|
|
Forums:
Climbing Information:
Accident and Incident Analysis:
Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries:
Edit Log
|
|
jt512
Jun 3, 2011, 4:02 PM
Views: 13193
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
sticky_fingers wrote: epoch wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning??? Your thinking is exactly why these accidents happen. you DO NOT take someone off if they intend to be lowered. you have said if you say Anchor then they can take you off and walk away. I could be climbing another route by the time you say "take" again. Slack, take, lower... that is it.. there is no question what those terms mean. Are you that selfish and impatient that you can't wait until your partner is back on the ground before you start climbing another route? The belayers I've climbed with are not Me Centered Me Fixed (MCMF). However, I have no problem with the series "Slack", "Take", "Lower" when/if it becomes commonplace. I was just offering another possibility. All this seems quite ignorant about basic and standardized belay commands. There's a reason that things are the way they are and that you can pretty much go anywhere in the world and climb while using them. Let alone the simple thing of discussing the plan before leaving the ground; let me state that again: Discuss the plan before the climber leaves the ground so that everyone is on the same page before anyone is in a dangerous situation. Because.... all good climbing groups/partners have a plan in place before the leader takes off. Furthermore, who the fuck calls "anchor" when complete with a climb? I don't think I'd know right what to do. C'mon it's not rocket science. On belay. Off Belay. Climbing. Slack. Up rope/Take. Lower me. That's it, that's all that should be used. Having your plan before you leave the ground will let everyone involved know what is going on. I agree with having a plan before climbing, but apparently not everybody does. So as a backup, all I was suggesting was a clear, intelligible way to communicate. I only suggested "Anchor"; I never said I have, nor anybody else has, used it before. Based on some of the posts in this discussion, the "on belays" and "off belays" aren't understood. Other discussions have shown belayers confuse the term "slack", too.
I don't know any climber who doesn't know what "slack" and "on belay" mean, but those terms aren't the issue, anyway.
"Off belay" is unambiguous, but that doesn't stop the occasional n00b from misusing it. What everyone keeps telling you, and you keep not hearing, is that you are proposing to introduce a term "anchor" that is intentionally ambiguous and unnecessary, and to eliminate a term "off belay" that is unambiguous. It should be obvious that your proposal would make communication at the anchor less clear than under the present system. Rather than continue to reiterate the same failed arguments for the same bad idea, why don't you give some thought to why your idea has met with unanimous disapproval.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 3, 2011, 5:32 PM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by jt512
() on Jun 3, 2011, 5:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
