Forums: Climbing Information: Accident and Incident Analysis:
Lowering accident. Serious Injuries
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Accident and Incident Analysis

Premier Sponsor:

 


Partner robdotcalm


May 19, 2011, 3:29 AM
Post #1 of 182 (27429 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027

Lowering accident. Serious Injuries
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

http://rockandice.com/...or-seriously-injured

This is yet another lowering accident. On 17 May, Phil Powers was being lowered from a climb in Clear Creek Canyon, Colorado, when an error occurred. He fell 50 feet to the ground and incurred serious injuries. He was helicoptered from the scene of the accident. No further information is available at this time. Phil is Executive Director of the American Alpine Club and has a distinguished record as a climber.

Heartfelt wishes to Phil for a good recovery.

Rob.calm


(This post was edited by robdotcalm on May 19, 2011, 11:44 PM)


Partner robdotcalm


May 19, 2011, 5:00 PM
Post #2 of 182 (27281 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027

Re: [robdotcalm] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Here is some updated information. The quote is from the link below.

«When the accident occurred, Powers was climbing with a group near AAC headquarters in Clear Creek Canyon’s Highwire area outside of Golden, CO. Clear Creek Canyon is a popular and accessible sport climbing crag on public land.
The area where the group was climbing is directly above the highway and river. The rock formation at the site of the accident is overhanging making direct sight contact difficult. Due to communication difficulties, there was confusion amongst the party over Powers’ method of descent which resulted in Powers falling approximately 50 feet to the ground.»

http://www.americanalpineclub.org/p/status

Rob.calm


gblauer
Moderator

May 19, 2011, 5:53 PM
Post #3 of 182 (27231 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Posts: 2824

Re: [robdotcalm] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

What a terrible tragedy. I hope that he recovers quickly. At our age, recovery is not easy.


Accidents can happen to all of us, but, this one seemed preventable by having a well articulated and understood descent plan prior to leaving the ground. Further, testing, feeling the belayer tension the rope prior to unclipping may have prevented this horrible incident.

None of us are immune. Be careful out there!


redlude97


May 19, 2011, 6:01 PM
Post #4 of 182 (27216 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [robdotcalm] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Obviously I wasn't there, but if the route was overhanging to such an extent that the climber was out of sight, wouldn't lowering have been the obvious route of descent? I'm not familiar with that crag and the consensus on lowering from the anchors there so any insight would be appreciated.


darkgift06


May 19, 2011, 9:11 PM
Post #5 of 182 (27155 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 16, 2009
Posts: 492

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

May18th afternoon at around 6:30-7ish... a girl fell off the end of her rope while being lowered off a 30 meter pitch on the Fortress, Skaha Bluffs, Penticton Canada. I guess she had cleaned the anchor & clipped a fig 8 on a bit into her harness to lower, not realizing that it was a full 30 meter pitch & that the 2 meters of rope would have made a difference. She fell approximately 15 feet/5 meters according to eye witness.

Helicopter & Search & rescue came in & flew her out, but took about an hour to an hour & a half.. she was aware, & could feel her toes but she & everyone around were very worried about her & her lower back.

24 yr old girl from Invermere, who had found & met her partners in the parking lot.

No word on injuries.


cnicoll


May 19, 2011, 9:54 PM
Post #6 of 182 (27134 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 24, 2010
Posts: 1

Re: [darkgift06] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

A friend of mine was on scene at the Fortress incident. The problem with this spot is that it's a 30m climb from the ground however theres a small ledge you can belay from making it a 25m climb.

If a simple knot was tied at the end of the rope none of this would have happened.


healyje


May 19, 2011, 10:19 PM
Post #7 of 182 (27115 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Yes, from the sound of it this was the classic rap-or-lower variety of miscommunication at the top of a one-pitch climb. And as stated, you need to have it explicitly understood before you leave the ground - particularly when climbing in groups where you may end up belayed by someone you don't know. This is one that can bite the experienced and inexperienced alike if you aren't clear upfront.


Partner robdotcalm


May 20, 2011, 3:50 AM
Post #8 of 182 (26995 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027

Re: [darkgift06] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

darkgift06 wrote:
May18th afternoon at around 6:30-7ish... a girl fell off the end of her rope while being lowered off a 30 meter pitch on the Fortress, Skaha Bluffs, Penticton Canada. I guess she had cleaned the anchor & clipped a fig 8 on a bit into her harness to lower, not realizing that it was a full 30 meter pitch & that the 2 meters of rope would have made a difference. She fell approximately 15 feet/5 meters according to eye witness.

This easily avoidable type of accident has been discussed frequently on this site, e.g., http://www.rockclimbing.com/...t_reply;so=ASC;mh=25

A few weeks ago, a climber gave me a new reason why he didn't need to tie a knot in the rope while belaying me: "The rope is 70 meters ". Oh well, another excuse for developing bad habits.

Cheers,
Rob.calm


moose_droppings


May 20, 2011, 4:17 AM
Post #9 of 182 (26981 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371

Re: [darkgift06] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

darkgift06 wrote:
May18th afternoon at around 6:30-7ish... a girl fell off the end of her rope while being lowered off a 30 meter pitch on the Fortress, Skaha Bluffs, Penticton Canada. I guess she had cleaned the anchor & clipped a fig 8 on a bit into her harness to lower, not realizing that it was a full 30 meter pitch & that the 2 meters of rope would have made a difference. She fell approximately 15 feet/5 meters according to eye witness.

Helicopter & Search & rescue came in & flew her out, but took about an hour to an hour & a half.. she was aware, & could feel her toes but she & everyone around were very worried about her & her lower back.

24 yr old girl from Invermere, who had found & met her partners in the parking lot.

No word on injuries.

Belayer wasn't tied in.

Closing the system would of prevented this one.


wwalt822


May 20, 2011, 3:50 PM
Post #10 of 182 (26896 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2010
Posts: 116

Re: [moose_droppings] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

moose_droppings wrote:
darkgift06 wrote:
May18th afternoon at around 6:30-7ish... a girl fell off the end of her rope while being lowered off a 30 meter pitch on the Fortress, Skaha Bluffs, Penticton Canada. I guess she had cleaned the anchor & clipped a fig 8 on a bit into her harness to lower, not realizing that it was a full 30 meter pitch & that the 2 meters of rope would have made a difference. She fell approximately 15 feet/5 meters according to eye witness.

Helicopter & Search & rescue came in & flew her out, but took about an hour to an hour & a half.. she was aware, & could feel her toes but she & everyone around were very worried about her & her lower back.

24 yr old girl from Invermere, who had found & met her partners in the parking lot.

No word on injuries.

Belayer wasn't tied in.

Closing the system would of prevented this one.

Yeah but very few people tie in on single pitch (i'm sure you are the shining exception). If you are concerned about rope length on single pitch, a knot in the end of the rope is best in a majority of situations. Tying in would use more rope.

The problem is people not being careful or skilled enough to judge when a single pitch climb will even come close to using all of the rope. Halfway markings could help too but thats another flame filled thread.


(This post was edited by wwalt822 on May 20, 2011, 3:55 PM)


lena_chita
Moderator

May 20, 2011, 4:03 PM
Post #11 of 182 (26881 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087

Re: [robdotcalm] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

 
I am very sorry to hear about the accident, and I hope Phil Powers makes a good recovery.

This is another reminder that ever experienced people make mistakes.


madrasrock


May 24, 2011, 7:38 PM
Post #12 of 182 (26585 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 1, 2005
Posts: 79

Re: [gblauer] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Why do we do what we do?

I cannot believe all the communication accidents between the lead climber and the belayer, this year. But it did get me to thinking. Why do we do what we do?

Basic sport lead climbing steps:
Climber climbs up
Placing pro or clipping bolts on the way up
Get’s to the top, clips some draws in to the bolt anchors
Get’s lowered by the belayer.

Heavily relying on good communication with the bealyer during the decent.

Why do most climbers do it that way?

Let’s eliminate the communication problem.

Climber climbs up
Placing pro or clipping bolts on the way up
Get’s to the top, clips some draws in to the bolt anchors
Puts ATC or GRiGri on rope, with Auto block back up lowers down.

This would totally eliminate the communication problem that seems to be happening.
Also it would not put the tension on the pro gear at very odd angles.

Rick


bearbreeder


May 24, 2011, 7:51 PM
Post #13 of 182 (26572 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [robdotcalm] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

complacency ....

i was climbing this weekend where my belayer took his hand off the brake side of the rope once i was PASed to the bolt ... without me asking to be off belay

i usually pull a bight through and then untie/tie ... always still being on belay ... but when i looked down my belayer was chatting with people with his hand off the brake

the belayer is usually a very safe climber and experienced ...

all it takes is one moment of complacency ... and SPLAT !!!


potreroed


May 24, 2011, 8:09 PM
Post #14 of 182 (26540 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 1454

Re: [darkgift06] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

darkgift06 wrote:
May18th afternoon at around 6:30-7ish... a girl fell off the end of her rope while being lowered off a 30 meter pitch on the Fortress, Skaha Bluffs, Penticton Canada. I guess she had cleaned the anchor & clipped a fig 8 on a bit into her harness to lower, not realizing that it was a full 30 meter pitch & that the 2 meters of rope would have made a difference. She fell approximately 15 feet/5 meters according to eye witness.

Helicopter & Search & rescue came in & flew her out, but took about an hour to an hour & a half.. she was aware, & could feel her toes but she & everyone around were very worried about her & her lower back.

24 yr old girl from Invermere, who had found & met her partners in the parking lot.

No word on injuries.

This makes it sound like it was the climber's error but it was clearly a belayer's mistake. The climber is only partly at fault for not being aware of the length of the pitch and not checking to be sure there was a knot at the end of the rope. But ultimately, it is the belayer's responsibility to see that the end of the rope does not go through his/her belay device.


jt512


May 24, 2011, 8:32 PM
Post #15 of 182 (26521 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [madrasrock] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

madrasrock wrote:
Why do we do what we do?

I cannot believe all the communication accidents between the lead climber and the belayer, this year. But it did get me to thinking. Why do we do what we do?

Basic sport lead climbing steps:
Climber climbs up
Placing pro or clipping bolts on the way up
Get’s to the top, clips some draws in to the bolt anchors
Get’s lowered by the belayer.

Heavily relying on good communication with the bealyer during the decent.

Why do most climbers do it that way?

Let’s eliminate the communication problem.

Climber climbs up
Placing pro or clipping bolts on the way up
Get’s to the top, clips some draws in to the bolt anchors
Puts ATC or GRiGri on rope, with Auto block back up lowers down.

Your post is an example of how communication errors occur in climbing. What you describe in your last paragraph (or is it a stanza?) is not lowering; it's rappelling.

Jay


Partner cracklover


May 24, 2011, 8:38 PM
Post #16 of 182 (26510 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162

Re: [healyje] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Regarding the Clear Creek accident:

redlude97 wrote:
Obviously I wasn't there, but if the route was overhanging to such an extent that the climber was out of sight, wouldn't lowering have been the obvious route of descent? I'm not familiar with that crag and the consensus on lowering from the anchors there so any insight would be appreciated.

The first 15 feet of the climb overhangs, and it's then very slabby all the way to the top. Communication could certainly be difficult. Also, my understanding is that it was raining pretty good, which could have made communication more difficult, and possibly might have made people more likely to hurry.

healyje wrote:
Yes, from the sound of it this was the classic rap-or-lower variety of miscommunication at the top of a one-pitch climb. And as stated, you need to have it explicitly understood before you leave the ground - particularly when climbing in groups where you may end up belayed by someone you don't know. This is one that can bite the experienced and inexperienced alike if you aren't clear upfront.

This is definitely my take-away from the accident. For sure it's a wake-up call to stay vigilant about communication issues, every single day, always.

But later we'll know more about the specifics of the accident.

GO


moose_droppings


May 24, 2011, 8:42 PM
Post #17 of 182 (26504 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371

Re: [wwalt822] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

wwalt822 wrote:
Yeah but very few people tie in on single pitch (i'm sure you are the shining exception). If you are concerned about rope length on single pitch, a knot in the end of the rope is best in a majority of situations.

Tie a knot, tie it to a tree, tie it to a belayer, just close the system.


Partner robdotcalm


May 25, 2011, 12:05 AM
Post #18 of 182 (26431 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027

Re: [lena_chita] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

lena_chita wrote:
I am very sorry to hear about the accident, and I hope Phil Powers makes a good recovery.

This is another reminder that ever experienced people make mistakes.

Gravity does not respect experience.

Rob.calm


redlude97


May 25, 2011, 12:08 AM
Post #19 of 182 (26426 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [cracklover] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
Regarding the Clear Creek accident:

redlude97 wrote:
Obviously I wasn't there, but if the route was overhanging to such an extent that the climber was out of sight, wouldn't lowering have been the obvious route of descent? I'm not familiar with that crag and the consensus on lowering from the anchors there so any insight would be appreciated.

The first 15 feet of the climb overhangs, and it's then very slabby all the way to the top. Communication could certainly be difficult. Also, my understanding is that it was raining pretty good, which could have made communication more difficult, and possibly might have made people more likely to hurry.

healyje wrote:
Yes, from the sound of it this was the classic rap-or-lower variety of miscommunication at the top of a one-pitch climb. And as stated, you need to have it explicitly understood before you leave the ground - particularly when climbing in groups where you may end up belayed by someone you don't know. This is one that can bite the experienced and inexperienced alike if you aren't clear upfront.

This is definitely my take-away from the accident. For sure it's a wake-up call to stay vigilant about communication issues, every single day, always.

But later we'll know more about the specifics of the accident.

GO
Since you seem to be familiar with the area, is lowering or rappelling the usualy method of descent for the area?


jakedatc


May 25, 2011, 1:17 AM
Post #20 of 182 (26391 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [madrasrock] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

madrasrock wrote:
Why do we do what we do?

I cannot believe all the communication accidents between the lead climber and the belayer, this year. But it did get me to thinking. Why do we do what we do?

Basic sport lead climbing steps:
Climber climbs up
Placing pro or clipping bolts on the way up
Get’s to the top, clips some draws in to the bolt anchors
Get’s lowered by the belayer.

Heavily relying on good communication with the bealyer during the decent.

Why do most climbers do it that way?

Let’s eliminate the communication problem.

Climber climbs up
Placing pro or clipping bolts on the way up
Get’s to the top, clips some draws in to the bolt anchors
Puts ATC or GRiGri on rope, with Auto block back up lowers down.

This would totally eliminate the communication problem that seems to be happening.
Also it would not put the tension on the pro gear at very odd angles.

Rick


there are as many or more examples of people rapping off the end, rapping off uneven ends, etc.

Lowering is the preferred method of getting off single pitch sport routes. If you've ever tried cleaning something even remotely overhanging you'd know that it is at best a pain in the ass and at worst can be pretty sketchy.

you rely on your belayer the whole entire way up the climb.. facing 5, 10, 15+ foot falls depending where you are.. you can't rely on them to lower you off?


Partner cracklover


May 25, 2011, 2:36 PM
Post #21 of 182 (26316 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Regarding the Clear Creek accident:

redlude97 wrote:
Obviously I wasn't there, but if the route was overhanging to such an extent that the climber was out of sight, wouldn't lowering have been the obvious route of descent? I'm not familiar with that crag and the consensus on lowering from the anchors there so any insight would be appreciated.

The first 15 feet of the climb overhangs, and it's then very slabby all the way to the top. Communication could certainly be difficult. Also, my understanding is that it was raining pretty good, which could have made communication more difficult, and possibly might have made people more likely to hurry.

healyje wrote:
Yes, from the sound of it this was the classic rap-or-lower variety of miscommunication at the top of a one-pitch climb. And as stated, you need to have it explicitly understood before you leave the ground - particularly when climbing in groups where you may end up belayed by someone you don't know. This is one that can bite the experienced and inexperienced alike if you aren't clear upfront.

