|
tedc
Mar 12, 2004, 4:30 PM
Post #26 of 179
(24306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 756
|
If the guy had been rappelling so that he could have seen his gear and he had seen the improperly loaded biner, would he have continued like that. I doubt it. So it would seem (just a good guess here) that he understood the proper way to use the gear. (Condolences to HB and REI)
It seems that the problem was caused by the fact that the technique used did not allow the guy to see his gear. "Aussie rappel"...sue Australia. They have even deeper pockets than REI...I think.
|
|
|
|
|
abalch
Mar 12, 2004, 5:22 PM
Post #28 of 179
(24306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2003
Posts: 179
|
Condolences to your family for their loss.
I think I would have to aggree with many who have wrote that to sue HB and REI was wrong. No manufacturer of climbing equipment I know have a rating stamped on their carabiners of the inward loading force that the locker can sustain. I suspect because when used correctly, the locking mechanism is only designed to restrin the gate, not make it anywhere near the strength of the spine of the carbiner. If you have ever read any books, such as Freedom of the Hills, you would understand that any carbainer is weakest on the gate side, and no carabiner should be loaded against either the spine or gate over any edge or rope.
Now, when I was in the military and we were taught the aussie rappel, we used a steel mallion to connect the figure eight to our harness. Do you think is was because the military just loves to carry heavy things? No, it was because when you can't see your carabiner, you are doing a face down rappell, and you have a lot of chance to corssload the carabiner is many different directions, you want to be as safe as possilbe. Any time I have seen any reference to Aussie rapelling, I have seen using a steel screw link or mallion.
While this incident is tragic, it was forseeable, and whenever you buy any piece of climbing equipment, or read any climbing book, the first thing written in the documentation or the front of the book is "Climbing is dangerous", or "climb at your own risk". I think it is a good thing that you want to draw other people's attention to a safety issue with climbing, but I still don't see the culpability of HB or REI in forseeing that you would use equipment in a manner to crossload their device in an unexpected way.
|
|
|
|
|
sarcat
Mar 12, 2004, 5:30 PM
Post #29 of 179
(24306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
I had never thought about the inward loading of a biner vs. the cross loading ratio. Thanks for the heads up. Call me paranoid but I always check 3 + times that my 8 is properly weighted and the biners orientated correctly. Come to think of it I use an ATC exclusively now. I'm also chicken to rappel aussie style.
Regardless what we all feel about the lawsuit if HB makes a safer biner from it we all win. Right?
|
|
|
|
|
beesty511
Mar 12, 2004, 5:32 PM
Post #30 of 179
(24306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 336
|
In reply to: There is no scenario I can think of that could have led to your cousins death, that did not involve him making a critical mistake in rigging his rappell.
Now that cracklover has enlightened you, I'm sure next week you'll be excoriating someone for posting something so ignorant.
As a side note, I've always wondered whether a Hugh Banner Sheriff ATC has the potential to lever open a locking biner as with the well documented figure 8 accidents--it seems like it would.
|
|
|
|
|
acrophobic
Mar 12, 2004, 5:32 PM
Post #31 of 179
(24306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2002
Posts: 368
|
Always Always think safety first. Consider me uneducated, but what possible reason is there to rappel head first, where you can't keep an eye on your gear (which is the only think keeping you alive)? Thinking of it, I can't find any reason at all... Only reason to use the Aussie rappel, is if you need a hand free... which is important in the military (rifle), but not at all in climbing.
A plain old ATC with a prussik backup sounds much safer that the complicated setup you mentioned with the figure 8.
|
|
|
|
|
steelmonkey
Mar 12, 2004, 5:51 PM
Post #32 of 179
(24306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2002
Posts: 145
|
Curt said:
In reply to: As I said previously, I am truly sorry for your loss, but I think it was really wrong to file a lawsuit against HB and REI here.
Also sorry for your loss, but I feel this same way. If you're going to do sporto things like "Aussie style" rappelling where you can't see what's going on with your gear at all times, then I think it's out of bounds to be filing lawsuits for it. And I think it speaks volumes that you refer to the litigant's attorney as the "prosecutor".
