From the news

Sun 11 Apr 13:30

Munich. A climber fell 15 metres in an indoor rock climbing facility and suffered severe injuries from the fall. Police reported on sunday that the 26 year old lost his grip on the climbing wall while securing an intermediate rope buckle.
His 23 year old climbing partner, who wanted to secure him with the rope, couldn't activate the break in time. The rope slipped through her hands and her partner fell directly onto the PVC floor. The impact broke his lumbar vertebra but there was no immediate threat to his life. The woman suffered rope burns to her hands.


http://www.themunichtimes.com/...d&article_id=416

ich war am besagten Tag im High East. Was ich gesehen habe war das er gut und schwer geklettert hat und das sie eher leichtere Sachen gemacht hat. Ob sie nun Anfängern war oder nicht ist Mutmaßung. Fakt ist, dass sie mit einem Petzl Reservo gesichert hat. Was ich nachher mitbekommen habe ist das sie wohl dachte er braucht mehr Seil zum Einhängen in die nächste Exe und er einen schweren Zug gemacht hat von dem er abgeflogen ist. Sie hat nicht zu gemacht und dann wars zu spät zum halten. Er hat riesen Glück gehabt das er nicht schlimmer verletzt ist. Mir stellen sich jetzt noch die Haare auf wenn ich an die Höhe und das Geräusch des Aufschlags denke.

gblauer, your story was terrifying. Did you ever figure out what went wrong...

It's obvious what went wrong: the belayer didn't lock off.

Jay, yes, of course, I get that. I'm just wondering -- in tune with other threads on the topic -- whether there are some "belayer warning signs" or the like. The German accident was a leader fall, with much slack out, so that's actually easier to understand than a lowering accident like gblauer describes.

It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you.

Jay

like you do that every single time. [rolled eyes]

It's unclear from gail's description whether she fell or had clipped into the anchors to be lowered. If the latter, then there is something to be learned: you shouldn't rely on a verbal "got" from your belayer. Rather, before lowering, you should grab the belayer's side of the rope with both hands. Then, after getting the verbal "got," gradually settle onto the rope, not letting go until you're certain that your belayer actually does have you.

Jay

You must be belayed by some sketchy people that you think this is necessary.

Yes, actually, I do do that every single time.

Jay

You don't fall much then do you?

Um, I fall plenty when I'm working routes.

Jay

Um, I fall plenty when I'm working routes.

Jay

Do you grab the belayer side of the rope until you know you are caught?

No, but it's a different situation. First, there is never any ambiguity about what the belayer's job is when you're climbing: he's belaying. At the anchors there can be ambiguity, miscommunication, and error. First you need slack, then tension, then to be lowered, and all this needs to be communicated with the climber and belayer at opposite ends of the pitch, and possibly out of each other's sight.

Second, grabbing the rope until you're sure you're on tension is a safeguard against one of the commonest causes of grigri-involved accidents: failure to shockload the grigri.

Third, if you sport climb long enough you will eventually weight the rope at the anchors thinking you're on tension, when you're not. This will almost certainly result in nothing more than a surprising drop of a few feet as your belayer wakes up. Occasionally, however, climbers have been dropped to the ground. If you are in the habit of always grabbing the rope until you feel tension, you'll never be one of the "occasionally's."

Finally, any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail.

Jay

That is a fair enough point, but how is coming on to the rope once you have clipped your anchor any different from falling?
If you are talking about cleaning anchors, then I guess I know what you are talking about, but I never take myself off the anchor until I feel the belayer pulling anyways.

Actually, I'm mainly talking about cleaning anchors.

Jay

The belayer in the original post was using a reverso; Gail's belayer was using an atc; both accidents could have been avoided had the belayers been using a gri-gri or a cinch.

If there's never ambiguity about what the belayer's job is when you're climbing, why does that stop when you get to the anchor?

If you're in fear of regular partners dropping you at the anchor then I don't know how you can take falls with them.

Besides that if your partner is using the gri-gri the way they should be then it will lock before they lower you.

Even if it didn't they should still be able to hold you at the anchor and lower you without incident.

I can think of no situation where a miscommunication could result in getting dropped to the ground unless the route is ten feet tall or your belayer incompetently lets go of the rope.

