|
albinofrenchy
Dec 29, 2006, 7:47 PM
Post #1 of 39
(4451 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2006
Posts: 9
|
Alright, so I'm visiting family and I'm going to this local gym. I've been a few times before and was aware of the somewhat unsafe practice of making me clip the auto-belay through my tie-in points. Tri-axial loading and all that jazz, but I don't think it's that big of a deal because there is no way I can fall with enough force to snap the biner. It's annoying but whatever.
I took the belay test the other day, and they had me clip my caribiner through both tie-ins. What the hell? Is this not a really bad practice? Especially if they enforce this on lead?
Lastly, I recall seeing in my old gym, they had a sign posted about the correct use of the auto-belays was through the belay loop, and that through the tie-ins was unsafe. It referenced a paper on the subject, does anyone know the one I'm talking about? I'd like a copy of it to show them.
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Dec 29, 2006, 9:20 PM
Post #2 of 39
(4348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
The report is on the UIAA website here: http://www.uiaa.ch/...20with%20figure8.pdf
Note that the warning is in reference to the use of fig 8s but also note that the same problems could occur with any device which has a rigid attachment point like the Grigri, Cinch, SUM, EDDY, SGB II and others.
Also note. Every harness and belay device manufacturer recommends that you clip in for belaying and rapelling through the belay loop and specifically warns against clipping in to the leg loop/waistbelt.
If your gym is worried about liability then they should pay attention to what the leading climbing safety organizations recommend (UIAA, UIAGM, AMGA) and what the harness and belay device manufacturers recommend. If they ended up in court they could not find a single manufacturer or national/internationally regognized organization that would back them up.
BTW, I don't think there has been a report of a belay 'biner breaking from tri-axial loading but there have been numerous reports of shredded rope sheaths from contact with the hinge area and 'biners breaking because their gates were torqued by some rigid stem device.
Untill the Skinner harness incident there were no known cases of belay loop failure. Todd's harness blew because it was waaaaaay past needing to be retired, not because of any inherent flaws in the belay loop concept. More specifically there have been many incidences of failure/injury/death that occurred when the belay 'biner was attached to the leg loop/waistbelt combo and only one (Skinner) incident of belay loop failure.
Good luck in your attempts,
Mal
(This post was edited by maldaly on Dec 29, 2006, 9:20 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
angusmacginny
Dec 29, 2006, 10:45 PM
Post #3 of 39
(4255 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2006
Posts: 98
|
There is a right way and a wrong way no matter what anyone tells you. The right way is the way the harness manufacturer desinged the harness for. They are fucking wrong. Go tell them that.
|
|
|
|
|
moss1956
Dec 29, 2006, 11:33 PM
Post #4 of 39
(4205 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2002
Posts: 213
|
If you were going to lead on autobelay there might be a problem... but you aren't so just relax and have a good time.
|
|
|
|
|
mingleefu
Dec 29, 2006, 11:52 PM
Post #5 of 39
(4189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2003
Posts: 466
|
Those auto belay biners are often a monster steel biner that never gets detatched from the belay. The steel biners are much stronger than your average belay biner, and don't need to cause any concern. For the gentle fall that occurs when coming off the wall onto an auto belay, clipping through the tie-in points should be just fine.
I belay from my belay loop. I've never belayed from the tie-in points, and only briefly tried belaying by clipping the biner through both the belay loop and upper tie-in point. The latter caused he harness to fit all wrong under load, and I stopped.
Show the gym manager (not some low level peon, but the one in charge) the safety sheet that comes with the harnesses that are being sold at that gym. Explain why you feel the way you do.
|
|
|
|
|
coastal_climber
Dec 30, 2006, 1:57 AM
Post #6 of 39
(4134 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 2542
|
Which Gym?
|
|
|
|
|
albinofrenchy
Dec 30, 2006, 7:56 AM
Post #7 of 39
(4067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2006
Posts: 9
|
Reread it, they are insisting on this for top rope belaying, not just autobelay. I don't care on autobelays so much.
|
|
|
|
|
albinofrenchy
Dec 30, 2006, 7:57 AM
Post #8 of 39
(4067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2006
Posts: 9
|
Thanks for the link! I think i'm going to email them some of that stuff, because apparently it's more dangerous than I thought, esp on top rope.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Dec 30, 2006, 10:25 AM
Post #9 of 39
(4044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
albinofrenchy wrote: Thanks for the link! I think i'm going to email them some of that stuff, because apparently it's more dangerous than I thought, esp on top rope.
Policies are in place mostly to protect the gym from lawsuits...Mal makes a strong argument for the gym to revise their policy, in everyone's interest.
With the Skinner accident happening recently, there has been a lot of chatter about belay loop usage...you'll be able to easilly find expert opinions from BD, Trango, Metolius, Misty Mountain...etc...which all state that the belay loop is to be used for carabiner attachment to the harness. Perhaps offer to provide the owner with these statements and opinions...see what rental harnesses they use, have the gym call their rep and see what they have to say.
Good luck, just remember...it's THEIR gym. Telling them they're "fuckin' wrong" in their own house, isn't gonna get you anywhere except out the door.
Good luck,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
moss1956
Dec 30, 2006, 2:27 PM
Post #10 of 39
(3992 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2002
Posts: 213
|
OK, here is the longer response.
I went through the same battle with the local gym. Our gym is part of the University field house. Not only did they force everyone to clip in incorrectly in the gym, but they taught outdoor classes where they convinced 60 people a weekend that this was how to clip in!
In defense of the gym, the carabiners they use in the gym are stainless steel, and they only teach people to top rope. Unless the belayer was totally incompetent, there is no way that a top roping fall will generate the kind of forces needed to break one of those carabiners.
On the other hand, people were learning to clip in wrong at the start and then progressing to become lead climbers using the wrong technique.
I argued and argued with them, and then I printed out a report that I got off of the Petzl website that described a couple of fatal accidents caused by cross loading a carabiner clipped into the harness at two points. A year later the gym relented.
It was a miserable experience. I am not sure what it did besides convince the administrator who runs the gym that I am a troublemaker, and cause me to lose all respect for the administrator.
Like they say, in the valley of the blind the one eyed man is king, but in the valley of the witless, the halfwit is a heretic.
I think you will be happier if you just let it slide.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Dec 30, 2006, 4:57 PM
Post #11 of 39
(3925 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
I would go as far as saying they shouldn't even require the tie in points to be clipped on the auto belay.
I understand that that big ol' biner isn't going to break, safety isn't a concern in this case. It's a pain in the ass for kids to clip the auto belay, they have some pretty heavy spring tension. It would be easier for that biner to get away from a kid and ziiiing. That's got to be bad for it, and those puppies are expensive.
Next you'll say that the kid should have clipped the belay to the floor before clipping into his harness. Well yes he should have but he's a kid at a gym.
|
|
|
|
|
coastal_climber
Dec 31, 2006, 3:26 PM
Post #12 of 39
(3818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 2542
|
What else are you going to use an auto belay for other than TRing?
|
|
|
|
|
coastal_climber
Dec 31, 2006, 9:53 PM
Post #13 of 39
(3746 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 2542
|
albinofrenchy wrote: Alright, so I'm visiting family and I'm going to this local gym. I've been a few times before and was aware of the somewhat unsafe practice of making me clip the auto-belay through my tie-in points. Tri-axial loading and all that jazz, but I don't think it's that big of a deal because there is no way I can fall with enough force to snap the biner. It's annoying but whatever. I took the belay test the other day, and they had me clip my caribiner through both tie-ins. What the hell? Is this not a really bad practice? Especially if they enforce this on lead? Lastly, I recall seeing in my old gym, they had a sign posted about the correct use of the auto-belays was through the belay loop, and that through the tie-ins was unsafe. It referenced a paper on the subject, does anyone know the one I'm talking about? I'd like a copy of it to show them.
So why exactly do you think this is wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
albinofrenchy
Jan 1, 2007, 12:15 AM
Post #14 of 39
(3706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2006
Posts: 9
|
It tri-axial loads the biner, one of which could easily be on the minor axis. It also makes it very possible to put pressure directly on the gate, which is even worse. Also, there are multiple cases of the rope rubbing on a sharp edge of the biner and cutting the rope. I can link to the paper on this if you want. On top rope, if you are like me and like six inches to a foot of slack in your line when you climb, this is all more dangerous, and on lead it is downright deadly.
All of this is avoided if you just use the belay loop like everyone says. I don't want to say the name of the gym but it's a florida gym.
|
|
|
|
|
coastal_climber
Jan 1, 2007, 7:06 PM
Post #15 of 39
(3656 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 2542
|
Auto-belays don't give you slack, there is about 3-7lbs of pull.
|
|
|
|
|
htotsu
Jan 1, 2007, 7:27 PM
Post #16 of 39
(3649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Posts: 673
|
I understand your hesitation about naming the gym. If this were a personal matter, e.g. "I think the owner of Gym X is an ass because he made me wipe my feet front to back instead of back to front, and won't let me drink Powerade in the lockerroom" then you shouldn't name names.
But if they are teaching unsafe practices - objectively "unsafe", as in contrary to the official instruction manual - then that's a different matter. If people in that area are going to recommend gyms to friends and family who want to learn, I bet they'd want to know whether this is the gym they're sending them to. Also, hell, it's a safety issue that isn't based on your personal opinion or personal experience.
How 'bout this. After you present the paper, links, instruction manual, etc. to the owners, let us know what they say. If they agree and stop the practice then maybe no one needs to know the specifics of the gym. But if they blow you off and insist on teaching people to use climbing equipment contrary to how the companies' instruction manuals instruct, and you are absolutely certain that this is what they are doing, then it's reasonable to inform people of where this is going on. Or contact the companies themselves, and let them know which gym and the contact information of the owner who is doing this. I bet they'd be interested.
Best to keep this as objective as possible, of course - the instruction manual states X, they teach Y. Question - does the gym present "Y" somewhere in writing, like on the web or in a pamphlet, or only verbally as they teach? If in writing, this helps cover your own pitoot if you name them around here because it's clear that you are only stating fact, and that it's not personal. But if they refuse to change their teaching practice that's enough to let the manufacturers know what's going on, and to ask whether they ever step in in situations like this.
Either way, hopefully the people who learned wrong but stick with climbing will eventually be corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
oldsalt
Jan 1, 2007, 8:54 PM
Post #17 of 39
(3603 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2004
Posts: 919
|
I climb at a Florida gym that requires that the autobelay biner be clipped through two points and not the belay loop (South Metro YMCA in Jacksonville).
The climbing director is a very knowledgeable AMGA certified guy who explains that the belay loop is for belaying - the belay device clips into it. The climber ties the rope into the harness through two points, so the climber on autobelay clips into the same two points. I understand that he is in line with insurance regulations as well.
I hope I explained this correctly, Lee.
|
|
|
|
|
pro_alien
Jan 1, 2007, 9:55 PM
Post #18 of 39
(3573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 256
|
oldsalt wrote: I climb at a Florida gym that requires that the autobelay biner be clipped through two points and not the belay loop (South Metro YMCA in Jacksonville). The climbing director is a very knowledgeable AMGA certified guy who explains that the belay loop is for belaying - the belay device clips into it. The climber ties the rope into the harness through two points, so the climber on autobelay clips into the same two points. I understand that he is in line with insurance regulations as well.
Still doesn't make sense. If I tie in with a rope, I will of course use the two points designed for this. For the autobelay you clip one or two carabiners, something that the belay loop is better suited for. If it is good enough to belay my partner from, it is good enough to hold me !
Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
coastal_climber
Jan 2, 2007, 1:35 AM
Post #19 of 39
(3534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 2542
|
Personal preference I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
jpartridge78
Jan 2, 2007, 1:51 AM
Post #20 of 39
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2006
Posts: 27
|
I believe this is more than a personal preference issue.
I don't believe that the 'you tie your rope through both so clip the autobelay biner through both' analogy is correct.
Has anyone heard about the dangers of tri-axially loading a rope?
Me neither!
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Jan 2, 2007, 2:11 AM
Post #21 of 39
(3508 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
You're not going to break one of those autobelay's biners. Not with a cement truck. So that's not an issue.
I see two other issues though.
1. It reinforces bad habits. Outside of the gym people don't carry massive steel lockers with a swivel.
2. Clipping two points is harder to do than one. This is exagerrated if you have an auto-belay pulling upward at you while you're doing it. It would be easier to fumble the clip and let go. While no-one gets hurt, this will cause the auto belay to zing upward really fast. It's probably really bad for the device and they are expensive. This is the arguement that most likely would get the gym owners attention.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Jan 2, 2007, 3:15 AM
Post #22 of 39
(3472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
oldsalt wrote: I climb at a Florida gym that requires that the autobelay biner be clipped through two points and not the belay loop (South Metro YMCA in Jacksonville).
The climbing director is a very knowledgeable AMGA certified guy who explains that the belay loop is for belaying - the belay device clips into it. The climber ties the rope into the harness through two points, so the climber on autobelay clips into the same two points. I understand that he is in line with insurance regulations as well. I hope I explained this correctly, Lee.
Question, is he listed on the AMGA's list currently? What's his cert level? Do you know who he got it with?
If that really is his argument, I'd doubt that he's actually taken an AMGA course. Guess he could've dozed off on day 1 though.
Something sounds funny here, though.
I knew of a guy who worked in a gym in Maine, and claimed to have taken and passed his AMGA Rock Guides Exam, his Alpine Guides Exam, and his Ski Mountaineering Exam. The kid was 21, and also claimed he got all of his Grade IV experience for the rok guides course in Rumney, NH.  He hadn't even taken his TRSM COURSE, let alone any of the exams. He got pretty quiet when a AMGA RI buddy of mine started in with the questions!
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
albinofrenchy
Jan 2, 2007, 3:36 AM
Post #23 of 39
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2006
Posts: 9
|
Right, I'm talking about when someone is belaying you. I've don't refer to using the auto-belay as 'top-roping' since no rope is actually involved and that mincing of terms would (did) get confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
albinofrenchy
Jan 2, 2007, 10:17 AM
Post #24 of 39
(3398 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2006
Posts: 9
|
The name of the place is "On The Edge" in melbourne FL.
I was talking to some of the guys that work there, and they are perfectly aware of the dangers associated with belaying this way, and they confirmed they enforce this rule on lead. Talk about the sharp end of the rope, lead falls can get around 2 to 5 kN and the biner has a max load of 7 kN. Thats way too close.
Apparently the insurance company demands that they teach it this way. I guess thats what you get when you get insurance from "Willful Negligence Inc."
I'm not here for too long, so I'm just not going to belay here. I need more bouldering work anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
albinofrenchy
Jan 2, 2007, 10:21 AM
Post #25 of 39
(3397 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2006
Posts: 9
|
The problem with this logic is the reason that we tie through the tie in points is because it is bad for rope to be supported directly by that nylon. Apparently the friction can burn through one of them. Belay loops were specifically made for contact with the metal of your caribiner though.
I still dont think it matters on autobelay, but I'm weary of people who try explaining away rules with bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