Take responsibility for your own safety. Nobody has to tell you not to have a sharp knife out when you're rappelling. If you are vigilant about your gear and use it appropriately, you don't need to worry about it working.
G.
|
|
|
|
|
tedc
Mar 12, 2004, 5:56 PM
Post #33 of 179
(24306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 756
|
In reply to: Regardless what we all feel about the lawsuit if HB makes a safer biner from it we all win. Right?
WRONG.
We all loose when a gear manufacturer gets wrongfully sued. They CAN make safer gear but the market doesn't want it. To expensive and too heavy. If "safer" gear becomes litigated or regulated we all loose the ability to choose what we use and how we use it.
sarcat, do YOU own (purchase regardless of cost) the "safest" biners?
|
|
|
|
|
sarcat
Mar 12, 2004, 6:10 PM
Post #34 of 179
(24306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
tedc:
You're right. Forcing a man. to make something safer is rediculous. Good thing in the '60s the car manufacturers volunteered to put seat belts in thier cars and weren't forced to (not). Wasn't it Nader that sued the big three to get them forced into it?
I have so many biners is ridiculous. I do have a stack that I don't use because they don't feel as safe. I also don't use regularly the steel 47kn biners I have. But I would pay more for a "safer" biner.
|
|
|
|
|
deafears
Mar 12, 2004, 6:37 PM
Post #35 of 179
(24306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2003
Posts: 103
|
A fundemental problem, which doubtless contributed to the sad accident, is the use of an Aussie-style rappel. It's a silly and dangerous method of descending, not common practice for experienced climbers.
It's only because US law is so protective of the freedom of the press that the publisher of Freedom of the Hills isn't as vulnerable as the manufacturers. (I'm still glad for the protection.) They should remove any recommendation of this technique/stunt in the next edition.
The majority of "climbing" rescues are, in actuality, performed for ledged-out hikers. Climbing areas get closed when non-climbers get hurt, even if they were employing idiotic ropework. Unfortunately, climbers get lumped in with the rappeling crowd and other yahoos.
I guess this is an argument for politely correcting other people's mistakes when you see the potential for a disaster at the cliffs.
|
|
|
|
|
hyhuu
Mar 12, 2004, 6:45 PM
Post #36 of 179
(24306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2001
Posts: 492
|
In reply to: I think a better answer is maybe. Although a product can be made nearly idiot proof, using a locking carabiner or figure 8, or both in combination incorrectly is a bad idea. Perhaps the Aussie rappell prevented your cousin from seeing that there was a problem with the orientation of his gear before he started to descend. That's just a guess. Curt
That reminds me of what an nuclear weapon engineer once said to me: "You can never design an idiot proof system because idiots are so ever ingenious at finding way to screw it up"
|
|
|
|
|
tedc
Mar 12, 2004, 6:57 PM
Post #37 of 179
(24306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 756
|
In reply to: tedc: You're right. Forcing a man. to make something safer is rediculous.
I am right. It is ridiculous. Let the climber decide what to use and how to use it.
|
|
|
|
|
cedk
Mar 12, 2004, 7:02 PM
Post #38 of 179
(24306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2001
Posts: 516
|
"Aussie rappell" is bull-shit and unneccessarily dangerous. Whoever taught someone that this is a safe way to rap is more responsible for this death than HB or REI.
Sorry if that pisses anyone off.
|
|
|
|
|
oldsalt
Mar 12, 2004, 7:07 PM
Post #39 of 179
(24306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2004
Posts: 919
|
I recently changed my rapelling set up and I now may need to again.
Opinions, please (like I need to ask for an opinion here).
Old way:
Figure-eight directly to locker on belay loop, prussick above.
Newer way:
Figure-eight on a sling girth hitched to belay loop, prussick below figure-eight.
Newest way?:
ATC on a sling, prussick below,
Or
Munter hitch to locker (or two opposed biners) on a sling, prussick below?
I have practiced descending from an abandoned belay with this exact rig. I think the twist force of the munter hitch on the biner could easily open a gate.
I am going to test the use of a prussick backup while belaying. IMO, human failure while belaying is too common, at least in gyms, to continue without a backup system.
|
|
|
|
|
neuroshock
Mar 12, 2004, 7:38 PM
Post #40 of 179
(24306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 680
|
In reply to: In reply to: It is plainly obvious that a locking carabiner can't take very much of an inward force on the gate. We're talking everyday common sense here... kind of like the obvious warning of not spilling a cup of hot coffee on your lap. I disagree. I was surprised that as little as 500 lbs of inward force could break the biner. I'm sure I'm not the only one to whom it was not "plainly obvious." On the other hand, I am WELL aware of what the ratings stamped onto a biner mean. Maybe the manufacturers should also include a "cross-load rating" on the spine of the biners.
if you think about how a locking carabiner works, it should be fairly straightforward. the locking mechanism is designed to keep the gate from inadvertently opening (gate chatter, pushed up against a bulge, etc) and releasing the contents being held. the load put upon a carabiner, in all reasonable cases that i can think of, is from "within" the carabiner outward. to get the kind of failure being discussed in this thread you would have to load the gate itself with an "inward" force.
there already are rated crossloading strengths stamped on many carabiners alongside the major-axis orientation and open-gate strengths.
from looking at a carabiner i would think that a normal crossload failure would have put stress on the gate pin in the 'nose' and the rest of the biner body. the locking sleeve is the last thing i would expect to bear force in a crossload event.
|
|
|
|
|
highclimbing2000
Mar 12, 2004, 7:52 PM
Post #41 of 179
(24304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2004
Posts: 3
|
I also am sorry to hear of your loss and thank you for bringing it to our attention.
with that said I also think that sueing hb and rei as wrong.all of us are taught that climbing and rapelling are dangerous period.in everything I have read and been taught the most important thing is to back everything up.redundancy is the key to being as safe as it can possibly be.In the end the responsibillity is ours.I and I alone take my life into my own hands every time I go climbing.It is not anyone but my own fault if I die or get injured that is the chance that I take.I know the risks and therefore I must take the blame.
Again I am sorry for your loss and I dread the day it happens to me and mine.You cant blame yourself or any one company for the accident that happened it unfortunately comes with the territory of climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 12, 2004, 8:01 PM
Post #42 of 179
(24304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: tedc: You're right. Forcing a man. to make something safer is rediculous. Good thing in the '60s the car manufacturers volunteered to put seat belts in thier cars and weren't forced to (not). Wasn't it Nader that sued the big three to get them forced into it? I have so many biners is ridiculous. I do have a stack that I don't use because they don't feel as safe. I also don't use regularly the steel 47kn biners I have. But I would pay more for a "safer" biner.
Sarcat, I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with tedc and others. It is ridiculous to think that this suit will force REI to make "safer" biners. Why? Because the "safer" biner already exists. It's called a large steel maillon.
In reply to: The author also notes that although this abnormal configuration can occur when using a Maillon Rapide there is much less danger because the maillon can withstand a three-way load better and the construction of a Maillon includes threading to both sides of the gate which obviates the need for a thin sleeve as in a screwgate karabiner.... AS A INITIAL RECOMMENDATION I SUGGEST THAT WE SHOULD BELAY FIGURE-EIGHTS USING A LARGE MAILLON TO CONNECT TO THE ANCHOR.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 12, 2004, 8:08 PM
Post #43 of 179
(24304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: Newer way: Figure-eight on a sling girth hitched to belay loop, prussick below figure-eight.
Seems like that still might allow the 8 to get hung up on the carabiner, but perhaps the biner would be able to rotate since it's just on a sling rather than tight against your harness? Not sure - try it out at home and let us know.
In reply to: Newest way?: ATC on a sling, prussick below
That works reasonably well, so long as you don't extend the device further than you can reach. Also consider not extending the ATC with a sling at all, but instead move the prussik down to your leg loop.
As for using a munter to rappel - that's among other last resorts, so far as I'm concerned.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
mtman
Mar 12, 2004, 8:26 PM
Post #44 of 179
(24304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 229
|
as said sevral times before it was the style of the rapell ('auzie') and the improper use of the equipment. this is not the falt of the equipment,
IN CLIMBING YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN SAFTY IF YOU F UP IT IS YOUR FALT NOT THE GEAR.
if there was a warning saying the force to push the gate inwards would have prevented this or he would have known the dangers, is not nesarly true. there are warnings out there.
also before you try somthing dangerous like the auzie rapell you should educate your self on how to do it properly and safely. the locking bener was miss used end of story
|
|
|
|
|
oldsalt
Mar 12, 2004, 9:52 PM
Post #45 of 179
(24304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2004
Posts: 919
|
Thanks, cracklover, for the responses.
I'll practice the ATC/sling combo, especially with the Prussick moved to the leg loop. The belay loop gets unwieldy when stressed.
I recommend that everyone spend time practicing emergency situations on a regular basis. Hopefully, attention and practice can head-off some accidents. Backups help in the rare equipment failure incident. It would be nice if this thread had not been necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 12, 2004, 10:15 PM
Post #46 of 179
(24304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: Thanks, cracklover, for the responses. I'll practice the ATC/sling combo, especially with the Prussick moved to the leg loop. The belay loop gets unwieldy when stressed.
Cool. I don't want to take this thread any further off track, but if you do use the above method, keep in mind that if the entire rappel attachment fails (as it did in this case) the above setup will leave you hanging upside down from a locked prussik on one leg loop. Take a moment to think about what you might do if that happened. If you understand the principles of self rescue and you have a sling and another biner or two, I think you can get yourself down.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Mar 13, 2004, 1:16 AM
Post #47 of 179
(24304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
Wow, I didn't think I'd get such a great response on both sides of the issue...
I did want to make a couple of this a little more clear for the record:
This was an ACCIDENT, but Kyle was a safe, responsible individual. He was in the process of making his second descent for the day, and was in the process of checking both lines to make sure they were safe for descent. (He was with a youth group).
The actual cause of the inward force on the gate was never determined, though it was clearly sheered/forced open.
I alway understood the dangers of crossloading, as did Kyle, but I never realized that it took less than 1kn to force the gate to open inward. After I learned this, I boycotted the figure eight. ATC's and Variable controllers are my preferrence.
As a climber myself, I would not have sued HB or REI. But his family felt they needed to, and as their understanding of mountaineering in general may have been minimal, I can understand why a loving family might seek for damages if there were any reason whatsoever they felt the accident could have been avoided-- and even more importantly, if the accident could be prevented in the future. I admire them for this, because now we are all gaining a better understanding of some of the dangers and risks involved with rappelling-- No matter which method you use. (Aussie or Standard/Sitting)
One more thing: Kyle was no idiot. Any individual who knew him or knows me would agree that we are both as safe as we could possibly be when in the mountains. I reiterate that he was on his second descent of the cliff to make sure the lines were safe for his group of youth.
Thankyou, everyone, for all of your excellent advise and information. I am suprised by some of the information that actually IS available out there. I am also incredibly relieved to be able to talk about this subject in depth like this.
|
|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Mar 13, 2004, 1:38 AM
Post #48 of 179
(24304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
One more thing...
Overlord asked how a rope could break the caribiner...
Actually in the event of rope cross-over, or when your rope some how wraps over the gate of the biner, it is quite easy to apply enough INWARD force to sheer the gate. However, this is GATE failure, not actually breaking the caribiner.
|
|
|
|
|
dirko
Mar 13, 2004, 2:16 AM
Post #49 of 179
(24304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 374
|
James, I appreciate your ability to discuss the issue maturely with the rest of the community. I also am very glad that you shared the information about the carabiner. While I'm here, I'd like to disapprove of the lawsuit. But really, thanks to those out the who are keeping up the intelligent dialogue.
Peace to your bro.
|
|
|
|
|
raingod
Mar 13, 2004, 2:19 AM
Post #50 of 179
(24304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 118
|
In reply to: tedc: You're right. Forcing a man. to make something safer is rediculous. Good thing in the '60s the car manufacturers volunteered to put seat belts in thier cars and weren't forced to (not). Wasn't it Nader that sued the big three to get them forced into it? . |
|
|
|
|
|
