cap n chris
Well-known member
It's been a long day and looks like there's another one tomorrow.
Peter Burgess
New member
cap 'n chris said:
I sincerely hope so. The end of the world is due at mid-day. Tomorrow will be a day of morning.
cap n chris
Well-known member
Peter Burgess said:
BST?
Peter Burgess
New member
British Speleological Time.
C
cucc Paul
Guest
Im glad someone else feels that the anchor in question is deffinatly suspect. Shame the caves had to be closed 
we wanted to go back and dig
Good job to those fixing such anchor.
As with regards to checking anchors you should check them yourself every time you use them hence us noticing this one was broken, people never used to go round checking spits n the like. A piece of PPE can be deemed unsafe after ten minutes use or ten years use depends on its use, environment, etc.... Although it is worrying the test didnt pick it up last time
Good Job all
we wanted to go back and digGood job to those fixing such anchor.
As with regards to checking anchors you should check them yourself every time you use them hence us noticing this one was broken, people never used to go round checking spits n the like. A piece of PPE can be deemed unsafe after ten minutes use or ten years use depends on its use, environment, etc.... Although it is worrying the test didnt pick it up last time
Good Job all
mak
Member
it's a sad day for british caving when an access body shuts a cave on the advice of "technical, legal and insurance personnel" when a single P-Hanger on one of two routes fails - aren't there still spits around that could be used instead?
I always thought that all fixed aids are used "at risk" as their condition cannot be guaranteed. As access is available from clubs and via the permit scheme, why not put a note up in each club and inform all key issuers - back this up with a simple note at the entrance and maybe another hanging off the offending P-Hanger and then it is up to the cavers who are rigging the cave to decide whether or not to continue the trip using either a spit to form the Y-hang or even (shock horror) deciding to use a single anchor for the main hang.
I recall a nice rebelay on a trip down a mine in North Wales - it was a piece of wood shoved into a hole in the wall - easy to rig - you tied yourself a fig 8 and then either slid it over the end of the wood - or pulled the wood from the hole poked it through the knot and then placed it back in the hole - it was bomb proof.
I always thought that all fixed aids are used "at risk" as their condition cannot be guaranteed. As access is available from clubs and via the permit scheme, why not put a note up in each club and inform all key issuers - back this up with a simple note at the entrance and maybe another hanging off the offending P-Hanger and then it is up to the cavers who are rigging the cave to decide whether or not to continue the trip using either a spit to form the Y-hang or even (shock horror) deciding to use a single anchor for the main hang.
I recall a nice rebelay on a trip down a mine in North Wales - it was a piece of wood shoved into a hole in the wall - easy to rig - you tied yourself a fig 8 and then either slid it over the end of the wood - or pulled the wood from the hole poked it through the knot and then placed it back in the hole - it was bomb proof.
whitelackington
New member
For some bizare reason, there has been occasional scaremongering in Rhino Rift.
I have never noticed any problem with the "P" bolts in there.
One spit on the right hand route is nearing the end of its life.
I suspect that this occasional scaremongering, which results in the hydarjaws puller
being used too often to test the "dodgy" "P" bolts
may be what has fractured the resin. :-\
I have never noticed any problem with the "P" bolts in there.
One spit on the right hand route is nearing the end of its life.
I suspect that this occasional scaremongering, which results in the hydarjaws puller
being used too often to test the "dodgy" "P" bolts
may be what has fractured the resin. :-\
Andy Sparrow
Active member
mak said:
I am inclined to agree with you - certainly there are sufficient anchors at the head of the first pitch to enable a completely safe rig without the necessity of using the suspect one. Should a cave be closed because of one dodgy anchor or should the cave remain open with that one anchor labelled as unsafe? I think it has to be the latter which leaves cavers free to devise their own alternative rigging. If this is a precedent we could see a lot of cave closures in the future.....
Peter Burgess
New member
We received this message from CSCC:
So the cave is NOT closed, it's just more inconvenient to arrange a visit. Whether that is a good decision is another question, to which I do not propose to offer an answer.
So the cave is NOT closed, it's just more inconvenient to arrange a visit. Whether that is a good decision is another question, to which I do not propose to offer an answer.
nickwilliams
Well-known member
There's a lot of work going on behind the scenes right now to try to gauge the scale of the problem and find a way to open the cave as soon as possible.
It's easy for people who will not have to take any responsibility for the decision and are not aware of the full circumstances to criticise it but perhaps they should wait a few days until all of the facts become clear.
Nick.
It's easy for people who will not have to take any responsibility for the decision and are not aware of the full circumstances to criticise it but perhaps they should wait a few days until all of the facts become clear.
Nick.
menacer
Active member
Although.... maybe it was just closed to allow the cscc bolting coordinator free access to safely do whatever it is he is doing...of which I have no idea just a thought.
