Bombproof Anchor?

Well, if we are discussing anchor tie-ins, what about anchors?

There is a tremendous amount of this analyzed on the other sites, John Long’s challenge has something like 900 posts with other threads starting with posts summarizing the entire discussion as not being able to formulate a fool-proof anchor building method for perfect equalization.

I would like to hear any practical input to help become a safer & more proficient climber.

Given this situation:

2 person climbing team on a 10-pitch free route and are starting the next to last pitch of the route & I need to lead the remainder to finish,
The terrain is at/near vertical and is all rock,
Time is an issue,
The belay station is at/near to hanging, and there is a roof that the belayer could possibly hit,
There are no fixed points of protection or naturals (boulders/chocks/horns/flakes) to be used – only gear in cracks (& no pitons/pins),
The natural rock crack quality does offer bomber protection placements for gear,
The gear used can only hold 10kN/each (I guess what is called the “stop strength”),
The pitch to be climbed starts with a 21’ runout/no protection including traversing 5’ maximum from the start off of the station,
Assume a 40’ (plus rope stretch) factor 2 fall occurs (wherein the team did not use the anchor or a protection point in the anchor to start), and
Assume the fall is clean and the belayer did not let go of the rope.

Can we build an anchor to hold the fall following the principals of ERNEST and save the team from becoming an incident?

Here is my thought & advocacy:

I would use 3 pieces of protection for the main station which are joined by a 6mm cordalette tied in an overhand knot. My points of protection will be 2-3 active SLCDs, and if I can place a passive nut/hex I would use it instead of all 3 points being cams. The angle of each point of protection is considered acceptable so as not to exert additional force on adjacent pieces. I may also use the climbing rope, but only in the case where I would not be leading the next pitch. In this case, I did not use the climbing rope because I need to stay in a leading position.

I would not join the protection placements with tech cord, webolette, or slings/runners. My reasoning is that these do not have sufficient elongation properties to equalize force on the three pieces. Even though I do my best to equalize the pieces, I would not be perfect, and I fear that force will move to the lesser extended piece without adequate distribution throughout the anchor. So I look to use cord that has higher elongation even though the ultimate strength may be less. However, I could use slings to extend protection points so as to gain the proper angles for the cord. I would not sling to the master tie-in point, with one exception:

I would also place a cam below the anchor along with a sling and attach the sling to the anchor cord master tie-in point to prevent the station from moving upward should I be able to place protection while leading (in the givens, ultimately I was not able to do so, but I still would have planned for it). I would not attach this sling to my belayer to allow for dynamic belaying properties. The belayer would not be using a gri-gri as the belay device.

Then, I would tie my belayer in with 2 points of proven contact. For the sake of avoiding the argument of redundant anchor tie-ins, I tied the belayer with the primary as being the rope on a clove and a redundant PAS/runner that both are to the anchor main tie-in point. The ultimate length of redundancy would not allow my belayer to smack into the roof should I lift him up (again, the givens say this ended up not happening, but I would still plan for it).

OK – Are we EARNEST? If so, will EARNEST save us?
If not, what is our problem?
In any case, what kind of force are we looking to absorb, how much, and from where?

First thing I notice is that if you traverse 5' off to one side and don't come back on a plumb line above the belay, then you can't generate a factor 2 fall. It'll be close with no pro in, but there will be a bit of a pendulum which will take some force out of the impact.

So, for the sake of discussion, let's assume the fall factor is 1.77. Let's also assume that you are using a rope with a 9kN impact force rating (fairly common). That impact force is the maximum force imparted on the climber in a factor 1.77 fall (hence my choice of that value, for mathematical simplicity). Since the rope is connected directly to the belayer, this same force (9kN) would need to be held by the belayer to arrest the fall.

Let's also assume that the belayer is in good position and the 9kN force does not cause further extension (if you are in fact erNEst). There is no pulley effect because the rope is not clipped through the anchor. In this case that is a really GOOD thing because the pulley effect adds about a 1.6x multiplier to the force.

So, the power point of the anchor experiences about 9kN (plus body weight of the belayer, maybe 1 kN). Let's call it 10kN. If all three arms of the cordelette are lined up directly opposite the direction of pull (with zero angle between them) and perfectly equalized, they would each take one third of the force, or just over 3kN. No worries! In practice, however, perfect equalization with no extension is rarely achieved..

