kmurray

Now he is trying to pull his scam over at Mt. Whitney. Must be taking a vacation down in Ca. http://www.mt-whitney.info/viewtopic.php?t=634

I'm not amazed at all, cat. This issue comes up often, for beginners at the crags. I was at Josh yesterday, with a group of quite experienced climbers (one was celebrating his 25th year at Josh), and there was considerable debate over these issues. A related issue brought up was whether it is a good idea to rappel off the belay loop, and it seemed that the predominate thought was that one should not, but pass the biner through the two parts of the harness. Part of the logic was "it's a belay loop, not a rappel loop". Personally, I think there is no difference. As for things that have been done for decades....if one is using decades-old equipment, designed to be used that way, fine. But if one is using modern equipment, one should use it the way it is designed to be used.

A copy of current EMT protocols: http://www.med.wright.edu/em/gmvemsc/2004AdultBasic-FRmanual.pdf On page 73, 3.1.5 #3, it talks about when CPR will NOT be started, and it says: they will NOT start CPR on a victim of traumatic full arrest, unless they can get the patient to an ER within FIVE minutes, or the cause is suspected to be from a reversible cause, such as a heart attack, or focused trauma to the chest (getting hit by a baseball, for example) I don't post this advocating that people not do CPR in this situation, but rather to demonstrate that professionals do not consider this to be of value for the victim. The issue of doing it to make the family or rescuer feel better is another thing. I have often seen paramedics perform CPR that could have no beneficial effect (one-handed CPR with a light touch), only so that it can be said that CPR was done, and make people feel better. If we are talking about futile care, why not do useless things that do not put the rescuer at risk, rather than useless things that DO put them to some risk?

The answer to who did the climbing on location: Yates and Simpson, according to the talk I attended by Simpson. In fact, he was a little peeved that they did not receive onscreen credit for the climbing that they did.

While I have had many experiences in stopping CPR in people, and declaring them dead, I think there is a real problem with people doing things that have no value. For example, in a victim of traumatic full arrest, one of the few procedures that might save a life in a very small percentage of cases, would be opening the chest, and searching for a repairable tear. Dr. Clyde and I both have the skills to do that, but I venture that neither of us would, because we would be lacking the vast amount of equipment that is neccessary to make such a venture worthwhile. My point in posting is that with a person suffering a traumatic full arrest, there is nothing that you can do that will save their life in the field, and you should feel no guilt because you have not undertaken futile things. I, for one, would not want my last conscious thought to be of someone breaking my ribs, attempting to do effective, but fruitless CPR. A book that touches on this issue is "Dark Shadows Falling", by Joe Simpson, in which he discusses at length, the issue of being with a dying person in the wilderness, and the issues involved. I am not one to be overly morbid, but one of the reasons that we tend to be so unprepared for exposure to such things, is that we tend not to talk about it, and work through the issues. It is good to talk about it at length, both for the people involved, and for the people who may some day be involved. Also, in their death, those who pass give something to the rest of us, which is an ultimate tribute to them...

I am a physician of 20 years, and in contrast to the other poster, I have never seen a victim of *traumatic* full arrest be resuscitated, other than in a trauma center, with a massive effort, and tremendous resources. This is totally different than a person who has a heart attack, or other medical process that causes a reversible stopping of the heart. In the case of massive trauma, things like major arteries are torn apart, and CPR does NOT restore circulation in such cases. Even in the cases of resuscitation in the trauma center, massive, irreversible brain damage is the usual result.

"While this is definitely a concern, I think that it's a pretty rare thing to load a big biner 3 ways. We climbed this way for DECADES before belay loops were invented." However, the newer, huge 'biners, used for belaying, are much more prone to this loading than a simple oval, likely what you were using 20-30 years ago.

posted at rockclimbing.com: ========= Dear Friends: I never expected for any of us to nail down exactly what happened in the accident. There were simply too many variables. However there are certain indicators that suggest a general picture. One climber had a belay device attached to his harness with the rope crimped in it, and that suggests he was actively belaying at the time of the accident. He was also attached to a sling/cordalette configuration tied off to three SLCD's, which on close inspection showed signs of deformation consistant with them being ripped from an anchor point by a significant shock load. Lastly, one (both ?) of the climbers tie-in knots was so tight it couldn't be untied by hand but had to cut -- and what else can this mean except that he fell onto the rope with considerable force, and that the anchor held long enough to fuse his knot. While any number of scenarios are possible, the most obvious one is that someone was belaying, and someone was climbing. Someone fell, the anchor failed, and the rest we sadly know. If I'd been on hand to inspect the skid marks and impact area I highly doubt I would have put forth anything more definitive that what the RMRU said from the outset. Given all the variables, I have come to resprect and appreciate what the RMRU said in the end, that we will probably never know for sure quite how our fellow climbers died. Nevertheless, I have found this conversation constructive, but my mind can come up with no more to say. There is a time following the death of every person where we are finally left with the nothing more than the loss, and I wish people grace in that process. Sincerely, John Long

perhaps of interest was this post this morning: ======= dear thank you for the attempts at in-depth analysis of the causes behind the death of our two fellow climbers, Dan and Kelly. It will perhaps serve to re-assess some of the tenets of anchor-building, and make our activities safer. After seing the pics of the anchor setup and the description of the state of the cams, I could not help remember a thread on Equalized vs. Pseudo Equalized Anchors http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=36371&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=0 which started with oldeclimber wrote: Let's start off by building a simple three point self equalizing anchor. Take three cams in perfect placements, and a long piece of cordelette tied end to end using a grapevine knot. For obvious reasons, I am off to that thread to discuss anchors. The discussion done there will be done in memory of Dave and Kelly.