Both are ridiculous situations that shouldn't happen.

I'm assuming you lower through the anchors by passing a bight through and tying into at the bight before untying from the other end.

Part of taking responsibility for your and other people's safety is not lowering through the anchors. Unless you're planning to fork up the cash to repair them.

For every accident caused by misuse of a conventional belay device, there's an accident caused by misuse of a Grigri. Could that mean Cinches are the answer, or are they just less popular?

Jay

+1 for the cinch

I've already explained why that is when you're cleaning, which, for some reason, is what I was fixating on.

I have already explained the justification for grabbing the rope after cleaning the anchors before lowering. No one, including you, has given a valid justification for not doing so.

Well, that is clearly false. If you sag onto the rope, the grigri can fail to lock, and if the rope starts to run through the device it is not at all clear whether the belayer can always get it to stop.

There is a difference between not being able to think of something that can go wrong, and there not being anything that can go wrong. This very thread was about something that went wrong that apparently you couldn't have thought of. Every accident involving a belayer with a burned brake hand occurred on a route taller than 10 feet with the belayer holding the rope.

Even ignoring the fact that that statement has nothing to do with this thread it is bullshit. At every crag I climb at, it is expected that the last person on the route will lower through the anchors, and at the majority of crags I climb at it is perfectly acceptable for all leaders, and sometimes topropers, to lower through the anchors.

If you would rappel instead of lowering then you wouldn't have to rely on your belayer...

...and people wouldn't need to replace anchor chains/rings as often.

There is no valid justification not to do so, hell do whatever you like. I guess I don't see why you would worry about them dropping you when you clean the anchor anymore than you would if you just climbed up and lowered as if doing a toprope.

Sorry, I should have predicated that by saying your belayer should know how the hell to use the device. If the belayer is controlling the brake strand then they should be able to bring you down even if for some reason the device failed to lock.

I think I've shown that the statement has at least a little to do with the thread. Your crags must have some really rich and nice first ascencionists because I have never climbed at a crag where it was acceptable to toprope through the anchors and many crags I've been to it's not acceptable to lower through the anchors. I'd be more worried about inspecting those quicklinks you're lowering off of than whether your belayer is going to drop you. Why the hell would you gumbies wear out the anchor equipment so someone has to replace it more frequently than they otherwise would if everyone rappeled?

My belayer did not have any burns on her hands...

...and she was in the gym climbing the next day.

If there's never ambiguity about what the belayer's job is when you're climbing, why does that stop when you get to the anchor?

Therefore (helps if you read this in Spock voice), it is simply not logical to forgo a safety step that, as Jay pointed out, costs you absolutely nothing, while it may save your life on the infinitesimally unlikely occurrence that you need it to someday. And therefore it is also an illogical point to ask, “why would you grab the rope when being lowered if you trust them to catch you when you fall?”

Good post. To expand on this further.
Let's say you have a% chance of falling and b% chance of belayer failing to catch said fall. Total probability is a times b, a*b. Now, let's say you have a c% chance of belayer failing to lower properly. But when letting go (without holding onto the other rope), you basically have a 100% chance of falling. So that probability is 100% * c% = c%.
Now, let's say b and c are equal (which doesn't actually seem to be true, but lets' say it is), and your chance of falling during the climb is 50%.
Now, your risk of hitting the ground is 50% * b + 100% * b (making a minor approximation). Now, that means that 2/3rds of the risk of hitting the ground is at the top of the climb, and can be removed almost entirely by taking some additional precautions -- REDUCING THE TOTAL GROUND-FALL RISK BY A FACTOR OF 3, for the stated assumptions.
Try it with your own numbers and assumptions of various probabilities, and you'll see that it's never a reasonable argument not to eliminate/reduce some part of the risk.

A friend of mine died recently when his belayer with a Cinch dropped him.

Funny how this kind of shit wasn't rapid when it was hip belays. Guess they paid more attention back in the day...

Please misuse words only in less serious posts, so I can give you shit about it without feeling guilty.

Incidentally, the details of that accident would be worth knowing. I don't think I've heard of another serious accident while using a Cinch.

Jay

Yes, actually, I do do that every single time.

Jay

So do I. I can only conclude (upon reading the rest of the tread) that those critical of this are just being argumentative. Its a STUPID fucking thing to argue against, btw.

