admit you were wrong about this one, but to say that majid really needs to keep it in control. like he did here. Ok, here is my analysis based on MY OWN by reading the original report in April 5 and what I posed here today. This accident involved with two fatalities. One of the climbers was an instructor and very well experienced. The other was student with least climbing knowledge based on my take; both climbers were above a route some 50 feet high of the deck setting up an anchor for TR or rappelling purpose. The instructor was probably planning to place a three piece anchor and installed the first nut in a crack and secured the student and himself with some sort of static cord ( ie Webbing).While she was working to place the addition passive or active gear, one of them (not sure who) lost his or her footing and fell directly in to anchor( only one nut) shock loading the entire anchor causing it to fail. Since both climbers were tied-in to the same anchor with one cord, the falling climber pull the other down in chain reaction. How could they have prevented this accident? 1-The answer has been said in this forum at least a dozen times by me as the term “two meter death zone”. 2-What is two meter death zone? Simple, any climber that is within two meter of any fall which they may get hurt should anchor themselves to a secure anchor via proper cord. 3-What is a secure anchor? An anchor that is not made of single piece two or three but strong enough to withstand a fall factor two for party of two climbers falling off an anchor at the same time. Again, I have said that a bunch times while everyone else joked about my min 20kn anchor requirement (see current two piece thread in general). 4-What is proper cord? Any material that can secure two falling climber to a solid anchor (climbing rope, proper size Purcell prussic etc). 5-The instructor failed by allowing a student to be near a two meter death zone when their anchor was not fixed. 6-A student should never be linked to an unsafe anchor. Not when instructor is building or showing how to place an anchor. 7-This accident was easily avoidable if both climbers were anchored with a rope and away from the edge during anchor setup. My deepest condolences to the family member of both climbers MS If you put this in the first post you would eliminate 90% of the flames that you get. even from me. NOW there is a) a reason to talk more about it b) a bunch of observations and comments to begin that discussion.
Jake
I do not want to become involved with analysis and I have my own reasons . I only did this for Johnny cause he sounds like he cares and wanted to understand the causes so i did my best to explain what I felt went wrong . if you ever care to know about my other analysis then PM and I will be happy to send them to you privately. This is only to keep the flame down and not disrespect the friends and the family members.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 27, 2009, 11:34 PM
Post #18 of 31
(7146 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
majid_sabet wrote: jakedatc wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Johnny_Fang wrote: i would have never known about it had it not been posted here when it originally happened. i'm not about to make a note to myself everytime i hear of an accident to google it every few days looking for the results. i'm not THAT dedicated to it. majid is dedicated to it, morbid and creepy though it may be, and it serves a purpose for people like me who retain an interest but not the drive to follow-up every few days. your argument is twofold: there is no analysis, and this serves no purpose on the forum. posting this article served a purpose to me (and it sounds like a few others) hence, one of your arguments is faulty. there is an analysis of what occurred, it is in the newspaper article. hence, your second argument is faulty. i think your bitterness here stems more from majid's past behavior and his generally irritating tone. that's understandable, but don't let it override your rationality. even news articles pre-analysis, just articles mentioning a fall, have been helpful in the past when people who were involved, who never had posted on rc.com and were likely never TO post on rc.com, have responded with details which led to analysis. it's OK to admit you were wrong about this one, but to say that majid really needs to keep it in control. like he did here. Ok, here is my analysis based on MY OWN by reading the original report in April 5 and what I posed here today. This accident involved with two fatalities. One of the climbers was an instructor and very well experienced. The other was student with least climbing knowledge based on my take; both climbers were above a route some 50 feet high of the deck setting up an anchor for TR or rappelling purpose. The instructor was probably planning to place a three piece anchor and installed the first nut in a crack and secured the student and himself with some sort of static cord ( ie Webbing).While she was working to place the addition passive or active gear, one of them (not sure who) lost his or her footing and fell directly in to anchor( only one nut) shock loading the entire anchor causing it to fail. Since both climbers were tied-in to the same anchor with one cord, the falling climber pull the other down in chain reaction. How could they have prevented this accident? 1-The answer has been said in this forum at least a dozen times by me as the term “two meter death zone”. 2-What is two meter death zone? Simple, any climber that is within two meter of any fall which they may get hurt should anchor themselves to a secure anchor via proper cord. 3-What is a secure anchor? An anchor that is not made of single piece two or three but strong enough to withstand a fall factor two for party of two climbers falling off an anchor at the same time. Again, I have said that a bunch times while everyone else joked about my min 20kn anchor requirement (see current two piece thread in general). 4-What is proper cord? Any material that can secure two falling climber to a solid anchor (climbing rope, proper size Purcell prussic etc). 5-The instructor failed by allowing a student to be near a two meter death zone when their anchor was not fixed. 6-A student should never be linked to an unsafe anchor. Not when instructor is building or showing how to place an anchor. 7-This accident was easily avoidable if both climbers were anchored with a rope and away from the edge during anchor setup. My deepest condolences to the family member of both climbers MS If you put this in the first post you would eliminate 90% of the flames that you get. even from me. NOW there is a) a reason to talk more about it b) a bunch of observations and comments to begin that discussion. Jake I do not want to become involved with analysis and I have my own reasons . I only did this for Johnny cause he sounds like he cares and wanted to understand the causes so i did my best to explain what I felt went wrong . if you ever care to know about my other analysis then PM and I will be happy to send them to you privately. This is only to keep the flame down and not disrespect the friends and the family members.
