|
billl7
Feb 24, 2007, 12:30 AM
Post #226 of 256
(7094 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
jt512 wrote: Bill, it makes no practical difference where the belayer is standing; if she had locked off at the hip, she'd have caught the fall. Even if she had been above the climber, locking off at the hip would be good enough. You and RHJ are just confounding the issue with irrelevancies.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 24, 2007, 12:42 AM
Post #227 of 256
(7087 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
billl7 wrote: jt512 wrote: Bill, it makes no practical difference where the belayer is standing; if she had locked off at the hip, she'd have caught the fall. Even if she had been above the climber, locking off at the hip would be good enough. You and RHJ are just confounding the issue with irrelevancies. So that's your opinion. Do you want to know what mine is of your approach on this?
Why would I?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Feb 24, 2007, 12:49 AM
Post #228 of 256
(7083 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
jt512 wrote: billl7 wrote: jt512 wrote: Bill, it makes no practical difference where the belayer is standing; if she had locked off at the hip, she'd have caught the fall. Even if she had been above the climber, locking off at the hip would be good enough. You and RHJ are just confounding the issue with irrelevancies. So that's your opinion. Do you want to know what mine is of your approach on this? Why would I?
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Feb 24, 2007, 1:06 AM
Post #229 of 256
(7067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
billl7 wrote: jt512 wrote: billl7 wrote: jt512 wrote: Bill, it makes no practical difference where the belayer is standing; if she had locked off at the hip, she'd have caught the fall. Even if she had been above the climber, locking off at the hip would be good enough. You and RHJ are just confounding the issue with irrelevancies. So that's your opinion. Do you want to know what mine is of your approach on this? Why would I? Well there you go, Jay.
I said I wouldn't say anything more on this subject, like, five pages ago but....Jay is right. You lock off, you catch the fall. If you're out of position, you meet the wall during this process. It has been established the belayer was not yanked into the wall as would have occured if she'd locked off. That there was no lockoff is beyond argument at this point. Why there was no lockoff is relevant, but what the belayer attempted was like trying to grab the rope to arrest the fall sans belay device.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Feb 24, 2007, 5:11 AM
Post #230 of 256
(7028 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
zeke_sf wrote: I said I wouldn't say anything more on this subject, like, five pages ago but....Jay is right. You lock off, you catch the fall. If you're out of position, you meet the wall during this process. It has been established the belayer was not yanked into the wall as would have occured if she'd locked off. That there was no lockoff is beyond argument at this point. Why there was no lockoff is relevant, but what the belayer attempted was like trying to grab the rope to arrest the fall sans belay device.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 24, 2007, 7:01 AM
Post #231 of 256
(7009 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
billl7 wrote: zeke_sf wrote: I said I wouldn't say anything more on this subject, like, five pages ago but....Jay is right. You lock off, you catch the fall. If you're out of position, you meet the wall during this process. It has been established the belayer was not yanked into the wall as would have occured if she'd locked off. That there was no lockoff is beyond argument at this point. Why there was no lockoff is relevant, but what the belayer attempted was like trying to grab the rope to arrest the fall sans belay device. I agreed with Jay as well, only a page or so ago. I think the disconnect comes to whether there is anything else to learn. And I took exception to the " -- ever!" missive.
Bill, it is true that the belayer should have been standing closer to the wall, but there is no evidence that her position was a contributing factor to the accident. The dingbat didn't lock off. Period.
Furthermore, this business about the ideal lock off angle being a function of either the belayer's position wrt the route (your claim) or whether the ATC was attached to the belay loop or the harness's tie-in points (RHJ's claim) has no practical value. If the belayer locks off at her hip, she'll be able to stop the fall regardless of where she is standing or what part of her harness her ATC is attached to.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jaybro
Feb 24, 2007, 8:23 AM
Post #232 of 256
(6999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2005
Posts: 441
|
Forgot to grab the other side of the rope eh?,...noob
"no prop it's only 5.7, I'm too good to get hurt at that level"
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Feb 24, 2007, 2:50 PM
Post #233 of 256
(6982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
jt512 wrote: billl7 wrote: I agreed with Jay as well, only a page or so ago. I think the disconnect comes to whether there is anything else to learn. And I took exception to the " -- ever!" missive. Bill, it is true that the belayer should have been standing closer to the wall, but there is no evidence that her position was a contributing factor to the accident. The dingbat didn't lock off. Period.
jt512 wrote: Furthermore, this business about the ideal lock off angle being a function of either the belayer's position wrt the route (your claim) or whether the ATC was attached to the belay loop or the harness's tie-in points (RHJ's claim) has no practical value. If the belayer locks off at her hip, she'll be able to stop the fall regardless of where she is standing or what part of her harness her ATC is attached to.
To those not familiar, there are atypical cases where the hip is exactly the wrong place.
Yes, this wasn't multi-pitch. But according to the owner (the guy you said was an idiot), there were a number of problems with the belay - not just the lock off issue. It sounded like an overall piss-poor belay to me.
Sure, not-locking-off would explain why the belayer wasn't jerked around. So could a rediculously large amount of slack in the system (hey, it was an easy 5.7 - I can relax). Not being locked off is the most likely. Belayer position could have contributed. Slack might be a tertiary issue.
Do I think Gail needs to track all this down. No. I think she now has an adequate understanding. And life sometimes holds secrets. But it's no secret that not locking off is a primary finding.
On the other hand, this is a public forum that is viewed by some folks who are interested in more than climbing in the gym. Let's not water it down. Belaying is a grave responsibility with something more to it than pushing on the brake pedal or not.
[/missive]
Bill L
(This post was edited by billl7 on Feb 24, 2007, 3:53 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 24, 2007, 4:44 PM
Post #234 of 256
(6962 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
billl7 wrote: jt512 wrote: billl7 wrote: I agreed with Jay as well, only a page or so ago. I think the disconnect comes to whether there is anything else to learn. And I took exception to the " -- ever!" missive. Bill, it is true that the belayer should have been standing closer to the wall, but there is no evidence that her position was a contributing factor to the accident. The dingbat didn't lock off. Period. Period. Well, except for the the analysis from the gym owner.
The analysis that made absolutely no sense, by the gym owner who didn't actually witness the accident? That analysis?
In reply to: jt512 wrote: Furthermore, this business about the ideal lock off angle being a function of either the belayer's position wrt the route (your claim) or whether the ATC was attached to the belay loop or the harness's tie-in points (RHJ's claim) has no practical value. If the belayer locks off at her hip, she'll be able to stop the fall regardless of where she is standing or what part of her harness her ATC is attached to. A while ago in this thread you indicated that too many climbers today don't get enough instruction on the belay (my interpretation).
Correct.
In reply to: I belive multi-pitch climbing was brought up as an example where the typical gym climber belay was woefully inadequate (again, my interpretation). Aren't you contributing by taking such a narrow position on the break hand?
No, Bill, I'm not. This is not the forum (literally) to discuss those other problems. The purpose here is to figure out why the accident happened. Bringing in other problems that did not contribute to the accident just obfuscates what did.
In reply to: But according to the owner (the guy you said was an idiot)...
Curt said that.
In reply to: ...there were a number of problems with the belay - not just the lock off issue.
There were other problems, but they didn't contribute to the accident.
In reply to: Sure, not-locking-off would explain why the belayer wasn't jerked around. So could a rediculously large amount of slack in the system...
The belayer burned her brake hand, Bill, so the rope ran through the device.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Feb 24, 2007, 6:12 PM
Post #235 of 256
(6944 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
jt512 wrote: billl7 wrote: Period. Well, except for the the analysis from the gym owner. The analysis that made absolutely no sense, by the gym owner who didn't actually witness the accident? That analysis?
jt512 wrote: billl7 wrote: I belive multi-pitch climbing was brought up as an example where the typical gym climber belay was woefully inadequate (again, my interpretation). Aren't you contributing by taking such a narrow position on the break hand? No, Bill, I'm not. This is not the forum (literally) to discuss those other problems. The purpose here is to figure out why the accident happened. Bringing in other problems that did not contribute to the accident just obfuscates what did.
jt512 wrote: billl7 wrote: But according to the owner (the guy you said was an idiot)... Curt said that.
jt512 wrote: billl7 wrote: ...there were a number of problems with the belay - not just the lock off issue. There were other problems, but they didn't contribute to the accident.
jt512 wrote: billl7 wrote: Sure, not-locking-off would explain why the belayer wasn't jerked around. So could a rediculously large amount of slack in the system... The belayer burned her brake hand, Bill, so the rope ran through the device.
No, no excuse from me for the belayer, no matter whether you are in the "just lock off, stupid!" camp or in the "lock off but pay attention to system [Edit:, stupid!]" camp.
Bill L
(This post was edited by billl7 on Feb 24, 2007, 6:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Feb 24, 2007, 6:32 PM
Post #236 of 256
(6927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
billl7 wrote: jt512 wrote: billl7 wrote: But according to the owner (the guy you said was an idiot)... Curt said that. Then you are disowning something you said ... well, inferred.
Hey, give credit where credit's due--it's only fair.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Feb 25, 2007, 2:30 AM
Post #238 of 256
(6853 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
The other problem i see with the owners "analysis" is that the only people he seemed to have talked to were Gail and her belayer. Well.. her belayer was busy dropping gail.. and gail was busy getting dropped 30 feet to the gym floor.. neither are a very good outside witnesses to the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Feb 25, 2007, 2:56 AM
Post #239 of 256
(6840 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
The analysis would have had more credibility if it involved at least 1 independent witness. Maybe there weren't any. Or maybe the investigator is the problem.
I almost said maybe the owner doesn't give a flying rip. But they did shut down lead climbing for awhile after the accident based on someone else's report. That sounds like an owner that is at least concerned about what they are requiring of folks and whether that may have contributed. Could be just the dollar driving that though.
Bill L
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Feb 25, 2007, 3:26 AM
Post #240 of 256
(6825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
shut down leading.. yet said it was TR fall.. i dunno it all doesnt make sense and i don't think he adds anything but more confusion to the party.
:shrug:
Gail how are you doing? hope things are healing up chica
|
|
|
|
|
gblauer
Moderator
Feb 25, 2007, 4:25 AM
Post #241 of 256
(6818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Posts: 2824
|
jakedatc wrote: s Gail how are you doing? hope things are healing up chica
Thanks for asking. I am feeling rather well. My belayer has been doing polarity/cranial sacral sessions everyday and she has cleared most of my pain.
2 days after I got out of the hospital I went to see a spine doctor. She spent an hour with me, examined my xrays/ct scans, did neurological exams, range of motion etc.
She told me to ditch the brace and get moving. She advised me that I could do whatever I wanted and to use pain as my guide. I have actually been back to the gym 4 times since the accident; each time it gets easier to climb. I actually lead 2 10's today and I am not sore. I have the "leader must not fall" mentality, so my joy of leading isn't quite there. I hope that once my bones heal, I will be more willing to climb with my old sport attitude; falls (without consequences) are ok. Right now I am afraid of what it will feel like at the catch, not sure that my back would feel all that great.
I am glad to be back working out, it's going to take a long time to get my head back to where it was.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Feb 25, 2007, 5:03 AM
Post #242 of 256
(6810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
thats great.. just remember it takes 6-8 weeks for bones to heal so staying with stuff that is in your comfort zone and not doing anything to aggrivate those fx's is the way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
crackrn
Feb 25, 2007, 6:42 AM
Post #243 of 256
(6780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2004
Posts: 282
|
"gblauer wrote: ... Right now I am afraid of what it will feel like at the catch, not sure that my back would feel all that great.
I know that when my back has been hurting, being pulled up in the air on the belay side of the catch does not feel good at all so I'd imagine that the leader side wouldn't be that fun either. Glad you are feeling better physically.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Feb 25, 2007, 8:18 PM
Post #244 of 256
(6754 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
Woah, I missed an interesting thread....
A couple comments, after reading it through:
The preventability of the accident on Gail's part has been discussed. She may or may not have been able to prevent this. Perhaps she could have looked to see if the climber had her locked off (as Jay suggested), and perhaps she could've selected a more competent belayer. A number of other things are possible. However, none of this is relevant to the question of whether belayer failure was the cause of the accident, which it unambiguously is, regardless of how they were using "climber communication" terms, regardless of the fact that she fell intentionally, or any of the other distractions here. When the climber falls, you catch them, period. (For once I can agree fully with zeke_sf.)
GriGri vs. ATC is a dead horse in one sense, but there is an undeniable epidemic of belayers who do not understand how to use their belay devices, so it is worth discussing as much as possible. Belaying is important---it is infinitely more important to be a good belayer than it is to climb 5.13 or whatever. If you can't belay properly with whatever device you choose to use, you are a shit climber no matter what you redpoint. I like to experiment with new locking assist belay devices as they come out (I prefer either the SUM or the Cinch to a GriGri), and it never ceases to amaze me how many climbers ask to try it without asking how to use it. Seriously---you cannot simply intuit how to use these things; if you think you can, you are a moron. These devices take practice and an understanding of both how they work and how they can be misused: read your manual, and if you're still confused, research it online or ask the manufacturer for clarifications (I have done this). Do not rely on the instruction of a single "experienced" climber (even if they are a guide): in my experience many of them have no idea what they are talking about on this issue.
Refusing to fall is not the answer. If you want to climb that way, that's fine, but if you want to sport climb, you need to be able to fall. Worrying about "unnecessary" shocks to the system is ridiculous (they're actually completely necessary, and the system, including the belayer, can be made to be very reliable). Desensitization to lead falls is a prerequisite to sport climbing---if you can't take and risk small falls arbitrarily and without fear, you won't be able to focus on the gymnastics, which is the whole point. That said, if you make the choice to allow a stranger or inexperienced belayer to hold your rope (and this is a calculated risk that is often worth taking), using strategies like thewallress' suggestion of treating the belay as a "backup parachute" can certainly be a good idea; but you definitely won't be doing this on your projects.
The idea that you should rap instead of lower in order to be "safer" is beautiful irony. I find very few things more humorous than when people make themselves less safe in the name of safety.
The belayer should not be shunned or permanently disqualified from belaying. She failed to arrest the fall, but the likely root cause here is faulty instruction. (And I agree with everything jt said about that.) The answer is to re-educate the belayer---this event could even be used as a catalyst for converting her into a higher-than-average-quality sport climbing belayer.
Craniosacral "healing" sessions? Do I really need to be the first one to say something? (Jay, I can't believe you haven't commented on that.)
(This post was edited by fracture on Feb 26, 2007, 3:49 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Feb 25, 2007, 11:00 PM
Post #245 of 256
(6725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
well said fracture..
I wanted to ask what the cranio sacral healing stuff was but as most medical advice on here is ignored i figured this would be no different. If the vertebrae are actually fractured then activity would normally not be suggested until it healed.
L2 contains the nerve root that controls hip flexion and sensation around upper lateral part of your hamstring and upper lateral part of your quad. not really things you want to get messed up
|
|
|
|
|
gblauer
Moderator
Feb 25, 2007, 11:19 PM
Post #246 of 256
(6721 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Posts: 2824
|
jakedatc wrote: If the vertebrae are actually fractured then activity would normally not be suggested until it healed.
Wow, I can't believe that you would actually infer that I do not have a fractured spine! Do I have to post the xrays and CT scan results!? The Doctor at the hospital told me not to move for at least 6 weeks. He put me in a brace sent me home. I went to a spine specialist and she spent an hour with me. She told me that my fracture is stable, and that I was allowed to do what I wanted, using pain as my guide.
I credit the cranial sacral therapy with my rapid healing; my ribs and lower right belly did not even respond to the narcotics when I was in the hospital for 2 days. By the time I left the hospital, I was able to use only Ibuprofin for pain relief. Within 4 days, my pain in my ribs was totally gone. Within 7 days my back pain was 80% eliminated.
Honestly, I do not understand cranial sacral therapy. I don't know what the healer actually does, but, I do know that I feel remarkably well and that I have virtually no pain, a good range of motion and full neurological capability. Following please find a definition (From wikipedia) of the treatment:
Craniosacral therapy (also called CST, cranial osteopathy, also spelled CranioSacral therapy) is a method of alternative medicine used by massage therapists, chiropractors and osteopaths, who manually apply a subtle movement of the spinal and cranial bones to bring the central nervous system into harmony. This therapy involves assessing and addressing the movement of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), which can be restricted by trauma to the body, such as through falls, accidents, and general nervous tension. By gently working with the spine, the skull and its cranial sutures, diaphragms, and fascia, the restrictions of nerve passages are eased, the movement of CSF through the spinal cord can be optimized, and misaligned bones can be restored to their proper position. This therapy is particularly useful for mental stress, neck and back pain, migraines, TMJ Syndrome, and for chronic nervous conditions such as fibromyalgia.
(This post was edited by gblauer on Feb 25, 2007, 11:26 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Feb 26, 2007, 12:21 AM
Post #247 of 256
(6701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
I wasn't inferring that it was not fractured.. i was shocked that you'd be leading only a few weeks post fracture.. 6-8 weeks it takes for bones to heal..
In reply to: She told me that my fracture is stable, and that I was allowed to do what I wanted, using pain as my guide.
i wouldnt think that leading would be a thing allowed if they had known that was a choice..
just think you should be careful trying to come back too soon.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Feb 26, 2007, 1:25 AM
Post #248 of 256
(6682 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
jakedatc wrote: I wouldnt think that leading would be a thing allowed if they had known that was a choice...
Depends on what, exactly, is fractured. Some folks have walked out of the ER with a small fracture of certain parts of the vertebra.
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Feb 26, 2007, 12:56 PM
Post #249 of 256
(6645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
Gail, I was glab to hear that you were back to climbing already, even better that you're to leading! Way to push on girl!
Just please, please be careful with lead falls. I don't know how much further damage could be done if you did fall (between you and you doctor), but it would kill me to hear that you further damaged your self by taking a normal fall.
|
|
|
|
|
winglessangel
Feb 26, 2007, 5:33 PM
Post #250 of 256
(6620 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2004
Posts: 459
|
reno wrote: jakedatc wrote: I wouldnt think that leading would be a thing allowed if they had known that was a choice... Depends on what, exactly, is fractured. Some folks have walked out of the ER with a small fracture of certain parts of the vertebra.
True. I had a similar accident one day before Gail's Accident. After 3 days I felt almost no pain and I could walk if I wanted to. Today, I've been out of any medication for 4 days now and I don't miss it. I don't feel any back pain. I only feel little muscle pain because I felt on a sitting position on a staircase and I riped some muscle fibers where the main impact was.
Do only reason I'm not doing all Gail is doing is because my doctor told me not to. He put me on brace. But I already hve an apointment schedulled with another physician to see what He will say and take my final decision. Honestly it hurts more to be imobilized by a brace then to move around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