This is definitely my take-away from the accident. For sure it's a wake-up call to stay vigilant about communication issues, every single day, always.

But later we'll know more about the specifics of the accident.

GO
Since you seem to be familiar with the area, is lowering or rappelling the usualy method of descent for the area?

Here, like most places, the majority of people lower, but many people rap, and anchor hardware varies from climb to climb. It's definitely something each team needs to discuss and decide on.

GO


onrockandice


May 26, 2011, 4:30 PM
Post #22 of 182 (26140 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 16, 2009
Posts: 355

Re: [madrasrock] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

I see a lot of replies implying it was the fault of the belayer. Rubbish.

I climb because I enjoy it. I live because I'm pedantic to the excessive. I read sh!t here all the time about lowering accidents. I refuse to be lowered. My safety is my problem. Nobody is going to have a chance to drop me. I'd never put that burden on someone. The guilt if they mess up and the fact that people mess this up all the time are/were enough for me to change my tactics completely. If you cannot rap safely on your own power then you don't climb with me. When you reach the anchors your safety is your issue.

I've never been "lowered" and I never will be. My habits at the anchors are set in stone. There is no mantra or "method" to it. It's simple. It's been stated and restated here 1000 times.

If you get "dropped" then honestly it's your fault for:

1. Agreeing to be lowered and not being hyper aware of all the safe aspects of a safe-lower.

2. Staying on your personal anchor until the lowering rope is fully tight with your body weight and there is no load at all on your PAS(s). Only then do you unweight disconnect your PAS and lower off. Even then you grab the other side of the rope and hold on until you are sure everything is *SAFE*.

3. Verbal communication is NOT safe. Test that rope liberally before you agree to weight it with no backup at all for lowering.

*NEVER* assume your belayer has the situation under control and blindly trust the system. It's your job to keep yourself alive. Do everything in your power to make sure that when you let go to come down you know that the rope is taught with your weight.

*ALWAYS* skip being lowered. Rappel, rappel safely, back up your rappel, inspect your system, weight the system, repeat at least once more to be sure. Then rappel off safely to the ground.


shockabuku


May 26, 2011, 4:38 PM
Post #23 of 182 (26127 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868

Re: [onrockandice] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

onrockandice wrote:
I see a lot of replies implying it was the fault of the belayer. Rubbish.

I climb because I enjoy it. I live because I'm pedantic to the excessive. I read sh!t here all the time about lowering accidents. I refuse to be lowered. My safety is my problem. Nobody is going to have a chance to drop me. I'd never put that burden on someone. The guilt if they mess up and the fact that people mess this up all the time are/were enough for me to change my tactics completely. If you cannot rap safely on your own power then you don't climb with me. When you reach the anchors your safety is your issue.

I've never been "lowered" and I never will be. My habits at the anchors are set in stone. There is no mantra or "method" to it. It's simple. It's been stated and restated here 1000 times.

If you get "dropped" then honestly it's your fault for:

1. Agreeing to be lowered and not being hyper aware of all the safe aspects of a safe-lower.

2. Staying on your personal anchor until the lowering rope is fully tight with your body weight and there is no load at all on your PAS(s). Only then do you unweight disconnect your PAS and lower off. Even then you grab the other side of the rope and hold on until you are sure everything is *SAFE*.

3. Verbal communication is NOT safe. Test that rope liberally before you agree to weight it with no backup at all for lowering.

*NEVER* assume your belayer has the situation under control and blindly trust the system. It's your job to keep yourself alive. Do everything in your power to make sure that when you let go to come down you know that the rope is taught with your weight.

*ALWAYS* skip being lowered. Rappel, rappel safely, back up your rappel, inspect your system, weight the system, repeat at least once more to be sure. Then rappel off safely to the ground.

I won't climb with you.

If I can't trust you to lower me, I can't trust you to catch me either. It's called a partnership for a reason.

However, I do agree with you at some level - if you get dropped it's your fault for choosing that partner and how the two of you do business.


bearbreeder


May 26, 2011, 4:47 PM
Post #24 of 182 (26118 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [shockabuku] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ditto ...

how can you trust someone to belay you and not to lower you?

its a pretty binary decision (uh oh) ... either you trust your belayer or you dont ...

and if you do and there is a boo boo ... you made the wrong decision

hopefully its corrected without you being hurt and he/she learns from it ...

i always weight my myself on a sling/PAS primarily because its always possible that ive made a mistake setting up or misheard something due to the wind ... i would do that even on rappel when its "all in my hands" and not my belayers


(This post was edited by bearbreeder on May 26, 2011, 4:51 PM)


redlude97


May 26, 2011, 5:15 PM
Post #25 of 182 (26096 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [onrockandice] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

onrockandice wrote:
I see a lot of replies implying it was the fault of the belayer. Rubbish.

I climb because I enjoy it. I live because I'm pedantic to the excessive. I read sh!t here all the time about lowering accidents. I refuse to be lowered. My safety is my problem. Nobody is going to have a chance to drop me. I'd never put that burden on someone. The guilt if they mess up and the fact that people mess this up all the time are/were enough for me to change my tactics completely. If you cannot rap safely on your own power then you don't climb with me. When you reach the anchors your safety is your issue.

I've never been "lowered" and I never will be. My habits at the anchors are set in stone. There is no mantra or "method" to it. It's simple. It's been stated and restated here 1000 times.

If you get "dropped" then honestly it's your fault for:

1. Agreeing to be lowered and not being hyper aware of all the safe aspects of a safe-lower.

2. Staying on your personal anchor until the lowering rope is fully tight with your body weight and there is no load at all on your PAS(s). Only then do you unweight disconnect your PAS and lower off. Even then you grab the other side of the rope and hold on until you are sure everything is *SAFE*.

3. Verbal communication is NOT safe. Test that rope liberally before you agree to weight it with no backup at all for lowering.

*NEVER* assume your belayer has the situation under control and blindly trust the system. It's your job to keep yourself alive. Do everything in your power to make sure that when you let go to come down you know that the rope is taught with your weight.

*ALWAYS* skip being lowered. Rappel, rappel safely, back up your rappel, inspect your system, weight the system, repeat at least once more to be sure. Then rappel off safely to the ground.
I'm willing to bet you don't climb very many overhanging routes.


Partner drector


May 26, 2011, 5:41 PM
Post #26 of 182 (12747 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037

Re: [onrockandice] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

onrockandice wrote:
*NEVER* assume your belayer has the situation under control and blindly trust the system.

How do you climb, rope solo or free solo?

I think that if you trust the belayer to catch you when you fall, it should be easy to trust the belayer to hold you when you lower off. Weighting the rope to lower and weighting it during a leader fall are the same in that the belayer MUST hold you no matter what.

I *always* assume that my belayer has the situation under control. If I didn't assume that, I would not let them belay be.

onrockandice wrote:
Do everything in your power to make sure that when you let go to come down you know that the rope is taught with your weight.

Like by leaning back on the rope? Or do you mean that you grab the other side of the rope and pull up on it to see if the belayer is holding it? How would you do that during a lead fall?

The solution is to find a trustworthy belayer, not avoid that trust in selective situations like when being lowered. I would not cross a bridge I didn't trust to hold my weight or fly in a plane that I though was not airworthy. I would not take a ride in a boat that I thought would sink. Rock climbing is dangerous enough as it is and climbing with a belayer I did not trust seems downright stupid.

There is only one belayer in the system. Don't settle for someone sub-par.

Dave


patto


May 26, 2011, 5:45 PM
Post #27 of 182 (12744 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I agree completely with onrockandice. Rappelling keeps you in control.

shockabuku wrote:
I won't climb with you.

If I can't trust you to lower me, I can't trust you to catch me either. It's called a partnership for a reason.
Its not about lack of trust its about keeping control in the hands of the best person to make the decisions.

redlude97 wrote:
I'm willing to bet you don't climb very many overhanging routes.
I can play that game. I could stereotype by saying I am willing to be you don't climb much adventurous trad.
(BTW if I'm climbing overhanging sport normally my partner then climbs, cleans and raps.)


redlude97


May 26, 2011, 5:54 PM
Post #28 of 182 (12737 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
(BTW if I'm climbing overhanging sport normally my partner then climbs, cleans and raps.)
I guess we differ in that we usually pull the rope between goes.


superchuffer


May 26, 2011, 5:55 PM
Post #29 of 182 (12734 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2011
Posts: 294

Re: [robdotcalm] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I like how the fellow chuffers like to weigh in with their *obvious* safety points. Phil Powers had more time in the mountains than all of you put together. Give the man some respect and send your best wishes.


(This post was edited by superchuffer on May 26, 2011, 5:56 PM)


madrasrock


May 26, 2011, 7:47 PM
Post #30 of 182 (12696 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 1, 2005
Posts: 79

Re: [bearbreeder] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Both of the last two accidents were not from the belayer’s ability or lack of. But the lack of clear communication before leaving the ground or because of distance they could not hear. It does not matter if you have a good or bad belayer if you have any question, you should just lower yourself down. If the bealyer still have a holding on to the rope, that is just extra.


jt512


May 26, 2011, 7:51 PM
Post #31 of 182 (12693 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [madrasrock] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

madrasrock wrote:
Both of the last two accidents were not from the belayer’s ability or lack of. But the lack of clear communication before leaving the ground or because of distance they could not hear.

Or lack of standardization. If everyone just lowered off sport climbs, and stopped all this hand-wringing about whether to rap or lower, these accidents would never occur.

Jay


bearbreeder


May 26, 2011, 7:52 PM
Post #32 of 182 (12692 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [madrasrock] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

partly agree ...

but unless the belayer hear a loud and clear "take me off belay <insert name>"

the climber should never be off belay ...

it IS always possible that one could mis hear some other statement ... but the belayer should shout "you are off belay <insert name>" every time afterwards

i believe that when you cant see or hear your belayer clearly rapping or walking off is the sensible option ... but with clear line of sight or hearing ... lowering is just fine IMO ...


jakedatc


May 26, 2011, 8:00 PM
Post #33 of 182 (12682 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
I agree completely with onrockandice. Rappelling keeps you in control.

shockabuku wrote:
I won't climb with you.

If I can't trust you to lower me, I can't trust you to catch me either. It's called a partnership for a reason.
Its not about lack of trust its about keeping control in the hands of the best person to make the decisions.

redlude97 wrote:
I'm willing to bet you don't climb very many overhanging routes.
I can play that game. I could stereotype by saying I am willing to be you don't climb much adventurous trad.
(BTW if I'm climbing overhanging sport normally my partner then climbs, cleans and raps.)

you don't climb with anyone that can't or doesn't want to do the route you are doing? i find that hard to imagine.

it isn't a stereotype. it's a simple fact that cleaning overhanging routes is done by lowering off.. no question about it.

but thank you for playing your "i'm so fucking rad i'm a trad climber" card. *Plonk*


jakedatc


May 26, 2011, 9:13 PM
Post #34 of 182 (12647 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [shockabuku] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shockabuku wrote:
onrockandice wrote:
I see a lot of replies implying it was the fault of the belayer. Rubbish.

I climb because I enjoy it. I live because I'm pedantic to the excessive. I read sh!t here all the time about lowering accidents. I refuse to be lowered. My safety is my problem. Nobody is going to have a chance to drop me. I'd never put that burden on someone. The guilt if they mess up and the fact that people mess this up all the time are/were enough for me to change my tactics completely. If you cannot rap safely on your own power then you don't climb with me. When you reach the anchors your safety is your issue.

I've never been "lowered" and I never will be. My habits at the anchors are set in stone. There is no mantra or "method" to it. It's simple. It's been stated and restated here 1000 times.

If you get "dropped" then honestly it's your fault for:

1. Agreeing to be lowered and not being hyper aware of all the safe aspects of a safe-lower.

2. Staying on your personal anchor until the lowering rope is fully tight with your body weight and there is no load at all on your PAS(s). Only then do you unweight disconnect your PAS and lower off. Even then you grab the other side of the rope and hold on until you are sure everything is *SAFE*.

3. Verbal communication is NOT safe. Test that rope liberally before you agree to weight it with no backup at all for lowering.

*NEVER* assume your belayer has the situation under control and blindly trust the system. It's your job to keep yourself alive. Do everything in your power to make sure that when you let go to come down you know that the rope is taught with your weight.

*ALWAYS* skip being lowered. Rappel, rappel safely, back up your rappel, inspect your system, weight the system, repeat at least once more to be sure. Then rappel off safely to the ground.

I won't climb with you.

If I can't trust you to lower me, I can't trust you to catch me either. It's called a partnership for a reason.

However, I do agree with you at some level - if you get dropped it's your fault for choosing that partner and how the two of you do business.

+1 wouldn't climb with that guy ever.

go see the Binary Never/Always thread.. if you think one set of "rules" fits every scenario then you are more likely to end up in one of these accidents eventually.


sspssp


May 26, 2011, 9:31 PM
Post #35 of 182 (12640 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731

Re: [moose_droppings] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

moose_droppings wrote:
wwalt822 wrote:
Yeah but very few people tie in on single pitch (i'm sure you are the shining exception). If you are concerned about rope length on single pitch, a knot in the end of the rope is best in a majority of situations.

Tie a knot, tie it to a tree, tie it to a belayer, just close the system.

Yea, I think it is going to be hard to convince climbers to tie a knot everytime the leader starts up.

My approach is to tie the end to the rope bag. Most climbers doing single pitch cragging use a rope bag. Except for reversing the rope, you can just leave it tied for several different leads.

Anytime the rope goes into the rope bag, the end gets tied and it stays tied until/unless the second ties in or the rope is reversed and pulled through the anchor.

Tieing it to the rope bag also gives you a greater chance of avoiding pulling the rope into the anchor. If you forget to untie the knot, seeing the rope bag lift off the ground.


shockabuku


May 27, 2011, 5:19 AM
Post #36 of 182 (12600 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
I agree completely with onrockandice. Rappelling keeps you in control.

shockabuku wrote:
I won't climb with you.

If I can't trust you to lower me, I can't trust you to catch me either. It's called a partnership for a reason.
Its not about lack of trust its about keeping control in the hands of the best person to make the decisions.

I do either equally well and, more importantly, can make the decision when to use which method.


patto


May 27, 2011, 7:24 PM
Post #37 of 182 (12528 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
If everyone just lowered off sport climbs, and stopped all this hand-wringing about whether to rap or lower, these accidents would never occur.
Rapping is better in numerous ways. Many bolted routes lowering is simply not the sensible option. Why would you limit your options simply because Jay thinks lowering is fantastic?

bearbreeder wrote:
i believe that when you cant see or hear your belayer clearly rapping or walking off is the sensible option ... but with clear line of sight or hearing ... lowering is just fine IMO ...
Makes sense!

jakedatc wrote:
you don't climb with anyone that can't or doesn't want to do the route you are doing? i find that hard to imagine.
I'm sorry you have difficulty imagining it, but its the truth. My partner and I are a team we climb together. Furthermore most routes I do are multipitch.

jakedatc wrote:
it isn't a stereotype. it's a simple fact that cleaning overhanging routes is done by lowering off.. no question about it.
Its certainly not so simple. I have cleaned overhung routes on rap before, though as I have said normally my partner would clean on second.

jakedatc wrote:
but thank you for playing your "i'm so fucking rad i'm a trad climber" card. *Plonk*
I never said that. If you feel that way about trad climbers then that is your problem.


