Simpson’s Pot - Anchors Rope wear

[IanWalker]

The CNCC website suggests checking for "grooves and abrasion" but doesn't set a wear limit (from what I can see).

Anchor Safety

Essential information for users of resin anchors.

cncc.org.uk

Would it be helpful to add guidance if this is considered to be dangerous (is it though?).

1mm wear to metal was what I had in mind but I cannot now think where I read or heard that. 1mm wear does seem to be noticeable when I have measured krabs and maillons in the past, as it seems to be in the P-bolt images above.

We could approach DMM for manufacturer advice.

Counter point - we should avoiding setting an absolute limit unless we have definite information to back it up. No need to add red tape unneccessarily. If standard practice and user judgement is sufficient to mitigate the risk then I'd be happy to rely on that.

 

[Steve Clark]

I strongly agree with the above.

In an organisation with limited volunteer resources, debating the perfect is often the enemy of a good solution.

 

[Pitlamp]

. . . and setting a wear limit not based on hard (replicated) data may not be especially helpful.

 

[IanWalker]

As lovely as it would be to know all of these things before making any decisions regarding the chains, I'm not sure this is realistic.

The CNCC is currently lacking interest for one of it's most important roles to function at the moment (Treasurer), and so far, only verbal interest in two of our other roles (Chair and Access Officer), all of which are becoming vacant in March. To gather the information and perform the analysis you are suggesting here is a substantial research project likely to involve months or years of effort.

I'm not going to suggest there is nobody willing to take this on... but I'm not convinced.

Even if we did have a volunteer, gathering this data before installing chains in Simpson Pot (and then the numerous ensuing discussions) is going to take lots of time. The volunteer offering to install these chains may have simply lost interest by then!

This discussion reminds me of my brief time as BCA Secretary... I was so infuriated that the organisation was never doing anything because everything got filibustered by excessive discussion, committees and sub-committees... decisions would get spread out over so many meetings, and so much nice-to-know additional information would get requested by so many people, that volunteers just lost interest and it was easier just to do nothing.

There is a balance to be struck between due diligence to make the correct decisions, and actually delivering for northern cavers in a way that reflects the volunteer nature of the organisation and that it is meant to be fun.

Generally I feel CNCC strikes the right balance here, but I'm hardly able to give an unbiased opinion on that

I can confirm that in all my time of monitoring the CNCC's report submissions, I have not seen any reports of anchor wear as a result of pull-through. Presumably this has always gone unnoticed by the hundreds of cavers who must pass through these pots each year.

Taking actions to mitigate future anchor damage on the most vulnerable sites (i.e. by installing the chains/ring, or similar on our longest and most popular pull-through pitches) seems like a much more practical here-and-now solution than waiting to ascertain how much wear is too much, and then having to continuously monitor this over several years, before taking any action.

That's not to say we shouldn't then gather more data on anchor wear from the remaining shorter pull-through pitches (and also wear on the pull-through rings if they are installed), if a volunteer is willing to take that job on as a longer term project.

Ps; I am speaking from my own personal opinion, and not in any CNCC capacity.

Matt, I value hearing your opinion. At present my own view is that we *do* have time. There is no need to rush this. There is no need to take action right now, even though action sounds impressive and capital spend on shiny metal gets the headlines and press photos.

Having volunteers create projects and carry them through is great - but only if its the right long term solution for the organisation. I am not convinced that chains are the right answer, and have formulated some thoughts to share at the meeting on this issue.

If the volunteer does not wish to do a proper job, then this should be shelved. If a volunteer cannot wait to do it properly, it should be shelved. If the volunteer leaves a project unfinished, and its of genuine, long lasting value to the community, we need to remember that others will come along who are capable of picking it up. We simply should not be pushed towards a new action or direction just because an individual is making noise about it and volunteered to do it.

I would add at this point that if people feel this is growing too big, or is consuming too much volunteer effort from the community, then we should re-read the minutes when someone created the Swinsto-Simpson project, and when it was presented as a 'small amount of work'.

Lastly, you mention 'monitoring for years'. I didn't say anything to suggest we need to monitor things for years, or investigate and analyse for years. It is my understanding that the CNCC doesn't actively monitor its anchors (?). They are fitted on the approval of the committee, and left in the wild. Are you suggesting we now need to change this approach, to one of monitoring. Suggest if you want to reduce volunteer workload we think carefully before committing such an approach to print. On the same point, if monitoring is needed and is unwanted effort, this is a serious downside to creating these new chains.

 

[ChrisB]

I couldn't look at any hardware (especially in a cave) and say whether it was worn 0.5mm, 1mm or 2mm. I'd need a vernier as a minimum.

