billcoe_ wrote:
You can easily die with a figure 8, obviously, judging from the previous replys, some people have not heard of this yet. This can (and has) happen with a regular (Non Aussie style) rappel too. Judging by you all not hearing of this: I suspect there will be other deaths.
Please read this RC.com thread slowly and carefully, I just lifted the whole page and moved it here.
Click this link for the 13 page discussion:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/topic/54450 partial copy follows:
"This season seems to be getting off to a rough start. There is a lot of discussion about climbing related death and injury. We share information quite freely on this sight, and I have a bit that I feel is extremely important to all of us...
Several years ago my cousin Kyle was involved in a rappelling accident that cost him his life. Just last week the case against Hughe Banner AND REI concluded with a settlement, prior to the Jury's verdict. Since I helped teach Kyle different methods of belay and rappel, I was a key witness in the case against these enormous companies. Now, I don't want to get in to the details of the accident or the case, but I gained some important knowledge from the entire event that I think should be shared with all climbers and mountaineers. If this information is be helpful to the safety of even one individual, than I will be at ease.
Kyle was rappelling "Aussie-Style" with a youth group of young men and women. He was using a Hughe Banner auto-locking caribiner and a figure eight. During the descent the caribiner is thought to have failed due to two main possibilities: The gate was cross-loaded with the figure eight in a lever position, or rope cross over occurred over the gate of the caribiner. in either case, enough inward force was created to cause the the locking gate of the caribiner to sheer through and remain in the open position. As a result, the rope AND figure eight came free of the caribiner, and Kyle fell 80 feet to his death.
I have been climbing avidly since 1998, and first started my mountain adventures in 1988 with a safety conscience scout leader. I have learned that accidents in the mountains happen, (I have a couple of friends/family who died in the mountains, and I have had a couple of close calls myself.) We HAVE to learn from these experiences, if only to give respect to those who taught us the most difficult lessons while loosing their lives in the process.
Now, I know many of us are familiar with the threat of cross-loading, rope cross over, and even figure eight lever forces. However, I am not sure all of us realize how easily this can occur, or how much actual inward force it takes to pry that locking gate open. This is why I am here, to make sure we all know.
Caribiners are strong. I've heard the expression "you could hang a truck of those anchors" on a number of occasions. This is probably correct, but when in constant motion, (i.e. during a rappel/descent) it is not always so easy for us to keep a fixed eye on our life's belay. There are so many things to be aware of as we lower ourselves off of that conquered rock face that we often times look around confidently with out casting a critical gaze on our belay.
REI, Hughe Banner, AND the prosecuting expert in Kyle's case, repeatedly tested the inward strength of their caribiners and repeatedly found that the aluminum gates locking mechanism fails under less than 500 pounds. This may not sound threatening, but on a static descent, a 190 pound person only needs to "fall" 2 feet to create this amount of force. 2g's is not difficult to create. The force of Kyle's descent, combined with some inward force, caused that gate to fail under a minimal amount of leverage, and as a result remained in an open position allowing the equipment to be released from the safety of his locking caribiner.
I have not inquired of other companies, but rarely if ever do ANY climbing gear manufacturers publish the results of inward forces on their locking gates. We seem to have all of the other information and specs, but this critical knowledge is often lacking. Some manufacturers, specifically HB, use a lower grade aluminum on their gate apparatus (the locking mechanism), and some even use plastic. Whether this should be acceptable or not is difficult to say, but one thing is for certain, THIS TYPE OF FAILURE DOES HAPPEN, so check your belay, and take extra care to avoid inward forces on your locking gates. IF YOU THINK it is a possibility, then back yourself up with a prussik, or a tibloc, or an opposing caribiner, or whatever it takes to prevent a fall if a similar situation were to arise in any of your mountain adventures.
On another note, none of your equipment is any good if not used correctly. I once saw a father belaying his son on Mt. Lemmon, AZ and about lost it. Novices with brand new equipment, tied into their harness with granny knots, back clipping their quick draws, and trying to figure it out as they went... for their first time! I considered it a responsibility to help some passionate fellow climbers, new to the sport and very ambitious, find a 'better way' to safely make there way up this classic climb. They graciously accepted my lengthy instruction and advice and surely avoided what could have resulted in disaster. It never hurts to ask questions--seek adequate instruction if you have ANY doubt that you might be using a piece of equipment incorrectly.
BACK YOURSELF UP. DO NOT PUT 100% CONFIDENCE IN YOUR EQUIPMENT (OR GEAR MANUFACTURER) OR YOUR SAFETY WILL EVENTUALLY BE COMPROMISED.
Have fun out there, be safe, and please take the time to be just a little bit safer every time you go out!
_________________
www.tucsonwallcrawlers.com
www.buenavistaclimbingclub.com
Throw Computer
Last edited by bighigaz on 11 Mar 2004 06:17; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
boz84
Honemaster
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (East Bay)
472 posts added
since 07 Sep 2002
Offline
Post Posted: 11 Mar 2004 05:53 Reply with quote Back to top
Im deeply sorry for the loss you and your family have sustained, and I thank you heartily for your advice youve given us.
Yes, even us "Expert Climbers" make mistakes, some of us seldomly, and some of us way too often. The topics youve touched on today should be a reality check to ALL of us, to remember to always understand our equipment fully, in both its design and use.
Deeply Sorry,
Boz
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ICQ Number
billcoe_
Dirty Hippie
1419 posts added
since 30 Jun 2002
Offline
Post Posted: 11 Mar 2004 06:17 Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post Back to top
Yes: I second that.
Thanks for sharing, I only learned about figure 8s torquing and breaking a good condition locking biner a year or 2 ago. I don't think everybody has heard it yet, so thanks for bringing it up again. You may have just helped prevent some more needless deaths by sharing it.
Regards:
Bill
View user's profile Send private message
hyhuu
Red Point Maniac
200 posts added
since 25 Jul 2001
Offline
Post Posted: 11 Mar 2004 15:15 Reply with quote Back to top
I'm sorry for your loss but I'm trying to understand how did a figure 8 have anything to do with rappelling? Also, isn't the "ausie style" putting the equipment behind you so you can't see it while descending? I completely agree on the backup and proper use of the equipment.
View user's profile Send private message
posts added
since 01 Jan 1970
Offline
Post Posted: 11 Mar 2004 15:30 Reply with quote Back to top
a figure 8 is not only a knot ...
... it is also a belay/rappel device.
View user's profile Send private message
hyhuu
Red Point Maniac
200 posts added
since 25 Jul 2001
Offline
Post Posted: 11 Mar 2004 16:09 Reply with quote Back to top
mtngeo wrote:
a figure 8 is not only a knot ...
... it is also a belay/rappel device.
Dud! How did I miss that? Thanks.
View user's profile Send private message
qacwac
Adrenaline Junkie
Location: Nashville, TN
290 posts added
since 25 Jan 2002
Offline
Post Posted: 11 Mar 2004 16:34 Reply with quote Back to top
Thanks a lot. Could you explain inward strength and inward force.
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
capn_morgan
Honemaster
Location: Troy, NY.
535 posts added
since 07 Oct 2003
Offline
Post Posted: 11 Mar 2004 16:50 Reply with quote Back to top
just curious as to why HB and REI were sued?
_________________
Talk<type> less, climb more...
Peace,
Jeremy 'capn' morgan
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
curt
Pebble Wrestler
9027 posts added
since 27 Aug 2002
Offline
Post Posted: 11 Mar 2004 17:00 Reply with quote Back to top
bighigaz,
Thanks for your post and my condolences for your loss. One other thing--you mentioned that the HB carabiner used was "auto-locking" and I have seen instances where, in use, a rope will ride over the auto-locking mechanism and rotate (turn) it to the position where it can be opened. This usually only requires 1/4 turn.
Non auto-locking screw mechanisms, that require several full turns to lock the gate (and that can be tightened pretty tight by the climber) may be somewhat safer for use in rappelling. Just a thought.
Curt
_________________
The most difficult things for a man to do are to climb a wall leaning towards you, to kiss a girl leaning away from you, and to make an after-dinner speech. - W.S. Churchill
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
j_from_the_307
Boulderer
Location: Laramie, WY
30 posts added
since 02 Mar 2004
Offline
Post Posted: 11 Mar 2004 17:14 Reply with quote Back to top
I believe by inward force he means the opposite direction from crossloading.
In a crossloading situation, the rope/8/whatever pulls the gate shut and puts the load on the pins.
In an inward loading situation (harder to get into, but still possible, especially with a figure 8) the 8 is pulling the gate inward, or to the open position. No weight is put on the pins, instead, it all is supported by the locking mechanism... which is not designed to support more than a small load. This basically means that the 8 is stuck on the locking mechanism on the gate and all your weight is being supported in this precarious situation.
-J
View user's profile Send private message
stick233
Adrenaline Junkie
339 posts added
since 18 Sep 2002
Offline
Post Posted: 11 Mar 2004 17:44 Reply with quote Back to top
capn_morgan wrote:
just curious as to why HB and REI were sued?
I too am wondering why there was a lawsuit. James, I am sorry for your loss. I never want to hear of accidents in the climbing community... but if an accident was to hit close to home, I would have a real hard time suing a manufacturing company. This whole debate could turn into a large flame fest, so I would like to ask you why the companies were sued. From your original post, it does not sound as if there was a production failure?!
Sorry to delve into it like this, I am just curious and mean no ill-will...
_________________
I'm a peripheral visionary. I can see into the future, just way off to the side.
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
bighigaz
Honemaster
525 posts added
since 30 Sep 2002
Offline
Post Posted: 12 Mar 2004 00:47 Reply with quote Back to top
Good questions...
REI and HB were being sued for several different reasons... I don't get the legality of it all (it's not my field of expertise), but basically it involved negligence, and inadequate warning labels for the consumer (no warnings were published regarding and INWARD force on the gate, though the tests were conclusive, nor were any warnings distributed with the equipment), this is the main reason I wanted to start this forum... I don't know if HB or REI intend on ever making these warning labels.
Also, there was something in the area of consumer confidence... pain and suffering... punitive damages, and several others I can't remember. When the defense motioned to dismiss all of the claims against them, the judge denied them on everything except punitive damages. (The prosecution was not allowed to sue for punitive damages, or "monitary punishment." This was based on the lack of clear and concise evidence that HB and/or REI actually actually had some sort of "evil-mind" or mal-intent to bring harm to the consumer. That made sense to me.
When it came down to it, the prosecution basically felt that the accident could have been avoided if Kyle had understood the dangers of inward failure on the gate of his caribiner.
Maybe it could have, and maybe not.
Kyle was rappelling Aussie Style (face first), so no, he couldn't see his equipment. I didn't feel this was entirely important, however, as I have seen crossloading occur in abseiling/military rappel as well... He was also using a method of belay called "figure eight in sports mode" which is actually explained in "Mountaineering: Freedom of the Hill." The defense tried to pass this off on me, saying I had taught him a dangerous unacceptable method of rappelling, and that he and I were reckless. I explained that I used the method because I had learned it from a Petzl catalog, as well as "Mountaineering: Freedom..." and they grudgingly accepted that. BTW, "sport mode" is when the rope wraps/runs through the caribiner, rather than around the neck of the figure eight device... I prefer it as a sort of "modified" stitch plate method. Better rope control, less twisting, etc. Also, I always felt better about having the rope through the biner in the event the eight DID fail, so I could still try to put a bite in the rope to arrest my fall, instead of finding myself in mid air...
I guess when it boils down to it, it was an accident anyway you look at it. We all know there are many methods of rappelling... and we could debate them for hours. At this point I prefer ATC's/Stitch plate over an eight... for obvious personal reasons I guess... I also prefer SCREW gates. Auto lockers just don't seem safe enough for me.
Since this event I have also decided that when I am rappelling for the sport of it (not necessarilly lowering of a climb), I will always back myself up with a ground belay, or a prussik of some sort, or both. It just isn't worth the risk to me anymore.
Hope all this jabber was helpful... let me know if you have any other questions.
_________________
www.tucsonwallcrawlers.com
www.buenavistaclimbingclub.com
Throw Computer
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
wedgy
Lead Climber
63 posts added
since 13 Nov 2003
Offline
Post Posted: 12 Mar 2004 03:32 Reply with quote Back to top
once again sorry for your loss. ALL gear states to seek expert instruction before using. experts know the consequences of no backup. probobly not the jist of your thread , but where does personal responsibility come in? P.S. NEVER use a tibloc for a backup. it will shread the rope w/ a short fall. any tooth style device will do this. use prussiks. PLEASE read FISH's warning www.fishproducts.com and click on the "REAPER" on the main site. An incorrectly used product can kill you . the learning curve is steep. Do you blame Ford if you misuse a mustang & get hurt? Take responsibility for your actions, dont blame others because you goofed. just my view. again, sorry for your loss.
View user's profile Send private message
bighigaz
Honemaster
525 posts added
since 30 Sep 2002
Offline
Post Posted: 12 Mar 2004 04:49 Reply with quote Back to top
Wedgy, you are certainly correct. We have to take responsibilities for our actions and mistakes. But at the same time, shouldn't a major manufacturer and distributor be obligated to share all pertinent information with the consumer for their own understanding and safety?-Such as an inward force repeatedly shown to cause a gate to fail at under 500 pounds EVERY time? Learning this certainly affected the way I use my equipment... and the question will never be answered as to whether or not this witheld information could have helped in the slightest to prevent Kyles death.
Along this note, how difficult would it be for the manufacture to raise the quality of aluminum for the locking apparatus to be equal to that of the rest of the caribiner? Could this have made a difference? Probably.
While I'm at it, I just wanted to thank everyone for their responses. I trully appreciate all of them. The issue of fault is no concern to me at this point, because it was an accident. I am just determined to help others to avoid the same fate. You are the first group of peers I have been able to discuss this subject with in full, partly because the case is now finished, but also because you can all see it from different perspectives because you are all climbers! (Most everyone involved in the case trully did not grasp the concept of climbing and rappelling, which adversely affected the Jury and Judge in my opinion, though I feel they did a good job trying to grasp a concept that they had never experienced in actual practice.)
If you have more questions, please ask away... I need to put it all out on the table. Part of the challenge is that the defense wanted to put the fault back on me, when inside I am screaming for them to understand that Kyle was a safe and reasonable individual, and that I only shared my experience with him as I thought it would make the sport safer for both of us. Obviously the defense wasn't interested in this, so I didn't really get to express it...
Oh, and to clarify, I wasn't there when he died. I had climbed/rappelled with him 2 weeks prior.
That's all for now...
_________________
www.tucsonwallcrawlers.com
www.buenavistaclimbingclub.com
Throw Computer
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
overlord
Poster Child
Location: Celje, Slovenia
9904 posts added
since 25 Mar 2002
Offline
Post Posted: 12 Mar 2004 08:21 Reply with quote Back to top
thats stupid.
figure 8 is very unsafe as it is and because of "aussie" stylish rpaeel he couldnt control what hes device was doing. ahd how could the rope break the biner???? i you use the figure8 properly, the rope doesnt touch the biner at all. moreover if you just LOOK at the biner, it should be clear to you that the gate safety system is NOT intended to hold any serous stress. its just there to prevent the biner from opening when hittin a rock or becasue youre clumsy. thats exacly why you get about 4 page of instructions with a quickdraw.
US lawsystem is a farse. you can sue anybody becasue they didnt tell you not to do something stupid. like if you ran your car into a tree and sued the manufascturer for not posting "dont colide with trees or you might die" in the car manual.
sounds like darwin at work to me.
_________________
"
Oh theres lots more. I still climb with an 8, but it's rare, and when rapping, I'm VERY careful not to crossload the carabiner. More than 1 person has died due to this.
Regards:
Bill
