A fellow who wanted to practice Trad did so today on a short route. He got to the ledge, and his partner did not want to second, being too cold. The first guy, A., wanted to try making belay anchors for multi-pitch and did so, using three pieces in the face behind. He ran a blue sling from those to his belay loop, letting him stand at the rim. He attached an ATC-type device to his belay loop, and called to his partner, D., to come up. He did, and as he came over the rim, he looked at the belay arrangement and complained about it. Nevertheless, after some discussion D. let A. lower him. As soon as he started down, D. fell 30-40' to land on his back on a large tree root.

Incredibly, D. was not showing any signs of injury, not even a bump on his head. He helped pack up, including bending over to bag his rope; but we did not let him lift anything. His back-pack was carried by A., who had suffered serious rope burns across all surfaces of both hands around the rope, which is probably how D. was able to survive such a fall. That, and his being a career Marine with a back muscled like a boxer.

D. explained that the problem with the rigging was the direct connection of the rope to A., instead of the rope being put through an master-point at the anchor and then through the device, similar to how it is from the ground. My understanding of his point is that making a two-strand pulley divides the force on the device in half. D. said that the device will not hold in that direct alignment, even if "locked off". On D.'s climb up, A. was good about never taking his brake hand off the rope, though his guide hand was off a lot as if resting it.

My assessment finds both at fault, D. for not making sure his belayer knew how to do that under the conditions, and letting him proceed even after seeing there was a problem. I blame the cold and his being tired for his being lax. I don't know what common instructions for top-belay say on this, to know how A. did not know how wrong his method was, as seems obvious with D.'s explanation. Another top-belay that I've seen used a carbiner auto-block, which was not part of this arrangement.

It seemed that A. was deeply affected by nearly killing his buddy, and I've wondered how others involved in accidents go on afterwards. His trying to hold the rope was a help and honorable, but will have caused him some injury that may leave permanent scars; and it will take hospital tests to be sure that D. is as okay as he seemed at the time.

LL
.

Something else went wrong because the 'direct alignment' you mention or belaying off the harness without a redirect will hold a climber.
There is something they did tell you or don't know.
Someone f***ed up and my guess is the belayer.

If the ATC is rigged so the second's rope enters the top and the brake exits out the bottom, a lock off in the upwards direction would have no effect other than the friction of the rope rapping once around a biner.

A fellow who wanted to practice Trad did so today on a short route. He got to the ledge, and his partner did not want to second, being too cold. The first guy, A., wanted to try making belay anchors for multi-pitch and did so, using three pieces in the face behind. He ran a blue sling from those to his belay loop, letting him stand at the rim. He attached an ATC-type device to his belay loop, and called to his partner, D., to come up. He did, and as he came over the rim, he looked at the belay arrangement and complained about it. Nevertheless, after some discussion D. let A. lower him. As soon as he started down, D. fell 30-40' to land on his back on a large tree root.

Incredibly, D. was not showing any signs of injury, not even a bump on his head. He helped pack up, including bending over to bag his rope; but we did not let him lift anything. His back-pack was carried by A., who had suffered serious rope burns across all surfaces of both hands around the rope, which is probably how D. was able to survive such a fall. That, and his being a career Marine with a back muscled like a boxer.

D. explained that the problem with the rigging was the direct connection of the rope to A., instead of the rope being put through an master-point at the anchor and then through the device, similar to how it is from the ground. My understanding of his point is that making a two-strand pulley divides the force on the device in half. D. said that the device will not hold in that direct alignment, even if "locked off". On D.'s climb up, A. was good about never taking his brake hand off the rope, though his guide hand was off a lot as if resting it.

My assessment finds both at fault, D. for not making sure his belayer knew how to do that under the conditions, and letting him proceed even after seeing there was a problem. I blame the cold and his being tired for his being lax. I don't know what common instructions for top-belay say on this, to know how A. did not know how wrong his method was, as seems obvious with D.'s explanation. Another top-belay that I've seen used a carbiner auto-block, which was not part of this arrangement.

It seemed that A. was deeply affected by nearly killing his buddy, and I've wondered how others involved in accidents go on afterwards. His trying to hold the rope was a help and honorable, but will have caused him some injury that may leave permanent scars; and it will take hospital tests to be sure that D. is as okay as he seemed at the time.

LL
.

belay off harness with ATC when you have a solid anchor behind you is stupid. I said this a 100 times and here is why

A redirect through the anchor is completely optional. The issue in this incident was A was not competent to the task of lowering D as a belayer and should not have been.

What makes you think his anchor was solid?

Jay

Three pieces in on trad and not building a solid anchor?

if thats the case, these guys should not even climb.

Well, if he can't even lower the guy, he shouldn't even climb; and if he can't even lower the guy, I'm sure not going to automatically assume he knows how to build an anchor.

Jay

Belaying off the harness with no redirect is standard practice where I climb. It is perfectly functional though not entirely plesant to lower a climber from this position.

So it's "standard practice" where you climb for everybody to torture themselves by hanging 170 pounds of dead weight directly off their waist for no good reason? I'm going to remember this the next time you bring up your local standard practices.

Who said anything about putting the weight on your waist? Set up the anchor properly and have the anchor take the load.

The reason? Well if the anchor is low and back from the edge then a re-direct is vastly inferior.

Who said anything about putting the weight on your waist?

You said what is standard practice is "belaying off the harness without a redirect." Now you're saying have the anchor take the load. But it can't, by definition, if you're belaying off the harness without a redirect.

You certainly can.
-Belay biner through harness with ATC. Hence belaying off harness, no redirect.
-Anchor attached to belay biner without slack. Hence anchor takes load.


(The picture show a similar setup but the person in the picture is using 2 separate biners. This works but is less elegant since it relies on the belay loop to transfer the load.)

I don't belay off anchors ever and dislike redirecting most of the time. When I hear that's the norm then my guess is people are doing a lot of dogging and that's the real reason for belaying off the anchor.

But this incident has nothing to do with either belaying off the anchor or redirecting - this is strictly a case of someone belaying in a circumstance and situation where they shouldn't have been belaying. They most likely just brought the two rope strands together in front of them and gravity did the rest. From the sound of it both D and A were in over their heads and experience level for this incident to have occurred as it did.

What's up with military climbers, marines in particular?

I think now that an ATC is good only for rappelling, however many do use it for belay. A Reverso now seems much better for belay. Both are always a two-strand pulley, so a redirect makes a four-strand pulley?

I suspect now that the accident was directly belayer error, not coordinating his hands correctly to lower under device control, however it was rigged; but that will not be known. I still don't know what should be done for a safe, reliable top-belay. Any method works perfectly -- until a climber falls.

LL
.

A question has been raised about the ability of the belayer to make a proper anchor, as indicating general competence: see Att'd.

The rigging used relied on the belay loop with two carabiners not directly connected. I do not know the usual kN for those, but it is usually relied on. I don't see that as an issue here.

Majid's drawing seems to show two ways to make a redirect belay; but some posters do not use that, doing it as in the first photo. I think now that an ATC is good only for rappelling, however many do use it for belay. A Reverso now seems much better for belay. Both are always a two-strand pulley, so a redirect makes a four-strand pulley?

I suspect now that the accident was directly belayer error, not coordinating his hands correctly to lower under device control, however it was rigged; but that will not be known. I still don't know what should be done for a safe, reliable top-belay. Any method works perfectly -- until a climber falls.

LL
.

D. explained that the problem with the rigging was the direct connection of the rope to A., instead of the rope being put through an master-point at the anchor and then through the device, similar to how it is from the ground.* My understanding of his point is that making a two-strand pulley divides the force on the device in half.

Majid's drawing seems to show two ways to make a redirect belay; but some posters do not use that, doing it as in the first photo. I think now that an ATC is good only for rappelling, however many do use it for belay. A Reverso now seems much better for belay. Both are always a two-strand pulley, so a redirect makes a four-strand pulley?

They most likely just brought the two rope strands together in front of them and gravity did the rest. From the sound of it both D and A were in over their heads and experience level for this incident to have occurred as it did.

In a frictionless world redirecting would double the force on the anchor.

Belaying off the harness with a redirect through the anchor nearly doubles the force on the anchor except for the friction of the redirect biner.

Belaying off the anchor with a redirect back through the anchor doubles the force minus the friction of the redirect biner and minus the friction of the belay device. Or another way of looking at this is you will have the weight of the climber plus the force of the brake hand on the anchor.

[Image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=5526[/image]

Hard to say without seeing more detail. Two pieces look to rely on a somewhat detached block, and one stopper is in a pretty parallel looking crack. A three piece anchor is only solid if the components are solid.

