Fixed Aids and Safety Installations
- Thread starter cap n chris
- Start date
Loki
Active member
I’ve never liked the statement that cavers knowingly risk their lives when going underground. I mean really! I don’t think I’ve ever thought that specifically about caving. I’ve probably, No definitely had more close calls getting to or from the cave than inside. Not to mention bonfire nights of old at the club hut.
Still about fixed aids. My view is they should be kept to an absolute minimum. Climbs and pitches approached from above equipped only with anchors. Eg wretched rabbit or any normal pothole if approached from below If it’s possible for someone competent to climb it from below and put a rope on, same. It starts getting tricky when fixed up gear is needed to avoid aid climbing every trip. People should be prepared to replace a dodgy rope out of their own tackle and remove the old one imo.
I disagree that more aids be added to caves to reduce risks, there is usually a method that can be used to make something safer, even if it’s wedging yourself in the passage and using a body belay.
Still about fixed aids. My view is they should be kept to an absolute minimum. Climbs and pitches approached from above equipped only with anchors. Eg wretched rabbit or any normal pothole if approached from below If it’s possible for someone competent to climb it from below and put a rope on, same. It starts getting tricky when fixed up gear is needed to avoid aid climbing every trip. People should be prepared to replace a dodgy rope out of their own tackle and remove the old one imo.
I disagree that more aids be added to caves to reduce risks, there is usually a method that can be used to make something safer, even if it’s wedging yourself in the passage and using a body belay.
Isn’t this the time CRO kidnapped someone off the fell because they had a film crew and no action?
zzzzzzed
Member
How is that relevant to caving? The stats for caving say something completely different.
pwhole
Well-known member
In our case above, using ladders or SRT was such a massive ball ache for the pitch concerned that everyone was fed up with it, and we had digging to do beyond it. Plus, immediately below the pitch is a tight vertical squeeze that required everyone to take their SRT kit off in the remaining confined space first to get through it - and obviously then had to put it all back on again to go back up. I was happy free-climbing it, but the smaller members weren't, and fair enough. This system makes it safer, quicker and more interesting to climb, and folks can still wear a basic harness and cowstails if they want more protection, so I'm quite comfortable with the decision we made. As I mentioned before, if anyone had any issues with the installation, they certainly never expressed them, and most who've commented seem to really like it.
cap n chris
Well-known member
There are many UK sites with VF FAs nowadays and it will be a growing trend, imo. Lithium drills make it one of the easiest solutions.
I think its important to draw a distinction between mined shafts and natural caves. The context is different.
In a totally man-made environment, the additional of stemples, ladders etc arguably fits the location. The only purpose of a mine is to suit the people.
In a cave, the same does not apply. It was not created by private persons for their own profit or enjoyment. It's a finite natural resource that we all have to share.
Cultural shifts and fashions come and go, as does technology, but the damage once done remains. I suggest 'safe enough' is all that's required.
In a totally man-made environment, the additional of stemples, ladders etc arguably fits the location. The only purpose of a mine is to suit the people.
In a cave, the same does not apply. It was not created by private persons for their own profit or enjoyment. It's a finite natural resource that we all have to share.
Cultural shifts and fashions come and go, as does technology, but the damage once done remains. I suggest 'safe enough' is all that's required.
contd.
Managing risk is the natural environment is one of the enjoyments for me, as I'm sure it is for many other. I don't get it right all the time but its something I work on and I like it when it goes well. It's the same for caving, cycling, climbing etc.
A proliferation of needless fixed aids spoils the natural environment and reduces the enjoyment of being in and navigating through the space.
Lastly, baby-ing everyone all of the time does not necessarily reduce risk. I suggest that it produces people who do not know how to assess, manage and tolerate risk. I would argue this is a worse state to be in.
Managing risk is the natural environment is one of the enjoyments for me, as I'm sure it is for many other. I don't get it right all the time but its something I work on and I like it when it goes well. It's the same for caving, cycling, climbing etc.