(And NO ONE, to my knowledge, has posted or advocated: 1.never use SLCD's, 2.only use nuts, 3. never place pro until you are an expert in anchoring systems. ONLY that SLCD-exclusive systems may have weaknesses that may come into play in a fall, the EXACT reason that the anchor is placed in the first place. If the philosophy is that there will be no falling, then why screw around with all this gear?) (I dunno, it seems like you simple want to debate, and provoke. I'm sure that it must be entertaining to other readers, but I think we've make all our points, eh?)

BTW, it now looks as though the accident in SoCal *was* caused by a failed belay anchor. Three pieces, equalized.

MattP wrote:"If you would read this thread and think about what I've been saying for even as much as thirty seconds, you wouldn't think I was advocating learning to place gear first, and only then talking about "building an anchor." But in a previous post said: " I say emphasizing "SRENE" before learning how to put in the gear in the first place is putting the cart before the horse, and I'd perfectly happily climb just about any crag route around with someone who knew how to place gear but had no knowledge of "proper" SRENE techniques." So.....that is *exactly* what it sounds like you are advocating. However, I think that you started off with an incorrect premise about what the opening statement was about, and John Long's take on it. The advocacy was, it seemed to me, that the best anchors would combine different kinds of pieces, rather than just relying on SLCD's. Of course, you feel that a single SLCD is an acceptable anchor, backed up (apparently), but not equalized. The great thing about climbing is that you can do whatever you want. However, in this matter, you are clearly outside the mainstream of what is taught by every professional, everywhere in the world that I know of. It is true that experience teaches where you can "cut the margin", but that can only be learned through experience, not from *other* people's experience. It seems like there is some confusion as to what the climber is doing. Obviously, the concept of a "belay anchor" implies Trad, and that is how I took it. Personally, I think that any climber who starts their climbing career climbing Trad is foolish beyond comprehension. The route for most, is top-roping, sport (neither of which *requires* the ability to place pro), then finally to Trad. This seems a safe path for learning sequential skills. So, in the ideal world, a climber who is starting Trad would already be proficient with knots, belaying, ropework, equipment care.....and anchoring systems, as that generally *is* required to climb on TR, unless you have someone doing it for you. Hey, Jay, I wonder if you know that what apparently happened in SoCal, was that the lead climber slipped on moss?

Perkins, as a professional wordsmith, I appreciate that you may simply be parsing words, here. If I understand what you said, you are distinguishing between anchoring systems, and placing pro. Certainly you are correct, these are two different skillsets. And I would certainly agree, that creating a SRENE anchoring system is now, generally, a simple thing to do (although my *experience* in actually seeing what people do out at the crags continues to baffle me, as to why this cannot be done well, by a lot of people). And I would agree that placing pro is a vastly more complex undertaking. You say "Yes, anchor building is an art and a skill - but it is not in my view anywhere near as much of a mystery as is commonly suggested. Everytime I state this it is rebuffed" Which makes me think that you might have a minority opinion. Perhaps *you* may find these subjects simple, but perhaps many people do not. This may well have to do with learning processes....for example, someone with a doctorate may have down the process of learning, solidly, any particular function, even if it involves many steps. Someone who does not have that educational background may find the *process* of learning more challenging. Most climbers do not have doctorates. Although, I find it interesting that many of the early climbers were associated with university climbing clubs, Berkeley, Harvard, etc. Perhaps there is a draw to the subject? You also state: "Any new leader should spend a lot more time learning to place gear on lead, in my opinion, than learning how to build a John-Long-approved belay." Surely, you are not advocating that anyone should lead on an inadequate belay anchor? Perhaps you meant that any new leader, once they have mastered a bomber belay anchor, should spend a lot of time mastering the placement of gear. However, I'd agree that there are several ways to get to the goal.

not. it is was and will forever be lame to make gross simplifications about what may or may not be safe in a given situation. What gross simplification are you referring to? The oversimplification that it is wise to know and use a variety of techniques in varying situations? That no one technique is probably as good as using combined techniques, each of which has strengths and weaknesses, to optimize the result? To discuss what experts have said, to better understand the best way to conduct our sport?

Matt, where I am coming from is that anchoring is a complex subject, and simplistic approaches are probably not reasonable. I, like you, see astonishingly poor practices on the crags. I think that discussion of these things can be enlightening for people. None of us like to see accidents, and I think the people newer to the sport benefit from sophisticated comments on anchors, such as yours.