RRG doesn't really go into what happened in terms of this accident. Previous thread locked. Tragic ending to all this. So what happened...? This has personal relevance as I frequently sport climb at the Red and most everyone considers clipping bolts "safe"...

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...d;page=unread#unread




Obviously, climbing is inherently dangerous. But come on, use some common sense. Dying on a 5.13 sport route is not "normal" in the parameters of climbing accidents....

Wutever, I'm just trying to get some information...blown clip, belay error, skipping bolt, who knows.

Bump...

I was just looking to see if anything new was reported in the original thread and found it locked. I too have been wondering about the particulars of this incident, and hoping that those withholding information shortly after the accident had ever come out with a statement. Does anyone know of an official report or something?

By "those witholding information" do you mean the badly traumatized partner, the one who will have the scene playing over and over in his head for the rest of his life? Or the family, grieving over a lost loved one?

They are under no obligation to share anything. If they choose to, then they will start a thread on the subject. If they choose not to, then tough.

By "those witholding information" do you mean the badly traumatized partner, the one who will have the scene playing over and over in his head for the rest of his life? Or the family, grieving over a lost loved one?

They are under no obligation to share anything. If they choose to, then they will start a thread on the subject. If they choose not to, then tough.

Hey.

There was considerable debate in the last thread concerning this. You can see my posts and others regarding this matter.

EDIT: Oh you shut the last thread down. Then you should know and understand the issue.

To summerise. Of course there is no obligation for anybody to talk about the accident. However actively repressing infomation when it is fresh in peoples minds is counterproductive. Furthermore coming into threads to post that you know stuff but your not telling seems kinda petty.

Take the recent analysis of the Kaymoor incident. Details were discuss issue were learnt and reinforced and it may save a life in the future. Discussion certainly has a place beyond morbid curiousity.

We now have family members looking for an thorough explanation online but coming up short.

Hey.

There was considerable debate in the last thread concerning this. You can see my posts and others regarding this matter.

EDIT: Oh you shut the last thread down. Then you should know and understand the issue.

To summerise. Of course there is no obligation for anybody to talk about the accident. However actively repressing infomation when it is fresh in peoples minds is counterproductive. Furthermore coming into threads to post that you know stuff but your not telling seems kinda petty.

Take the recent analysis of the Kaymoor incident. Details were discuss issue were learnt and reinforced and it may save a life in the future. Discussion certainly has a place beyond morbid curiousity.

We now have family members looking for an thorough explanation online but coming up short.

What information was "actively repressed"? The only thing that was repressed in that thread was the same thing that led to it being locked - rampant speculation by people who weren't there.

The only people who know anything about the accident are the belayer and anyone who he confided in - and as far as I'm aware, that doesn't include anyone here.

You have zero say in what does or does not get posted in a public forum by those involved. What you think does not matter.

They are under no obligation to share anything.

The only people who know anything about the accident are the belayer and anyone who he confided in - and as far as I'm aware, that doesn't include anyone here.

Your responses, blondgecko, are unneeded and entirely counterproductive. Those involved do not need to you to play the part of their protector. Likewise, you easily could have made the point you were trying to without taking such a defensive and incendiary tone.

That's not my take on the above exchange. The response was in equal measure to the innuendo. In a couple words: even handed.

Obviously, I do think this site needs to sometimes stand between subjects of threads who are suffering and us onlookers. It may not be perfect but it needs to be looked after in the name of decentness.

Bill L

My apologies then, if my original tone had seemed accusatory in any way. I meant in no way to sound negative or condescending. Information was withheld, not necessarily contemptuously so, but I guess some find the term "withhold" to carry a negative connotation. For that, again I apologize.

Obviously, I do think this site needs to sometimes stand between subjects of threads who are suffering and us onlookers. It may not be perfect but it needs to be looked after in the name of decentness.

I'm confused why. The thread was started requesting information and containing discussion about the accident.

If those involved for whatever reasons don't want to discuss or read such thread then they don't have to. However I don't see why that needs to be a reason why such threads are closed.

What information was "actively repressed"? The only thing that was repressed in that thread was the same thing that led to it being locked - rampant speculation by people who weren't there.

The only people who know anything about the accident are the belayer and anyone who he confided in - and as far as I'm aware, that doesn't include anyone here.

