Statistics on injuries resulting from ice lead falls

I'll add to the stats here, and also make a brief comment Re: the vid. I've seen it before, when first posted— scary to say the least. My biggest question about the whole thing is, just what the 'f' was the guy doing just before he fell? Lots of bizarre shit on that one... Glad he survived, or wasn't paralyzed. That shot he took to his back on the last bulge should have broken his back. Pure grace of God on that one...

Stats: been ice climbing for somewhere in the realm of 19-20 yrs. never had big balls, climb mostly moderate grade, lead WI 4 comfortably, don't get on 5-5+ enough to consider myself efficient enough to lead it with great form. Could do it, but not as well as I would like. Never fallen... Not once. I hesitate to write that, but there it is. In my 'career' (ha ha) I have witnessed 2 (not involved) leader falls, one of which resulted in both femoral heads blowing through the pelvis (not pretty) the other resulting in a badly shaken climber. Of other falls I am aware of personally, one resulted in a broken back (full recovery) two resulted in death, one resulted in a deck, and a belayer in the water (Ouray) and another resulted in a fractured ankle. Of the details I am aware of, all had screws that held, varied steepness of ice and a solid belay (with the exception of the Ouray incident). I think I will stick to my 'no fall' rule...

I think we all understand that a screw, well placed, in good ice, will handle a significant fall. However, the reality of the medium (bulges, lips, califlowers etc. etc.) create an environment that requires more thought and planning when attempting the line. I generally walk through my line in my head, planning out a strategy. Often, that strategy gets blown to hell in a few moves, but there is at least a plan. Ice has SO MANY VARIABLES at any one given time it is always a bit of a crap shoot IMO. The question is, are you going to roll a 7?

Martin le Roux wrote: Looks like an interesting study but it's answering a different question. LawHous was asking about the incidence of lead falls where people didn't get hurt. The problem, of course, is that hardly anyone ever reports that kind of incident. The incidents that get reported are mainly those with bad outcomes. It's a bit like trying to collect statistics on dogs that don't bark.

In reading and re-reading and re-reading the dialogue, I think is really good (no one is arguing thank gawd) and it is serving a purpose. As I said above, designed by any or all of that want to participate, I think MP would support it enthusiastically and meaningful results could come of it.

We need to contract the "what are the questions" as per Johnny Hart's cartoon that was quoted. Not an easy thing.

I would suggest one thing for people to mull over and post: I think correlating "ice lead fall with protection", i.e., 'I took a 30 foot whipper and sprained my ankle but the screw held" is mixing apples and......beer." One may affect the other but we will never know unless everything was virtually measured (was the fall straight down, did it pendulum, did the person strike or was affected by other natural features (runnels), did the patient (we should use this word, sorry.....or "victim").

If we try to focus on ACCIDENTS AND TRAUMA outcomes, that's plenty. To try to add comments on the protection system(s) (run of the ropes,doubles/twins/single, screws, hardware in rock where needed & used, was the person wearing a helmet, leashed or unleashed, tethers, listening to iTunes, correct use of correct belay device, etc. I think we are asking way to much as a first go around.

I wouldn't object to adding "were trained first responders available within X tme but that has problems......but its useful info".

We should restrict it to ice climbers, regardless of ability and length of activity practicing the sport. ROCK PEOPLE NOT WELCOME...WE ARE COLD PEOPLE. SOMETIMES VERY COLD. We might get to you later but this is focused on ice. Please also understand that this is likely the first survey of its kind EVER GENERATED BY ITS OWN PARTICIPANTS rather than academics or medical personnel. (This notion excites me because as a medical professional, it would be great to tell that community "hey, WE did that and it was designed based on scientific and statistical approaches, it provided statistics that are reliable & useful and one free MRI per year for each of us, you may have a copy!