A proliferation of needless fixed aids spoils the natural environment and reduces the enjoyment of being in and navigating through the space.
Lastly, baby-ing everyone all of the time does not necessarily reduce risk. I suggest that it produces people who do not know how to assess, manage and tolerate risk. I would argue this is a worse state to be in.
pwhole
Well-known member
Good point - this is definitely a mined pitch, and the shaft is peppered with stemple sockets, so I suspect even the miners would have given us a thumbs-up from beyond the grave for this, especially once they'd read up on 316 stainless and vinylester resin!
The shaft next door however (Longcliffe Mine) is entirely natural, despite also being peppered with stemple sockets - the most I've ever seen to be honest, suggesting timber 'scaffolding' was built rather than ladders. And that is entirely SRT-bolted as it's the only practical way as it's metres wide. I have thought about trying the whole thing on multiple electron ladders, but that still seems like a scary ball ache
cap n chris
Well-known member
Why? If it's a reasonable addition to safety, and is something the insurance industry would approve of, surely it's stepping up to the mark rather than overstepping it.
Loki used the words "fixed aids". Is there a difference in the acceptability of fixed aids compared to safety installations?
Part of the reason some people go caving is to challenge themselves in terms of technical ability, not necessarily risk. If there's a fixed aid on the crux it's difficult to ignore it and in some cases it will be in the way, so that spoils the cave for them. A safety installation, such as a few bolts to rig a rope across an easy but exposed traverse, would be a different matter; if you don't want it, don't rig it.
Babyhagrid
Well-known member
The point is of fixed aids is to make cave more easily accessible, not "safely" accessible. A sling or ladder left on an impossible climb is very different to a bolted traverse on an easily walked route.
What on earth have insurance companies got to do with it?
We should not be desecrating our natural heritage for the sake of paid-for activities and/or the money people make from them.
cap n chris
Well-known member
Quite a lot. And. I disagree.
cap n chris
Well-known member
Perhaps it's a timely opportunity to point out that the BCA oversees the provision of "paid for" professional caving and in the course of their working day a paid instructor is obviously subject to the Health and Safety at Work Act and is required to operate in a safe environment. Instructors have bills to pay and therefore obviously need to earn money from their efforts. This is clearly a fundamental tenet of the BCA award scheme. It's nothing to get knickers in a twist over. There's a lot more regulation as well plus the stipulations of their insurers.to also take into account.
Here's a prosaic example of a working day which many cavers can probably more easily visualise. An instructor is providing SRT tuition using Dolly Tubs route to the other side of the Greasy Slab. Mercifully the cave has been "desecrated" by the installation of unnecessary anchors along a section of horizontal walking but because the instructor is NOT allowed to take risks either for themself while at work and also risk the wellbeing of their customer(s) they'll be utilising the bolts to rig a protection traverse.
On the other hand, a caver and their mates are not subject to any of that nonsense and they can scamper around unroped as much as they wish.
Does this help explain the two very disparate and opposed ends of the risk spectrum sufficiently?
Here's a prosaic example of a working day which many cavers can probably more easily visualise. An instructor is providing SRT tuition using Dolly Tubs route to the other side of the Greasy Slab. Mercifully the cave has been "desecrated" by the installation of unnecessary anchors along a section of horizontal walking but because the instructor is NOT allowed to take risks either for themself while at work and also risk the wellbeing of their customer(s) they'll be utilising the bolts to rig a protection traverse.
On the other hand, a caver and their mates are not subject to any of that nonsense and they can scamper around unroped as much as they wish.
Does this help explain the two very disparate and opposed ends of the risk spectrum sufficiently?
Last edited:
Use of existing anchors, such as the traverse in Alum Pot I think you're referring to, for a paid-for trip doesn't bother me. The idea of adding anchors or other installations purely for paid-for trips, which is what most if not all of your posts here seem to refer to, does.