DMT

DMT

Even if your belayer is spot on belaying while you are leading, there is something about the pause during cleaning and lowering that can knock them off their game.

Agreed, it is kinda silly not to.

Even if your belayer is spot on belaying while you are leading, there is something about the pause during cleaning and lowering that can knock them off their game.

Talk to them, keep them engaged in your situation, not the dog sniffing around the packs or the girl in the sport bra, and then still ease onto the rope.

What do you have to lose by doing that?

Good post. To expand on this further.
Let's say you have a% chance of falling and b% chance of belayer failing to catch said fall. Total probability is a times b, a*b. Now, let's say you have a c% chance of belayer failing to lower properly. But when letting go (without holding onto the other rope), you basically have a 100% chance of falling. So that probability is 100% * c% = c%.
Now, let's say b and c are equal (which doesn't actually seem to be true, but lets' say it is), and your chance of falling during the climb is 50%.
Now, your risk of hitting the ground is 50% * b + 100% * b (making a minor approximation). Now, that means that 2/3rds of the risk of hitting the ground is at the top of the climb, and can be removed almost entirely by taking some additional precautions -- REDUCING THE TOTAL GROUND-FALL RISK BY A FACTOR OF 3, for the stated assumptions.
Try it with your own numbers and assumptions of various probabilities, and you'll see that it's never a reasonable argument not to eliminate/reduce some part of the risk.

Agreed, it is kinda silly not to.

Even if your belayer is spot on belaying while you are leading, there is something about the pause during cleaning and lowering that can knock them off their game.

So, finally, the rope grabbers are coming out of the closet.

Now, your risk of hitting the ground is 50% * b + 100% * b (making a minor approximation).

I did not fail. I made the minor approximation, which I noted above. This and the other point you mention are unlikely to make a big difference in the final outcomes. I would be glad to do the full math out for you, but I think it'll really nerd everyone else out.

Rope grabbers: Do you really feel that you will be able to arrest your fall should the belayer loose control at the moment of fully weighting the rope?



It seems to me that all you are really getting is a physical cue that your belayer has control of the break. A cue that may or may not be correct in the end. Do you disagree? (I don't grab the rope, so I don't know.)

Rope grabbers: Do you really feel that you will be able to arrest your fall should the belayer loose control at the moment of fully weighting the rope?

This is why we have belay tests

Well, in my humble opinion, you did not "make a minor approximation." You made a major mistake, leading to mathematically impossible results. As I stated above, your approach can lead to "probabilities" exceeding 1, which are nonsensical. If you want to "do the full math for me," please do, although I think I actually did it for you in my previous post.

The funny thing is that we agree on the key point -- it is good to grab the rope.

I was trying to avoid paragraphs of unnecessary nerdiness. The full math in this case would analyze the approximation, etc. Briefly, the point you're missing is that the probability of belayer failing are actually small quantities. My approximation was to say that (1-ab) is close to 1. That's true when "b" is a very small quantity, say 0.01 or 0.001. And, as you observed, it is not true if the probability of belayer failing is large, like 0.62 (or 62%). The full math would also include a parameter for repeated falls, etc.

I am quite comfortable with this approximation being minor not because the *formula* is correct (it's not, that's why I mentioned I was making an approximation), but b.c. the result is correct for the likely set of input parameters.

[ Had you instead written "Assuming that b is small, your risk of hitting the ground is approximately 50% * b + 100% * b," your assumption and its validity would have been clear.

Uh-huh-huh. Uh-huh-huh. Uh-huh-huh.


(Just for the record, I don't want to be included in the AARP club, even if I might qualify. Ruins my game with the honeys.)

Geez man you made it sound like the building collapsed and 20 people died with the thread title. Glad the climbers ok, but this sounds like an unfortunately common occurence.

I think I've shown that the statement has at least a little to do with the thread. Your crags must have some really rich and nice first ascencionists because I have never climbed at a crag where it was acceptable to toprope through the anchors and many crags I've been to it's not acceptable to lower through the anchors. I'd be more worried about inspecting those quicklinks you're lowering off of than whether your belayer is going to drop you. Why the hell would you gumbies wear out the anchor equipment so someone has to replace it more frequently than they otherwise would if everyone rappeled?