(This post was edited by patto on May 27, 2011, 7:30 PM)


jt512


May 27, 2011, 7:31 PM
Post #38 of 182 (12522 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
jt512 wrote:
If everyone just lowered off sport climbs, and stopped all this hand-wringing about whether to rap or lower, these accidents would never occur.
Rapping is better in numerous ways. Many bolted routes lowering is simply not the sensible option. Why would you limit your options simply because Jay thinks lowering is fantastic?

Thank you for that completely vacuous paragraph.

Jay


jakedatc


May 27, 2011, 10:49 PM
Post #39 of 182 (12478 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
jt512 wrote:
If everyone just lowered off sport climbs, and stopped all this hand-wringing about whether to rap or lower, these accidents would never occur.
Rapping is better in numerous ways. Many bolted routes lowering is simply not the sensible option. Why would you limit your options simply because Jay thinks lowering is fantastic?

bearbreeder wrote:
i believe that when you cant see or hear your belayer clearly rapping or walking off is the sensible option ... but with clear line of sight or hearing ... lowering is just fine IMO ...
Makes sense!

jakedatc wrote:
you don't climb with anyone that can't or doesn't want to do the route you are doing? i find that hard to imagine.
I'm sorry you have difficulty imagining it, but its the truth. My partner and I are a team we climb together. Furthermore most routes I do are multipitch.

jakedatc wrote:
it isn't a stereotype. it's a simple fact that cleaning overhanging routes is done by lowering off.. no question about it.
Its certainly not so simple. I have cleaned overhung routes on rap before, though as I have said normally my partner would clean on second.

jakedatc wrote:
but thank you for playing your "i'm so fucking rad i'm a trad climber" card. *Plonk*
I never said that. If you feel that way about trad climbers then that is your problem.


What happens when you climb out of sight of your belayer.. so you assume you're soloing at that point?? If i am out of sight of my belayer i don't have to say a damn thing until i want "take" and "lower" nothing else involved in lowering off involves any communication at all.

Lol... i have some routes in mind i'd love to see you try to rap clean haha.. would be awesome to point and laugh. then send a 12 year old up to do it the right way.

i climb plenty of trad which is why i think your assumption that sport climbers don't know what they are doing is hilarious.

I once watched a trad climber get stuck to a quick clip anchor because he clipped in 2 daisy chains to the anchor, plus had both quick draws in and was going to untie and thread a quick clip anchor. He got stuck because he put too much shit through the bolts and the biners jammed up. It was quick clip anchors, he didn't even need to stop climbing, could have clipped the quick clips under the draws then taken them off and lowered down.

People who are narrow minded get themselves in stupid situations which could lead them to get hurt.

how do you know that the guy in the OP didn't ALWAYS rap down and decided for once that he'd lower... but if he sprayed all day long about always rapping then if he didn't communicate that and bad things happen.


patto


May 27, 2011, 11:06 PM
Post #40 of 182 (12474 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [jakedatc] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Wow, talk about putting words in my mouth! Crazy

jakedatc wrote:
What happens when you climb out of sight of your belayer.. so you assume you're soloing at that point??
I don't know how you interpreted anything I said to suggest this.

jakedatc wrote:
Lol... i have some routes in mind i'd love to see you try to rap clean haha.. would be awesome to point and laugh. then send a 12 year old up to do it the right way.
I'm sure I could manage it. Though I might just choose to lower. I haven't said that I never lower, but I certainly don't do it often.

jakedatc wrote:
i climb plenty of trad which is why i think your assumption that sport climbers don't know what they are doing is hilarious.
I have not made this assumption.

jakedatc wrote:
I once watched a trad climber get stuck to a quick clip anchor ....
Nice story, relevance?

jakedatc wrote:
how do you know that the guy in the OP didn't ALWAYS rap down and decided for once that he'd lower... but if he sprayed all day long about always rapping then if he didn't communicate that and bad things happen.
I don't know this. But again what does it matter? Its clear this accident occurred from poor communication followed by poor practice by the climber.


(This post was edited by patto on May 27, 2011, 11:09 PM)


funnelator


May 30, 2011, 10:51 PM
Post #41 of 182 (12378 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Mis-communicating about being lowered or rapping is not all that uncommon. In my personal experience, I know of two parties, both with good solid climbers of long experience, who have suffered this mishap. In both instances, when at the anchors, which were out of sight of the belayers, the climbers were taken off belay when they wanted to still be on. When they committed their weight to their harnesses each fell to the ground and sustained very serious but still not life threatening injuries. That they are alive at all is sheer luck. One of the injured climbers doesn't climb any more and the other does but with greatly restricted motion in one ankle.

The point is people make mistakes. No one is fully immune. Not even you and your favorite climbing partner.

One way to minimize the possibility of making this mistake when transitioning from climbing to being lowered is for the climber to keep a grip on the brake side of the rope until they can visually check to see they are still on belay before fully committing their weight to the rope. This is a common practice among guides at some crags as they are being lowered by clients who may have learned to belay five minutes before and/or who climb infrequently at best.

None of my above remarks are directed at Phil or anyone in his climbing party as I have no knowledge of his accident, nor is it my place to judge. I extend best wishes to Phil and his climbing partner(s) and also wish them a speedy recovery.


(This post was edited by funnelator on May 30, 2011, 11:10 PM)


funnelator


May 31, 2011, 12:05 AM
Post #42 of 182 (12360 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

As many have mentioned the belayer should keep the climber on if there is even a whisper of doubt. The way I articulate that to people I haven't climbed with before, especially new climbers, is "If you leave me on and I want to be off the worst that can happen is I will be annoyed. If you take me off and I want to be on the worst that can happen is I will be dead. I'd rather be annoyed than dead."

On occasion with a new climbing partner, after my little belay speech, they will laugh at me and say something like "Haha, yeah sure, like I'm going to take you off belay, JUST CLIMB!!". Then I do my best to annoy them by taking my time telling stories about my crippled friends.


patto


May 31, 2011, 12:52 AM
Post #43 of 182 (12346 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
As many have mentioned the belayer should keep the climber on if there is even a whisper of doubt.
I completely agree.

But that doubt ends when the climber confirms that he is SAFE/OFFBELAY.


jt512


May 31, 2011, 1:28 AM
Post #44 of 182 (12334 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
funnelator wrote:
As many have mentioned the belayer should keep the climber on if there is even a whisper of doubt.
I completely agree.

But that doubt ends when the climber confirms that he is SAFE/OFFBELAY.

Wrong. Lowering/rappelling accidents involving miscommunication almost by definition occur when the climber, intending to lower, erroneously says "off belay."

Jay


patto


May 31, 2011, 1:50 AM
Post #45 of 182 (12322 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
Wrong. Lowering/rappelling accidents involving miscommunication almost by definition occur when the climber, intending to lower, erroneously says "off belay."
Whats 'wrong'?

Should belayer's thus always ignore a climbers call of "SAFE/OFFBELAY"? How then does a climbed then request a belay to remove himself from belay?


jt512


May 31, 2011, 2:09 AM
Post #46 of 182 (12314 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Wrong. Lowering/rappelling accidents involving miscommunication almost by definition occur when the climber, intending to lower, erroneously says "off belay."
Whats 'wrong'?

What's wrong is exactly what I said was wrong, and for exactly the reason I stated. If you can't understand it, then stop giving advice to sport climbers about how they should descend from sport climbs.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on May 31, 2011, 2:11 AM)


patto


May 31, 2011, 2:43 AM
Post #47 of 182 (12301 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Jay there are many ways one can safely descend from a sport climb. I am not suggesting any one of them is the right way. I am not giving advice.

You however in your self proclaimed wisdom has said that there is one correct way. Crazy


redlude97


May 31, 2011, 3:11 AM
Post #48 of 182 (12289 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
Jay there are many ways one can safely descend from a sport climb. I am not suggesting any one of them is the right way. I am not giving advice.

You however in your self proclaimed wisdom has said that there is one correct way. Crazy
woosh


funnelator


May 31, 2011, 3:37 AM
Post #49 of 182 (12278 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
patto wrote:
funnelator wrote:
As many have mentioned the belayer should keep the climber on if there is even a whisper of doubt.
I completely agree.

But that doubt ends when the climber confirms that he is SAFE/OFFBELAY.

Wrong. Lowering/rappelling accidents involving miscommunication almost by definition occur when the climber, intending to lower, erroneously says "off belay."

Jay

There is also the risk the belayer hearing someone else, also out of sight, say "off belay" and then confirming.

I've twice been taken off belay while on lead due to my belayer hearing a nearby climber say "off belay", then asking for a confirmation, and getting it from the other climber, before taking me off.

If other climbers are around it helps a lot for both the belayer and climber to use names.


patto


May 31, 2011, 4:42 AM
Post #50 of 182 (12266 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
If other climbers are around it helps a lot for both the belayer and climber to use names.

100% agree. I always, always use names and I always always ask for confirmation. I don't care if I can see the climber, I won't take somebody off belay unless I here confirmation with my name.


jt512


May 31, 2011, 4:52 AM
Post #51 of 182 (13437 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
funnelator wrote:
If other climbers are around it helps a lot for both the belayer and climber to use names.

100% agree. I always, always use names and I always always ask for confirmation. I don't care if I can see the climber, I won't take somebody off belay unless I here confirmation with my name.

That has little to no relevance in the typical lowering-vs-rappelling miscommunication accident. It's not a question of who said "off belay"; it's that the climber didn't understand what "off belay" means in the first place.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on May 31, 2011, 6:33 AM)


funnelator


May 31, 2011, 11:01 AM
Post #52 of 182 (13390 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Is there a "typical" lowering-vs rappelling miscommunication accident? Seems like there are lots of variations on the theme which is why, although redundant ad nauseum, perhaps it's good to keep having these kinds of discussions, at least as long as people keep having these kinds of accidents.


patto


May 31, 2011, 1:00 PM
Post #53 of 182 (13376 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
Is there a "typical" lowering-vs rappelling miscommunication accident?

The one thing that can be relied upon is that people will continually find novel as well as traditional ways to hurt themselves.

Though 95% of these accidents can be prevented by the climber asking him/herself.
Is my next action going to make me unsafe?

Time and time again climbers weight ropes which are not secured. Time and time again belayers and rappelers run out of rope with disastrous consequences.


Partner j_ung


May 31, 2011, 2:29 PM
Post #54 of 182 (13353 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690

Re: [robdotcalm] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

robdotcalm wrote:
A few weeks ago, a climber gave me a new reason why he didn't need to tie a knot in the rope while belaying me: "The rope is 70 meters ". Oh well, another excuse for developing bad habits.

Cheers,
Rob.calm

Depending on the length of the climb, it's a perfectly legitimate reason. If it were you and I on a 20-meter climb with a 70-meter rope I might say exactly the same thing. I mean come on, 50 meters of rope on the ground doesn't equal a closed system?

There's only one habit worth developing: evaluate every situation and choose your practices accordingly.


(This post was edited by j_ung on May 31, 2011, 2:35 PM)


jt512


May 31, 2011, 4:21 PM
Post #55 of 182 (13315 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
Is there a "typical" lowering-vs rappelling miscommunication accident?

Yep. Climber reaches anchors, clips in, and says, "Off belay." Belayer responds, "Belay off," and takes climber off belay. Climber threads rope through anchors, ties back in, cleans anchors, weights rope, decks.

Jay


funnelator


May 31, 2011, 11:35 PM
Post #56 of 182 (13243 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Funny. Neither of the rappelling vs lowering miscommunication accidents I have personal knowledge of went down that way.

Where do you get "typical" from Jay? A statistical analysis? Your personal observations of posts on the internet? A Magic Hat?


redlude97


May 31, 2011, 11:40 PM
Post #57 of 182 (13239 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
Funny. Neither of the rappelling vs lowering miscommunication accidents I have personal knowledge of went down that way.

Where do you get "typical" from Jay? A statistical analysis? Your personal observations of posts on the internet? A Magic Hat?
How did they happen then?


funnelator


Jun 1, 2011, 12:08 AM
Post #58 of 182 (13232 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In both instances the climbers were out of site but within earshot of the belayers.

In the first accident, the climber assumed he would be lowered and the belayer assumed the climber was rapping. No words were exchanged.

In the second accident, the climber said "take me up" and the belayer heard "take me off". No confirmation was requested or given before the climber committed his weight to the rope.

In both accidents the climbers fell to the ground.

Each of these teams had climbed extensively together.

These two accidents remind me of a pair I climbed next to long ago who used different intonations of just one word, "Dude", for almost every climbing command. I was at an anchor next to the climber when he arrived. Dude first meant "I'm off belay", next "you're on belay", next "climbing", and finally "climb on", all with slightly different enunciations and tone. They both looked stoned. As no one got hurt is was pretty funny really.


(This post was edited by funnelator on Jun 1, 2011, 12:24 AM)


jakedatc


Jun 1, 2011, 1:09 AM
Post #59 of 182 (13207 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
In both instances the climbers were out of site but within earshot of the belayers.

In the first accident, the climber assumed he would be lowered and the belayer assumed the climber was rapping. No words were exchanged.

In the second accident, the climber said "take me up" and the belayer heard "take me off". No confirmation was requested or given before the climber committed his weight to the rope.

In both accidents the climbers fell to the ground.

Each of these teams had climbed extensively together.

These two accidents remind me of a pair I climbed next to long ago who used different intonations of just one word, "Dude", for almost every climbing command. I was at an anchor next to the climber when he arrived. Dude first meant "I'm off belay", next "you're on belay", next "climbing", and finally "climb on", all with slightly different enunciations and tone. They both looked stoned. As no one got hurt is was pretty funny really.

Interesting idea.. Less is definitely better. "take" and "lower" are all i use. full sentences are definitely going to cause confusion in hard to hear situations. at a busy crag i'll say their name first.

but as Jay has said.. *most* of the time in sport climbing you should never be off belay so it shouldn't be expected.


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 1:31 AM
Post #60 of 182 (13201 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
Funny. Neither of the rappelling vs lowering miscommunication accidents I have personal knowledge of went down that way.

Golly. Two whole data points.

Jay


funnelator


Jun 1, 2011, 1:47 AM
Post #61 of 182 (13194 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Haha.

And you have how many Jay? Where is your data set? Are you hiding it along with your prescriptive easement law references? :-)


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 1:51 AM
Post #62 of 182 (13192 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
Haha.

And you have how many Jay?

All I have is what I've been reading on the internet for the last 20 years. These erroneous "off belay" errors occur with regularity. There's one, maybe two, that have been discussed here in the last month or so. What else is there to miscommunicate in a rappelling-vs-lowering miscommunication accident, anyway?

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 1, 2011, 1:51 AM)


funnelator


Jun 1, 2011, 2:18 AM
Post #63 of 182 (13179 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I've been reading about them for the last 20 years too, in addition to talking with the two climbers I personally know who have been hurt in some these accidents.

To me there seems to be no typical.

J_ung's comment upthread "there's only one habit worth developing: evaluate every situation and choose your practices accordingly" seems very on target.


(This post was edited by funnelator on Jun 1, 2011, 2:19 AM)


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 2:30 AM
Post #64 of 182 (13173 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
I've been reading about them for the last 20 years too, in addition to talking with the two climbers I personally know who have been hurt in some these accidents.

To me there seems to be no typical.

Although not obvious from your last post, we've been talking specifically about "lowering-vs-rappelling miscommunication accidents." Besides the climber erroneously saying "off belay," I'm having difficulty thinking of what else could be miscommunicated that would lead to such an accident. I've been predicting for a few years now that there is going to be an accident because some n00b confused the meanings of "lowering" and "rappelling," and recently I've speculated that eventually there will be an accident because the term "on belay" is becoming confused with the term "belaying," but I haven't seen examples of either of those . . . yet. So, what other miscommunications are you aware of that have occurred in lowering-vs-rappelling miscommunication accidents, and how frequently do you think they occur compared with erroneous declarations of "off belay" that go unquestioned by the belayer?