In a frictionless world redirecting would double the force on the anchor.

Belaying off the harness with a redirect through the anchor nearly doubles the force on the anchor except for the friction of the redirect biner.

Belaying off the anchor with a redirect back through the anchor doubles the force minus the friction of the redirect biner and minus the friction of the belay device. Or another way of looking at this is you will have the weight of the climber plus the force of the brake hand on the anchor.

D. explained that the problem with the rigging was the direct connection of the rope to A., instead of the rope being put through an master-point at the anchor and then through the device, similar to how it is from the ground.* My understanding of his point is that making a two-strand pulley divides the force on the device in half.

OMG! It could DOUBLE an extremely small amount of force relative to anchor strength in a scenario so unrealistic as to by totally irrelevant all while making belaying massively more difficult?!?!

I MUST WARN THE INTERNETS!!!!

OMG! It could DOUBLE an extremely small amount of force relative to anchor strength in a scenario so unrealistic as to by totally irrelevant all while making belaying massively more difficult?!?!

I MUST WARN THE INTERNETS!!!!

Did I say there was a problem with doing it any of these ways? And the only unrealistic scenario is the frictionless one.

Someone was confused about how changing your belay setup changes the force on the anchor so I explained as best I could.

I still want to know if the belayer was a BUS method user...

Agree. Of course, it's a guess, but I'm inclined to chalk this up almost entirely to the belayer being caught off guard by the weighted re-orientation of every part of the system away from what he's used to. The climber's poor choice to climb on is certainly also to blame.

^This. Your belayer doesn't seem to be trying to hide anything, but when people end up with ropeburns on their hands, it screams that they let go of the brake and grabbed the belayer end of the rope. When relatively inexperienced belayers get surprised by something unexpected, sometimes this is their first instinct.

Is that Pilot? Because friends don't let friends climb there. I also lay some of the blame on their friends.

If the belayer had been using a gri gri and a re-direct this accident would prolly not have happened.

Uh, you mean climber side? If so, agreed!

"I think you are still confused."

Therefore, this post -- and it may be getting worse, at least for me. What is "the BUS method"? The term "redirect" means to me having the system go beyond the belayer to an anchor, so that the person is only or primarily handling the friction method. The point of pulley advantage seems to be moving away from the belayer's efforts, which Jay raised earlier, and onto the anchor. If a change in direction, with a carabiner as a pulley wheel and possibly in a redirect belay, does increase force on the anchor, that confirms the advantage on the brake hand. And some are still saying they don't use anchors on top-belay anyway. A person standing or sitting on a rim won't be pulled off by a falling climber?

Consensus is a foolish expectation with this forum. But I am heartened that only one reply misspelled "brake" as effectively its opposite.

.

"I think you are still confused."

Therefore, this post -- and it may be getting worse, at least for me. What is "the BUS method"? The term "redirect" means to me having the system go beyond the belayer to an anchor, so that the person is only or primarily handling the friction method. The point of pulley advantage seems to be moving away from the belayer's efforts, which Jay raised earlier, and onto the anchor. If a change in direction, with a carabiner as a pulley wheel and possibly in a redirect belay, does increase force on the anchor, that confirms the advantage on the brake hand. And some are still saying they don't use anchors on top-belay anyway. A person standing or sitting on a rim won't be pulled off by a falling climber?

Consensus is a foolish expectation with this forum. But I am heartened that only one reply misspelled "brake" as effectively its opposite.

.

I am now slightly less convinced that this post is genuine, and now suspect elaborate troll.

And if it not a troll, to the OP: you are severely misunderstanding what has been said here. Please do yourself a favor. Log off the internet and go hire a guide or convince and experienced and well qualified climber to teach you these things in person.

"I think you are still confused."

Therefore, this post -- and it may be getting worse, at least for me. What is "the BUS method"? The term "redirect" means to me having the system go beyond the belayer to an anchor, so that the person is only or primarily handling the friction method. The point of pulley advantage seems to be moving away from the belayer's efforts, which Jay raised earlier, and onto the anchor. If a change in direction, with a carabiner as a pulley wheel and possibly in a redirect belay, does increase force on the anchor, that confirms the advantage on the brake hand. And some are still saying they don't use anchors on top-belay anyway. A person standing or sitting on a rim won't be pulled off by a falling climber?

