Hunters Hole: problems with anchors

[Andy Sparrow]

Did any of the "P" bolts in Hunter's Hole,
actually need to be replaced?

still awaiting an answer :-\

The answer is no.  There was no problem with the anchors, only with the testing.

Cheers Mister Sparrow,

Do you think the Northerners have been hoodwinking us Southerners into thinking they have been "testing"
all their hangers.
It seems strange that this problem only seems to have arisen after The C.S.C.C.
received the B.C.A. bolt tester  :-\

Oh dear, you do like your conspiracy theories don't you?  No, the answer is that they were correctly trained in testing techniques whereas our local 'tester' was not.    Oh well, at least it proves some of us were right earlier in this thread when we questioned the validity of the testing.  It was the problem that never was - or should never have been - God forbid that we ever again have cavers advising landowners to close their caves.

 

[Bob Smith]

God forbid that we ever again have cavers advising landowners to close their caves.

Hear hear

(Although great for conservation!)

 

[graham]

Oh dear, you do like your conspiracy theories don't you?  No, the answer is that they were correctly trained in testing techniques whereas our local 'tester' was not.    Oh well, at least it proves some of us were right earlier in this thread when we questioned the validity of the testing.  It was the problem that never was - or should never have been - God forbid that we ever again have cavers advising landowners to close their caves.

It seems that you like yours as well. As you should be aware, the Mendip tests were undertaken by several people, none of whom had been "incorrectly" trained. I suggest you think before making such comments in future.

Anyhoo, I sincerely hope that if cavers become aware of objective dangers in caves, bad air for example, that they are prepared to give landowners appropriate advice.

 

[cap n chris]

God forbid that we ever again have cavers advising landowners to close their caves.

Presuming that Regional Caving Councils &/or British Caving Association consist of cavers, does this mean that RCCs/BCA shouldn't give advice to landowners or that RCCs/BCA should comprise non-cavers?

 

[Bob Mehew]

Did any of the "P" bolts in Hunter's Hole,
actually need to be replaced?

still awaiting an answer :-\

The answer is no.  There was no problem with the anchors, only with the testing.

Cheers Mister Sparrow,

Do you think the Northerners have been hoodwinking us Southerners into thinking they have been "testing"
all their hangers.
It seems strange that this problem only seems to have arisen after The C.S.C.C.
received the B.C.A. bolt tester  :-\

Oh dear, you do like your conspiracy theories don't you?  No, the answer is that they were correctly trained in testing techniques whereas our local 'tester' was not.    Oh well, at least it proves some of us were right earlier in this thread when we questioned the validity of the testing.  It was the problem that never was - or should never have been - God forbid that we ever again have cavers advising landowners to close their caves.

Oh dear, you do like your conspiracy theories don't you?  No, the answer is that they were correctly trained in testing techniques whereas our local 'tester' was not.    Oh well, at least it proves some of us were right earlier in this thread when we questioned the validity of the testing.  It was the problem that never was - or should never have been - God forbid that we ever again have cavers advising landowners to close their caves.

It seems that you like yours as well. As you should be aware, the Mendip tests were undertaken by several people, none of whom had been "incorrectly" trained. I suggest you think before making such comments in future.

First an apology for being late spotting this topic. 

I trained the persons on Mendip in what I thought was the correct procedure for testing anchors.  I did so on the basis of my understanding of the description in the British Standard on anchors which covers testing and the guidance material provided by the manufacturer of the tester. 

During the work to understand what had happened at Rhino and elsewhere, we did a cross check with the way people tested anchors in Yorkshire.  We found that they had adopted a slightly different approach, (as also had those in Derbyshire).  The key difference is the angle at which the pull was placed on the anchor, regrettably my approach placed more of a "sideways" force which caused cracking of the resin.  Theoretical calculations subsequently indicated that the anchors can flex at the loads involved in the testing.  This flexing thus causes the resin the break.  Hence the resultant conclusion by Equipment Committee to stop testing anchors.

Which is a pity because the concept of testing was to provide a simple way of responding to defective anchor reports rather than the sole option of replacing the anchor.  Which is what we are now left with. 

If you want to learn more, then come to September's Hidden Earth when I will cover the point in more detail.

Bob Mehew

 

[Bob Mehew]

I should have added that I was, and remain content in the way the testers carried out the testing, both before the problem arose in Rhino and during the work done in response.  I therefore have to disagree with Andy's comment in this respect.  They were not to blame. 

 

[Cookie]

Bob I can't let that go unchallenged and must support Andy here.

Andy said:

The answer is no.  There was no problem with the anchors, only with the testing.

And went on to say:

No, the answer is that they were correctly trained in testing techniques whereas our local 'tester' was not.  Oh well, at least it proves some of us were right earlier in this thread when we questioned the validity of the testing.  It was the problem that never was - or should never have been -

I have seen a set of slides produced by the Equipment Committee Chairman that clearly shows how the Mendip Testers were incorrectly trained. It shows the type of failure that would cause and that is exactly the type of failure observed.

So I find Andy's statements quoted above to be entirely correct and accurate.

I trained the persons on Mendip in what I thought was the correct procedure for testing anchors.  I did so on the basis of my understanding of the description in the British Standard on anchors which covers testing and the guidance material provided by the manufacturer of the tester.