Jay


funnelator


Jun 1, 2011, 2:49 AM
Post #65 of 182 (13165 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Jay, I don't have data, or any meaningful analysis. My point is that you don't either. It's not a big point. Why are you so driven to prove that your perception of "typical" based on your reading of anecdotal reporting on the internet is correct?

If you or someone else does some research, collects data, does some statistical analysis, and then draws some conclusions, that would be helpful. Absent that you are merely speculating about what is typical.

Perhaps we are just viewing the problem differently. If you are referring to single pitch sport only, your typical may well be right on. I'm thinking of other scenarios too like multi-pitch trad with some resident anchors of varying quality mixed in.


(This post was edited by funnelator on Jun 1, 2011, 2:51 AM)


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 3:06 AM
Post #66 of 182 (13157 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
Jay, I don't have data, or any meaningful analysis. My point is that you don't either. It's not a big point. Why are you so driven to prove that your perception of "typical" based on your reading of anecdotal reporting on the internet is correct?

I'm not driven to prove that. I casually used the word "typical," and you were driven to turn it into a big point. And now that you're asked to back it up, you're admitting you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. You're arguing about nothing just for the sake of arguing.

Jay


moose_droppings


Jun 1, 2011, 3:09 AM
Post #67 of 182 (13154 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Your not going to win with Jay.

Had you stated his position first, he'd now be arguing your position.

He is a very good debater, maybe even a master debater.


patto


Jun 1, 2011, 3:10 AM
Post #68 of 182 (13152 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
...and recently I've speculated that eventually there will be an accident because the term "on belay" is becoming confused with the term "belaying," but I haven't seen examples of either of those . . . yet.

? So what is this difference between the term "on belay" and belaying? I certainly don't know what you are getting at here.


funnelator


Jun 1, 2011, 3:11 AM
Post #69 of 182 (13151 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
funnelator wrote:
Jay, I don't have data, or any meaningful analysis. My point is that you don't either. It's not a big point. Why are you so driven to prove that your perception of "typical" based on your reading of anecdotal reporting on the internet is correct?

I'm not driven to prove that. I casually used the word "typical," and you were driven to turn it into a big point. And now that you're asked to back it up, you're admitting you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. You're arguing about nothing just for the sake of arguing.

Jay

Says the man with 20,000 plus posts. :-)


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 3:14 AM
Post #70 of 182 (13149 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
jt512 wrote:
...and recently I've speculated that eventually there will be an accident because the term "on belay" is becoming confused with the term "belaying," but I haven't seen examples of either of those . . . yet.

? So what is this difference between the term "on belay" and belaying? I certainly don't know what you are getting at here.

Climber X and Climber Y are tied in together. X is leading a pitch; he is being belayed by Y. Who is "on belay"?

Jay


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 3:16 AM
Post #71 of 182 (13147 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
jt512 wrote:
funnelator wrote:
Jay, I don't have data, or any meaningful analysis. My point is that you don't either. It's not a big point. Why are you so driven to prove that your perception of "typical" based on your reading of anecdotal reporting on the internet is correct?

I'm not driven to prove that. I casually used the word "typical," and you were driven to turn it into a big point. And now that you're asked to back it up, you're admitting you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. You're arguing about nothing just for the sake of arguing.

Jay

Says the man with 20,000 plus posts. :-)

Yeah, but 90% of those are defending against picayune arguments. :)

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 1, 2011, 3:16 AM)


patto


Jun 1, 2011, 3:25 AM
Post #72 of 182 (13142 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
Climber X and Climber Y are tied in together. X is leading a pitch; he is being belayed by Y. Who is "on belay"?

Ok, fair enough I see the distinction you're drawing.

But people need to be aware that climbing calls differ from person to person and region to region. As I leader I would never call "off belay" as I am not belaying.


(This post was edited by patto on Jun 1, 2011, 3:29 AM)


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 3:33 AM
Post #73 of 182 (13134 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Climber X and Climber Y are tied in together. X is leading a pitch; he is being belayed by Y. Who is "on belay"?

Ok, fair enough I see the distinction you're drawing.

And it used to be unambiguous. However, there has a been a trend over recent years for an increasing proportion of n00bs to use the term "on belay" to refer to the belayer. I'd say that my impression is that it's gotten to the point that the majority of n00bs use the term in that manner, except that funnelator—clearly not a Bayesian—has deemed that subjectivity has no place in statistical inference. I'm not even sure that I can still make a statement about the trend without a dataset to back it up.

Jay


spikeddem


Jun 1, 2011, 5:41 AM
Post #74 of 182 (13100 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Climber X and Climber Y are tied in together. X is leading a pitch; he is being belayed by Y. Who is "on belay"?

Ok, fair enough I see the distinction you're drawing.

But people need to be aware that climbing calls differ from person to person and region to region. As I leader I would never call "off belay" as I am not belaying.

As a belayer, I always say "belay is on" or "belay is off." As a leader, I say, "I'm safe" (I make sure the person I'm climbing with is familiar with exactly what I mean when I say it . . . before I start climbing). If I don't say "I'm safe," then I'd say "off belay."

As far as I'm concerned, "on belay" and "off belay" are instructions, not adjectives. I get a bit iffy when I hear belayers use the term "on belay" after their leader clips the first protection. Sounds like these peeps are the ones that may have potential for some miscommunication later.


shockabuku


Jun 1, 2011, 6:33 AM
Post #75 of 182 (13083 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868

Re: [spikeddem] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

spikeddem wrote:
patto wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Climber X and Climber Y are tied in together. X is leading a pitch; he is being belayed by Y. Who is "on belay"?

Ok, fair enough I see the distinction you're drawing.

But people need to be aware that climbing calls differ from person to person and region to region. As I leader I would never call "off belay" as I am not belaying.

As a belayer, I always say "belay is on" or "belay is off." As a leader, I say, "I'm safe" (I make sure the person I'm climbing with is familiar with exactly what I mean when I say it . . . before I start climbing). If I don't say "I'm safe," then I'd say "off belay."

As far as I'm concerned, "on belay" and "off belay" are instructions, not adjectives. I get a bit iffy when I hear belayers use the term "on belay" after their leader clips the first protection. Sounds like these peeps are the ones that may have potential for some miscommunication later.

I don't understand what you mean by "instructions". I use the terms to mean the climber is either being belayed or not, though I have to admit to some gray area when I take the climber off belay. I usually don't sound off with "off belay" until I have the rope out of the belay device since the climber usually pulls slack at that point though I have to admit they are off belay as soon as I let go of the rope.

Unless you're in a situation where the leader may fall below the belayer (multi-pitch, steep base of climb), you're not really on belay until you clip the first piece and the belayer has control of the rope, i.e. if they're spotting you until then.


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 6:50 AM
Post #76 of 182 (10714 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
But people need to be aware that climbing calls differ from person to person and region to region. As I leader I would never call "off belay" as I am not belaying.

Actually, you would never call "off belay" as a leader because you're a Euro. In America, it is standard practice for the leader to call "off belay" when he gets to the anchors when he actually wants the belayer to take him off belay. It's not a comment, like "safe" is (not that we actually do "safe" here); it's a command: "Take me off belay."

The problem occurs when a climber who intends to be lowered calls "off belay" at the anchors, erroneously thinking it's just a comment, and the belayer correctly interprets it as what it's been for the last 25 years or more: a command. Even the standard confirmation, "You're off belay," is no help in this situation, since the climber would likely just interpret it as the belayer confirming that the climber is "safe."

As a number of us have been saying for years, there is no reason to tell the belayer that you are "safe" at the end of a single-pitch sport climb. "Take," "slack," and "lower" are just about the only words the leader needs to say at the anchors, unless he intends to rappel. Then he should say "off belay," and the belayer should respond, "Do you plan to rappel?" to which (assuming it's true) the climber should respond with the full sentence, "Yes, I plan to rappel." Then, the belayer should say, "I'm taking you off belay," and he should wait for another confirmation from the climber before actually doing so.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 1, 2011, 7:11 AM)


patto


Jun 1, 2011, 6:56 AM
Post #77 of 182 (10713 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [shockabuku] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

As long as both climbers know what is going on and can communicate clearly then the exact words don't really matter as they vary from climber to climber.

Sport climbers who call OFF-BELAY and then expect to get lowered aren't merely guilty of mis-communicating but are making a fundamental procedural mistake. You don't go off belay and then expect to be put back on belay.


My calls:
On belay [CLIMBER NAME], climb when ready.
Climbing.
Take, slack, etc.
[BELAYER NAME] I'm SAFE.
[CLIMBER NAME] Are you safe?
Yes [BELAYER NAME], I'm SAFE.
Ok, off Belay [CLIMBER NAME].
Thanks
...
..
.
Thats me!
{Go to step 1}


(This post was edited by patto on Jun 1, 2011, 6:57 AM)


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 7:04 AM
Post #78 of 182 (10709 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
As long as both climbers know what is going on and can communicate clearly then the exact words don't really matter as they vary from climber to climber.

Sport climbers who call OFF-BELAY and then expect to get lowered aren't merely guilty of mis-communicating but are making a fundamental procedural mistake. You don't go off belay and then expect to be put back on belay.


My calls:
On belay [CLIMBER NAME], climb when ready.
Climbing.
Take, slack, etc.
[BELAYER NAME] I'm SAFE.
[CLIMBER NAME] Are you safe?
Yes [BELAYER NAME], I'm SAFE.
Ok, off Belay [CLIMBER NAME].
Thanks

Nice illustration of the useless "safe" comment.

Giving this a little more thought, I suspect that all comments from the leader are unnecessary, and hence just an unnecessary opportunity for miscommunication. There is no reason to say "safe." At the top of a single-pitch climb, if you intend to be lowered, say nothing. If you intend to rappel, give the unambiguous command, "off belay."

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 1, 2011, 7:09 AM)


patto


Jun 1, 2011, 7:17 AM
Post #79 of 182 (10699 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
Nice illustration of the useless "safe" comment.

Giving this a little more thought, I suspect that all comments from the leader are unnecessary, and hence just an unnecessary opportunity for miscommunication. There is no reason to say "safe."
Why does anything that is different from how you do things wrong in you mind Jay?
As I have said I never call 'OFF BELAY' as a climber. 'SAFE' is just as clear an unambiguous, it is a statement. Whereas presumably a climber when he calls 'OFF BELAY' it is a request.

jt512 wrote:
At the top of a single-pitch climb, if you intend to be lowered, say nothing. If you intend to rappel, give the unambiguous command, "off belay."

Jay
So what is wrong with 'SAFE' rather than 'OFF BELAY'?


(This post was edited by patto on Jun 1, 2011, 7:21 AM)


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 8:16 AM
Post #80 of 182 (10690 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Nice illustration of the useless "safe" comment.

Giving this a little more thought, I suspect that all comments from the leader are unnecessary, and hence just an unnecessary opportunity for miscommunication. There is no reason to say "safe."
Why does anything that is different from how you do things wrong in you mind Jay?
As I have said I never call 'OFF BELAY' as a climber. 'SAFE' is just as clear an unambiguous, it is a statement. Whereas presumably a climber when he calls 'OFF BELAY' it is a request.

jt512 wrote:
At the top of a single-pitch climb, if you intend to be lowered, say nothing. If you intend to rappel, give the unambiguous command, "off belay."

Jay
So what is wrong with 'SAFE' rather than 'OFF BELAY'?

Apologize for the first question, and then maybe I'll answer the second one.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 1, 2011, 8:24 AM)


patto


Jun 1, 2011, 8:37 AM
Post #81 of 182 (10682 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I wasn't seeking advice, I was seeking explanation. For that reason I am not desperate to apologise for defending how I communicate with my climbing partners.

You were the one suggesting that the way I communicate was 'useless' and 'ambiguous'. If you want to justify yourself then feel free to.


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 8:42 AM
Post #82 of 182 (10681 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
Why does anything that is different from how you do things wrong in you mind Jay?

patto wrote:
I wasn't seeking advice, I was seeking explanation.

Funny way to ask for it.

Jay


shockabuku


Jun 1, 2011, 10:31 AM
Post #83 of 182 (10667 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Nice illustration of the useless "safe" comment.

Giving this a little more thought, I suspect that all comments from the leader are unnecessary, and hence just an unnecessary opportunity for miscommunication. There is no reason to say "safe."
Why does anything that is different from how you do things wrong in you mind Jay?
As I have said I never call 'OFF BELAY' as a climber. 'SAFE' is just as clear an unambiguous, it is a statement. Whereas presumably a climber when he calls 'OFF BELAY' it is a request.

jt512 wrote:
At the top of a single-pitch climb, if you intend to be lowered, say nothing. If you intend to rappel, give the unambiguous command, "off belay."

Jay
So what is wrong with 'SAFE' rather than 'OFF BELAY'?

Interesting. At one time I may have considered "off belay" a request, but now I consider it a statement. When I clip in to an anchor, I am off belay, so I let my belayer know that so he/she can unclip the rope from their belay device and get on with the next order of business. Also, I am effectively no longer on belay when my belayer lowers me to the ground.

I think Jay is right, the command "safe" is superfluous and perhaps somewhat confusing. What's really the point if you're not telling your belayer that the belay is no longer needed - meaning you are no longer on belay?


viciado


Jun 1, 2011, 10:45 AM
Post #84 of 182 (10664 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 429

Re: [shockabuku] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
When I clip in to an anchor, I am off belay, so I let my belayer know that so he/she can unclip the rope from their belay device and get on with the next order of business.

This (bolded) is the problem with using the term "off belay" on single pitch sport routes. Once the leader calls Off Belay, the belayer's job is essentially "done" and they tend to move on to other things. The reality is that in most cases on this type of route, they are not "done" and should continue to tend the belay because they will be lowering. Slack, Take, and Lower should be sufficient for that process. Only when the leader truly plans to be off belay (to then rap), should they request to be Off Belay. "K.I.S.S." is still a good principle.


jakedatc


Jun 1, 2011, 11:23 AM
Post #85 of 182 (10652 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [viciado] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

viciado wrote:
In reply to:
When I clip in to an anchor, I am off belay, so I let my belayer know that so he/she can unclip the rope from their belay device and get on with the next order of business.

This (bolded) is the problem with using the term "off belay" on single pitch sport routes. Once the leader calls Off Belay, the belayer's job is essentially "done" and they tend to move on to other things. The reality is that in most cases on this type of route, they are not "done" and should continue to tend the belay because they will be lowering. Slack, Take, and Lower should be sufficient for that process. Only when the leader truly plans to be off belay (to then rap), should they request to be Off Belay. "K.I.S.S." is still a good principle.

exactly... if someone calls off belay i'm gone. i could be 10' away or across the crag checking out the next route I want to do.


shockabuku


Jun 1, 2011, 12:14 PM
Post #86 of 182 (10643 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868

Re: [viciado] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

viciado wrote:
In reply to:
When I clip in to an anchor, I am off belay, so I let my belayer know that so he/she can unclip the rope from their belay device and get on with the next order of business.

This (bolded) is the problem with using the term "off belay" on single pitch sport routes. Once the leader calls Off Belay, the belayer's job is essentially "done" and they tend to move on to other things. The reality is that in most cases on this type of route, they are not "done" and should continue to tend the belay because they will be lowering. Slack, Take, and Lower should be sufficient for that process. Only when the leader truly plans to be off belay (to then rap), should they request to be Off Belay. "K.I.S.S." is still a good principle.