Would be a bit of a pain trying to do a trip whilst bolting/testing is going on above your head....eeek
Dont think rhino see's that much traffic during the week either...
I agree with the above comments (maks and andys)but dont think that was the issue in this case.....
However I am just surmising and could be talking a complete load of tosh....no change there..
Would be a bit of a pain trying to do a trip whilst bolting/testing is going on above your head....eeek
Dont think rhino see's that much traffic during the week either...
I agree with the above comments (maks and andys)but dont think that was the issue in this case.....
However I am just surmising and could be talking a complete load of tosh....no change there..
Peter Burgess
New member
Well, we were discussing at our Kermitty Meeting last night just this sort of situation, although totally unrelated, where those who are tasked with getting on with a difficult job should be trusted to get on with it with everyone else's interests in mind, and without being criticised by those who have no intention of getting involved, and who probably aren't aware of all the facts. Constructive comments or practical help welcomed, everyone else step back please.
Andy Sparrow said:
This is a photo of the first pitch
http://www.wcms.org.uk/cgi-bin/wcmsgallery.pl?imgno=2421
Geoff R
menacer
Active member
Peter Burgess said:
Pete, im sure had the statement from cscc been posted earlier then there would have been no"critisisms". As you so rightly said "probably aren't aware of all the facts"
However If you took your car to the garage and the mechanic said "im taking this vehicle off the road" with no further explanation, I expect you'd be a bit pissed off...I would be
if however, said mechanic said I'm taking it off the road because of this this and this you'd probably be far more reasonable about it...
I dont think the comments were meant to be totally negative....more looking for answers....which was wonderfully provided when you posted the cscc statement.
Ive in turn pinched it and posted it on the wessex club site to keep people informed of what why and where and when, so a personal thankyou is in order for providing us all with info that was very useful.
mak
Member
Well lets see
It had been a couple of days since the original posting about the cave being closed because of "one" failed P-Hanger.
It would seem my posting has prompted others to post more facts to this forum - i.e. the second hanger showing signs of cracking, and there being a possibility of access - albeit from a single source i.e. Graham.
My posting did contain suggestions about a pragmatic approach based on recognising that cavers are able to judge and make decisions for themselves - there is another route in Rhino which is all on spits - and there are still plenty of spits left on the left hand route for those who might wish to do this route.
so to those who accuse me of negative criticism :read:
It had been a couple of days since the original posting about the cave being closed because of "one" failed P-Hanger.
It would seem my posting has prompted others to post more facts to this forum - i.e. the second hanger showing signs of cracking, and there being a possibility of access - albeit from a single source i.e. Graham.
My posting did contain suggestions about a pragmatic approach based on recognising that cavers are able to judge and make decisions for themselves - there is another route in Rhino which is all on spits - and there are still plenty of spits left on the left hand route for those who might wish to do this route.
so to those who accuse me of negative criticism
:read:I too am having difficulty with the logic involved in this 'cave closure' business. As cavers we have to judge and assess numerous hazards in the course of a trip and arrive at our own conclusions.
If somebody had been doing the Right Hand Route on plate hangers and one had failed would access to the whole cave have been denied? (I doubt it)
Perhaps the spits should be subjected to a 6kN test pull?
Maybe ALL artificial anchors in Rhino Rift should be replaced. It would certainally keep the Mendip Eco Anchor Installer/Trainer chaps up to date for the next couple of years and more!
(10) A recognised Anchor Installer can become a recognised Anchor Trainer in the region in which the individual is recognised as an Anchor Trainer by:
(a) being nominated by that RCC (see Annex 2);
(b) placed or replaced at least 10 anchors within the previous 2 years;
(c) having inspected at least 10 anchors within the previous 2 years, and
(d) having assisted in running a training course by another trainer;
(e) having assisted in running an Anchor Revalidation Workshop by another trainer who cannot be the same trainer as in (d) above (see Annex 5) and which takes place within 12 months of assisting on a training course; and
(f) being recognised by BCA's Equipment and Techniques Committee based on reports (see Annex 4) by both trainers
If somebody had been doing the Right Hand Route on plate hangers and one had failed would access to the whole cave have been denied? (I doubt it)
Perhaps the spits should be subjected to a 6kN test pull?
Maybe ALL artificial anchors in Rhino Rift should be replaced. It would certainally keep the Mendip Eco Anchor Installer/Trainer chaps up to date for the next couple of years and more!