A limit of 'noticeable' wear is practical. The design documents for the IC anchor say "It could be worn to half it's thickness and still be much stronger than an average karabiner." There should be a pretty good margin between 'noticeable' and 'half its thickness'. Any limit that's less then 'noticeable' will, by definition, not be effective.

 

[Ian]

Mt thought is that a very good thing about the chain is if it proves not to be required then it can be taken out again with no effect on the cave. However, waiting for hard evidence for it could result in more issues / incidents due to pull through incidents / wear on the anchors themselves.
Replacing a worn anchor is potentially damaging to the cave, replacing a worn chain has no implications for the cave.

 

[IanWalker]

I couldn't look at any hardware (especially in a cave) and say whether it was worn 0.5mm, 1mm or 2mm. I'd need a vernier as a minimum.

A limit of 'noticeable' wear is practical. The design documents for the IC anchor say "It could be worn to half it's thickness and still be much stronger than an average karabiner." There should be a pretty good margin between 'noticeable' and 'half its thickness'. Any limit that's less then 'noticeable' will, by definition, not be effective.

This sound sensible on the face of it.

But considering the case where wear was 'noticeable' to me and you, but within acceptable limits (e.g. 1mm, 10%, or whatever DMM say). Would the CNCC then be obliging itself to replace part-worn anchors that still have serviceable life remaining? Either by its duty of care, conflict with its own written proceedures, or by request from at-work employees in the outdoor industry.

Also, did every single user 'notice' the wear on the anchor reported above, which the report says has >1mm and >10% wear.

I think just adding the word 'noticeable' is superfluous and of little overall benefit. Needs thought.

 

[IanWalker]

Mt thought is that a very good thing about the chain is if it proves not to be required then it can be taken out again

They are not required.

The burden of proof surely has to be on the proposer. To show it is required, that this is the best option, that the price is justified, that this achieve what is suggested and that the negatives are an acceptable compromise. I have yet to read or hear these proofs.

Also, how practically would you prove that they are 'not' required once they are in situ? (you could do an abseil without them, as people have been doing for years, and whilst that is good evidence that they are not required, we already have that evidence)

Replacing a worn anchor is potentially damaging to the cave, replacing a worn chain has no implications for the cave.

agree. i support the proposed installation being removable and replaceable

 

[ChrisB]

If the volunteer does not wish to do a proper job, then this should be shelved

I will speak up for volunteers here. I don't know if you're suggesting that the volunteers in this case are not doing a proper job - I think they're doing far better than a proper job and if you are indeed suggesting otherwise I'll expand on why I say that, but I don't want to detract here from the generic point I want to make.

Volunteers donate their limited time to the organisation and deserve respect for that. They have usually been elected democratically, or have been trusted with the job by those who have been elected. What constitutes a proper job is subjective. While the volunteer's view isn't definitive, it must carry significant weight. There are many 'right' ways of doing a job and provided the job is being done adequately I would let them get on with it, even if I would have done it a different way. I would only object, personally, if the job is being done badly, so that the organisation doesn't function properly.

I have seen too many volunteers demotivated, and too many organisations fail to get anything done, because people insist that things have to be done their way, when there are other ways that still achieve the overall object of the organisation.

 

[IanWalker]

For clarity -

Was it me that raised the 'volunteer' issue, or was it someone else?

I was making a general observation that 'we have a volunteer workforce' is not a good reason to install stuff, or to not do a thorough job.

If anything I would say having a volunteer workforce is a good reason to not install stuff.

People do not of course have to do things "my way". The elected committee remains responsible for anchoring and will make its decision.

 

[flakey]

I think these kinds of decisions are a tradeoff, often between money and volunteer time, and to a limited extent safety (i.e. we can prioritise safety up to the level of professional bodies, but trying to attain safety levels beyond those standards is pointless) and impact on the cave.

We could, for example, go ahead with chains in Simpson, on the basis of the evidence so far *but* continue to investigate the causes and impacts of pull-throughs on anchor wear (i.e. answering something like Ian W’s questions) in parallel, and on the understanding that if the research shows that chains aren’t such a great idea (i.e. they’re an unnecessary intervention), they will be removed. This will leave us better informed for when the question of chains and pull-throughs comes up again for a different cave. Having the chains in place will also give us more practical experience of whether they help improve matters (e.g. fewer stuck ropes, less wear on the fixed anchors, although that second one will be really hard to measure on a short timescale).

Such an approach would mean we don’t ‘waste’ volunteer time and willpower (because the volunteers are seeing outcomes for the time they invest), at the cost of buying a set of chains which potentially get removed in future.

Other approaches to this tradeoff are also fine, it’s up to the CNCC to decide how best to spend their financial and volunteer capital.

 

[flakey]

I have seen too many volunteers demotivated, and too many organisations fail to get anything done, because people insist that things have to be done their way, when there are other ways that still achieve the overall object of the organisation.