This is definitively NOT an official accident report and, to my knowledge, none of the parties involved has been contacted by any institution for an authoritative report. That said, no information is being actively repressed. There are no people to my knowledge withholding information. So, know in advance that what I post here is a third- and fourth-hand summary of what I have been able to piece together from various sources, including the belayer, who is continuing to work through his own recollection of this horrific accident. I know that the people involved in the fall and rescue intend to contact the organizations that report annually on Climbing and Alpine injuries and fatalities. For those of you seeking non-conjecture, authoritative finality, keep an eye out there.

The bottom line is that with any ground fall, if the rope or harness didn't break and bolts didn't fail - and in this case they didn't - the error is a human one. The failures that led to Mike's fall began long before his group hiked into the Darkside and they revolve around a set of beliefs and poor safety habits that are, unfortunately, all too pervasive in the climbing community. This includes “quickie” peer instruction for lead climbing/lead belaying; an over-reliance in the effectiveness of lock-assist devices; a willingness on the part of more experienced climbers to put less experienced belayers in situations requiring difficult catches (I've been told, and those of you who have belayed on Elephant man know, that it is a tough catch); and a general ambivalence toward the use of helmets - and I'm guilty of this too.

The belay device used at the time of Mike's fall was a Cinch, and the belayer inexperienced at using it. Clearly, it did not engage. Reports from the site indicate that the device was correctly loaded. Reports from the site also indicate that the belayer did not have a fixed hand on the brake. So, what this means is that the device did not engage and that the belayer was not using one of the fundamental actions required of a belayer: braking.

We know that a belayer should always have a fixed hand on the brake. But this accident presents a more complex situation that requires a look at what went wrong. On a Cinch, the device will not engage if 1) the device is manually held down, per Petzl's instructional videos on feeding rope to a lead climber; 2) the device is tipped on its side, which prevents rotation of the Cinch plates; or 3) if you belay from a position in which the pull force on the device is perpendicular to the belayer. This last scenario is particularly prevalent in a lead situation where the rope runs out (rather than up) from a belayer to the first bolt. Because of the steepness of Elephant man and the talus at the bottom, the latter situation seems to be the most likely.

Just because you know how to do something doesn't mean you know how to effectively teach it to someone else. What’s more, the people you choose to instruct become your responsibility. If you aren't qualified to teach someone don't pretend you are. Send them to someone who is qualified. And, if you're on the receiving end of instruction from your "buddy who's been doing it, like, forever and is really good" - use caution. Your instruction may well be inadequate.

That's not my take on the above exchange. The response was in equal measure to the innuendo. In a couple words: even handed.

Obviously, I do think this site needs to sometimes stand between subjects of threads who are suffering and us onlookers. It may not be perfect but it needs to be looked after in the name of decentness.

Bill L

While I fully understand the advantages to the community as a whole that can come from analyzing accidents, I believe common decency far outweighs any "need" we may have to climb.

I climb at the Darkside when I'm in top shape. I've not tried that route but if it has a dangerous eg deadly clip, it's best to know about it and even have community change it so it shouldn't prove the scene of another tragic accident. JMO...

This is definitively NOT an official accident report and, to my knowledge, none of the parties involved has been contacted by any institution for an authoritative report. That said, no information is being actively repressed. There are no people to my knowledge withholding information. So, know in advance that what I post here is a third- and fourth-hand summary of what I have been able to piece together from various sources, including the belayer, who is continuing to work through his own recollection of this horrific accident. I know that the people involved in the fall and rescue intend to contact the organizations that report annually on Climbing and Alpine injuries and fatalities. For those of you seeking non-conjecture, authoritative finality, keep an eye out there.

The bottom line is that with any ground fall, if the rope or harness didn't break and bolts didn't fail - and in this case they didn't - the error is a human one. The failures that led to Mike's fall began long before his group hiked into the Darkside and they revolve around a set of beliefs and poor safety habits that are, unfortunately, all too pervasive in the climbing community. This includes “quickie” peer instruction for lead climbing/lead belaying; an over-reliance in the effectiveness of lock-assist devices; a willingness on the part of more experienced climbers to put less experienced belayers in situations requiring difficult catches (I've been told, and those of you who have belayed on Elephant man know, that it is a tough catch); and a general ambivalence toward the use of helmets - and I'm guilty of this too.

