selkirk

I think a big distinction between Guides and Climb leaders is the support structure. A guide is expected to fly solo, so he needs enough experience to do so, and take care of his group. A climb leader share the responsibility with his party (intermediates who have been climbing for a year or two, and the basics who are just learning). The big reason that there is a set of basic skill requirements that students have to demonstrate prior to going out on climbs is that the climb leaders aren't guides. They need to know that the basics can be trusted to support the climb. A second point, is that there's a reason that basic climbs travel in groups of anywhere between 4 and 6 on rock climbs and 6 and 12 on glacier climbs. It's not expected that each basic climber will be completely self sufficient. There is also a good reason that the basic climbs are technically straightforward. They're taught (and tested) on enough skills than they can safely go into the field as well as provide some support (belaying, breaking down anchors, crevasse rescue assistance). So the balance of a very experienced climb leader, several intermediate students of various skill levels, group size of 4+, and moderate objectives ends up providing a safe climbing format. It's not fast, it's not elegant, but it is safe. Ken, it seems to me that the friends who taught you, and the Mountaineers climb leaders aren't truly guides, but mentors. It's a bit of a fine distinction. But they were both sharing their knowledge and experience because they enjoyed it and they wanted you to learn to climb. They're not paid (occasional beers don't count). They're not professionals. Hell they're not even experts. But they have a body of knowledge which is safe, and greater than yours that they're willing to share. On their first climbs they probably took you up technically easy trade routes that were below your technical climbing ability, so that the chance of accidents was greatly minimized. Cheers all! Oh and Mtn Freak, if you come up with any info on the British Council standards thing, please to share it.

MtnFreak, out of curiousity, what do you think the more critical aspect of the AMGA certification and required body of experience is, as applied to teaching? Is that much larger body of experience necessary to know what skills are important to teach in a comprehensive manner, or how to teach the skills? My instinct is that it's the what to teach, that requires so much experience, not the how to teach it. I'd like to know if I'm wrong though. One big distinction, between hiring a guide or having your buddies take you out and teach you, and learning through the club is who is making the decisions about what is important. For your buddies, or the guide, they're flying solo. They had better have enough experience and knowledge to know what all you need to learn, and not forget anything critical. There is no way a first year intermediate has the knowledge set to completely guide someone elses climbing education, they don't have nearly enough experience. However they're not expected to. That's why the "Mountaineers Way" is taught. The climbing committee has been developing and evaluating the minimum set of skills necessary to be safe in the mountains for longer than I've been alive, and it's this body of experience that's determining the "what to teach". The intermediates are only expected to be able to do the "how to teach part", and I think they do a pretty good job. The how part pretty well mirrors, the med school thing previously mentioned. Watch one, do a bunch in a controlled setting under supervision, do a few in a wild setting where you and your partner are responsible for checking each other, then demonstrate one to a basic, and watch and offer advice while they practice.

says the ego tripping, condescending.... . . . . climber

Wartleys' isn't bolted, and if it does I'll chop the things myself. It's too pretty a crack to lead on anything but gear. and obviously Jens you've never scared yourself silly on trad. There is very little I've found that's more rewarding than trying to onsight at or a little above my limit on gear. Climbing trad at your limit is a much more mental game then sport, bouldering, or climbing multipitch below your limit.

First off I have no idea what the hell i'm talking about as I've only been drytooling a dozen times or so, and never been on true water ice but ..... I've got a set of Grivel G-12's and like them. The second points are just a touch more aggressive then sabretooths, so it seems like you shouldn't have to droop your heal as much to get contact. From what little drytooling I did last year, Monopoints are the way to go for that. It seems like they'd be bit more squirrely as you only have one point, but I had a hell of a time finding footholds where I could get dual front points on, and only getting one out of two frontpoints on is unstable as hell. I'd like to echo what mike said. Stem, Stem, stem, stem. If your on a dead vertical and flat wall, stem anyway. For my weakling little ass stemming is the solution to everything, always If your looking to push on single pitch stuff, go leashless ! I don't even have tools intended to be leashless, and cragging I go leashless anyway. It allows much better flow and creattive body positioning/movement, as your not locked into the right tool on the right, and left tool on the left anymore.