(10) A recognised Anchor Installer can become a recognised Anchor Trainer in the region in which the individual is recognised as an Anchor Trainer by:
(a) being nominated by that RCC (see Annex 2);
(b) placed or replaced at least 10 anchors within the previous 2 years;
(c) having inspected at least 10 anchors within the previous 2 years, and
(d) having assisted in running a training course by another trainer;
(e) having assisted in running an Anchor Revalidation Workshop by another trainer who cannot be the same trainer as in (d) above (see Annex 5) and which takes place within 12 months of assisting on a training course; and
(f) being recognised by BCA's Equipment and Techniques Committee based on reports (see Annex 4) by both trainers
graham
New member
FAILURE OF AN ECO ANCHOR ON RHINO RIFT FIRST PITCH
A defect anchor report in Rhino Rift was made on UKCaving forum at 1 am 26 March. The report stated that a piece of resin from the final anchor in the series for rigging the first pitch had come away into the hand of a person on the pitch. Andrew Atkinson responded to the report by visiting the cave that evening at around 5 pm 26 March and inspecting Eco Anchor RR-FP-06.
His inspection of the rock surrounding the anchor found a new crack radiating away from the anchor to the right. He started to subject the anchor to an axial pull out test (sustain for 15 seconds a 6 kN force) as recommended by British Standard. It became clear to Andrew that on subjecting the anchor to a 6 kN force, the anchor started to move outwards. He therefore decided to increase the force on the anchor to 10 kN (the maximum force which the puller can apply). The anchor then moved out a full 5 mm under this force, stopped and then withstood the 10 kN force for far more than 15 seconds. Further attempts to pull the anchor out using a scaffold pole and clip failed to move the anchor. He rightly reported the anchor as failed since it initially did not sustain the 6 kN force; even though after the 5 mm movement it subsequently was able to withstand a 10 kN force.
Andrew Atkinson (as CSCC bolting coordinator), Chris Binding (as CSCC C&A Officer), Graham Mullan (as Company Secretary of CCC Ltd who control access to the cave), Linda Wilson (as CCC Conservation Officer and CCC Ltd's and BCA’s pro bono Legal Advisor), Les Sykes (as the creator of the NCA now BCA Eco Anchor scheme), Andy Pryke (as chairman of BCA Equipment committee) and Nick Williams (as BCA Insurance Manager) have been discussing the information which Andrew brought back and consulting with other people, including one of those who installed the Eco Anchors and other experts. As a preliminary step, they decided to restrict access to the cave whilst this work went on.
Whilst this has taken a little while (and some effort), the following points can now be stated.
1 The new crack means that the anchor location cannot be reused. The orientation of the crack is on the right hand side of the anchor and is away from the near by location of anchor RR-FP-05. However, both anchors lie on the same bedding line. A judgement has yet to made on whether anchor RR-FP-05 is unaffected by the new crack.
2 Photographic evidence has been obtained of the Eco Anchor state before and after the event. It clearly shows that some resin has come away which was not only that on the surface, but also down into the hole for a distance of 5 to 10 mm.
3 The mode of failure of the Eco Anchor is unusual and has not been experienced before within the BCA Anchor Scheme. It is emphasised that whilst Eco Anchors normally fail by being pulled out of the resin, this occurs well above 40 kN force. (Information on what loads Eco Anchors can sustain is shown in Annex 5 of the document “Anchors and Installation Regime” downloadable from the BCA web site at http://british-caving.org.uk/?page=129 .) Although various possible causes can be put forward to explain the findings, further work is scheduled to take place to see if any more information can be obtained from the failed anchor, including possibly extracting the anchor and its surrounding rock.
4 All of the 16 Eco Anchors within Rhino Rift were placed by one team using one batch of resin on one day. There has been anecdotal comment about movement in the Eco Anchors installed in Rhino Rift. In response to such a claim in January 2007, all of the Eco Anchors were subjected to the 6 kN axial pull out test. They all passed the test without any problems.
5 There is no clear understanding of why this anchor recently failed, even though it passed the test only 2 months ago. The view of the group is that it cannot state with confidence that the other Eco Anchors might not also be similarly affected. Although the group notes that the failed anchor did eventually sustain a 10 kN force, it remains of the view that access to the cave should remain restricted until either an explanation can be obtained so as to enable the affected anchors to be replaced or that all of the Eco Anchors are replaced.
6 The loss of the anchor location RR-FP-06 on the pitch creates a number of problems in placing a replacement. The possible loss of the adjacent anchor location RR-FP-05 could substantially affect the rigging of the first pitch.
7 Comment has been made by some persons that perhaps repeated testing of the Eco Anchors might have weakened them. It is noted that the 6 kN test would not have been adopted by the British Standard (BS 7883:2005) if there was any possibility of such a weakness occurring. The group has consulted with an expert who is of the opinion that such anchors should easily sustain a 10 kN force without causing damage. The group has therefore concluded that there is no basis for such a comment.
