a. Now can these principles be retrospectively applied to a cave that has resin bonded anchors already installed under the BCA scheme, or should something different be used?
b. An example might be there aren't two anchors at the start of a traverse, should/can one be added?
c. If there is a better or drier hang to be obtained further out should more anchors be placed to use it?
d. If there aren’t two anchors to initially go out over a drop or an anchor was installed potentially only as a hand line and has always been treated as such, can/should one be added?
e. Can/should anchors be placed to make it easier to pull through, there are already anchors that allow a safe approach for hard rigging but aren’t great for pulling through?
f. If an anchor or series of anchors are loose can they be removed, assuming the original anchor placement wasn't damaged when removing them. Then place new anchors in better location i.e. higher up?
g. If an anchor or series of anchors aren't loose can they be removed. Then place new anchors in better location i.e. higher up?
h. I assume no one has issue with the removal and replacement in the same location of a loose resin bonded anchor?
i. Can/should resin bonded anchors be added to existing traverse or route to make it easier more user friendly?
j. Is there a point at which resin bonded anchors should no longer be installed?
I’m probably in the minority, but I’m more than happy to rig off a single resin anchor. Having redundancy in this part of the system (but no other) seems like a hang-up from the days of spits, rather than a necessary safety precaution.
Quote from: Cripplecreeker on May 15, 2021, 11:42:11 pmI’m probably in the minority, but I’m more than happy to rig off a single resin anchor. Having redundancy in this part of the system (but no other) seems like a hang-up from the days of spits, rather than a necessary safety precaution.Me too. A single resin bolt below the crux of a difficult sports climb can take dozens of falls a day for years without failing.
Just for hypothetical fun, based on no real situation...Is drilling say... a 30cm deep hole to make a thread, more or less leaving-a-trace than placing an 8.5cm deep (and notched) glue in.
Quote from: zzzzzzed on May 16, 2021, 08:53:25 amQuote from: Cripplecreeker on May 15, 2021, 11:42:11 pmI’m probably in the minority, but I’m more than happy to rig off a single resin anchor. Having redundancy in this part of the system (but no other) seems like a hang-up from the days of spits, rather than a necessary safety precaution.Me too. A single resin bolt below the crux of a difficult sports climb can take dozens of falls a day for years without failing.Because it is not receiving a huge load as the rope is designed to absorb most of the impact. Also, if it does fail, there is the next runner below to catch you. Unless you're near the floor then the 'redundancy' of the next anchor down saves you if the top one pops. The rope and anchor systems here are not really comparable.
I install and test anchors as part of my work, as well as doing it for the DCA, and to come back on that point from Cripplecreeker - anchors of all types fail from time to time. I've a bag of them upstairs. It is a 100% necessary precaution to have 2 good anchors before you reach the edge IMO. It is what we do as standard in Derbyshire (and of course we also proof-test our anchors to 6kN too).
As Badlad asks above, where is the evidence of correctly installed resin bonded anchors failing catastrophically in normal use, or indeed carabiners or Maillons failing.There’s certainly no evidence of it happening in the rope access industry where they are used significantly more regularly than in caves. Nearly all the fatalities in that industry are caused by ropes failing due to running over sharp edges and the back-up system not working.From a Likelihood x Severity Risk Matrix Risk Assessment point of view the failure of a single anchor would still be considered a Low level of risk. Yes, if the single anchor point failed you may well fall and die so the Severity of the consequences would score a 5, but as there is no evidence of them ever failing catastrophically the Likelihood would score a 1. The Risk Factor can be reduced further by simply being extra careful not to shock load the system, or alternatively, wrapping yourself in a ball of cotton wool.Mark
Putting 2 anchors at the start of a traverse because "a rope should always be connected to 2 anchors" is a bit odd given that it's subjective as to where a rope is even needed at all. Viewed another way, moving 1 of your 2 initial anchors back from the danger makes a route safer than starting a traverse with 2 adjacent because it gives 1 anchor rather than no anchors on the approach (and I suppose also reduces the risk of substrate failure affecting both).
wrapping yourself in a ball of cotton wool.
...I buy a 200m reel of rope about every year to rotate the stock....
In quite a few cases the risk is minimal to none until you are on the pitch itself, which was certainly the case in Marble Sink where we placed virtually no anchors before any pitch heads because it's all but impossible to fall down any of them until you are on them! I suspect the rationale for Quaking was much the same. With that in mind, I was surprised to see a comment above suggesting there should always be an anchor before a pitch head.
Bad Behavior has blocked 2519 access attempts in the last 7 days.