Catégories : environnement montagne

Type d'article : individuel (CC by-nc-nd)

Chosen story

Five friends split into two rope teams had planned to climb along a long series of ridges at high altitude (3,900 m) in the Écrins massif, punctuated by a bivouac. At the end of the first day a boulder became detached, causing one of the climbers to fall and dislocate his shoulder, which required the rescue services to be called.

Detailed description

5 friends split into 2 rope teams : 1 team of 2 at the front + 1 team of 3 at the back.

The first part of the traverse went well, but everyone felt that without acclimatization and with our bivouac equipment on our backs, this was going to be tough in terms of the effort involved. While the descent may be considered easy in snow, it required quite a lot of energy on this occasion (a climb down an icy ridge on a 30° incline).
Poor decision making: When we reached the start point of the second section at 5pm, from where a hut could be reached in 45 minutes, we still had to negotiate 300/400m of AD (fairly hard) ridges before we would arrive at the planned bivouac site. We didn’t need to have a long chat to know how the troops were feeling, because you could see it on their faces. The group was quite tired overall. But we decided to continue.

Poor decision making : The ridge in question turned out to be a little more tricky and sustained than expected. 4/5ths of the way along the ridge, the front rope team left the centre of the ridge at the foot of a short, but quite tough section, mainly to look for an easier route for the rear team, which was struggling. We continued along ledges that were super loose, but not particularly difficult. At one point, the leader of the front rope party had to take a tricky step to get through without touching a loose-looking boulder. It appeared that by following the ledge a few metres below, this section could be avoided. This information was passed on to the rear rope team.

Poor decision making : The leader of the second team was too tired and decided to go exactly the same way as the first team. Worse still, when he reached the tricky section, he set up a cam behind the risky boulder and then grabbed it. He fell, but fortunately his fall was broken by a factor 2 shoulder belay on a relay and by a ledge of fallen rocks on the slope a few metres below.
The victim dislocated his shoulder and managed to reach the next belay just before he lost his senses as a result of the trauma. A rescue operation was launched, which was a little tricky. The rescuers reached the lead rope team first. That team was already at the summit of the ridge, one pitch higher, but the rescuers extracted them (without really leaving them any choice in the matter!), before taking care of the injured climber and the second rope team. They were in a great hurry, because night would soon be falling and they still had another rescue to carry out.

Physical preparation and technical difficulty

Everyone had the level of technical ability and experience required for the routes chosen, but motivation and fitness levels varied within the group: some had only decided to come along at the last minute.

Motivations

The idea of stringing together several prestigious ridges was a strong motivating factor.

Group management

The excessive degree of motivation of some of the participants clearly led to the group wrongly deciding to keep going, despite the general level of fatigue.

Level of awareness and risk assessment

The risks should have been reassessed, given the level of fatigue of some members of the group.

Time management

Slightly behind schedule.

Impact on practices in the future

Many lessons were learnt:
- Knowing when to give up is always hard, but sometimes you have to.
- Choosing an objective that combined some mountaineering with a series of ridges was a big mistake for a group of climbers with unequal levels of commitment and motivation. For this type of goal, you need to be able to say no to friends.
- Usually, when taking a ridge route, the centre line is (much) more stable than the flanks, and when you have the choice between a 3b with loose rock and a daunting but compact 4c, the second option is often (much) quicker and safer.

Analysis

**In order to take a deeper dive into this incident, we have put together an analysis of the most salient aspects of the situation, inspired by other accounts submitted to SÉRAC. The aim is not to use hindsight to think about what would have prevented the incident, nor to pass judgment on situations that every mountaineer may one day face. Our intention is to highlight key points and, where appropriate, suggest avenues for improvement. **

By Maud Vanpoulle, high mountain guide and accidentology researcher
Reviewed by: Olivier Moret (fondation Petzl), Bastien Soulé (L.Vis) and Jérôme Gabos (camptocamp.org).
Translation from French by : Benjamin Penin

Key points:

Falls: the most frequent type of event

Whether the information comes from SÉRAC or from the reports drafted by the PGHM (France’s mountain police force) after each of the numerous rescues they carry out, falls by climbers are the most frequent type of accident to occur in the mountains, ahead of so-called “objective” risks such as rock falls, serac collapses or avalanches.
In 69% of the accounts submitted to SÉRAC relating to mountaineering incidents that take place on rock, they are the second most common reason for the rescue services to be called in a mountaineering or ski mountaineering context, behind stranding. Falls result in physical injury in 82% of cases, compared with only 24% of stranding cases. In mountaineering, according to PGHM data, falls are responsible for an average of 24 deaths per year in France’s mountain ranges. They occur in all kinds of discipline and environment, including mountain skiing. However, the risks and consequences are greater in snow, ice and mixed terrain, as well as in sections that are perceived as easy.
Many underlying factors contributed, either directly or indirectly, to the fall described in this account.

