2010 Accidents in North American Mountaineering

by **Augie Medina** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:54 pm

I just finiished reading the AAC's annual report. These are some items that struck me:

1. As in past years, rappel and lowering errors were abundant (rope too short, no knots in ends of rope). A recurring error on 2-strand rappels was failure to thread rope to anchor at middle mark resulting in rapping off uneven ends.

2. High experience level doesn't preclude basic errors ("a seasoned climber was lowered off the end of his rope by another seasoned climber. Both climbers had joked regarding the length of the rope/climb prior to starting the route...[C]limber fell 12 feet onto his head and upper back...." [p. 71].

3. Most accidents in the U.S. occurred ascending.

4. Marked increase in the role of the cell phone in initiating rescue.

5. Idiocy Award

A group hiking in Grand Canyon activated "help" button on SPOT unit b/c they were out of water. When rescue chopper arrived the next morning they declined rescue b/c they had found a water source in the meantime. Later that evening, group hit "911" button again and when chopper arrived for 2d time, rescuers found that group was worried about "salty" water but no emergency existed. Crew declined the group's request for a night evacuation. On following morning, another SPOT "help" call was received. This time, group members were flown out but refused medical assessment or treatment. Leader was asked what group would have done without SPOT device. His answer: "We would have never attempted this hike."

The group leader was cited for creating a hazardous condition under federal regulation. [pp. 26-27]

by **BrunoM** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:03 pm

Can we read this online somewhere?

by **simonov** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:39 pm

Mountain Impulse wrote:2. High experience level doesn't preclude basic errors

This does not surprise me at all. Experienced people become too comfortable with what are potentially very dangerous activities. This is a well-known problem among experienced shooters.

Mountain Impulse wrote:3. Most accidents in the U.S. occurred ascending.

This does surprise me. I have always assumed descent was more dangerous, for a variety of reasons, not least of which being the climbers are usually more fatigued.

But hard data trumps assumption and anecdotes.

by **Augie Medina** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:21 pm

BrunoM wrote:Can we read this online somewhere?

Not that I know of off hand.

by **Augie Medina** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:30 pm

redneck wrote:
Mountain Impulse wrote:3. Most accidents in the U.S. occurred ascending.

This does surprise me. I have always assumed descent was more dangerous, for a variety of reasons, not least of which being the climbers are usually more fatigued.

But hard data trumps assumption and anecdotes.

It does go against conventional wisdom. I haven't checked for all years these reports have been out, but for the previous year, accidents in the U.S. in 2008, it was the same trend.

by **sharperblue** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:54 am

you can read the ANAM reports online on the American Alpine Institute website if you are a member; the Canadian reports version is available online for free

by **mrchad9** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:11 am

Mountain Impulse wrote:A group hiking in Grand Canyon activated "help" button on SPOT unit b/c they were out of water. When rescue chopper arrived the next morning they declined rescue b/c they had found a water source in the meantime. Later that evening, group hit "911" button again and when chopper arrived for 2d time, rescuers found that group was worried about "salty" water but no emergency existed. Crew declined the group's request for a night evacuation. On following morning, another SPOT "help" call was received. This time, group members were flown out but refused medical assessment or treatment. Leader was asked what group would have done without SPOT device. His answer: "We would have never attempted this hike."

The group leader was cited for creating a hazardous condition under federal regulation. [pp. 26-27]

Good that they were at least cited. Would be nice if there were civil penalties as well.

by **PellucidWombat** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:37 am

I was surprised how often belayers let the ends of the rope pass through their belay device, dropping the climber! Time to start tying in, or tying knots . . .

by **Dow Williams** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:03 pm

PellucidWombat wrote:I was surprised how often belayers let the ends of the rope pass through their belay device, dropping the climber! Time to start tying in, or tying knots . . .

Yes, on a multi pitch climb you should always be tied into the rope, anything short of that does not make sense no matter how new you are to climbing. Both the ends and to the anchor. The accident which is unfortunately quite popular, is rappelling off the end of ones rope. Via crag sport climbing, inexperienced belayers will on occasion drop the climber, but whether the rope end runs through their device or not is rather inconsequential to the situation at hand unless you are climbing a tall pitch on double ropes which is not common at most crags.

by **Dow Williams** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:32 pm

MikeTX wrote:a couple of weeks ago i actually observed someone drop a climber because the rope ran out of their belay device. the climber was being lowered from a toprope. luckily it was a short fall, maybe only 6 to 8 feet, and other than possibly a spranged ankle the climber was okay. she was very lucky. kinda spoiled the rest of the day though.

sometimes it's good to see something like that happen. i don't think i'll ever forget to tie off the belay end of the rope on a tall climb.

The belayer did not drop the climber because the rope ran through his/her device, rather he/she lost control of the belay. This individual was going to sprain his/her ankle either way, knot tied or not, the ankle should have hit the ground with similar force. It is best to just have a competent belayer which I realize is probably a challenge in some locals.

by **Dow Williams** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:10 pm

MikeTX wrote:and rest assured that the concentration of incompetant belayers is probably uniform at every locale.

No, not even close. A bit out of your comprehension zone I would imagine, but normally my belayer is the only belayer to be seen or heard from for miles. The more a crag offers low angled easy sport routes, the more belay accidents, more folks + less experience yields a certain result....the steeper the wall, thus less huddled about to climb it + more experience yields a certain result......... it really is that simple.

by **simonov** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:21 pm

Dow Williams wrote:The more a crag offers low angled easy sport routes, the more belay accidents, more folks + less experience yields a certain result....the steeper the wall, thus less huddled about to climb it + more experience yields a certain result......... it really is that simple.

I guess you missed the opening post in this thread:

2. High experience level doesn't preclude basic errors

by **Dow Williams** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:43 pm

MikeTX wrote:
redneck wrote:
Dow Williams wrote:The more a crag offers low angled easy sport routes, the more belay accidents, more folks + less experience yields a certain result....the steeper the wall, thus less huddled about to climb it + more experience yields a certain result......... it really is that simple.

I guess you missed the opening post in this thread:

2. High experience level doesn't preclude basic errors

no, no, no. dow's already talked to the editors. he's convinced them to print a recant.

Juvenile debate tactic at best....grow up and attempt to make a point like men for once....I never said experience "precluded" anything....most belay accidents happen at low angled, busy sport cragging locales.....you seem to take issue with the fact I pointed out that you were a bit too focused on tying knots when lowering someone who is top roped when in reality, that sounds a bit silly based on the fact that the rope is supposed to reach the ground. I corrected you and shed light on the fact that it was not the rope end running through the belayers device as much as that belayer simply lost control of the belay that was the preventative factor that needs attention. Were you the one distracting the belayer?

by **TheOrglingLlama** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:57 pm

There are never any accident reports in there about

Llama Trekking ! :mrgreen:

by **simonov** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:40 pm

Dow Williams wrote:
MikeTX wrote:
redneck wrote:
Dow Williams wrote:the steeper the wall, thus less huddled about to climb it + more experience yields a certain result......... it really is that simple.

I guess you missed the opening post in this thread:

2. High experience level doesn't preclude basic errors

no, no, no. dow's already talked to the editors. he's convinced them to print a recant.

Juvenile debate tactic at best....grow up and attempt to make a point like men for once....I never said experience "precluded" anything....

Hmm, how is my point unclear? Is there anyone here besides Dow who failed to understand the point I was making?

Mountain Impulse wrote:2. High experience level doesn't preclude basic errors

Dow Williams wrote:more experience yields a certain result......... it really is that simple.

Based on what I believe you mean by "a certain result," these two statements appear to be mutually exclusive.

Only one can be correct. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to deduce which one.

As for "juvenile," that's a bit rich coming for the fellow who posted:

Dow Williams wrote:A bit out of your comprehension zone I would imagine, but normally my belayer is the only belayer to be seen or heard from for miles.

2010 Accidents in North American Mountaineering

2010 Accidents in North American Mountaineering

Re: 2010 Accidents in North American Mountaineering

Re: 2010 Accidents in North American Mountaineering

Re: 2010 Accidents in North American Mountaineering

Who is online