|
jt512
Jul 9, 2011, 6:40 AM
Post #26 of 50
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
rescueman wrote: healyje wrote: FAA pilot instrument landing studies on the use of alcohol done in the 60's were pretty conclusive on the point. The pilots doing and ounce of alcohol did better in the simulator than either straight pilots or those pilots who had more than that. Other studies have demonstrated that people who drink in moderation statistically outlive either those who drink too much or those who don't drink at all.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with the effect of acute alcohol consumption on the risk of falling while free soloing, piloting ability, or anything else.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jul 9, 2011, 6:42 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
sandstone
Jul 9, 2011, 1:19 PM
Post #27 of 50
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2004
Posts: 324
|
rescueman wrote: ...Nice to hear people wishing this man well, but I would rather he died...
Rescueman, you need to jump down off that high horse you think you are on. Walk away from it a few paces and look back. You'll be able to see what others clearly see.
You'll discover that the idea of riding high on a lofty and noble steed is in your mind alone -- you've been on a rather ordinary jackass the whole time.
God help you when stresses in your life reach the point you don't know how to handle them. May you be given the compassion you are unwilling to give others.
If you think you have such control over your life that you will never be in that position, that is also just a delusion that exists only in your mind. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
gdburns
Jul 9, 2011, 1:44 PM
Post #28 of 50
(11426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2007
Posts: 12
|
I was going to bump the "FU". Sandstone, your response is clear, concise and articulate. +1
Wishing someone death is such poor form...
I will say a prayer for this man, and as others have said, pray for him that his mind and body be healed.
(This post was edited by gdburns on Jul 9, 2011, 1:45 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
kikitastrophe
Jul 9, 2011, 2:47 PM
Post #29 of 50
(11402 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2009
Posts: 25
|
I'm not sure I trust the (unreferenced) study that suggests a tiny amount of etoh is better than none. This study seems to suggest any amount increases errors:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2012569
"Total errors increased linearly and significantly with increasing blood alcohol. Planning and performance errors, procedural errors and failures of vigilance each increased significantly in one or more pilots and in the group as a whole... Serious errors increased significantly even at the lowest alcohol level studied, 0.025% (25 mg/dl), compared with control values."
This was poor judgement on his part, but can we move forward and take something from this:
Would you stop someone from free-soloing if you noticed that they were intoxicated? Would you try and stop them/call authorities to try and prevent this kind of accident?
I'm not trying to suggest that anyone at the Bridge could of stopped this particular incident (I wasn't there, so I have no idea how obvious it was that he was intoxicated), but I also wonder if I'd be willing to intervene before an accident happened or if I'd just look the other way/leave. Maybe we should be better at policing ourselves before something like this brings down outside regulation (area closures, etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jul 9, 2011, 4:42 PM
Post #30 of 50
(11378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
kikitastrophe wrote: This was poor judgement on his part, but can we move forward and take something from this: Would you stop someone from free-soloing if you noticed that they were intoxicated? Would you try and stop them/call authorities to try and prevent this kind of accident? I'm not trying to suggest that anyone at the Bridge could of stopped this particular incident (I wasn't there, so I have no idea how obvious it was that he was intoxicated), but I also wonder if I'd be willing to intervene before an accident happened or if I'd just look the other way/leave. Maybe we should be better at policing ourselves before something like this brings down outside regulation (area closures, etc.)
Well, when it comes to someone getting behind the wheel while intoxicated, I would say there is a moral obligation to intervene because they are endangering far more than than their own life & limb. That was not the case here and I've never been one to agree with the notion that I am so obliged to save someone from themselves. I surely understand why people struggle with the idea of standing idly by and I know many would be incapable of doing so, but I do not think there is a moral imperative at play in such a situation as this.
(This post was edited by notapplicable on Jul 9, 2011, 4:43 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Jul 9, 2011, 4:52 PM
Post #31 of 50
(11373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
the issue is what is "unsafe" is a very slippery slope and personal
would you stop someone from doing an X rated climb ... how about R rated ...
how about free soloing period ...
how about using "dyneema" slings because you consider them unsafe
etc ...
there are usually a few know it alls who want to show off that will tell you in much detail how "unsafe" you are ...
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Jul 9, 2011, 8:20 PM
Post #32 of 50
(11318 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
bearbreeder wrote: the issue is what is "unsafe" is a very slippery slope and personal would you stop someone from doing an X rated climb ... how about R rated ... how about free soloing period ... how about using "dyneema" slings because you consider them unsafe etc ... there are usually a few know it alls who want to show off that will tell you in much detail how "unsafe" you are ...
once again bearbreeder has no idea what they are talking about and clearly are not reading what is being said.
The person soloing was drunk, the guy asked if you would stop someone from soloing if they were drunk. intoxicated people tend to not have the best judgment hence why it is illegal to do many things while in that state. So when someone is in that state it sometimes takes another person with better judgment to step in and protect them from themselves.
Would you not stop someone from running around in traffic if they were clearly drunk? at least call the authorities so they could intervene.
no one said anything about the other things you mentioned. try to keep up.
|
|
|
|
|
rescueman
Jul 10, 2011, 12:12 AM
Post #33 of 50
(11273 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439
|
notapplicable wrote: You must be one of those lucky few who has never made a bad decision or done something stupid in their life. Congratulations.