The belay device used at the time of Mike's fall was a Cinch, and the belayer inexperienced at using it. Clearly, it did not engage. Reports from the site indicate that the device was correctly loaded. Reports from the site also indicate that the belayer did not have a fixed hand on the brake. So, what this means is that the device did not engage and that the belayer was not using one of the fundamental actions required of a belayer: braking.

We know that a belayer should always have a fixed hand on the brake. But this accident presents a more complex situation that requires a look at what went wrong. On a Cinch, the device will not engage if 1) the device is manually held down, per Petzl's instructional videos on feeding rope to a lead climber; 2) the device is tipped on its side, which prevents rotation of the Cinch plates; or 3) if you belay from a position in which the pull force on the device is perpendicular to the belayer. This last scenario is particularly prevalent in a lead situation where the rope runs out (rather than up) from a belayer to the first bolt. Because of the steepness of Elephant man and the talus at the bottom, the latter situation seems to be the most likely.

Just because you know how to do something doesn't mean you know how to effectively teach it to someone else. What’s more, the people you choose to instruct become your responsibility. If you aren't qualified to teach someone don't pretend you are. Send them to someone who is qualified. And, if you're on the receiving end of instruction from your "buddy who's been doing it, like, forever and is really good" - use caution. Your instruction may well be inadequate.

This is definitively NOT an official accident report and, to my knowledge, none of the parties involved has been contacted by any institution for an authoritative report. That said, no information is being actively repressed. There are no people to my knowledge withholding information......

This incident involved a death, from which I surmise that a police report was taken from those involved, and that an investigation, albeit likely short, was carried out. All I was wondering was if the findings of this investigation had been made public. I was not, in any way, demanding information from anyone directly related to the accident, as I had assumed any pertinent information had already been passed on to someone less emotionally involved.

Your responses, blondgecko, are unneeded and entirely counterproductive. Those involved do not need to you to play the part of their protector. Likewise, you easily could have made the point you were trying to without taking such a defensive and incendiary tone.

That and $7.50 will get you a half-caf vanilla soy frappuchino at Starbucks.

No, those involved do not need my "protection". I don't know any of them, and will probably never meet any of them. But that's completely beside the point. The point is respect. As long as I am a mod of this forum, I will be doing my best to make sure that discussions (a) remain accurate and fact-based, and (b) are held at the discretion of those close to the accident.

If those who know what happened do not want to share, that is their perogative. Coming in with an entitlement complex, making accusations of cover-ups and/or demanding information from those for whom the shock and grief is still fresh, is the surest way to get a thread shut down, and to get yourself banned from the A&IA forum.

Ask, politely, for information. If none is forthcoming, move along. Do not complain, do not demand, do not make shit up. It's that simple.

As long as I am a mod of this forum, I will be doing my best to make sure that discussions ... are held at the discretion of those close to the accident.

If those who know what happened do not want to share, that is their perogative.

Coming in with an entitlement complex, making accusations of cover-ups and/or demanding information from those for whom the shock and grief is still fresh, is the surest way to get a thread shut down, and to get yourself banned from the A&IA forum..

Reports on accidents investigated by the US's NTSB are available on line, in searchable database form. Coal mine and oil well accidents are analyzed in all the

Could rockclimbing.com have such a feature added to it?

I'm not sure that that is the best policy. I can think of no other risky activity where those close to the accident have veto power over public analysis of the accident. The benefit of the information to the safety of other participants in the activity is considered paramount. In both skydiving and flying, accident reports and analysis are major features of publications that cater to skydivers and pilots. When I was flying, the accident reports were the main reason I subscribed. Reports on accidents investigated by the US's NTSB are available on line, in searchable database form. Coal mine and oil well accidents are analyzed in all the media. I don't see why discussion of climbing accidents should be treated differently.

Jay

I was not present when the accident occurred, but I was the 'buddy' who had given the belayer a 'quickie' instruction in the fall of 2009. Therefore I feel responsible for what happened.

I was the one who recommended the Cinch over grigri and ATC to the belayer involved for the lead belay, because I have witnessed an accident involving an ATC used by inexperienced belayer, who panicked and let go of the breaking end of the rope, and because I did not like the idea of manually blocking the grigri when feeding out the rope. Cinch, when used properly, allows easy rope release without need for blocking the cam. At the same time, when you hold it with your index finger and a thumb, the breaking end of the rope is always in your hand. You never need to let it go.

