Risk management in areas with both single and multi-pitch climbing

In Colorado, there has been two fatalities (that I've heard) in the last 12 months due to rock fall from a multi-pitch route hitting someone climbing single pitch at the base. In the most recent accident thread, there are discussions of what to do and what not to do in an area where single-pitch and multi-pitch routes coexist. But because the accident is so recent, out of the respect of the people who were involved, I think it's better to move the typical back-and-forth on MP to its own thread. Below are direct quotes, names have been removed to focus on the discussion.

But, as crags get more crowded, maybe/hopefully, it will become common practice not to top rope under multi-pitch parties.  

With respect to the incident in question, what is the context to this?  

Just avoid multi-pitch climbing on crowded days when you will potentially rain loose rocks down on the below parties.  This is so tragic, and so preventable, especially when you consider how easy something like this is to see coming for the people doing the multi-pitch climb.  Its not like loose rock is something that is never thought about by people doing long routes.

well, I guess the context here is that people obviously were climbing above others, or, to put it another way, people were climbing below others.  There's no rule here, although perhaps there should be.  

I don't know if that's the case here: were people top roping or just using the first pitch of multi-pitch lines, or were there independent multi-pitch lines that lead above?  And if the latter, who has precedence at a crowded crag?  

You wrote, "Just avoid multi-pitch climbing on crowded days when you will potentially rain loose rocks down on the below parties."

Couldn't you also have written, "Just avoid climbing at the bottom of multi-pitch crags on crowded days when there will potentially be loose rocks raining down from above." 

As I said, I don't think there's a rule, just a whole lot of gray area, with lots of potential for (miss)communication and accidents, as this tragically shows.

Sure, I could have also written that, but I chose not to.  That's because I read it as people roped up and started doing multi-pitch routes after other people were already at the crag doing the thing the crag was apparently primarily developed around: single pitch routes.

That makes sense --I have no idea of the history or tradition of this crag.  In general, I'\d say it's a bad idea to start up a multi-pitch above others, and it's a bad idea to hang out below climbers way above.  How to negotiate those two standpoints at a crowded crag with lots of people following their own way just seems difficult.

Maybe as a generic situation it is difficult, but at a crowded predominantly single-pitch crag the right answer is obvious.  So, again, you made such a weird comment with respect to the situation at hand.

I recently climbed a multipitch route above a single pitch wall. When we started there were no people there (or possibly a couple people). When we rappelled, there were about 20 people down there. It's not that simple to avoid this situation from occurring.

well, I guess the context here is that people obviously were climbing above others, or, to put it another way, people were climbing below others.  There's no rule here, although perhaps there should be.  

There is a rule (of thumb, anyway), first come first serve. But for adjacent routes, the multipitch party could start after the top ropers are already set up on adjacent route. I suppose the top ropers could ask them not to climb over them but I'd guess that request would be denied frequently enough. In that case, if there is legit rockfall concerns the top ropers should leave the area, for their own sake.

Here's my perspective. I've climbed at both areas where similar accidents happened (Wizard's Gate and Other Critters), so I'm somewhat familiar with both. I've been to Wizard's Gate twice in the last year, both times I went there specifically to climb the multi-pitch routes. The multi-pitch routes are really fun, in a very scenic setting, with engaging climbing even on the moderate routes. It's some of more enjoyable bolted multi-pitch routes I've done in Colorado. If I go back I would again go back specifically for the multi-pitch routes, so it's not reasonable to assume people were climbing the multi-pitch simply to avoid the crowd.

Also, most of the multi-pitch at Wizard's Gate are 4-5 pitches long. Once a party is more than 2 pitches above the ground, it's pretty hard for people at the base to know if there are people climbing above them or not. So it's also not as simple as "don't climb below other people". A lot of people who wants to get on a multi-pitch also try to get on it early in the day (especially with the afternoon thunderstorms in CO), so the crag is often not crowded when they start on a route.

Both times I've been to Wizard's Gate, there were only 2 or 3 other parties there. So the reported 20 people at the crag definitely means the popularity of the area exploded this year. However, 20 people at a place like Other Critters or many other crags in the Front Range is just a normal day. With the increasing popularity of climbing, crowded areas will become the new normal. Unlike Wizard's Gate where the rock is generally pretty clean and solid, Other Critters is full of loose rock sitting on ledges. So how do we deal with an area with both single and multi-pitch routes, and to reduce risks to ourselves and to others?

I don't have any answers, but I do think a couple of things may be helpful.

1. climbers need to be much more aware of loose rock. I don't see many climbers test suspect handholds and footholds, and watch their rope path to make sure it's not going to dislodge any loose rock. This is not just for multi-pitch, I've had to dodge rock at single pitch areas when the leader on the adjacent route knocked something loose.

