WARNING LOOSE BOLTS IN RHINO RIFT

[Brains]

Removing Spit anchors:
"Easily" done, drill a simillar OD hole under the spit to the same depth, hit the spit downwards with a cold chisel and lump hammer, goodbye spit anchor. Drill with larger bit for P bolt to depth, dress the edge to accept the base of the eye - the spit removal hole is a good pilot for this. Clean and resin up. Many of the spit anchors I have replaced with P bolts were visually good, but a few were very worrying, severly rusted or with cracked and broken sleeves, or the cones werent even finger tight in the end of the anchor, etc. From the surface there was virtually nothing to indicate if a spit would appear good or bad after removal.
It is possible to extract and rebolt in one "hit" provided you can hang off something else while you are doing it! This is the main reason, IMO, why new locations are used for P bolts.

 

[chriscastle46]

I can't remember three Y-anchors at the head of the second pitch at all, just the main hang and the rebelay down and round a bit, but I'm supposed to be going there on Friday so I'll have a look-see.

 

[cap n chris]

going there on Friday so I'll have a look-see.

Please be aware that there have been reports of loose bolts in Rhino Rift. 

 

[Peter Burgess]

going there on Friday so I'll have a look-see.

Please be aware that there have been reports of loose bolts in Rhino Rift. 

Really?  Someone should do something about it.

 

[mak]

Has someone reported this to the CSCC bolting co-ordinator  :alien:

s'pose we ought to stop this now  :spank:

 

[Hammy]

I attended a CNCC Technical Group Permanent Resin Bonded Anchor Installation Course run by Les Sykes in June 2003 and based my observations on information I received there. I am no longer a 'Trained Installer' as my period of anchor installation is in excess of 12 months.

The Installation Guidelines Manual states that 'the anchor will be at least 200mm away from any fault line/edges of rock and the rock is not hollow or fractured'

http://img411.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lowresgina3rdtopoz8.jpg

hmmmm looks more like 100mm to me

The movement of some of the bolts certainally approaches if not exceeds 1mm but I didn't measure it so apologies if I am incorrect.

I had no intention of wasting peoples time, nor was I critiscising anchor placement skills.

I was just trying to help.

I don't think that people should be discouraged from sharing potentially safety critical information on this forum.

 

[cap n chris]

Guidelines

 

[whitelackington]

One of the nonsenses of the resin anchor scheme is the requirement to place a bolt, needed or not for your "ticket", if such a document existed, which it does not, to remain in force.
It is unlikely that the average person, who has probably been caving for @ least a decade and s.r.t.ing for years, gets themselves "P" bolt trained,
then promptly forgets everything after a year.
If that person is asked to then fit some bolts, they have to weakly say,
"I am out of time, ask someone else"
This annually ticketing of resin bolters does not suit on Mendip.

 

[cap n chris]

This annually ticketing of resin bolters does not suit on Mendip.

But now we have so many requests from (the same) people/person to install bolts here, there and here and there and over there and here and also here and there, there's little chance that those currently trained to install bolts are going to fall outside of the one per year requirement. Provided, of course, that we actually have some bolts which we can subsequently install. There are some places which still require bolting in the foreseeable future.

 

[Bob Mehew]

whitelackington    why don't you go and read the discussion document at http://british-caving.org.uk/?page=129 before making statements like this?  Can we discuss where the scheme is likely to go, not where it now is which is accepted as being rather poor.  That is why we are trying to improve it.

 

[whitelackington]

Bob, my satement is true or do you want to cover the truth!
This is, a problem on Mendip but probably not in other areas.

 

[cap n chris]

This is, a problem on Mendip but probably not in other areas.

Correction. This was a problem.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Bob, my satement is true or do you want to cover the truth!
This is, a problem on Mendip but probably not in other areas.

I am not denying the truth of your statement as the situation was.  Mendip now has a very active anchor placer / trainer.  BCA is trying to change the existing set up to improve it.  All I ask is that you help towards improving it, not just hark on the past.  That is why I feel I am 

We are proposing to do away with the one anchor per year rule.  In its place we propose attending a workshop every "x" years.  I use x because we ask for opinion on how long this should be, see para 65 http://british-caving.org.uk/?page=129 . Do you think this is wrong?  If so why?

If I summarise it correctly from the other thread http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php/topic,3120.0/all.html , the specific concern for you and others on Mendip is whether a person could place 10 anchors in two years experience to become a trainer.  Well the simple answer is that prospective trainer can place the 10 anchors any where in the UK under the scheme.  It is unlikely that Yorkshire will run out of useful locations to place anchors in several life times.  Only Derbyshire has a condition that anchors can only be placed on the specific say so of their Council (which came about because of too many idiots placing anchors in poor locations).  Alternatively, a region can "adopt" a trainer from another region; a situation which already exists where Andy (your Mendip trainer) provides training for Cambrian!  Are these options unreasonable?

As a parting comment, what does surprise me is the lack of comment about the proposal to test the competence of a prospective anchor placer for rigging and SRT (see para 57 to 60).  Am I to take every one is happy with this?  Whilst I think it is correct, I had major concerns about the reaction to such a proposal.  So far the only comment which might be linked to it has been switch to "suitable" and leave the judgement of suitability to who ever.  Well sorry, life has moved on a long way and such a proposal would be shot down in any enquiry following a major problem.  If we are to keep the scheme under the ambit of BCA's public liability insurance cover, then it has to meet modern day standards. 

 

[cap n chris]

the proposal to test the competence of a prospective anchor placer for rigging and SRT

Not only does this proposal seem reasonable, it also seems sensible; come to think of it, it seems to be an essential prerequisite.

 

[damian]

the proposal to test the competence of a prospective anchor placer for rigging and SRT

Not only does this proposal seem reasonable, it also seems sensible; come to think of it, it seems to be an essential prerequisite.

I would take everyone's silence to mean they agree too.

 

[cap n chris]

Isn't it somewhat akin to recommending that someone offering driving lessons should have a driving licence?

 

[graham]

Isn't it somewhat akin to recommending that someone offering driving lessons should have a driving licence?

Although I think the principle is a good one, I would wonder how the test would be carried out in practice, what standard would be applied and who would be eligible to act as examiner in this regard. I am not trying to be difficult.

 

[whitelackington]

We need to be aware.
Excessive regulation is strangulation.

Especially in The Mendip area,
for very many years we have been experiencing somewhat of a hiatus with the
"P" bolting scheme, varrious reasons.

As it has just got back on track, over the last 18 months, lets's not shackle overselves with too many rules and let's not become too dependant on
other regions. :idea:

 

[cap n chris]

Well one test for checking SRT competence could simply be "Are you competent at SRT, where have you been; did you do the rigging?". If the person says, "Er, I'm OK at SRT I suppose; I've been to Singing River Mine and Manor Farm on a club trip following someone else who rigged it" then the answer is clearly "Not good enough". If, OTOH, they've been to loads of places, loads of regions, doing some complex multi pitch rigging trips then they're probably sufficiently up to speed to be considered for the role. Therefore the stipulation regarding competence can be resolved with a simple conversation. Seems workable to me or is this not "official" enough?

 

[graham]

Good reply, Chris. That would be workable enough for the majority of the caving community but would it be good enough for our insurers and for external bodies (coroners courts, etc.) investigating when the shit did hit the fan.

I do not know the answer, but suspect that the question is an important one.