For a more interesting scenario, let's assume that the cordelette arms are NOT properly equalized such that all 10kN comes on ONE arm. If your assumption that each piece holds only 10kN was just off and they really hold 9.9kN, then the first piece would rip out. The ripping of the piece would absorb some bit of the energy so that the force coming onto the second arm is some bit less than 10kN. However, because the arms were not equalized in the first place, the added extension and resulting shock-load could easily bring that impact force back over 10kN and rip your second piece. Does anyone have a feel for how this kind of shock-load can increase the impact force, and how much the ripping can reduce the impact force?

Sometimes when I think about it, it seems like you'd never really want to clip ANY part of the anchor as you lead out of the belay. It just adds the pulley effect in an effort to reduce the fall factor. Also, it seems that the worst thing you could do would be to clip one piece of a multi-piece anchor. Now that fall factor (with a pulley effect) is applied to only one piece. If that one piece fails, you've partially destroyed your anchor and the remaining pieces have to catch the shock-load!

Please let me know if any part of this is blatantly wrong. It's been a long time since I took physics, and this is the best understanding I have right now.

It'll take me a while to think about all of this. But for some reason, I get the feeling that my force generated to the anchor would be much higher (I'm thinking somewhere around 20kN, maybe a little less, could hit the anchor/belayer & with some type of time duration). Also, even though I traverse at most 5' off from the anchor (say I had to get around the roof), I still think my fall factor is a 2. Though, I didn't think about the pulley effect had I used the anchor as my first piece.

Man, there are so many variables -- what is practical to consider in trying to prevent a team from anchor failure in a vertical situation? I guess that's my main thought.

Another way to think of it is that if all three arms of the cordelette are perfectly equalized with zero angle between them, then your anchor should hold 30kN. That's more than enough to crush the pelvis of the fallen climber and break a locking carabiner.

I've heard that forces greater than 10kN are rare in normal climbing. I have a hard time seeing anything over 10kN on the climber and maybe 20kN(?) on the power point (pulley effect, factor 1.9 fall, 9kN impact force rope). That number may be off, but I do know that you can cut it down by 40% (to about 12kN?) by NOT clipping the anchor and falling directly on your belayer's belay device.

I guess the point I've gotten is that clipping the anchor when facing a potential high factor fall seems more dangerous to the team. It may be more comfortable or less likely to injure the belayer, but results in significantly higher forces on the anchor.

One important factor to consider is the slippage of the rope through the belay device. The UIAA tests are performed with rope locked at the belay end. This is far from what happens in a large ratio fall. In fact, one important piece of gear for such a case is a pair of belay gloves.

From what I know, I would not want to hold a forty-foot free fall directly on my belay device. The pulley effect is, in my opinion, the lesser evil. Passing the rope through a biner also reduces the force on the belay device and the energy disspated by it by about one third.

Well, I hurt my back, so can't climb today (sucks); so I had some free time.

In this case I'm presenting, I did not use the anchor as a placement. But, in thinking about the pulley effect, it seems that while I protect the belayer from taking a "direct hit", the anchor seems it would be subjected to greater impact force; or would it? There would be only a couple feet of rope on the backside of the pulley as compared to 40' plus stretch on the frontside. Or, is the pulley effect just a constant no matter how much rope is on each side?

In this situation where we are at/near vertical, the belayer would probably be hanging from the station. How much energy can they possibly absorb? It almost seems to me that no matter if I had used the anchor or not for the lead rope, the anchor is going to have to take most of the energy.

One item pointed out that favors us is slippage through the belay device. The belayer is probably also going to set up to try and fire some slack through once the force is being felt and then try to lock off. Ultimately though, the anchor and rope are going to have to take over. The rope will limit force to me to a soft catch, I have no doubt about that, ropes are made to completey exceed UIAA standard cert for situations just like this (Say I'm 185lbs and using a 9.9mm that has limiting force to 8.4kN - granted I'm falling farther than the certification tests, but I don't believe I would be receiving 10kN, and I believe that I'd get hurt at around 12kN - So I believe I would be ok in a clean fall like this).

This leaves the belayer & anchor, as the belayer isn't in a strong position to fight the fall; again, we've got the rope and anchor to deal with a large amount of energy for a considerable time duration. I'm falling to the side of an unprotected anchor consisting of 3 good pieces joined with a 6mm cordalette that are more than likely equalized to a straight downward (though not perfectly) fall line, plus one upward slinged into the station.

Will my standard set-up absorb & hold this situation?

What if I had used something else to try and equalize placements like a webalette or slings that have very little, if any, elongation?

Also, thanks for offering a post or planning to offer a post, many thanks will be bestowed upon you!!

Mark Nelson wrote:But, in thinking about the pulley effect, it seems that while I protect the belayer from taking a "direct hit", the anchor seems it would be subjected to greater impact force; or would it? There would be only a couple feet of rope on the backside of the pulley as compared to 40' plus stretch on the frontside. Or, is the pulley effect just a constant no matter how much rope is on each side?

The pulley effect does not depend on how much rope is on either side. It depends on the force applied by the falling climber and the friction in the biner. With no friction, the force on the belayer side must equal or exceed the force applied by the falling climber; otherwise, the falling climber keeps accelerating. The two strands of rope pull downward. Since the biner does not move (much), the anchor must apply an upward force equal to the sum of the two downward forces; that is, twice the force applied by the falling climber.

With friction in the biner, which is obviously what happens in reality, the force required on the brake side is about 2/3 of the force applied by the falling climber. The force on the anchor is correspondingly decreased to about 5/3 of the force applied by the falling climber.

There is a downside to friction in the biner, though. The force applied by the falling climber is increased, because the rope does not stretch uniformly: it stretches more on the falling climber side. This is equivalent to an increase in the fall factor. However, in a factor-2 fall, the amount of rope that does not stretch like the rest is small, and the increase in force applied by the falling climber is small too.

There is no doubt that the pulley effect increases the strain on the anchor. It is also true that a direct hit on the harness caused by a major fall is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to control. And while it is true that you don't have to contend with the pulley effect, the inevitable yanking of the belayer from his/her station may cause shock loading on the anchor. From what I have read, with slippage taken into account, the force on the anchor (used as directional) peaks at about 7kN. I'd rather focus my efforts on building a reliable anchor that is going to hold that force with adequate safety margin.

brenta wrote: It is also true that a direct hit on the harness caused by a major fall is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to control. And while it is true that you don't have to contend with the pulley effect, the inevitable yanking of the belayer from his/her station may cause shock loading on the anchor. From what I have read, with slippage taken into account, the force on the anchor (used as directional) peaks at about 7kN. I'd rather focus my efforts on building a reliable anchor that is going to hold that force with adequate safety margin.

I believe that is what I have offered as my case study, the belayer can't be yanked and create an additional impact force to the anchor as they are at/near hanging. And, my station is built as to what I believe is a common definition of a reliable anchor.

My questions revolve more around whether these reliable perceptions will hold or not. The reasoning is that the amount of post traffic on rc.com indicates to me that what is commonly held as reliable to hold force/energy may not equalize properly in a factor 2 fall case.

From readings indicating such a low force to the anchor may have been based upon computerized models such as the one Petzl offers, which I feel has shortcomings to what they describe, mainly not considering the rope's ability to absorb force/energy and overstating what the belayer can absorb -- I believe we may be looking at considerably more force to the anchor than what has been offered to us in published periodicals because of lack of field data tests.

Has anyone actually factor 2'd their station, or fall tested such, to the effect that I have described? I have not - I'm just trying to advocate critical thinking given what could be a real life situation on vertical terrain.

Maybe, I just need to set something up and drop a haul bag/dead weight to the side of a "trad-gear" anchor & see what happens.

Mark Nelson wrote: I believe that is what I have offered as my case study

Yes, I was only addressing the pulley effect issue. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

Mark Nelson wrote: My questions revolve more around whether these reliable perceptions will hold or not. The reasoning is that the amount of post traffic on rc.com indicates to me that what is commonly held as reliable to hold force may not equalize properly in a factor 2 fall case.

I would build a three-point self-equalizing anchor with limiting knots. It seems to me the safest option. I don't see the cord vs. webbing issue as a major one in this case, because force equalization would not rely on stretching, and the contribution of the cordelette to the overall stiffness (force over stretching) of the belay chain is minor, no matter what it's made of.

Mark Nelson wrote: Has anyone actually factor 2'd their station

I have not.

Mark Nelson wrote: OK – Are we EARNEST? If so, will EARNEST save us? If not, what is our problem? In any case, what kind of force are we looking to absorb, how much, and from where?

In review of this example, it looks to me that I am not completely relying on EARNEST but on the dynamic belay to absorb energy to preserve the station to try and prevent the team from incident. Thanks, Brent, for forwarding info (as posted on a daisy chain/anchor redundancy post - Brent's summary makes for good reading; if anyone can, a translation to English of the study would be helpful.)

So, let's take what Scott & Brent have pointed out and really put the EARNEST anchor to the test. With the previous givens, let's change:

1) (my perception of) The fall factor to clip the master/power point of the anchor with a dyneema runner w/ 2 locking non-oval carabiners to the lead rope (introducing the pulley effect directly to the anchor); and

2) The belayer is now using a gri-gri and does not interfere with its ability to cam & locks off as soon as the lead climber starts the fall (thus, reducing the dynamic belay to the length of the belayer's tie-ins). The belayer is still at/near hanging position from the anchor (I believe this should effectively eliminate the dynamic belay).

Will the anchor now be compromised given the same lead fall?

There is an excellent discussion of forces over at:

bealplanet.com/portail-2006…

For our purposes, we can use the following formula:

F(belay) = Mg + Mg * sqrt( 1 + (2fK / Mg) )
where F(belay) = impact force on the belay (N)
M = falling mass in kg (let's say 80kg, or 176lbs)
g = gravitational acceleration (9.8 m/s^2)
f = actual fall factor (let's say
K = rope characteristics (24100 for impact force 9.0 rope)

Note: This assumes ALL energy is absorbed by the rope (zero friction, zero harness deformation, zero body deformation, rope locked as by a gri-gri). This also assumes a factor 2 fall directly onto the belayer (anchor was NOT clipped for pro).

F(belay) = 784 + 784 * sqrt( 1 + 96400 / 784 )
F(belay) = 784 + 784 * 11.13
F(belay) = 9510N

That's 9.5kN on the belayer's harness. This translates through to:
F(anchor) = F(belay) + F(belayer)
F(anchor) = 9.5kN + 1kN
F(anchor) = 10.5kN
F(arm) = F(anchor) / 3 (assuming zero angle and perfect equalization)
F(arm) = 10.5 / 3
F(arm) = 3.5kN

IF the anchor were clipped, we would reduce the fall factor somewhat (say to 1.9) but introduce the pulley effect (increases total force on the anchor by 1.6 times). So we would have:

F = 784 + 784 * sqrt( 1 + 91580 / 784 )
F = 784 + 784 * 10.85
F(belay) = 9290N

and now applying the pulley effect:
F(anchor) = F(belay) * C(pulley)
F(anchor) = 9.3kN * 1.6
F(anchor) = 14.9kN
F(arm) = F(anchor) / 3
F(arm) = 14.9 / 3
F(arm) = 5.0kN

The end result appears that by clipping the anchor you have increased the load on the power point and each of the arms by about 40% (almost half again as much). However, the load on each arm in either scenario is well below failure.

Other factors that lower the force are dynamic belay, harness deformation, body deformation, and traversing route. Other factors that increase the force are friction, and not ERNEST setup.

The biggest concerns I have from your post (thanks for offering it, I appreciate it!) is the assumption of zero angles, perfect equalization, & no discussion of how energy moves.

I don't believe perfect equalization is practical in being used to distribute force between pieces when using the anchor posed in this problem. As you can see from the force model presented, almost 15kN are going to the anchor; that's fairly closer to what I was thinking as to something a little less than 20kN. Which would be more that the 10kN stop strength given for each piece.

When we talk about forces interacting with this lead fall, what do we have as forces: impact, spring, & friction forces (any others - gravitational - it's a constant that has been considered in the model - others)? We also have a pendulum. All of which are interacting with the kinetic energy created by a free falling object.

In the revised case presented, I think the ability to absorb energy by the use of friction is reduced considerably to leave spring & impact forces applied to the anchor, rope, & climbers.

How energy moves & for what kind of time duration (frequency, wavelength, amplitude, & period) may be the better way I see this situation as opposed to dividing a single instantaneous impact force into an anchor. The implication I see from the model seems that we are talking about "shock-load" which does not seem to me to be a definable term in relation to force & energy. (The only reference I have seen on this term is always used undefined & in discussion to the interaction of climbing equipment, why is this so? It seems this term has no basis to me).

In looking at energy through a free fall then pendulum, there seems a longer duration of energy applied that is lateral increasing as the pendulum moves through once the anchor becomes impacted. This seems a greater concern & more applicable than a perfect linear fall straight down as the protection is not impacted equally. In watching tapes of Dan Osmond taking falls on a climbing rope, they appear to be close to linear & the rigging is set up to decrease the fall factor once he impacts at the end of the rope. A concern I read about that went terribly wrong on his final jump was the fall factor on the rigging, wherein the main fall rope did not align as intended causing tremendously more impact force on the rigging and failing the rope (there was also subjective concern about the rope's condition & moisture penetration could have contributed); however, the fall factor he was intending was something like .7 but ended up being 2.0 on the rigging, this would seem to me the primary reason for equipment being failed. In respect to what he accomplished in applying physics to equipment dynamics & rigging in order to harness energy, it seems to me that a duration of time as directional energy is applied is important to consider in watching how they constructed an anchor to withstand forces & absorb energy as the free falls were caught.

For a more versatile anchor moving along with a free fall to a lateral pendulum:

I wonder if 2 active protection points joined using fall rated slings configured in a limited-extension sliding X might be the best of timely anchors to equalize force (2 slings to make the same sliding X would offer redundancy to the master point). Maybe use 3 cams, but have 2 join at 1 anchor point and have the third cam be the other anchor point where the sliding X moves between, then take overhand knots and limit extension; even though I give up the no-extension of the cordalette, this configuration would equalize directional force from the pendulum for the entire duration of impact. The trouble would then be with the upward directional which would need to allow the sliding X to move freely. The belayer's anchor tie-ins would move in line with the force; however there might still be some restriction from the upward directional. There is also a friction concern as the sling forming the X interacts with the carabiners. I think going with nylon to tie the anchor points would be good as the primary, then use a Dyneema as redundant for abrasive resistance, but rig this sling so that the nylon is weighted & taking the initial friction.

I think I may follow up with some pics & do some field work and see if I can make something that is timely. In looking at EARNEST, I wonder if No Extension is necessary; maybe limited extension would be better.

Multi-point Pre-Equalized Anchoring Systems

An interesting study performed by taking cord and putting the blinders on for the no-extension 3 & 4 point setup. The study really finds this anchor rigging works to manage energy provided certain parameters are adhered to.

Keeping legs fairly equal -- which I believe Long's study also had similar result.

Keep the material in the rigging as elastic -- use nylon, using spectra/dyneema only to extend so as to make the nylon cordalette legs fairly equal; and manage any potential slack by use of a knot. I believe there is also deformation at the knot that helps absorb energy.

Angles are not that important. What is important is quality of placements.

So, what I take from this is that the material used in the rigging is important if you were to go out and try and factor 2 your anchor; the material needs elasticity to make the anchor work and be fairly equalized.

The standard cordalette is a useful tool building a multi-point pre-equalized anchor. However, understanding the nuances of how to use it effectively is important.

You will note that the study addressed the x, but I disagree with some points of this.

Also to note, the study has blinders on, meaning they testing the anchor within a certain set of parameters, which they noted the short-comings. And I believe the dynamic rope & dynamic belay are not introduced which can be prevalent in a recreational climber system; as pointed out by many of us, this takes energy away from the anchor. But the point of the study was to look only at a certain type of anchor & rigging.

Overall, I am pleased to read these findings for use in the application of recreational climbing within a redundant system. I assume that since we found this study using google on the public domain and they also indicate this study to be a help to recreational climbers in general, this is available for anyone to review for educational purposes as fair use. I also want to offer my thanks for performing this study.

So just to play devils advocate, why use a cordalette at all? Why not use a bunny ear knot to equalize the anchor? Now you have an anchor assembly capable of dispersing the forces, you can also extend the upper piece significantly with the rope allowing you to never achieve a factor 2 fall as the climber can clip into this piece. You can also hang the draw on the bunny ear knot which would effectively halve the forces to each piece assuming they are equalized. You can also self equalize the knot without taking yourself off belay.

Personally I only know of two reasons not to use this system, one is that the climbers are leading in blocks. The other is that it increases the difficulty in escaping the belay in a self-rescue situation. On the other hand, if you use your cordalette to make the anchor you are not likely to have another to use for ascending the rope.

