|
majid_sabet
Apr 23, 2010, 4:50 PM
Post #1 of 87
(23054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
From the news Sun 11 Apr 13:30 Munich. A climber fell 15 metres in an indoor rock climbing facility and suffered severe injuries from the fall. Police reported on sunday that the 26 year old lost his grip on the climbing wall while securing an intermediate rope buckle. His 23 year old climbing partner, who wanted to secure him with the rope, couldn't activate the break in time. The rope slipped through her hands and her partner fell directly onto the PVC floor. The impact broke his lumbar vertebra but there was no immediate threat to his life. The woman suffered rope burns to her hands. http://www.themunichtimes.com/...d&article_id=416
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Apr 23, 2010, 4:59 PM
Post #2 of 87
(23032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
majid_sabet wrote: From the news Sun 11 Apr 13:30 Munich. A climber fell 15 metres in an indoor rock climbing facility and suffered severe injuries from the fall. Police reported on sunday that the 26 year old lost his grip on the climbing wall while securing an intermediate rope buckle. His 23 year old climbing partner, who wanted to secure him with the rope, couldn't activate the break in time. The rope slipped through her hands and her partner fell directly onto the PVC floor. The impact broke his lumbar vertebra but there was no immediate threat to his life. The woman suffered rope burns to her hands. http://www.themunichtimes.com/...d&article_id=416 By "intermediate rope buckle" I'm guessing they mean a quickdraw on the wall. Unfortunately, it sounds like belayer error, plain and simple. Hope the guy is OK and the belayer learned her lesson.
|
|
|
|
|
Gabel
Apr 25, 2010, 10:53 AM
Post #3 of 87
(22781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2010
Posts: 47
|
Hello, I have taken the freedom to register, retrieve german information on the web and translate it. I hope this helps to clear things up a bit and understand what happened. On Sat 10th of April 2010 a 26yo male climber decked from 12-15m height at the High East climbing gym Heimstetten. He was reportedly climbing a grade 7 UIAA route when he fell. It is told that he was asking for rope and fell while trying to clip in. His 23yo female belayer could not catch his fall and suffered rope burns to her hands. He was then transported to the hospital where they diagnosed fractured lumbal vertebrae/s. Source: http://www.kletterfieber.net/kletterunfall-im-high-east-heimstetten-1891/ The following is an account of somebody on the scene:
In reply to: ich war am besagten Tag im High East. Was ich gesehen habe war das er gut und schwer geklettert hat und das sie eher leichtere Sachen gemacht hat. Ob sie nun Anfängern war oder nicht ist Mutmaßung. Fakt ist, dass sie mit einem Petzl Reservo gesichert hat. Was ich nachher mitbekommen habe ist das sie wohl dachte er braucht mehr Seil zum Einhängen in die nächste Exe und er einen schweren Zug gemacht hat von dem er abgeflogen ist. Sie hat nicht zu gemacht und dann wars zu spät zum halten. Er hat riesen Glück gehabt das er nicht schlimmer verletzt ist. Mir stellen sich jetzt noch die Haare auf wenn ich an die Höhe und das Geräusch des Aufschlags denke. I was on the scene. What I have seen is that he was climbing well and hard routes while she was climbing easy stuff. Wether she was a beginner I cannot tell with certainty. I know as a fact that she was belaying with a Petzl Reverso. Later I witnessed that she might have thought he needed more rope fore clipping while he was in fact trying a difficult move and fell. She did not brake and therefore she couldn't hold him. He was lucky. I still have goosebumps when I think of the sound of his impact. The climbing gym states: We phoned him and considering the circumstances he is fine. Get well soon. Source: http://www.high-east.de/index.php?page=show_news&n_id=69 So, it does sound like a typical belayer error.
|
|
|
|
|
gblauer
Moderator
Apr 25, 2010, 2:29 PM
Post #4 of 87
(22677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Posts: 2824
|
This happened to me a few years ago. I had finished my climb and my belayer failed to control the rope when I popped off the wall. Even though we had direct eye contact and I said "coming off" and she said "ok" and I said "got me?" and she said "sure do" (or something like that...in other words we had verbal communication of my plans to get lowered). She let the rope run through her ATC and I hit the deck from 35 feet. I broke my back, spent two days in the hospital and was back climbing pretty darn quickly. My back hurt, but, my ribs were so much worse. They were not broken, but, boy did they hurt. The incident screwed with my lead head (outdoor only) for that entire season. Although the incident occurred indoors, I was fine climbing inside (with a limited set of belayers). For some reason, my lead head was really troubled outdoors. Oh well, that was a few years ago and I have moved on...or maybe I haven't...
(This post was edited by gblauer on Apr 25, 2010, 2:30 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jmeizis
Apr 25, 2010, 4:29 PM
Post #5 of 87
(22590 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Posts: 635
|
Geez man you made it sound like the building collapsed and 20 people died with the thread title. Glad the climbers ok, but this sounds like an unfortunately common occurence.
|
|
|
|
|
ClimbClimb
Apr 25, 2010, 5:10 PM
Post #6 of 87
(22555 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 389
|
gblauer, your story was terrifying. Did you ever figure out what went wrong or any lessons to be drawn, besides having known-good belayers? Hope everyone gets well soon from the German climbing accident.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 25, 2010, 5:25 PM
Post #7 of 87
(22547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ClimbClimb wrote: gblauer, your story was terrifying. Did you ever figure out what went wrong... It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
ClimbClimb
Apr 25, 2010, 5:31 PM
Post #8 of 87
(22541 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 389
|
jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. But even then, imagine if we knew that say, red-headed belayers with small hands and smell of peanut butter Clif bars were more likely to fail to lock-off. That'd be useful. That's what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 25, 2010, 5:35 PM
Post #9 of 87
(22534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 25, 2010, 5:36 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 25, 2010, 6:54 PM
Post #10 of 87
(22471 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes]
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 25, 2010, 7:12 PM
Post #11 of 87
(22453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes] Yes, actually, I do do that every single time. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Apr 25, 2010, 7:12 PM
Post #12 of 87
(22452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay You must be belayed by some sketchy people that you think this is necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 25, 2010, 7:15 PM
Post #13 of 87
(22448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
johnwesely wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay You must be belayed by some sketchy people that you think this is necessary. Famous last words. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 25, 2010, 7:24 PM
Post #14 of 87
(22439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes] Yes, actually, I do do that every single time. Jay You don't fall much then do you?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 25, 2010, 7:27 PM
Post #15 of 87
(22433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes] Yes, actually, I do do that every single time. Jay You don't fall much then do you? Um, I fall plenty when I'm working routes. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Apr 25, 2010, 7:38 PM
Post #16 of 87
(22420 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes] Yes, actually, I do do that every single time. Jay You don't fall much then do you? Um, I fall plenty when I'm working routes. Jay Do you grab the belayer side of the rope until you know you are caught?
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 25, 2010, 7:44 PM
Post #17 of 87
(22412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes] Yes, actually, I do do that every single time. Jay You don't fall much then do you? Um, I fall plenty when I'm working routes. Jay so how do you know? how do you know when to trust your belayor? certainly a verbal confirmation on "take" is more certain than a sudden fall, right? If anything, it should be easier for the belayor to control the rope when the climber takes than when the climber falls. Do you ease on to the rope when you fall, too? I mean, in the end, what's the difference? The belayor still has to control the rope. I ease onto the rope quite a bit, but it rarely has anything to do with the belayor. That is usually a result of my head playing games with me and me not trusting the gear, but that's just my own neurosis. The only time I ease on to the rope as a result of a fear of the belayor not catching me is when I'm climbing with someone new. That usually only lasts a couple of climbs, though. Otherwise, a simple, "take - got you - thanks" should do just fine. If it doesn't, it certainly isn't my trust in a verbal confirmation's fault.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 25, 2010, 7:55 PM
Post #18 of 87
(22407 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
johnwesely wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes] Yes, actually, I do do that every single time. Jay You don't fall much then do you? Um, I fall plenty when I'm working routes. Jay Do you grab the belayer side of the rope until you know you are caught? No, but it's a different situation. First, there is never any ambiguity about what the belayer's job is when you're climbing: he's belaying. At the anchors there can be ambiguity, miscommunication, and error. First you need slack, then tension, then to be lowered, and all this needs to be communicated with the climber and belayer at opposite ends of the pitch, and possibly out of each other's sight. Second, grabbing the rope until you're sure you're on tension is a safeguard against one of the commonest causes of grigri-involved accidents: failure to shockload the grigri. Third, if you sport climb long enough you will eventually weight the rope at the anchors thinking you're on tension, when you're not. This will almost certainly result in nothing more than a surprising drop of a few feet as your belayer wakes up. Occasionally, however, climbers have been dropped to the ground. If you are in the habit of always grabbing the rope until you feel tension, you'll never be one of the "occasionally's." Finally, any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail. Jay P.S. How can you not feel at least a little bit stupid arguing against a safety precaution with no downside in a thread in which a serious accident is discussed that this precaution would have avoided?