Drinking a fifth of vodka and three beers and then free soloing at a crowded crag?
Stupid doesn't even come close. This guy wanted to die and didn't care if he took others down with him.
You're up next for the Darwin award.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Jul 10, 2011, 2:09 AM
Post #34 of 50
(11240 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
rescueman wrote: notapplicable wrote: You must be one of those lucky few who has never made a bad decision or done something stupid in their life. Congratulations. Drinking a fifth of vodka and three beers and then free soloing at a crowded crag? Stupid doesn't even come close. This guy wanted to die and didn't care if he took others down with him. You're up next for the Darwin award.
Can we get a banz from this asshole for clearly stating he would rather someone who survived had died in this BLUE FORUM???
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 10, 2011, 2:47 AM
Post #35 of 50
(11221 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
carabiner96 wrote: Can we get a banz from this asshole for clearly stating he would rather someone who survived had died in this BLUE FORUM???
You sure can. "Rescue"man - you're out of here for a month. A second offense will lead to a permanent ban.
I'm going to leave the comment and its replies up, because the replies in general made good points.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Jul 10, 2011, 3:08 AM
Post #36 of 50
(11206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
blondgecko wrote: carabiner96 wrote: Can we get a banz from this asshole for clearly stating he would rather someone who survived had died in this BLUE FORUM??? You sure can. "Rescue"man - you're out of here for a month. A second offense will lead to a permanent ban. I'm going to leave the comment and its replies up, because the replies in general made good points.
And they say you guys are useless :)
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 10, 2011, 3:26 AM
Post #37 of 50
(11195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
carabiner96 wrote: blondgecko wrote: carabiner96 wrote: Can we get a banz from this asshole for clearly stating he would rather someone who survived had died in this BLUE FORUM??? You sure can. "Rescue"man - you're out of here for a month. A second offense will lead to a permanent ban. I'm going to leave the comment and its replies up, because the replies in general made good points. And they say you guys are useless :)
Mostly. 
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Jul 10, 2011, 3:46 AM
Post #38 of 50
(11184 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
Come to squamish youll need to bring handcuffs to stop all the soloers ... Or those that have a weed or a few beers while climbing
Im sure you can walk around with a breathalizer and police everyone ;)
What are you going to do to stop someone .... Tackle em? .... Try doing that on the apron ...
jakedatc wrote: The person soloing was drunk, the guy asked if you would stop someone from soloing if they were drunk. intoxicated people tend to not have the best judgment hence why it is illegal to do many things while in that state. So when someone is in that state it sometimes takes another person with better judgment to step in and protect them from themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Jul 10, 2011, 3:53 AM
Post #39 of 50
(11180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
bearbreeder wrote: Come to squamish youll need to bring handcuffs to stop all the soloers ... Or those that have a weed or a few beers while climbing Im sure you can walk around with a breathalizer and police everyone ;) What are you going to do to stop someone .... Tackle em? .... Try doing that on the apron ... jakedatc wrote: The person soloing was drunk, the guy asked if you would stop someone from soloing if they were drunk. intoxicated people tend to not have the best judgment hence why it is illegal to do many things while in that state. So when someone is in that state it sometimes takes another person with better judgment to step in and protect them from themselves. My forehead is getting sore from this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jul 11, 2011, 9:26 AM
Post #40 of 50
(11083 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
kikitastrophe wrote: I'm not sure I trust the (unreferenced) study that suggests a tiny amount of etoh is better than none. This study seems to suggest any amount increases errors: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2012569
The study I 'unreferenced' was conducted in the 60's by United and the FAA and my father was part of the study. Way more than four pilots were tested and they weren't tested for anal adherence to flight policies which is what the study you referenced was measuring. The study my father was part of measured the quality and accuracy of repeated instrument landings - in that study one ounce of alcohol was ideal.
|
|
|
|
|
killingmorethancancer
Jul 11, 2011, 12:28 PM
Post #41 of 50
(11042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 24, 2010
Posts: 61
|
I am really sorry to hear that this tragic accident took place. This guy was making some pretty bad decisions with alcohol that day and soloing mixed with drinking well that... well I do not need to say anymore about that. However we have no idea what this guy was going through in his life and could have just been at a mega low point that we all have been to. He made a bad choice and he is paying for it. I wish the best for this guy and his family.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Jul 11, 2011, 1:03 PM
Post #42 of 50
(11026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
blondgecko wrote: carabiner96 wrote: Can we get a banz from this asshole for clearly stating he would rather someone who survived had died in this BLUE FORUM??? You sure can. "Rescue"man - you're out of here for a month. A second offense will lead to a permanent ban. I'm going to leave the comment and its replies up, because the replies in general made good points.
|
|
|
|
|
troutboy
Jul 11, 2011, 1:55 PM
Post #43 of 50
(11007 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2003
Posts: 903
|
jt512 wrote: Could you provide a citation to where those studies were published? Jay
I'd be surprised if they exist.
Here is a brief from the FAA that states otherwise (note the citation of impairment at an extremely low BAC). http://www.faa.gov/...es/media/alcohol.pdf
In reply to: The number of serious errors committed by pilots dramatically increases at or above concentrations of 0.04% blood alcohol. This is not to say that problems don’t occur below this value. Some studies have shown decrements in pilot performance with blood alcohol concentrations as low as the 0.025%.
Of course, this is not a scientific publication but it does contain what appears to be supportable (and I presume repeatable) data, from such a study.
TS
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 11, 2011, 2:13 PM
Post #44 of 50
(10993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
csproul wrote: blondgecko wrote: carabiner96 wrote: Can we get a banz from this asshole for clearly stating he would rather someone who survived had died in this BLUE FORUM??? You sure can. "Rescue"man - you're out of here for a month. A second offense will lead to a permanent ban. I'm going to leave the comment and its replies up, because the replies in general made good points. I think a ban was uncalled for. I think this is an extreme situation and is going to bring out extreme reactions. It is not surprising that such a self-inflicted and selfish accident would stir up such anger from others. If this had been a drunk driver, fewer people would have objected to a similar opinion.
I disagree and, along with other mods, supported BG's decision. As the poster before you suggested, this guy could have been going through all sorts of personal stuff. To imply that he deserved worse is wrong for anyone to say, whether he was a drunk climber or driver. The anonymity of the internet should still keep people from saying out loud everything they're thinking... unfortunately it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Jul 11, 2011, 2:38 PM
Post #45 of 50
(10975 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
healyje wrote: kikitastrophe wrote: I'm not sure I trust the (unreferenced) study that suggests a tiny amount of etoh is better than none. This study seems to suggest any amount increases errors: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2012569 The study I 'unreferenced' was conducted in the 60's by United and the FAA and my father was part of the study. Way more than four pilots were tested and they weren't tested for anal adherence to flight policies which is what the study you referenced was measuring. The study my father was part of measured the quality and accuracy of repeated instrument landings - in that study one ounce of alcohol was ideal.
I find this plausible. Landing a plane in particular can be stressful. So many things happening at once.....
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Jul 11, 2011, 2:56 PM
Post #46 of 50
(10955 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
blondgecko wrote: carabiner96 wrote: Can we get a banz from this asshole for clearly stating he would rather someone who survived had died in this BLUE FORUM??? You sure can. "Rescue"man - you're out of here for a month. A second offense will lead to a permanent ban. I'm going to leave the comment and its replies up, because the replies in general made good points.
I understand Carabiner96's logic as it applies to the "Incident Analysis" forum.
My own problem with Rescueman was the constant level of arrogance he displayed. I was working on ignoring any post I saw from him. An imperfect strategy but I do that with television commercials. The problem with that is, it gets in the way when I'm reading everybody else's posts.
It's similar to mosquitoes on the trail. They're a part of the scene, and they don't stop me. But it sure is easier without their buzzing.
So thanks BG for the relief.
|
|
|
|
|
onrockandice
Jul 14, 2011, 9:26 PM
Post #48 of 50
(10727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2009
Posts: 355
|
Pdawgy wrote: As far as I know, A. Honnold was not drunk or high when he free solo'd the 12a NW Face of Halfdome. I don't care what the studies show, impairing your judgement when climbing is a bad idea - ESPECIALLY when free soloing.
I know Alex and talked with him at length about this solo and I assure he was not drunk. He had 3 friends there and these are good guys. They wouldn't let him go if he wasn't 100% sober. Plus in other quotes Honnold hates beer and alcohol. Outside interviewed him and he states in that interview he hates alcohol. He stated some other stuff that cost him his North Face sponsorship too...
|
|
|
|
|
onrockandice
Jul 14, 2011, 9:40 PM
Post #49 of 50
(10713 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2009
Posts: 355
|
csproul wrote: blondgecko wrote: You sure can. "Rescue"man - you're out of here for a month. A second offense will lead to a permanent ban. I think a ban was uncalled for...
Called for! The rules are pretty clear. He must have been drunk or he didn't read them.
In terms of strong reactions calling for the death of anyone is not a strong reaction that's called hate. Really it makes hate seem passive.
No a 30-day ban is just fine. In fact a 30-day fine + last warning would probably be about right. That's just such an awful thing to say and clearly he meant it which is really scary.
|
|
|
|
|
Pdawgy
Jul 14, 2011, 11:53 PM
Post #50 of 50
(10674 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2011
Posts: 7
|
I was not suggesting Alex was drunk during that solo. I was making a point to the person who that said someone needs to be high to free-solo a 10d... as well as the dude arguing that alcohol can improve performance.
I think the point here is clear - as far as accident and incident analysis goes, it is pretty cut and dry:
Accident: 60 foot fall while free-soloing intoxicated.
Analysis: a) No gear malfunction as no gear was used, b) No gear user error, as no gear was used, c) cause of fall - alcohol, over-confidence about climbing ability and/or freak accident.
Conclusions/Takeways: Climbing while impaired can lead to severe injury. Risk is increased when free-soloing. Best way to avoid this type of accident in the future - don't climb while impaired.
That's it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