Consensus is a foolish expectation with this forum. But I am heartened that only one reply misspelled "brake" as effectively its opposite.

.

It should be obvious that either a redirect off the anchor or a guide block device direct from the anchor are vastly superior to a direct from harness belay in the vast majority of scenarios.

I'm going to guess he was BUS user. I agree with the others in that he was probably used to pulling the rope downward to brake. The BUS method instills the muscle memory of driving the rope downwards between your legs to brake which is useless when belaying off the harness from above

I'm a palm up pinch and slide user (ZOMG my climber's gonna die!!!11exclamationone1121240!) and my reaction is always to lock my hand next to my hip. This will apply braking power whether belaying from below or belaying off my harness from above.

EDIT: BUS method explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-a0FLqwPL8

A person standing or sitting on a rim won't be pulled off by a falling climber?

Agreed healyj.


(Though most of us I presume know that. And debate is just periphery.)

"You are doing it wrong."

That is you attacking me, as too many here generally find amusement and gratification in doing, and offering zero helpful information.

One reply said flatly that he never used an anchor, implying to me that he just stands or sits above a climber. That makes no sense to me in terms of safety for the circumstance, making the total of responses more confusing to me, as stated.

I do believe that a cam device would have been the saving grace in this case and in general, that is why they were developed and how they became so popular; and D. did belay A. with one at the start. Yes, the handle or cam on a GriGri or Cinch can be held in the open position and drop a climber, but that is not a trained response so far as I know or suspect.

No one has mentioned my suggestion of a carabiner auto-block: none of you use that or recommend that for top-belay?

The climber D. thought that an ATC used directly could not hold a fall: you are all agreed that is not true, it had to be only belayer error in using it?

It was D.'s idea that a redirect would reduce brake force needed, and my notion of pulley advantage is a crude attempt to figure out why he would think so. Do you all (except the fellow talking about doubling the force on the anchor) agree there is only friction involved in any arrangement of any belay system, so the system is only personal preferrence with no best way to do a top-belay?

.

"You are doing it wrong."

That is you attacking me, as too many here generally find amusement and gratification in doing, and offering zero helpful information.

You certainly can.
-Belay biner through harness with ATC. Hence belaying off harness, no redirect.
-Anchor attached to belay biner without slack. Hence anchor takes load.

It should be obvious that either a redirect off the anchor or a guide block device direct from the anchor are vastly superior to a direct from harness belay in the vast majority of scenarios.

If the belayer had been using a gri gri and a re-direct this accident would prolly not have happened.

Without an anchor, yes, you will get pulled off.

This is a pointlessly convoluted version of a direct belay off the anchor.

Convaluted? Hardly. It is quite simple Jay. Surely you can understand the advantages of belaying off your harness. In fact you have argued these advantages previous. Having and ATC attached to the anchor makes taking in slack while being locked off difficult.

This seem yet another method that you simply have no idea about and are completely close minded to. Seriously Jay open you mind a little.

Well, I was going to compliment you...until I read your last paragraph.

Jay

I'm glad you didn't. I would have fallen out of my chair!

One reply said flatly that he never used an anchor, implying to me that he just stands or sits above a climber. That makes no sense to me in terms of safety for the circumstance, making the total of responses more confusing to me, as stated.

I do believe that a cam device would have been the saving grace in this case and in general, that is why they were developed and how they became so popular; and D. did belay A. with one at the start. Yes, the handle or cam on a GriGri or Cinch can be held in the open position and drop a climber, but that is not a trained response so far as I know or suspect.

No one has mentioned my suggestion of a carabiner auto-block: none of you use that or recommend that for top-belay?

The climber D. thought that an ATC used directly could not hold a fall: you are all agreed that is not true, it had to be only belayer error in using it?

It was D.'s idea that a redirect would reduce brake force needed, and my notion of pulley advantage is a crude attempt to figure out why he would think so. Do you all (except the fellow talking about doubling the force on the anchor) agree there is only friction involved in any arrangement of any belay system, so the system is only personal preferrence with no best way to do a top-belay?

But again, this doesn't have anything to do with different devices or techniques, this was strictly a matter of not having the requisite experience and skill at the specific choices D and A made as they contemplated executing the lower.