Oh, I see. So on a single pitch sport route, although I clip into the anchor (when I'm cleaning the route), I don't call "off belay" because I still want the belayer to be responsible to catch me if I should fall and am anticipating him/her lowering me. I do only give instruction for slack, to take and then lower. I suppose I'm confusing different scenarios in my mind. Frankly, I don't usually use "on belay" or "off belay" much anymore when sport climbing except with people I don't climb with very much - which I guess is when it is most important.


funnelator


Jun 1, 2011, 12:28 PM
Post #87 of 182 (10640 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83

Re: [shockabuku] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

As long as the climber and belayer understand each other, it doesn't matter what they say.


patto


Jun 1, 2011, 1:41 PM
Post #88 of 182 (10624 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [shockabuku] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shockabuku wrote:
Interesting. At one time I may have considered "off belay" a request, but now I consider it a statement. When I clip in to an anchor, I am off belay,
But you are not off belay when you are clipped into the anchors. Unless you are untied or the rope isn't clipped into anything then you are still on belay.

shockabuku wrote:
I think Jay is right, the command "safe" is superfluous and perhaps somewhat confusing. What's really the point if you're not telling your belayer that the belay is no longer needed - meaning you are no longer on belay?
It is certainly not superfluous, it is said instead of 'off belay' and certainly does tell the climber that a belay is no longer needed.


Again I'm not saying anybody is WRONG. I am just saying how I have managed to effectively and efficiently communicate with my partners.


bearbreeder


Jun 1, 2011, 1:48 PM
Post #89 of 182 (10620 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [viciado] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

the solution is exceedingly simple

NEVER say off belay unless you want to be taken off belay with the name

the belayer NEVER takes the person off belay unless the climber asks to be off belay with the name ... when you do confirm the off belay

if the belayer start feeling the rope pull then he should just keep feeding it through his belay device if he didnt hear off belay clearly .....

when in doubt about the call NEVER take the climber off belay ....

when the climber is in doubt about the belayer receiving a call, either self lower or rappel ...

follow those rules and generally there wont be too many issues


(This post was edited by bearbreeder on Jun 1, 2011, 1:50 PM)


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 2:49 PM
Post #90 of 182 (10592 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
As long as the climber and belayer understand each other, it doesn't matter what they say.

Except that the nature of a miscommunication accident is that the belayer and the climber thought that they did understand each other. The reason that climbers have been using standardized verbal signals for at least as long as I've been climbing is to avoid such misunderstandings. The last signal you want to have a personal definition of is "off belay."

Jay


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 2:54 PM
Post #91 of 182 (10588 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [bearbreeder] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

bearbreeder wrote:
the solution is exceedingly simple

NEVER say off belay unless you want to be taken off belay with the name

the belayer NEVER takes the person off belay unless the climber asks to be off belay with the name ... when you do confirm the off belay

As I said up-thread this "simple solution" is useless if the climber and the belayer think that "off belay" mean different things, which is exactly how so many of these lowering-vs-rappelling miscommunication accidents happen.

Jay


michael1245


Jun 1, 2011, 3:01 PM
Post #92 of 182 (10581 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 23, 2010
Posts: 247

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
As long as the climber and belayer understand each other, it doesn't matter what they say.

Yes.

"hey, buddy...when I reach the anchors, I'm going to clip in. After I clip in, I'll yell BOOYASHAKA! and that means I'm safe you can take me off of belay"

As long as it's understood.


markc


Jun 1, 2011, 3:03 PM
Post #93 of 182 (10579 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
As long as the climber and belayer understand each other, it doesn't matter what they say.

I don't think anyone can argue that point, but let's say for the sake of argument that my partner and I regularly misuse common climbing terminology. We know what we mean, so it doesn't matter to us. We join another group of climbers, and then there is chaos. A common language with clearly defined terms is best, and unnecessarily expanding it can muddy the waters.

When toproping with some partners in the gym, we fell into the habit of saying, "Okay," when we reached the top of the wall. In that context there's not much else to do but lower the climber, but I make an effort eliminate "okay" from my climbing vocabulary. It doesn't travel well, and I don't want to bring that to the top of a sport crag or midway up a multipitch route.

Safe is somewhat similar. When my partner says she's safe, I assume she's directly connected to the anchor. That's all well and good, but as the belayer I still don't know what I'm to do next. Making a false assumption could cause disaster. As a result, I'll just sit there maintaining the belay until instructed otherwise. I feel it's better to just give the next clear command. Yell, "Off belay," if you're preparing to rappel or take up rope and belay the second. Yell, "Slack," if you're preparing to lower off and need rope to thread.

Ultimately, I want to know what my partner is planning to do before she leaves the ground. If she's the last climber and she's cleaning the anchor, how's she planning to get down? It's better to decide that when communication is easy. In those rare times when the plan changes, you have to be absolutely certain everyone is on the same page. If the command given by the climber varies from what you expect, double-check before acting on it.


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 3:05 PM
Post #94 of 182 (10576 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [michael1245] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

michael1245 wrote:
funnelator wrote:
As long as the climber and belayer understand each other, it doesn't matter what they say.

Yes.

"hey, buddy...when I reach the anchors, I'm going to clip in. After I clip in, I'll yell BOOYASHAKA! and that means I'm safe you can take me off of belay"

That still seems to come down to what "off [of] belay" means.

Jay


michael1245


Jun 1, 2011, 3:17 PM
Post #95 of 182 (10569 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 23, 2010
Posts: 247

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

it means that I am no longer dependent on the climbing rope for my saftey. in the situation I described, I reached anchors and clipped into them.

it is confusing, and not everyone adopts a uniform standard of communication.

for example...you order a hoagie, grinder, sub, hero and they're all "sandwiches", but not everyone will know what exactly you're asking for.


funnelator


Jun 1, 2011, 3:18 PM
Post #96 of 182 (10568 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Standardization is great for newbies. After that people improvise. That they improvise in a way you don't agree with doesn't necessarily make them any less safe.

And I didn't say as long as the climber and belayer think they are communicating effectively.

Jay, you are a consummate sophist in that you post adroitly but often speciously and without substance. And you have last word-itis.

I'm out on this topic. Have fun.


Partner cracklover


Jun 1, 2011, 3:43 PM
Post #97 of 182 (10550 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162

Re: [shockabuku] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

shockabuku wrote:
patto wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Nice illustration of the useless "safe" comment.

Giving this a little more thought, I suspect that all comments from the leader are unnecessary, and hence just an unnecessary opportunity for miscommunication. There is no reason to say "safe."
Why does anything that is different from how you do things wrong in you mind Jay?
As I have said I never call 'OFF BELAY' as a climber. 'SAFE' is just as clear an unambiguous, it is a statement. Whereas presumably a climber when he calls 'OFF BELAY' it is a request.

jt512 wrote:
At the top of a single-pitch climb, if you intend to be lowered, say nothing. If you intend to rappel, give the unambiguous command, "off belay."

Jay
So what is wrong with 'SAFE' rather than 'OFF BELAY'?

Interesting. At one time I may have considered "off belay" a request, but now I consider it a statement. When I clip in to an anchor, I am off belay, so I let my belayer know that so he/she can unclip the rope from their belay device and get on with the next order of business. Also, I am effectively no longer on belay when my belayer lowers me to the ground.

Regarding the bolded part above - what? You most certainly are on belay as your belayer lowers you to the ground! If you think you're not, and communicate as such, I'm sorry to say this, but you're an accident waiting to happen.

GO


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 4:00 PM
Post #98 of 182 (10544 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
Standardization is great for newbies. After that people improvise. That they improvise in a way you don't agree with doesn't necessarily make them any less safe.

Standardization of commands is (or was) great for climbing. You can (or used to be able to) go to pretty much any major crag in North America, pick up a new partner, and be on the same page as far as commands go.

Sure, experienced partners tweak the system as they see fit, but it is beneficial to have a climbing-community-wide set of standard commands to fall back on when climbing with an unfamiliar partner. "Off belay" accidents occur when one climber has his own private definition of that term.

In reply to:
And I didn't say as long as the climber and belayer think they are communicating effectively.

You missed my point.

In reply to:
Jay, you are a consummate sophist in that you post adroitly but often speciously and without substance. And you have last word-itis.

You ought to look in the mirror before making accusations like those.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 1, 2011, 4:12 PM)


jt512


Jun 1, 2011, 4:08 PM
Post #99 of 182 (10542 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [michael1245] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

michael1245 wrote:
it means that I am no longer dependent on the climbing rope for my saftey. in the situation I described, I reached anchors and clipped into them.

it is confusing, and not everyone adopts a uniform standard of communication.

They used to, and they still should, at least as a default for climbing with an unfamiliar partner. Take a look at any popular climbing instruction book written by a North American author in the last...oh...40 years, I'd guess. Same commands, give or take a word. Someone with a better understanding of history than I should be able to tell you what organization introduced the standard belay commands and how they propagated.

In reply to:
for example...you order a hoagie, grinder, sub, hero and they're all "sandwiches", but not everyone will know what exactly you're asking for.

That analogy is like a fallen painting: off the wall.

Jay


k.l.k


Jun 1, 2011, 4:36 PM
Post #100 of 182 (10518 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [shockabuku] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

shockabuku wrote:
At one time I may have considered "off belay" a request, but now I consider it a statement. When I clip in to an anchor, I am off belay

No, you are not. You are "off belay," if and when your belayer takes you off belay. There is no action you can take, other than cutting the rope or untying, to take yourself off belay.

You need to consider more carefully what the word means and where it comes from.


k.l.k


Jun 1, 2011, 4:39 PM
Post #101 of 182 (11591 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
Standardization is great for newbies. After that people improvise. That they improvise in a way you don't agree with doesn't necessarily make them any less safe.

Standardization is absolutely crucial in precisely the most routine of settings: the gym and roadside crag. Improvisation is for experienced parties up high in difficult terrain where communication is often not possible.

Standardization is crucial everywhere else. Standardization is the professional norm in all other dangerous activities: flying, diving, skydiving-- folks don't "improvise" depending on how they feel.

It is really depressing that someone could make this argument in this thread of all places.


bearbreeder


Jun 1, 2011, 4:41 PM
Post #102 of 182 (11589 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

no one ive ever met has considered "off belay" ... to mean anything other than "take me off belay"

maybe you yanks have a different meaning?


michael1245


Jun 1, 2011, 4:43 PM
Post #103 of 182 (11587 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 23, 2010
Posts: 247

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

John Long's How To Rock Climb has a command-vocab section. I read it, and tried to put it to use.

Then I actually go and climb with my buddies and it's all "I'm done", "you got me", "lower me", "no, not yet", "DUDE!", and "ok".

In the Army, we referred to this as "Bastardizing Standards".

In all seriousness, as long as you and your partner clearly understand each other.


(This post was edited by michael1245 on Jun 1, 2011, 4:49 PM)


csproul


Jun 1, 2011, 4:47 PM
Post #104 of 182 (11585 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769

Re: [bearbreeder] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bearbreeder wrote:
no one ive ever met has considered "off belay" ... to mean anything other than "take me off belay"

maybe you yanks have a different meaning?
It shouldn't mean anything else, but unfortunately I often see that it does. Spend a day at any popular sport crag, where beginners are cleaning anchors to lower off, and you'll see any number of them say "off belay" after they have clipped in direct, only to ask to be put back "on belay" when it comes time to lower.


k.l.k


Jun 1, 2011, 4:48 PM
Post #105 of 182 (11583 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
Take a look at any popular climbing instruction book written by a North American author in the last...oh...40 years, I'd guess. Same commands, give or take a word. Someone with a better understanding of history than I should be able to tell you what organization introduced the standard belay commands and how they propagated.

The RCS of the Sierra Club developed an early version of the standard North American system back in the late 1930s. It was popularized by the various Clubs and again in the armed forces. For many of the middle decades of the century, only climbers certified by the relevant clubs were allowed to climb in places like Yosemite and Rainier. That sort of standardization was one of the keys to making climbing a (marginally) acceptable activity in many National Parks and Monuments.

One of the ironies of our current situation, is that the theoretically safest modes of climbing-- gym and half-pitch sport --have done so much to unravel that older culture and introduced entirely novel and dangerous modes of failure.

Gyms are now the default learning environment for new climbers, and what I see from gym to gym is frickin appalling.

The gym and the roadside crag are in some ways the most dangerous environments simply because it's so easy for everything to become casual.

This accident is especially sobering because it happened to Phil Powers.


madscientist


Jun 1, 2011, 4:51 PM
Post #106 of 182 (11578 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 21, 2002
Posts: 159

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

It does appear, to me, that the meaning of "off belay" is ambiguous to some climbers. I do believe that this contributed to some accidents, although not the one that started this thread.

Before the climber starts up, I get information about whether they are going to lower or rappel. At the anchor, I have adapted using full sentences and names. If I am going to rappel, I state "Chad, you can take me completely off belay. I will rappel. Chad". I expect a response something like, "Elijah, You are completely off belay. Elijah". If I lower, I state that I expect to be lowered. Using unambiguous commands like these is not difficult most of the time and adds a little safety, thus I think they should become more common.


bearbreeder


Jun 1, 2011, 4:55 PM
Post #107 of 182 (11574 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [csproul] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

which isnt best practice .. but as long as they understand that they are really off belay .... and dont forget ...

when in doubt ... just rap or self lower

or just wait to feel a significant amount of tension ....ie you being pulled into the rock

its that simple IMO ...


Partner cracklover


Jun 1, 2011, 5:08 PM
Post #108 of 182 (11564 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162

Re: [madscientist] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

madscientist wrote:
It does appear, to me, that the meaning of "off belay" is ambiguous to some climbers. I do believe that this contributed to some accidents, although not the one that started this thread.

Why do you say that? From what I've heard there was a miscommunication. As to exactly what happened, no-one seems to know. If you have first-hand knowledge, or second-hand from several independent parties, please share. If what you say above is merely hearsay, then perhaps it would be best to not say anything.

GO


Partner robdotcalm


Jun 1, 2011, 5:16 PM
Post #109 of 182 (11557 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027

Re: [cracklover] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
madscientist wrote:
It does appear, to me, that the meaning of "off belay" is ambiguous to some climbers. I do believe that this contributed to some accidents, although not the one that started this thread.

Why do you say that? From what I've heard there was a miscommunication. As to exactly what happened, no-one seems to know. If you have first-hand knowledge, or second-hand from several independent parties, please share. If what you say above is merely hearsay, then perhaps it would be best to not say anything.

GO


Correct. Through the link below, Phil posted the following.

“All climbing accidents have causes, subtle and otherwise. This one is no different. It would be unfair to the rigorous investigation now underway to prematurely release reports or to posit theories about what happened before all the facts are known. Trust that I, like you, will be extremely interested in what is to be learned here, and I will be supplying you with information as it becomes available and understood.”]
http://www.americanalpineclub.org/p/status

Rob.calm


funnelator


Jun 1, 2011, 6:15 PM
Post #110 of 182 (11530 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83

Re: [k.l.k] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

k.l.k wrote:
funnelator wrote:
Standardization is great for newbies. After that people improvise. That they improvise in a way you don't agree with doesn't necessarily make them any less safe.

Standardization is absolutely crucial in precisely the most routine of settings: the gym and roadside crag. Improvisation is for experienced parties up high in difficult terrain where communication is often not possible.

Standardization is crucial everywhere else. Standardization is the professional norm in all other dangerous activities: flying, diving, skydiving-- folks don't "improvise" depending on how they feel.

It is really depressing that someone could make this argument in this thread of all places.

This is addictive.

Standardization is useful. Improvisation is a more important skill to have than the ability to follow rules however.

Even skydiving. Have you ever experienced a dual deployment? What's the standard response to that? Think fast. You don't have much time.

I tell you what. You climb the way you want and I'll climb the way I want.

Next time I go craggin' I think "toothbrush" will mean I'm off belay and "floss" will mean climb on.


markc


Jun 1, 2011, 6:34 PM
Post #111 of 182 (11517 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
Next time I go craggin' I think "toothbrush" will mean I'm off belay and "floss" will mean climb on.