During the work to understand what had happened at Rhino and elsewhere, we did a cross check with the way people tested anchors in Yorkshire.  We found that they had adopted a slightly different approach, (as also had those in Derbyshire).  The key difference is the angle at which the pull was placed on the anchor, regrettably my approach placed more of a "sideways" force which caused cracking of the resin.  Theoretical calculations subsequently indicated that the anchors can flex at the loads involved in the testing.  This flexing thus causes the resin the break.  Hence the resultant conclusion by Equipment Committee to stop testing anchors.

To paraphrase this.

• You trained the Mendip Testers.
• You trained them with an incorrect procedure.
• As mitigation you say you followed the BS and manufacture documentation which presumably didn't cover this situation.
• However the Yorkshire and Derbyshire testers already knew and understood the correct procedure.

I'll let people draw their own conclusions ...

How you can then go on to say -

I should have added that I was, and remain content in the way the testers carried out the testing, both before the problem arose in Rhino and during the work done in response.  I therefore have to disagree with Andy's comment in this respect.

I do not understand.

Maybe you misunderstood Andy's comments and assumed he was criticising the people rather than the procedure.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I hope nobody is going to start a witch hunt. I don't think that would be a very constructive thing to do.

 

[darkplaces]

I hope nobody is going to start a witch hunt. I don't think that would be a very constructive thing to do.

No it would not BUT nobody should shy away from questioning procedures/tests etc. Always question and people should not be lampooned for asking questions its the only proper meathod of learning.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Who's doing the lampooning?  I suspect Bob has already questioned the procedures in depth, so much so that he is now confident enough to present the story at Hidden Earth. If there are personal issues involved, I for one would rather see them resolved off the forum.

 

[Hughie]

Peter, whilst DP's phrase "lampooning" wouldn't be a phrase I'd use in this case, people who were asking questions during that fiasco were actually told to shut up, not to ask questions, and all would be revealed in due course. That thread is in this forum somewhere, but I can't be bothered to try and find it.

Apparently, all has been revealed. Only to be revealed again in a different light by someone else.
People should ask questions - it might just head off the next fiasco.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I'm happy to wait till September. It's not as if we are deciding whether to invade Iraq is it? The caves are open, the problem is identified, what's the big deal? As far as I can see, trying to work out who did what, when, and why smacks of apportioning blame. And what then? Stick a head on a pole on Priddy Green? Even if there is a good reason to ask sensible questions, I would say its best done personally between those who are directly involved, because doing it here has the potential to attract inappropriate queries that merely distract and do not help to close the matter satisfactorily.

 

[Cookie]

I agree there is no benefit in a witch hunt.

But also when someone disagrees with a statement that I think is factually correct and goes to the heart of the problem, I must speak out.

I didn't put Bob in the frame as the Trainer, to my surprise he did that with his own words.


I should also say that Bob did a great deal of work to identify what was going on and it shows considerable honesty and integrity to report faithfully the findings when they put oneself in a poor light. There was no conspiracy here, nor one single cause.   

 

[cap n chris]

I should also say that Bob did a great deal of work to identify what was going on and it shows considerable honesty and integrity to report faithfully the findings when they put oneself in a poor light.

He also bought me lots of Jammie Dodgers! - he's a very nice man who knows how to successfully bribe me into dragging lots of gear underground!

 

[Bob Mehew]

The point I was trying to make was that the persons on Mendip who tested the anchors did so in accord with what they were instructed to do so.  Yes I am making it clear that I taught an "incorrect" technique.  I do so, because as soon as Andy made that statement I felt it was correct to remove any suggestion that the testers on Mendip were acting incorrectly.  If people wish to get into the blame game, then please make sure you "blame" the right person(s).  (Though I would add that I am not suggesting that Andy was doing so.)

But what does not seem to have come out clearly is that it is not a question of "incorrect" or "correct" technique.  ANY testing might damage the anchor, so that is why Equipment Committee came to the conclusion that no testing should be undertaken in future.   

To that extent I consider it was wrong for Andy S to say "No, the answer is that they were correctly trained in testing techniques whereas our local 'tester' was not."  The simple truth is we should not have been testing in the first place.  :-[

Hope that clarifies things.  As for details, I feel it is easier to do this in a lecture with Q&A to follow.  No doubt it should also get written up as well.

 

[damian]

Sounds (fortunately) like everyone's agreeing wth everyone.

:hug: :hug:

 

[wormster]

It takes a particular kind of forum hero to put their hand up and admit that they made a mistake.

Its a pity that the situation almost spiraled into a public witch hunt.

I'm glad that the situation HAS been put to bed and we can all get on with the business of what this forum is all about CAVING.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Perhaps we need a Sackcloth and Ashes section in UKC.  :-\

 

[Hughie]

Its a pity that the situation almost spiraled into a public witch hunt.

Don't think so - just people asking questions in response to some posts on a public, open forum. If the proponents wanted to discuss the matter privately, I'm sure they could/would have.

Bob - thank you for the clarification.

 

[darkplaces]

I disagree with Peter in that I don't think it needs to be discussed behind closed doors/privately, as the bolt issue affected all of us and we were all concerned for our safety. It is basicly a 'public matter' as we the caving public use the bolts and I would prefer to have all the information rather then just know 'something' was being discussed behind closed doors which could affect my safety. I prefer the open more transparent discussion of the forum, even if I only had read access and the people involved posted reports, that helps with peoples confidence in the caving systems we have.