Then in my and others minds your posts are useless crap i can find on google. If analysis isn't your reason then why are you posting them in the "accident and incident ANALYSIS" forum
I think it's weird that someone would be setting a TR anchor the way that was going on. I don't know what the cliff top is like but the places i've been either the pro is far enough back that you are away from the edge or it's so close to the edge that it would be prudent to be either on rappel or tied into a sling, rope, etc attached further away from the edge that was set earlier. having 2 people attached to an unbuilt anchor would never even cross my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 27, 2009, 11:37 PM
Post #19 of 31
(7002 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
edge wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Johnny_Fang wrote: i would have never known about it had it not been posted here when it originally happened. i'm not about to make a note to myself everytime i hear of an accident to google it every few days looking for the results. i'm not THAT dedicated to it. majid is dedicated to it, morbid and creepy though it may be, and it serves a purpose for people like me who retain an interest but not the drive to follow-up every few days. your argument is twofold: there is no analysis, and this serves no purpose on the forum. posting this article served a purpose to me (and it sounds like a few others) hence, one of your arguments is faulty. there is an analysis of what occurred, it is in the newspaper article. hence, your second argument is faulty. i think your bitterness here stems more from majid's past behavior and his generally irritating tone. that's understandable, but don't let it override your rationality. even news articles pre-analysis, just articles mentioning a fall, have been helpful in the past when people who were involved, who never had posted on rc.com and were likely never TO post on rc.com, have responded with details which led to analysis. it's OK to admit you were wrong about this one, but to say that majid really needs to keep it in control. like he did here. Ok, here is my analysis based on MY OWN by reading the original report in April 5 and what I posed here today. This accident involved with two fatalities. One of the climbers was an instructor and very well experienced. The other was student with least climbing knowledge based on my take; both climbers were above a route some 50 feet high of the deck setting up an anchor for TR or rappelling purpose. The instructor was probably planning to place a three piece anchor and installed the first nut in a crack and secured the student and himself with some sort of static cord ( ie Webbing).While she was working to place the addition passive or active gear, one of them (not sure who) lost his or her footing and fell directly in to anchor( only one nut) shock loading the entire anchor causing it to fail. Since both climbers were tied-in to the same anchor with one cord, the falling climber pull the other down in chain reaction. How could they have prevented this accident? 1-The answer has been said in this forum at least a dozen times by me as the term “two meter death zone”. 2-What is two meter death zone? Simple, any climber that is within two meter of any fall which they may get hurt should anchor themselves to a secure anchor via proper cord. 3-What is a secure anchor? An anchor that is not made of single piece two or three but strong enough to withstand a fall factor two for party of two climbers falling off an anchor at the same time. Again, I have said that a bunch times while everyone else joked about my min 20kn anchor requirement (see current two piece thread in general). 4-What is proper cord? Any material that can secure two falling climber to a solid anchor (climbing rope, proper size Purcell prussic etc). 5-The instructor failed by allowing a student to be near a two meter death zone when their anchor was not fixed. 6-A student should never be linked to an unsafe anchor. Not when instructor is building or showing how to place an anchor. 7-This accident was easily avoidable if both climbers were anchored with a rope and away from the edge during anchor setup. My deepest condolences to the family member of both climbers MS So why do you wait to be called out to respond to a thread that you created? Don't you think maybe you could avoid a lot of hate and confusion if you addressed your fatality links with something akin to empathy? If safety is truly your major concern, then maybe you should explain yourself in your initial posts, instead of quoting non-climber news hounds.
I only reported a climbing accident that had sufficient information to readers. The analysis should be done by well qualified climbers like yourself who have 30 years of wall climbing experience and not by a person like me.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny_Fang
May 27, 2009, 11:41 PM
Post #20 of 31
(7000 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2006
Posts: 289
|
majid_sabet wrote: Jake I do not want to become involved with analysis and I have my own reasons . I only did this for Johnny cause he sounds like he cares and wanted to understand the causes so i did my best to explain what I felt went wrong . if you ever care to know about my other analysis then PM and I will be happy to send them to you privately. This is only to keep the flame down and not disrespect the friends and the family members.
don't drag me into this as someone who needs an explanation; i can read the newspaper article as well as you can. i think it is absurd that the mods would want you to summarize it when the newspaper article already described it so succinctly that was my point from the very beginning, which is why i thought your original post was appropriate. my point is that there IS an analysis, it is in the paper, people should feel free and open to comment on that analysis.
the idea that a family member is going to be upset to see that a newspaper article is linked in an 'accident and incident analysis' section of a website about rockclimbing without the poster typing condolences is complete and total bullshit. christ, they've got enough to be upset about. the newspaper article didn't print a condolence, either. give me a break.
anyway, let's get back to the original point of this forum. why didn't the leader (from my understanding was the rock guide/sister-in-law) build the anchor before bringing up her second? why was the second building an anchor? that seems completely bizarre.
and what is the comment about the brother going down from the top of the cliff? so... the brother and the leader were up top with no anchor?
|
|
|
|
|
edge
May 27, 2009, 11:43 PM
Post #21 of 31
(6997 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
majid_sabet wrote: edge wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Johnny_Fang wrote: i would have never known about it had it not been posted here when it originally happened. i'm not about to make a note to myself everytime i hear of an accident to google it every few days looking for the results. i'm not THAT dedicated to it. majid is dedicated to it, morbid and creepy though it may be, and it serves a purpose for people like me who retain an interest but not the drive to follow-up every few days. your argument is twofold: there is no analysis, and this serves no purpose on the forum. posting this article served a purpose to me (and it sounds like a few others) hence, one of your arguments is faulty. there is an analysis of what occurred, it is in the newspaper article. hence, your second argument is faulty. i think your bitterness here stems more from majid's past behavior and his generally irritating tone. that's understandable, but don't let it override your rationality. even news articles pre-analysis, just articles mentioning a fall, have been helpful in the past when people who were involved, who never had posted on rc.com and were likely never TO post on rc.com, have responded with details which led to analysis. it's OK to admit you were wrong about this one, but to say that majid really needs to keep it in control. like he did here. Ok, here is my analysis based on MY OWN by reading the original report in April 5 and what I posed here today. This accident involved with two fatalities. One of the climbers was an instructor and very well experienced. The other was student with least climbing knowledge based on my take; both climbers were above a route some 50 feet high of the deck setting up an anchor for TR or rappelling purpose. The instructor was probably planning to place a three piece anchor and installed the first nut in a crack and secured the student and himself with some sort of static cord ( ie Webbing).While she was working to place the addition passive or active gear, one of them (not sure who) lost his or her footing and fell directly in to anchor( only one nut) shock loading the entire anchor causing it to fail. Since both climbers were tied-in to the same anchor with one cord, the falling climber pull the other down in chain reaction. How could they have prevented this accident? 1-The answer has been said in this forum at least a dozen times by me as the term “two meter death zone”. 2-What is two meter death zone? Simple, any climber that is within two meter of any fall which they may get hurt should anchor themselves to a secure anchor via proper cord. 3-What is a secure anchor? An anchor that is not made of single piece two or three but strong enough to withstand a fall factor two for party of two climbers falling off an anchor at the same time. Again, I have said that a bunch times while everyone else joked about my min 20kn anchor requirement (see current two piece thread in general). 4-What is proper cord? Any material that can secure two falling climber to a solid anchor (climbing rope, proper size Purcell prussic etc). 5-The instructor failed by allowing a student to be near a two meter death zone when their anchor was not fixed. 6-A student should never be linked to an unsafe anchor. Not when instructor is building or showing how to place an anchor. 7-This accident was easily avoidable if both climbers were anchored with a rope and away from the edge during anchor setup. My deepest condolences to the family member of both climbers MS So why do you wait to be called out to respond to a thread that you created? Don't you think maybe you could avoid a lot of hate and confusion if you addressed your fatality links with something akin to empathy? If safety is truly your major concern, then maybe you should explain yourself in your initial posts, instead of quoting non-climber news hounds. I only reported a climbing accident that had sufficient information to readers. The analysis should be done by well qualified climbers like yourself who have 30 years of wall climbing experience and not by a person like me.