Mark Nelson wrote:Multi-point Pre-Equalized Anchoring Systems

I think this study is flawed in many respects. A few examples:

• They want to show that one can rig a 20 kN anchor with three 7 kN pieces. This is quite unreasonable in practice and they fail as expected. What's the point?
• Their null hypothesis that a three-point anchor is not stronger than a single piece is so unrealistic that, once again, one has to ask: What's the point?
• The paper is so full of mistakes that it is clear no one proofread it before posting it. Look at the legend of Figure 24 for one of the most obvious examples.
• The conclusion that the angle between the legs is not that important is reached through an incorrect argument. While it is true that the outer legs of a three-point anchor are not particularly stressed even when they encompass an angle of 120°, it is the middle leg which bears the consequences of the angle being too obtuse.

Just to give an idea, if knot slippage is ignored and the rope is modeled as a linear spring, the tension on the middle leg for an angle of 120° is about 70% of the load, while for an angle of 60° it is about 40%.

Ok enough geek talk for a moment. :-) Let’s take a step back and discuss an anchor that looks to be bullet proof, after all I lived and so did the others who climbed after me. When I say bullet proof I mean it. I found a 22 bullet around the camping area, and some other holes in the boulders at the base of the climb and camp that resembled the holes at the anchor. I guess that these are bullet holes, and others have also said they believe these are bullet holes. Here is a photo of the said anchor I came across in Moab. --- Invalid image id: 106075173 ---

Now my question is; would you trust this anchor? I examined the cord tied to the hangers and it all looked new and good, there were rap rings that seemed to be equalized. Is this a safe setup?, or how could it be done better? I climbed this in October ‘07 but since it was 160' up I was not able to see the anchors till I got there. I read the MP description and brought the necessary quantity of draws, but not extra webbing or anything else that I would have planned on donating to the route. Do the holes make it weaker? Could the holes be from failed attempts to drill for bolts?, if this cord sits out in the sun and wet weather will they not weaken?, and how could one tell whether it is safe or not without a calculator and the formula that has be noted throughout the discussion. F(belay) = Mg + Mg * sqrt( 1 + (2fK / Mg) )? Is there a way for the MP experts to dumb this down a little so the common folk can learn more from this discussion and be safe out there? I appreciate the technical formulas but I have to admit it's a little over my head.

I would, and did use this anchor. Bolts all seemed fine to me. No "cracking" into the bolt holes, from bullet holes. As always..replace webbing as you see fit in the desert.

In retrospect...I wish I'd had chains to put on the Melanoma shuffle...think I'll go back and update that anchor this spring. Wasn't sure how much traffic it would see, so just put webbing/rap rings.

I trusted the anchor setup mostly because the cord looked new and was in good shape.

Tea, is this not the anchors for Science Friction? So how do you get chains hooked to the hangers anyway? Would one use a couple of maillons on the ends of a chain link?

I've always found it amusing that people will shoot at anchors. I'm still waiting to get to an anchor at Indian Creek or elsewhere and find a hanger or other piece of hardware pierced by a bullet.

In my AMGA training, the question is asked, "when can you stop placing pieces in your anchor?"

It's an interesting question when you think about it and one that I've posed to people at times, including some of my young students. I'll hear their stories of their initial forays into multi-pitch climbing (without my instruction) and they'll tell me about these massive anchors that they will construct, with as many as 12 pieces. So, what was it about the 12th piece that made you feel like you could safely belay and climb?

Mark Nelson wrote:The belay station is at/near to hanging, and there is a roof that the belayer could possibly hit, There are no fixed points of protection or naturals (boulders/chocks/horns/flakes) to be used – only gear in cracks (& no pitons/pins), The natural rock crack quality does offer bomber protection placements for gear, The gear used can only hold 10kN/each (I guess what is called the “stop strength”), The pitch to be climbed starts with a 21’ runout/no protection including traversing 5’ maximum from the start off of the station,

How about just not stopping there? Why would you build a belay here anyway?

It seems to me you can analyze the snot out of the situation, but your energy would be better spent trying to find a way to not get yourself into this situation.

--Marc

Marc, let's assume for the purpose of discussing this situation, there is no terrain choice in the matter; the anchor situation is what it is.

Duly noted though, terrain assessment is certainly an important aspect of this venue.