Would you take a beginner climber on a long solo?

I'm still trying to get my head around what we saw on Saturday. The East Face of the First Flatiron in Boulder is about 7 long pitches and includes some significant sections of 5.6 sandstone friction (most of the route is easier than this). We were a pitch up when we watched a group of 6 soloers start up together. While lots of folks solo the flatirons, it was somewhat unusual to see a group like this. Another climber mentioned hearing one of the soloers describing how 'smearing' worked to one of the others implying that at least one of these folks was not very experienced. While usually very fast, this solo group was pretty slow and didn't catch us till the summit of the rock. Just as we were starting the rappel they were topping out and the overheard conversation included the information that one of them HAD NEVER CLIMBED ROCK BEFORE!!!!! We hung out at the base watching the group through the down climb (5.6). Several of them looked very unsteady and I was sick to my stomach the whole time watching them. They all made it down.

I've been climbing for 30 years and this has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. The group seemed to be led by a guy in his 60s who was clearly experienced. I just couldn't believe he was taking a first time climbier on a huge solo (or any 5th class solo, really). Has anybody else seen or heard of anything like this?

i know people who have brought complete beginners soloing up there, and i don't find it the least bit cool. it shows a complete lack of any judgement skills.

Yes (as to hearing or seeing anything like this -- pretty much every time I climb one of these, soloists are there) & I've seen a few go down. People solo those things all the time.

I don't really have a problem with others' risk acceptance as long as it doesn't endanger those not accepting that kind of risk. If they are willing to solo up something, being newbie or not, they should deal with their own reward/consequences.

Nobody is saying you have to take responsibility for their actions & you don't have to watch them, unless it's a situation that's a danger to you. I feel if it's agonizing to watch but no real threat to me, I'd just go do something else. If some sort of incident happens, I'd just call it in.

John Keller wrote:Just as we were starting the rappel they were topping out and the overheard conversation included the information that one of them HAD NEVER CLIMBED ROCK BEFORE!!!!!

What? How is this possible? I soloed that with more 15 yrs. under my belt and it felt pretty dicey at times. I can't even imagine a newbie doing it. Ah, the power of ignorance.

John Keller wrote:Has anybody else seen or heard of anything like this?

http://www.wwwright.com/climbing/speed/flatirons.htm

Wonder if it was some of "Satan's Minions"? Ha ha...

Are you effin' kidding me!?

The freedom to choose your level of risk is a big, sacred part of climbing. But at the risk of sounding like Yogi Berra, beginners don't know what they don't know. The responsibility of choosing that level of risk has to fall on the shoulders of the more experienced person in the party.No noob can have any idea of what to expect. And if they do lose their composure, and "fall as a result of being afraid to fall" (thanks, Royal), then boy does that blow not only for the victim, but also for the one who made that judgment call.

Shutting up now.

My two cents, people get hurt climbing, climbing areas get shut down. Yeah, it is their life they have to think about, but the possibility of shutting down crags is something we all need to worry about.

In response I can only offer that anyone can have a bad day while out enjoying some climbing, whether roped up or not. Doesn't really have anything to do with natural resource mgt and the decision making that goes into access to freely express yourself.

Now the decision to charge for rescue, that can directly affect access.

This was my first free solo and I can honestly say I was not at the level to be soloing but it did spark a climbing fury in me. So while I don't agree with the experience climber taking "first timers" up an exposed face. I do support young thrill seekers getting the "bug" and climbing there asses off for the next 9 months. Furthermore, if you are going to Free Solo how bad ass is it to do it on your first time. I am sure the added adrenalin helps.
Cheers,

I've seen that same guy up on the First with a similar group of "kids" for their first time out.

I think I heard them say they were students at a local school or something and the older guy was their teacher.

We took off as fast as we could to get away from them cause we didn't want to be anywhere near them when they started tumbling down the formation.

That day they all some how made it to the top and downclimbed the summit.

On the first pitch I watched as some of the kids feet were sliding down the rock........

One of the stupidest/scariest things I've ever witnessed.......

IF this guys is a person in a responsibility role some one should step in.....

John Keller wrote:I'm still trying to get my head around what we saw on Saturday. The East Face of the First Flatiron in Boulder is about 7 long pitches and includes some significant sections of 5.6 sandstone friction (most of the route is easier than this).

Free soloing east face direct as your first outdoor climb?!? I'm amazed they made it to the first bolt. If you are expecting 5.6 gym climbing, then that first 50 feet can scare the shit out of you.

I think everyone involved must be an idiot. The teacher/older guy is clearly to blame if he is telling kids it is no big deal. But anyone past the age of puberty should have the common sense to know that falling for a couple hundred feet up is serious and perhaps they should try climbing in a less dangerous environment first to assess their skills... then they can decide if they want to solo.

By the way, how old are these kids?? If he is taking minors up there as a teacher then it is criminal. Do parents sign waivers for this?

Julius, thanks for saying the "i" word. The 'responsible party' does indeed meet the requirement for idiocy: if he's the leader, IMHO, he failed completely in that role. Had one of his charges fallen, he could and should have been liable.

Hopefully, anybody can indeed figure out the consequences of a 200' eggbeater, but I can tell you from working with adolescents on a daily basis that their grasp of reality is pretty warped.

I have been climbing for nearly 28 years, have soloed that face several times, and it still gets my complete, undivided attention. I almost went up there last Saturday. My reaction might well have been the same as Jim's, though I would certainly have wanted to say something - plenty - to the "leader."

Just to clarify so folks don't get too far off in the weeds here. The group we saw were all adults across a range of ages (not all 20-something guys).