After we have agreed on a basic construct & approach the design, i.e., short desciptive sentences: "I was involved in the accident; "I witnessed the accident, I was present at the scene of the patient/victim, I head about this from a second but reliable source, I heard about this on Fox News, etc.", these tend to become sophisticated, "real" questionaaires generated by THOSE THAT KNOW ABOUT THE ACTIVITY. My expereince is that they become generated, modified and agreed rather quickly because it's done by a so-call "expert group" -- a statistical group. Forget a control group right now (my stats teacher just passed out, double & triple blind studies....we want RAW MEAT, the basis stuff and we'll see where we go from there.

On the serious side, blinds, double blinds, control grips, etc. should be done, however, this first round would give us a good crack at getting it going, getting in as a separate forum, see how may people would weigh in (if you look at the numerous ice hits in the "viewed" columns, it's impressive (doesn't dean one person didn't look at it 100 times, I realize that) but by answering our questionnaire, they have to ID themselves thru MT and MT's database would cull those out.

To emphasize Markin le Roux's comment above in response to the OP's question:

"Looks like an interesting study but it's answering a different question. LawHous wa asking about the incidence of lead falls where people didn't get hurt. The problem, of course, is that hardly anyone ever reports that kind of incidence. The incidents that get reported are mainly those with bad outcomes. It's a bit like trying to collect statistics on dogs that don't bark. (Warbonnet: to obtain data that answers Lawhous's question, we would have to have field team running around a well known ice climbing crag asking those that fell if they were hurtle" I see what Lawhou is trying to do but there are better ways to do it. (As a confounding factor, one of would have to hang out at Mt. Rundle and ask those that whipped off WI 7+ Sea of Vapors, The Terminator, etc. it they were hurt. I'll pass on that assignment.

Everyone in the string, I'm sure, has a feeling which way we want to go. Simple but robust (meaning solid, honest answers that specifically address the question ( basic info: male/female, experience ....how many years etc.

As for Pro discussion, I'm torn: if we didn't get it in the first survey, we would have to chase the group (how many 50 - 100? and ask they to try to remember. But those that could answer pro Qs I suspect would fall into two categories: this climbers actually involved with the fall and those at the bottom (or wherever they), trying to figure out the pro system. Maybe we have one liners asking main questions and then have a box at the end of each main answer for "additional comments"......that approach sort of sounds like it was designed by my old ice tools. Those that fell MAY OR MAY not recall enough to describe the situation other than "drilled the 19, went to clip and before I knew it, I was airborne, after than, I remember turning into a Republican". Someone from below may have a very different view. His feet were sketching, he appeared off balance couldn't pull the rope up cuz it was stuck under icicles, and he fell after that". Both (or all scenarios could be correct,

Just trying to add my cents worth in keeping this string going. I can tell by the answers & comments in this string that most are interested in this. To reiterate, I think MP would be interested in such an on going survey and hopefully call it out as a MP project of importance.

Thoughts? Be honest.

(Damn it,I think I just twisted my ankle standing up from my office chair. Out for the season, I know it).

I seem to recall a short whipper off Sea of Vapors when I was making the 5th ascent, I had just banged in an angle piton when a tool popped maybe...

I went back up and finished leading the mixed traverse to the hanging smear.

Other falls of note by others with less favorable outcomes:

Climber attempting to lead thin free standing pillar when they fracture pillar which collapses on them crushing them & seriously injuring them, thoracic trauma etc.

Climber leading steep ice falls attempting to place screw falls strikes ice formation belayer maybe dozing/ inattentive climber suffers fatal thoracic trauma.

Climber leading high-volume flow waterfall falls through ice patina drowns inside waterfall.

Bloody fekkin' 'ell...

If there is a lesson here it is that gravity makes no distinction between the famous and the obscure, the experienced and the green as grass.

No climb is worth my life so I have no issue with backing off or just not even starting off in the first place. Modern ice screws are quick to place so I carry as many as I can leave the ground with. Modern picks are super effective so I always have a nice sharp set bolted in so I get good sticks important when there is 5cm of tank metal between me and Perdition...