G Mullan
CCC Ltd Company Secretary
Saturday 31 March 2007
A defect anchor report in Rhino Rift was made on UKCaving forum at 1 am 26 March. The report stated that a piece of resin from the final anchor in the series for rigging the first pitch had come away into the hand of a person on the pitch. Andrew Atkinson responded to the report by visiting the cave that evening at around 5 pm 26 March and inspecting Eco Anchor RR-FP-06.
His inspection of the rock surrounding the anchor found a new crack radiating away from the anchor to the right. He started to subject the anchor to an axial pull out test (sustain for 15 seconds a 6 kN force) as recommended by British Standard. It became clear to Andrew that on subjecting the anchor to a 6 kN force, the anchor started to move outwards. He therefore decided to increase the force on the anchor to 10 kN (the maximum force which the puller can apply). The anchor then moved out a full 5 mm under this force, stopped and then withstood the 10 kN force for far more than 15 seconds. Further attempts to pull the anchor out using a scaffold pole and clip failed to move the anchor. He rightly reported the anchor as failed since it initially did not sustain the 6 kN force; even though after the 5 mm movement it subsequently was able to withstand a 10 kN force.
Andrew Atkinson (as CSCC bolting coordinator), Chris Binding (as CSCC C&A Officer), Graham Mullan (as Company Secretary of CCC Ltd who control access to the cave), Linda Wilson (as CCC Conservation Officer and CCC Ltd's and BCA’s pro bono Legal Advisor), Les Sykes (as the creator of the NCA now BCA Eco Anchor scheme), Andy Pryke (as chairman of BCA Equipment committee) and Nick Williams (as BCA Insurance Manager) have been discussing the information which Andrew brought back and consulting with other people, including one of those who installed the Eco Anchors and other experts. As a preliminary step, they decided to restrict access to the cave whilst this work went on.
Whilst this has taken a little while (and some effort), the following points can now be stated.
1 The new crack means that the anchor location cannot be reused. The orientation of the crack is on the right hand side of the anchor and is away from the near by location of anchor RR-FP-05. However, both anchors lie on the same bedding line. A judgement has yet to made on whether anchor RR-FP-05 is unaffected by the new crack.
2 Photographic evidence has been obtained of the Eco Anchor state before and after the event. It clearly shows that some resin has come away which was not only that on the surface, but also down into the hole for a distance of 5 to 10 mm.
3 The mode of failure of the Eco Anchor is unusual and has not been experienced before within the BCA Anchor Scheme. It is emphasised that whilst Eco Anchors normally fail by being pulled out of the resin, this occurs well above 40 kN force. (Information on what loads Eco Anchors can sustain is shown in Annex 5 of the document “Anchors and Installation Regime” downloadable from the BCA web site at http://british-caving.org.uk/?page=129 .) Although various possible causes can be put forward to explain the findings, further work is scheduled to take place to see if any more information can be obtained from the failed anchor, including possibly extracting the anchor and its surrounding rock.
4 All of the 16 Eco Anchors within Rhino Rift were placed by one team using one batch of resin on one day. There has been anecdotal comment about movement in the Eco Anchors installed in Rhino Rift. In response to such a claim in January 2007, all of the Eco Anchors were subjected to the 6 kN axial pull out test. They all passed the test without any problems.
5 There is no clear understanding of why this anchor recently failed, even though it passed the test only 2 months ago. The view of the group is that it cannot state with confidence that the other Eco Anchors might not also be similarly affected. Although the group notes that the failed anchor did eventually sustain a 10 kN force, it remains of the view that access to the cave should remain restricted until either an explanation can be obtained so as to enable the affected anchors to be replaced or that all of the Eco Anchors are replaced.
6 The loss of the anchor location RR-FP-06 on the pitch creates a number of problems in placing a replacement. The possible loss of the adjacent anchor location RR-FP-05 could substantially affect the rigging of the first pitch.
7 Comment has been made by some persons that perhaps repeated testing of the Eco Anchors might have weakened them. It is noted that the 6 kN test would not have been adopted by the British Standard (BS 7883:2005) if there was any possibility of such a weakness occurring. The group has consulted with an expert who is of the opinion that such anchors should easily sustain a 10 kN force without causing damage. The group has therefore concluded that there is no basis for such a comment.
G Mullan
CCC Ltd Company Secretary
Saturday 31 March 2007
D
Dep
Guest
Thank you Graham for a clear and concise explanation of the problem and its initial investigation. It is reassuring to know that there is an appointed group out there looking at these critical issues in a balanced and rigourous way.
I would rather see the short-term closure of any site whilst such things are checked than be in there hanging on one of these bolts and not having the confidence to know that the bolts are as good as bomb-proof because they have been conscientiously emplaced, maintained and checked by sensible people.
I would rather see the short-term closure of any site whilst such things are checked than be in there hanging on one of these bolts and not having the confidence to know that the bolts are as good as bomb-proof because they have been conscientiously emplaced, maintained and checked by sensible people.
