Danger - Rhinos Rift

Bob Mehew

Well-known member
I have been asked by Andy Pryke and Steve King to post the following for your information

PROBLEMS WITH ECO-HANGERS (P-BOLTS) ON MENDIP

UPDATE: Sun 8 April

Since the initial report of a problem with one of the Eco-anchors on the first pitch in Rhino Rift on 26 March a good deal of work has taken place.  A team has already inspected the failed anchor, and the others.  This inspection revealed a number of issues which are now being followed up.  In due course attempts will be made to extract the failed anchor - together with some of its surrounding rock - in order to facilitate a detailed inspection of the failed anchor / resin / rock combination.  In the meantime the Charterhouse Caving Company (CCC) is carefully controlling access to Rhino Rift.

The investigation team also reviewed the available installation records for CSCC Eco-anchors.  As a consequence of that review, and guided by some of the preliminary findings from Rhino Rift, axial pull tests were subsequently conducted in Hunters Hole.  Of the 21 anchors present there, 16 were tested (5 are located in positions where the puller cannot be fitted to the anchor).  Of those 16 anchors, 8 passed the axial pull test (meaning that they withstood a force of 6 kN for 15 seconds), but 8 failed the test, though it must be emphasised that whilst anchors did move under initial loading, NONE came out of the resin.  The defective anchors have been tagged and notices placed in the cave.  Under the circumstances the untested anchors must, of course, be treated with suspicion.  The land owner was informed of the results and advised that cavers should not use use Hunters Hole until the problem has been resolved.  The CSCC fully support this decision and would ask cavers to abide by it.

The installation records also indicated a common factor with Eco-anchors placed at several other locations which, due to a lack of time and manpower (it being the Easter holidays), have not yet been tested.  These locations are: the Cowsh Avens in Swildons, the Ladder Dig Extension in GB Cave, and Split Rock Quarry.

Until the Eco-anchors at these locations can be tested, cavers are also asked to either keep away or to use CAREFULLY-SELECTED alternative belays.  The CSCC has put a notice and new lock (key available locally if needed) on Priddy Green Sink to deter through-trips and requests that cavers do not climb up into Cowsh Avens from Swildons 4 and then use the untested anchors to return to the streamway.  The CCC will place their own controls on GB Cave.

The CSCC, together with the BCA Equipment & Techniques Committee, are now considering what other testing and investigations are required.  However, given that there are some 125 Eco-anchors placed under the national scheme on Mendip, this will clearly take some time to complete.

The Chairman and some members of BCA's Equipment Committee have been fully informed and involved in this issue and support CSCC's approach.

It is worth noting that similar axial pull tests have been conducted in both Derbyshire and Yorkshire without a single anchor failing the test.  In Derbyshire alone, this amounts to over 215 anchors as at late 2006.  So far the problem seems to be confined to Mendip, though the reasons for this have yet to be isolated and demonstrated to a reasonable standard of proof.  Further work is planned to be conducted across the whole of Mendip in response to these events.

Regrettably there is a national shortage of Eco-anchors and the manufacturer's have stated that they will not produce any more!  Some of the few anchors which remain may be required for testing hypotheses to explain the cause of these failures.  The Equipment Committee was already working on a programme to select a suitable replacement.  That work continues, but is unlikely to be completed before late Summer or possibly later if the investigation on Mendip takes any length of time.  Thus the failed anchors may not be replaced for quite some while.  The BCA and the CSCC understand the frustration this will cause.

The Equipment Committee is planning to hold a meeting either in late April or May to discuss the results of the findings and what else should be done, including possible reassurance work in other regions.

Further updates will be posted on the BCA and CSCC websites, and notified via the CSCC email list.

S King                  A Pryke
CSCC Secretary  BCA Equipment Committee Chairman

 

twiglet

New member
Assuming that the p-bolts have been correctly installed,and that there have been no similar reports of anchor failure in  the dales, could the problem be one of local geology ? i.e the more folded and crumpled mendip limestone not holding a bolt as securely as the less disturbed northern stuff ? Theres not a lot the CSCC or BCA can do about the Hercynian Orogeny !
 

whitelackington

New member
I would think keep testing the anchors is what is causing the "Glue" to break up.
I have never seen a "P" bolt that did not seem to be fine.
I have seen rather a lot of bolts.
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
whitelackington said:
* I would think keep testing the anchors is what is causing the "Glue" to break up.

* I have never seen a "P" bolt that did not seem to be fine.

* I have seen rather a lot of bolts.

Not true, W/L.
In the order presented, here's some responses to your points:

* Anchors have failed which haven't previously had axial tests; therefore multiple testing cannot have caused their failure.

* Surely you've seen P bolts that did not seem to be fine (after all, you've seen some of the ones which have failed).

* Seeing lots of bolts does not mean that they are fine, or not fine; the logic is a bit like saying "I've seen lots of high tides  but I've never seen a tsunami; therefore tsunami don't exist".
 

Elaine

Active member
I think Whitelackington means that we suddenly seem to have a spate of tsunamis, when he has spent a lot of time on the beach but has never witnessed one.
This means they either wash straight over him without him even noticing, or maybe it is just a coincidence that he has missed them all, or maybe something new and disurbing is happening out to sea (or somewhere we haven't noticed or thought of) that has caused them.

I reckon that the tsunamis washed straight over him and he didn't noticed as he was too busy looking disgusted at the fat kids scoffing ice creams.
 

whitelackington

New member
I have not come across a "P" bolt which seemed to me to be faulty.
I have not been on an s.r.t. trip on which any other person on that trip
had suggested that any of the bolts were in any way faulty.
I have been doing s.r.t. for a very, very long time.
I, like many others, have been "P" bolt trained, also a long time ago.
The one I installed was in Gough's Cave.
Keep pulling the bolts can not be doing them any good.
That must be obvious. :-\
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
Surely, using the bolts cannot be doing them any good then? Also, why do you persist with statements like "keep pulling the bolts can not be doing them any good"? - pulling a bolt once and finding that it fails cannot be the result of multiple pulls if they've never been pulled before.
 

Peter Burgess

New member
If tests are done correctly, and the bolts do fail as a result, it is not a reason to stop the tests, but a reason to find a way to make the bolts safer. If the tests have caused damage (and I'm not saying that they do) and the damage has not been noticed, then that is a reason to change the inspection somehow (don't ask me how) to pick up the un-noticed failures. I am sure all these thoughts are going through the minds of those who are currently deliberating the Rhino Rift situation, and that clever people will find a way forward.

Keep pulling the bolts can not be doing them any good.

I'll stop testing my smoke alarm, and stop taking my car in for its MOT as it's obviously not doing my smoke alarm or my car any good.

 

graham

New member
whitelackington said:
I have not come across a "P" bolt which seemed to me to be faulty.
I have not been on an s.r.t. trip on which any other person on that trip
had suggested that any of the bolts were in any way faulty.
I have been doing s.r.t. for a very, very long time.
I, like many others, have been "P" bolt trained, also a long time ago.
The one I installed was in Gough's Cave.
Keep pulling the bolts can not be doing them any good.
That must be obvious. :-\

I have no intention of debating this subject in detail, as a comprehensive report on the situation is being prepared for BCA by folks who know far more about this than I do.

However, this post by Whitelackington (and this is not meant personally, it simply exemplifies a viewpoint I have come across in a number of places) demonstrates the reason why the extremely cautious approach taken by BCA is the correct one. The fact of the matter is that we have now had a statistically alarming number of failures and the poor condition of those bolts was not discernable on visual inspection. "User beware" was no longer a good policy.
 

whitelackington

New member
Nobody ever answered my point of some time ago.
That point was; why did the management committee of O.F.D. decide NOT to fit "p" bolts in O.F.D. but stainless steel 12mm Petzl Hangers.


Mind you I like the Petzl hangers and the "P" bolts
both systems seem much better than the old 8mm ones.
 
graham said:
whitelackington said:
I have not come across a "P" bolt which seemed to me to be faulty.
I have not been on an s.r.t. trip on which any other person on that trip
had suggested that any of the bolts were in any way faulty.
I have been doing s.r.t. for a very, very long time.
I, like many others, have been "P" bolt trained, also a long time ago.
The one I installed was in Gough's Cave.
Keep pulling the bolts can not be doing them any good.
That must be obvious. :-\



I have no intention of debating this subject in detail, as a comprehensive report on the situation is being prepared for BCA by folks who know far more about this than I do.

However, this post by Whitelackington (and this is not meant personally, it simply exemplifies a viewpoint I have come across in a number of places) demonstrates the reason why the extremely cautious approach taken by BCA is the correct one. The fact of the matter is that we have now had a statistically alarming number of failures and the poor condition of those bolts was not discernable on visual inspection. "User beware" was no longer a good policy.