A climber falling into a "sucker hole" (typically thin ice surrounding the hole (of any size but the smaller ones can be more dangerous because not easily seen, is one of the worst things to experience as a rescuer. I say "not experience" because they usually don't make it out.

In the last 10 years, we have had 4 such incidents. The victim (typically roped) either slides in from above or got too close to look into them, the ice breaks (or they slip, even with crampons) and that's it. These holes can be as little as 2 feet deep. But under the ice It is s extremely cold water cascading at a fair angle. The climber falls in and the belayer is often bewildered what to do (they really can't do anything but call for help; impossible to pull them out). Even so, there will be enough slack in the system that essentially the climber will fall in and slide under and into the frigid water & hole, typically getting sucked deeper & deeper and wedged tighter.

When younger, I was on a canyon rescue team which responded to such emergencies. By the time surrounding climbers and/or a rescue team reached the site, the climber is usually dead not from necessarily from drowning but hypothermia (or both). Climbers above fruitlessly hacked at the snow above (at an unknown depth), however, it is usually very icy, thicker and stronger than estimated. Neither can the doomed climber be pulled up by the rope at their harness; they are typically wedged in and sometimes have moved "downstream" under the ice/snow further than estimated (although you can get an idea of it by the length of rope but it's moot).

Just this last week we almost had such an accident....dangerously close.

The worst part is hearing the climber call for help and/or screaming. It's something not forgotten.

The lesson: give sucker holes wide berth, don't assume you will be rescued or that you can rescue a victim, ergo, it's not OK to look into such holes (they may have a small opening and are not very deep (1 to 5 feet say). Like crevasses & cornices, they should be given wide berth. Sucker holes can be (often are) at the edge of snow fields & glaciers.....everyone knows that. On lead and they are present (and they don't look like 'crevasse fields'; it might be only one, typically moving over a rock feature below., I take that into account on the lead route. I stay away from them.

The sheriff's department (ours anyway) do not count these rare incidences as an ice climbing accident, rather a "drowning" or "hiking" accident. Good thing they are super rate.

RoC2: condolences. I'd rather take a fatal whipper off Sea of Vapors or the Terminator than experience what you describe.

LawHous wrote:Doligo I appreciate you defending trad but let's keep this topic strictly ice. I don't think anyone is intending to down talk trad as most people who climb ice climb rock or used to.

Lawhou and Doligo: 100% completely agree with you. I think the trad defense came up string (and certainly not from me) but others. (I think all string members are copied on posts). Compiling & sharing stories & stats on ice is tough enough by itself.

What's your opinion of mixed being included? Probably include but ID'ed as a mixed climb?

Warbonnet

I'm cool with mixed accidents being included. I think they're fairly compatible with ice injuries as long as they involve a crampon catching or something and not rock fall. I think mixed accidents are probably less prevalent though as a lot of mixed is overhung and provides clean falls.

All I can add to this is my personal experience. I've only fallen on ice once. In hind sight, it was literally the most preventable accident imaginable. But that's neither here nor there. I fell about ten feet onto a ledge. I bruised my shoulder. But after a half hour chill-out, I TR'd the climb twice without any real pain. Aside from my ego, there was no injury. The ledge stopped me about two feet before the screw would have taken the force of the fall. To this day, I'm fairly confident that the screw placement would not have held the force of my fall. Before getting lowered I even placed a second screw as a backup. We're it not for that ledge, I would be a statistic here.

Was the ledge ice or rock? Was it a free fall or a "bounce down"? Glad you're not a statistic.

builttospill wrote:doligo, can you clarify? How many total falls have you witnessed? And how many had major injuries (I count fractures and TBI as major injuries)? How many were just shaken up?

4 fractures + 2 TBIs = 6 traumatic injuries vs. 4 relatively unscathed falls.

LawHous wrote:Doligo I appreciate you defending trad but let's keep this topic strictly ice. I don't think anyone is intending to down talk trad as most people who climb ice climb rock or used to.