Convaluted? Hardly. It is quite simple Jay. Surely you can understand the advantages of belaying off your harness. In fact you have argued these advantages previous. Having and ATC attached to the anchor makes taking in slack while being locked off difficult.

Anchor setup - irrelevant

Off the harness or redirect - irrelevant

Hand method with the belay device - irrelevant

Type of ATC - irrelevant

ATC or Grigri - irrelevant

The only thing that is relevant is that the belayer wasn't up to the task at hand with the device he was using. He had inadequate knowledge and experience for belaying in that situation and circumstance they found themselves in and both were unprepared for the decisions they needed to make at that moment. The both climbers needed more time seconding a competent leaders and more time belaying before venturing into multipitch on their own.

Given an adequate anchor, all the rest of the banter in this thread is personal preference with little to no bearing the incident.

Superior in what way? There is no difference in safety. As I have previously discussed, a direct belay off the anchor, except with a munter hitch, results in a terrible belay for the second (see the previous thread on this; I don't want to get into again), and lowering would be all but impossible. The redirect is superior to the belay off the harness for lowering only because it is vastly more comfortable for the lowerer, who doesn't have to suffer with 170 pounds of dead weight hanging off his kidneys while lowering.

Jay

I'm aware of your often stated dislike of plaquette belays when seconding, and while I disagree, certainly see your point. But your contention that lowering would be all but impossible with one is just plain silly. I can flip a loaded plaquette and transition to a lower in about a minute, and a hell of a lot faster than that if the climber is able to unweight the device his/herself. If one can't do so, one has no business using them in the first place.

Free Tip for survival of your seconds: NEVER release an autoblock without a munter in behind for the belay... (Don't believe me: try it out somewhere safe...)

A question has been raised about the ability of the belayer to make a proper anchor, as indicating general competence: see Att'd.

The rigging used relied on the belay loop with two carabiners not directly connected. I do not know the usual kN for those, but it is usually relied on. I don't see that as an issue here.

Majid's drawing seems to show two ways to make a redirect belay; but some posters do not use that, doing it as in the first photo. I think now that an ATC is good only for rappelling, however many do use it for belay. A Reverso now seems much better for belay. Both are always a two-strand pulley, so a redirect makes a four-strand pulley?

I suspect now that the accident was directly belayer error, not coordinating his hands correctly to lower under device control, however it was rigged; but that will not be known. I still don't know what should be done for a safe, reliable top-belay. Any method works perfectly -- until a climber falls.

LL
.

Pffft. I don't believe you. Why would you use a munter? Lock off before you release the autoblock and it is all good.

If you need to friction belays in series to lower somebody (of regular weight) then something is wrong.

(Yes, I have lowered off my reverso on quite a few occasions.)

Think about it: when a plaquette style device is flipped out of autoblocking mode, but is still attached to the anchor, it becomes effectively useless as a friction device until one redirects the break strand behind the device.

Hence one should keep the brake strand behind the device in a locked off position like I suggested. If you do lock it off then it is no different from a regular lowering.

If you don't lock off then sure it can get pretty bad pretty quickly. But that is the same with all belaying or lowering.

1. The brake strand MUST be redirected behind the device.

2. Some backup must be in place. It is very easy to loose control of the situation when flipping a loaded device. A munter is one possibility, though certainly not the most efficient. IMO, a better option is a friction hitch on the brake strand and attached to my belay loop. Whatever, there just really, really needs to be some backup in place.

That's not the issue he's alluding to. When a climber is hanging on a Reverso, and you want to transition to a lower, then the device needs to be flipped around out of autoblcoking mode and in to standard tube style mode. Before you flip the device, two things need to happen:

1. The brake strand MUST be redirected behind the device.

2. Some backup must be in place. It is very easy to loose control of the situation when flipping a loaded device. A munter is one possibility, though certainly not the most efficient. IMO, a better option is a friction hitch on the brake strand and attached to my belay loop. Whatever, there just really, really needs to be some backup in place.

The point of the munter (or some other backup) is not for the lower itself, but to guard against the very abrupt transition from autoblocking mode to completely released when one flips a loaded reverso or other plaquette style device. They tend not to gradually release, and instead suddenly go almost frictionless. Think about it: when a plaquette style device is flipped out of autoblocking mode, but is still attached to the anchor, it becomes effectively useless as a friction device until one redirects the break strand behind the device. Not having a backup in place when performing this transition is just plain foolish. A munter is one option.

