![]() Combined, these mistakes led to the fatal accident. Movements in the rope such as clipping, climbing, and constructing an anchor can be misconstrued as off-belay signals. Second, a non-verbal system for belay management during multi-pitch climbing is useful, but relying solely on rope tugs can lead to problems. Records indicate the pair had consulted Mountain Project prior to climbing Labby but failed to identify it as a single-pitch climb. First, had the pair known Labby was a single-pitch route, they might have chosen a different rope management system. It’s important to highlight several oversights by the climbers in this tragic accident. Having no view of the anchor and not hearing any verbal communication, Climber 2 felt these rope pulls and interpreted them as Climber 1’s signal to go off belay. ![]() As Climber 2 was tying herself into the rope, she heard a scream and saw Climber 1 fall.īased on the above reconstruction, it is likely that Climber 1 pulled up on the rope as she set up the anchor for lowering. Based on the system they had agreed to use, she took Climber 1 off belay. After Climber 1 disappeared from view, Climber 2 felt two tugs on the rope. Climber 1, thinking she was still on belay, sat back on the rope to be lowered and fell.įrom Climber 2’s belay position, she could not see Climber 1 at the anchor and was under the impression Climber 1 would belay her to the top. It’s unclear if any verbal communication to Climber 2 was attempted. Climber 1 attached her anchor slings to the bolts and clipped her end of the rope to the master point. However, upon reaching the anchor, Climber 1 realized Labby was only a single-pitch route (about 80 feet high). Climber 1 believed Labby to be another multi-pitch route, and she left the ground with the intention of tying in to the anchor and belaying Climber 2 to the top. The plan for the route was identical to the system previously used: Two rope tugs meant Climber 1 was safe and Climber 2 should take her off belay and prepare to climb. The route starts on a wide ledge to climber’s right and above the start of Yellow Dog Dingo. Climbers 1 and 2 successfully climbed all three pitches of Yellow Dog Dingo with this system and then rappelled to the base of the route, where they had left their backpacks.Ĭlimber 1 suggested they climb Labby next. The pair agreed to this system based on the crag’s proximity to busy Highway 6 and their fear that verbal communication would be difficult. Climber 1 would lead each pitch, and after an anchor was properly established, the leader would tug on the rope two times as the indication to Climber 2 to take her off belay and prepare to climb. Prior to leaving the ground, the pair discussed a system to manage the belays. Their first route was a three-pitch bolted 5.6 called Yellow Dog Dingo. Somewhere between 9 and 10 a.m., Climber 1 and Climber 2 arrived at the Other Critters area with the intent of climbing several routes. In conjunction with the Clear Creek Country Sheriff’s Office, Alpine Rescue was able to reconstruct the events leading up to the climber’s fall. The members noted the climber’s anchor setup was appropriate, all quickdraws were placed properly, and no equipment failure was observed. It was estimated the climber had fallen a total of 160 feet.Īfter the evacuation of the fallen climber, two climbers from Alpine Rescue were able to access the route (Labby, 5.9 sport) and recover the climbing gear still on the wall. While Alpine was en route, Clear Creek County EMS personnel were able to access the fallen climber and confirm she had not survived the fall. ![]() Initial reports indicated the climber had fallen a significant distance and was unresponsive. ![]() ![]() On June 6 at 12:56 p.m., the Alpine Rescue Team responded to the report of an 18-year-old female climber who had fallen at the Other Critters area. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |