Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - Crag & Route Beta

Crag & Route Beta

 Page 6 of 10. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 186
Area Location Sub Location Crag Links
All NSW (General) (General) (General)  

Author
Climbing banned Centennial Trev Blue Mtns - NPWS

Macciza
5-May-2015
12:15:35 PM
Sam- way to go matey, 4 posts and 3 of them are complaints...
And the other post seemed to ignore the facts of the matter and contributed little to the debate ...
I find your slang-phobic complainant posts a little offensive myself .... ;~}


Macciza
5-May-2015
12:45:52 PM
Snacks - never really considered insurance as a demarker between amateur and professional expertise . In fact insurance has been shown to lead to less safe practice because 'insurance will cover stuff ups' .
If insurance and liability is such a concern then how can any uncertified bolts be placed and allowed to be used. What recourse does anyone have in that situation if they hurt themselves? Sue or suck it up?

Most importantly, I think you need to check your facts- there is no 'blanket ban' on bolting in the Blue Mountains National Park, in fact bolting is recognised as being necessary for climbing activities but NPs are unable to do installation and certification of them. Participants need to accept responsibility for there own actions, as is the case in most adventure activities that make use of non-Parks installed equipment. Rock climbing is an approved activity in the NP provided that certain rules are followed, including acceptable bolting techniques. Closure of unacceptable sites and removal of bolts is one possible consequence of not playing by the rules....
One Day Hero
5-May-2015
1:07:27 PM
On 5/05/2015 Samcross wrote:
>My kids read this stuff, how dare you One day hero!

Good. Time for an alternative interpretation of daddy's hobby.

You kids remember how daddy couldn't take you to soccer because it was super-duper important that he bolt all those new routes? And how all the other climbers would be so happy that daddy had made all those climbs for them to climb?

Well, it turns out that daddy actually didn't find the place at all, bushwalkers had been going there for years. And the reason they liked to go there is that for an hour or so they could sit under a beautiful natural arch, have lunch in the bush, listen to the birds, and pretend that all the horrible parts of our industrial society didn't exist. Obviously, being only a few hundred meters from the road, this place wasn't really in the middle of nowhere. The funny thing about getting away from the concrete and steel and rushing and noise though, is that you can very quickly get the peaceful feeling of being much more distant than you actually are.

Then daddy came along. And he brought with him a little road, and the steel and the concrete, and noisy rushing climbers, and the numbers and the beta, and the "FAAAAARK!!". Then it wasn't a peaceful escape from the crazy world anymore, it was just one more shitty bit of a developed planet, and all the bushwalkers were really sad. Daddy wrecked their peaceful place, and he didn't even put up any quality climbs in the fuching process. Most other climbers don't go to daddy's cliff, because they know life is too short to waste time dicking around on mediocre pox.

the end

Snacks
5-May-2015
1:45:27 PM
On 5/05/2015 Macciza wrote:
>Snacks - never really considered insurance as a demarker between amateur
>and professional expertise . In fact insurance has been shown to lead to
>less safe practice because 'insurance will cover stuff ups' .

Fantastic... maybe you should spread the news to all organisations and individuals that tend to their assets with insured, qualified and skilled workers.. apparently unqualified uninsured work is the latest and greatest thing revealed by some vague research...

>If insurance and liability is such a concern then how can any uncertified
>bolts be placed and allowed to be used. What recourse does anyone have
>in that situation if they hurt themselves? Sue or suck it up?

It's not a legal concern when it's kept within the experienced climbing community.

I haven't heard of a precedent in the climbing world (maybe someone else has?) but the situation with Nick Kaz's passing seems like it would have come close to criminal/civil action. Though I don't know the fine detailed he said/she said particulars in that case and what reasons this may not have been pursued... (Please do not reply to this. I do not want to re-hash this story. And I'd rather you just considered how it does relate, and if you don't think it does, then don't reply to it.)

If there is demonstrated negligence where an installer ignores sound and proven technical advice within the particular recreational community and installs something that leads to serious injury or death then this might be pursued. Think of it as accidental booby-trapping...

The obvious defence rebuttal in the above example would be demonstrating that the climber or experienced participant should also have known better as well and not use particular bolts. But, climbing is generally a difficult one for negligence cases...

With climbing being a 'stop', 'think' then 'do' activity a lot of the responsibility and liability falls upon the participant as they would have had many opportunities to retreat if they were unsure about a given safety concern.

Again, this is a headache for an organisation like NPWS that is just trying to do the best it can within the framework provided to them and accepting ongoing liability for installed anchors in natural rock is a big ask (as is officially getting them removed)... removing them is probably most swiftly done as Damian (ODH) has described with a ban being imposed and someone quietly deciding to go about removing them on their own with no attachment or directive from NPWS.

>Most importantly, I think you need to check your facts- there is no 'blanket
>ban' on bolting in the Blue Mountains National Park, in fact bolting is
>recognised as being necessary for climbing activities but NPs are unable
>to do installation and certification of them. Participants need to accept

Not sure how you keep jumping to conclusions and misquoting me. I never said there was a blanket ban on bolting in the Blue Mountains...

Areas get blanket banned by land owners or managers to negate liability and other access issues. No secret there and their legal reasoning (risk profile reduction) is sound. Beulah Rock Festivus closure is one sad example.

>responsibility for there own actions, as is the case in most adventure
>activities that make use of non-Parks installed equipment. Rock climbing
>is an approved activity in the NP provided that certain rules are followed,
>including acceptable bolting techniques. Closure of unacceptable sites
>and removal of bolts is one possible consequence of not playing by the
>rules....

Do you have a reference to these rules that I could peruse?
One Day Hero
5-May-2015
3:09:44 PM
So, was this joint bolted by a posse of euros who all share a remarkable similarity in their funny english? Or could it be that Samcross, andy a, Stuartt, and that random chick who piped up are all the same person?
Wendy
5-May-2015
4:51:40 PM
On 5/05/2015 Samcross wrote:
>My kids read this stuff, how dare you One day hero!

Whilst Damo displays a terrible lack of imagination in resorting to gay slurs as a form of abuse, your kids are going to encounter this and a lot more on the internet everyday. Why don't you take the opportunity to explain to them why using gay terms as abuse is offensive? Kids need to be taught to assess and manage this stuff for themselves, not molly coddled around it.

Climboholic
5-May-2015
5:48:15 PM
On 4/05/2015 Snacks wrote:
>The best way to remove these particular bolts (on the arch) would be using
>a scaffold platform. And it would probably end up being a lot cheaper (compared
>to fully insured rope access workers).
>
>Damage to the site using a scaffold setup would only be temporary.
>
>Other areas that can be more easily accessed via abseil should be done
>by an industrial rope access company. They might cost around $2-3k?? for
>a couple of climbs that can be removed in a day (long day including travel
>time). And this wouldn't include any kind of patch work.
>
>Any official shortcuts should be investigated by WorkCover in my opinion
>as I don't believe amateur bolters should be encouraged to carry out this
>'work' and the risks go far beyond those accepted by typical Track or Bush
>care volunteers. It might be a good time for NPWS to begin setting up a
>framework to handle these issues sensibly and within safe work practices.
>
>Further to this, since the arch's structural stability has been called
>into question it would be very inappropriate to expect work to be done
>to the underside of the arch if they have some advice that suggests it
>is unstable?
>
>
>As a disclaimer; I am a rope access diagnostics engineer and am looking
>at this predominantly from a liability point of view.

*Post modified after personal request from snacks*

I understand your desire to have a structured framework around ropes access. From what I observed of your judgement several years ago, you do not have the aptitude to operate safely without it. This opinion is based on:
- In Thailand in 2013 you had been exclusively using the shiny stainless steel bolts that the guidbook specifically said were dangerous for a week until I pointed out that you're meant to use the dull Titanium ones.
- You took a 10-15m fall after pulling through a lot of slack. I'm sure of this because I was feeding out rope and starting to get concerned when you fell. At no point was the rope out of control.
- You attempted climbs beyond your ability at the time and exposed yourself to ground falls.

My opinion of your judgement was further reinforced when you burnt down Schlinks hut by throwing shellite on glowing embers in the fireplace.

Regulating climbing so those without aptitude can do it safely detracts from the experience of the competent and safe majority of climbers. I raise this point because you are spouting a lot of opinions that run contrary to the prevailing opinion amongst the climbing community.

If at first you don't suceed, maybe you should try something else. Don't try to change climbing.
Stuartt
5-May-2015
5:51:35 PM
Unfortunately 3 bolts have been chopped today by Angus Farquhar. From
what I have heard he has made a mess of it. A couple of pics got taken.
Sad news.
Angus Farquhar seems to be on quite the personal mission he is the one who posted the original message on the blue mountains Facebook page.
Seems like the work of a sad, bored old man with poo in his beard if you believe recent studies.
Hopefully no one chops the routes he bolted in retaliation.


Snacks
5-May-2015
6:05:18 PM
On 5/05/2015 Climboholic wrote:
>On 4/05/2015 Snacks wrote:
>>The best way to remove these particular bolts (on the arch) would be
>using
>>a scaffold platform. And it would probably end up being a lot cheaper
>(compared
>>to fully insured rope access workers).
>>
>>Damage to the site using a scaffold setup would only be temporary.
>>
>>Other areas that can be more easily accessed via abseil should be done
>>by an industrial rope access company. They might cost around $2-3k??
>for
>>a couple of climbs that can be removed in a day (long day including travel
>>time). And this wouldn't include any kind of patch work.
>>
>>Any official shortcuts should be investigated by WorkCover in my opinion
>>as I don't believe amateur bolters should be encouraged to carry out
>this
>>'work' and the risks go far beyond those accepted by typical Track or
>Bush
>>care volunteers. It might be a good time for NPWS to begin setting up
>a
>>framework to handle these issues sensibly and within safe work practices.
>>
>>Further to this, since the arch's structural stability has been called
>>into question it would be very inappropriate to expect work to be done
>>to the underside of the arch if they have some advice that suggests it
>>is unstable?
>>
>>
>>As a disclaimer; I am a rope access diagnostics engineer and am looking
>>at this predominantly from a liability point of view.
>
>Seriously?!!! You are the most dangerous person I have ever climbed with
>and you're claiming to be an authority on safe ropes access? What qualifications
>have you acquired in the 3-4 years since we climbed together in Thailand?
>
>I ask because you are spouting a lot of opinions that run contrary to
>the prevailing opinion amoungst the competent and safe majority in the
>climbing community.
>
>Just because you don't have the aptitude to climb safely, doesn't mean
>climbing should be regulated into submission.

Eh? I no longer climbed with you on that Thailand trip after taking a substantial fall with you belaying... I lost sight of you on that particular climb with you belaying lying down on your back talking to a girl... Tried climbing with you the day after and didn't feel comfortable with you belaying and came down. And this was witnessed by one person that still jokes about it with me today...

Don't remember dropping you or belaying you in a similar fashion.

Opinions? These are just simple liability eventuations... as mentioned elsewhere by Damian and myself, the swiftest way for this to get handled is by someone quietly removing them in a safe and with some prior experience with sandstone repair.

Rope access authority? The rough calculation that (industrial) rope access methods and scaffolding would be of comparable cost to sort the arch out (also being safer and better)?

Anyways, thanks for your contribution Andrew, your personal attack was pointless. I've spoken to reps of the OEH and NPWS about this previously when I cross paths in my working life... And really don't see how your comments relate to anything constructive whatsoever.

rodw
5-May-2015
6:12:55 PM
On 5/05/2015 Wendy wrote:
>On 5/05/2015 Samcross wrote:
> Why don't you take the opportunity to explain
>to them why using gay terms as abuse is offensive? Kids need to be taught
>to assess and manage this stuff for themselves, not molly coddled around
>it.

Simply not saying will suffice...seems to me your excusing ODH who is a serial offender because hes a friend ?..maybe take the opportunity to say to ODH to stop being a bigot and not Molly coddle him?

Samcross is right to call him out on this issue, but ODH will ignore as usual, but you saying Samcross attitude needs to change is a bit rich and hypocritical IMHO, by someone who is normally very politically correct on other issues.

E. Wells
5-May-2015
6:17:31 PM
Dont chop Angus routes. Ive rebolted a few of em and they good and in crown land. Its not a personal vendetta of his. He just feels the arch is too unique for sport climbing and damages relationships with non climbers. . I quite like the climb but if I lived across the road and witnessed the changes over last 4yrs id probably be miffed too. recommend Goats Overhead. Gorgeous rock.
One Day Hero
5-May-2015
6:25:50 PM
On 5/05/2015 Snacks wrote:
>Eh? I no longer climbed with you on that Thailand trip after taking a
>substantial fall with you belaying... I lost sight of you on that particular
>climb with you belaying lying down on your back talking to a girl...

Totally legit excuse for inattentive belaying. You should brush up on AS1874, which covers acceptable standards of belaying at tropical holiday crags while trying to pull chicks.
climberman
5-May-2015
6:39:10 PM
On 5/05/2015 One Day Hero wrote:

>Totally legit excuse for inattentive belaying. You should brush up on
>AS1874, which covers acceptable standards of belaying at tropical holiday
>crags while trying to pull chicks.

Pretty sure this is AS 007.

Olbert
5-May-2015
6:43:26 PM
On 5/05/2015 climberman wrote:
>On 5/05/2015 One Day Hero wrote:
>
>>Totally legit excuse for inattentive belaying. You should brush up on
>>AS1874, which covers acceptable standards of belaying at tropical holiday
>>crags while trying to pull chicks.
>
>Pretty sure this is AS 007.
>

ASS007?

E. Wells
5-May-2015
6:45:44 PM
Hitler
Olbert
5-May-2015
6:48:06 PM
On 5/05/2015 E. Wells wrote:
>Hitler

Which side were you on? That side loses.
Olbert
5-May-2015
6:58:26 PM
I think the strongest bolt removal argument boils down to this:

NPWS manages the area and all national parks in NSW. It has the power to ban climbing.

NPWS are ok with some climbing, including sport climbing and new development, in the Blue Mountains.

Local climbers have a good relationship with NPWS.

NPWS have decided (rightly or wrongly) that the bolting here is bad and they have banned climbing altogether.

Other users of the area also do bad things (bring dogs, shit in the bush, create tracks, etc) but this is a distraction - we don't care if other uses are banned - we care about climbing.

If we remove the bolts, any further damage to the NPWS will be negated. Further climbing in the area will be very limited and not noticed.

If we don't remove the bolts, it may become a sore spot for the NPWS as they asked for them to be removed. Further climbers, knowingly or unknowingly, will climb there which will further damage the relationship.

The risk is that NPWS will be more likely to make decisions climbers don't like because of this. The risk mitigation is removal of bolts.

Good risk management, good stakeholder management and just not being a dick says remove the bolts!


E. Wells
5-May-2015
7:11:59 PM
Just to be clear so far npws have not asked for them to be removed. They have stated that they will be removed. Both in this post and in the sign at the crag in question.
Olbert
5-May-2015
7:27:28 PM
On 5/05/2015 E. Wells wrote:
>Just to be clear so far npws have not asked for them to be removed. They
>have stated that they will be removed. Both in this post and in the sign
>at the crag in question.

Let me know when that actually happens.

:p

E. Wells
5-May-2015
7:34:49 PM
Ok. Now.

 Page 6 of 10. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 186
There are 186 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | High Country Mountain Huts | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints