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

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

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

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

LL
.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I MUST WARN THE INTERNETS!!!!

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

I MUST WARN THE INTERNETS!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I think you are still confused."

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

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

.

"I think you are still confused."

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

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

.

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

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

"I think you are still confused."

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

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

.