I wasn't defending trad, actually on the opposite was responding to someone's post drawing parallel of ice climbing to trad climbing.

Hey all,
Hooked up with uber guide Mike Barter (many clips on You Tube 7 Vimeo. Besides being funny guy (lives in Banff, he has numerous instructional clips from the newbies to the 7+s....goes way back.

Told him what we are doing and he began with "good question". Apparently the Cannucks are trying to do the same thing, i.e. get stats on ice climbing in particuar. He both recognizes how tough it is to do but recognizes the importance of pressing ahead.

Gave me a list of people to contact include heli pilots involved with their efforts. (How many helicopters to we have on our team? Count please & get back to me).

They seem keen to hop on board at least to share our approach with theirs. This is great (in my book) because if anyone is involved with this kind of a project it would be a bonus,esp. from the Canadians.

He sees long term use fullness in such a project as well as the effort it will take.

see no downside, esp. as they are still starting. We can compare our start w/theirs, esp. the stat and question approach, i.e. overall study design.

Insists on restricting it to ice climbing accidents - rock will have to wait.

What do you think? I know Mike & and happy to run point on this with the Cannucks.

Let me know, all answers in candor. My feelings are unhurtable.

Warbonnet

Hi all, I admit I have not read every post in this thread in detail, but at the moment I think selection bias is being drastically underestimated. Not only are the falls with bad outcomes the ones that people hear about (and thus report), if asking an experienced climber about the falls witnessed, they too may not remember falls that happened a long time ago in which there were no consequences. There also will be the effect of exaggerated injuries (i.e. as the story makes it's way from person to person the injuries reported magically get more severe).

I'm all for collecting data, but I'm concerned about the validity of the results without a very controlled reporting criteria.

I'm sympathetic to Andy's point, but there are two reasons I'm not extremely concerned about selection bias in this context.

1. Ice climbing falls are universally regarded as serious business. I don't think catching or taking a fall on ice would be forgotten, even if there were no injuries, even for people who have been climbing a long time. This would be a huge concern with trad climbing, though, since lots of people take whippers regularly. Remembering all the ones that turned out fine would be a real problem.

For instance: I fell once following an ice climb. I don't think I'll ever forget that, even though nothing bad happened.

2. The "telephone game" of reporting injuries is definitely problematic. That's why I would prefer to rely on reports of falls you either took, caught or otherwise witnessed first-hand. Surely lots of people know about Jack Roberts' accident--we shouldn't count more than one of them. Firsthand accounts also have the advantage of (hopefully) more realistic injury assessments.

One problem of bias that runs the opposite direction: there is some censoring of the data in the sense that some of the falls with bad injuries may go unreported on an internet forum either because those involved have died, or do not climb anymore. Even a simple random sample does not resolve this completely. But if we assume that every climber has a 1 in N chance of seeing this thread, a two-man rope team that experienced a fall where one climber destroyed his legs and no longer climbs or visits MP.com has a reduced chance of seeing and responding to this thread. This assumes that climbers who experience worse falls drop out of the sport more often than those who experience no-harm falls, which may or may not be accurate. But it certainly seems plausible.

Not a lead fall, but if I may add a statistic.

On New Year's Day 1998, at 9:30 a.m. I rag dolled 70' at silver cascade falls while ice farming with my piolet near the top of the first pitch.

I was chipping runnels into the ice shelf that morning to divert the water to refresh the ice left of the main flow. I paused for a moment at an area just below the first pine left of the main belay/ rappel tree to look at my watch. I told my wife I'd be home around noon and I was anxious to play on the freshly formed ice.

I stood facing downhill upon the bulge an arm's length or so below the tree. I was turning to begin my descent for the walk-off, and as I raised my left foot my right crampon lost it's purchase on the ice.

I believe I remember sliding headfirst and upside down on my side then my back and heading toward the shrubs on the slight shelf just below. I snagged on a shrub somehow and started a momentum rotation that fortunately spun me enough to land almost perfectly flat on my back on the same angle of the slope where a pile of dish plates had accumulated between a fallen tree and the ice.

