|
sidereus7
Oct 8, 2011, 9:59 PM
Post #1 of 26
(7706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2011
Posts: 16
|
I just wanted to hear some climber's opinions on "live" belay tests.
I recently went to a climbing gym at a college gym, and when I asked to get belay checked, they said that I would need a partner to be tested because they do live belay checks. Basically, they have your partner actually climb up one of their 40 foot walls and do two announced falls and one surprise one. The person running the test just stands 4-5 feet away and watches.
Do you guys think this sounds safe? Do a lot of gyms do live belay tests like this?
|
|
|
|
|
ptamayo4
Oct 8, 2011, 10:10 PM
Post #2 of 26
(7698 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2009
Posts: 2
|
Most gyms I have been to do something similar, the only exception being that the person overseeing the test usually acts a backup belay.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Oct 8, 2011, 10:31 PM
Post #3 of 26
(7644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
sidereus7 wrote: I just wanted to hear some climber's opinions on "live" belay tests. I recently went to a climbing gym at a college gym, and when I asked to get belay checked, they said that I would need a partner to be tested because they do live belay checks. Basically, they have your partner actually climb up one of their 40 foot walls and do two announced falls and one surprise one. The person running the test just stands 4-5 feet away and watches. Do you guys think this sounds safe? Do a lot of gyms do live belay tests like this?
Would a paper test be safer?
|
|
|
|
|
sidereus7
Oct 8, 2011, 10:52 PM
Post #4 of 26
(7626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2011
Posts: 16
|
In reply to: Would a paper test be safer?
The gyms that I have been to just have a rope anchored to a normal wall. The tester pretends to climb by giving slack while standing on the ground, then "falls" by leaning back hard on the rope at random. Then they pull with a constant force on the rope as they walk backward to simulate lowering.
I think that's much safer than potentially having someone at the other end of a person who's going fail their belay test.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Oct 8, 2011, 11:34 PM
Post #5 of 26
(7596 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
sidereus7 wrote: In reply to: Would a paper test be safer? The gyms that I have been to just have a rope anchored to a normal wall. The tester pretends to climb by giving slack while standing on the ground, then "falls" by leaning back hard on the rope at random. Then they pull with a constant force on the rope as they walk backward to simulate lowering. I think that's much safer than potentially having someone at the other end of a person who's going fail their belay test.
As someone who used to administer belay tests, you can tell if someone is going to fail their test long before the climber is even five feet off the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
smallclimber
Oct 9, 2011, 12:30 AM
Post #6 of 26
(7557 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 301
|
The gyms (about 4 or 5 different ones) I have climbed at in the US have all done live tests. At one gym you had to do it each time on your first three visits before you were cleared to go without repeating the test. Then a separate test to lead belay.
In the UK (where I used to live) once I had a "mock" test at other places a question or two, but nothing actually with a rope.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Oct 9, 2011, 3:41 AM
Post #7 of 26
(7494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
At my gym the belay lessons are done with the instructor controlling the climber end as you described, taking up rope and leaning on it to simulate climber's movements. Once everyone demonstrates that they have the principles down, they move to live testing. However, it's done with one of the instructors holding the brake strand a few feet back. It's a mixed of announced and unannounced falls, as well as lowering the climber off the route.
I do pretty much the same when I'm teaching someone to belay. I wouldn't let them do it the first time without some kind of back-up.
|
|
|
|
|
stefanohatari
Oct 9, 2011, 4:57 AM
Post #8 of 26
(7468 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2004
Posts: 88
|
ptamayo4 wrote: Most gyms I have been to do something similar, the only exception being that the person overseeing the test usually acts a backup belay.
+1
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Oct 9, 2011, 9:15 AM
Post #9 of 26
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
stefanohatari wrote: ptamayo4 wrote: Most gyms I have been to do something similar, the only exception being that the person overseeing the test usually acts a backup belay. +1
As a gym employee of 4 years, I can tell you that this is a very effective and safe way of ensuring a minimal level of competence. It is not perfect, and demands an enormous amount of staff time and attention, but it is very worth it. I wish all gyms would do this.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Oct 9, 2011, 12:25 PM
Post #10 of 26
(7397 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
We do live Belay test here too.
A first time climber climbs a couple of routes on top-rope with a staff member belaying, then gets a basic belay class. They learn the Reach, pull, grab, slide method and are shown how to break using ATC type device.
The class goes quick, at one point, a staff member climbs while the student belays, another staff member backs up the break hand. The climber falls several times during the belay class. First with lots of warning, and gradually faster and with less warning.
Climbers have to wait at least one week before taking the top-rope test. Process is pretty much repeated, but the climber also does some unannounced falls during the test.
Not sure how to test abelay without someone on the climbing end actually climbing. Having a staff back-up during the process works fine.
|
|
|
|
|
devkrev
Oct 9, 2011, 7:33 PM
Post #11 of 26
(7308 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 933
|
sidereus7 wrote: I just wanted to hear some climber's opinions on "live" belay tests. I recently went to a climbing gym at a college gym, and when I asked to get belay checked, they said that I would need a partner to be tested because they do live belay checks. Basically, they have your partner actually climb up one of their 40 foot walls and do two announced falls and one surprise one. The person running the test just stands 4-5 feet away and watches. Do you guys think this sounds safe? Do a lot of gyms do live belay tests like this?
Its kind of like a job reference...of course you aren't going to give a crappy reference...but it says buckets if you can't provide one at all.
(This post was edited by devkrev on Oct 9, 2011, 7:34 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
atpclimbing
Oct 9, 2011, 9:59 PM
Post #12 of 26
(7261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2011
Posts: 32
|
The gym I work for does live belay tests with an employee backing up the prospective belayer. We do not provide a climber for the belayer to catch though. You better bring someone who knows you're not gonna drop em...or is okay with you doing so as seems to be the case whenever I hear, "Yeah, we/I know how to belay". This is usually followed by "what's that? Ay tee see? Huh"
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Oct 10, 2011, 12:42 AM
Post #13 of 26
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
sidereus7 wrote: I just wanted to hear some climber's opinions on "live" belay tests. I recently went to a climbing gym at a college gym, and when I asked to get belay checked, they said that I would need a partner to be tested because they do live belay checks. Basically, they have your partner actually climb up one of their 40 foot walls and do two announced falls and one surprise one. The person running the test just stands 4-5 feet away and watches. Do you guys think this sounds safe? Do a lot of gyms do live belay tests like this?
Each gym determines what solution works for their business. Personally I like the live belay test b ecause I know that both my partner and I can both belay and climb and I don't have to deal with some random, absurdly unique rule that some crazy owner dreamed up one night while drinking too much cheap booze.
The ones that make me annoyed are the gyms where you can't take a lead test without a special appointment because the staff member on duty isn't competent enough to give the test. Makes me wonder what they're actually there for.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Oct 10, 2011, 4:48 AM
Post #14 of 26
(7155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
Try as they might, gyms can't sanitize the sport completely. Your ass is gonna be on the line sooner or later.
|
|
|
|
|
sidereus7
Oct 10, 2011, 5:31 AM
Post #15 of 26
(7140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2011
Posts: 16
|
In reply to: Try as they might, gyms can't sanitize the sport completely. Your ass is gonna be on the line sooner or later.
As much as I appreciate the sentiment, I respectfully disagree. I would like to believe that while rock climbing is inherently dangerous, we all do our best to minimize that risk as much as possible. If someone can be effectively belay tested from the ground, or at least with a backup belay for a live climber, I would much prefer that to a live belay test without any safety measures.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Oct 10, 2011, 10:12 AM
Post #16 of 26
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
sidereus7 wrote: In reply to: Try as they might, gyms can't sanitize the sport completely. Your ass is gonna be on the line sooner or later. As much as I appreciate the sentiment, I respectfully disagree. I would like to believe that while rock climbing is inherently dangerous, we all do our best to minimize that risk as much as possible. If someone can be effectively belay tested from the ground, or at least with a backup belay for a live climber, I would much prefer that to a live belay test without any safety measures.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Oct 10, 2011, 1:48 PM
Post #17 of 26
(7066 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
sungam wrote: sidereus7 wrote: In reply to: Try as they might, gyms can't sanitize the sport completely. Your ass is gonna be on the line sooner or later. As much as I appreciate the sentiment, I respectfully disagree. I would like to believe that while rock climbing is inherently dangerous, we all do our best to minimize that risk as much as possible. If someone can be effectively belay tested from the ground, or at least with a backup belay for a live climber, I would much prefer that to a live belay test without any safety measures. All N/A is saying is that "as much as possible" will never be equal to "completely". Climbing will always be dangerous, there will always be something that can go wrong (crazy scifi technology excluded).
Yes, things can happen, but I still think climbing is safer than driving a car on public roads. I always found it interesting that climbing companies have to protect themselves with the Climbing is danger label, but cars never have to mention the risk of driving.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Oct 10, 2011, 2:26 PM
Post #18 of 26
(7047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
guangzhou wrote: sungam wrote: sidereus7 wrote: In reply to: Try as they might, gyms can't sanitize the sport completely. Your ass is gonna be on the line sooner or later. As much as I appreciate the sentiment, I respectfully disagree. I would like to believe that while rock climbing is inherently dangerous, we all do our best to minimize that risk as much as possible. If someone can be effectively belay tested from the ground, or at least with a backup belay for a live climber, I would much prefer that to a live belay test without any safety measures. All N/A is saying is that "as much as possible" will never be equal to "completely". Climbing will always be dangerous, there will always be something that can go wrong (crazy scifi technology excluded). Yes, things can happen, but I still think climbing is safer than driving a car on public roads. I always found it interesting that climbing companies have to protect themselves with the Climbing is danger label, but cars never have to mention the risk of driving.
There is no way that climbing is safer than driving.
|
|
|
|
|
viciado
Oct 10, 2011, 3:35 PM
Post #19 of 26
(7013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 429
|
Salient points from http://www.stephabegg.com/...ojects/accidentstats indicate that it is exponentially much more likely that the average driver will have an accident resulting in injuries than the average climber.
BUT it it is likely that the injuries incurred by said average climber will be 1.7x more likely to be injured in the event of the relatively rare accident. It is also 31x more likely to result in a fatality.
Draw your own conclusions as to relative "danger" of either activity. I personally have never gone home with scraped and bleeding flesh from a normal day's drive and been happy about it... can't say the same for climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Oct 10, 2011, 3:38 PM
Post #20 of 26
(7008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
guangzhou wrote: sungam wrote: sidereus7 wrote: In reply to: Try as they might, gyms can't sanitize the sport completely. Your ass is gonna be on the line sooner or later. As much as I appreciate the sentiment, I respectfully disagree. I would like to believe that while rock climbing is inherently dangerous, we all do our best to minimize that risk as much as possible. If someone can be effectively belay tested from the ground, or at least with a backup belay for a live climber, I would much prefer that to a live belay test without any safety measures. All N/A is saying is that "as much as possible" will never be equal to "completely". Climbing will always be dangerous, there will always be something that can go wrong (crazy scifi technology excluded). Yes, things can happen, but I still think climbing is safer than driving a car on public roads. I always found it interesting that climbing companies have to protect themselves with the Climbing is danger label, but cars never have to mention the risk of driving.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Oct 10, 2011, 3:39 PM
Post #21 of 26
(7006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
viciado wrote: Salient points from http://www.stephabegg.com/...ojects/accidentstats indicate that it is exponentially much more likely that the average driver will have an accident resulting in injuries than the average climber. BUT it it is likely that the injuries incurred by said average climber will be 1.7x more likely to be injured in the event of the relatively rare accident. It is also 31x more likely to result in a fatality. Draw your own conclusions as to relative "danger" of either activity. I personally have never gone home with scraped and bleeding flesh from a normal day's drive and been happy about it... can't say the same for climbing.
I know that I, excluding gym climbing, spend much more time in a car than on the rock. The comparison is invalid if it doesn't adjust for time spent doing the activity.
|
|
|
|
|
viciado
Oct 10, 2011, 3:45 PM
Post #22 of 26
(6999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 429
|
The report actually does that... take the time to read it, it is interesting. (well, most of it)
|
|
|
|
|
JAB
Oct 10, 2011, 4:03 PM
Post #23 of 26
(6991 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 373
|
Thanks for the link. I'm still not believing the traffic injury comparision (there are just too many assumptions there to be believeable), but there are some other interesting graphs as well:
* Rappell accidents, often stated as "the most dangerouts thing in climbing" only makes up for 3.2% of all accidents.
* The accident rate does not decrease with experience nor with age (however, the size of the groups is not known)
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Oct 10, 2011, 5:02 PM
Post #24 of 26
(6966 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
sidereus7 wrote: In reply to: Try as they might, gyms can't sanitize the sport completely. Your ass is gonna be on the line sooner or later. As much as I appreciate the sentiment, I respectfully disagree. I would like to believe that while rock climbing is inherently dangerous, we all do our best to minimize that risk as much as possible. If someone can be effectively belay tested from the ground, or at least with a backup belay for a live climber, I would much prefer that to a live belay test without any safety measures.
Conducting the belay test with actual climbers gives the tester an opportunity to observe how individuals interact with a partner and how they conduct themselves in a real life situation. I think that is important because simulations are just that, simulations. Where as climbing is the real, life & death, deal.
That said. My gym uses the tester as a backup belay (they just hold on to the loose end of the rope) and I think that is an appropriate safety measure.
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Oct 10, 2011, 7:53 PM
Post #25 of 26
(6913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
one thing to note is that these include mountaineering stats ... if we looked at rock climbers alone it would look different i suspect
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