However, if indeed someone (perhaps this same leader) is taking kids to solo (anything) then there is a very serious, probably legal, issue. It's bad enough taking beginner adults on something like this (idiots all around). It's certainly grossly negligent (perhaps criminally negligent) to take minors.

OK, this is coming from me as a parent, but if some idiot was dragging my kid into that sketchy of a situation, I'd want to know about it so I could give him a public flaying. It's one thing if you're an adult and are completely capable of making stupid decisions for yourself. It's quite a different thing altogether when you're young, don't think you're capable of dying and don't necessarily have the experience or chutzpah to question an adult who keeps telling you 'this is fine, this is normal.'

Edit: Just say John's post. If those were the circumstances, nevermind.

I've seen a similar unrelated circumstance when a boy scout troop of, it looked like 12 - 14 year olds accompanied by an adult, walked up to a single pitch 5.4 and the boys, about eight of them, started soloing hands to heels in a row. I asked what was going on to the man. I told them that's not a good idea, that it was dangerous and that they should stop what they were doing and come down. The man by the way had no intention of climbing at all and didn't. When I told him to tell them to come down he said that their parents had all signed waivers and that he was not responsible for any injuries. He continued saying 'I couldn't believe they all signed that thing.' and shrugged his shoulders. They continued on, some with significant difficulty, because they'd been told to do as their troop leader said and because they had all challenged each other and didn't want to chicken out essentially.

I'd hope something like 'wreckless endangerment of a minor child' should have applied in that case to the parents and leader (or pusher) if someone was hurt, maybe deception of the parents by understating the risk?? I'm not a legal guy.

Waivers can be pretty effective, but they can sometimes be challenged when the resulting injury is the result of outright negligence. It's a consent issue really. You're consenting to likely risks associated from proper instruction and the nature of the activity. You're not consenting to injury resulting from no instruction or no safeguards.

I see these kind of stupid antics up there all the time. People need to respect the Flatirons and the fact that people die up there almost every year. It reminds me of backcountry skiing up at Loveland Pass or Berthoud.... I could waste my breath yelling at gapers who have no gear or backcountry experience, but really what is it going to accomplish except for making enemies? I'm tired of yelling at people. Suppose it's just natural selection... weed out some of the stupid people, hah. I climbed the First MANY times roped before I ever soloed it. I was up there last Friday and did 2 laps on it and was impressed at how prepared and smart the roped parties I saw were being. Guess this isn't always the case.
Best,
Phil.

Ya I wouldn't take somebody up the first if they havent climbed before its quite a bit harder and scarier than the third flatiron. I took my best friend on a solo of the third on this first climbing trip but it was 5.3 top, 5.6 on slap is scary without a rope.

Fat Dad wrote:Waivers can be pretty effective, but they can sometimes be challenged when the resulting injury is the result of outright negligence. It's a consent issue really. You're consenting to likely risks associated from proper instruction and the nature of the activity. You're not consenting to injury resulting from no instruction or no safeguards.

Yeah, in a waiver situation, someone who signs it is agreeing to assume the risks inherent in an actvity. A classic example is signing a waiver at a ski resort. You can not hold the resort liable for any injuries inherent to the sport. (Ex. A skier falls on a slope and breaks a leg.) However, the resort would likely be liable if some debris or obstacles were on that slope and weren't removed causing the fall. Obstacles are not "inherent" to ski slopes. Of course this is not the case with skate park style snowboard obstacles, in which a snowboarder would assume the risks of those obstacles as inherent in his/her sport. One more note about waivers, if the language on the waiver is ambiguous or the font very small, courts have deemed that someone did not assume the risk even though he/she signed the form. It must be clear that the signor knew what was being agreed to.

As for the the OP's situation, since fortunately there was no harm, there is nothing to be remedied and therefore no civil suit. I don't know the specifics, but it also seems like there would be no duty on the "leader" of this group free solo to warn of the dangers of the venture, because a court would most likely deemed the dangers "open and obvious". However, he may have a duty to warn if there was some condition of the rock that could only be known to an experienced climber making it dangerous. Ex. The holds on a route frequently crumble or break. It seems that in the OP the risks associtated with a free solo hundreds of feet of the deck should be "open and obvious"; however, in the case of the scout leader failing to warn children of the dangers of a free solo, you might have a different case. Dangers that are "open and obvious" to adults are not always "open and obvious" to children. The standard would be if the danger was open and obvious to a reasonable person of the plaintiff's aga and intelligence. Further, the scout leader, in a position of responsibility, would likely have a duty to warn.

With all that said, the outcome would be fact specific and every case is different.

This is my understanding of waivers, but I am not a lawyer.

The "open and obvious" and "duty to warn" applies to landowners. That said, unless the guy "leading" the group affirmitively took on some duty to the group, he isn't responsible for their injuries should they fall. If that was the case, anytime you invited a friend to go climbing and they got hurt, you would be liable.

As for the scout leader situation, if those kids got hurt, I would bet he could/would be held liable for negligence. You can't waive negligence.

To the OP's question, although I haven't witnessed such poor judgment, I could care less if they are too ignorant to realize the dangers or if they fell - natural selection - that is unless access was affected or they harmed someone else.

I guess you all can correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't a duty for naturally occurring features in which no charge is levied to use the land.

Further the assumption of risk is what stands out to me.

Probably what is more defined is that they weren't feeling bad and their inner child was happy and emotionally fulfilled; had this not been the case given the locale, I'm sure charges and liability would surely have been enacted upon.