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 25, 2010, 7:59 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Apr 25, 2010, 8:01 PM
Post #19 of 87
(22400 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
jt512 wrote: johnwesely wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes] Yes, actually, I do do that every single time. Jay You don't fall much then do you? Um, I fall plenty when I'm working routes. Jay Do you grab the belayer side of the rope until you know you are caught? No, but it's a different situation. First, there is never any ambiguity about what the belayer's job is when you're climbing: he's belaying. At the anchors there can be ambiguity, miscommunication, and error. First you need slack, then tension, then to be lowered, and all this needs to be communicated with the climber and belayer at opposite ends of the pitch, and possibly out of each other's sight. Second, grabbing the rope until you're sure you're on tension is a safeguard against one of the commonest causes of grigri-involved accidents: failure to shockload the grigri. Third, if you sport climb long enough you will eventually weight the rope at the anchors thinking you're on tension, when you're not. This will almost certainly result in nothing more than a surprising drop of a few feet as your belayer wakes up. Occasionally, however, climbers have been dropped to the ground. If you are in the habit of always grabbing the rope until you feel tension, you'll never be one of the "occasionally's." Finally, any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail. Jay That is a fair enough point, but how is coming on to the rope once you have clipped your anchor any different from falling? If you are talking about cleaning anchors, then I guess I know what you are talking about, but I never take myself off the anchor until I feel the belayer pulling anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 25, 2010, 8:16 PM
Post #20 of 87
(22383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
johnwesely wrote: jt512 wrote: johnwesely wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes] Yes, actually, I do do that every single time. Jay You don't fall much then do you? Um, I fall plenty when I'm working routes. Jay Do you grab the belayer side of the rope until you know you are caught? No, but it's a different situation. First, there is never any ambiguity about what the belayer's job is when you're climbing: he's belaying. At the anchors there can be ambiguity, miscommunication, and error. First you need slack, then tension, then to be lowered, and all this needs to be communicated with the climber and belayer at opposite ends of the pitch, and possibly out of each other's sight. Second, grabbing the rope until you're sure you're on tension is a safeguard against one of the commonest causes of grigri-involved accidents: failure to shockload the grigri. Third, if you sport climb long enough you will eventually weight the rope at the anchors thinking you're on tension, when you're not. This will almost certainly result in nothing more than a surprising drop of a few feet as your belayer wakes up. Occasionally, however, climbers have been dropped to the ground. If you are in the habit of always grabbing the rope until you feel tension, you'll never be one of the "occasionally's." Finally, any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail. Jay That is a fair enough point, but how is coming on to the rope once you have clipped your anchor any different from falling? If you are talking about cleaning anchors, then I guess I know what you are talking about, but I never take myself off the anchor until I feel the belayer pulling anyways. Actually, I'm mainly talking about cleaning anchors. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Apr 25, 2010, 8:21 PM
Post #21 of 87
(22374 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
jt512 wrote: johnwesely wrote: jt512 wrote: johnwesely wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes] Yes, actually, I do do that every single time. Jay You don't fall much then do you? Um, I fall plenty when I'm working routes. Jay Do you grab the belayer side of the rope until you know you are caught? No, but it's a different situation. First, there is never any ambiguity about what the belayer's job is when you're climbing: he's belaying. At the anchors there can be ambiguity, miscommunication, and error. First you need slack, then tension, then to be lowered, and all this needs to be communicated with the climber and belayer at opposite ends of the pitch, and possibly out of each other's sight. Second, grabbing the rope until you're sure you're on tension is a safeguard against one of the commonest causes of grigri-involved accidents: failure to shockload the grigri. Third, if you sport climb long enough you will eventually weight the rope at the anchors thinking you're on tension, when you're not. This will almost certainly result in nothing more than a surprising drop of a few feet as your belayer wakes up. Occasionally, however, climbers have been dropped to the ground. If you are in the habit of always grabbing the rope until you feel tension, you'll never be one of the "occasionally's." Finally, any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail. Jay That is a fair enough point, but how is coming on to the rope once you have clipped your anchor any different from falling? If you are talking about cleaning anchors, then I guess I know what you are talking about, but I never take myself off the anchor until I feel the belayer pulling anyways. Actually, I'm mainly talking about cleaning anchors. Jay Oh, I assumed you were talking about clipping chains and being lowered because Gblauer was talking about climbing in a gym when she fell.
|
|
|
|
|
jmeizis
Apr 25, 2010, 10:19 PM
Post #22 of 87
(22285 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Posts: 635
|
If there's never ambiguity about what the belayer's job is when you're climbing, why does that stop when you get to the anchor? If they're not smart enough to follow simple instructions or evaluatively make safety decisions based on their judgement then yes it probably is important to grab the other side of the rope. I have a habit of doing it as well, but that habit is born out of having just met my belayer minutes ago and having either recently taught them or not being able to trust their qualifications. If you're in fear of regular partners dropping you at the anchor then I don't know how you can take falls with them. Besides that if your partner is using the gri-gri the way they should be then it will lock before they lower you. Even if it didn't they should still be able to hold you at the anchor and lower you without incident. Hence the reason it's called an assisted locking device. Then again most gri-gri users I see don't know what the hell they're doing so I can see taking precautions against such idiocy. I can think of no situation where a miscommunication could result in getting dropped to the ground unless the route is ten feet tall or your belayer incompetently lets go of the rope. Both are ridiculous situations that shouldn't happen. If they can catch a sport fall then they should be able to catch whatever slack they fed out at the anchor. I'm assuming you lower through the anchors by passing a bight through and tying into at the bight before untying from the other end. Part of taking responsibility for your and other people's safety is not lowering through the anchors. Unless you're planning to fork up the cash to repair them. The situation I can think of where a miscommunication could result in a climber falling all the way to the ground is one in which the climber says "Off Belay" and their belayer, following instructions, takes the rope out of the belay device, and then the climber, thinking they're still on belay, leans back and decks. If you call "Off Belay" and think someone's gonna catch you though then you're an idiot. I agree one should take responsibility for their own safety though. So I guess it's not unreasonable to grab the other side of the rope but it sure seems like an unnecessary precaution, like extra belay loops.
|
|
|
|
|
potreroed
Apr 25, 2010, 10:21 PM
Post #23 of 87
(22285 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 1454
|
The belayer in the original post was using a reverso; Gail's belayer was using an atc; both accidents could have been avoided had the belayers been using a gri-gri or a cinch.
|
|
|
|
|
jmeizis
Apr 25, 2010, 10:32 PM
Post #24 of 87
(22275 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Posts: 635
|
Unless they failed to use those properly as well, and considering what happened that seems likely.
