forrest_m Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Dryad’s thread about reactions to risk and injury brought to mind another line of thought I’ve been having lately about risk assessment and acceptance. People who write about extreme-level single push climbing note that you have to be prepared to turn around if the slightest thing goes wrong. I think this also applies to less-than-cutting-edge ascents in lightweight style as well. Suppose that at the base of a the NR of Stuart, I discover that I’ve forgotten my shell jacket. The weather looks great, so I keep going. The climbing is within my abilities and the route goes without a hitch. I descend and head home, another casual day in the mountains. Or was it? In climbing safety systems, we rely on single redundancy. We make anchors so that any one component can fail but not necessarily to resist the failure of two separate things simultaneously. Similarly, on a alpine climb, you generally assume that if one major thing goes wrong – weather goes to shit, an injury, getting way off-route, lost or forgotten gear – it may be a PITA, but you will probably be ok. However if two or more of these things happen, you will have an epic. If you are strong, skilled and/or lucky, you may survive an epic, but the outcome will be in doubt. I don’t have any problem with accepting a certain level of risk – that’s what climbing is about, and it’s a very personal decision what your tolerance is. But what I think it’s important to understand that if you set out, or keep going, in the face of one of these incidents happening, you have cut your margin of safety WAY down. You have already spent your redundancy. In hindsight, I can see that through ignorance or self-deception I have often miscalculated what the risks are and ended up accepting a level of risk greater than I had intended. To get back to my forgotten jacket, since the weather is nice and I don’t need the jacket, it would be easy to continue on thinking that nothing has really changed. But the reality is that my risk assessment SHOULD change. Had I deliberately left my jacket behind, I would have gone into the climb with a completely different mindset. My point is not that it was inherently dangerous to climb without a jacket, but rather that my calculation of what degree of risk I was accepting should be different. Finally, I think it’s important to be wary of negative feedback: “nothing bad happened, so it must have been safe.” To repeat myself one more time, it’s not that I think consciously accepting risk is bad, it’s the accidental assumption of risk that I try to avoid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Joe Snow has climbed the north ridge a dozen times. Regularly solos 5.12 and has lead every trad .13 route in NA. Runs a sub 4 minute mile in Colo Springs every month of the year. Joe decides to solo the NR of Stuart on a cool day in late Sept. Weather conditions are perfect. Takes every item he needs including the gear that will allow him to survive a few nights out. (which aint much BTW) While hanging the rope at the top of the rappel a big rocks falls for the summit area and drives Joe's helmet to his belly button. Shit happens. it’s not that I think consciously accepting risk is bad, it’s the accidental assumption of risk that I try to avoid. Dude, climbing is the assumption of risk. The harder, higher, lighter you climb the more you accept. There is no one that cuts it to zero, not the the guy doing a 5.0 boulder or the best soloist in the world. Shit happens...driving, climbing or getting out of the shower. Part of climbing or other endeavors like skiing fast is, accidental assumption of risk. Key is how prepared are you to handle the accident Tyrone is always there and waiting for you to falter. Part of the risk is not being able to handle the risk at all, like a helmet driven to your belly button. Helps to know the rules of what you are risking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 It seems clear that by accidental risk he is not talking about accidents per se - such as freak rockfall - but risk that one inadvertently assumes by oversights (forgetting the jacket), inattention to detail, self-deception, etc., etc., etc., all of which lead to the unwitting assumption of more risk than one had originally bargained for when setting out on the climb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 (edited) by accidental risk he is not talking about accidents per se - such as like freak rockfall - but risk that one inadvertently assumes by oversights (forgetting the jacket), inattention to detail, self-deception, etc., etc., etc. Are you sure of that? Any accident could be defined as "oversight". Depends on the skills, experience, mindset, or degree of luck the individual is blessed with. That was my point, there are very few real "accidents". Call "chance" the hand of GOD. It is also #3 in the definition from Webster's. The first two are the general rule for an accident. Accident: an unintented happening, a mishap, a chance. For example, freak rock falls generally aren't. They are generally predated by heavy rains, free/thaw, wind or any number of other reasons. What may be unintended on your part, such as a belay failure, generally means you didn't set up the belay correctly. Every time you climb you take the risk of the belay not being set up correctly for any number of reasons. Getting hit by lighting generally means you were climbing where you shouldn't have been at that moment. Any time you set off to climb "you unwitting assume" risks than you can not fully gauge. Doesn't matter if you have done the climb a dozen times or never done the climb. That is what a guide book does, lower the risk by giving you some knowledge of what you'll run into, as will a weather report. But why would you ever think that you shouldn't "unwitting assume more risk than one had originally bargained "? Be a boring life if everything was cookie cutter clean on the level of risk assumed. Edited October 30, 2003 by Dane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 forrest_m said:I think this also applies to less-than-cutting-edge ascents in lightweight style as well. My friend was on a class 3 piece of rock this summer by Logan. The boulder he was on moved and caused him to fall several times causing a head injury. Some people have said he should not have gone light. Well, it turns out they dropped their packs just so they could scramble up this little peak. Did they make a bad call? Not in my opinion. Class 3 scramble? Who would have thought? I don't wear a helmet on class 3 climbing....I probably never will. Hell, I worry most about tripping on something going cross country and then impailing myself on a broken branch from a fallen tree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambone Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 I think that either form of climbing, light and fast - or heavy and slow, have their place. The important thing is to recognize which approach you are taking and what the risks are, plan your trip accordingly, and once you are out there - stick with the plan. It is when you deviate from the plan mid trrip that you get yourself in trouble, for instance...going slow and light, or heavy and fast...just doesn't work. Let me elaborate on some of my experiences/mistakes... Most of you who have been here for at least a year are aware of my Glacier Peak episode. On that trip we packed light (light shells, wimpy down bags, little food and fuel, etc.) because we were planning to carry our gear over the summit and descend the standard route. We knew we couldn't do this with anymore gear/heavier packs. The problem came when we were slower than we expected, with lightweight gear. We bivied on the summit rather than descend in the late afternoon, worried about snow conditions and fatigue. Essentialy we got hammered by an unexpected storm with inadequate gear. We misjudged the risks and it kicked us in the ass. Light and slow is a bad combo, it could kill you. Morale: dont go light unless you are sure you are fast. Ok, one more story, with a better ending. This past weekend we went for the N Ridge of Stuart. We knew that with the short days, and us being "off the couch" climbers, light and fast would be a mistake. So we planned for two bivis, sleeping bags, bivi sacs, belay jackets, a stove, and food...added up to more weight than we were expecting, or would like to admit. But our plan worked, things went as we expected and we stayed warm. The extra risk we accepted was that of our "pigs" pulling us off the damn ridge...which almost happened more than once, not to mention the nightmare of hauling the Gendarme... Anyway, I gues my point is that a good alpinist knows their limitations, accepts them and plans accordingly. I'm still learning, and of course...the rest is all luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrest_m Posted October 30, 2003 Author Share Posted October 30, 2003 Jay – Thanks for the clarification, yes, that’s what I meant. Dane, I think you’re getting caught up in the semantics of the word accident. I don’t disagree that climbing (and life) are inherently unsafe and you can never eliminate the unforeseen. Sometimes shit does happen and all the preparation in the world won’t prevent it. Nor am I trying to make up any kind of “system.” I’m just interested in discussing judgment in alpine situations, particularly the decision to continue on or to retreat after some unexpected occurrence. Here’s another hypothetical. Two guys go up for a quick ascent of Liberty Ridge. They are trying to slip in ahead of an oncoming system, so they go super light. After spending the night at Thumb Rock, the weather is already changing, but they decide to push it to the top anyway, which they do, summiting in bad conditions. They are soon soaked by the wet snow, but they are able to find the descent. By the time they arrive at the car, every item in their packs is awash in water and they can no longer stop moving without beginning to shiver uncontrollably, but they are essentially fine. My point is that climbing Lib. Ridge in bad conditions isn’t - in and of itself - a bad decision. It depends a lot on the skills and experience of the climbers. But if they had set out to climb knowing that they would be climbing in those conditions, they might have brought different gear, a shovel to dig in, whatever. Once the bad weather happened, and they continued upwards, they were much closer to the edge than they had originally planned to be – BUT IN MANY CASES THEY WOULDN’T THINK OF IT IN THOSE TERMS. They might think "good thing we're strong enough to push through this added difficulty" but they might not consider it in terms of "I hadn't planned to push my limits today." I’m not saying that continuing up was right or wrong, just that it changed the equation. I’m trying to learn to be more conscious of moments when the equation changes, rather then letting them slip by without me really noticing. I’m wondering if other people have thought similarly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 But why would you ever think that you shouldn't "unwitting assume more risk than one had originally bargained "? Maybe Forrest will chime in and clarify - but that didn't seem to be his message. For me - it's the unwitting part. I agree that when you tie in and set off on a route that you have to accept that things may well be sketchier than you had anticipated- but when that happens it makes sense to recognize that you’re in a bit deeper than you had planned and change your behavior/mindset accordingly. Most of the time it’s obvious when you need to do this, other times you find yourself in deep shit and see, in hindsight, a number of mistakes, bad decisions, or self-deceptions that led you right into the avoidable epic that you are suffering through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fern Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Forrest suppose you change your example to one where you are out for a ski tour and forgot your avalanche beacon rather than your jacket, but it hasn't snowed in a while and temperatures are cool and the snowpack is settling well so you go anyways. Do you need to change your risk assessment then? An argument some people make is that whether or not you carry an avalanche beacon should have no effect on your decisions, because it is not a magic charm that wards off danger and your priorities should be on avoidance rather than rescue. Does this train of thought work for your example...i.e. that the fact you forgot your jacket shouldn't matter to the risk you are assuming because your travel choices should be independent of the equipment you carry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 forrest_m said: I’m trying to learn to be more conscious of moments when the equation changes, rather then letting them slip by without me really noticing. I’m wondering if other people have thought similarly. it seems you'd have less chance to not notice them when the equation changes because evolving conditions usually force you, if you are at all aware, to reassess your commitment level. however dane's point is still well taken in the sense that we tend to make dubious decisions a fair amount more often than we pay the consequences for bad judgement. it seems that being aware of those moments we got away with something when nothing changed is the real challenge. but perhaps this is not the discussion you want to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necronomicon Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 The only gear I bring these days is Colin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 I wonder if Forrest's "equation changes" question might just be a question whether you should be willing to re-evaluate the situation as the climb unfolds? Maybe the equation changed because you forgot your shell jacket, as he cited as an example of the "factor" change early in this thread, but maybe the only change is that you find yourself sunburned, or tired, or you've lost the route a couple of times and it is later than you expected when you finally face that final headwall. Sometimes pushing ahead is a good idea and sometimes not; how do you tell the jitters that we experience on most of our truly big or "pushing it" climbs from plain old good sense? (In retrospect, I've concluded that I called it right and wrong, but do I really know what would have happened?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Finally, I think it’s important to be wary of negative feedback: “nothing bad happened, so it must have been safe.” To repeat myself one more time, it’s not that I think consciously accepting risk is bad, it’s the accidental assumption of risk that I try to avoid. A meat and potatoes example\ comment. I dont know about your trip to mt stuart...... I only read the first post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 (edited) Guys I am not disagreeing, just a different view point. I have turned around on climbs for reasons ranging from the hair standing on the back of my neck to what I wanted for dinner. Only young bold climbers fail to rethink the situation on every climb, moment to moment, or they don't live to be old climbers..... Not a lot of bold, old climbers. Experience teaches you that boldness is often survived through luck and not skill. I think the sematics are at issue, what may be a perfect safe situation for you (extreme and experienced alpinist) may be suicide for me (5.6 top rope gumbie). The more you know about the dangers you expose yourself to and the level of your personal experience, the less risk you are required to assume via neglect, accidents or even GOD's will. Should you be willing to rethink your decisions? Absofuckinglutly. But the best climbs (certainly my best climbs) are the ones where the risk zoomed past what I was originally intending. I found myself living through a level of risk that I would have never bought if I had known the level of commitment it would take to succeed initially. Yes there were always places to turn around. Some bypassed intentionally others just sailed past unseen. No one likes to hear it but climbing is actually a dangerious past time. I use to try to convince my mother otherwise. But it really is. You can die any time you decide to partake, rope or unroped in a zillion different ways. Not bringing a jacket can be a start. Having a bad hair day can be just as bad as deciding to take up solo first ascents. Not recognising that dying is part of the sport and the risk you assume everytime you go out is deceiving yourself IMO. Even for a 5.6 gumby Not trying to rain on anyone's fun. I still solo stuff, but no longer at the upper level of what I can lead. The house payment, the college funds all weigh me down. But I am more aware of the ramifications if I screw up. Takes some of the fun out of it if you have to spend too much time weighing the risks. Yoda was good for that answer, "do or do not, there is no try" Edited October 30, 2003 by Dane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 I have run into smart young climbers and dumb old climbers...not all the bold climbers who survive are smart some are just lucky for a while... so i would say your "only young bold climbers fail to" is a bogus generalization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 (edited) Fair enough Dru. What I could have said is, "you aren't going to be bold long it you don't rethink what you are doing moment to moment." For the correct context use "young" as as a measure of experience, not age. Age has almost nothing to do with the level of education on risk management in climbing, climbing experience does. Which goes along with the next sentence after your previous quote. "Experience teaches you that boldness is often survived through luck and not skill." But back to this thread's subject matter. it’s not that I think consciously accepting risk is bad, it’s the accidental assumption of risk that I try to avoid. If I assume a level of risk I am comfortable with I see little adventure coming from the undertaking. Adventure: an exciting and dangerious undertaking. Semantics again. If I have seemingly limited and acceptable risk, where is the challenge past the technical? I know what I am capable of technically. To Joe Snow, soloing Stuart in my previous post, the climb should have been little more than a nice afternoon work out. In stead ghe dies because you cna't limit all the risk. I would think that the danger and risks involved is what draws us all to the sport. You define the level of risk you are willing to under take everytime you leave the house. It changes for every climb we do. I am also willing to accept any additional risk that pops up everytime i go out. How I will deal with "accidental assumption of risk" changes with every incident. Edited October 30, 2003 by Dane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 I know I am getting off topic a little here but there are a few off hand comments made above that kind of threw me. First, I offer a discaimer, I have been backpacking in winter conditions since I was 5 yrs old. That's forty years. When I am preparing for any trip, I am assessing which gear I will need, and how prepared my partner will be, or wether or not I know, or that I am on my own. I pack with complete confidence that I have everything I will need for the given undertaking. I have it down. And about 1/4 of the time I forget something important. Shit. That always hurts my pride. OK so now what. Well I stopped in Gold Bar and bought a vinyl rain coat once. Another time I left the empty fuel bottle and stove in the car and dug under the seats until I found a couple extra water bottles. My wife is always after me to clean the car but SEE, I have a purpose for my methods. And then there was the time I forgot my sleeping bag and didn't know it until I was at the bivy. (OK. Drugs were involved). But did I stop what I was doing? Would it have only taken one more thing to cause me to turn around? Or, to be exact, How much tenacity am I capable of mustering and will it be enough to keep me alive? This is a huge question that overrides a lot of missing gear. Otherwise known as "the will to survive". Read 'Desperate Journeys and Abandoned Souls'. It is an anthology of TRUE ship wreck stories from as far back as the editor could find. Some are from the 1300's. Why do some people survive where others died? To ruin the ending for you, it boils down to the underlying will to survive. Dane's boulder is one thing. An objective danger on Rainier took Willi Unsoeld after he had survived a tentless bivy at 27000 on Everest. But "How many people would have survived the North Face?" is my point? Or the North Ridge of Stuart, or Liberty Ridge when the shit hits the fan. (By the way, Line your pack with a plastic garbage sack. It weighs an ounce and saves pounds of water weight and your shit stays dry. If you forget your raincoat, cut arm holes and you have a life saver.) The human body can take incredible abuse. The mind can be a different story. Sometimes, the slightest thing can put you in an off mood. Maybe the partner you thought you liked turns out to be like Capt Caveman. Or you invite me by one of my other avatars (sucker). So there you are in the mountains you love with an asshole, two gear items short of a good setup, one bad bean burrito bursting in your gut and your partner is absolutely adamant that you will forge onward. It's his car. Are you screwed? Or will you have a good time - all be it, an epic? What you do with your mind will a bigger determining factor than most missing gear items. (OK I drove back from Index once and got my climbing shoes off the kitchen table). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Bug said: Maybe the partner you thought you liked turns out to be like Capt Caveman. You got a problem with my friend? Good point: your mindset and your communication with your partner are key to survival. Unless you are expecting a climb that you can solo, most people choose their partners carefully if they are going to go "fast and light" and being "psyched" for the endeavor is nearly as important as being "qualified" for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrest_m Posted October 30, 2003 Author Share Posted October 30, 2003 I appreciate the thoughtful responses. I’ve been thinking about this since last night, and here’s maybe a clearer way to explain what I’m trying to get at. In any kind of risk-management plan, there’s usually some variation of the equation: P (probability of something bad happening) x T (time exposed to danger) x C (consequence of something bad happening) ________________ = R (total risk) Now I suppose some people who are very analytical may actually think in these terms in the field. Speaking for myself, however, its much more common to simply have an overall, gestalt sense of what R is, based on previous experience. It’s usually obvious when P increases. As someone noted, you’d have to be blind not to have your stress level go up when a storm rolls in. What I think is less obvious is when C increases, as in my forgotten jacket example and Fern’s forgotten beacon example. In both cases, P and T stay the same but R is increased (by how much is a different discussion, I think?). I find personally that I am far more sensitive/conscious of increases in P and T than I am to C. But I am coming to believe that this is a form of self-deception that I would like to reduce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Now that you have the equation you can discuss how you use it. For example, if P is high, you can decrease R by decreasing T. In other words by going fast. If you are not in top shape and can't go fast then maybe you don't want to go at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 If your C is assessed as a fatal accident before you forget your helmet, then forgetting your helmet does not increase C.... Basically its a trade off - you go light and decrease T, exposure time, in return for accepting some increased hazard (PxC), in order to reduce risk. Case in point: Slipstream. You have at least two hazards: death from fall, and death from avalanche. Yet you go light, and solo most of it, vastly increasing your exposure to death from falling, in order to reduce your exposure to death by avalanche - "speed is safety" and better the 2 hr Twight solo than the 20 hour belay every pitch ascent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beck Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 is risk a quantifiable equation? perhaps insurance adjusters and actuaries can rely on a mathematical formula to determine a level of acceptable risk. However, in the mountains it is much more vicereal... you leave your sleeping bag at home, you may go hypothermic. climb without coat, be ready to go hypo. who's been a victim of hypothermia? it's an interesting process, and quite deadly....Shivering violently as your body tries to generate heat until your core temperature cools below 97, your brain begins to slow and your functioning becomes impared and delusion sets in. at a point you begin to feel warm again. if you go to sleep now, you will not wake up. many people have died from neglecting to bring gear. look at any edition of AINAM annual. Light and fast may mean deciding to run out of food three days before the end of a climb. but you may not summit. or climbing in a single 60 hour push. but you will be miserable. however, embarking on a sufferfest doesn't mean you have to place personal survival on the line because you are going "fast and light" life is worth the weight. leave the rest of the crap behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Beck, it's 4:08am. Why are you up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beck Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 working, robbob... its how i get all my productive work done... back on topic...the less time you spend in a dangerous situation, the less time exposed to risk, so i can see some factoring is possible, but only until an accident occurs. If the accident isn't fatal, when the shizzle hits the fandizzle is when what you brought or not is going to possibly make or break you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Beck said: working, robbob... its how i get all my productive work done... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.