I think floss is best reserved for someone being lowered with their legs on either side of the rope. Maybe mouthwash?


patto


Jun 2, 2011, 12:24 AM
Post #112 of 182 (11445 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [bearbreeder] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
The last signal you want to have a personal definition of is "off belay."
Again you are assuming there are universal standards and anything else is a personal standard. As I have said when I climb with my partners the word 'SAFE' is used as it is a statement.

bearbreeder wrote:
no one ive ever met has considered "off belay" ... to mean anything other than "take me off belay"?
I've have never learnt or used "off belay" to mean "take me off belay". I have always used it to mean "[you are] off belay".


redlude97


Jun 2, 2011, 12:27 AM
Post #113 of 182 (11442 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
jt512 wrote:
The last signal you want to have a personal definition of is "off belay."
Again you are assuming there are universal standards and anything else is a personal standard. As I have said when I climb with my partners the word 'SAFE' is used as it is a statement.

bearbreeder wrote:
no one ive ever met has considered "off belay" ... to mean anything other than "take me off belay"?
I've have never learnt or used "off belay" to mean "take me off belay". I have always used it to mean "[you are] off belay".
Curious, what does "on belay" mean to you then?


patto


Jun 2, 2011, 12:42 AM
Post #114 of 182 (11433 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
patto wrote:
I have always used it to mean "[you are] off belay".
Curious, what does "on belay" mean to you then?
To me it means "[you are] on belay". Again a statement, not a request.


redlude97


Jun 2, 2011, 12:53 AM
Post #115 of 182 (11427 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
patto wrote:
I have always used it to mean "[you are] off belay".
Curious, what does "on belay" mean to you then?
To me it means "[you are] on belay". Again a statement, not a request.
Ok, then "belay on"


patto


Jun 2, 2011, 12:57 AM
Post #116 of 182 (11423 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
Ok, then "belay on"
I don't use that nor "belay off".

The calls that I used are posted on the previous page. I believe that the calls are more in line with the British mountaineering heritage than the later influence and change in north america.

(Again I'm not saying other methods are wrong.)



spikeddem


Jun 2, 2011, 1:39 AM
Post #117 of 182 (11399 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [bearbreeder] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bearbreeder wrote:
no one ive ever met has considered "off belay" ... to mean anything other than "take me off belay"

maybe you yanks have a different meaning?

HOLY SHIT I TOTALLY AGREE WITH BEARBREADER.


Like. Woah.


redlude97


Jun 2, 2011, 1:44 AM
Post #118 of 182 (11398 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [spikeddem] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

did some posts magically disappear or am I just crazy? I swear I was in the middle of responding to one


spikeddem


Jun 2, 2011, 2:21 AM
Post #119 of 182 (11389 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
did some posts magically disappear or am I just crazy? I swear I was in the middle of responding to one
I deleted one of mine. It would have been right where my last one was.


shockabuku


Jun 2, 2011, 4:52 AM
Post #120 of 182 (11354 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868

Re: [cracklover] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Yeah, that came out wrong. I meant once I'm on the ground and stable.


Partner cracklover


Jun 2, 2011, 2:57 PM
Post #121 of 182 (11301 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162

Re: [shockabuku] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shockabuku wrote:
Yeah, that came out wrong. I meant once I'm on the ground and stable.

Cool.

GO


kaizen


Jun 2, 2011, 4:10 PM
Post #122 of 182 (11287 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 17, 2009
Posts: 154

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
jt512 wrote:
The last signal you want to have a personal definition of is "off belay."
Again you are assuming there are universal standards and anything else is a personal standard. As I have said when I climb with my partners the word 'SAFE' is used as it is a statement.

bearbreeder wrote:
no one ive ever met has considered "off belay" ... to mean anything other than "take me off belay"?
I've have never learnt or used "off belay" to mean "take me off belay". I have always used it to mean "[you are] off belay".

SAFE is the worst command to ever use, and I hope you do not teach anyone to use this term. SAFE is so easily confused with TAKE when it's hard to see and hear your partner. Mind you that safe means "I want off belay," while take means "I need you to catch me," and it's even worse.

Seriously, I cannot stress how dumb it is to use this word. Two seasons ago, a man was paralyzed in when he was leading, went out of site, and called take. His wife thought he said safe and the rest is history.

"Improvising" commands is dumb, and anyone who thinks that a standard set of commands would make no difference in reducing miscommunication accidents is just not paying attention.

Standardization reduces accidents. It's a fact. Apollo 13 anyone?

And STOP using the term SAFE!


Partner robdotcalm


Jun 2, 2011, 4:38 PM
Post #123 of 182 (11272 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027

Re: [j_ung] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
robdotcalm wrote:
A few weeks ago, a climber gave me a new reason why he didn't need to tie a knot in the rope while belaying me: "The rope is 70 meters ". Oh well, another excuse for developing bad habits.

Cheers,
Rob.calm

Depending on the length of the climb, it's a perfectly legitimate reason. If it were you and I on a 20-meter climb with a 70-meter rope I might say exactly the same thing. I mean come on, 50 meters of rope on the ground doesn't equal a closed system?

There's only one habit worth developing: evaluate every situation and choose your practices accordingly.


Jung: This issue has been hashed out in detail several times, e.g.,

http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;



http://www.mountainproject.com/...05791322#a_105791794

"Four years ago, 2 climbers were descending from the Rincon Wall at Eldorado and arrived at a rappel station 40 feet off the ground. They had a 200 foot rope. It was dark and cold. One partner had been lowered to the ground. Once on the ground, he started to lower the other. When the second climber was about 20 feet off the ground, the rope went through the belayer’s device resulting in fatal injuries. These were competent and careful climbers, but the belayer had not realized that his partner had tied in short (not at the end of the rope). No matter how short the distance, when lowering or belaying, the system must be closed. As John Dill, NPS Ranger at Yosemite wrote http://www.friendsofyosar.org/...2-07_ChurchBowl.html:“One reason for a knot even when the rope clearly reaches the ground is to maintain good habits, so you don’t forget …when a knot really counts...” And you do not know when that will be"

You are presenting an argument why it’s OK to have a dangerous habit in the form of sophistry about evaluating situations.

Rob.calm


madscientist


Jun 2, 2011, 4:43 PM
Post #124 of 182 (11271 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 21, 2002
Posts: 159

Re: [cracklover] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
madscientist wrote:
It does appear, to me, that the meaning of "off belay" is ambiguous to some climbers. I do believe that this contributed to some accidents, although not the one that started this thread.

Why do you say that? From what I've heard there was a miscommunication. As to exactly what happened, no-one seems to know. If you have first-hand knowledge, or second-hand from several independent parties, please share. If what you say above is merely hearsay, then perhaps it would be best to not say anything.

GO

Sorry, I was under the impression from a different source that it was not miscommunication, but reading into it more that appears to be the case. It would be nice to edit my post to make it correct, but now it is part of others posts and does little good. Forgive my faulty memory.


sspssp


Jun 2, 2011, 5:55 PM
Post #125 of 182 (11255 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731

Re: [funnelator] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

funnelator wrote:
Is there a "typical" lowering-vs rappelling miscommunication accident? Seems like there are lots of variations on the theme which is why, although redundant ad nauseum, perhaps it's good to keep having these kinds of discussions, at least as long as people keep having these kinds of accidents.

It has been my observation that the most common lowering-when-not-belayed is because the leader got to the top of the climb and yelled something like "I'm clipped into the anchor" and the belayer thinking the leader safe takes them off belay.

This is absolutely a mistake on the belayers part since the leader never asked to be taken "off belay".

But I think it is a terrible habbit on the part of the leader. Yelling something like "I'm clipped in" or "I'm at the anchor" invites the belayer to mistakenly take you off. If the leader just keeps his damn mouth shut, it won't occur to the belayer to take them off belay. And they will still be on belay when they go to lower.

So I am of the opinion that the leader shouldn't say anything unless they want to be taken off belay and they should say so directly.


(This post was edited by sspssp on Jun 2, 2011, 6:10 PM)


sspssp


Jun 2, 2011, 6:08 PM
Post #126 of 182 (12367 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731

Re: [j_ung] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
robdotcalm wrote:
A few weeks ago, a climber gave me a new reason why he didn't need to tie a knot in the rope while belaying me: "The rope is 70 meters ". Oh well, another excuse for developing bad habits.

Cheers,
Rob.calm

Depending on the length of the climb, it's a perfectly legitimate reason. If it were you and I on a 20-meter climb with a 70-meter rope I might say exactly the same thing. I mean come on, 50 meters of rope on the ground doesn't equal a closed system?

There's only one habit worth developing: evaluate every situation and choose your practices accordingly.


I really disagree with this one also. There are a lot of things that you have to remember to do in order to climb safely. The first defense is having great habbits that you never deviate from, the second is being focused on safety, and the third is always double checking everything.

Example, say you are hiking off to do a long climb and (not wanting to leave packs at the base) you are wearing your harness. Figuring you might take the harness back off before the climb (rest stop, whatever) you decide not to double it back. Is this "safe" for the situation? To the extent you remember what you did and you double check everything at the start, but I think most climbers would agree that you should never wear a harness that is not doubled back. It is asking for easily avoidable trouble.

On a 20 meter climb just leave the rope tied to the bag (or tied to something) out of habbit.

My $0.02 worth.


redlude97


Jun 2, 2011, 6:16 PM
Post #127 of 182 (12360 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [sspssp] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

sspssp wrote:
funnelator wrote:
Is there a "typical" lowering-vs rappelling miscommunication accident? Seems like there are lots of variations on the theme which is why, although redundant ad nauseum, perhaps it's good to keep having these kinds of discussions, at least as long as people keep having these kinds of accidents.

It has been my observation that the most common lowering-when-not-belayed is because the leader got to the top of the climb and yelled something like "I'm clipped into the anchor" and the belayer thinking the leader safe takes them off belay.

This is absolutely a mistake on the belayers part since the leader never asked to be taken "off belay".

But I think it is a terrible habbit on the part of the leader. Yelling something like "I'm clipped in" or "I'm at the anchor" invites the belayer to mistakenly take you off. If the leader just keeps his damn mouth shut, it won't occur to the belayer to take them off belay. And they will still be on belay when they go to anchor.

So I am of the opinion that the leader shouldn't say anything unless they want to be taken off belay and they should say so directly.
Why does being at the anchor mean that belayer can take the climber off belay, regardless if something is said or not? When sport climbing and lowering is to be expected, the belayer should never take the climber off belay. I think in general there are 2 causes for these types of accidents.
1. The climber, when reaching the anchors yells "off belay", which means take me off belay, when that isn't actually what they want, because they intend to be lowered. This IMO is the climbers fault.
2. The climber, when reaching the anchors yells something else(safe, direct in etc) and the belayer takes them off belay thinking that the phrased used means they want to be taken off belay. In this situation it is the belayers fault.


jt512


Jun 2, 2011, 7:58 PM
Post #128 of 182 (12334 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
sspssp wrote:
funnelator wrote:
Is there a "typical" lowering-vs rappelling miscommunication accident? Seems like there are lots of variations on the theme which is why, although redundant ad nauseum, perhaps it's good to keep having these kinds of discussions, at least as long as people keep having these kinds of accidents.

It has been my observation that the most common lowering-when-not-belayed is because the leader got to the top of the climb and yelled something like "I'm clipped into the anchor" and the belayer thinking the leader safe takes them off belay.

This is absolutely a mistake on the belayers part since the leader never asked to be taken "off belay".

But I think it is a terrible habbit on the part of the leader. Yelling something like "I'm clipped in" or "I'm at the anchor" invites the belayer to mistakenly take you off. If the leader just keeps his damn mouth shut, it won't occur to the belayer to take them off belay. And they will still be on belay when they go to anchor.

So I am of the opinion that the leader shouldn't say anything unless they want to be taken off belay and they should say so directly.
Why does being at the anchor mean that belayer can take the climber off belay, regardless if something is said or not? When sport climbing and lowering is to be expected, the belayer should never take the climber off belay. I think in general there are 2 causes for these types of accidents.

1. The climber, when reaching the anchors yells "off belay", which means take me off belay, when that isn't actually what they want, because they intend to be lowered. This IMO is the climbers fault.

2. The climber, when reaching the anchors yells something else(safe, direct in etc) and the belayer takes them off belay thinking that the phrased used means they want to be taken off belay. In this situation it is the belayers fault.

I think your summary of the most common causes of off-belay lowering accidents (your points 1 and 2) is spot on, although I think in both cases the blame is shared between the climber and the belayer. However, due to a subtle ambiguity in your use of the word "and" in the sentence that I bolded, it is unclear whether you mean that lowering is the expectation when sport climbing or not, and that's exactly the problem in sport climbing today.

Not too long ago almost everybody almost always lowered off of almost every sport route. Rappelling was rare, and was reserved for climbs where lowering would excessively abrade the rope or where the anchors were highly worn. Since the expectation was to lower, and everybody knew that, there was little opportunity for an off-belay lowering accident to occur. Rappelling was an unusual enough occurrance that it automatically triggered a number of verbal confirmations before the belayer actually took the climber off belay.

However, due to a recent mutation in the LNT meme, a virulent new Save the Anchors meme has emereged and become epidemic in the n00bosphere, especially at lesser and more isolated crags, where the n00bs are not protected by herd immunity from more experienced climbers. At the beginning of this epidemic, rappelling was still rare enough that when some n00b yelled "off belay" at the anchors, experienced sport climbers in the vicinity would take notice and ask the climber or belayer what the climber's intentions were. I, myself, corrected several "off belay" errors I observed, and I think I prevented at least one accident. However, infection with the new meme has become so prevalent that neither belayers nor passers-by are surprised to hear "off belay" anymore, and no one raises an eyebrow—even though a raised eyebrow might prevent an accident.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 2, 2011, 9:55 PM)


redlude97


Jun 2, 2011, 8:11 PM
Post #129 of 182 (12322 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [jt512] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
sspssp wrote:
funnelator wrote:
Is there a "typical" lowering-vs rappelling miscommunication accident? Seems like there are lots of variations on the theme which is why, although redundant ad nauseum, perhaps it's good to keep having these kinds of discussions, at least as long as people keep having these kinds of accidents.

It has been my observation that the most common lowering-when-not-belayed is because the leader got to the top of the climb and yelled something like "I'm clipped into the anchor" and the belayer thinking the leader safe takes them off belay.

This is absolutely a mistake on the belayers part since the leader never asked to be taken "off belay".

But I think it is a terrible habbit on the part of the leader. Yelling something like "I'm clipped in" or "I'm at the anchor" invites the belayer to mistakenly take you off. If the leader just keeps his damn mouth shut, it won't occur to the belayer to take them off belay. And they will still be on belay when they go to anchor.

So I am of the opinion that the leader shouldn't say anything unless they want to be taken off belay and they should say so directly.
Why does being at the anchor mean that belayer can take the climber off belay, regardless if something is said or not? When sport climbing and lowering is to be expected, the belayer should never take the climber off belay. I think in general there are 2 causes for these types of accidents.

1. The climber, when reaching the anchors yells "off belay", which means take me off belay, when that isn't actually what they want, because they intend to be lowered. This IMO is the climbers fault.

2. The climber, when reaching the anchors yells something else(safe, direct in etc) and the belayer takes them off belay thinking that the phrased used means they want to be taken off belay. In this situation it is the belayers fault.


I think your summary of the most common causes of off-belay-lowering accidents (your points 1 and 2) is spot on, although I think in both cases the blame is shared between the climber and the belayer. However, due to a subtle ambiguity in your use of the word "and" in the sentence that I bolded, it is unclear whether you mean that lowering is the expectation when sport climbing or not, and that's exactly the problem in sport climbing today.