Blasphemy, down at Smith. My first 11a, got the redpoint on my 3rd attempt Paul Maul, hardest clean gear route to date. First fall on gear (blue TCU) on Calamity Jam. Ended up falling on it 3 times, and managed to sack up pull through the crux and cruise the rest. Damn things not 10c is all I have to say. Let my first (and only) drytool route at M4 over at little crag in Issaquah (lead it by headlamp none the less). Thanks for the bolts Alex! One fall near the top while groveling for a stick into a clump of grass North Face of Chair Peak in winter. (First Ice climb of any type, did Ob. Rock this fall which was mellow.) Most dissapointing moment wimped out of trying Wartley's Revenge. I decided that trying to onsight 2 grades harder than my hardest redpoint on gear was bad idea. I'm an idiot and should have tried it anyway!

Would love to but it's an awful long commute for a 30 minute appointment

It's time for beer and conditioning hikes up Si. . . . . . . . . . . . . . God I hate conditioning hikes up Si.

Thanks again Mike! An no, no asymmetric clicking, popping etc that I can tell. If anything my uninjured wrist pops a bit more. I'll watch for a couple of weeks, and maybe pick up a wrist splint. Definitely won't go the family doc route. I gave up going to them for any type of sports or joint type injury years ago. I've known a few cases where they're misdiagnosis cost people entire seasons. They just don't see enough of this type of stuff. I've gotten in to see sports med types at the UW medical center before and can probably do that directly without the referal process so I'll either go that route or the chiro route.

The warmth/pain started at the juncture between my palm and wrist on the inside of my hand. It extended maybe 5 or 6 inches up my arm towards my elbow. Pain is almost too strong a word, warmth is probably more accurate No pain flexing or extending my wrist with resistance at my fingers. No asymmetric pain or discomfort moving my fingers in flexion or extension under no load. No abnormal movement, motion or anything else asymmetric. No noticed swelling, discoloration etc. Occasional minor tendonitis from too much work at a computer w/ a mouse but it's symmetric and predates the climb. Relatively mild. No noticed decrease in strength. Really the only time it seems to twinge/burn a bit is when the wrist is cocked and I pull down on it. (think pulling straight down on a high finger lock.) In that position, under load there is some tingling and warmth. Thanks Mike! Is it something I should actually get looked at? or just ice, and tape the damn thing for a few months?

About 3 weeks ago I was climbing a finger crack and tweaked my wrist a bit. I had both feet pop off so I basically hanging off a finger lock and crimp, pulled hard on the finger lock and felt this little "pop" and it felt like something kind of slipped (kind of hard to describe) and then this warm, not quite burning sensation in the first 6 inches between my wrist and elbow. It hurt a little bit, but it was more burning/warm than painful???? Since then when I'm trying to pull on awkward facing holds awkward side pulls usually . It's fine for pulling straight down on with a straight wrist, it seems like I have to pull down, with my fingers cocked (like a finger lock) Does anyone have any idea what the hell I did? I'm more curious than anything else. Trying to take it a bit easy. Cheers

The picture of the sherman failure that I saw had the failure point below the knot. I really can't imagine that there was much sawing action. As memory serves the strength reduction due to knotting is directly tied to how sharp the bends in the rope are. Climbing ropes have a relatively large diameter so the bends don't end up being very sharp for the knots used (figure 8 is almost full strength, overhand have sharper bends so the strength reduction is larger). Most of the Daisy chains I've seen are still relatively wide (1/2 inch or wider?) So any knotting or girth hitching ends up with relatively broad radius turns. The 8mm and 6 mm slings though have such a small radius that it seems like the bends would be much tighter and could cause additional weakening. Especially when combined with the spectra. I could be talking out of my ass, but aren't Kevlar and Spectra incredibly strong but also very stiff fibers that weaken more significantly than nylon due to repeated knotting as the individual fibers actually break and not just bend?

I've done the same thing though only for easy alpine stuff and for glacier. (building a personal anchor out of 8mm dyneema runners for, my rock climbing/cragging anchor is one of the Metolius PAS systems.). Where I'm not likely to need it for anything, so I figure go as light weight as possible. After the Sherman failure I won't be doing this anymore. My guess is that some of the damage may have been do to a sawing action, but likely the majority was due to sharp bends in the dyneema. It's pretty common knowledge that knotting reduces rope or runner strength (some knots more than others, with the girth hitch and overhand being the worst, and figure 8 being better). I have a feeling the sharp bends caused by the girth hitch caused the failure, and that because of the nature of dyneema, this strength reduction due to knotting in this case (tight bends due to small diameter) is much worse than with larger chords. I would be very very very loathe to take a short fall onto a personal anchor like this. The girth hitch into the harness might be ok (semi protected due to friction with the harness but has a very sharp bend where the chord wraps around itself) but the figure 8's in the middle would make me very nervous. If your set on this configuration you might try passing the dyneema through the waist/leg loops so that it isn't knotted, and then using a bit of tape or something to create your loops. Short clipping is no longer an option though.

Last weekend was fantastic. Spent Saturday afternoon hiding in the shade or sweating in the sun.

Trad climbers as a whole seem to be a pretty good bunch. It seems to take a slightly more mellow demeanor. Being arrogant and overly aggressive on gear just gets you hurt. First time I was down there we saw a belayer nearly get the chop. The leader kicked off a coffee table sized flake that landed about 4 ft away from his belayer. She wasn't wearing a helmet, but I think in this case it wouldn't have helped anyway. Same trip we say a guy teach his buddy how to belay with a grigri and 45 seconds later start up 5 Gallon Jugs (which based on his shaking legs and wide eyes was near his lead limit). My wife asked him how the free solo was when he got down. Some seriously sketchy practices go on down there. CBS, how was New Testament by the way?

Talked to a fellow at Redpoint over the weekend, who had recently talked to the Falcon Rep. I guess they had to rework the layout as it was set up for printing at Wolverine. (previous publishing company) And god forbid they use the layout from a now defunct publishing house. So the last he heard was June or July 2007 Either that or whenever the DMM versions of the HB offset's come out.

My thoughts exactly..... Anybody wanna argue about the merits replacing putting in two 1/2" bolts, to replace the need to sling trees for belay/rap stations on local trade routes?

Good comparison, but I get the impression that NOLS / Outward bound is course taught by proffesionals, not volunteers / amateurs.

individual RMI guides might have more days out per year than most individual Mounties. But if were talking accident statistics. But if your looking at statistics for the groups as a whole, I'd be willing to bet that Mounties as a group have a comparable number of days out per year (official climbs, unofficial climbs, field trips in the hills, etc.) as RMI and their clients do. And how many people can really afford to shell out a grand for 1 weekends climbing instruction? As an interesting sidebar

RMI certainly has more days on "Rainier" in year, so your right Alasdair, number of deaths on Rainier doesn't show anything. Need to have a broader comparison to be fair. It would be interesting to know the number of injuries/deaths per person days climbing (rock, ice, alpine, sport, cragging) in a year for say, RMI or another guiding service, the Mountaineers, and climbers as a whole. And statistics wizards running around?

Do you think the number of person climbing days is higher with the Mountaineers or RMI?

Unluckily climbing is a dangerous and unforgiving activity, and for some reason the last couple of years has seen a spate of accidents in the mountaineers. That said from what I've seen none of them have been precipitated by inexperienced climbers out for their first trip, and in over their heads. Sharkfin was one of those almost classic climbing accidents, where a set of what were a seriers of seamingly reasonable judgements at the time (But in retrospect may have been less than ideal) compounded, and ended in tragedy. They were in the wrong gully, but we've all done that, there was rockfall, but we've all experienced that. The ultimate cause was that their chosen rappel anchor failed. However, without being there at the time, and knowing what the other options were (if any), it's impossible to know whether there were better options. To say it was inexerpience, or lack of technique, is innaccurate in case. All we can do is learn to be vigilant about everything. Yellowjacket this spring, was a lapse in judgement. It wasn't a first year basic student, but a somewhat more experienced intermediate on 4th to low 5th, easier than what many of us have scrambled before. Could this have been prevented by a longer mentorship, or better teaching? Maybe. How many of you still scramble 4th/low 5th terrain even with some exposure? From what I've read about these accidents (and like many of you I obsess about accidents and causes), none of them seemed to be tied to how the courses were run, or the experience level of the leaders or students. No one was doing anything blatantly dangerous or anything most climbers don't get away with on a semi-regular basis. They were just what the name implied, accidents. Further neither of those accidents were during "organized classes". They were basic CLIMBS, not basic field trips. At that point the students are climbers, granted they're green, and still learning from the more experienced climbers on the trip, but they are climbers none the less. And neither accident happend to a basic student. In my opinion these accidents are no more tied to courses, than a football players blown knee is to his coach. It's an acknwoldged risk of the sport when things go bad.

Oh, and Jens, good on ya for mentoring a new climber!

Accomplishments of folks I've climbed with in the mountaineers (which is an awfully small sample size to begin with, so I'm sure there are lots of others): -Denali (Several folks,some multiple times) -Skied across the Greenland Ice Cap -20k+ft peaks in China, Mexico, and South America (some multiple 20k+ peaks) -Liberty Crack in a day -CNR Stuart in a day -Dierdre-Ultimate Everything linkup -A3 routes in the Valley -3 months a year in the Valley for the last 3 years. -25+ climbing trips in one year -SEWS, NEWS, Lexington, Concord, Lib Bell enchainment -Guiding for RMI -Lots of folks working with local mountain rescue groups -Multiple winter attempts on Rainier (failed due to weather) -Performed initial rescues of professional guided parties that got in trouble. and most importantly -kinder and more giving folks than some of you fuckers. and I only know maybe 10% of the folks in the climbing program. I'd so those things qualify as climbing hard/technically good? That said there is also a set of leaders who are out climbing (moderate objectives that are appropriate to their, and their parties, skill level.) because they like being in the mountains with good people, and they enjoy teaching people to climb. (I've heard the term green-bonding, I think it was used by Ira Spring?) The best way to protect our access and the climbing culture is to teach new climbers. This is also the only group I've come across who's willing to take people with little or no experience, teach them to climb in a safe fashion, and provide them with a group of people to climb with, and from which to draw their own climbing partners. In my opinion, that alone is a pretty special, pretty valuable thing. Of the folks I climb with regularly, without the climbing course, maybe 25% or less would have started without the basic course. (and some of the 75% have accomplishments on that list) And yes, people who have only been belaying for a year are teaching other people to belay (or rappel, or tie in, or put on their crampons, or self arrest). Were not talking rocket science here, and they're not teaching advanced techniques of any sort. And yes it's all supervised. "Teach" may even be too strong a word, it's more like a brief demonstration followed by supervised practice. Of all the folks I've climbed with in the mountaineers, their is one leader I wouldn't climb a skill level appropriate objective with. There have also been 3 students (that I heard about by way of mouth), none of whom graduated their respective climbing courses, or climb with the mountaineers any longer. That's a pretty good record in my opinion. Half the "image" problem is that the image is driven by basic climbs, and on any basic climb, 50% of the people are on their first or second climb EVER. It's expected that they're going to be inefficient. Everyone hear who was dialed on their first rock or glacier climb ever, please raise they're hand? However the climbs are usually good ones to learn on. Everyone has had a run in with a bad local climbing party, and it seems like they all get blamed on the Mountaineers, whether or not it us. On any given weekend in the summer there are probably 10-15 climbs going on. Most of these draw little or no attention whatsoever, obtain their objectives and go home. So the best case impression is no impression, and worst case impression is a party of slow moving basics on an easy route. Oh, and the light/fast seminar might be interesting, and there are on going discussions on how to modernize the course. As with any volunteer orginization it's a slow process.

It's going to be a regular party down there. planning on heading down Tomorrow to scoop all the good routes and retrobolt the cracks