2. Make sure everything you take on a multi-pitch is leashed to you somehow. I've seen approach shoes, water bottles, sun glasses, phones, etc. fall from the sky on a multi-pitch. This is not related to lose rock per se, but a full 32-oz Nalgene simply shoved into a backpack mesh pocket can still do a lot of damage after falling 3-4 pitches.

3. If walk-offs are not possible or too hazardous (sliding down some of the loose gullies in Clear Creek may be more dangerous than climbing), maybe dedicated rappel route can be considered by the developer, especially if multiple routes can utilize the same rappel? On some of the very popular multi-pitch routes in Colorado, I've seen people try to throw rope down, rappel, and pull rope, right on top of people climbing the same route. It's not difficult to imagine people rappelling down knocking off loose rock onto people climbing up.

Here are some generic thoughts and framing.

(1) If a crag is primarily multipitch (i.e. that is where the main value of the crag is), with a few single pitch base routes, priority goes to the use of the crag of multipitching. Those interested in single pitch base cragging need to be aware of that risk and mitigate appropriately. By being aware of rockfall zones, climbing at less busy times, or just going to a different place to do single pitch routes. 

(2) However, if a crag is primarily single pitch routes on the first 100 feet, with one or two routes venturing through the chossy upper rock, priority goes to the safe use of the crag for the single pitch climbing that represents the main value of the crag. This means that climbing the full-length route should be reserved for less busy days when there is not a crowd below. 

(2.5) In the case of sport climbing development, perhaps bolting a multpitch route extending above a popular crag, thereby creating a rockfall hazard in a crowded area, should not be done?  In a perfect world, everyone would be responsible and no one would climb the chossy mulitpitch route on a weekend. But that is not how things work in reality; easy bolted routes (even if chossy) are a magnet and will get climbed. Are routes like this an "attractive nuisance" that create a hazard that shouldn't exist in popular zones? Should those multipitch routes be removed?

Wizards gates seems to fit scenario (1). Other Critters seems to fit scenario (2), and possibly (2.5). Should those multipitch routes exist? Should they be removed?

In other, practical terms: If a crag typically has 10 parties climbing multipitch routes, they shouldn't have to stop multipitch climbing because 1 party wants to climb a single pitch crack at the base. The multipitch parties should of course be mindful of rockfall, but you can't remove all risk. The single pitch party needs to be aware of this and plan accordingly.

But if a crag typically has 10 parties climbing single pitch routes on a weekend day, it probably isn't appropriate for a single party to climb a chossy multipitch above, putting the entire base area at risk. We should consider out attitudes as a community, and the way we develop crags, to make this scenario less common.

Many places sit somewhere in the middle of these two examples, in which case things get murkier.

This dynamic plays out at Smith really regularly.  (thankfully minus the fatalities)  Numerous areas there experience the tension between often chossy but still fun and worth repeating multipitch routes with crowded classic single pitch climbing below them.  I honestly don't know if there's a good answer.  I do think that people need to practice situational awareness in both cases, (being aware of what and who is above you and being aware of what and who is below you) but the reality is that not all people have developed that level of awareness and even when they have, accidents happen.  

I'd agree that bolting a multipitch through chossy rock above a popular wall is a terrible idea, but in most places people are going to do what they like because they can.  Additionally, those routes often eventually (mostly) clean up and sometimes become classic, so they do have a degree of inherent value.

I don't think anyone should get any sort of right-of-way.  Climbers need to understand the risks they take on any given day and make appropriate choices when they climb.  If it's an area where you can't see from the approach whether or not there will be people above you, one off the cuff idea would be to have a register of sorts at the beginning or end of the approach trail so that folks know who's where and can adjust their day accordingly.  I think this practice is somewhat common in some form or another in many popular ice climbing areas for very parallel reasons.

If someone moves below me and there’s rockfall risk, I stop moving, shout my concerns, and give them the opportunity to move out of the fall line before proceeding (if they’re boneheaded and don’t move after a warning, that’s on them)

If I need to traverse above someone and there’s rockfall risk, I’ll wait or find a variation.

Even if the rock quality is amazing, I’ve seen too many dropped water bottles to want to climb under another party.

I like all of the ideas people have shared in this thread.

I recently experienced this issue in Pine Creek and I'm really not sure how to deal with this there. The multipitch route Rites of Spring is a popular classic that starts left of a single pitch wall and each pitch climbs up and right above those routes.

From below it could be hard to see the people above if they are on a ledge or in a chimney. Even if you did see climbers above, you might not know the route keeps traveling rightwards.

It's typical for people climbing the multipitch route to get an earlier start than the people climbing the single pitch routes.

The route has cleaned up fairly well, but there are still blocks on it.

I wouldn't call this area primarily multipitch or primarily single pitch. It has many amazing multipitch routes and many amazing single pitch routes.

there are a lot of really good points above.

i remember the very first time i went to climb a multi-pitch route. right as we are walking into eldo, a blood soaked guy was getting carried out on a stretcher.  he had been hit in the head by rockfall. i don't know if he made it or not (pre-internet), but it really had a sobering affect on me. on another occasion my partner was hit by rockfall really high up on an alpine route and we had to self rescue.  the first and worst falls i ever took was due to a hold breaking.

i have always been on edge about rockfall (and dropped items as well...), whether while climbing long routes or cragging.  anytime i am cragging at squamish/index/eldo/wherever i am always trying to set up my staging spot in a protected area. whenever i am climbing, whether it be on solid rock or choss i am constantly evaluating the rock. some of my partners think i am crazy, but...?

one of the things i would like to see more in these gym-to-crag things and other introductory outdoor stuff is a discussion about these kind of issues. i don't think they are really addressed like they should be.  on numerous occasions the last 10 years i have seen a lot of people drop rocks/gear without yelling rock (or otherwise seeming very concerned...)  it would be great to see improvements in this area.

JCMwrote:

In other, practical terms: If a crag typically has 10 parties climbing multipitch routes, they shouldn't have to stop multipitch climbing because 1 party wants to climb a single pitch crack at the base. The multipitch parties should of course be mindful of rockfall, but you can't remove all risk. The single pitch party needs to be aware of this and plan accordingly.

But if a crag typically has 10 parties climbing single pitch routes on a weekend day, it probably isn't appropriate for a single party to climb a chossy multipitch above, putting the entire base area at risk. We should consider out attitudes as a community, and the way we develop crags, to make this scenario less common.

Many places sit somewhere in the middle of these two examples, in which case things get murkier.

Well, yes, that's a sensible to a kind of humanitarian perspective (the greatest good for the greatest number) but this is impractical, as your last sentence explains. We could bring about many examples as to why, but suffice to say there are alot of grey areas in there.

But then outdoors climbing is full of grey areas. You can't shut down longer router or single-pitch due to the presence of the other. The simple reality, imo, is that climbs that have climbing above them are riskier than climbs that don't, and that has to be part of climbing there. Longer climbs that have high chances of parties below warrant greater attention & responsabilities from climbers, regardless of reason - busy longer routes, presence of single pitches below. And that also has to be part of climbing those routes. In reality, this situation is nothing new. Some crags have more loose rocks, or are more exposed to the elements, or have venimous critters, etc. Different crags have different risk factors. This ultimately is just another example.

I personally think the "solution", as far as there is one, is that outdoors climbing need to command a more head-up approach to all those issues & risk factors. I think the heart of the problem is lack of awarness of the seriousness of outdoors climbing. The specific situation at hand is just one example

Franck Veewrote:

I personally think the "solution", as far as there is one, is that outdoors climbing need to command a more head-up approach to all those issues & risk factors. I think the heart of the problem is lack of awarness of the seriousness of outdoors climbing. The specific situation at hand is just one example

This...

It doesn't matter if it's multi-pitch or single pitch. rock fall happens. I think that large numbers of people, all talking, spewing beta, etc. all detract from the attention that should be dedicated to being aware at the base of a cliff (not just a cliff with routes). I've seen wind cause rocks to fall. I've seen large rocks fall when there was not reason for them to.  All those rocks that are on the ground, got there by falling off of something above.  And just because we are there, doesn't mean it's not going to happen again.  To try to do something that makes us think that the risk is mitigated only makes us more vulnerable. So, as stated by  Franck, a heads up approach is absolutely required. Fall zones are pretty obvious.  Stay in close or far enough away from the cliff, that you minimize the risk. And pay attention...

aikibujinwrote:

In Colorado, there has been two fatalities (that I've heard) in the last 12 months due to rock fall from a multi-pitch route hitting someone climbing single pitch at the base. In the most recent accident thread, there are discussions of what to do and what not to do in an area where single-pitch and multi-pitch routes coexist. But because the accident is so recent, out of the respect of the people who were involved, I think it's better to move the typical back-and-forth on MP to its own thread. Below are direct quotes, names have been removed to focus on the discussion.

"Rock climbing is inherently dangerous"

               -Tradiban

To try to do something that makes us think that the risk is mitigated only makes us more vulnerable.

What? Let's say my mitigation strategy is to not visit a cliff at all. I'd say that makes me far less vulnerable to rock fall at that cliff  

But I get your point. 

But hey there's always the fatalistic view! A friend of mine on a SAR team once said, "when your number is up, it's up."