(This post was edited by jmeizis on Apr 25, 2010, 10:53 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Apr 26, 2010, 12:34 AM
Post #25 of 87
(22213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
I expected to hear an epic story about how an indoor climbing team made a foolhearty summit push in poor conditions too close to closing time and got swept off the wall.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 26, 2010, 2:22 AM
Post #26 of 87
(8237 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
potreroed wrote: The belayer in the original post was using a reverso; Gail's belayer was using an atc; both accidents could have been avoided had the belayers been using a gri-gri or a cinch. For every accident caused by misuse of a conventional belay device, there's an accident caused by misuse of a Grigri. Could that mean Cinches are the answer, or are they just less popular? Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 26, 2010, 2:50 AM
Post #27 of 87
(8227 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jmeizis wrote: If there's never ambiguity about what the belayer's job is when you're climbing, why does that stop when you get to the anchor? I've already explained why that is when you're cleaning, which, for some reason, is what I was fixating on. In reply to: If you're in fear of regular partners dropping you at the anchor then I don't know how you can take falls with them. I have already explained the justification for grabbing the rope after cleaning the anchors before lowering. No one, including you, has given a valid justification for not doing so.
In reply to: Besides that if your partner is using the gri-gri the way they should be then it will lock before they lower you. I'm not quite sure that that is true, but even if it is, that is no reason to not take the precaution of ensuring that your belayer does in fact have you on tension.
In reply to: Even if it didn't they should still be able to hold you at the anchor and lower you without incident. Well, that is clearly false. If you sag onto the rope, the grigri can fail to lock, and if the rope starts to run through the device it is not at all clear whether the belayer can always get it to stop.
In reply to: I can think of no situation where a miscommunication could result in getting dropped to the ground unless the route is ten feet tall or your belayer incompetently lets go of the rope. There is a difference between not being able to think of something that can go wrong, and there not being anything that can go wrong. This very thread was about something that went wrong that apparently you couldn't have thought of. Every accident involving a belayer with a burned brake hand occurred on a route taller than 10 feet with the belayer holding the rope.
In reply to: Both are ridiculous situations that shouldn't happen. More famous last words.
In reply to: I'm assuming you lower through the anchors by passing a bight through and tying into at the bight before untying from the other end. Bad assumption. I can't remember the last time I saw an anchor where that would be possible.
In reply to: Part of taking responsibility for your and other people's safety is not lowering through the anchors. Unless you're planning to fork up the cash to repair them. Even ignoring the fact that that statement has nothing to do with this thread it is bullshit. At every crag I climb at, it is expected that the last person on the route will lower through the anchors, and at the majority of crags I climb at it is perfectly acceptable for all leaders, and sometimes topropers, to lower through the anchors. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
gblauer
Moderator
Apr 26, 2010, 3:11 AM
Post #28 of 87
(8217 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Posts: 2824
|
In my case, I had just finished leading my climb. The last bolt was at my waist and I told my belayer that I was going to "pop off" the wall. I asked her if she was ready, she said "yes", I said "you got me" and she said "yes". (Something like that exchange...maybe not those exact words). We had eye contact, we had a distinct verbal exchange. I let go and she let me run through her ATC. I heard her say "uh oh, I don't have her". My belayer did not have any burns on her hands and she was in the gym climbing the next day. She has NO idea what happened and there was not a witness who could begin to explain her actions. That said, I had a nagging little voice in my head during my verbal exchange with my belayer...it said something like "she is too far away from the wall". I let go anyway and hit the deck. While it was extremely unpleasant, it did open up my eyes. I minimized my group of belayers, I was no longer the guinea pig to take falls for new belayers and I learned how to lead belay with a gri gri. I watch others belay and I walk away when I see poor form, inattention, bad technique. I don't want to see any one else hit the deck.
|
|
|
|
|
coolcat83
Apr 26, 2010, 3:35 AM
Post #29 of 87
(8209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2007
Posts: 1007
|
jt512 wrote: potreroed wrote: The belayer in the original post was using a reverso; Gail's belayer was using an atc; both accidents could have been avoided had the belayers been using a gri-gri or a cinch. For every accident caused by misuse of a conventional belay device, there's an accident caused by misuse of a Grigri. Could that mean Cinches are the answer, or are they just less popular? Jay +1 for the cinch
|
|
|
|
|
bennydh
Apr 26, 2010, 3:57 AM
Post #30 of 87
(8204 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 2, 2005
Posts: 368
|
coolcat83 wrote: jt512 wrote: potreroed wrote: The belayer in the original post was using a reverso; Gail's belayer was using an atc; both accidents could have been avoided had the belayers been using a gri-gri or a cinch. For every accident caused by misuse of a conventional belay device, there's an accident caused by misuse of a Grigri. Could that mean Cinches are the answer, or are they just less popular? Jay +1 for the cinch -1 for devices designed to take away the active responsibility of belaying from the belayer. +1 for properly using any belay device. On the topic of lowering off sport anchors, its the standard at any SoCal crag that I can think of.
|
|
|
|
|
jmeizis
Apr 26, 2010, 4:01 AM
Post #31 of 87
(8204 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Posts: 635
|
In reply to: I've already explained why that is when you're cleaning, which, for some reason, is what I was fixating on. If you would rappel instead of lowering then you wouldn't have to rely on your belayer and people wouldn't need to replace anchor chains/rings as often.
In reply to: I have already explained the justification for grabbing the rope after cleaning the anchors before lowering. No one, including you, has given a valid justification for not doing so. There is no valid justification not to do so, hell do whatever you like. I guess I don't see why you would worry about them dropping you when you clean the anchor anymore than you would if you just climbed up and lowered as if doing a toprope. Assuming of course you have confidence that your belayer knows what they're doing. Although the problem could be completely alleviated if you rappeled instead of lowered through the anchors.
In reply to: Well, that is clearly false. If you sag onto the rope, the grigri can fail to lock, and if the rope starts to run through the device it is not at all clear whether the belayer can always get it to stop. Sorry, I should have predicated that by saying your belayer should know how the hell to use the device. If the belayer is controlling the brake strand then they should be able to bring you down even if for some reason the device failed to lock.
In reply to: There is a difference between not being able to think of something that can go wrong, and there not being anything that can go wrong. This very thread was about something that went wrong that apparently you couldn't have thought of. Every accident involving a belayer with a burned brake hand occurred on a route taller than 10 feet with the belayer holding the rope. I could have thought that my belayer might be an idiot and therefore I should just rappel or self lower.
In reply to: Even ignoring the fact that that statement has nothing to do with this thread it is bullshit. At every crag I climb at, it is expected that the last person on the route will lower through the anchors, and at the majority of crags I climb at it is perfectly acceptable for all leaders, and sometimes topropers, to lower through the anchors. I think I've shown that the statement has at least a little to do with the thread. Your crags must have some really rich and nice first ascencionists because I have never climbed at a crag where it was acceptable to toprope through the anchors and many crags I've been to it's not acceptable to lower through the anchors. I'd be more worried about inspecting those quicklinks you're lowering off of than whether your belayer is going to drop you. Why the hell would you gumbies wear out the anchor equipment so someone has to replace it more frequently than they otherwise would if everyone rappeled?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 26, 2010, 4:27 AM
Post #32 of 87
(8199 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jmeizis wrote: In reply to: I've already explained why that is when you're cleaning, which, for some reason, is what I was fixating on. If you would rappel instead of lowering then you wouldn't have to rely on your belayer... Well, if I would just solo everything, I wouldn't have to rely on my belayer, either. I'm convinced that rappelling is more dangerous than lowering, especially on steep, or traversing routes; and it is certainly less convenient.
In reply to: ...and people wouldn't need to replace anchor chains/rings as often. Everybody I know who replaces anchors would rather have people lower off their anchors than rappel, even though it means they have to replace the anchors more often.
In reply to: In reply to: I have already explained the justification for grabbing the rope after cleaning the anchors before lowering. No one, including you, has given a valid justification for not doing so. There is no valid justification not to do so, hell do whatever you like. I guess I don't see why you would worry about them dropping you when you clean the anchor anymore than you would if you just climbed up and lowered as if doing a toprope. I've already explained what the difference is.
In reply to: In reply to: Well, that is clearly false. If you sag onto the rope, the grigri can fail to lock, and if the rope starts to run through the device it is not at all clear whether the belayer can always get it to stop. Sorry, I should have predicated that by saying your belayer should know how the hell to use the device. If the belayer is controlling the brake strand then they should be able to bring you down even if for some reason the device failed to lock. Nope, I disagree. A strong belayer wearing gloves might be able to do that. Certainly not every belayer could. An unlocked grigri does not behave like an ATC.