I’ve seen that too. I’ve also seen many volunteers (reasonably) propose a solution which is straightforward for them to implement, then the organisation or others from it gently push back against that with questions, then the volunteer (and/or others) go away and do a bit more research into those questions, and end up coming back with a better proposal all round — and also data which can be used to justify and reflect on that solution 10 years down the line when everyone involved has forgotten why they went with a particular solution.

In the case of fixed aids installations which will hopefully last for decades, I think it’s fairly important to have some kind of methodical backing, written up, for why a solution has been chosen and what the tradeoffs were. Otherwise we’ll come back to this question for another cave in 10 years’ time and won’t know what tradeoffs we’re choosing between when we specify chains there too.

Institutional knowledge is as short-lived as the volunteers who have it. I think the paper in the OP of this topic is great, and I think with a bit more work we could end up answering all the right questions about this topic and having that knowledge written down forever.

 

[flakey]

Putting a little bit of money where my mouth is, I’ve started a poll to try and get some data about how ropes get stuck on pull throughs. A forum poll isn’t the most scientific of approaches, but it’s a start, and could perhaps be used to inform a better research approach in the future. (I am happy to help do that if people think it’s worthwhile.)

 

[Ian Ball]

Thanks for the poll Flakey.
I would like to differentiate here between chains being added to existing anchors - Good idea, extends the life of the anchors.
Chains being added to new anchors where existing anchors are available - Bad idea.
It would seem that the existing anchors in Simpson Pot are unfit for use and must be replaced. I hope that 100% of the replacements are into the same hole as they came out of.

 

[Ian Ball]

Cavematt. I don't understand, from the comments that follow and I know you aren't speaking for the CNCC, but you seem to be saying having a volunteer for a task means it should be carried out in case the volunteer decides not to do it, irrespective of the task merit?
I can't imagine you are, but in terms of anchor installation, I must say, it feels that way!

 

[ChrisB]

Cavematt. I don't understand, from the comments that follow and I know you aren't speaking for the CNCC, but you seem to be saying having a volunteer for a task means it should be carried out in case the volunteer decides not to do it, irrespective of the task merit?

I understood Matt to be saying that if you don't have a volunteer for a task, it can't be carried out. Which is not the same as saying if you do have volunteer, it should be.

having a volunteer workforce is a good reason to not install stuff

The only workforce we're ever going to have is volunteers, so on that basis nothing would get installed.

 

[IanWalker]

Making a big issue about the volunteer aspect of our organisation is I feel not totally helpful. For example it shouldn't matter whether anchors are installed by volunteers or paid workers (though there are pros and cons to each), as long as they all follow the agreed scheme.

Plenty of volunteer-led organisations use paid employees to good effect (eg BCA pays for librarian, CNCC pays for trainers). It is quite conceivable that in the future CNCC will use paid-for workforce to supplement its volunteer base in acheiving its aims.

I agree that we have volunteers, that this is a good thing, they do lots of good work and that their time is valuable and not to be used up unnecessarily. And that being said, let's consider the proposal on its own merits.

 

[Cavematt]

Cavematt. I don't understand, from the comments that follow and I know you aren't speaking for the CNCC, but you seem to be saying having a volunteer for a task means it should be carried out in case the volunteer decides not to do it, irrespective of the task merit?
I can't imagine you are, but in terms of anchor installation, I must say, it feels that way!

Ian, you are deliberately trying to twist my words here.

 

[Ian Ball]

Ian, you are deliberately trying to twist my words here.

Haha you give me far too much credit thank you.

Chris B set me straight cheers Chris.

 

[ChrisB]

Making a big issue about the volunteer aspect of our organisation is I feel not totally helpful. For example it shouldn't matter whether anchors are installed by volunteers or paid workers

Whether the work is done by volunteers or paid workers is not the point. The point Matt was making is that CNCC has limited resources and therefore the rigorous approach you suggested in post #35 isn't feasible. CNCC is struggling to find volunteers for existing roles and doesn't have the funds to employ people to do it (and I can't see where they would get such funds from).

In your reply to Matt, you wrote "If the volunteer does not wish to do a proper job, then this should be shelved." I understood you to mean that you expected the volunteers doing the work on Simpson Pot to take the rigorous approach that you suggested, and that not doing so was not doing a proper job. That seemed to me to be unnecessarily critical of those individuals. If that wasn't what you meant, please would you clarify?
The CNCC Committee will make its decision, but I don't believe more analysis is helpful. I'm no fan of Elon Musk, but the people he's employed to run SpaceX are making huge progress by working out what they can safely test, and using trials to develop the design along with analysis. Whatever the arguments for and against chains, I don't think anyone has suggested they'd be less safe than what currently happens. I'd just spend the necessary £100 or so, put them in, and review after a year.