And by posting this on RC.com, you feel that you are hitting this target audience of 30+ year climbers in an efficient manner?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 28, 2009, 12:01 AM
Post #22 of 31
(6977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
jakedatc wrote: Then in my and others minds your posts are useless crap i can find on google.
Did you? Find it on google...? Or were you like me... seeing this for the first time becasue of Majid's post? I sure as hell don't go around googling for accidents!
In reply to: If analysis isn't your reason then why are you posting them in the "accident and incident ANALYSIS" forum
I think you boys put way to much weight on armchair analysis of events distant and misreported. Its all pretty much meaningless.
In reply to: I think it's weird that someone would be setting a TR anchor the way that was going on. I don't know what the cliff top is like but...
I'll ask you the same question you asked of majid... why did YOU wait to post this?
Interestingly, a key part of your 'analysis' is "I don't know what its like at the top of the cliff but...."
That is not analysis, its just another uninformed internet opinion, no different really, than majid's, or mine. An opinion, no real analysis at all.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 28, 2009, 12:05 AM
Post #23 of 31
(6975 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Johnny_Fang wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Jake I do not want to become involved with analysis and I have my own reasons . I only did this for Johnny cause he sounds like he cares and wanted to understand the causes so i did my best to explain what I felt went wrong . if you ever care to know about my other analysis then PM and I will be happy to send them to you privately. This is only to keep the flame down and not disrespect the friends and the family members. don't drag me into this as someone who needs an explanation; i can read the newspaper article as well as you can. i think it is absurd that the mods would want you to summarize it when the newspaper article already described it so succinctly that was my point from the very beginning, which is why i thought your original post was appropriate. my point is that there IS an analysis, it is in the paper, people should feel free and open to comment on that analysis. the idea that a family member is going to be upset to see that a newspaper article is linked in an 'accident and incident analysis' section of a website about rockclimbing without the poster typing condolences is complete and total bullshit. christ, they've got enough to be upset about. the newspaper article didn't print a condolence, either. give me a break. anyway, let's get back to the original point of this forum. why didn't the leader (from my understanding was the rock guide/sister-in-law) build the anchor before bringing up her second? why was the second building an anchor? that seems completely bizarre. and what is the comment about the brother going down from the top of the cliff? so... the brother and the leader were up top with no anchor?
Students generally like to learn from guides and instructors when they are constructing anchors so that is pretty normal to see them over the edge watching the setup but the two meter zone applies to everyone near the edge regardless of their experience.
I am also in the middle of reading and analyzing another fatality report that happened in another country where an instructor fell inside a canyon and died. He was near the edge with three other instructor and students. A local climbing federation in conjunction with a local court found all members of the team guilty forcing them to pay near $120,000 compensation to the family member of the climber.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 28, 2009, 12:09 AM
Post #24 of 31
(6966 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
you call that article analysis?? All it says is that the stopper blew out of the rock instead of the stopper failing itself.
It does not mention:
1) why 2 people were at the edge of a cliff not tied into something
2) if they had led the route, were setting up a TR, etc. basically how they got to that edge.
and more that i'm not thinking at the moment
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 28, 2009, 12:14 AM
Post #25 of 31
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
majid_sabet wrote: Johnny_Fang wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Jake I do not want to become involved with analysis and I have my own reasons . I only did this for Johnny cause he sounds like he cares and wanted to understand the causes so i did my best to explain what I felt went wrong . if you ever care to know about my other analysis then PM and I will be happy to send them to you privately. This is only to keep the flame down and not disrespect the friends and the family members. don't drag me into this as someone who needs an explanation; i can read the newspaper article as well as you can. i think it is absurd that the mods would want you to summarize it when the newspaper article already described it so succinctly that was my point from the very beginning, which is why i thought your original post was appropriate. my point is that there IS an analysis, it is in the paper, people should feel free and open to comment on that analysis. the idea that a family member is going to be upset to see that a newspaper article is linked in an 'accident and incident analysis' section of a website about rockclimbing without the poster typing condolences is complete and total bullshit. christ, they've got enough to be upset about. the newspaper article didn't print a condolence, either. give me a break. anyway, let's get back to the original point of this forum. why didn't the leader (from my understanding was the rock guide/sister-in-law) build the anchor before bringing up her second? why was the second building an anchor? that seems completely bizarre. and what is the comment about the brother going down from the top of the cliff? so... the brother and the leader were up top with no anchor?
This is why i think you have no idea what you are talking about. NO ONE leads a route and does not set an anchor.. NO ONE. how the hell would you catch a second if there was no anchor built?
you call me a noob? seriously?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