In reply to: In reply to: Even ignoring the fact that that statement has nothing to do with this thread it is bullshit. At every crag I climb at, it is expected that the last person on the route will lower through the anchors, and at the majority of crags I climb at it is perfectly acceptable for all leaders, and sometimes topropers, to lower through the anchors. I think I've shown that the statement has at least a little to do with the thread. Your crags must have some really rich and nice first ascencionists because I have never climbed at a crag where it was acceptable to toprope through the anchors and many crags I've been to it's not acceptable to lower through the anchors. I'd be more worried about inspecting those quicklinks you're lowering off of than whether your belayer is going to drop you. Why the hell would you gumbies wear out the anchor equipment so someone has to replace it more frequently than they otherwise would if everyone rappeled? Because we "gumbies" know what the anchors are for. Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 26, 2010, 4:55 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 26, 2010, 5:00 AM
Post #33 of 87
(8190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
gblauer wrote: My belayer did not have any burns on her hands... Then it would seem that she let go of the rope.
In reply to: ...and she was in the gym climbing the next day. That says a lot about the "belayer" and the gym. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
davidnn5
Apr 26, 2010, 7:31 AM
Post #34 of 87
(8167 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2009
Posts: 348
|
Those of you who've been reading my recent posts may be shocked, but I actually agree with most of what Jay has said. I like to belay and be belayed on an ATC. I want my belayer to think shit might happen at any moment, because regardless of the belay system, it can. I don't aid climb, and if I did, perhaps i'd use a grigri. Beats dying because your belayer is asleep. That all said, I also wear a helmet (much more accepted in Oz than the US seemingly) and anchor against upward pull on single pitch sports climbs. So perhaps I'm anachronistic. However, it only takes a small amount of imagination to consider all that may go wrong taking the shortcuts people take here. That includes me - I often don't backup when prussiking on two prussik loops! But I also don't live in a country where ice occurs.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Apr 26, 2010, 11:08 AM
Post #35 of 87
(8146 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
Good Lord, do I need to go all Spock on your asses? RISK = PROBABILITY * CONSEQUENCE Level of confidence in one’s belayer does not eliminate the chance that they might ever commit a human error (nor whether you might commit a human error in communicating with them). High confidence in a highly competent belayer = low PROBABILITY that an incident will occur. But the CONSEQUENCE of a single occurrence is extremely high (potentially the ultimate consequence, death), therefore the risk is high even when the probability is low. (Ya know, for climbers, y’all ought to be a little more adept with the math of basic risk assessment. I’m not sayin, I’m just sayin.) I’ve never been dropped by any belayer, whether I had 100% confidence in them or some lesser level of confidence. This doesn’t mean that any of them won’t one day make one error. Therefore (helps if you read this in Spock voice), it is simply not logical to forgo a safety step that, as Jay pointed out, costs you absolutely nothing, while it may save your life on the infinitesimally unlikely occurrence that you need it to someday. And therefore it is also an illogical point to ask, “why would you grab the rope when being lowered if you trust them to catch you when you fall?” I always grab the other side of the rope when being lowered, even with belayers that I trust with my life 100% and that have performed perfectly in tricky catch situations and/or have otherwise saved my bacon. Additionally, I don’t know how long some of you have been in this game, but sometime ago (I wanna say 12-14 years ago) the AAC made a point in ANAM to highlight the fact that an alarming number of dropped-by-belayer accidents were occurring and that they seemed to be on the rise. Grabbing the other side of the rope was suggested as a one simple practice to eliminate the consequences of these occurrences of human error. Most safety practices that we’ve come to accept as standard in this game have been learned through collective experience and adopted into our communal lore. This is one of them. Of course you may choose to ignore our lore at your own risk.
jmeizis wrote: If there's never ambiguity about what the belayer's job is when you're climbing, why does that stop when you get to the anchor? There is also never ambiguity about what we must do before we even start to climb. We must don our harnesses properly, tie in properly, and rig the belay device properly. But you and your partners still double check each other, don’t you? Any argument against grabbing the belayer side of the rope when preparing to lower is simply not logical.
|
|
|
|
|
ClimbClimb
Apr 26, 2010, 6:19 PM
Post #36 of 87
(8080 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 389
|
hugepedro wrote: Therefore (helps if you read this in Spock voice), it is simply not logical to forgo a safety step that, as Jay pointed out, costs you absolutely nothing, while it may save your life on the infinitesimally unlikely occurrence that you need it to someday. And therefore it is also an illogical point to ask, “why would you grab the rope when being lowered if you trust them to catch you when you fall?” Good post. To expand on this further. Let's say you have a% chance of falling and b% chance of belayer failing to catch said fall. Total probability is a times b, a*b. Now, let's say you have a c% chance of belayer failing to lower properly. But when letting go (without holding onto the other rope), you basically have a 100% chance of falling. So that probability is 100% * c% = c%. Now, let's say b and c are equal (which doesn't actually seem to be true, but lets' say it is), and your chance of falling during the climb is 50%. Now, your risk of hitting the ground is 50% * b + 100% * b (making a minor approximation). Now, that means that 2/3rds of the risk of hitting the ground is at the top of the climb, and can be removed almost entirely by taking some additional precautions -- REDUCING THE TOTAL GROUND-FALL RISK BY A FACTOR OF 3, for the stated assumptions. Try it with your own numbers and assumptions of various probabilities, and you'll see that it's never a reasonable argument not to eliminate/reduce some part of the risk.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Apr 26, 2010, 6:34 PM
Post #37 of 87
(8068 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
I think this is more about hoping (wishing?) that there is a chink in one of Jay's arguments. I ease onto the rope holding the belayer's side from time to time. Gives you more control over taking the remaining stretch out. Sometimes I just drop, trusting my belayer to catch me. The OP looks like belayer error.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Apr 26, 2010, 7:17 PM
Post #38 of 87
(8045 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
ClimbClimb wrote: hugepedro wrote: Therefore (helps if you read this in Spock voice), it is simply not logical to forgo a safety step that, as Jay pointed out, costs you absolutely nothing, while it may save your life on the infinitesimally unlikely occurrence that you need it to someday. And therefore it is also an illogical point to ask, “why would you grab the rope when being lowered if you trust them to catch you when you fall?” Good post. To expand on this further. Let's say you have a% chance of falling and b% chance of belayer failing to catch said fall. Total probability is a times b, a*b. Now, let's say you have a c% chance of belayer failing to lower properly. But when letting go (without holding onto the other rope), you basically have a 100% chance of falling. So that probability is 100% * c% = c%. Now, let's say b and c are equal (which doesn't actually seem to be true, but lets' say it is), and your chance of falling during the climb is 50%. Now, your risk of hitting the ground is 50% * b + 100% * b (making a minor approximation). Now, that means that 2/3rds of the risk of hitting the ground is at the top of the climb, and can be removed almost entirely by taking some additional precautions -- REDUCING THE TOTAL GROUND-FALL RISK BY A FACTOR OF 3, for the stated assumptions. Try it with your own numbers and assumptions of various probabilities, and you'll see that it's never a reasonable argument not to eliminate/reduce some part of the risk. You're out-Spocking me. Nice.