Not too long ago almost everybody almost always lowered off of almost every sport route. Rappelling was rare, and was reserved for climbs where lowering would excessively abrade the rope or where the anchors were highly worn. Since the expectation was to lower, and everybody knew that, there was little opportunity for an off-belay lowering accident to occur. Rappelling was an unusual enough occurrance that it automatically triggered a number of verbal confirmations before the belayer actually took the climber off belay.

However, due to a recent mutation in the LNT meme, a virulent new Save the Anchors meme has emereged and become epidemic in the n00bosphere, especially at lesser and more isolated crags, where the n00bs are not protected by herd immunity from more experienced climbers. At the beginning of this epidemic, rappelling was still rare enough that when some n00b yelled "off belay" at the anchors, experienced sport climbers in the vicinity would take notice and ask the climber or belayer what the climber's intentions were. I, myself, corrected several "off belay" errors I observed, and I think I prevented at least one accident. However, infection with the new meme has become so prevalent that neither belayers nor passers-by are surprised to hear "off belay" anymore, and no one raises an eyebrow—even though a raised eyebrow might prevent an accident.

Jay
I agree, too much confusion, especially when one group lowers off a climb and the next group rappels, or you get a mix of the two on the same wall at a crag. A huge clusterfuck ensues when everyone is shouting and I'm surprised more accidents haven't occured. I think the worst astrocities are the ones where the noobs get so confused that even though both climber and belayer have every intention of lowering, but still shout "off belay" when direct in, then the belayer actually takes the climber off belay so they can pull up rope to thread the anchors, walks off until the climber finishes and yells to be put back on belay, then puts them back on belay and proceeds to lower. Seriously, then happens.


patto


Jun 2, 2011, 8:49 PM
Post #130 of 182 (12305 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [kaizen] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

kaizen wrote:
I hope you do not teach anyone to use this term.
I have taught dozens of people to use this command.

kaizen wrote:
"Improvising" commands is dumb, and anyone who thinks that a standard set of commands would make no difference in reducing miscommunication accidents is just not paying attention.

Standardization reduces accidents. It's a fact. Apollo 13 anyone?

And STOP using the term SAFE!
Who said anything about improvising?
As I have made clear on numerous occasions JUST because you on set of command doesn't mean it is the standard.

The use of 'SAFE' is standard at my crag. As I have said this term is from the British mountaineering heritage than the later influence and change in north america.


bearbreeder


Jun 2, 2011, 8:53 PM
Post #131 of 182 (12304 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

every crazy brit ive climbed with up here has never had any issue with "off belay" ... and there are quite a few of em in squamish

of course half the time they are soloing ... when they arent cragging straight cracks with double ropes ...


patto


Jun 2, 2011, 8:56 PM
Post #132 of 182 (12299 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [bearbreeder] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

bearbreeder wrote:
every crazy brit ive climbed with up here has never had any issue with "off belay" ... and there are quite a few of em in squamish

of course half the time they are soloing ... when they arent cragging straight cracks with double ropes ...
Pssst! I don't have an issue with "off belay" either!


redlude97


Jun 2, 2011, 10:06 PM
Post #133 of 182 (12268 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [patto] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Apparently you do because you don't use it the same way the rest of us do.


sticky_fingers


Jun 2, 2011, 10:17 PM
Post #134 of 182 (12264 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420

Re: [robdotcalm] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

To avoid all the miscommuncations, 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?

fixed misspelled miscommunication


(This post was edited by sticky_fingers on Jun 2, 2011, 10:33 PM)


redlude97


Jun 2, 2011, 10:22 PM
Post #135 of 182 (12261 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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?


jakedatc


Jun 2, 2011, 10:26 PM
Post #136 of 182 (12257 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

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?

you don't need to tell them anything when you anchor in.

Take
Lower

you don't even have to ask for slack if you don't want to.. they should be giving you slack as you climb/clip anyway so that shouldn't change.

reinventing the wheel is what gets people in trouble. Unless it's going to shred your rope.. lower off. simple.


sticky_fingers


Jun 2, 2011, 10:28 PM
Post #137 of 182 (12256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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".


redlude97


Jun 2, 2011, 10:36 PM
Post #138 of 182 (12251 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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?


sticky_fingers


Jun 2, 2011, 10:36 PM
Post #139 of 182 (12249 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420

Re: [jakedatc] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jakedatc 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?

you don't need to tell them anything when you anchor in.

You're correct you don't NEED to, but it's considerate. I recently redpointed a long standing project of mine and wanted to savor the moment, so instead of my partner paying attention to me for no reason (and possibly delaying him from "calling nature") by saying "anchor" he could be free until I needed him.


bearbreeder


Jun 2, 2011, 10:37 PM
Post #140 of 182 (12248 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

again ... all this is extremely avoidable if the climber simply decides not to take off his safety until he feels enough tension (pulled into the rock) before taking off said safety ...

its really that simple folks ...


redlude97


Jun 2, 2011, 10:42 PM
Post #141 of 182 (12243 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

sticky_fingers wrote:
jakedatc 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?

you don't need to tell them anything when you anchor in.

You're correct you don't NEED to, but it's considerate. I recently redpointed a long standing project of mine and wanted to savor the moment, so instead of my partner paying attention to me for no reason (and possibly delaying him from "calling nature") by saying "anchor" he could be free until I needed him.
This is exactly what leads to many of the accidents being referred to in this thread. If you are going to lower, the belayer should not be taking you off belay


patto


Jun 2, 2011, 10:42 PM
Post #142 of 182 (12241 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
Apparently you do because you don't use it the same way the rest of us do.

No. Really. I don't. Just because I do it differently doesn't mean I have a problem with how you do it.


sticky_fingers


Jun 2, 2011, 10:44 PM
Post #143 of 182 (12239 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

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.


sticky_fingers


Jun 2, 2011, 10:48 PM
Post #144 of 182 (12233 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
sticky_fingers wrote:
jakedatc 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?

you don't need to tell them anything when you anchor in.

You're correct you don't NEED to, but it's considerate. I recently redpointed a long standing project of mine and wanted to savor the moment, so instead of my partner paying attention to me for no reason (and possibly delaying him from "calling nature") by saying "anchor" he could be free until I needed him.
This is exactly what leads to many of the accidents being referred to in this thread. If you are going to lower, the belayer should not be taking you off belay

I don't see how using understandable language, appropriately would lead to an accident. ASSUMPTIONS lead to accidents. Don't assume you're going to be lowered until your command was followed through.


redlude97


Jun 2, 2011, 10:50 PM
Post #145 of 182 (12231 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

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?


jakedatc


Jun 2, 2011, 10:51 PM
Post #146 of 182 (12230 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

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.

No, You should not be unclipped from the belay device if you are going to lower. If you are going to lower you need to stay on belay. Rapping from a sport climb is unnecessary 99.9% of the time and we've already gone over the reasons why.

you cannot use the same command to mean "i'm going to rethread then rappel" and "i'm going to rethread then lower"

to be "considerate"

Slack
Take
Lower

Edit: oh yea.. the belayer can eat, piss, whatever when i'm back on the ground. it takes 5 minutes to clean a route. i'm not hanging out at an anchor waiting on them.


(This post was edited by jakedatc on Jun 2, 2011, 10:52 PM)


redlude97


Jun 2, 2011, 10:52 PM
Post #147 of 182 (12228 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

sticky_fingers wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
sticky_fingers wrote:
jakedatc 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?

you don't need to tell them anything when you anchor in.

You're correct you don't NEED to, but it's considerate. I recently redpointed a long standing project of mine and wanted to savor the moment, so instead of my partner paying attention to me for no reason (and possibly delaying him from "calling nature") by saying "anchor" he could be free until I needed him.
This is exactly what leads to many of the accidents being referred to in this thread. If you are going to lower, the belayer should not be taking you off belay

I don't see how using understandable language, appropriately would lead to an accident. ASSUMPTIONS lead to accidents. Don't assume you're going to be lowered until your command was followed through.
So then what is your simple command for "stop hitting on the chick and put me back on belay"


redlude97


Jun 2, 2011, 10:53 PM
Post #148 of 182 (12225 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [jakedatc] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jakedatc 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.

No, You should not be unclipped from the belay device if you are going to lower. If you are going to lower you need to stay on belay. Rapping from a sport climb is unnecessary 99.9% of the time and we've already gone over the reasons why.

you cannot use the same command to mean "i'm going to rethread then rappel" and "i'm going to rethread then lower"

to be "considerate"

Slack
Take
Lower
and to think I was losing hope for this thread


miklaw


Jun 2, 2011, 10:54 PM
Post #149 of 182 (12223 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 99

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In Australia if we have reached an anchor and are setting up to lower we call "IN HARD". It means "keep me on belay, I'll be lowering soon".

When we are actually safe (going to rap or have set and anchor and will bring up the second) we still use the British "SAFE", which can sound like "TAKE", many hilarious incident have ensured, I have switched to "OFF BELAY" which people understand)


858jason


Jun 2, 2011, 11:17 PM
Post #150 of 182 (12210 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 12, 2007
Posts: 58

Re: [miklaw] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

miklaw wrote:
In Australia if we have reached an anchor and are setting up to lower we call "IN HARD". It means "keep me on belay, I'll be lowering soon".

When we are actually safe (going to rap or have set and anchor and will bring up the second) we still use the British "SAFE", which can sound like "TAKE", many hilarious incident have ensured, I have switched to "OFF BELAY" which people understand)

Once again, why say "IN HARD"? Why make a statement? It's unnecessary communication and doesn't add value. What happens if you don't say it? Nothing. Your belayer keeps you on belay. Then you call 'lower'.

The first time a leader called 'safe' to me I thought, "I'm very happy for you", and I kept him on belay. He started to pull up slack and I fed it through the belay device. Then he told me what he wanted and called 'off belay'.


shockabuku


Jun 3, 2011, 2:28 AM
Post #151 of 182 (13423 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868

Re: [858jason] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

858jason wrote:
miklaw wrote:
In Australia if we have reached an anchor and are setting up to lower we call "IN HARD". It means "keep me on belay, I'll be lowering soon".

When we are actually safe (going to rap or have set and anchor and will bring up the second) we still use the British "SAFE", which can sound like "TAKE", many hilarious incident have ensured, I have switched to "OFF BELAY" which people understand)

Once again, why say "IN HARD"? Why make a statement? It's unnecessary communication and doesn't add value. What happens if you don't say it? Nothing. Your belayer keeps you on belay. Then you call 'lower'.

The first time a leader called 'safe' to me I thought, "I'm very happy for you", and I kept him on belay. He started to pull up slack and I fed it through the belay device. Then he told me what he wanted and called 'off belay'.

"IN HARD" is definitely a statement!Wink


jt512


Jun 3, 2011, 4:19 AM
Post #152 of 182 (13401 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [miklaw] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

miklaw wrote:
In Australia if we have reached an anchor and are setting up to lower we call "IN HARD". It means "keep me on belay, I'll be lowering soon".

That might well be what it means in Australia. I'd be very careful about yelling something like "In HARD, Mate!" someplace like Kentucky. You're liable to get what you're asking for.

Jay


sticky_fingers


Jun 3, 2011, 5:01 AM
Post #153 of 182 (13394 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

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???


sticky_fingers


Jun 3, 2011, 5:04 AM
Post #154 of 182 (13393 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420

Re: [jakedatc] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jakedatc 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.

No, You should not be unclipped from the belay device if you are going to lower. If you are going to lower you need to stay on belay. Rapping from a sport climb is unnecessary 99.9% of the time and we've already gone over the reasons why.

you cannot use the same command to mean "i'm going to rethread then rappel" and "i'm going to rethread then lower"

to be "considerate"

Slack
Take
Lower

Edit: oh yea.. the belayer can eat, piss, whatever when i'm back on the ground. it takes 5 minutes to clean a route. i'm not hanging out at an anchor waiting on them.

At no point did I define a term that could be misconstrued as either "i'm going to rethread then rappel" OR "i'm going to rethread then lower"


sticky_fingers


Jun 3, 2011, 5:05 AM
Post #155 of 182 (13393 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
sticky_fingers wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
sticky_fingers wrote:
jakedatc 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?

you don't need to tell them anything when you anchor in.

You're correct you don't NEED to, but it's considerate. I recently redpointed a long standing project of mine and wanted to savor the moment, so instead of my partner paying attention to me for no reason (and possibly delaying him from "calling nature") by saying "anchor" he could be free until I needed him.
This is exactly what leads to many of the accidents being referred to in this thread. If you are going to lower, the belayer should not be taking you off belay

I don't see how using understandable language, appropriately would lead to an accident. ASSUMPTIONS lead to accidents. Don't assume you're going to be lowered until your command was followed through.
So then what is your simple command for "stop hitting on the chick and put me back on belay"

"Hey Mike, did your genital warts go away yet?" :)


redlude97


Jun 3, 2011, 5:16 AM
Post #156 of 182 (13388 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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???
You first said "anchor" means the belayer can take the climber off of belay and walk away. So now "take" means put me back on belay and pull me tight? What does it mean while you are climbing then?

Then you said "anchor" means either
In reply to:
a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc.
isn't that by definition multiple meanings?


sticky_fingers


Jun 3, 2011, 5:43 AM
Post #157 of 182 (13380 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420

Re: [redlude97] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 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???
You first said "anchor" means the belayer can take the climber off of belay and walk away. So now "take" means put me back on belay and pull me tight? What does it mean while you are climbing then?

"Take" would still mean pull me tight. "Take" should always mean pull me tight. If you're a belayer and you're unclipped, clip back in and pull me tight. You think a belayer is going to just pull the rope taught with their hands?

In reply to:
Then you said "anchor" means either
In reply to:
a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc.
isn't that by definition multiple meanings?

Ah, true, I did offer multiple choices, however the result is the same. By saying "Anchor" the belayer is allowing the climber to have as much rope as the climber wants, to do with as the climber pleases, without either person risking injury or fault.

Again, I'm not trying to push my terms, just something more understandable than all the "ons" and "offs"...and "HARDS"


jakedatc


Jun 3, 2011, 11:43 AM
Post #158 of 182 (13331 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

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.


viciado


Jun 3, 2011, 12:15 PM
Post #159 of 182 (13328 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 429

Re: [jakedatc] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

exactly... and as such there is never a question of whether you are on or off belay. Slack, Take, Lower covers the needs and eliminates the obvious area of confusion. C'mon, this is single pitch sport. Why do people want to complicate it?


(This post was edited by viciado on Jun 3, 2011, 12:16 PM)


funnelator


Jun 3, 2011, 1:21 PM
Post #160 of 182 (13312 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83

Re: [viciado] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Makes great sense for single pitch sport.


sticky_fingers


Jun 3, 2011, 1:38 PM
Post #161 of 182 (13309 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420

Re: [jakedatc] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

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.


jakedatc


Jun 3, 2011, 1:49 PM
Post #162 of 182 (13302 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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.

If they call Off belay. ie your "anchor" then i have no reason to stick around. If you call "off belay" you should expect to be alone. When i'm sport climbing i tend to be in a small group so we have multiple routes going on at once. That said 99.9% of the time we're not rappelling either.


Partner epoch
Moderator

Jun 3, 2011, 2:04 PM
Post #163 of 182 (13295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

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.


sticky_fingers


Jun 3, 2011, 2:13 PM
Post #164 of 182 (13286 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420

Re: [epoch] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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.


jt512


Jun 3, 2011, 3:31 PM
Post #165 of 182 (13266 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

sticky_fingers wrote:
However, I have no problem with the series "Slack", "Take", "Lower" when/if it becomes commonplace. I was just offering another possibility.

What planet do you climb on? Those terms have been standard practice at every sport crag I've climbed at in the United States, for as long as I can remember. The problem happens when some n00b comes along and tries to invent his own system or doesn't understand the existing one.

Jay


Partner cracklover


Jun 3, 2011, 3:35 PM
Post #166 of 182 (13262 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

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.

Yes, you were offering a possibility that is a really crappy solution to a nonexistent problem. It was explained to you why it was a terrible solution, and you got all uppity about how the climber should respect the belayer, and let the belayer off the hook. I mean, it's not like they should have to actually belay, right? I mean, what the fuck, what if they're getting kinda hungry? They shouldn't be a slave to the climber and have to belay all the time, right? They deserve a snack break. Oh, and a nap. And recess, too.

What is this, kindergarten? It's ridiculous. If I'm climbing a single pitch route, and expect to be lowered, I expect to be on belay from the moment I leave the ground until I get back to the ground. No recess. No nap time.

I get to the top of a route I'm going to clean, I usually clip into one or both of the draws, and if there's a good stance, I don't even bother with "Take". I just clip in direct, call "Slack", and proceed to work on threading etc.

If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game.

That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one.

GO


Partner drector


Jun 3, 2011, 3:39 PM
Post #167 of 182 (13256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037

Re: [cracklover] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover 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.

Yes, you were offering a possibility that is a really crappy solution to a nonexistent problem. It was explained to you why it was a terrible solution, and you got all uppity about how the climber should respect the belayer, and let the belayer off the hook. I mean, it's not like they should have to actually belay, right? I mean, what the fuck, what if they're getting kinda hungry? They shouldn't be a slave to the climber and have to belay all the time, right? They deserve a snack break. Oh, and a nap. And recess, too.

What is this, kindergarten? It's ridiculous. If I'm climbing a single pitch route, and expect to be lowered, I expect to be on belay from the moment I leave the ground until I get back to the ground. No recess. No nap time.

I get to the top of a route I'm going to clean, I usually clip into one or both of the draws, and if there's a good stance, I don't even bother with "Take". I just clip in direct, call "Slack", and proceed to work on threading etc.

If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game.

That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one.

GO

The "in direct" thing seems excessive by your own "rules." It's not ambiguous like "anchor" but is still superfluous. There is no reason for the belayer to ever take a nap while a climber is tied in and on a climb. It's still one more thing that can be miscommunicated and I would never let my belayer relax at any point.

Dave


jakedatc


Jun 3, 2011, 3:46 PM
Post #168 of 182 (13253 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [drector] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

drector wrote:
cracklover 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.

Yes, you were offering a possibility that is a really crappy solution to a nonexistent problem. It was explained to you why it was a terrible solution, and you got all uppity about how the climber should respect the belayer, and let the belayer off the hook. I mean, it's not like they should have to actually belay, right? I mean, what the fuck, what if they're getting kinda hungry? They shouldn't be a slave to the climber and have to belay all the time, right? They deserve a snack break. Oh, and a nap. And recess, too.

What is this, kindergarten? It's ridiculous. If I'm climbing a single pitch route, and expect to be lowered, I expect to be on belay from the moment I leave the ground until I get back to the ground. No recess. No nap time.

I get to the top of a route I'm going to clean, I usually clip into one or both of the draws, and if there's a good stance, I don't even bother with "Take". I just clip in direct, call "Slack", and proceed to work on threading etc.

If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game.

That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one.

GO

The "in direct" thing seems excessive by your own "rules." It's not ambiguous like "anchor" but is still superfluous. There is no reason for the belayer to ever take a nap while a climber is tied in and on a climb. It's still one more thing that can be miscommunicated and I would never let my belayer relax at any point.

Dave


Dave that is a special case while projecting a route where you clip into a bolt direct with a draw or a sling. It is a courtesy to your belayer so they can rest their neck and not have to hold you hanging there while you rest. There is usually a lot of communication and even eye contact when this is going on and both people know wtf is going on.

I haven't climbed with Gabe in months but we'd still both be on the same page. This is standard stuff.


(This post was edited by jakedatc on Jun 3, 2011, 3:48 PM)


sticky_fingers


Jun 3, 2011, 3:52 PM
Post #169 of 182 (13246 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420

Re: [cracklover] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover 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.

Yes, you were offering a possibility that is a really crappy solution to a nonexistent problem. It was explained to you why it was a terrible solution, and you got all uppity about how the climber should respect the belayer, and let the belayer off the hook. I mean, it's not like they should have to actually belay, right? I mean, what the fuck, what if they're getting kinda hungry? They shouldn't be a slave to the climber and have to belay all the time, right? They deserve a snack break. Oh, and a nap. And recess, too.

What is this, kindergarten? It's ridiculous. If I'm climbing a single pitch route, and expect to be lowered, I expect to be on belay from the moment I leave the ground until I get back to the ground. No recess. No nap time.

I get to the top of a route I'm going to clean, I usually clip into one or both of the draws, and if there's a good stance, I don't even bother with "Take". I just clip in direct, call "Slack", and proceed to work on threading etc.

If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game.

That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one.

GO

Non-existant problem? Really? Have you even read ANY of the discussions on this site related to miscommunicaitons between belayer and climber? I guess those are all just troll posts...

I never said the belayer HAS to unclip. The people who belay me don't. But I (we) can't assume every belayer will act the same way when we're clipped to the anchors. That's when accidents---er I mean, "non-existant problems" occur.

I don't understand the resistance to standardization. I don't care WHAT terminology is used. Some people do it one way, others do it another way...why oppose an attempt at commonality?


jt512


Jun 3, 2011, 4:02 PM
Post #170 of 182 (13241 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

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)


jakedatc


Jun 3, 2011, 4:08 PM
Post #171 of 182 (13238 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

sticky_fingers wrote:
cracklover 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.

Yes, you were offering a possibility that is a really crappy solution to a nonexistent problem. It was explained to you why it was a terrible solution, and you got all uppity about how the climber should respect the belayer, and let the belayer off the hook. I mean, it's not like they should have to actually belay, right? I mean, what the fuck, what if they're getting kinda hungry? They shouldn't be a slave to the climber and have to belay all the time, right? They deserve a snack break. Oh, and a nap. And recess, too.

What is this, kindergarten? It's ridiculous. If I'm climbing a single pitch route, and expect to be lowered, I expect to be on belay from the moment I leave the ground until I get back to the ground. No recess. No nap time.

I get to the top of a route I'm going to clean, I usually clip into one or both of the draws, and if there's a good stance, I don't even bother with "Take". I just clip in direct, call "Slack", and proceed to work on threading etc.

If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game.

That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one.

GO

Non-existant problem? Really? Have you even read ANY of the discussions on this site related to miscommunicaitons between belayer and climber? I guess those are all just troll posts...

I never said the belayer HAS to unclip. The people who belay me don't. But I (we) can't assume every belayer will act the same way when we're clipped to the anchors. That's when accidents---er I mean, "non-existant problems" occur.

I don't understand the resistance to standardization. I don't care WHAT terminology is used. Some people do it one way, others do it another way...why oppose an attempt at commonality?

wow you're really slow.

The miscommunications have been BECAUSE they are not using a standard protocol.

IF everyone lowers off. taking the climber off belay is never done. Therefore they won't get dropped.

You say you want standardization? yet are trying to introduce new words that are not the standard.




jt512


Jun 3, 2011, 4:24 PM
Post #172 of 182 (13230 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [drector] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

drector wrote:
cracklover wrote:

If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game.

That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one.

GO

The "in direct" thing seems excessive by your own "rules." It's not ambiguous like "anchor" but is still superfluous. There is no reason for the belayer to ever take a nap while a climber is tied in and on a climb.

The "in direct" statement is not superfluous, and there is a very valid reason for it, which cracklover clearly explained. If you are going to be resting for several minutes while clipped in direct to a bolt, there is no reason for your belayer to spend that time alert and constantly looking up at you. Working burns routinely last 45 minutes to an hour, but for much of that time the climber is recovering by resting on a bolt. What would be superfluous (if not cruel) would be to have your belayer paying close attention to you while you're just clipped in direct to a bolt.

In reply to:
I would never let my belayer relax at any point.

Anyone who actually understands how to belay a working burn is going to relax while you're in direct whether you "let" them or not. If you don't like it, then the only people who will be willing to belay you are gumbies, and you'll be getting the quality of belay you deserve.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 3, 2011, 4:24 PM)


boymeetsrock


Jun 3, 2011, 4:25 PM
Post #173 of 182 (13228 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

sticky_fingers wrote:
cracklover 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.

Yes, you were offering a possibility that is a really crappy solution to a nonexistent problem. It was explained to you why it was a terrible solution, and you got all uppity about how the climber should respect the belayer, and let the belayer off the hook. I mean, it's not like they should have to actually belay, right? I mean, what the fuck, what if they're getting kinda hungry? They shouldn't be a slave to the climber and have to belay all the time, right? They deserve a snack break. Oh, and a nap. And recess, too.

What is this, kindergarten? It's ridiculous. If I'm climbing a single pitch route, and expect to be lowered, I expect to be on belay from the moment I leave the ground until I get back to the ground. No recess. No nap time.

I get to the top of a route I'm going to clean, I usually clip into one or both of the draws, and if there's a good stance, I don't even bother with "Take". I just clip in direct, call "Slack", and proceed to work on threading etc.

If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game.

That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one.

GO

Non-existant problem? Really? Have you even read ANY of the discussions on this site related to miscommunicaitons between belayer and climber? I guess those are all just troll posts...

I never said the belayer HAS to unclip. The people who belay me don't. But I (we) can't assume every belayer will act the same way when we're clipped to the anchors. That's when accidents---er I mean, "non-existant problems" occur.

I don't understand the resistance to standardization. I don't care WHAT terminology is used. Some people do it one way, others do it another way...why oppose an attempt at commonality?


The ironing!!! Ohh the ironing!!!!!!


Especially when followed up by the next sentence.

Sticky, you've completely missed the point. There IS standardization. You are the one resting it. Stop trying to make shit up and use the long established STANDARDS (as experienced in the US).


Partner cracklover


Jun 3, 2011, 4:27 PM
Post #174 of 182 (13227 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162

Re: [jakedatc] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

jakedatc wrote:
sticky_fingers wrote:
cracklover 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.

Yes, you were offering a possibility that is a really crappy solution to a nonexistent problem. It was explained to you why it was a terrible solution, and you got all uppity about how the climber should respect the belayer, and let the belayer off the hook. I mean, it's not like they should have to actually belay, right? I mean, what the fuck, what if they're getting kinda hungry? They shouldn't be a slave to the climber and have to belay all the time, right? They deserve a snack break. Oh, and a nap. And recess, too.

What is this, kindergarten? It's ridiculous. If I'm climbing a single pitch route, and expect to be lowered, I expect to be on belay from the moment I leave the ground until I get back to the ground. No recess. No nap time.

I get to the top of a route I'm going to clean, I usually clip into one or both of the draws, and if there's a good stance, I don't even bother with "Take". I just clip in direct, call "Slack", and proceed to work on threading etc.

If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game.

That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one.

GO

Non-existant problem? Really? Have you even read ANY of the discussions on this site related to miscommunicaitons between belayer and climber? I guess those are all just troll posts...

I never said the belayer HAS to unclip. The people who belay me don't. But I (we) can't assume every belayer will act the same way when we're clipped to the anchors. That's when accidents---er I mean, "non-existant problems" occur.

I don't understand the resistance to standardization. I don't care WHAT terminology is used. Some people do it one way, others do it another way...why oppose an attempt at commonality?

wow you're really slow.

The miscommunications have been BECAUSE they are not using a standard protocol.

IF everyone lowers off. taking the climber off belay is never done. Therefore they won't get dropped.

You say you want standardization? yet are trying to introduce new words that are not the standard.


Exactly. There are problems in miscommunication when climber and belayer miscommunicate, but you are adding to them, not solving them.

What I mean when I say you are solving a non-existent problem is this:

If you intend to clean the route on lower, there is a simple way to convey this.

1 - You get to the top, yell "Take" if you don't have a stance.
2 - Clip in direct, call "Slack" to get the rope you need.
3 - Thread the anchors, get everything set, pull yourself in tight so there's slack in your direct line to the anchor, yell "Take".
4 - Once the belayer has taken hard, you can let go of the anchors and your direct line remains slack. Now you can unclip it, and yell "Lower".

There is no problem here that needs a solution.

If, for some reason, you intend to rappel. You call down "Off Belay" when you are secure.

There is no problem here that needs a solution.

You are giving a solution to a non-existent problem. The problem you are solving is how to communicate that you are safe at the anchor and the belayer can go eat a sammich and put his shoes on.

That is causing a problem, not solving one.

GO


sticky_fingers


Jun 3, 2011, 6:55 PM
Post #175 of 182 (13160 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420

Re: [cracklover] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

Wow, suggest a solution to a problem and people get pissy...welcome to the internet


jt512


Jun 3, 2011, 7:09 PM
Post #176 of 182 (4376 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

sticky_fingers wrote:
Wow, suggest a solution to a problem and people get pissy...welcome to the internet




moose_droppings


Jun 3, 2011, 7:13 PM
Post #177 of 182 (4374 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

sticky_fingers wrote:
Wow, suggest a solution to a problem and people get pissy...welcome to the internet real world

This would be a more accurate statement.


Partner cracklover


Jun 3, 2011, 7:18 PM
Post #178 of 182 (4370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162

Re: [sticky_fingers] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

sticky_fingers wrote:
Wow, suggest a solution to a problem and people get pissy...welcome to the internet

No. Suggest a solution to a non-existent problem, and when your "solution" would make people less safe in the real world expect to get your ass handed to you. Only difference is that online, more people will tell you what a dumb idea it is.

GO


spikeddem


Jun 3, 2011, 7:51 PM
Post #179 of 182 (4354 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [cracklover] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

Seriously, sticky_fingers. All these posts are in agreement about the way you're approaching the situation. There is honestly nothing more they can say than what Jay posted (head --> brick wall).


onrockandice


Jun 27, 2011, 9:38 PM
Post #180 of 182 (4260 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 16, 2009
Posts: 355

Re: [jakedatc] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I think I didn't use enough verbiage. When being "lowered" JT has outlined a pretty clear method for doing it safely. That's grabbing the other side of the rope until you are sure it's under control. I think what I'm referring to is the first 10 seconds of lowering (where you are most likely to be killed).

There are circumstances where lowering is all there is to do. When I say "never" I think that was a stupid choice of words and pretty severe and ignorant. I read what I wrote now and I wonder, "Gawed what was a drinking when I typed all that?"

I don't like to be lowered and that's just the truth. It's not for me. Doesn't mean I don't do it when I have to and someone said that I don't climb overhanging routes... That makes no sense. Lowering off overhanging routes is cake. even if you lead it and want to clean draws on the way down. You just don't pull the rope first. Rap to the first draw and then unclip it. Rap to the next and so on. Not terribly difficult. Now that last draw... that can be a ride so you have your partner hold the bottom of the rope. When we climb overhanging we normaly leave the rope clipped in. It's good practice for placing gear to climb through the draws and reclip them.


Partner robdotcalm


Sep 29, 2011, 3:48 AM
Post #181 of 182 (4081 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027

Re: [onrockandice] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Here’s a link to an interview Alison Osius did with Phil Powers in July. It also contains another tale of a bowline tie-in knot coming undone.

http://rockandice.com/...icle/37-tnb/1499-tnb

Cheers,
Rob.calm


bearbreeder


Sep 29, 2011, 6:32 AM
Post #182 of 182 (4053 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [robdotcalm] Lowering accident. Serious Injuries [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

thks for the link

i bet she only ties in with an 8 now ...


Forums : Climbing Information : Accident and Incident Analysis

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook