A better anchor ancronym/checklist?

SERENE might have captured the best knowledge we had at one time, but we know more now. The biggest problem, IMO, is that "solid" is underemphasized. For example, I see beginners tying correct knots to dead trees, or placing well-cammed cams in crumbly rock. Right now I tend to go with Harumpfster's "Place strong pieces and clip yourself to them", but I think there would be some value in an acronym/checklist to help beginners understand what a strong piece is. Meanwhile, we now know that equalization is pretty much not a thing, and while shock loading is a bit more ambiguous, I suspect that the importance of "no extension" is also overplayed.

What I'd like is an acronym that captures:

1. The pieces are placed properly, the knots are tied properly (one part of "solid").
2. The bolts/rock/tree(s)/etc. that you're attached to are stable (another part of "solid").
3. Appropriate level of redundancy.
4. Angle: are the vector forces going to greatly multiply the force on your gear?
5. Directionality: is this anchor solid in all the directions where force might be applied to it?
6. Simplicity.

One thing to consider here is, how many of these actually are causing anchors to fail? Do we have any documented cases of angle or directionality contributing to an anchor failure?

Any ideas for an acronym/checklist? Other problems you see with anchors?

Have you seen this article from the AAC? This may be a better alternative that emphasizes solid gear and simplicity. 

THE TRIPLE S: FUNDAMENTALS OF COMPLEX ANCHORS
When anchoring becomes more complicated, a more sophisticated approach positions the anchor builder to answer three basic questions:
Is the anchor strong enough?
Is the anchor secure enough?
Is the anchor as simple as it can be?

This is a broader, more inclusive way to think about anchors than the SERENE-style mnemonic. Call it the Triple S approach. Triple S anchors do not strive to equalize or to eliminate extensions; they strive to distribute load intelligently, minimize extensions, and avoid edge-case failure scenarios. Triple S anchors do not attempt to aggregate strength; they rely on unquestionably strong component parts and anticipate a human factor in that calculation. Triple S anchors do not muddle into unnecessary complexity; they solve the anchoring problem as efficiently as possible.

BFT—Big Effin’ Tree
BFR—Big Effin’ Rock

I like to teach STRADS. Solid, timely, redundant, angle, distribution, simple. Prioritizing the importance of placing really good gear with students.

Other problems: Cliff top safety is something that I see overlooked. 

I think the most common mistake that I made when I started building gear anchors was trying to place all if my pieces too close together. I think that references like John longs climbing anchors that overemphasize cordeette rigging encourage this behavior.

Sometimes putting three pieces in one crack system is a good decision if the rock is bomber, but it's often better to space things out and use multiple features especially on punky alpine rock.

I've been making an effort to make sure all of my partners know how to build spaced out anchors that incorporate the rope, and other such tricks for rigging in less than ideal places.

My checklist is something like

Quality rock / vegetation
Solid placement
Angle
Knots / rigging

Equalization and extension come last. Sometimes it's worth thinking about them, but they never take priority.

Alternatively you can just use the BBB-acronym:
BOMBER BOMBER BOMBER. Get some good pieces in relatively closed to each other and you are fine. You should be able to tell a good piece from a bad one after some time leading trad. No need to make it too complicated. 

CYS

Check Your Shit

I propose ABAA. It stands for A Better Anchor Acronym.

Look at each piece. Look good? Cool how about how it is attached to the rest of them? Look good? How are you attached to the anchor? How will your follower be attached?

I think the acronyms are not the most useful if you just look at each part of the system in a specific order each time.

To each their own. Whatever is the safest for you may not be safe for others of course. Just pick a system and do it every time. 

Noah R wrote: Look at each piece. Look good? Cool how about how it is attached to the rest of them? Look good? How are you attached to the anchor? How will your follower be attached?

I think the acronyms are not the most useful if you just look at each part of the system in a specific order each time.

To each their own. Whatever is the safest for you may not be safe for others of course. Just pick a system and do it every time. 

This. 

Acronyms fall into the "learning by rote" category and ignore situational context.
I'll go so far as to say that while an acronym might be useful for some people while they're learning, should someone who needs an acronym to remember anchor building actually be building real world anchors on which they and someone else depend?

KISS

In no particular order to the letters but to stand for things to keep in mind:
Directional
Redundant
Efficient
Solid
Simple

idk

If you get to a stance and have to sit there and say an acronym to make your anchor solid, I don't know how you have made it so far in life.

I always wondered why "high enough for comfortable belay" never seems to make such lists.

Equalized
Redundant
No
Extension
Simple
Timely

YGD. 

Michael Beerens wrote: Alternatively you can just use the BBB-acronym:
BOMBER BOMBER BOMBER. Get some good pieces in relatively closed to each other and you are fine. You should be able to tell a good piece from a bad one after some time leading trad. No need to make it too complicated. 

BBBM where M is Multidirectional. 

Strong
Equalized
Xylophone
YGD
e u i
r  n e
   n
   a

Serge Smirnov wrote: I always wondered why "high enough for comfortable belay" never seems to make such lists.

Because you don’t always have that option  Certainly not enough to make it to a list. And there’s always a comfortable option - your harness. 

Efficient doesn’t just apply to saving time. That comes with practice. Efficiency comes with use of gear (I.e. Use the rope vs. 5 slings, 4 lockers, 3 pieces ) just like how solid should apply not to anchor itself but also the rock quality.

The acronym should be used as a second check to make sure the climber hit all the key areas of a strong anchor. If in a class, all items should be taught together with examples and/or packets with more detailed loading conditions (I.e. force vectors). No acronym is going to suffice. Just look at PEMDAS, people still don’t know how to use it.

 

Acronyms build a good foundation when learning and doing "ground school." With practice and feedback from experienced climbers, the acronyms eventually go away and become obsolete - unless you are trying to explain to someone new why your anchor is badass. No matter the acronym used, anchors will have compromises, which is where situational experience comes in.