Luckily, I walked away with a severely bruised right shoulder and a nick on my forehead between my helmet and my glasses.

There were a couple of guys from Manitou that were soloing that morning that witnessed the fall and escorted me down the trail to my truck.

I made It home and my wife drove me to hospital for xrays. No damage was found so they immobilized my arm and sent me on my way.

I suffered through work with a wounded shoulder for about 3 weeks before I was well enough to attempt to get back on the ice to chase the demon of having fallen away ftom my mind.

I remember the nervousness going back to solo the falls because I kept telling myself I did not fall while climbing, so get back on that horse or I'd never shake the fears I was having.

We have a confidence in ourselves and our gear when climbing ice I've related as being like velcro-man. To have this confidence snatched away in an instant was both frightening and enlightening.

I like climbing ice with the confidence that each secure placement is a moveable anchor. Maintaining 3 solid points of contact at all times helps us be like velcro-man.

This thread is stirring old memories.

10) I recall a "sucker hole" like event at Marble Falls where the climber punched through into the running water and had a scary but non-lifethreatening fall.

11) I also recalled this mixed climb fall at Inferno where "the big block came down in a big way" and the climber sustained some serious injury.

Also, a while back, I edited a few other incidents I recalled to my original list.

builttospill wrote:I'm sympathetic to Andy's point, but there are two reasons I'm not extremely concerned about selection bias in this context. 1. Ice climbing falls are universally regarded as serious business. I don't think catching or taking a fall on ice would be forgotten, even if there were no injuries, even for people who have been climbing a long time. This would be a huge concern with trad climbing, though, since lots of people take whippers regularly. Remembering all the ones that turned out fine would be a real problem. For instance: I fell once following an ice climb. I don't think I'll ever forget that, even though nothing bad happened. 2. The "telephone game" of reporting injuries is definitely problematic. That's why I would prefer to rely on reports of falls you either took, caught or otherwise witnessed first-hand. Surely lots of people know about Jack Roberts' accident--we shouldn't count more than one of them. Firsthand accounts also have the advantage of (hopefully) more realistic injury assessments. One problem of bias that runs the opposite direction: there is some censoring of the data in the sense that some of the falls with bad injuries may go unreported on an internet forum either because those involved have died, or do not climb anymore. Even a simple random sample does not resolve this completely. But if we assume that every climber has a 1 in N chance of seeing this thread, a two-man rope team that experienced a fall where one climber destroyed his legs and no longer climbs or visits MP.com has a reduced chance of seeing and responding to this thread. This assumes that climbers who experience worse falls drop out of the sport more often than those who experience no-harm falls, which may or may not be accurate. But it certainly seems plausible.

While I understand what everyone is saying on cooperating with the Canadian's & their possible ice climbing accident statistics, give me a week or so to make contact with those responsible for (maybe) keeping track of such stats. The Canadian's are (usually) so good at this sort of thing, they may have something to offer, even if it's a simple template they use to try to make sense of it. Again, when Mike Barter says he doesn't know if they keep stats, that's of interest to me.

KEEP THE COMMENTS COMING and I'lll keep track of them. Perhaps MP would have an interest in this project, however, I do not know anyone at MP.......but I'll find out.

Warbonnet

Andy P. wrote:Hi all, I admit I have not read every post in this thread in detail, but at the moment I think selection bias is being drastically underestimated. Not only are the falls with bad outcomes the ones that people hear about (and thus report), if asking an experienced climber about the falls witnessed, they too may not remember falls that happened a long time ago in which there were no consequences. There also will be the effect of exaggerated injuries (i.e. as the story makes it's way from person to person the injuries reported magically get more severe). I'm all for collecting data, but I'm concerned about the validity of the results without a very controlled reporting criteria.

Andy P.

Am sensitive to your comments re: selection bias [you'll have that in any study]. I think at this point we are interested in seeing what the Canadians are doing; Barter says 'good question'; in my book, that's an answer in itself. But I will contact this heli person.....she make have addition info that we can/cannot use. If anything, I think sharing with them can only lead to good things. Perhaps they have a very simple matrix that may be of use.....let's see. I'll post up.
Warbonnet

While I understand what everyone is saying on cooperating with the Canadian's & their possible ice climbing accident statistics, give me a week or so to make contact with those responsible for (maybe) keeping track of such stats. The Canadian's are (usually) so good at this sort of thing, they may have something to offer, even if it's a simple template they use to try to make sense of it. Again, when Mike Barter says he doesn't know if the keep stats, that's of interest to me. KEEP THE COMMENTS COMING and I'lll keep track of them. Perhaps MP would have an interest in this project, however, I do not know anyone at MP.......but I'll find out. Warnbonnet.

Sorry, I think I misquoted the string above this one (which is mine( and attributed it to someone else. Warnboonet

I'VE INADVERTENTLY HIGHJACKED/ELIMINATED/TOASTED SOMEONE'S REPLY TO THIS FORM. I MAY HAVE INCORPORATED IT INTO ANOTHER'S REPLY.....PLEASE RE-POST!!!!

WARBONNET

Andy P. wrote:Hi all, I admit I have not read every post in this thread in detail, but at the moment I think selection bias is being drastically underestimated. I'm all for collecting data, but I'm concerned about the validity of the results without a very controlled reporting criteria.

Andy, I understand your point, however, this is a good opportunity to interact with the Canadians. I have not yet spoken with the woman who runs the heli service, however, I do know Mike Barber and if says "good question" to my question of him whether they keep stats, that means something (at least to me).

Only good can come from this (recognizing it's a lot of work. If we keep out answers "big picture" for now, we can all refine it later.

___________

Sally G. wrote:

I'm curious about your study. Do you have a baseline for how many ice climbers are out there? Sometimes it feels like the sport is exploding - but then I find I keep running into the same people at the crag. I wonder how many people in the US lead ice? I think are far more occasional climbers that follow in the Park once a year or so, but I'ld be curious about a rough number of folks that regularly get out and are on the sharp end.
Interesting study!

Sally

_____________

Sally,

I don't think anyone has a clue re: "how many ice climbers out there" (except the manufacturers (+/-). To make matters more complicated, I'm not sure what the definition of an "ice climber" is. Are ice climbers only those who lead ice? I think not (in my book). I know many ice climbers who do nothing but follow, many times/season and year after year. I call them ice climbers. And they have a great time. And they buy equipment, read books about ice climbing, and support it in other ways (e.g. those that contribute to the Ouray fund).

(Let me posit this (teasing you only) question: what if a lead ice climber takes a screamer (of any length), do they, at some theoretical point (say x% of the rope run out, suddenly become an "ex-ice climber"? They could be handed a ticket on the way down saying they are no longer an ice climber!

I think I toasted my own reply.

The Aug 2013 OP Ed (Dougal MacDonald) "Why Are So Many Climbers Not Wearing Helmets"?

climbing.com/news/no-braine…

The Editor refers to the M.S. students' thesis below; I've seen it quoted elsewhere.

_____________

And the lengthy but excellent:

"Helmet Use Among Outdoor Recreational Rock Climbers Across Disciplines: Factors of Use and Non-use"; Kevin Henri Hogan Soleil

trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/vie…

While this focuses on ice climbing, it is mentioned. You might want to read the 1st coupla pages of the these to get the gist and just when you're ready to pass out, turn to the las quillion pages or so and see how the author breaks down his states. He should have gotten a Pd.D. for this work. If nothing else, it may give us and the Canadians an idea or two. Where is our resident statistician - builtospill? (I don't see us even coming close to this; I'm interested in whether the Canadians are following these kind of stats even in a gross way. We have nothing to lose but talk with them.

But we they have a helicopter.....we don't.