It was his first, I believe, instruction in lead belaying. We went to a gym and I explained how to hold the cinch properly with a finger and a thumb in the pivot hole and holding the breaking end of the rope in the hand. Unlike Grigri, the Cinch during the lead belay has to be tilted horizontally with its colored side up. When the leader falls, the cinch turns up and blocks the rope, providing the rope is held with the hand. When held properly, the rope is always in your hand and you never need to let go of it. See the demo video, around 2:10:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9TO5ikqXwo

Unfortunately, due to schedule conflict, I never had a chance to continue instructions and watch the belayer to practice more with the device. I was planning to go with him to the Red, but our weekend schedules never matched.

After the accident, my other friend experimented with the cinch and found that when it was held like grigri, i.e. vertically and not tilted, the device did not lock the rope. I did not know about this when I was giving my instructions, but I remember that I specifically told the belayer involved in the accident to hold the cinch horizontally, green side up, with index finger and the thumb in the pivot hole and the breaking hand always on the rope.

I don't know how the cinch was actually held during the accident.

I still think that when used correctly Cinch is a very safe device. However, the rules for using grigri are not applied to the cinch. These are two different devices and are supposed to be held differently. Perhaps, Trango needs to explore potentially dangerous positions of cinch and make the results of this study public.

Lee is correct by saying that when force is applied perpendicular to the belayer the cinch may not lock, especially since it is normally held horizontally. Like with all other devices, it is advisable that the belayer stays under the first draw.

I feel that my instructions were adequate and correct, but insufficient in terms of practicing time with the device. I don't know whether in 6 or so months between my lesson and the accident the belayer used the cinch correctly and did not confuse the grigri and cinch belay methods. I simply never had a chance to lead climb with him after that.

I also know that Mike was not very familiar with the Cinch. He asked me about the device a few months before the accident being curious about it. Therefore, he could not provide the belayer with proper instructions and he might suggest the incorrect grigri technique when using cinch.

[T]he Cinch during the lead belay has to be tilted horizontally with its colored side up. ... See the demo video, around 2:10:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9TO5ikqXwo

do you mind tell us what is climbing experience? years leading or top roping etc

most experienced climbers do know that none of the auto-belay devices lock by themselves and you as the belayer have to manually engage the locking cam to arrest the fall.

I've never used a Cinch, so I can't speak from experience, but looking at the video and the design of the devise, it does not appear to me that the Cinch has to be held horizontally to feed rope.

I've never used a Cinch, so I can't speak from experience, but looking at the video and the design of the devise, it does not appear to me that the Cinch has to be held horizontally to feed rope.

The problem isn't the orientation of the device. The problem is blocking the cam with you hand. This should never be done when a climber is falling.

I started lead belaying in 2005 using ATC, then switched to grigri, practiced with super-8 and then switched again to Cinch.


This is incorrect. I hope you were testing me with this statement. Just holding the breaking end is sufficient to lock the rope. Grigri will lock most of the time even without holding the end, but it is not recommended.

I was not present when the accident occurred, but I was the 'buddy' who had given the belayer a 'quickie' instruction in the fall of 2009. Therefore I feel responsible for what happened..

Orientation matters. If you hold it in your palm vertically, like Grigri, instead of with a finger and a thumb horizontally, the cinch may not lock. I played a lot with it after the accident and there are positions in which the cam does not engage.

the rope size, the position of the hand has to be in the right angle to engage the caming device in the gri gri . just holding the end of the rope does not grantee full arrest of a falling lead climber.

It's in the manual that comes with the device.

The ORIGINAL and classic method of standard feeding as recommended by Petzl does not involve touch the device. This is much more 'fool' proof. Methods that involve holding the cam are prone to accidents, this isn't the first.

That is completely false, but it has nothing to do with the present accident, which involved a Cinch; so, if you want to discuss grigri belaying further, please start a new thread.

Jay (who's not a moderator, but who actually knows how to be one)

It's in the manual that comes with the device. I don't have it handy to show here. If you hold it vertically, like grigri, it locks when you try to feed the rope and if you try to block the cam in this position, you'll deck your partner.

This is incorrect. In the video Malcom feeds rope in the vertical position many times.

The Cinch has to be oriented vertically, not horizontally, to feed and to lock the rope. Clearly explained by Mal in his instructional video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9TO5ikqXwo

1:55 to 2:00

No, those involved do not need my "protection". I don't know any of them, and will probably never meet any of them. But that's completely beside the point. The point is respect. As long as I am a mod of this forum, I will be doing my best to make sure that discussions (a) remain accurate and fact-based, and (b) are held at the discretion of those close to the accident.

If those who know what happened do not want to share, that is their perogative. Coming in with an entitlement complex, making accusations of cover-ups and/or demanding information from those for whom the shock and grief is still fresh, is the surest way to get a thread shut down, and to get yourself banned from the A&IA forum.

Ask, politely, for information. If none is forthcoming, move along. Do not complain, do not demand, do not make shit up. It's that simple.

Well said. I am probably misinterpretting your intent. This is one of the challenges of a text-based public forum.

...it's already been made clear by people close to the accident that the people directly involved will not be releasing details yet...

Bump...

I was just looking to see if anything new was reported in the original thread and found it locked. I too have been wondering about the particulars of this incident, and hoping that those withholding information shortly after the accident had ever come out with a statement. Does anyone know of an official report or something?

He is holding it vertically only when belaying a climber on toprope. We are talking about lead belay here.

If you look carefully, at 2:27 when he is actually demonstrating feeding out the rope as you do when belaying a leader. He is tilting it to the left, like redlude97 mentioned. This is what I call holding the cinch horizontally. I hold it almost flat with the colored side up.

When the climber falls, the cinch turns vertically and locks the rope. If you hold it vertically from the start, like grigri, the cam may remain open during the fall.

I've read some posts on forums when people claim that they let the climber pull the rope out of the cinch. I am assuming that they are holding the device in vertical position for that and have their hand cupped around it. This is very dangerous. I always pull out the rope with my left hand, keeping my right on the cinch and the breaking end.

Unfortunately, I threw away my cinch manual. The one that came with the green cinch had the lead belay technique.

How is it false?

Petzl instructions clearly show this both in the video and in the downloadable instructions. The only time in the instructions does the hand touch the device is for feeding out slack quickly or when lowering.

Here is a good thread that discusses some of the wrong and right way to use the device and how it can lead to drops http://mountainproject.com/...20_feet/106658764__1

How much do you actually hold the cinch? The cinch can feed in any spot between horizontal and vertical. Like I said, I hold it almost perfectly vertical all the time(>80 degrees). The only reason I don't hold it perfectly vertical is because it is hard to pull out slack without hitting yourself in the face. You also do not need to cup the cinch to allow the leader to pull out slack themselves, you can use the same pinch method. You use the friction between your fingers to rotate the orientation so that the rope runs as straight as possible towards the first bolt, and the leader pulls out his own slack at a reasonable rate. If the leader pulls slack too fast the cinch rotates because you cannot hold the device in that orientation by just pinching and it locks. This is something to discuss with your partner beforehand if you are going to utilize this technique, otherwise you can just pull the slack for them. The cinch works by rotating about its pivot point, not by the rotation in the plane of the cinch plates.

He is tilting it to the left, like redlude97 mentioned. This is what I call holding the cinch horizontally.

If you call that to be horizontal, fair enough, I also tilt it to the left ~30º,

Right, 20-30 deg. I call it horizontal for all practical purposes.

Mal, could you please fix this link?:

http://www.trango.com/CinchInstrBookletCE.pdf

thanks

I'm sorry I don't usually do this but here goes:

First, How the hell did the thread title get hijacked from Darkside Accident to Cinch is Dangerous? I would love to be able to hijack a few thread titles myself.

Second, RyanJames, the body of your thread says it all. You do a dis-service to everyone who has so eloquently contributed to this thread by titling it "Cinch is Dangerous" when, in fact, it should be titled "Belayer is Dangerous", or "Don't climb with a dangerous belayer".

Please change it.

Mal

A very good friend of mine decked because his belayer was using a cinch and was not paying attention. My friend fell and the belayer was holding the cinch open. He fell 25 feet and decked hard. Thankfully this was at a gym and not outside. If it would have been outside, he probably would have died from trauma to the head (his head smacked the mats HARD).

With this said, I think extreme caution needs to be taken when allowing someone to use the cinch who is not as experienced in belaying or is not use to ALWAYS paying attention. The gri gri locks much, much easier than the cinch and people need to know this.

Has anyone else had or heard of close calls or bad experiences with the cinch?

I'll ask myself every day, "Is there anything else I could have done to instruct or warn Mike and his belayer?" I don't know the answer to that but you can bet that I'll be spending a good bit of my time trying to figure that out.

I agree with the fact that people cause belay related climbing accidents and not the belay device. However, from what I've noticed, it seems like people fumble more with the cinch and use it incorrectly than any other belay device. I was reading a forum on MP.com where someone commented,

"it seems that everyone i've talked to has seen someone dropped or heard of a friend of theirs being dropped or nearly dropped with these things."

Could the fact that when the cinch is open the rope goes straight through the device, as oppose to the atc and gri gri where the rope is kinked through the device, possible cause the cinch to be more dangerous with lackadaisical belayers?

You're absolutely right. Is there any data out there that we can look at to see which is proven to be the safest device.

What I'm trying to say, is that I don't think that the cinch is the safest device.

You're absolutely right. Is there any data out there that we can look at to see which is proven to be the safest device.

What I'm trying to say, is that I don't think that the cinch is the safest device.

Rocclimber30,

can you clarify whether or not Mike was clipped into the 4th bolt? from your post I read it he was, but I don't want to assume.

Thanks.

Pure sampling bias on your part. Until this thread, I had never seen or heard of anyone being dropped by a Cinch, but I have seen and heard of more people than I can remember being dropped using Grigris and ATCs. You cannot draw conclusions about the relative safety of belay devices from such sources.

Jay

+1

He took what should of been a normal lead fall a couple of feet above the 4th bolt.... He free fell for about 10-15 feet before a little bit of rope drag from the rope running through the Trango Cinch could be heard.

PS: The lawyers will undoubtedly flip out when they read this. They want me to design products and write warnings that will keep me out of court. I want to design products and write warnings that will keep you off the ground. - MD

Could I re-design it so that it is fool-proof? I don't know the answers to any of those questions, so the nightmares continue.

Normally, when you have time to react to a fall, you can slip your right hand down and grab the rope with all your fingers. An unexpected fall from a short distance above the bolt, especially close to the ground (usually with very little slack out), means one has very little time to adjust the hand position before the rope starts to run through the device out of control.

Hmmm. I’m sorry j_ung, but I think I would respectfully disagree. Though, I’m not sure I actually disagree, because I’m not sure exactly what your argument is. The sentence is somewhat ambiguous.

If you mean that common decency outweighs any thing (concrete or abstract) that we “need” to climb, then I presume you mean the chance of psychological harm to family and friends multiplied by that harm outweighs the chance of information about an accident has of saving life multiplied by the good of saving that life.

If instead you mean that common decency outweighs any “need” to engage in the activity of climbing, then you seem to suggest that everybody should just stop climbing until family and friends have had sufficient time to mourn or an official accident report comes out.

Both of these seem false.

Perhaps you mean that common decency outweighs any “need” to satisfy various persons’ morbid curiosity. I’d agree with that. But no one had said anything to the contrary.

Could you clarify? I don’t intend this to be confrontational. It seems to me that most information about accidents should come out as soon as possible, save perhaps names, etcetera. I think this would include speculation based on scant details. As, even if incorrect, speculation can be informative. But I could be convinced otherwise.

w

Gri gri's have had far more accidents than the Cinch but since less people use them and even less know about them there is a lot more skepticism.

Patto, the way i belay with my Cinch i do not change my hand position when i catch a fall. I always have 3 fingers on the rope that act as the brake.

This is definitively NOT an official accident report and, to my knowledge, none of the parties involved has been contacted by any institution for an authoritative report. That said, no information is being actively repressed. There are no people to my knowledge withholding information. So, know in advance that what I post here is a third- and fourth-hand summary of what I have been able to piece together from various sources, including the belayer, who is continuing to work through his own recollection of this horrific accident. I know that the people involved in the fall and rescue intend to contact the organizations that report annually on Climbing and Alpine injuries and fatalities. For those of you seeking non-conjecture, authoritative finality, keep an eye out there.

The bottom line is that with any ground fall, if the rope or harness didn't break and bolts didn't fail - and in this case they didn't - the error is a human one. The failures that led to Mike's fall began long before his group hiked into the Darkside and they revolve around a set of beliefs and poor safety habits that are, unfortunately, all too pervasive in the climbing community. This includes “quickie” peer instruction for lead climbing/lead belaying; an over-reliance in the effectiveness of lock-assist devices; a willingness on the part of more experienced climbers to put less experienced belayers in situations requiring difficult catches (I've been told, and those of you who have belayed on Elephant man know, that it is a tough catch); and a general ambivalence toward the use of helmets - and I'm guilty of this too.

The belay device used at the time of Mike's fall was a Cinch, and the belayer inexperienced at using it. Clearly, it did not engage. Reports from the site indicate that the device was correctly loaded. Reports from the site also indicate that the belayer did not have a fixed hand on the brake. So, what this means is that the device did not engage and that the belayer was not using one of the fundamental actions required of a belayer: braking.

We know that a belayer should always have a fixed hand on the brake. But this accident presents a more complex situation that requires a look at what went wrong. On a Cinch, the device will not engage if 1) the device is manually held down, per Petzl's instructional videos on feeding rope to a lead climber; 2) the device is tipped on its side, which prevents rotation of the Cinch plates; or 3) if you belay from a position in which the pull force on the device is perpendicular to the belayer. This last scenario is particularly prevalent in a lead situation where the rope runs out (rather than up) from a belayer to the first bolt. Because of the steepness of Elephant man and the talus at the bottom, the latter situation seems to be the most likely.

Just because you know how to do something doesn't mean you know how to effectively teach it to someone else. What’s more, the people you choose to instruct become your responsibility. If you aren't qualified to teach someone don't pretend you are. Send them to someone who is qualified. And, if you're on the receiving end of instruction from your "buddy who's been doing it, like, forever and is really good" - use caution. Your instruction may well be inadequate.

I was not present when the accident occurred, but I was the 'buddy' who had given the belayer a 'quickie' instruction in the fall of 2009. Therefore I feel responsible for what happened.

I was the one who recommended the Cinch over grigri and ATC to the belayer involved for the lead belay, because I have witnessed an accident involving an ATC used by inexperienced belayer, who panicked and let go of the breaking end of the rope, and because I did not like the idea of manually blocking the grigri when feeding out the rope. Cinch, when used properly, allows easy rope release without need for blocking the cam. At the same time, when you hold it with your index finger and a thumb, the breaking end of the rope is always in your hand. You never need to let it go.

It was his first, I believe, instruction in lead belaying. We went to a gym and I explained how to hold the cinch properly with a finger and a thumb in the pivot hole and holding the breaking end of the rope in the hand. Unlike Grigri, the Cinch during the lead belay has to be tilted horizontally with its colored side up. When the leader falls, the cinch turns up and blocks the rope, providing the rope is held with the hand. When held properly, the rope is always in your hand and you never need to let go of it. See the demo video, around 2:10:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9TO5ikqXwo

Unfortunately, due to schedule conflict, I never had a chance to continue instructions and watch the belayer to practice more with the device. I was planning to go with him to the Red, but our weekend schedules never matched.

After the accident, my other friend experimented with the cinch and found that when it was held like grigri, i.e. vertically and not tilted, the device did not lock the rope. I did not know about this when I was giving my instructions, but I remember that I specifically told the belayer involved in the accident to hold the cinch horizontally, green side up, with index finger and the thumb in the pivot hole and the breaking hand always on the rope.

I don't know how the cinch was actually held during the accident.

I still think that when used correctly Cinch is a very safe device. However, the rules for using grigri are not applied to the cinch. These are two different devices and are supposed to be held differently. Perhaps, Trango needs to explore potentially dangerous positions of cinch and make the results of this study public.

Lee is correct by saying that when force is applied perpendicular to the belayer the cinch may not lock, especially since it is normally held horizontally. Like with all other devices, it is advisable that the belayer stays under the first draw.

I feel that my instructions were adequate and correct, but insufficient in terms of practicing time with the device. I don't know whether in 6 or so months between my lesson and the accident the belayer used the cinch correctly and did not confuse the grigri and cinch belay methods. I simply never had a chance to lead climb with him after that.

I also know that Mike was not very familiar with the Cinch. He asked me about the device a few months before the accident being curious about it. Therefore, he could not provide the belayer with proper instructions and he might suggest the incorrect grigri technique when using cinch.

Not exactly the paragon of clear thinking, that.

Jay

When are people going to learn and accept the fact that the gear is not dangerous.

It's the people using it. Period!

I've been using a grigri for 20 years and I HAVE NEVER EVEN COME CLOSE TO DROPPING ANYONE. Same goes with atc's, tube style devices and stich plates, which I currently use.

Learn to belay properly, learn your job properly, and pay attention. Then these things won't happen.