That is well put. I was trying to analyze exactly why lowering after cleaning is "different," and couldn't quite do it. The bottom line is exactly what you said.

....
Finally, any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail.

P.S. How can you not feel at least a little bit stupid arguing against a safety precaution with no downside in a thread in which a serious accident is discussed that this precaution would have avoided?

so why don't you just rap every time you clean the anchors?


also, grabbing the belayer's side of the rope until you are sure they have you will only protect you from a belayer who just never locks off at all. it won't protect you from jack shit if the belayer loses control of the rope while they are lowering. the second possibility seems just as likely for glbauer's story.

so why don't you just rap every time you clean the anchors?

also, grabbing the belayer's side of the rope until you are sure they have you will only protect you from a belayer who just never locks off at all. it won't protect you from jack shit if the belayer loses control of the rope while they are lowering.

Why don't you just read the thread?


It also won't protect you from food poisoning, West Nile Virus, earthquakes, or sudden cardiac death. But, guess what? It will protect you if your belayer didn't put you on tension.

Jay

any time you have the opportunity to take responsibility for your own safety in climbing, and you fail to do so, you just plain fail.

Why does J giving himself a 2nd chance to recover from some stupid communication mistake (for example), trouble you so much???

I just don't get this. I truly don't.

DMT

Ah I see, its all about jt512.

Enjoy!

DMT

Ah I see, its all about jt512.

Enjoy!

DMT

just finished readin' the thread. i agree that rapping is more dangerous than lowering, but that wasn't my point. my point is that, when rapping, you take responsibility for your own safety. when lowering, you let someone else take responsibility for your safety, when you could have done it yourself, therefore, according to you:

... you fail.

Fine. I fail. Now dirt me.

Jay

about his statement, and the absurdity of it, re; rappelling vs lowering, and "personal responsibility," yeah.

I know dude but on the other hand we both know what he meant.

I still check the belayer has me before committing to the rope - every time. And the worse condition the anchor the more gently I do the easing on.

Did you ever figure out what went wrong or any lessons to be drawn, besides having known-good belayers?

blah blah meaningless blah blah.... I minimized my group of belayers, I was no longer the guinea pig to take falls for new belayers

Why not grab jugs/draws instead of the rope?

Seems to me that grabbing the rope is similar to when beginners grab their end of the rope to pull themselves up. By grabbing jugs/draws, you would get a better indication of how much tension you're actually receiving from the belayer rather than your own pulling?

Why not grab jugs/draws instead of the rope?

Seems to me that grabbing the rope is similar to when beginners grab their end of the rope to pull themselves up. By grabbing jugs/draws, you would get a better indication of how much tension you're actually receiving from the belayer rather than your own pulling?

Why not grab jugs/draws instead of the rope?

Seems to me that grabbing the rope is similar to when beginners grab their end of the rope to pull themselves up. By grabbing jugs/draws, you would get a better indication of how much tension you're actually receiving from the belayer rather than your own pulling?

I just realized that I didn't post accurately and fully above. When my son came home for that summer and said he wanted to go outside (for the first time) and climb, we actually did multiple practice sessions like the telephone pole thing I noted above, before we climbed rock. Then he and I went to a 30' high wall and we practiced some more. Then we went toproping with others, then we went out. The sequence was like, practice belaying...days later practice again, wait a few days practice, go out and practice belaying on the ground and then both of us climb/belay (so he can learn to trust me) a short wall that I often highball boulder and has a nice landing, then later real rock toproping with others, then outside on longer rock climbs close to the roads with cell coverage (like the pic below, great cell coverage, 5 min from the car and @ 30 min SAR response!), then wilderness stuff. I still conside him a beginer and he's coming home soon for this summer, we'll redo some of this stuff cause the stuff I'm climbing these days got even more serious. Don't skip these steps, it's a damn deadly enough thing we do to ignore easy shit like this that should be done by everyone.

This is the kid following the first ascent of the route Jim Opdycke named "Child Abuse" LOL! ...Jeff Thomas photo.
[image]http://cascadeclimbers.com/plab/data/500/medium/Shaun_following_Child_Abuse.JPG[/image]

Yes, actually, I do do that every single time.

Jay