IMO the prevailing wisdom should be to 1) avoid low-quality or loose multipitch routes on weekends and 2) maintain vigilance when climbing below the upper pitches of a multipitch route. Thinking to another crowded area, the Gunks, several upper pitches are now explicitly discouraged due to the likelihood of launching rock onto parties below. This would avoid accidents like the one at Otter Critters (or at other crags in CCC that seem to have accumulated a shitty multipitch route or two). 

However, with good rock I think the inherent (lower probability) danger is what it is - the rock doesn't care whether you're climbing single pitch or the first pitch of a multipitch, so I think the onus should be on the parties below to maintain good safety and for the climbers above to exercise prudence in avoiding unnecessary rockfall risk (or to abstain from climbing loose pitches if the danger imposed on others is unavoidable). 

There are those crags I prioritize the belayer wear a helmet over the leader.

climbing outdoors introduces many objective hazards that people need to be aware of. im not sure there needs to be be hard and fast rules about not climbing above or below anyone, but like some have mentioned, more emphasis on situational awareness is likely needed.

its analogous to skiing in the backcountry vs. a resort.

I don't see this as a question of priority, more a question of safety etiquette.  Everyone should act as if there are climbers above and below them. Shout "rock!" even if you are pretty sure you're alone. If you are on the ground or belaying, try to stay out of the fall line or get behind cover for when that inevitable rock or ice shoots down from your party or another.  Climbers arriving later in the day can look at the quality of the route and decide whether the idea of climbers above them is worrisome. 

A register or "intentions sheet" is a great idea for crowded areas so that later parties can know what they're up against. It's nice to leave a note on the car or at the base of the route if you'll be coming back that same way (LNT).

I don’t know anything about the crag or accident  in question, but it seems to me that this is where “climbing is dangerous, climb at your own risk” applies.

A team climbing multipitch route, once they are off the ground, is not responsible for the safety of people on the ground, whether they were there first, or came later, whether they are starting on the same route, on the adjacent route, and whether they intend to climb just the first pitch, or the entire route.

People who want to toprope the first pitch of a multipitch route can do it at their own risk, too, and are not meaningfully different from people who want to climb the multipitch route starting with that first pitch. 

Remember that you often can’t see people who are couple pitches up off the ground, and even if there aren’t any people climbing above you, there are always mountain goats, hikers who like to kick/throw rocks off the edge of the high trail, etc (pretty sure I remember a fatality coming from a hiker throwing/dislodging a rock, and killing a climber).

It is an unfortunate situation, and I don’t think there is anything you could do to mitigate the risk, short of having a limited permit/reservation system in place for crowded crags, with timed entry slots. And I’m sure nobody wants to see that. 

Lena chitawrote:

...

A team climbing multipitch route, once they are off the ground, is not responsible for the safety of people on the ground, whether they were there first, or came later, whether they are starting on the same route, on the adjacent route, and whether they intend to climb just the first pitch, or the entire route.

...

This has never been the case, nor should it ever be. The party climbing above others has the responsibility to do whatever they can to mitigate risks to those below them. For example, we were all taught to scream "Rock," whenever something is dropped or dislodged--that is risk mitigation. And, clearly, the higher party has the obligation to take any action, or refrain from any action, that increases the likelihood of causing rockfall--such as being careful on belay ledges.

Agree with Lena Chita at least in effect.   Only persons behavior you can control is your own.   There's a huge asymmetry in the risk the climber above poses to the climber below.   Regardless of who was there first, who has the right to climb what.    Ideally, in areas of chossy rock developers would not develop multi-pitch climbs above concentrated cragging zones.  But ultimately if you chose to climb beneath someone (or to continue to climb beneath someone who climbs out over you) your accepting an objective hazard you can't control. 

In a place like Squamish or Red Rocks, good rock highly trafficked, this is generally an acceptable risk.   Other places not so much (I was once showered in significant rockfall following another team up a semi-obscure wall in Zion).

PRRosewrote:

This has never been the case, nor should it ever be. The party climbing above others has the responsibility to do whatever they can to mitigate risks to those below them. For example, we were all taught to scream "Rock," whenever something is dropped or dislodged--that is risk mitigation. And, clearly, the higher party has the obligation to take any action, or refrain from any action, that increases the likelihood of causing rockfall--such as being careful on belay ledges.

 

Of course you always want to do things to mitigate the risk of rockfall. I’m not suggesting that you should throw rocks off your belay ledge, etc. I’m just saying, once you are off the ground you have no say or control over who walks under you, or when.

On popular multipitch routes you often have multiple parties climbing the route, passing each other, rappelling, etc. You might never even know that there is another group starting under you, once you are a few pitches up. And they may not even know that you are above them. So yes, of course, you don’t want to ever deliberately cause a rock fall. But you should also always assume that the rock fall is a possibility.