|
panacea82
Oct 14, 2008, 2:53 PM
Post #1 of 64
(22864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2005
Posts: 77
|
Does anyone have any more information on how Marcy from Morgantown WV is doing after her fall from the top of Ro Shampo?
For those of you that down know a climber was at the top or Ro Shampo on monday when something went wrong and she fell from 65 feet. It was the most horrible sound i have ever heard. Thanks to the help of everyone at Roadside that day she was safely evacuated and flown to the hospital.
Let it be a lesion for us all. ALWAYS double check your systems!
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Oct 14, 2008, 3:19 PM
Post #2 of 64
(22820 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
I'd rather avoid lesions when I'm climbing. But that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
alpineclimb
Oct 14, 2008, 4:24 PM
Post #3 of 64
(22669 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2007
Posts: 9
|
OMG that's horrible. My friends and I were the first ones to get on Ro on Monday morning. We were climbing with Lisa Rands and Stephanie Forte until about 11am when we had to head back to Lexington to fly home to NH. My prayers are with her. I was the last one to clean the our draws on monday and I lowered off the biners that were at the anchors. They seemed fine and safe. Obviously I didn't have any issues.
Remember to always double check yourself before coming off "direct."
Prayers are with her!
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Oct 14, 2008, 4:39 PM
Post #4 of 64
(22624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
Wow, yet another accident! So many...
I hope Marcy recovers well. My thoughts are with her.
With a fall that big (and landing on those boulders?  or did she miss the boulders and landed in the sand?) she is lucky to be alive.
|
|
|
|
|
lemurboy
Oct 14, 2008, 5:04 PM
Post #5 of 64
(22571 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2002
Posts: 215
|
My partner and I were involved in the rescue, (He was the first paramedic on scene and I was giving the belay for the decent down the trail). We rushed down to roadside the minute we heard there was an accident.
My thoughts and prayers are with Marcy today, and I am itching to know how she made out.
I just want to say good on every climber at Roadside that day. It could have been a lot worse if not for everyone pulling together to help! We got her out of there and into good hands with great speed!
Everyone demonstrated a lot of class and I experienced a real sense of brother and sisterhood, climbers taking care of their own.
Thank you
-Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
firstbmw
Oct 14, 2008, 7:41 PM
Post #6 of 64
(22362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 1
|
Yes Aaron, the climbing community was done proud by all who helped.
A big thumbs up to the folks who were there first and did the right things. Together we all helped and got her out and onto the chopper within the "golden hour" of her accident.
There is no question that a fall from 60+ feet is potentially fatal, and her wounds would have been fatal if she had not received the fast and proper care that she did.
Please, everyone, take a first Aid and/or a wilderness first aid course, bring a first Aid kit with you EVERY TIME.
and though many disagree...wear a helmet.
(This post was edited by firstbmw on Oct 14, 2008, 7:43 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Azure
Oct 14, 2008, 9:12 PM
Post #7 of 64
(22253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2007
Posts: 28
|
Gear failure or human error?
Glad to hear the outcome of the rescue effort. Good job to those involved.
|
|
|
|
|
kostik
Oct 15, 2008, 3:18 PM
Post #8 of 64
(22018 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 26, 2005
Posts: 275
|
I climbed with Marcy last summer at the New. Met her again last weekend at the Rocktoberfest at Miguel's. She looked very lonely and somewhat upset with something.
I wish Marcy to recover quickly.
(This post was edited by kostik on Oct 15, 2008, 9:48 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
livinonasandbar
Oct 15, 2008, 5:13 PM
Post #9 of 64
(21916 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2003
Posts: 356
|
Does anyone have an update on Marcy's condition and the circumstances of her accident?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wasatchchic
Oct 15, 2008, 6:21 PM
Post #11 of 64
(21798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2006
Posts: 7
|
I just posted this on RRG and thought I would post here as well
I was the belayer of the accident at Roadside. We were on Ro Shambo. Charlie (from the RRG thread) was correct in what happened.
It was both of our faults.
My fault because I didn't understand the system of how everything would work (I obviously do now). I had never done this before (climbing in the middle of a rope on a one pitch sport route) and had asked the strategy as she was hopping on the climb. She explained how she would unclip her end and clip her side. I understood how that would work, so put her on belay. As she got to the top we started talking as I was still confused about the mechanics of it all. She said she was indirect so I assumed (huge, huge, huge fault of mine) that she had it under control. When she said take, I took. And she fell.
This was also her fault because I don't think she could have tested her rope prior to being lowered as if she had, she would have seen it was not taut.
It was a horrible accident. A result of mis-communication and assumption. A reminder that climbing is dangerous.
The update is she is healing and has been transferred to a hospital in West Virginia. She has many fractures and needs surgery but will definitely live. We have left each other messages, but have yet to talk in person. She sounds good but thinks she made a horrible mistake, when in reality we were both at fault and climbing is dangerous. As for me, I am obviously really shaken up still and deciding what to do now. I don't know if I climb again, I don't know if I go home (to Utah). I don't know yet. I guess I am just simply lost in life right now but will make some decisions in a couple days after talking with her in person. There were three witnesses and they are all doing alright. One is back in Canada safely, the other two are still here at Miguel's and decided to go out climbing today.
That is the update.
(This post was edited by wasatchchic on Oct 15, 2008, 6:25 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
livinonasandbar
Oct 15, 2008, 7:28 PM
Post #12 of 64
(21712 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2003
Posts: 356
|
Wasatchchic, I feel for you. Try not to beat yourself up too much, although I realize that's probably much easier to say than do.
From your account, it sounds as though you did what was asked of you by the climber, and the climber made a costly mistake. I'm happy to know she has survived and hope she enjoys a complete recovery.
Wishing you strength and peace in your heart.
|
|
|
|
|
wormly81
Oct 15, 2008, 7:35 PM
Post #13 of 64
(21693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2004
Posts: 280
|
I still dont understand what happened. That probably has something to do with why there was an accident. Best wishes to Marcy for a speedy recovery.
(This post was edited by wormly81 on Oct 15, 2008, 7:39 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Oct 15, 2008, 7:38 PM
Post #14 of 64
(21688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
wormly81 wrote: I still dont understand what happened. That probably has something to due with why there was an accident. Best wishes to Marcy for a speedy recovery.
Right there with you. I think it's going to take a diagram for me to get my head wrapped around the system they where using.
|
|
|
|
|
gothcopter
Oct 15, 2008, 8:49 PM
Post #15 of 64
(21609 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 145
|
knieveltech wrote: Right there with you. I think it's going to take a diagram for me to get my head wrapped around the system they where using.
Ok, here goes...
So, imagine a scenario where climber B has just finished belaying climber A on the lead of an overhanging climb. Climbers B and C both want to toprope the climb, but it is only safe to toprope with the rope redirected through the draws.
Climber B takes the rope out of her belay device, ties an alpine butterfly right there on the rope and clips it to her harness with locking carabiners. Climber C goes on belay on the leader's end of the rope.
Climber B ascends, unclipping the rope above her from the draws and clipping the trailing rope into the draws beneath her. When she gets to the anchor, she goes on direct, unclips belay rope from the anchor, and clips the rope trailing through the draws into the anchor.
At this point, climber C should switch to belaying on the rope trailed by climber B, and then lower climber B to the ground.
Climber C can then tie into the end of the rope, and be belayed up by climber B.
The problem came during step 4 -- climber C never switched to belaying on the other rope.
There is a way to accomplish this same task without going off belay. All climber B needs to do is take a couple of extra draws or carabiners to the top of the route with her. Then instead of going on direct, she can simply connect the trailing rope to the toprope anchor alongside her belay rope. She can then be lowered, and the trailing line will come down with her. Once on the ground, she can pull her former belay line through the anchors to get it out of the way if desired.
(This post was edited by gothcopter on Oct 15, 2008, 8:51 PM)
|
|
Attachments:
|
rrg1.png
(39.2 KB)
|
|
|
rrg2.png
(35.3 KB)
|
|
|
rrg3.png
(36.2 KB)
|
|
|
rrg4.png
(38.0 KB)
|
|
|
rrg5.png
(34.7 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Oct 15, 2008, 8:53 PM
Post #16 of 64
(21599 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
1. Sweet. Thanks for taking the time to diagram that out.
2. WHAT THE FUCK?! Nothing about that system looks like a good idea to me. People seriously do this? Seriously?
|
|
|
|
|
glytch
Oct 15, 2008, 9:00 PM
Post #17 of 64
(21589 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2006
Posts: 194
|
knieveltech wrote: wormly81 wrote: I still dont understand what happened. That probably has something to due with why there was an accident. Best wishes to Marcy for a speedy recovery. Right there with you. I think it's going to take a diagram for me to get my head wrapped around the system they where using.
I just drew it out and think I get it:
Imagine you have a wandering route that you've lead and set up as a toprope, and that you're using two ropes. Because the route wanders, as you climb and unclip the rope above you, you clip a trailing rope into the pro, so the next person to TR the route is protected. At the top, you clip into the anchor directly, and then unclip the TR from the anchor and clip the trailing rope into the anchor.
If you unclip from the anchor, the former TR rope runs directly from you to your belayer and can not support weight (of course). This is exactly what happened here, except the climber was tied into the middle of a single rope, as opposed to TRing on one rope and trailing another.
To prevent this, the belayer would have had to take the climber off belay on one end of the rope and put her back on the other end of the rope. Alternatively, the climber could have made sure that both ends of the rope went through the anchor (the belayer could lower the climber on the same rope as the climber went up on). In either case, there are a lot of steps involved and a few possible sources of error. Either method could be acceptable, though neither ideal.
The two main take-home messages here, as I see them:
1) Clear communication between climber and belayer before and during the climb is crucial. If there is any doubt as to how a climber's getting down, particularly in a tricky or unrehearsed scenario, go back to the basics and take the time necessary to make sure everyone's clear on what's going on.
2) Always weight and double check a lowering method prior to detaching from the anchor / letting go of holds. In this case, the climber would have realized that the belayer was pulling them downward, not upward, and that something was awry.
Thank you, wasatchgirl, for being courageous enough to describe what happened so we can all learn from it. This must be tremendously difficult for you end even more so for your partner, but at least the situation was not as tragic as it might have been.
My best wishes to the climber for a fast recovery and a rapid return to the rocks.
g
|
|
|
|
|
glytch
Oct 15, 2008, 9:02 PM
Post #18 of 64
(21586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2006
Posts: 194
|
Ah, thanks! exactly what I described, but your pictures are more articulate than my words.
|
|
|
|
|
jdefazio
Oct 15, 2008, 9:05 PM
Post #19 of 64
(21582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2007
Posts: 228
|
knieveltech wrote: wormly81 wrote: I still dont understand what happened. That probably has something to due with why there was an accident. Best wishes to Marcy for a speedy recovery. Right there with you. I think it's going to take a diagram for me to get my head wrapped around the system they where using.
Sorry for no diagram, but here is a related picture of this setup I have in my head.
Imagine climbing a steep single pitch sport route with a group of three and only one person leads. The typical scenario would be:
-The first leads the route, and lowers off. The rope now runs from the ground up through many draws, through the anchors, and back down to the ground
- The second will climb (TR) on the "opposite" end that the leader did, removing/unclipping draws as they go. They face only a small swing if falling at any point due to the successive draws above them. This climber reaches top anchors and lowers.
- The third climber can now only TR from the top anchors, facing a very large pendulum swing, perhaps even into the ground or other features depending on the route.
So to avoid this (assuming they can't/won't lead the route), the second could clip a trailing (different) rope through all pieces as they go. This enables the last climber to have the same situation as the second just climbed themselves on this "new" rope. Or, as appears to be related to this case, they can climb tied into a bight in the middle of the rope, clipping the trailing side as they go.
This is where I get confused. Why the need to go in direct, perform the anchor switch-a-roo, transfer the belay to the other end of the rope, and lower? If there is enough rope available for this system in the first place, couldn't you could just lower as usual when reaching the anchors, remove the bight tie-in when you reach ground, and then remove the slack?
Either way, I'll take the second rope option hands down.
|
|
|
|
|
wormly81
Oct 15, 2008, 11:00 PM
Post #20 of 64
(21503 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2004
Posts: 280
|
Not being a prolific sport climber, I have never been in a situation where a process such as described was necessary. I can see it would have its use in certain circumstances, specifically if there was a very short overhanging route that two people wanted to follow.
gothcopter wrote: There is a way to accomplish this same task without going off belay. All climber B needs to do is take a couple of extra draws or carabiners to the top of the route with her. Then instead of going on direct, she can simply connect the trailing rope to the toprope anchor alongside her belay rope. She can then be lowered, and the trailing line will come down with her.
This appears to be the correct way to perform the procedure for those so inclined.
|
|
|
|
|
jdefazio
Oct 15, 2008, 11:24 PM
Post #21 of 64
(21478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2007
Posts: 228
|
Great, thanks for the sketches. Exactly what I was envisioning.
I am still unclear, however, why in this scenario...
gothcopter wrote: There is a way to accomplish this same task without going off belay. All climber B needs to do is take a couple of extra draws or carabiners to the top of the route with her. Then instead of going on direct, she can simply connect the trailing rope to the toprope anchor alongside her belay rope. She can then be lowered, and the trailing line will come down with her. Once on the ground, she can pull her former belay line through the anchors to get it out of the way if desired.
...the climber (B) needs to do anything at all but finish the climb and just be lowered from the TR anchor, without any change in anything.
Couldn't she just be lowered down, remove her tie in knot from bight, pull out the big loop of slack and be all set? You would still end up with a TR slingshot with one end running up through all the draws, unless I am missing something.
|
|
|
|
|
gothcopter
Oct 15, 2008, 11:32 PM
Post #22 of 64
(21471 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 145
|
jdefazio wrote: Great, thanks for the sketches. Exactly what I was envisioning. I am still unclear, however, why in this scenario... gothcopter wrote: There is a way to accomplish this same task without going off belay. All climber B needs to do is take a couple of extra draws or carabiners to the top of the route with her. Then instead of going on direct, she can simply connect the trailing rope to the toprope anchor alongside her belay rope. She can then be lowered, and the trailing line will come down with her. Once on the ground, she can pull her former belay line through the anchors to get it out of the way if desired. ...the climber (B) needs to do anything at all but finish the climb and just be lowered from the TR anchor, without any change in anything. Couldn't she just be lowered down, remove her tie in knot from bight, pull out the big loop of slack and be all set? You would still end up with a TR slingshot with one end running up through all the draws, unless I am missing something.
Duh. You're absolutely right! The procedure I was envisioning was based off of a procedure when you have two ropes, which is not the case here. Your way is the simplest and safest for the given scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
jdefazio
Oct 16, 2008, 1:39 AM
Post #23 of 64
(21400 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2007
Posts: 228
|
gothcopter wrote: jdefazio wrote: Great, thanks for the sketches. Exactly what I was envisioning. I am still unclear, however, why in this scenario... gothcopter wrote: There is a way to accomplish this same task without going off belay. All climber B needs to do is take a couple of extra draws or carabiners to the top of the route with her. Then instead of going on direct, she can simply connect the trailing rope to the toprope anchor alongside her belay rope. She can then be lowered, and the trailing line will come down with her. Once on the ground, she can pull her former belay line through the anchors to get it out of the way if desired. ...the climber (B) needs to do anything at all but finish the climb and just be lowered from the TR anchor, without any change in anything. Couldn't she just be lowered down, remove her tie in knot from bight, pull out the big loop of slack and be all set? You would still end up with a TR slingshot with one end running up through all the draws, unless I am missing something. Duh. You're absolutely right! The procedure I was envisioning was based off of a procedure when you have two ropes, which is not the case here. Your way is the simplest and safest for the given scenario.
Gotcha, thanks.
Hindsight being 20/20, I'm sure they woulda, shoulda, coulda done a lot of things...anyway, very glad she is doing OK after a fall like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Maddhatter
Oct 16, 2008, 4:11 AM
Post #24 of 64
(21330 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2008
Posts: 1752
|
God, what a sad story. I hope she comes out of this ok.
Please send our love to her. She will be in our thoughts and we hope she gets well soon.
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
Oct 16, 2008, 6:26 AM
Post #25 of 64
(20698 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
No shortage of places for error in the system described.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Oct 16, 2008, 6:57 AM
Post #26 of 64
(9607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
gothcopter wrote: knieveltech wrote: Right there with you. I think it's going to take a diagram for me to get my head wrapped around the system they where using. Ok, here goes... So, imagine a scenario where climber B has just finished belaying climber A on the lead of an overhanging climb. Climbers B and C both want to toprope the climb, but it is only safe to toprope with the rope redirected through the draws. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2591[/image] Climber B takes the rope out of her belay device, ties an alpine butterfly right there on the rope and clips it to her harness with locking carabiners. Climber C goes on belay on the leader's end of the rope. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2592[/image] Climber B ascends, unclipping the rope above her from the draws and clipping the trailing rope into the draws beneath her. When she gets to the anchor, she goes on direct, unclips belay rope from the anchor, and clips the rope trailing through the draws into the anchor. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2593[/image] At this point, climber C should switch to belaying on the rope trailed by climber B, and then lower climber B to the ground. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2594[/image] Climber C can then tie into the end of the rope, and be belayed up by climber B. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2595[/image] The problem came during step 4 -- climber C never switched to belaying on the other rope. There is a way to accomplish this same task without going off belay. All climber B needs to do is take a couple of extra draws or carabiners to the top of the route with her. Then instead of going on direct, she can simply connect the trailing rope to the toprope anchor alongside her belay rope. She can then be lowered, and the trailing line will come down with her. Once on the ground, she can pull her former belay line through the anchors to get it out of the way if desired.
so you are saying the follower(aka second climber) is climbing with a butterfly knot clip to the harness with a locking biner.
basically he/she is attached to a rope via biner while climbing? right
if that is how its done, that would be the most stupidest system I have ever heard cause chances of cross loading the biner with such knot is highly possible during fall . the tension of the upper rope (belay)and weight of the lower rope(free section) may keep the knot in the center of the biner's gate if climber happens to fall in between the draws.
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Oct 16, 2008, 7:09 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Oct 16, 2008, 10:44 AM
Post #27 of 64
(9570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
Glad to here this wasn't worse. I've seen this system used before, I really don't like it. It's far to easy to make a mistake, as we can all see.
|
|
|
|
|
rat-baby
Oct 16, 2008, 10:50 AM
Post #28 of 64
(9567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2002
Posts: 103
|
Hey wasatchchic, Your roll in this is not as big as you think, you need to just get back on the horse. I'm sure the whole experience was traumatizing for you, and thats even more reason to get back out climbing.
Look, any one who has been climbing for a while has done something that has confused the belayer. My main partner and I climb together at least 3 days a week for years now and still (very rarely) get confusion over some kind of rope silliness. We either work it out on the ground/belay or the climber gets feed up and says to hell with you'll understand when I get there, leaving the belayer to say I'm glad you know what your doing because I sure as hell don't.
secondly, it's the climbers responsibility to check the system before climbing and before lowering. If they don't do this their asking for trouble. For lowering it's as simple as having the belayer suck you up into the chains to check for sure your on belay before unclipping. Hell it even makes cleaning the anchor easy when your hangin on the rope. And a route like Ro, if she could not take one second to look down down and see (even after you expressed confusion) that you were on the wrong side of the line, well she was asking for it.
To sum up, this is a very sad situation, but the climber blew it, not you. You did what you need to do. Gave her the ride, told her that you were confused with the system, she said you'll understand and then did not make sure you did. how is that your fault?
|
|
|
|
|
dhaulagiri
Oct 16, 2008, 1:04 PM
Post #30 of 64
(9502 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2003
Posts: 236
|
I'm really glad to hear that the injured climber is going to be ok. With the help of the pictures I understand what happened, and I think it is a good reminder for everyone to be extra sure they know what they are doing BEFORE they leave the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Oct 16, 2008, 1:22 PM
Post #31 of 64
(9490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
majid_sabet wrote: so you are saying the follower(aka second climber) is climbing with a butterfly knot clip to the harness with a locking biner. basically he/she is attached to a rope via biner while climbing? right if that is how its done, that would be the most stupidest system I have ever heard cause chances of cross loading the biner with such knot is highly possible during fall . the tension of the upper rope (belay)and weight of the lower rope(free section) may keep the knot in the center of the biner's gate if climber happens to fall in between the draws.
yet, that's not what caused the accident.
if you are worried about majid's scenario, just double up on the locking biners.
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Oct 16, 2008, 2:51 PM
Post #32 of 64
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
Wasatchchic: Thanks for posting. Helpful for us to know what happened and it takes courage to expose yourself to the comments of e-Peanut Gallery. Take care of yourself and heal with time.
Marcy: Best wishes and prayers for a good recovery.
Gothcopter and others: Thanks for the clear explanation of the details of the procedure.
Observation: Toproping and being lowered would appear to be relatively safe activities compared to other aspects of climbing, and yet they continue to be a source of serious accidents and have a lot communication breakdowns. I know from personal experience.
Editorial comment: Tying into the middle by means of a butterfly knot clipped to the belay loop is a common procedure. Has anybody ever heard of an accident using this method as a result of carabiner failure, in particular, if two locking carabiners are used (as they always should be)?
Gratias et valete bene!
RobertusPunctumPacificus
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Oct 16, 2008, 3:03 PM
Post #33 of 64
(9419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
majid_sabet wrote: gothcopter wrote: knieveltech wrote: Right there with you. I think it's going to take a diagram for me to get my head wrapped around the system they where using. Ok, here goes... So, imagine a scenario where climber B has just finished belaying climber A on the lead of an overhanging climb. Climbers B and C both want to toprope the climb, but it is only safe to toprope with the rope redirected through the draws. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2591[/image] Climber B takes the rope out of her belay device, ties an alpine butterfly right there on the rope and clips it to her harness with locking carabiners. Climber C goes on belay on the leader's end of the rope. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2592[/image] Climber B ascends, unclipping the rope above her from the draws and clipping the trailing rope into the draws beneath her. When she gets to the anchor, she goes on direct, unclips belay rope from the anchor, and clips the rope trailing through the draws into the anchor. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2593[/image] At this point, climber C should switch to belaying on the rope trailed by climber B, and then lower climber B to the ground. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2594[/image] Climber C can then tie into the end of the rope, and be belayed up by climber B. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2595[/image] The problem came during step 4 -- climber C never switched to belaying on the other rope. There is a way to accomplish this same task without going off belay. All climber B needs to do is take a couple of extra draws or carabiners to the top of the route with her. Then instead of going on direct, she can simply connect the trailing rope to the toprope anchor alongside her belay rope. She can then be lowered, and the trailing line will come down with her. Once on the ground, she can pull her former belay line through the anchors to get it out of the way if desired. so you are saying the follower(aka second climber) is climbing with a butterfly knot clip to the harness with a locking biner. basically he/she is attached to a rope via biner while climbing? right if that is how its done, that would be the most stupidest system I have ever heard cause chances of cross loading the biner with such knot is highly possible during fall . the tension of the upper rope (belay)and weight of the lower rope(free section) may keep the knot in the center of the biner's gate if climber happens to fall in between the draws.
BinerS
And yes, I get what you're saying about tension from above and below.
|
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
Oct 16, 2008, 4:08 PM
Post #34 of 64
(9364 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
This is just one more example that major sorbet has no real experience with rock climbing, has just learned some terms off of the internet, and professes to know everything about climbing safety even though he has never touched a rock.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Oct 16, 2008, 4:27 PM
Post #35 of 64
(9337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
camhead wrote: majid_sabet wrote: so you are saying the follower(aka second climber) is climbing with a butterfly knot clip to the harness with a locking biner. basically he/she is attached to a rope via biner while climbing? right if that is how its done, that would be the most stupidest system I have ever heard cause chances of cross loading the biner with such knot is highly possible during fall . the tension of the upper rope (belay)and weight of the lower rope(free section) may keep the knot in the center of the biner's gate if climber happens to fall in between the draws. yet, that's not what caused the accident. if you are worried about majid's scenario, just double up on the locking biners.
using biner is another extra link between harness and main line which could fail and I am sure 90% of RCers do not like this idea even with two biners but I guess, we just have to wait for one accident with faitality involving butterfly and biner to end this practice.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Oct 16, 2008, 4:34 PM
Post #36 of 64
(9331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
it's irrelevant, majid. this accident was the result of two people being in over their heads and making an error; it had nothing to do with your gear-technical-failure fantasies.
And yeah, we'll have to wait to hear about an accident that happens when someone clips into a butterfly with TWO OPPOSED & LOCKED BINERS.
don't hold your breath, though.
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Oct 16, 2008, 4:43 PM
Post #37 of 64
(9316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
majid_sabet wrote: camhead wrote: majid_sabet wrote: so you are saying the follower(aka second climber) is climbing with a butterfly knot clip to the harness with a locking biner. basically he/she is attached to a rope via biner while climbing? right if that is how its done, that would be the most stupidest system I have ever heard cause chances of cross loading the biner with such knot is highly possible during fall . the tension of the upper rope (belay)and weight of the lower rope(free section) may keep the knot in the center of the biner's gate if climber happens to fall in between the draws. yet, that's not what caused the accident. if you are worried about majid's scenario, just double up on the locking biners. using biner is another extra link between harness and main line which could fail and I am sure 90% of RCers do not like this idea even with two biners but I guess, we just have to wait for one accident with faitality involving butterfly and biner to end this practice.
hey man- i have a question for you. i'm not trying to jump down your throat, but do hope you have a well thought out answer (sometimes your answers are a little, well, curt (not you curt, just the answers, you know, are well, curt---you know!)
this is how most people set up a glacier rig with 3 or 4 people on a rope. first and last tie into the ends and middle person/people clip in with a locker into an alpine butterfly. i've caught many falls by a middle person falling into a crevasse, or a middle person falling and pulling the last person off, meaning the biner is holding tight the person, the rope from top and the weight of the climber beneath them.
never had a problem. you might claim that on a snow slope the forces are different- and they are. though for a middle person to punch through a crevasse they ARE totally suspended by the rope.
something to think about is that its the butterfly knot thats triloaded and not the biner (though there IS a chance for crossloading of the biner across the gate if it shifts).
i'm DEFINITELY not advocating the methods used at the RRG HOWEVER this isn't because of your objections but rather due to the overly complicated systems that were clearly confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
Jbitz
Oct 16, 2008, 6:34 PM
Post #39 of 64
(9212 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2006
Posts: 124
|
A middle-of-the-line Bowline is an alternative way of tying in short on a rope if you are concerned with crossloading biners or you just happen to be short on lockers.
Attached figure is from "Freedom of the Hills".
(This post was edited by Jbitz on Oct 16, 2008, 7:15 PM)
|
|
Attachments:
|
MBowline.JPG
(21.7 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
drfelatio
Oct 16, 2008, 7:16 PM
Post #40 of 64
(9175 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 475
|
First, my condolences go out to all those involved. I wish you all a speedy recovery.
jdefazio wrote: Great, thanks for the sketches. Exactly what I was envisioning. I am still unclear, however, why in this scenario... gothcopter wrote: There is a way to accomplish this same task without going off belay. All climber B needs to do is take a couple of extra draws or carabiners to the top of the route with her. Then instead of going on direct, she can simply connect the trailing rope to the toprope anchor alongside her belay rope. She can then be lowered, and the trailing line will come down with her. Once on the ground, she can pull her former belay line through the anchors to get it out of the way if desired. ...the climber (B) needs to do anything at all but finish the climb and just be lowered from the TR anchor, without any change in anything. Couldn't she just be lowered down, remove her tie in knot from bight, pull out the big loop of slack and be all set? You would still end up with a TR slingshot with one end running up through all the draws, unless I am missing something.
Seems like it would work to me, but it would require a considerable amount of rope. Depending on the height of the climb, a single rope might not be enough to return the climber to the ground AND keep the trailing end from pulling through one or more draws.
Better to just rig a second rope for the next TR.
(This post was edited by drfelatio on Oct 16, 2008, 7:18 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jdefazio
Oct 16, 2008, 7:27 PM
Post #41 of 64
(9159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2007
Posts: 228
|
drfelatio wrote: First, my condolences go out to all those involved. I wish you all a speedy recovery. ...Seems like it would work to me, but it would require a considerable amount of rope. Depending on the height of the climb, a single rope might not be enough to return the climber to the ground AND keep the trailing end from pulling through one or more draws.
Re: the amount of rope, it would be the same as for the unnecessary belay-transfer situation that was attempted in this case.
drfelatio wrote: Better to just rig a second rope for the next TR.
Damn straight.
|
|
|
|
|
Neel
Oct 16, 2008, 8:00 PM
Post #42 of 64
(9130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 22, 2008
Posts: 116
|
In reply to: Seems like it would work to me, but it would require a considerable amount of rope. Depending on the height of the climb, a single rope might not be enough to return the climber to the ground AND keep the trailing end from pulling through one or more draws. Better to just rig a second rope for the next TR.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't this require a rope of length 4x the height of the climb in both scenarios? Which would mean with a 60M rope, you'd only be able to do a 15M climb. I haven't climbed this particular route, but most of the ones at Roadside that i've climbed are significantly higher than 15M.
|
|
|
|
|
jdefazio
Oct 16, 2008, 8:07 PM
Post #43 of 64
(9120 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2007
Posts: 228
|
Neel wrote: In reply to: Seems like it would work to me, but it would require a considerable amount of rope. Depending on the height of the climb, a single rope might not be enough to return the climber to the ground AND keep the trailing end from pulling through one or more draws. Better to just rig a second rope for the next TR. Correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't this require a rope of length 4x the height of the climb in both scenarios? Which would mean with a 60M rope, you'd only be able to do a 15M climb. I haven't climbed this particular route, but most of the ones at Roadside that i've climbed are significantly higher than 15M.
At least. More like 2x the height of the climb plus 2x the length of climb, plus wandering, knots, working end, etc...
Use of two ropes, or to lead the route are better options.
|
|
|
|
|
drfelatio
Oct 16, 2008, 8:14 PM
Post #44 of 64
(9110 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 475
|
jdefazio wrote: drfelatio wrote: First, my condolences go out to all those involved. I wish you all a speedy recovery. ...Seems like it would work to me, but it would require a considerable amount of rope. Depending on the height of the climb, a single rope might not be enough to return the climber to the ground AND keep the trailing end from pulling through one or more draws. Re: the amount of rope, it would be the same as for the unnecessary belay-transfer situation that was attempted in this case.
Yes, AFTER you've pulled the large loop of slack out. Until then, however, lowering a climber tied into the "middle" (i.e. not the end) of the rope from, say, 50' would require 150' of rope (belayer to anchor to climber to anchor) not including the amount needed to go back down through the draws.
Neel is on the right track. 4x the height wouldn't always be accurate, though, since the length of rope needed would depend on other factors like the angle of the wall.
[EDIT]
Wait, nevermind. I see what you're saying now. Ignore this post.
(This post was edited by drfelatio on Oct 16, 2008, 8:25 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Neel
Oct 16, 2008, 10:33 PM
Post #45 of 64
(9029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 22, 2008
Posts: 116
|
drfelatio wrote: Neel is on the right track. 4x the height wouldn't always be accurate, though, since the length of rope needed would depend on other factors like the angle of the wall. [EDIT] Wait, nevermind. I see what you're saying now. Ignore this post.
Thanks for the clarification - Yes, i was simplifying... as with any overhanging or wandering route, it's not just a matter of height + knots, etc... but 4x is just a ballpark. the point was that it's a LOT of rope (hope they had a stopper knot in the end just in case....)
Regardless this seems like a giant clusterf**k. I thought i was missing something here, but i guess i wasn't. there's a giant margin for confusion if the belayer and climber haven't done it before. Glad to hear that the climber is recovering though.
|
|
|
|
|
Basta916
Oct 16, 2008, 11:16 PM
Post #46 of 64
(9016 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2007
Posts: 311
|
majid_sabet wrote: gothcopter wrote: knieveltech wrote: Right there with you. I think it's going to take a diagram for me to get my head wrapped around the system they where using. Ok, here goes... So, imagine a scenario where climber B has just finished belaying climber A on the lead of an overhanging climb. Climbers B and C both want to toprope the climb, but it is only safe to toprope with the rope redirected through the draws. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2591[/image] Climber B takes the rope out of her belay device, ties an alpine butterfly right there on the rope and clips it to her harness with locking carabiners. Climber C goes on belay on the leader's end of the rope. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2592[/image] Climber B ascends, unclipping the rope above her from the draws and clipping the trailing rope into the draws beneath her. When she gets to the anchor, she goes on direct, unclips belay rope from the anchor, and clips the rope trailing through the draws into the anchor. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2593[/image] At this point, climber C should switch to belaying on the rope trailed by climber B, and then lower climber B to the ground. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2594[/image] Climber C can then tie into the end of the rope, and be belayed up by climber B. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2595[/image] The problem came during step 4 -- climber C never switched to belaying on the other rope. There is a way to accomplish this same task without going off belay. All climber B needs to do is take a couple of extra draws or carabiners to the top of the route with her. Then instead of going on direct, she can simply connect the trailing rope to the toprope anchor alongside her belay rope. She can then be lowered, and the trailing line will come down with her. Once on the ground, she can pull her former belay line through the anchors to get it out of the way if desired. so you are saying the follower(aka second climber) is climbing with a butterfly knot clip to the harness with a locking biner. basically he/she is attached to a rope via biner while climbing? right if that is how its done, that would be the most stupidest system I have ever heard cause chances of cross loading the biner with such knot is highly possible during fall . the tension of the upper rope (belay)and weight of the lower rope(free section) may keep the knot in the center of the biner's gate if climber happens to fall in between the draws.
Majid, is it a surprise to you that people use a locking biners to attach their belay device to their harness? That is essentially how this girl was tied to the rope. And if you read this" accident report" you will find out that the locking biner was not an issue...... please, don't confuse readers and create drama about something that wasn't the problem of any kind. Unfortunately climbers error was a main cause for this injury.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Oct 17, 2008, 2:52 AM
Post #47 of 64
(8975 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Basta916 wrote: Majid, is it a surprise to you that people use a locking biners to attach their belay device to their harness? That is essentially how this girl was tied to the rope. And if you read this" accident report" you will find out that the locking biner was not an issue...... please, don't confuse readers and create drama about something that wasn't the problem of any kind. Unfortunately climbers error was a main cause for this injury.
belaying with locking biner is different than climbing with a locking biner to attach your rope to your harness. I am not saying biner is not rated or its never been used in similar applications. Generally most climber agree that any extra link between climber and it's rope is an additional item which may fail and people should be aware of its potential hazard.I am sure one day, sh*t will hit the rocks and climbers will return to the traditional way attaching their rope to their harnesses.
|
|
|
|
|
david_g48
Oct 17, 2008, 10:06 AM
Post #48 of 64
(8914 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2005
Posts: 54
|
Wasatchchic
I have known Marcy for 10 years and she has always taken responsibility for her own safety as we all should when we are rock climbing. I am extremely upset to have heard the news about her injuries but do not think placing blame on anyone at this point is needed. We need to learn from our experiences and minimize the exposure to risk in the future which assumes that you keep on climbing. I am sure that Marcy would agree.
All that said when Marcy and I climbed she had always been adverse to complicated procedures that increase the risk of mismanagement and injury. I think a lesson to learn in addition to what has already been stated is to not become too relaxed and ignore our old intuitions about danger.
Marcy my thoughts are with you and I hope for a speedy and full recovery.
From your very old and life long friend.
David |
|
|
|
|
rightarmbad
Oct 17, 2008, 12:14 PM
Post #49 of 64
(8893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 218
|
Using a screwgate such as belaymaster (http://www.mec.ca/...d_id=845524441776485), completely renders your objection to clipping in with an alpine, impotent.
Sorry camhead, pressed the wrong reply button, was meant to be referenced to the idiot.
(This post was edited by rightarmbad on Oct 17, 2008, 12:16 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Oct 17, 2008, 12:55 PM
Post #50 of 64
(8996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
knieveltech wrote: 1. Sweet. Thanks for taking the time to diagram that out. 2. WHAT THE FUCK?! Nothing about that system looks like a good idea to me. People seriously do this? Seriously?
You really need two belayers or the route has to be short enough that the climber can lower without touching the anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
jarekt
Oct 17, 2008, 9:05 PM
Post #51 of 64
(7872 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 1
|
Just to inject some more facts into the discussion. I just talked with Marcy and she is doing fine. She was flown to a hospital in Morgantown in WV, where she also normally works. She has a multiple broken bones and fractures of lower back, pelvis, wrist and sternum, but she is expected to fully recover.
She described the accident as "brain fart" partially caused by exhaustion after doing a very challenging route. Another contributing factor was lack of communication with the partner who did not fully understand this complicated procedure and said so beforehand.
I occasionally climb with Marcy for about a decade and she is quite experienced and concerned about safety. It sounds like she was very lucky to survive this 50-60 ft fall and lucky to receive such prompt and competent rescue. At the time she was not wearing a helmet, as few people do while top-roping.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Oct 18, 2008, 1:34 AM
Post #52 of 64
(7839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
jarekt wrote: Just to inject some more facts into the discussion. I just talked with Marcy and she is doing fine. She was flown to a hospital in Morgantown in WV, where she also normally works. She has a multiple broken bones and fractures of lower back, pelvis, wrist and sternum, but she is expected to fully recover.
It's so good to hear a positive outcome from an accident this season.
And yes, I reckon that in the situation this is a pretty good outcome!
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Oct 18, 2008, 3:38 AM
Post #53 of 64
(7814 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
majid_sabet wrote: .....that would be the most stupidest system I have ever heard cause chances of cross loading the biner with such knot is highly possible during fall . the tension of the upper rope (belay)and weight of the lower rope(free section) may keep the knot in the center of the biner's gate if climber happens to fall in between the draws.
Fine, imagine 2 carabiners, opposed and reversed. Now do you feel better?
Good.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Oct 18, 2008, 3:43 AM
Post #54 of 64
(7809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
billcoe_ wrote: majid_sabet wrote: .....that would be the most stupidest system I have ever heard cause chances of cross loading the biner with such knot is highly possible during fall . the tension of the upper rope (belay)and weight of the lower rope(free section) may keep the knot in the center of the biner's gate if climber happens to fall in between the draws. Fine, imagine 2 carabiners, opposed and reversed. Now do you feel better? Good.
Bill
Thanks, that is good idea, how come I did not think of that ?
Dumb Sorbat
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Oct 18, 2008, 7:52 AM
Post #55 of 64
(7760 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
Can someone who knows Marcy please PM me? I know a Marcy from Morgantown who climbs, and want to know if it's the same person.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Oct 18, 2008, 3:16 PM
Post #56 of 64
(7722 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
majid_sabet wrote: Bill Thanks, that is good idea, how come I did not think of that ? Dumb Sorbat
Well it's true that I'm here to help!  I don't like clipping in with biners either, but have done it on occasions. My main point Majid, was that the clip in method was not detailed by the folks who were there enough to judge how they were clipped, and it was not a causation to the accident either. So it doesn't matter at all for both of those reasons.
My suspicions is that inexperienced belayer contributed to it, but even deeply experienced folks make easy mistakes at times. Glad that Marcy is going to pull out of it. I've heard that deep, loud, whumping sound of a body angering into dirt from up high, and not seen anyone survive it. So big time congrats to Marcy!
Utahgirl, you can't change what the past was, but you can certainly do so for tomorrow. Learning every scrap and tidbit of info is critical to stay safe in this game, and sometimes that's not enough either. I wish you both peace of mind on this issue, because it's true you won't ever forget the sounds and smells...ever. However, you can manage the memory if you choose (and you should) to do so.
Good luck to you both.
|
|
|
|
|
mr8615
Oct 19, 2008, 7:04 PM
Post #57 of 64
(7665 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 1032
|
I just got off the phone with Marcy, she seemed to be in great spirits, all things considered. She wanted me to pass on her thanks to all of you who have been so supportive. She's an amazingly strong person and is taking things one minute at a time. She said she's able to put weight on one leg, but not quite both yet, which is amazing news. Hopefully we'll know more after a few weeks of healing.
Mark
(This post was edited by mr8615 on Oct 19, 2008, 7:05 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
redpointron
Oct 20, 2008, 2:24 AM
Post #58 of 64
(7612 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2003
Posts: 1170
|
thank you mark for the update. i am a red river regular and was out of town for the past two weeks. i was floored when i saw this. if you talk with her again, please give her my best. btw, i passed the info on to reese.
get well soon marcy.
redpointRON
|
|
|
|
|
wasatchchic
Oct 28, 2008, 6:54 PM
Post #59 of 64
(7384 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2006
Posts: 7
|
Whew... sites like this can be so frustrating, but I came back to post up the full report.
It is really frustrating to read people write that I need to learn more safety techniques. Folks, I can't go off belay and switch ropes unless my climber says so. Period. My job as a belayer is to listen to my climber and do what they say... and that is what I did. i am not saying it is Marcy's fault, but merely that people need to remember that I can't just switch ropes. I can't even see what a climber is doing at the chains... she could have been adding draws. I don't know!! My job is to listen and talk to her and when she says she is ok and to take, that is what I did.
Lastly, this was human error. Neither Marcy nor I are beginners, nor do either of us disregard safety. It was an accident.
The most interesting thing about this scenario is how many stories of folks decking are out there. Seriously... I have had at least 8 close friends and at least 10 more people at the Red who were in a decking accidents as well. Even when people have been climbing 10+ years, accidents happen. Reading this thread it seems that many of you forget it could happen to ANY of you. We are ALL human, we make mistakes and the key is to just always remember to double check and communicate. Three of my friends who have been in accidents have all been climbing close to 15 years each, I have been climbing avidly for about 6, climbing on average 4 days a week at home. Accidents happen.
Here is the full report: http://www.cragbaby.com/2008/10/28/the-climbing-accident/
I borrowed an image that was posted here on the thread. Hope that was ok.
(This post was edited by wasatchchic on Oct 28, 2008, 6:55 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jdefazio
Oct 28, 2008, 7:11 PM
Post #60 of 64
(7370 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2007
Posts: 228
|
Clicky
|
|
|
|
|
AntinJ
Oct 28, 2008, 8:13 PM
Post #61 of 64
(7330 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2008
Posts: 475
|
First and foremost; my sympathies for those involved in the accident.
Secondly, I have only been climbing since June, so I apologize in advance for not understanding the rope system here. Could someone please explain why you would split the rope, instead of just lowering from the top and leaving the TR set-up for a normal cleaning scenario? Wouldn't tying into the middle of the rope be more difficult in several ways? i.e. extra weight, task of trailing/managing the rope, more variables in the system to account for, more slack to pull through at the top? If this is the wrong place for this question, I apologize, but I'm sure someone out there would be willing to tackle it.
Thanks
-J
|
|
|
|
|
jman
Oct 28, 2008, 8:16 PM
Post #62 of 64
(7329 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 438
|
Take a look at the 1st page post by "gothcopter". They explain the scenerio pretty well.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Oct 28, 2008, 8:27 PM
Post #63 of 64
(7310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
AntinJ wrote: First and foremost; my sympathies for those involved in the accident. Secondly, I have only been climbing since June, so I apologize in advance for not understanding the rope system here. Could someone please explain why you would split the rope, instead of just lowering from the top and leaving the TR set-up for a normal cleaning scenario? Wouldn't tying into the middle of the rope be more difficult in several ways? i.e. extra weight, task of trailing/managing the rope, more variables in the system to account for, more slack to pull through at the top? If this is the wrong place for this question, I apologize, but I'm sure someone out there would be willing to tackle it. Thanks -J
One key piece of information to keep in mind is a lot of the routes at the Red are seriously overhanging for most if not the entire route. Also, tying into the middle of the rope is definitely more complex than just trailing a second one.
|
|
|
|
|
rminter
Mar 10, 2009, 10:24 PM
Post #64 of 64
(6719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 10, 2009
Posts: 1
|
Rope not long enough?
My very best thoughts and wishes to Marcy and full respect and care to the belay and all involved. This was an accident that started with care and good intentions. There has been a lot of question about how the procedure was intended to work. Assuming the numbers are accurate, the climb is 60' and the direct line back to the belay is more than 40', there is a basic problem with the way the situation is described. A 60 meter rope (200 feet) is not long enough to tie in the center and belay two climbers on the route. After climber “A” comes down, more than 100 feet of rope is out. After climber “B” ties in and climbs there is more than 160 feet of rope out: 60 feet on the ground under the belayer (after belaying climber B), about 50 feet from the belayer to climber “B” and 60 feet that trails climber “B” left in the clips. This leaves 40 feet of rope (or less)to lower the climber after switching sides. This would not be enough rope to lower climber “B” after switching sides. The Belayer would be confused because there would not be enough rope on the other end to lower the climber.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
