a figure 8 is not only a knot ...

... it is also a belay/rappel device.
http://www.kayaksandpaddles.co.uk/...enders/clog-fig8.jpg

just curious as to why HB and REI were sued?

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

Regardless what we all feel about the lawsuit if HB makes a safer biner from it we all win. Right?

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

tedc:

You're right. Forcing a man. to make something safer is rediculous.

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.

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.

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.

Newer way:

Figure-eight on a sling girth hitched to belay loop, prussick below figure-eight.

Newest way?:

ATC on a sling, prussick below

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.

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?
.

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. [snip]

I'm confused though.. I'm looking at a DMM screw lock right now at the imprint reads:

<--->28 | 7

and open gate 10 kN

In fact all of my Gates show 7kN crossloading.. and they are all at least 3 years old...

where is the 1kN break point coming from? what make was it?

Now that cracklover has enlightened you, I'm sure next week you'll be excoriating someone for posting something so ignorant.

The student had made several false starts allowing the figure-eight and karabiner to become slack on each occasion. The small eye of the descender had moved over the karabiner gate and had been corrected by the instructor at least twice. On the fatal instance this was either not noticed or not corrected fully.

...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.

Since I helped teach Kyle different methods of belay and rappel, I was a key witness in the case against these enormous companies

As a climber myself, I would not have sued HB or REI.

clearly, you are quite proud of that fact. But then you said:


you did, in effect.

Please donate your gear and move on.

Clearly it was not the safest method of rappell that could have been used, and because his family was brave enough to take this to court, we can all talk about it and learn from it today.

You posted here in some peacockery of self absorption as if you were doing something wonderful for the rest of us. Your neolithic understanding of how the system works is a detriment to the pursuit of climbing. You are serving no one except yourself.

Go away and let the adults handle these types of affairs.

...those accusing me, (not just drkodos), are guilty of arrogance and gross audacity of climbing knowledge and superiority of self AND of vocabulary. I consider this prideful and immature, regardless of whatever wisdom and stature you may have.

i wonder how many of the people whining above about suing the manufacturers would be so vocal if it was their child/etc? especially in light of the fact that perhaps the family doesn't really understand climbing or climbers in depth.

kind of like supporting a war, it doesn't hit home until you go off to one and then help bury your friends.

but you're attitudes and comments are degrading and inconsiderate.

let's not politicize the issue - and if someone wants to discuss the ethics of suing - why not start another thread and allow those who want to learn to be spared of insults being thrown at a mourning man.

K

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

Clearly it was not the safest method of rappel that could have been used, and because his family was brave enough to take this to court, we can all talk about it and learn from it today.

[quote="drkodos

Get back on the porch, little doggie.

Welcome to rec.climbbbb...errrr...rockclimbing.com. The weather report for tomorrow calls for more insults, cawksureness in the face of overwhelming ignorance(eh, dr.?), with scattered nastiness in the morning, turning into more general degradation by evening. A low pressure front lingering over the area should result in the pattern continuing .

Twas not an insult but a request for you to keep your meek, PC, sycophantic rhetoric to yourself, and a reminder that should you choose to address me I shall repond in whatever manner I see fit.

If you need a buffoon such as the original poster to learn from, you should put away the climbing rope and pick up knitting thread instead.

You may continue to insult and degrade with your overinflated intelligence, and I'm sure we'll all keep reading in disgust trying to think of an intelligent response.

"we don't give a rats."

Quote:
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).

This part here doesn’t make much sense to me. Could you clarify it for me?

1.Second decent: he had already been down the rope once, and he was still not sure it was safe. I have never heard of checking the safety of a rope by rappelling on it before. Can you explain to me how that is done?

2.Why rappel face first when taking a youth group out? He was obviously there to teach them the safe and accepted technique, or was he?

3.Was another experience rappeller or climber with him, or was he alone with this youth group?

To clarify a question by another post, Kyle descended a second time to check thesecond line before sending anyone down either one. (He had two ropes going).

Clearly it was not the safest method of rappel that could have been used, and because his family was brave enough to take this to court, we can all talk about it and learn from it today.

1.We could have talked about this even more objectively if the court case was not mentioned. Why did you mention it? Why not just mention the accident?

2. If it is not the safest method, was use it when teaching a youth group?

This mode of carabiner failure has been public knowledge for nearly a decade. It was mentioned in Rock & Ice magazine in '97 in the carabiner review. And the BMC issued an advisory before that. Probably is in ANAM as well. It's strictly the result of user error and has nothing to do with defective design.

Pointing to a picture in the chapter on BELAYING in FOTH doesn't help the ludicrous argument that a sport belay can be used for a rappel. That method is certainly not shown in the next chapter on RAPPELING where they also describe how to backup rappels.

There aren't any climbing books that even describe how to do an Aussie Rappel. You won't find any accredited climbing schools teaching it either. Or any climbing harnesses designed for it. It's well known as a dangerous technique and has no place in the climbing world.

So this is a case of ignorance upon ignorance upon ignorance combining to kill someone. Sad. But I wouldn't call it an accident, just an inevitable. The fault was in the education and supervision, or lack thereof.

Even sadder that the rest of the climbing community will pay the price of the blood-sucking lawyers and gutless insurance companies for a frivolous lawsuit settled out of court. Was this case in Phoenix?

I'm sorry it took another death for the word to get out that rappelling using the fig-8 (or any stiff metal device with a hole that can catch on and lever the gate) is dangerous.

Does this whole thread mean that it's safer to use an ATC to rappel rather than a figure-8?

If a figure-8 can bust a biner that easily - I'd certainly change over to an ATC...

Does this whole thread mean that it's safer to use an ATC to rappel rather than a figure-8?

If a figure-8 can bust a biner that easily - I'd certainly change over to an ATC...

I can only assume that he used aussie because he preferred it, along with the fact that he would there for have full view of the line below, and one free hand to work out the snags and tangles

Still would like to know what city the trial was held in.