|
patto
Feb 8, 2011, 8:18 PM
Post #51 of 151
(9245 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
shoo wrote: It should be obvious that either a redirect off the anchor or a guide block device direct from the anchor are vastly superior to a direct from harness belay in the vast majority of scenarios. A redirect off the anchor is not vastly superior to a direct harness belay. All this assumes that the anchor is directly above the belayer and the climb. This is often not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 8, 2011, 8:33 PM
Post #52 of 151
(9231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
wwalt822 wrote: I'm going to guess he was BUS user. I agree with the others in that he was probably used to pulling the rope downward to brake. The BUS method instills the muscle memory of driving the rope downwards between your legs to brake which is useless when belaying off the harness from above I'm a palm up pinch and slide user (ZOMG my climber's gonna die!!!11exclamationone1121240!) and my reaction is always to lock my hand next to my hip. This will apply braking power whether belaying from below or belaying off my harness from above. EDIT: BUS method explained http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-a0FLqwPL8 If that was how I was taught, I'd probably be P&Ser too!
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 8, 2011, 8:37 PM
Post #53 of 151
(9228 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
Rmsyll2 wrote: A person standing or sitting on a rim won't be pulled off by a falling climber? You are doing it wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 8, 2011, 8:53 PM
Post #54 of 151
(9213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Anchor setup - irrelevant Off the harness or redirect - irrelevant Hand method with the belay device - irrelevant Type of ATC - irrelevant ATC or Grigri - irrelevant The only thing that is relevant is that the belayer wasn't up to the task at hand with the device he was using. He had inadequate knowledge and experience for belaying in that situation and circumstance they found themselves in and both were unprepared for the decisions they needed to make at that moment. The both climbers needed more time seconding a competent leaders and more time belaying before venturing into multipitch on their own. Given an adequate anchor, all the rest of the banter in this thread is personal preference with little to no bearing the incident.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Feb 8, 2011, 9:40 PM
Post #55 of 151
(9185 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Agreed healyj. (Though most of us I presume know that. And debate is just periphery.)
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Feb 8, 2011, 10:42 PM
Post #56 of 151
(9166 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
patto wrote: Agreed healyj. (Though most of us I presume know that. And debate is just periphery.) +2 And debate is inevitable.
|
|
|
|
|
Rmsyll2
Feb 9, 2011, 2:50 AM
Post #57 of 151
(9133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2010
Posts: 266
|
"You are doing it wrong." That is you attacking me, as too many here generally find amusement and gratification in doing, and offering zero helpful information. One reply said flatly that he never used an anchor, implying to me that he just stands or sits above a climber. That makes no sense to me in terms of safety for the circumstance, making the total of responses more confusing to me, as stated. I do believe that a cam device would have been the saving grace in this case and in general, that is why they were developed and how they became so popular; and D. did belay A. with one at the start. Yes, the handle or cam on a GriGri or Cinch can be held in the open position and drop a climber, but that is not a trained response so far as I know or suspect. No one has mentioned my suggestion of a carabiner auto-block: none of you use that or recommend that for top-belay? The climber D. thought that an ATC used directly could not hold a fall: you are all agreed that is not true, it had to be only belayer error in using it? It was D.'s idea that a redirect would reduce brake force needed, and my notion of pulley advantage is a crude attempt to figure out why he would think so. Do you all (except the fellow talking about doubling the force on the anchor) agree there is only friction involved in any arrangement of any belay system, so the system is only personal preferrence with no best way to do a top-belay? .
|
|
|
|
|
dugl33
Feb 9, 2011, 3:35 AM
Post #58 of 151
(9120 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740
|
Rmsyll2 wrote: "You are doing it wrong." That is you attacking me, as too many here generally find amusement and gratification in doing, and offering zero helpful information. One reply said flatly that he never used an anchor, implying to me that he just stands or sits above a climber. That makes no sense to me in terms of safety for the circumstance, making the total of responses more confusing to me, as stated. I do believe that a cam device would have been the saving grace in this case and in general, that is why they were developed and how they became so popular; and D. did belay A. with one at the start. Yes, the handle or cam on a GriGri or Cinch can be held in the open position and drop a climber, but that is not a trained response so far as I know or suspect. No one has mentioned my suggestion of a carabiner auto-block: none of you use that or recommend that for top-belay? The climber D. thought that an ATC used directly could not hold a fall: you are all agreed that is not true, it had to be only belayer error in using it? It was D.'s idea that a redirect would reduce brake force needed, and my notion of pulley advantage is a crude attempt to figure out why he would think so. Do you all (except the fellow talking about doubling the force on the anchor) agree there is only friction involved in any arrangement of any belay system, so the system is only personal preferrence with no best way to do a top-belay? . People are actually trying to provide helpful information, but you seem reluctant to hear it. With regards to the bolded section, if you are referring to healyje's post http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2458390#2458390 then this is also a misunderstanding. What he means is he doesn't belay directly off the anchor, nor use a redirect off the anchor, but rather belays off his harness. He doesn't mean he isn't connected to a bombproof anchor. Without an anchor, yes, you will get pulled off. Early in my climbing days I made the mistake once of not tying in short enough, and got yanked right off my perch. I held the rope locked off, the anchor held me, but that was really uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Feb 9, 2011, 3:58 AM
Post #59 of 151
(9111 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Rmsyll2 wrote: "You are doing it wrong." That is you attacking me, as too many here generally find amusement and gratification in doing, and offering zero helpful information. You will find alot of good information in between the various debate and hyperbole about 'this way' is ALWAYS best and NEVER do 'this' as it is shit. The fact is that pretty much everything described in this thread is safe and sensible if done competently. There was nothing inherantly wrong in the fundamental system involved in the belay of this accident. But somewhere along the line the belayer lost control of the belay. Two obvious questions spring to mind: 1. Was there slack in the anchor so when the weight was place on the belay the belayer was pulled from his stance? 2. How was the belayer locking off?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 9, 2011, 4:28 AM
Post #60 of 151
(9103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
patto wrote: jt512 wrote: You said what is standard practice is "belaying off the harness without a redirect." Now you're saying have the anchor take the load. But it can't, by definition, if you're belaying off the harness without a redirect. You certainly can. -Belay biner through harness with ATC. Hence belaying off harness, no redirect. -Anchor attached to belay biner without slack. Hence anchor takes load. This is a pointlessly convoluted version of a direct belay off the anchor. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 9, 2011, 4:35 AM
Post #61 of 151
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
shoo wrote: It should be obvious that either a redirect off the anchor or a guide block device direct from the anchor are vastly superior to a direct from harness belay in the vast majority of scenarios. Superior in what way? There is no difference in safety. As I have previously discussed, a direct belay off the anchor, except with a munter hitch, results in a terrible belay for the second (see the previous thread on this; I don't want to get into again), and lowering would be all but impossible. The redirect is superior to the belay off the harness for lowering only because it is vastly more comfortable for the lowerer, who doesn't have to suffer with 170 pounds of dead weight hanging off his kidneys while lowering. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 9, 2011, 4:39 AM
Post #62 of 151
(9093 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
potreroed wrote: If the belayer had been using a gri gri and a re-direct this accident would prolly not have happened. Yeah, but some other accident probably would have. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
112
Feb 9, 2011, 4:40 AM
Post #63 of 151
(9092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2004
Posts: 432
|
dugl33 wrote: Without an anchor, yes, you will get pulled off. Don't get Joseph started on stances!
(This post was edited by 112 on Feb 9, 2011, 5:10 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Feb 9, 2011, 4:56 AM
Post #64 of 151
(9079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
jt512 wrote: This is a pointlessly convoluted version of a direct belay off the anchor. Convaluted? Hardly. It is quite simple Jay. Surely you can understand the advantages of belaying off your harness. In fact you have argued these advantages previous. Having and ATC attached to the anchor makes taking in slack while being locked off difficult. This seem yet another method that you simply have no idea about and are completely close minded to. Seriously Jay open you mind a little.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 9, 2011, 5:00 AM
Post #65 of 151
(9073 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
patto wrote: jt512 wrote: This is a pointlessly convoluted version of a direct belay off the anchor. Convaluted? Hardly. It is quite simple Jay. Surely you can understand the advantages of belaying off your harness. In fact you have argued these advantages previous. Having and ATC attached to the anchor makes taking in slack while being locked off difficult. This seem yet another method that you simply have no idea about and are completely close minded to. Seriously Jay open you mind a little. Well, I was going to compliment you...until I read your last paragraph. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Feb 9, 2011, 5:10 AM
Post #66 of 151
(9066 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
jt512 wrote: Well, I was going to compliment you...until I read your last paragraph. Jay I'm glad you didn't. I would have fallen out of my chair!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 9, 2011, 5:12 AM
Post #67 of 151
(9063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
patto wrote: jt512 wrote: Well, I was going to compliment you...until I read your last paragraph. Jay I'm glad you didn't. I would have fallen out of my chair! I was quite shocked myself, you not being wrong. ;) Jay
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 9, 2011, 5:38 AM
Post #68 of 151
(9059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Rmsyll2 wrote: One reply said flatly that he never used an anchor, implying to me that he just stands or sits above a climber. That makes no sense to me in terms of safety for the circumstance, making the total of responses more confusing to me, as stated. Some of us are old guys who climbed bitd on just stoppers and hexs and sometimes you ran out of most gear before an anchor or the anchor you could get would be marginal. We'd essentially never weight an anchor unless it were a hanging belay and there was no choice - we used stance belaying with anchors as a backup. Proper stancing is all but a lost craft at this point. I still never weight an anchor unless I have to.
Rmsyll2 wrote: I do believe that a cam device would have been the saving grace in this case and in general, that is why they were developed and how they became so popular; and D. did belay A. with one at the start. Yes, the handle or cam on a GriGri or Cinch can be held in the open position and drop a climber, but that is not a trained response so far as I know or suspect. No, that's the natural body response and why endless numbers of climbers are dropped with grigiris year in year out. And that is not why they became popular; they became popular because of people repeatedly hanging to rest mid-climb which becomes problematic with ATCs. And it's always the case that something would "have been the saving grace" in specific situations, but in the general case the majority of drops are with grigris.
Rmsyll2 wrote: No one has mentioned my suggestion of a carabiner auto-block: none of you use that or recommend that for top-belay? The essential message you should be taking away from this is related to learning, practice, experience, and judgment - not some aspect of devices or belay technique. Any time you think a different device or technique would have changed the outcome of an incident that occurred with fairly standard gear then you are looking at both the wrong problem statement and for the wrong solution.
Rmsyll2 wrote: The climber D. thought that an ATC used directly could not hold a fall: you are all agreed that is not true, it had to be only belayer error in using it? Yes, the incident was entirely pilot-error due to inexperience.
Rmsyll2 wrote: It was D.'s idea that a redirect would reduce brake force needed, and my notion of pulley advantage is a crude attempt to figure out why he would think so. Do you all (except the fellow talking about doubling the force on the anchor) agree there is only friction involved in any arrangement of any belay system, so the system is only personal preferrence with no best way to do a top-belay? The forces involved with this incident - whether using direct or indirect belaying - were all well within a normal capability of a belay. What's really going on is that gym, sport, and single pitch climbers don't have much experience belaying from the tops of climbs where the orientation of the rope, device and hand is downward rather than upward when belaying off the harness. The real advantage of redirecting the belay in today's world where that is the case is that doing so restores that orientation back to one that is more familiar for many if not most climbers. In that orientation they are both more comfortable and hence more competent. But again, this doesn't have anything to do with different devices or techniques, this was strictly a matter of not having the requisite experience and skill at the specific choices D and A made as they contemplated executing the lower.
|
|
|
|
|
JAB
Feb 9, 2011, 7:28 AM
Post #69 of 151
(9032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 373
|
healyje wrote: But again, this doesn't have anything to do with different devices or techniques, this was strictly a matter of not having the requisite experience and skill at the specific choices D and A made as they contemplated executing the lower. This sums it up quite well. To add, a regular ATC does not have a lot of friction, and I wouldn't be surprised if the strong-backed dropped marine would be a lot heavier than his belayer. Start lowering with a slightly wrong grip and before you know it you have lost control.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Feb 9, 2011, 9:56 AM
Post #70 of 151
(9011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
patto wrote: jt512 wrote: This is a pointlessly convoluted version of a direct belay off the anchor. Convaluted? Hardly. It is quite simple Jay. Surely you can understand the advantages of belaying off your harness. In fact you have argued these advantages previous. Having and ATC attached to the anchor makes taking in slack while being locked off difficult. Well, yes and no. If the anchor is built out of the rope and is more than a few feet from the power point (think any ledgy top-out), this is a non-issue. Get the length right, seat yourself comfortably beside it, and take in slack more or less as you would while belaying from a harness. In the case of a fall, the stretch of the rope in the anchor moves the power point down and away from you, leaving you more-or-less automatically locked off. With a bit of practice, it can be very comfortable and smooth.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 9, 2011, 12:52 PM
Post #71 of 151
(8990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
healyje wrote: Anchor setup - irrelevant Off the harness or redirect - irrelevant Hand method with the belay device - irrelevant Type of ATC - irrelevant ATC or Grigri - irrelevant The only thing that is relevant is that the belayer wasn't up to the task at hand with the device he was using. He had inadequate knowledge and experience for belaying in that situation and circumstance they found themselves in and both were unprepared for the decisions they needed to make at that moment. The both climbers needed more time seconding a competent leaders and more time belaying before venturing into multipitch on their own. Given an adequate anchor, all the rest of the banter in this thread is personal preference with little to no bearing the incident. Of course, I agree, but I'm not sure you're disagreeing with anybody else. It seems to me you're speaking in general terms, while others are discussing specifics.
|
|
|
|
|
cfnubbler
Feb 9, 2011, 2:36 PM
Post #72 of 151
(8966 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 628
|
jt512 wrote: shoo wrote: It should be obvious that either a redirect off the anchor or a guide block device direct from the anchor are vastly superior to a direct from harness belay in the vast majority of scenarios. Superior in what way? There is no difference in safety. As I have previously discussed, a direct belay off the anchor, except with a munter hitch, results in a terrible belay for the second (see the previous thread on this; I don't want to get into again), and lowering would be all but impossible. The redirect is superior to the belay off the harness for lowering only because it is vastly more comfortable for the lowerer, who doesn't have to suffer with 170 pounds of dead weight hanging off his kidneys while lowering. Jay I'm aware of your often stated dislike of plaquette belays when seconding, and while I disagree, certainly see your point. But your contention that lowering would be all but impossible with one is just plain silly. I can flip a loaded plaquette and transition to a lower in about a minute, and a hell of a lot faster than that if the climber is able to unweight the device his/herself. If one can't do so, one has no business using them in the first place.
(This post was edited by cfnubbler on Feb 9, 2011, 2:38 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
iknowfear
Feb 9, 2011, 4:06 PM
Post #73 of 151
(8935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2004
Posts: 670
|
cfnubbler wrote: jt512 wrote: shoo wrote: It should be obvious that either a redirect off the anchor or a guide block device direct from the anchor are vastly superior to a direct from harness belay in the vast majority of scenarios. Superior in what way? There is no difference in safety. As I have previously discussed, a direct belay off the anchor, except with a munter hitch, results in a terrible belay for the second (see the previous thread on this; I don't want to get into again), and lowering would be all but impossible. The redirect is superior to the belay off the harness for lowering only because it is vastly more comfortable for the lowerer, who doesn't have to suffer with 170 pounds of dead weight hanging off his kidneys while lowering. Jay I'm aware of your often stated dislike of plaquette belays when seconding, and while I disagree, certainly see your point. But your contention that lowering would be all but impossible with one is just plain silly. I can flip a loaded plaquette and transition to a lower in about a minute, and a hell of a lot faster than that if the climber is able to unweight the device his/herself. If one can't do so, one has no business using them in the first place. The vast majority of belayers with an atc guide or such in autoblock THINK they know what happens when the autoblock is released. However, most have NEVER tried it out (I'm not saying that is your case, but just my observation). Free Tip for survival of your seconds: NEVER release an autoblock without a munter in behind for the belay... (Don't believe me: try it out somewhere safe...)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 9, 2011, 7:36 PM
Post #74 of 151
(8897 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
I'm doing so because the the specifics are largely irrelevant to the lesson the OP should be taking away (basic pilot error) and all the the rest seems to be confusing them by reinforcing their assumption the lack of a different device or technique was the problem. Bottom line is you should be able to lower someone all day with the configuration they were using, that they couldn't was the issue both in their judgment and skill level relative to that choice.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Feb 9, 2011, 10:47 PM
Post #75 of 151
(8862 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
iknowfear wrote: Free Tip for survival of your seconds: NEVER release an autoblock without a munter in behind for the belay... (Don't believe me: try it out somewhere safe...) Pffft. I don't believe you. Why would you use a munter? Lock off before you release the autoblock and it is all good. If you need to friction belays in series to lower somebody (of regular weight) then something is wrong. (Yes, I have lowered off my reverso on quite a few occasions.)
(This post was edited by patto on Feb 9, 2011, 10:48 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|