You should be aware that this is an argument that patto has had (and lost) before on these forums. Yet, for some reason he still persists.

Someone please educate me: Is there some major difference related to this matter between the Reverso and the Reverso 3?

I don't have any problem lowering someone in a perfectly controlled manner with the Reverso 3 - you hang onto the brake strand, use a biner for a lever and ease 'er on down.

Sorry I didn't know you where the official arbiter.

How did I lose the argument?

Someone please educate me: Is there some major difference related to this matter between the Reverso and the Reverso 3? I don't have any problem lowering someone in a perfectly controlled manner with the Reverso 3 - you hang onto the brake strand, use a biner for a lever and ease 'er on down.

Oh, and just restating that you have (so far) apparently gotten away with your inherently dangerous method, doesn't count.

If using your hand to hold the brake strand of a belay device in locked position is dangerous then that would imply that all belaying is dangerous. A lead catch has far higher forces held by a locked off belay device.

In an autoblock scenario, the belay device is hanging, and getting the brake strand to a lock position without a redirect is very difficult (or, depending where your anchor is, impossible).

just a question to you patto: on the occasions where you released the autoblock, was there:
- friction (rope drag) still in the system up to your second?
- a light climber to be lowered.

Because, the few times that I released the atc-guide, I had to unblock it with my foot (sling in ATC, redirected ) leading to a sudden, surprising and complete release onto the munter. Maybe that's different with a reverso?

basically, when the device is levered out of autolock position, if the brake is not redirected up above the device, the brake side of the rope is parallel with the loaded strand- which in an ATC/tube style device, is the point of least friction. redirecting the brake up above the device puts the brake side of the rope in the position of most friction and therefore much more control. a backup is also a good idea as well.

if you read the instructions on the Reverso 3 (and you should always read the instructions on any device), it will tell you this and provide images as well.

As I said. The brake strand must be locked off. Nobody is doubting that.

No there really really doesn't need to be a back up. If you are locked off the you are locked off. If you can't handle an increasing load on a locked off belay then you SHOULDN'T BE BELAYING!

I thoroughly read the instructions when I got it, and recall nothing about backing up. hang on a sec...I'm gonna check.

OK, I'm back. Yeah, it says nothing about what you speak of. I understand that with an ATC what you are saying makes sense. The Reverso 3 is not an ATC, however and lowering either light or heavy climbers with the manufacturers recommended method simply isn't a problem...not for me anyway. Manufacturer says to hold the brake strand and lever with a biner. The end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93YDB1jj21s
http://www.petzl.com/...leasing_reverso3.gif

Difficult or impossible!?
1. Take right hand place on brake strand.
2. Move brake strand into locked off position and grip firmly.

Seriously, it isn't that hard!

I have released and lowered numerous times. With climbers of all weights including heavy climbers. Sometimes with the climber directly (1m) below the anchor.

Surely the second time wouldn't have been surprising? Expect a quick release because that is how the device works. If you are locked off properly then all is good.

Have a look at this video:

http://climbinglife.com/tech-tips/releasing-an-atc-guide-belay-video.html

Eli is a UIAGM guide and senior member of the AMGA instructor pool. He knows what he's talking about. The method he demonstrates is one excellent way to deal with this issue. If Eli needs a backup, you should probably have one too. The fact that you haven't dropped anyone yet is not evidence that your methods are safe. Look in to the familiarity heuristic: You're practically a poster boy.

In any case, I'm done with this discussion. It appears we may have to agree to disagree. I'm OK with that. Safe and happy climbing to you!

After watching that video, I am amazed that anybody would consider buying an ATC-Gude.

Jay

with all due respect, tell us you know the difference between reverso when "locked off" and reverso in "auto-block" mode.

Understandable. When it's done at that pace, it does seem to take forever. If one just does it as opposed to slowly talking through every step for teaching purposes, it's actually pretty quick. Still, there's no denying it's more cumbersome than other direct belay methods. I personally find its advantages outweigh its disadvantages in many situations. That said, I also use a lot of munters. They're all just tools in the toolbox.

I see no benefit great enough that could offset the need for such a cluster-fuck just to lower your partner. Actually, I see no benefit to these autoblocking devices at all. But we've been through this before.

Of course I'm sure that there are people who will buy the device just to be able to rig the cluster-fuck.

Jay