Fatigue makes everything harder

“The group was quite tired overall”
Physical fatigue before the outing begins or at the end of the day is mentioned as a factor impairing vigilance and risk assessment in 27% of SÉRAC accounts. It can lead people to neglect certain safety procedures, to overlook the importance of communication, or to choose a route that seems easier or more direct, but which is more exposed.

Insufficient communication

“We didn’t need to have a long chat to know how the troops were feeling, because you could see on it their faces”.
Even when things seem easy, it is often necessary to express how one feels. Yet starting a discussion is not always easy. Not only can it be seen as an admission of weakness, it can implicitly call the plan into question or be the spark for a collective abandonment of the goal, which is generally something that nobody seems to want. In other words, it throws a spanner in the works. A quick, honest and transparent conversation at 5 pm, when a hut was accessible nearby, may have prompted the second rope team to give up. Displaying a degree of foresight, the author of the account refers to an initial example of “poor decision making”.
Even when all the participants are friends, the group’s opinion should be sought in order to compare interpretations and encourage discussion so as to make informed decisions and, in many cases, improve safety. To establish this climate of free expression, including the expression of doubts, it is often necessary to designate a leader.

More difficult terrain than expected

_“The ridge in question turned out to be a little more tricky and relentless than expected” _
In 18% of the accounts submitted to SÉRAC, the terrain or conditions proved more difficult or dangerous than the participants had anticipated. If the gap between the skill or fitness level of the rope teams and what is needed in reality is too great, the situation can become critical. Sometimes the team realises this in time and changes the plan, but this is not always possible. Here, once the participants were on the ridge, the fatigue they experienced and the particularly demanding terrain they encountered clearly contributed to the accident.

The appeal of the “easier” option

“The leader of the second team was too tired and decided to go exactly the same way as the first team (even though the latter had recommended another option). (…) When you have the choice between a 3b with loose rock and a daunting but compact 4c, the second option is often (much) quicker and safer”.
In some situations (13%), the “easiest” option is chosen. This tendency is greatly amplified by fatigue. Thus, the easiest choice, in physical and technical terms, will often be considered the quickest solution, or the one that requires the least energy. In hindsight, the author of the account considers that the most daunting option at first glance (climbing up the centre of the ridge) would have proved “quicker and safer”. This is good advice to bear in mind if you find yourself in a similar situation.

The pressure to reach the goal coupled with varying levels of motivation within the group

The effects of excessive motivation and placing too much focus on reaching the goal are mentioned in 37% of SÉRAC accounts. This tends to be the main factor hindering risk assessment. In some cases, the desire to attain an objective perceived as prestigious (in this case, linking together a series of ridges), the fact that the project had been planned for a long time, the desire to really make the most of an outing despite limited time, or even the fact of having made certain sacrifices, can cloud one’s judgment.
Pressure to reach the goal is a well-known decision-making bias, sometimes referred to as commitment bias, summit fever or “destinationitis”. Individuals can become fixated on attaining the goal they have set themselves, causing them to no longer perceive danger signs, or to minimize them by focusing solely on reassuring factors. Instead of analysing every new development and the new configurations generated as a result, they prefer to rely on their first impressions, despite the emergence of potential danger signs, which they will tend to ignore. Here, added to the high level of motivation felt by some was a group of climbers who did not all share the same degree of commitment to the project. This heterogeneity can prove problematic. To attain ambitious goals, motivation and commitment levels within a group must be similar and reassessed throughout the day.

To remember for your own experience

• Physical fatigue impairs vigilance and risk assessment;
• To establish a climate of free expression, including the expression of doubts, it is often necessary to designate a leader;
• In a mountaineering project, it's wise to anticipate more difficult terrain than expected;
• The “easiest” option is not always the safest;
• Pressure to reach the goal is a well-known decision-making bias.