ACCIDENTS IN NORTH AMERICAN MOUNTAINEERING
|
Hi, |
|
Steph Abegg has done a nice job compiling some stats from ANAM. |
|
Thanks |
|
One thing that jumped out at me from these pie charts is the percentage of accidents related to rappelling. When you read the internet forums, it seems to be taken as gospel that more people are injured or killed in rappelling incidents than any other single factor; but this linked analysis shows that rappelling is a primary cause in only about 3% of incidents. |
|
saxfiend wrote:When you read the internet forums, it seems to be taken as gospel that more people are injured or killed in rappelling incidents than any other single factor; but this linked analysis shows that rappelling is a primary cause in only about 3% of incidents.Good point. Another category that came out smaller than I might have guessed: "Equipment Failure" |
|
saxfiend wrote:One thing that jumped out at me from these pie charts is the percentage of accidents related to rappelling. When you read the internet forums, it seems to be taken as gospel that more people are injured or killed in rappelling incidents than any other single factor; but this linked analysis shows that rappelling is a primary cause in only about 3% of incidents. JLI always thought that most DEATHS were caused by rappelling accidents. Also that most rappelling accidents result in death, and not injury. If you look at the first two graphs, you can see how few deaths there are per reported accident. Those pie charts include ALL reported accidents, not just deaths. I'd bet that if you drew up new pie charts with only the accidents that resulted in death, you'd see the percentage caused by rappelling go much higher. What immediately stands out to me is that the amount of deaths has remained fairly constant over the last 30-40 years, and that the amount of reported accidents has decreased substantially since the 80's. I'd like to know what the spikes in 1976 are from, as well as '80 and '86. Without explanation I'd say that the data is a bit suspect. |
|
Well my paid-work career has been much involved with many kinds of statistical data (including accidents + deaths + natural disasters). My assessment is that there are deep (and mostly unresolvable) problems with making statistical inferences from those AAC mountaineering accident reports. |
|
Ryan Williams wrote:I always thought that most DEATHS were caused by rappelling accidents. Also that most rappelling accidents result in death, and not injury.Well the second claim has a strong "whiff" of selection bias -- since deaths are more likely to be more widely reported and remembered than non-death rappelling accidents. And accidents that result in only minor injuries might not be reported at all. Some climbers might be so embarrassed about their reputation that they might tell other climbers that some rappeling injury was from a driving accident. The most recent rappel accident (going off the end of the ropes) at one of my local crags did not result in death. I recall two cases in recent years of very experienced prominent climbers taking falls getting lowered off the end of the rope without death. Ken |
|
Another deep problem is guessing what percentage of climbing accidents are suicides (or failed suicide attempts). |
|
Unfortunately there just aren't any good sources of climbing accident statistics out there right now, which I discovered when I needed some for my thesis research a few years ago. ANAM is a good collection of anecdotes and is useful as far as that goes, but I doubt any accurate conclusions can be drawn from the data as a whole. |
|
Note to self: Accidents in North American Mountaineering is nothing more than entertainment. |
|
"Most of the key problems are identified by the compiler/interpreter Stephen Abegg himself on this page" |
|
Em Cos wrote:Unfortunately there just aren't any good sources of climbing accident statistics out there right nowI doubt there ever was, or ever will be. It's really a difficult and costly sort of thing to gather, and the payback for most of it is not simple or obvious. Still the (flawed) collection of the reports is useful to me. Like Saxfiend's point about Rappelling as a cause of accidents. That struck me because I reasoned that rappelling is one of the more obviously identifiable "causes" of an accident, less open to interpretation or ambiguity than many others, very likely to be included in any public report, and pretty likely to be selected as the "main" cause by the statistical compiler if present. . (Similar arguments could be made about the "equipment failure" cause which I earlier mentioned -- something which much engages MountainProject forum discussion when it happens) . Suppose the percentage of accidents with Rappeling as main cause were 60% (instead of 3%). That likely would have made me re-think my selection of climbing routes -- to avoid routes with rappel descents. Of course I (and many people) would then be very interested to know what sort of rappels seemed to be associated with the accidents, or what procedures -- and that would enable me and others to refine our selection of what routes (or procedures) to avoid. But since the statistics compiled by Steph Abegg from ANAC came out as only 3%, I do not feel any need for that sort of avoidance or investigation. So that's an "actionable" inference from ANAC reports. On the other hand, it does not make me feel OK with relaxing any vigilance or discipline with procedures in rappeling (since I assume such vigilance is what enables the percentage to be so much less than 60%) Ken |
|
J.Colin.Olson wrote:"Most of the key problems are identified by the compiler/interpreter Stephen Abegg himself on this page" I'm not involved in this conversation, and honestly gender stuff bores me, but Steph Abegg is a woman not a man. And I guess that next to her climbing resume that makes me.... a little boy.Thanks for the correction. I will now fix that in my earlier post. |
|
It strikes me that another actionable finding from the statistical compilation of ANAS reports is the percentage of accidents that took place in the Descent phase of the climbing. |
|
Ryan Williams wrote: One thing that jumped out at me from these pie charts is the percentage of accidents related to rappelling. When you read the internet forums, it seems to be taken as gospel that more people are injured or killed in rappelling incidents than any other single factor; but this linked analysis shows that rappelling is a primary cause in only about 3% of incidents. JL I always thought that most DEATHS were caused by rappelling accidents. Also that most rappelling accidents result in death, and not injury. If you look at the first two graphs, you can see how few deaths there are per reported accident. Those pie charts include ALL reported accidents, not just deaths. I'd bet that if you drew up new pie charts with only the accidents that resulted in death, you'd see the percentage caused by rappelling go much higher. What immediately stands out to me is that the amount of deaths has remained fairly constant over the last 30-40 years, and that the amount of reported accidents has decreased substantially since the 80's. I'd like to know what the spikes in 1976 are from, as well as '80 and '86. Without explanation I'd say that the data is a bit suspect. In my unscientific sample as a climber since 1974, there have been a lot of waves of popularity for climbing over that period. One year lots of new climbers which you can see to some extent in summits for places like Devil's Tower. Also hard to know percentage of under-reporting which may very. 70s saw some very sketchy ideas that if it wasn't risky it wasn't real. I tend to think the under-reports aren't as much of an explanation as variation in the numbers of climbers. Washington state alpine accounts for a large number of fatalities and weather plays a big role there. |
|
Welcome to 2017 |