|
|
|
|
|
rock_ranger
Apr 26, 2010, 7:30 PM
Post #39 of 87
(8028 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Posts: 189
|
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 26, 2010, 7:59 PM
Post #40 of 87
(8006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
rock_ranger wrote: jt512 wrote: potreroed wrote: The belayer in the original post was using a reverso; Gail's belayer was using an atc; both accidents could have been avoided had the belayers been using a gri-gri or a cinch. For every accident caused by misuse of a conventional belay device, there's an accident caused by misuse of a Grigri. Could that mean Cinches are the answer, or are they just less popular? Jay A friend of mine died recently when his belayer with a Cinch dropped him. Funny how this kind of shit wasn't rapid when it was hip belays. Guess they paid more attention back in the day... Please misuse words only in less serious posts, so I can give you shit about it without feeling guilty. Incidentally, the details of that accident would be worth knowing. I don't think I've heard of another serious accident while using a Cinch. Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 26, 2010, 8:01 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
rock_ranger
Apr 26, 2010, 8:04 PM
Post #41 of 87
(7997 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Posts: 189
|
jt512 wrote: rock_ranger wrote: jt512 wrote: potreroed wrote: The belayer in the original post was using a reverso; Gail's belayer was using an atc; both accidents could have been avoided had the belayers been using a gri-gri or a cinch. For every accident caused by misuse of a conventional belay device, there's an accident caused by misuse of a Grigri. Could that mean Cinches are the answer, or are they just less popular? Jay A friend of mine died recently when his belayer with a Cinch dropped him. Funny how this kind of shit wasn't rapid when it was hip belays. Guess they paid more attention back in the day... Please misuse words only in less serious posts, so I can give you shit about it without feeling guilty. Incidentally, the details of that accident would be worth knowing. I don't think I've heard of another serious accident while using a Cinch. Jay rampant...there's always PM :)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 26, 2010, 8:07 PM
Post #42 of 87
(7993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes] Yes, actually, I do do that every single time. Jay So do I. I can only conclude (upon reading the rest of the tread) that those critical of this are just being argumentative. Its a STUPID fucking thing to argue against, btw. DMT DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Apr 26, 2010, 8:11 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Apr 26, 2010, 8:18 PM
Post #43 of 87
(7974 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes] Yes, actually, I do do that every single time. Jay So do I. I can only conclude (upon reading the rest of the tread) that those critical of this are just being argumentative. Its a STUPID fucking thing to argue against, btw. DMT DMT Agreed, it is kinda silly not to. Even if your belayer is spot on belaying while you are leading, there is something about the pause during cleaning and lowering that can knock them off their game. Talk to them, keep them engaged in your situation, not the dog sniffing around the packs or the girl in the sport bra, and then still ease onto the rope. What do you have to lose by doing that?
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Apr 26, 2010, 8:23 PM
Post #44 of 87
(7970 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
edge wrote: Even if your belayer is spot on belaying while you are leading, there is something about the pause during cleaning and lowering that can knock them off their game. BINGO.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 26, 2010, 8:28 PM
Post #45 of 87
(7962 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
edge wrote: dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes] Yes, actually, I do do that every single time. Jay So do I. I can only conclude (upon reading the rest of the tread) that those critical of this are just being argumentative. Its a STUPID fucking thing to argue against, btw. DMT DMT Agreed, it is kinda silly not to. Even if your belayer is spot on belaying while you are leading, there is something about the pause during cleaning and lowering that can knock them off their game. Talk to them, keep them engaged in your situation, not the dog sniffing around the packs or the girl in the sport bra, and then still ease onto the rope. What do you have to lose by doing that? Even if you (or I) don't do it, won't do it and never ever do it... doesn't mean we should try to argue our choices onto someone else. That to me is where the Stupidity arises. JT512, how DARE you employ more safety procedures than me? The NERVE!!!111111 DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 26, 2010, 8:52 PM
Post #46 of 87
(7939 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ClimbClimb wrote: hugepedro wrote: Therefore (helps if you read this in Spock voice), it is simply not logical to forgo a safety step that, as Jay pointed out, costs you absolutely nothing, while it may save your life on the infinitesimally unlikely occurrence that you need it to someday. And therefore it is also an illogical point to ask, “why would you grab the rope when being lowered if you trust them to catch you when you fall?” Good post. To expand on this further. Let's say you have a% chance of falling and b% chance of belayer failing to catch said fall. Total probability is a times b, a*b. Now, let's say you have a c% chance of belayer failing to lower properly. But when letting go (without holding onto the other rope), you basically have a 100% chance of falling. So that probability is 100% * c% = c%. Now, let's say b and c are equal (which doesn't actually seem to be true, but lets' say it is), and your chance of falling during the climb is 50%. Now, your risk of hitting the ground is 50% * b + 100% * b (making a minor approximation). Now, that means that 2/3rds of the risk of hitting the ground is at the top of the climb, and can be removed almost entirely by taking some additional precautions -- REDUCING THE TOTAL GROUND-FALL RISK BY A FACTOR OF 3, for the stated assumptions. Try it with your own numbers and assumptions of various probabilities, and you'll see that it's never a reasonable argument not to eliminate/reduce some part of the risk. You have failed to take into consideration that your belayer can only lower you if he hasn't already failed to catch you on a fall. Your formula for the total probability of decking d is d = ab + c . To see that this is obviously wrong, let a = b = c > 0.62, and note that d > 1. The correct formula would be d = ab + (1 – ab)c . You should probably also explicitly state the assumption that you can fall at most once per ascent. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 26, 2010, 8:58 PM
Post #47 of 87
(7929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
edge wrote: dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes] Yes, actually, I do do that every single time. Jay So do I. I can only conclude (upon reading the rest of the tread) that those critical of this are just being argumentative. Its a STUPID fucking thing to argue against, btw. DMT Agreed, it is kinda silly not to. So, finally, the rope grabbers are coming out of the closet. I now count four of us, with at least three of us being among the most experienced climbers on the site.
In reply to: Even if your belayer is spot on belaying while you are leading, there is something about the pause during cleaning and lowering that can knock them off their game. That is well put. I was trying to analyze exactly why lowering after cleaning is "different," and couldn't quite do it. The bottom line is exactly what you said. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Apr 26, 2010, 9:19 PM
Post #48 of 87
(7903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
jt512 wrote: So, finally, the rope grabbers are coming out of the closet. Uh-huh-huh. Uh-huh-huh. Uh-huh-huh. (Just for the record, I don't want to be included in the AARP club, even if I might qualify. Ruins my game with the honeys.)
|
|
|
|
|
ClimbClimb
Apr 26, 2010, 9:25 PM
Post #49 of 87
(7898 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 389
|
jt512 wrote: Now, your risk of hitting the ground is 50% * b + 100% * b (making a minor approximation). You have failed to take into consideration that your belayer can only lower you if he hasn't already failed to catch you on a fall. ... I did not fail. I made the minor approximation, which I noted above. This and the other point you mention are unlikely to make a big difference in the final outcomes. I would be glad to do the full math out for you, but I think it'll really nerd everyone else out.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 26, 2010, 10:09 PM
Post #50 of 87
(7869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: Now, your risk of hitting the ground is 50% * b + 100% * b (making a minor approximation). You have failed to take into consideration that your belayer can only lower you if he hasn't already failed to catch you on a fall. ... I did not fail. I made the minor approximation, which I noted above. This and the other point you mention are unlikely to make a big difference in the final outcomes. I would be glad to do the full math out for you, but I think it'll really nerd everyone else out. Well, in my humble opinion, you did not "make a minor approximation." You made a major mistake, leading to mathematically impossible results. As I stated above, your approach can lead to "probabilities" exceeding 1, which are nonsensical. If you want to "do the full math for me," please do, although I think I actually did it for you in my previous post. Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 26, 2010, 10:25 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
FriendOfMonoPockets
Apr 26, 2010, 10:35 PM
Post #51 of 87
(10141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2009
Posts: 36
|
This is why we have belay tests
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Apr 26, 2010, 10:43 PM
Post #52 of 87
(10134 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
Rope grabbers: Do you really feel that you will be able to arrest your fall should the belayer loose control at the moment of fully weighting the rope? It seems to me that all you are really getting is a physical cue that your belayer has control of the break. A cue that may or may not be correct in the end. Do you disagree? (I don't grab the rope, so I don't know.)
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Apr 26, 2010, 10:57 PM
Post #53 of 87
(10130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
boymeetsrock wrote: Rope grabbers: Do you really feel that you will be able to arrest your fall should the belayer loose control at the moment of fully weighting the rope? It seems to me that all you are really getting is a physical cue that your belayer has control of the break. A cue that may or may not be correct in the end. Do you disagree? (I don't grab the rope, so I don't know.) You're not arresting your fall, you're holding your own weight to prevent falling, and that is easy.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 26, 2010, 10:57 PM
Post #54 of 87
(10130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
boymeetsrock wrote: Rope grabbers: Do you really feel that you will be able to arrest your fall should the belayer loose control at the moment of fully weighting the rope? That's not why you grab the rope. You grab the rope and ease your weight onto it to make sure that your belayer has you on tension in the first place. Sure, if your belayer decides to suddenly drop you the second you let go, you're in trouble, but that's beside the point. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Apr 26, 2010, 11:02 PM
Post #55 of 87
(10124 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
FriendOfMonoPockets wrote: This is why we have belay tests belay test is so some n00b could have a $6.75/hr job at the gym but generally those test are meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
ClimbClimb
Apr 27, 2010, 1:09 AM
Post #56 of 87
(10087 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 389
|
jt512 wrote: Well, in my humble opinion, you did not "make a minor approximation." You made a major mistake, leading to mathematically impossible results. As I stated above, your approach can lead to "probabilities" exceeding 1, which are nonsensical. If you want to "do the full math for me," please do, although I think I actually did it for you in my previous post. The funny thing is that we agree on the key point -- it is good to grab the rope. I was trying to avoid paragraphs of unnecessary nerdiness. The full math in this case would analyze the approximation, etc. Briefly, the point you're missing is that the probability of belayer failing are actually small quantities. My approximation was to say that (1-ab) is close to 1. That's true when "b" is a very small quantity, say 0.01 or 0.001. And, as you observed, it is not true if the probability of belayer failing is large, like 0.62 (or 62%). The full math would also include a parameter for repeated falls, etc. I am quite comfortable with this approximation being minor not because the *formula* is correct (it's not, that's why I mentioned I was making an approximation), but b.c. the result is correct for the likely set of input parameters.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 27, 2010, 1:54 AM
Post #57 of 87
(10068 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: Well, in my humble opinion, you did not "make a minor approximation." You made a major mistake, leading to mathematically impossible results. As I stated above, your approach can lead to "probabilities" exceeding 1, which are nonsensical. If you want to "do the full math for me," please do, although I think I actually did it for you in my previous post. The funny thing is that we agree on the key point -- it is good to grab the rope. I was trying to avoid paragraphs of unnecessary nerdiness. The full math in this case would analyze the approximation, etc. Briefly, the point you're missing is that the probability of belayer failing are actually small quantities. My approximation was to say that (1-ab) is close to 1. That's true when "b" is a very small quantity, say 0.01 or 0.001. And, as you observed, it is not true if the probability of belayer failing is large, like 0.62 (or 62%). The full math would also include a parameter for repeated falls, etc. I am quite comfortable with this approximation being minor not because the *formula* is correct (it's not, that's why I mentioned I was making an approximation), but b.c. the result is correct for the likely set of input parameters. Under the assumption that b is small, I like your approach, but I wish you had spelled out the assumption in your first post. Doing so would not have required "paragraphs of unnecessary nerdiness." In fact, you could have made it clear using just two more words. You wrote, "[Y]our risk of hitting the ground is 50% * b + 100% * b (making a minor approximation)." Had you instead written, "Assuming that b is small, your risk of hitting the ground is approximately 50% * b + 100% * b," your assumption and its validity would have been clear. Just two more words (and that's assuming we accept that "b" is actually a word)! Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 27, 2010, 4:43 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
ClimbClimb
Apr 27, 2010, 2:09 AM
Post #58 of 87
(10058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 389
|
jt512 wrote: [ Had you instead written "Assuming that b is small, your risk of hitting the ground is approximately 50% * b + 100% * b," your assumption and its validity would have been clear. You're right, that's a good way of saying it.
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Apr 27, 2010, 2:39 AM
Post #59 of 87
(10048 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
hugepedro wrote: jt512 wrote: So, finally, the rope grabbers are coming out of the closet. Uh-huh-huh. Uh-huh-huh. Uh-huh-huh. (Just for the record, I don't want to be included in the AARP club, even if I might qualify. Ruins my game with the honeys.) Guess I'll identify also. I find that it makes getting my feet in the right place for the lower easier. If I just sag onto the rope, I usually go down a few feet (rope stretch, after all) before I stop...if the belayer keeps lowering during that time, it can be hard to get into a stable position. Of course, if I only climbed overhanging routes, this wouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Apr 27, 2010, 4:43 PM
Post #60 of 87
(9979 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
jmeizis wrote: Geez man you made it sound like the building collapsed and 20 people died with the thread title. Glad the climbers ok, but this sounds like an unfortunately common occurence. I was picturing a "Hinterstoisser Traverse" kind of thing, in which the sun-bleached bones of the gym-goers remain stranded on the gym wall...
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Apr 27, 2010, 5:14 PM
Post #61 of 87
(9964 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
jmeizis wrote: I think I've shown that the statement has at least a little to do with the thread. Your crags must have some really rich and nice first ascencionists because I have never climbed at a crag where it was acceptable to toprope through the anchors and many crags I've been to it's not acceptable to lower through the anchors. I'd be more worried about inspecting those quicklinks you're lowering off of than whether your belayer is going to drop you. Why the hell would you gumbies wear out the anchor equipment so someone has to replace it more frequently than they otherwise would if everyone rappeled? At all the sport crags I've been to, if there aren't many people climbing there, then it doesn't really matter which you do, there just isn't enough wear and tear. If there are lots of people climbing there then taking the time to rap is somewhat discourteous.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Apr 27, 2010, 6:26 PM
Post #62 of 87
(9928 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
jt512 wrote: edge wrote: Even if your belayer is spot on belaying while you are leading, there is something about the pause during cleaning and lowering that can knock them off their game. That is well put. I was trying to analyze exactly why lowering after cleaning is "different," and couldn't quite do it. The bottom line is exactly what you said. I was giving this some thought yesterday. In the case where you're initially leading, slapping in draws, and lowering, you're not transitioning from one system to the other. The belayer is clear in her duties the entire time. When you're cleaning an anchor, you're transitioning between systems. At some point, you're directly connected to the bolts/anchor, and often untied from the belay system. I want to double-check before ever putting myself on a new system. What I typically do isn't dissimilar. I tend to anchor in with 2' slings rather than draws. When I'm retied and my partner starts taking out the slack in the system, I move up until my weight is off my direct connection. I sit back on the rope (testing it) before cleaning my anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Apr 27, 2010, 11:58 PM
Post #63 of 87
(9884 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
jt512 wrote: .... Finally, any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail. so why don't you just rap every time you clean the anchors?
jt512 wrote: P.S. How can you not feel at least a little bit stupid arguing against a safety precaution with no downside in a thread in which a serious accident is discussed that this precaution would have avoided? also, grabbing the belayer's side of the rope until you are sure they have you will only protect you from a belayer who just never locks off at all. it won't protect you from jack shit if the belayer loses control of the rope while they are lowering. the second possibility seems just as likely for glbauer's story.
(This post was edited by drivel on Apr 27, 2010, 11:58 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 28, 2010, 12:01 AM
Post #64 of 87
(9879 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
drivel wrote: jt512 wrote: .... Finally, any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail. so why don't you just rap every time you clean the anchors? jt512 wrote: P.S. How can you not feel at least a little bit stupid arguing against a safety precaution with no downside in a thread in which a serious accident is discussed that this precaution would have avoided? also, grabbing the belayer's side of the rope until you are sure they have you will only protect you from a belayer who just never locks off at all. it won't protect you from jack shit if the belayer loses control of the rope while they are lowering. the second possibility seems just as likely for glbauer's story. Why does J giving himself a 2nd chance to recover from some stupid communication mistake (for example), trouble you so much??? I just don't get this. I truly don't. DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 28, 2010, 12:02 AM
Post #65 of 87
(9879 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
drivel wrote: jt512 wrote: .... Finally, any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail. so why don't you just rap every time you clean the anchors? Why don't you just read the thread?
In reply to: also, grabbing the belayer's side of the rope until you are sure they have you will only protect you from a belayer who just never locks off at all. it won't protect you from jack shit if the belayer loses control of the rope while they are lowering. It also won't protect you from food poisoning, West Nile Virus, earthquakes, or sudden cardiac death. But, guess what? It will protect you if your belayer didn't put you on tension. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Apr 28, 2010, 12:08 AM
Post #66 of 87
(9873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
jt512 wrote: drivel wrote: jt512 wrote: .... Finally, any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail. so why don't you just rap every time you clean the anchors? Why don't you just read the thread? In reply to: also, grabbing the belayer's side of the rope until you are sure they have you will only protect you from a belayer who just never locks off at all. it won't protect you from jack shit if the belayer loses control of the rope while they are lowering. It also won't protect you from food poisoning, West Nile Virus, earthquakes, or sudden cardiac death. But, guess what? It will protect you if your belayer didn't put you on tension. Jay just finished readin' the thread. i agree that rapping is more dangerous than lowering, but that wasn't my point. my point is that, when rapping, you take responsibility for your own safety. when lowering, you let someone else take responsibility for your safety, when you could have done it yourself, therefore, according to you:
In reply to: any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail. ... you fail.
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Apr 28, 2010, 12:09 AM
Post #67 of 87
(9870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
dingus wrote: drivel wrote: jt512 wrote: .... Finally, any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail. so why don't you just rap every time you clean the anchors? jt512 wrote: P.S. How can you not feel at least a little bit stupid arguing against a safety precaution with no downside in a thread in which a serious accident is discussed that this precaution would have avoided? also, grabbing the belayer's side of the rope until you are sure they have you will only protect you from a belayer who just never locks off at all. it won't protect you from jack shit if the belayer loses control of the rope while they are lowering. the second possibility seems just as likely for glbauer's story. Why does J giving himself a 2nd chance to recover from some stupid communication mistake (for example), trouble you so much??? I just don't get this. I truly don't. DMT it doesn't fucking trouble me. when i clean anchors, i use 24" slings so that i have enough room to make sure the belayer well and truly has me in tension before i unclip myself. same logic, different method. my actual beef is with his absolutism on the "you fail" statement. see my post above this one.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 28, 2010, 12:10 AM
Post #68 of 87
(9868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Ah I see, its all about jt512. Enjoy! DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Apr 28, 2010, 12:10 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Apr 28, 2010, 12:13 AM
Post #69 of 87
(9860 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
dingus wrote: Ah I see, its all about jt512. Enjoy! DMT about his statement, and the absurdity of it, re; rappelling vs lowering, and "personal responsibility," yeah. mostly cause, as i said above, i really do agree that lowering is safer. and yet, you COULD 'take responsibility for yourself' and rap. so as not to be a failure in jay's book. yeah.
(This post was edited by drivel on Apr 28, 2010, 12:15 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Apr 28, 2010, 12:14 AM
Post #70 of 87
(9859 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
dingus wrote: Ah I see, its all about jt512. Enjoy! DMT alternate response: i just want jay to pay attention to me. this is the only way i can get it.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 28, 2010, 12:16 AM
Post #71 of 87
(9854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
drivel wrote: jt512 wrote: drivel wrote: jt512 wrote: .... Finally, any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail. so why don't you just rap every time you clean the anchors? Why don't you just read the thread? In reply to: also, grabbing the belayer's side of the rope until you are sure they have you will only protect you from a belayer who just never locks off at all. it won't protect you from jack shit if the belayer loses control of the rope while they are lowering. It also won't protect you from food poisoning, West Nile Virus, earthquakes, or sudden cardiac death. But, guess what? It will protect you if your belayer didn't put you on tension. Jay just finished readin' the thread. i agree that rapping is more dangerous than lowering, but that wasn't my point. my point is that, when rapping, you take responsibility for your own safety. when lowering, you let someone else take responsibility for your safety, when you could have done it yourself, therefore, according to you: In reply to: any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail. ... you fail. Fine. I fail. Now dirt me. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Apr 28, 2010, 12:17 AM
Post #72 of 87
(9852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
jt512 wrote: drivel wrote: jt512 wrote: drivel wrote: jt512 wrote: .... Finally, any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail. so why don't you just rap every time you clean the anchors? Why don't you just read the thread? In reply to: also, grabbing the belayer's side of the rope until you are sure they have you will only protect you from a belayer who just never locks off at all. it won't protect you from jack shit if the belayer loses control of the rope while they are lowering. It also won't protect you from food poisoning, West Nile Virus, earthquakes, or sudden cardiac death. But, guess what? It will protect you if your belayer didn't put you on tension. Jay just finished readin' the thread. i agree that rapping is more dangerous than lowering, but that wasn't my point. my point is that, when rapping, you take responsibility for your own safety. when lowering, you let someone else take responsibility for your safety, when you could have done it yourself, therefore, according to you: In reply to: any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail. ... you fail. Fine. I fail. Now dirt me. Jay for posterity. ......but you have to let go of the rope first.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 28, 2010, 12:19 AM
Post #73 of 87
(9849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
drivel wrote: dingus wrote: Ah I see, its all about jt512. Enjoy! DMT about his statement, and the absurdity of it, re; rappelling vs lowering, and "personal responsibility," yeah. I know dude but on the other hand we both know what he meant. Anyway, back to topic... I know it irrational (to some extent), but at the sport anchors of an overhanging lower off, right before I ease onto the rope I imagine, just for a second, free falling backwards. I also know, from personal experience, the sound of crunching bones. Its one of my fears, to get dropped like that and statistics sadly, bear this fear out as ligit. I use whatever slingage I have handy. Sometimes girthed to my harness, sometimes run through the tie in points, sometimes clipped willy nilly chain draw style. I still check the belayer has me before committing to the rope - every time. And the worse condition the anchor the more gently I do the easing on. DMT
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Apr 28, 2010, 12:21 AM
Post #74 of 87
(9839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
dingus wrote: drivel wrote: dingus wrote: Ah I see, its all about jt512. Enjoy! DMT about his statement, and the absurdity of it, re; rappelling vs lowering, and "personal responsibility," yeah. I know dude but on the other hand we both know what he meant. jay is such a logic nazi, though. i mean, dude.
In reply to: I still check the belayer has me before committing to the rope - every time. And the worse condition the anchor the more gently I do the easing on. werd. every time.
(This post was edited by drivel on Apr 28, 2010, 12:21 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Apr 28, 2010, 12:30 AM
Post #75 of 87
(9829 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
Rule 1. Climbing is potentially dangerous. Rule 2. You are responsible for your own safety. Rule 3. Learn the rules, the exceptions, and choose your partners accordingly. Rule 4. If your belayer is the primary beneficiary of your insurance, or even if not, consider them suspect. Hell, even if your Mom is belaying you and Dad has left everything to Mom in the event of you dying in a climbing accident, then keep a close eye on Mommy. Rule 5. The above are vast over-reactions. However, if you could do something ridiculously easy, like mentioned above, why wouldn't you? Seriously, what have you got to gain by blind trust, other than giving your belayer a false sense of security? I have had people who I would take a bullet for belay me, and I would still never trust them 100% if I could back up their next move with a pre-emptive strike. I alone am responsible for my own safety. If I use a belayer, that is my personal choice based on my accumulated knowledge. If I make a mistake picking out a partner, then that is my fault. If I do not, then obviously I picked the right person to help me reach my goals. Of course, accidents can and will happen. Accident's by definition, are unexpected. Me grabbing the rope to double check on my belayer may be unexpected to them, but makes perfect sense as a preemptive strike to me. Really, to repeat myself, why wouldn't you? Blind trust is both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
May 3, 2010, 4:29 AM
Post #77 of 87
(5441 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Rope grabber here too but then I am a control freak.
|
|
|
|
|
milesenoell
May 8, 2010, 7:00 PM
Post #78 of 87
(5376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2006
Posts: 1156
|
I find this interesting as I used to grab the rope when I was newer to climbing, but stopped sometime along the line as I got more confident in things. It's easy to get lulled into complacency when everything goes right for a stretch. I may go back to grabbing the rope just to work it back into my regular pattern as an easy way to buffer the risk.
|
|
|
|
|
alpenweg
May 26, 2010, 8:28 PM
Post #79 of 87
(5270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2007
Posts: 204
|
yeah a guy droped me onto my back outdoors from about the 5 meter death point i wear a helmet but still do not understand how nothing wasn`t kaput God saved me! lesson learned, i choose my belayers well!
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Jun 1, 2010, 3:29 AM
Post #80 of 87
(5118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Look, it's really fu*uing simple. Do NOT climb with inexperienced people. Let the noobs go drop someone else. Belaying is a skill. It use to be known as THE most important thing in climbing and was studied and practiced and practiced and practiced some more. For some reason that standard hasn't held up. Just because some jackass showed some well meaning noob how to do it and you walk over and tie in to get belayed doesn't mean they can do it consistently, or if on real rock, with the other hand, or do it in the gym the 2nd or 3rd time. DO NOT CLIMB WITH NOOBS. Don't train them how to belay either, as it just crowds up the areas. Christ...it's so fu*ing simple people. Glad you healed up Gail, for the rest of you, you don't have to be dropped to the dirt to figure this out. I bet JT has some pretty stringent requirements before he'll let you touch the other end of his rope while he's climbing. I do, and mine is you must have been climbing for 2 full years before I'll even consider climbing with you. Do I violate this rule? Sure, but it's rare. When I do, first time out I try and be a 3rd person and observe them belay another person first. I feel that it reduces the probability of being dropped at least 95%, perhaps more. But that's me. Last time I violated my 2 year rule my son came back from college and had finally come over to the dark side and wanted to go out on real rock. (or what passes for real rock around here) Guess what we did first? We went right outside right that moment in front of the house, I tied him off to a telephone pole and I walked towards him while he practiced belaying and catching me. Over and over and over. Then we went out with a small group toproping and I watched him belay others from next to his side. Made sure both hands were on the brake side as he lowered. So when we finally got out in the wilderness, miles from the road with literally no cell coverage, and while I was leading I asked him to lower me down to kick off some lose stuff while doing the 3rd ascent of a multipitch ridge that was still dirty and loose, I didn't think twice about my belay. You all want to just had a noob a gri gri and think that fixed it? Be my guest, however, the same mindset of not giving a shit if the person has skill or not that screwed ya when the noob had the atc will see your teeth eating dirt soon enough.
ClimbClimb wrote: Did you ever figure out what went wrong or any lessons to be drawn, besides having known-good belayers?
gblauer wrote: blah blah meaningless blah blah.... I minimized my group of belayers, I was no longer the guinea pig to take falls for new belayers That's it. In reply to: I was no longer the guinea pig to take falls for new belayers That's what you all need to take away from this.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Jun 1, 2010, 3:42 AM
Post #81 of 87
(5111 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
I just realized that I didn't post accurately and fully above. When my son came home for that summer and said he wanted to go outside (for the first time) and climb, we actually did multiple practice sessions like the telephone pole thing I noted above, before we climbed rock. Then he and I went to a 30' high wall and we practiced some more. Then we went toproping with others, then we went out. The sequence was like, practice belaying...days later practice again, wait a few days practice, go out and practice belaying on the ground and then both of us climb/belay (so he can learn to trust me) a short wall that I often highball boulder and has a nice landing, then later real rock toproping with others, then outside on longer rock climbs close to the roads with cell coverage (like the pic below, great cell coverage, 5 min from the car and @ 30 min SAR response!), then wilderness stuff. I still conside him a beginer and he's coming home soon for this summer, we'll redo some of this stuff cause the stuff I'm climbing these days got even more serious. Don't skip these steps, it's a damn deadly enough thing we do to ignore easy shit like this that should be done by everyone. This is the kid following the first ascent of the route Jim Opdycke named "Child Abuse" LOL! ...Jeff Thomas photo.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Jun 2, 2010, 8:21 PM
Post #82 of 87
(5011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
Why not grab jugs/draws instead of the rope? Seems to me that grabbing the rope is similar to when beginners grab their end of the rope to pull themselves up. By grabbing jugs/draws, you would get a better indication of how much tension you're actually receiving from the belayer rather than your own pulling?
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jun 2, 2010, 9:00 PM
Post #83 of 87
(4991 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
spikeddem wrote: Why not grab jugs/draws instead of the rope? Seems to me that grabbing the rope is similar to when beginners grab their end of the rope to pull themselves up. By grabbing jugs/draws, you would get a better indication of how much tension you're actually receiving from the belayer rather than your own pulling? this is typically what I do when I am lowered. I prefer belayors who let me rest completely on the rope first before they start lowering me, too.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jun 2, 2010, 9:51 PM
Post #84 of 87
(4975 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
spikeddem wrote: Why not grab jugs/draws instead of the rope? Seems to me that grabbing the rope is similar to when beginners grab their end of the rope to pull themselves up. By grabbing jugs/draws, you would get a better indication of how much tension you're actually receiving from the belayer rather than your own pulling? What if there IS no tension, then what? What does this gain you? You still have to let go of those jugs/draws and weight the rope. The moment of truth, in other words, is only delayed by the time you spend wasting energy by dangling. Let's say the belayer passes out, as you're dangling there. Whatcha gonna do? Or the belayer IS paying attention or at least you think he is. You let of the jugs and suddenly drop 10 feet.... he wasn't really paying attention at all. He was making eyes at the dude by the counter. By grabbing the rope, you are ready to deal. The purpose of grabbing the rope is to be ready in case there is a problem. It has nothing to do with inappropriate rope groping by noobs. Look I don't care if you grab the rope or not, or think its nooby or not. Just trying to explain the reason, tis all. Do as you please! Cheers DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 2, 2010, 10:43 PM
Post #85 of 87
(4953 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
spikeddem wrote: Why not grab jugs/draws instead of the rope? Seems to me that grabbing the rope is similar to when beginners grab their end of the rope to pull themselves up. By grabbing jugs/draws, you would get a better indication of how much tension you're actually receiving from the belayer rather than your own pulling? No, you know exactly how much tension you're on when you grab the rope. Try it, and you'll see. What I often do after I've clipped the anchors is grab the rope and say "take" simultaneously. Then I start lowering myself hand over hand while the belayer is putting me on tension. When I can no longer lower myself, I know the belayer has me, and I can safely let go of the rope. Doing this also helps to get all the stretch out of the rope, so that you don't get lowered too fast as you first weight the rope. For what it's worth, it also saves a few seconds per climb. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Jun 8, 2010, 7:13 AM
Post #86 of 87
(4846 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
billcoe_ wrote: I just realized that I didn't post accurately and fully above. When my son came home for that summer and said he wanted to go outside (for the first time) and climb, we actually did multiple practice sessions like the telephone pole thing I noted above, before we climbed rock. Then he and I went to a 30' high wall and we practiced some more. Then we went toproping with others, then we went out. The sequence was like, practice belaying...days later practice again, wait a few days practice, go out and practice belaying on the ground and then both of us climb/belay (so he can learn to trust me) a short wall that I often highball boulder and has a nice landing, then later real rock toproping with others, then outside on longer rock climbs close to the roads with cell coverage (like the pic below, great cell coverage, 5 min from the car and @ 30 min SAR response!), then wilderness stuff. I still conside him a beginer and he's coming home soon for this summer, we'll redo some of this stuff cause the stuff I'm climbing these days got even more serious. Don't skip these steps, it's a damn deadly enough thing we do to ignore easy shit like this that should be done by everyone. This is the kid following the first ascent of the route Jim Opdycke named "Child Abuse" LOL! ...Jeff Thomas photo. [image]http://cascadeclimbers.com/plab/data/500/medium/Shaun_following_Child_Abuse.JPG[/image] Did you also wipe the kid's ass when he shit his britches from being scared witless on that gnarly 5.3 cuz he's led such a sheltered existence his whole life? Joke. I keeed. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Jun 8, 2010, 7:47 AM
Post #87 of 87
(4841 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: ClimbClimb wrote: jt512 wrote: It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off. Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes. It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you. Jay like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes] Yes, actually, I do do that every single time. Jay Heh. You are consistent. I remember asking you this a couple of years ago or so to the same answer. Again, bravo, you are a smart son bitch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|