Risk tolerance in partners

Bill Lawry wrote:And even the consequence of failure is not really a constant across all people.

Another example: my brother-in-law greatly reduced the risky mountaineering choices he made when his daughter was born. The consequences of his death or severe injury had just become far higher.

David Gibbs wrote: Another example: my brother-in-law greatly reduced the risky mountaineering choices he made when his daughter was born. The consequences of his death or severe injury had just become far higher.

Heh - yeah, and I'm probably on the upswing given that all my kids are grown. :-)

Russ Keane wrote:For me, one of the best predictors is someone's health and fitness. People who eat badly, or skip breakfast, or drink too much, they tend to BONK and end up at a point of poor mental acuity. People who are in poor fitness can't last as long in the day and are more likely to screw up.

Be careful of stereotyping, Russ. I have been accused of eating badly, skipping breakfast (occassionally), AND drinking too much. Get me out climbing - I am not sure if you could keep up with me . . .

I think about this alot as my work also involves formally assessing risk.

I think it is important to note that that ones risk tolerance is in a range and we make specific risk acceptance decisions that fall in that range. Using the example of climbing or descending 4th class terrain without a rope why is that decision being made?:

1. Because (based on skill) the risk of falling is very low

2. Because (based on lack of skill, or the terrain itself) this cant be efficiently and adequately protected

3. Because some other risk (i.e. rockfall, weather) has surpassed this risk and it make more sense to move quickly.

Also these risks are not static they are always changing. Climbing unroped on 4th class terrain when fatigued, or in the dark, the risk is very different.

-Brian

Sam Stephens wrote: Danger in climbing is almost entirely predicated on how risky you decide to make it. It is only as dangerous as you allow it to be, extenuating circumstances aside.

So, on something like East Ridge of Wolfs Head - which you mention in the OP - did you decide to take more risk by soloing some of it, simul-climbing, or did you pitch it all out, with 3 pieces of gear in all the anchors, all equalized of course. Did you take some extra risk on the climbing to make sure you got to the descent before dark?

In doing longer alpine routes, like say something on the Diamond on Longs I would err on someone that is will to take on some risk as compared to someone who can't keep their shit together when things don't go to plan. One of my regular partners is more comfortable than I am taking some risk, but if the shit went down he would be my first choice in partners, because I know he would continue to be able to function.

Russ Keane wrote:For me, one of the best predictors is someone's health and fitness. People who eat badly, or skip breakfast, or drink too much, they tend to BONK and end up at a point of poor mental acuity. People who are in poor fitness can't last as long in the day and are more likely to screw up.

i haven't ever really seen any correlation with this. at all... not really sure what you are getting at, but whatever.

for the most part, there are just too many variables and variations to have some sort of reliable predictor of a partner's risk tolerance. it isn't even consistent from day to day in pretty much any person. it might be that one day you are the one who isn't feeling comfortable on something, and the next day they aren't feeling comfortable on something. i see this a lot in almost everybody i climb with. some days are better than others.

i can kind of see where 20kN is coming from, but i think he is still a little bit off. i don't think levels of experience necessarily change your risk tolerance. i think it has more of affect on your ability to accurately guess how close you are to your risk tolerance limit, but i don't necessarily see a big correlation in more experience leading to a higher risk tolerance. in some ways i would argue almost the opposite.

i do agree with some of his comments though. i see quite a few beginners taking on more risk than they are technically prepared for (ie 'going for it' when they can't even keep from backclipping, can't place good gear, can't keep their leg out of the rope, etc).

Bill M wrote: So, on something like East Ridge of Wolfs Head - which you mention in the OP - did you decide to take more risk by soloing some of it, simul-climbing, or did you pitch it all out, with 3 pieces of gear in all the anchors, all equalized of course. Did you take some extra risk on the climbing to make sure you got to the descent before dark? In doing longer alpine routes, like say something on the Diamond on Longs I would err on someone that is will to take on some risk as compared to someone who can't keep their shit together when things don't go to plan. One of my regular partners is more comfortable than I am taking some risk, but if the shit went down he would be my first choice in partners, because I know he would continue to be able to function.

I managed to do it twice this past trip, once was a linkup of pingora to wolfs head. Even with my wife doing it with me we simuled a good bit, belays were often harness belays redirected off a piece or two from good stances, but we never saw the need to solo.

Sam Stephens wrote: I managed to do it twice this past trip, once was a linkup of pingora to wolfs head. Even with my wife doing it with me we simuled a good bit, belays were often harness belays redirected off a piece or two from good stances, but we never saw the need to solo.

That's a big day - Pingora, Tiger Tower, & Wolf's Head.

Sam Stephens wrote: I managed to do it twice this past trip, once was a linkup of pingora to wolfs head. Even with my wife doing it with me we simuled a good bit, belays were often harness belays redirected off a piece or two from good stances, but we never saw the need to solo.

My husband and I did this linkup a few years ago too, once we rapped off Pingora we packed our rope. I was a bit nervous soloing the sidewalk (I'm pretty sure I was second and was carrying the rope too - so pretty much committed ha!), but there is no real gear on it anyway, I don't think I'd want to simul that.

Re: risk tolerance, I think I pretty much big routes with people whom I know very well and have climbed exclusively with. We all have our off and on days, sometimes I'm the pussy, and sometimes they are. It all boils down to who can keep their shit together in unexpected and scary situations. One time I ended up in the alpine with a partner who lost their shit in not a very dire situation, so eversince I just try to avoid climbing with people I'm not very familiar with. I'd rather climb with someone conservative and slow, but would keep their shit together.

Bill Lawry wrote: That's a big day - Pingora, Tiger Tower, & Wolf's Head.

Tent to the summit of Wolfs Head in 8 hours, including a 1 hour traffic jam

doligo wrote: I was a bit nervous soloing the sidewalk (I'm pretty sure I was second and was carrying the rope too - so pretty much committed ha!), but there is no real gear on it anyway, I don't think I'd want to simul that.

It's so funny (and definitely highlights the diversity in perception of risk) since I felt pretty secure on that part and it was definitely solo-able for me. My partner and I were actually simul-ing, though (primarily because we planned to simul the rest of the route and therefore we just got our system set up immediately). I have soloed a moderate amount of 5.6 alpine with exposure (mostly Sierra and/or on granite elsewhere), yet when we came to the 2-3 real cruxes on WH I would have been gripped to solo those parts. I probably would have done it clipping in short to pieces as a back-up, however.

Just came across this thread. Great topic, Sam! I've been wondering about this lately as I've been noticing an increase in my risk acceptance due to influence from some of my partners. Still trying to figure out if it is a good thing.

My take is, experience is often but not always a plus where it comes to managing risk appropriately. Humans are all about experience: good experience and we repeat, bad experience and we avoid whatever activity. Building a poor anchor and NOT running into a problem lowers the level of concern regarding building similar anchors. Some of your less experienced partners could be appropriately cautious. We all know that experience climbers have died due to taking unreasonable risk.

I should add that part of my day job is helping people evaluate rationality of their fears. "Can I or my partner slip and fall on this class 4 terrain and if we do, what kind of injury is likely to occur?" is a good question to ask in the situation you described. Just because you have done it successfully many times does not necessarily mean that it is safe. As frequently the less experienced partner I have given up some precautions (such as backing up short rappels) but not others (not hanging two top rope anchors on one hollow dead tree).

Jake Jones wrote: Interesting indeed. Here's another wrench in it. I've seen very experienced people with roughly the same amount of risk tolerance I have (which errs on the side of conservative- I usually shy away from R, absolutely no X, and PG only if I'm super inspired by the line), make risky mistakes while taking up less experienced people. Unroped low 5th class is fine if it's just you or if there's a sort of unspoken (or even spoken) agreement between partners that are trying to move light and fast. But when that person takes that and applies it to novices that really aren't in a position to assess the risk (and because the novices trust the person implicitly, based solely upon the experience that the person has touted themselves to possess) it was enough to turn me off from climbing with that person. Skilled climber, solid fundamentals, and generally the same risk tolerance personally, but seeing that lapse in good judgment by assessing risk incorrectly for people that shouldn't have taken that risk, catered to my generally conservative risk tolerance and that person is crossed off my list of potential partners because of it. That's a serious run-on sentence, but you get the point.

Nicely stated, run on or not!

I think this can also be a relationship hazard, sorry to say. Newish climber genuinely wants to share this great thing we do, takes out a brand new person who genuinely likes them and doesn't want to offend...and has to trust them completely, without really getting how serious that trust is.

If climbers don't have similar levels of experience or abilities, such as your scenario, the "weaker" climber had darn well better make sure they ramp up their knowledge in a hurry, be prepared to decide what they are and aren't comfortable with, and stick to it, or find a different partner.

I've only been out with someone once that I felt unsafe with, and, since there were three of us, I was able to just quietly avoid being belayed by them. And, quietly belayed my friend, while the dude enjoyed quality time with his phone. The person never even knew, and we all had a nice afternoon.

Jake, your comment about never climbing an X made me smile. I would never climb one either. Except I have, and plan to do so again soon. A couple chimneys here are the few really easy climbs in our area, warmups for the hard boys from the old days, and no pro climbs. But, go up top, if you know what you are doing, a top rope becomes possible and the X goes away. I'm pretty cautious, but I know myself well, really care about the people I'm out with, and don't want to put them at risk of seeing me splatted. If I'm dead, I'm dead, whoop de do. But people I care about would have to live with that picture for ever. So, I've asked for a rope for fourth class.

Normajean, if "the influence from your partners" still has any bit of something niggling at you, definitely stew on what that niggle actually is. There's something, if your brain leans toward the pause button. Partners who boost our courage and confidence, for our own sake, are wonderful, but if they push because they want something, because you're too slow, too cautious, too whatever, for their wants, then not so good.

Best, Helen

Jake Jones wrote: I've seen very experienced people...make risky mistakes while taking up less experienced people...

I've made this mistake and still feel guilty about it forty years later. I had good friends climbing unroped in a remote area on terrain that was within their technical abilities but beyond their experience level.

I did ask them at multiple locations whether they wanted a rope, and they said no, but the reality is that they didn't have the experience to make that judgement and I should have been belaying them.

Nothing bad happened thank god, but in retrospect I was oblivious to critical concerns, perhaps a bit selfish in my desire to achieve certain goals, and so failed in my duty to properly keep them from potential harm.

Fortunately, I didn't have to write any of that in an accident report.

Old lady H wrote: Normajean, if "the influence from your partners" still has any bit of something niggling at you, definitely stew on what that niggle actually is. There's something, if your brain leans toward the pause button. Partners who boost our courage and confidence, for our own sake, are wonderful, but if they push because they want something, because you're too slow, too cautious, too whatever, for their wants, then not so good. Best, Helen

Sorry I was not clear. I meant neither of these. Was referring to changing your own practices as a result of observing practices different from your own in partners. i.e. indirect influence rather then them pushing you somehow.

Normajean, that influence can be a more efficient way to climb, that you think about and adopt, or a more relaxed safety check, that you go along with. On reflection, perhaps that partner is indeed very cognizant of your knot every time, and it's fine. Or not. But, it's that tiny pause when something is different. Could just be a small thing, but those matter.

Rgold, your story says a lot about your decency. But...

First, you're talking about a much younger you, so I presume your friends were also young, but not actual children. Which means, that sort of decision was one that we all make for ourselves when we are younger. I don't think it has much at all to do with experience, except if you've already learned a lesson the hard way. It's about learning who we are. You offered, they turned down. That's a choice they made. And, they got away with it, and probably still remember that time that they did this thing, and it is now wrapped into people who have that experience as a benchmark for other decisions.

Your bad, in my opinion, was not that you didn't take that decision out of their hands. It's that you put the one person who was experienced, you, at risk out in the back country. What would have happened to them if you fell? The one with the rope. Hmmm???

Best, Helen

Old lady H wrote: Your bad, in my opinion, was not that you didn't take that decision out of their hands. It's that you put the one person who was experienced, you, at risk out in the back country. What would have happened to them if you fell? The one with the rope. Hmmm???

Yes, another salient point, but ultimately a much trickier one. I've been guilty of being the more experienced person in remote places quite a few times. Guides are frequently in this position. You absolutely cannot belay everywhere, and this means that there is always the potential for disaster. At some point, everyone has to understand that there are risks.

As I got over the youthful delusion that I could control or at least mitigate everything in nature, I did start to make sure that my companions, when they were in some sense being guided by me, were proficient enough to have a chance of saving themselves if I was severely hurt or dead.

No, this didn't mean full self-rescue training. First of all, at the time I was in this position there wasn't a clearly-developed "curriculum." Now that there is, it is far too involved and complicated to be practical for anyone who doesn't practice continually, and even then the textbook solutions don't always work in the real world.

As I said, my main concern was that my friends could save themselves if it came down to that, so we spent some time on how to set up, retrieve, and reverse rappels. The people I was concerned about certainly knew how to rappel, but had little or no experience setting up and evaluating rappel anchors and making decisions about rappel routes in case the best descent is not back down the ascent route. This issue has actually become more severe, since nowadays many "front-country" climbs have bolted belay/rappel anchors requiring no thought and no ability to construct appropriate anchors---as much as possible natural to conserve gear---in the right positions. You can now acquire quite a bit of "experience" without ever having to do a sequence of rappels that you have to set up yourself.

Of course, if the party has only one rope and the person carrying it falls, the rest have to climb down or else are stranded. If there are three in the party, then there will be two ropes and this problem is considerably diminished. Since I've started climbing almost exclusively with half ropes, each member of a party of two is scrambling with a rope and so no one will be stranded without a rope.

Although I think I got a little better about it, any time there is a substantial mismatch in experience, the lesser experienced folks are likely to be up the creek if their "leader" is out of commission, and their resourcefulness and ability to improvise will be tested as never before. There are stories of amazing feats, and tragic demises. Ultimately, this is part of the texture of the "adventure" we claim to value---when everything is going right.

Sam Stephens wrote:The first day my partner was more cautious than I was on the descent and I had to provide a rope and half ass belay in 4th class terrain that I scrambled or walked without concern multiple times. The second day my partner and I made the descent quickly and efficiently. In this case it mostly boiled down to confidence and fear factors for the two partners, but it got me

like you have said yourself, we have all been there in one way or another, whether it's getting scared on lead and backing down to let the stronger partner take down the quickdraws at a sport crag, or voicing your concern with a partner about possible retreat only within one or two pitches from the summit high up on a north face somewhere, or being uncomfortable with a descent. I know I have personally encountered all 3 scenarios. You make the conscious decision to partner up with somebody, then at least for that trip/climb you are involved in a system of mutual support and trust. If the "half assed" belay is what your partner needs, you give it; it is not up solely to your arrogance or impatience to decide what the partnership needs. Unless you are Godly, you likely will have a situation where your partner is more comfortable than you and you'd be glad for the extra assurance.

Partners have stayed with me through my learning curve, and I have stayed with partners through theirs, and on occasions I have chosen to not team up with someone again because of personality conflicts, or philosophical differences on climbing tactics/styles (going fast&light vs. carrying extra safety, for example), but never because I feel a superior climber.

I propose we all start taking more unnecessary risks until it becomes a problem, i.e. too many climbers dying. Thus far, we really haven't explored the envelope and you need some people to step over the line before we find it.

Honestly a lot of the complains seem to be more about one's comfort level than actual risk. I recall climbing epinephrine on January 18th with a friend and at some point I just took over because I didn't want to get benighted. I was stretching out the 70 often with only three pieces of pro and once tying three pitches into one. It worked and we got on the descent and on terra firma before dark.

My friend was cool about this (well, he did use the word "terrifying" but was a good sport), but I could see how someone who didn't know I was solid soloing 8s may have thought otherwise. Still, in that situation I would have insisted as the worse option would have been to place more and have to find our way in the dark. I've had similar situations when I see bad weather approaching. Sometimes more pro is less safe.

As for what scares me: people whipping out a grigri to belay me. I've met 5 people who have been dropped on that thing. I insist on having my partner demonstrate he knows how to belay with weird devices before getting on anything potentially dangerous. I'm also weary of people who present themselves as better climbers than they are in reality. Just because you led an "11a" once doesn't mean shit. Check your ego.

Rgold, thoughtful as always!

A few summers ago, a thirteen year old boy got his dad out of the Idaho wilderness, after dad's arm was crushed by a boulder. Great story!

You are one of the handful on here I would give "blind faith" trust to, if that's what the situation called for, and it was no time for questions. Anything up to that sort of emergency, though, and I would, respectfully I hope, even question you, if something seemed off, or even if I just didn't get how it worked.

Given that climbing is taken up by people usually in their early twenties, I'm surprised their aren't far more accidents. Until you really get that you are mortal, those things are just abstracts that happen to other people. Which also leads me to believe that there are a heck of a lot of near misses early in climbing careers! Good judgment from bad judgement!

@climbnplay, I didn't quite get your last sentence. You've not gone out again for various reasons, but never because you felt superior, or never when you felt someone else was superior, or have I got the whole thing mangled?

For myself, in my very short climbing experience so far, I've rarely worried about anything while actually climbing. It's been approaches/walk off that regularly give me pause!