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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

I've already explained why that is when you're cleaning, which, for some reason, is what I was fixating on.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

My belayer did not have any burns on her hands...

...and she was in the gym climbing the next day.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

So, finally, the rope grabbers are coming out of the closet.

Now, your risk of hitting the ground is 50% * b + 100% * b (making a minor approximation).

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.