"making a case" in an accident/Kropp

[kmurray]

I have read, with great interest, about the accident of Göran Kropp, who I met last year, and had corresponded with two weeks before his death.

 

There had been posting about preservation of evidence, objectivity, and "making the case", and these concepts were met with derision. I assume that this is from those who do not routinely deal with evidence, and the ramifications of not handling things properly, and objectively.

 

I would point out that there ARE often ramifications of not doing this well. To take the immediate example, we have a situation where an "investigation" is undertaken by someone who has no training or knowledge in doing that.

Erden cannot possibly claim any objectivity. He was the belayer. He states Kropp was his hero.

I don't know him, but knowing human nature, how tempting it would be to "fudge" things a bit, if the problem was Kropp's performance, to "protect" his memory. The temptation would be extreme, to not disclose a belaying error.

I allege neither. I don't know Erden, and would assume him to be honest and honorable. I would also assume him to be human. Could you imagine his having to disclose either to Kropp's family?

Could you?

That is what objectivity is about.

What does Kropp deserve? My impression of the man was that he was a "straight shooter", and that he let things speak for themselves.

 

I've seen evidence mishandling result in no final evaluation being possible. I've seen it result in people losing insurance benefits (no apparent issue here, but we don't know). I've seen it result in clear equipment failure not being provable. Aside from liability, what would be the result if there was a problem with a lot# of carabiners, and it could not be proved due to mishandling? A previous poster mentioned all the lines of 'biners that have been recalled...wonder what prompted that?? Good, uncontested evidence. It should be handled properly, Kropp deserves that.

 

"Making a case", while having the implication of legal action, ALSO refers to "making a point", such as credibly explaining the reason that the carabiner failed. The appropriate response, where unclear as to what a person means, is to ask for clarification, NOT to blow them out of the water for advocating lawsuits.

 

I don't know if everyone understands how much this accident bothers a LOT of people! (and I am NOT talking about the loss of Kropp, a real tragedy.) If one looks at the accident literature, one can hardly find incidents of equipment failure, compared to "operator error."

So we climbers work and work and work, to improve our technique. The thought that one can do everything perfectly, take a fall, and have the equipment, used correctly, in perfect shape, and properly placed, FAIL MULTIPLE TIMES, resulting in death, is disturbing in the extreme. I've talked with people who are wondering if this knowledge changes the equation of risk. In essence, it is saying that a person would be willing to do all their routes as free solos.

Would you? Many would reconsider the danger factor, especially considering the possible consequences. One thinks of Layton Kor. So finding out what really happened REALLY DOES have implications for many climbers. This being the case, I really commend Erden for pursuing the issue. While I think that it has a real healing function for him, it is also a real service to the climbing community. The *only* issue that can really be taken, is the manner by which the investigation is pursued.

 

Hope this clarifies the viewpoint somewhat.

 

Erden, I find that I could easily have been in your place, a truly sobering and unimaginable scenario. When I was teaching my rap class yesterday, I found myself throwing in a lot of extra backup....I imagine I will for a long while.

[pope]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmurray:

The thought that one can do everything perfectly, take a fall, and have the equipment, used correctly, in perfect shape, and properly placed, FAIL MULTIPLE TIMES, resulting in death, is disturbing in the extreme.

---

I've never had such thoughts, and I would guess that I never will, regardless of the outcome of this "investigation". I've seen the belay chain work well so many times that I have an enormous amount of faith in it, provided I'm climbing with somebody who understands its limitations. If an investigation into this accident concludes that Goran had done everything "perfectly", then I will still view his passing as a tragedy that defies statistics, and I will not question the engineering of the equipment I use nor my own capability to properly secure my mountain travels therewith.

 

The assumption that a beginning rock leader (high-altitude experience not withstanding) would have been properly placing gear contradicts experiences I've had in instructing novice rock athletes. My experience is that novice climbers have difficulty evaluating the quality of gear placements while standing on the ground in a seminar. When they actually have to place the gear while dealing with exposure and fatigue, perhaps from a stance where they really can't see the placement.....let's just say this is a difficult task. In retrospect, with the protection placed by Goran now removed from this climb, it will be difficult to analyze the judgements he made in placing it.

 

Good luck with your investigation, and I do solemnly hope that those involved achieve some kind of closure.

[Mike_Gauthier]

Thanks

 

[ 11-04-2002, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Mike Gauthier ]