Agree wholeheartedly with Graham. I wish that the speculation over the mode of failure would cease. When the BCA report is issued the reason for the failures will be apparent.
 

paul

Moderator
axbridgecaver said:
graham said:
whitelackington said:
I have not come across a "P" bolt which seemed to me to be faulty.
I have not been on an s.r.t. trip on which any other person on that trip
had suggested that any of the bolts were in any way faulty.
I have been doing s.r.t. for a very, very long time.
I, like many others, have been "P" bolt trained, also a long time ago.
The one I installed was in Gough's Cave.
Keep pulling the bolts can not be doing them any good.
That must be obvious. :-\

I have no intention of debating this subject in detail, as a comprehensive report on the situation is being prepared for BCA by folks who know far more about this than I do.

However, this post by Whitelackington (and this is not meant personally, it simply exemplifies a viewpoint I have come across in a number of places) demonstrates the reason why the extremely cautious approach taken by BCA is the correct one. The fact of the matter is that we have now had a statistically alarming number of failures and the poor condition of those bolts was not discernable on visual inspection. "User beware" was no longer a good policy.

Agree wholeheartedly with Graham. I wish that the speculation over the mode of failure would cease. When the BCA report is issued the reason for the failures will be apparent.

Exactly.
 
A

andymorgan

Guest
Peter Burgess said:
Keep pulling the bolts can not be doing them any good.

I'll stop testing my smoke alarm, and stop taking my car in for its MOT as it's obviously not doing my smoke alarm or my car any good.

It is not quite the same thing, maybe drop testing a rope is possibly more comparable.


axbridgecaver said:
Agree wholeheartedly with Graham. I wish that the speculation over the mode of failure would cease. When the BCA report is issued the reason for the failures will be apparent.

It is human nature to speculate about the causes of things. It is good scientific practice to consider, and then eliminate all possible explanations.

However I am sure the guys at BCA are looking into everything. People shouldn't feel guilty on here either for posting a bit of 'pub chat', it is a discussion forum after all.
 

whitelackington

New member
andymorgan said:
Peter Burgess said:
Keep pulling the bolts can not be doing them any good.

I'll stop testing my smoke alarm, and stop taking my car in for its MOT as it's obviously not doing my smoke alarm or my car any good.

It is not quite the same thing, maybe drop testing a rope is possibly more comparable.


axbridgecaver said:
Agree wholeheartedly with Graham. I wish that the speculation over the mode of failure would cease. When the BCA report is issued the reason for the failures will be apparent.

It is human nature to speculate about the causes of things. It is good scientific practice to consider, and then eliminate all possible explanations.

However I am sure the guys at BCA are looking into everything. People shouldn't feel guilty on here either for posting a bit of 'pub chat', it is a discussion forum after all.

Exactly,
if I am not allowed to discuss possible causes of bolt failure on this caving forum,
where should i be allowed to discuss it?
Or perhaps I should just keep my views to myself and let the grown ups discuss it :mad:
 

Peter Burgess

New member
Ah, but there is a difference between intelligent discussion using reasoned argument, and scaremongering, not that I am accusing anyone of that, but on a national respected forum, one should be aware of the consequences of what one posts.
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
;) There may also be a difference between intelligent discussion using reasoned argument and a national respected forum, Peter; however, I'd like to think that a forum is respected nationally BECAUSE of the reasoned and intelligent discussions and debates which occur within it.
 

Peter Burgess

New member
As for comparability of tests, a good test of something that you intend to have continuing to serve its original purpose should not significantly alter the state of the item being tested. If it does then the item was either faulty or the test was badly designed. Testing something to destruction is not the same thing.
 
A

andymorgan

Guest
Peter Burgess said:
Ah, but there is a difference between intelligent discussion using reasoned argument, and scaremongering, not that I am accusing anyone of that, but on a national respected forum, one should be aware of the consequences of what one posts.

I think the bolt testing question was an entirely sensible question, rather than scaremongering. I also think Cap'n Chris provided a sensible answer of why testing is unlikely to have caused anchor failure ( :read: WL).

Peter Burgess said:
As for comparability of tests, a good test of something that you intend to have continuing to serve its original purpose should not significantly alter the state of the item being tested. If it does then the item was either faulty or the test was badly designed. Testing something to destruction is not the same thing.

That was my point...
 
Top