For Challenge 2012 I checked about 35 routes. A standard route (if there is such a thing) will take me about 4 hours to check and write my comments. Some routes where I have to clarify points with the Challenger and maybe re-check several revisions of the original route can take much more time. If I had to check multiple FWAs I hate to think how much time I would be spending next year! The Challenge notes are quite clear about what is required and if any Challenger is in doubt or having problems over route selection get in touch with a vetter, if you have contact details (vetters who post on this forum invariably include their e-mail address), or with JM who will put someone in touch with you.

I can only second the comments from Mr Grumpy. Keep it simple folks. On the few occasions when I've had to cope with such multiplicities of possible routes, vetting takes forever. And if the misuses of a humble vetter's time fail to move you to pity, think about what might happen when you fail to make a phone in and Control try to sort out where you might be. I can imagine the reaction of the rescue services if they're asked to look in several different places.

Humphrey's approach is a good one - working out an aesthetic route, then adding possible deviations for good conditions. I suspect however that it may not be entirely successful for the driven summit bagger, of which mad fraternity I am undoubtedly a member. I tend to plan my routes around whichever tops are on my current wanted list, with FWAs kicking in when I'm denied the high route. In such cases it can be hard to find a suitable low level alternative but it's important to try. I always try to keep in mind the worst of conditions and consider whether I'd like to be attempting a rough, trackless and lengthy diversion in such circumstances. I prefer to keep FWAs short and easy, with paths if possible and the minimum of navigational complications. This ideal isn't always achievable, of course, but it's surprising what a little thought and application can come up with. We can dream of those perfect conditions but the time spent on coming up with a good FWA is worthwhile when the s*** hits the fan.


Colin

Sage like words Mr Weightman sir....

Planning for a lesser route and then adding in optional exciting bits, as long as you can tell control, makes for a potentially far less dissappointing route than expecting to do a wonderous high level route, and then have to spend several days low down because of inclement weather and conditions.

Mind you, I quite like a valley me.



Amazing that the post code for this began C3P

I think that Joy's original question was on guidance how to fill in the form.
I would think that FWA's are by definition going to be through easier terrain, but could take you off route.
Entering your subsequent intentions on the form is surely the responsible thing to do. (as Joy is doing)

I wasn't asking for personal guidance actually. My routes are never likely to require a FWA of more than two days. Any high level section I do - the second day is usually a descent anyway. I was just curious as to how people who do sustained high level crossings handle the situation I described in my query, from the point of view of filling in the route sheet. An idle, academic query.
That situation is NOT covered in the route notes which I read carefully several times over each year and to which I adhere when submitting my routes. Sandy's method would work from the point of view of filling out the sheet accurately but I agree it would be far too onerous for the vetters and a nightmare for rescue services to have multiple FWA's.
May this topic now be allowed to die a peaceful death before anyone gets too hot under the collar about it.