|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Mar 11, 2004, 5:44 AM
Post #1 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
This season seems to be getting off to a rough start. There is a lot of discussion about climbing related death and injury. We share information quite freely on this sight, and I have a bit that I feel is extremely important to all of us...
Several years ago my cousin Kyle was involved in a rappelling accident that cost him his life. Just last week the case against Hughe Banner AND REI concluded with a settlement, prior to the Jury's verdict. Since I helped teach Kyle different methods of belay and rappel, I was a key witness in the case against these enormous companies. Now, I don't want to get in to the details of the accident or the case, but I gained some important knowledge from the entire event that I think should be shared with all climbers and mountaineers. If this information is be helpful to the safety of even one individual, than I will be at ease.
Kyle was rappelling "Aussie-Style" with a youth group of young men and women. He was using a Hughe Banner auto-locking caribiner and a figure eight. During the descent the caribiner is thought to have failed due to two main possibilities: The gate was cross-loaded with the figure eight in a lever position, or rope cross over occurred over the gate of the caribiner. in either case, enough inward force was created to cause the the locking gate of the caribiner to sheer through and remain in the open position. As a result, the rope AND figure eight came free of the caribiner, and Kyle fell 80 feet to his death.
I have been climbing avidly since 1998, and first started my mountain adventures in 1988 with a safety conscience scout leader. I have learned that accidents in the mountains happen, (I have a couple of friends/family who died in the mountains, and I have had a couple of close calls myself.) We HAVE to learn from these experiences, if only to give respect to those who taught us the most difficult lessons while loosing their lives in the process.
Now, I know many of us are familiar with the threat of cross-loading, rope cross over, and even figure eight lever forces. However, I am not sure all of us realize how easily this can occur, or how much actual inward force it takes to pry that locking gate open. This is why I am here, to make sure we all know.
Caribiners are strong. I've heard the expression "you could hang a truck of those anchors" on a number of occasions. This is probably correct, but when in constant motion, (i.e. during a rappel/descent) it is not always so easy for us to keep a fixed eye on our life's belay. There are so many things to be aware of as we lower ourselves off of that conquered rock face that we often times look around confidently with out casting a critical gaze on our belay.
REI, Hughe Banner, AND the prosecuting expert in Kyle's case, repeatedly tested the inward strength of their caribiners and repeatedly found that the aluminum gates locking mechanism fails under less than 500 pounds. This may not sound threatening, but on a static descent, a 190 pound person only needs to "fall" 2 feet to create this amount of force. 2g's is not difficult to create. The force of Kyle's descent, combined with some inward force, caused that gate to fail under a minimal amount of leverage, and as a result remained in an open position allowing the equipment to be released from the safety of his locking caribiner.
I have not inquired of other companies, but rarely if ever do ANY climbing gear manufacturers publish the results of inward forces on their locking gates. We seem to have all of the other information and specs, but this critical knowledge is often lacking. Some manufacturers, specifically HB, use a lower grade aluminum on their gate apparatus (the locking mechanism), and some even use plastic. Whether this should be acceptable or not is difficult to say, but one thing is for certain, THIS TYPE OF FAILURE DOES HAPPEN, so check your belay, and take extra care to avoid inward forces on your locking gates. IF YOU THINK it is a possibility, then back yourself up with a prussik, or a tibloc, or an opposing caribiner, or whatever it takes to prevent a fall if a similar situation were to arise in any of your mountain adventures.
On another note, none of your equipment is any good if not used correctly. I once saw a father belaying his son on Mt. Lemmon, AZ and about lost it. Novices with brand new equipment, tied into their harness with granny knots, back clipping their quick draws, and trying to figure it out as they went... for their first time! I considered it a responsibility to help some passionate fellow climbers, new to the sport and very ambitious, find a 'better way' to safely make there way up this classic climb. They graciously accepted my lengthy instruction and advice and surely avoided what could have resulted in disaster. It never hurts to ask questions--seek adequate instruction if you have ANY doubt that you might be using a piece of equipment incorrectly.
BACK YOURSELF UP. DO NOT PUT 100% CONFIDENCE IN YOUR EQUIPMENT (OR GEAR MANUFACTURER) OR YOUR SAFETY WILL EVENTUALLY BE COMPROMISED.
Have fun out there, be safe, and please take the time to be just a little bit safer every time you go out!
|
|
|
|
|
boz84
Mar 11, 2004, 5:53 AM
Post #2 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2002
Posts: 473
|
Im deeply sorry for the loss you and your family have sustained, and I thank you heartily for your advice youve given us.
Yes, even us "Expert Climbers" make mistakes, some of us seldomly, and some of us way too often. The topics youve touched on today should be a reality check to ALL of us, to remember to always understand our equipment fully, in both its design and use.
Deeply Sorry,
Boz
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Mar 11, 2004, 6:17 AM
Post #3 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Yes: I second that.
Thanks for sharing, I only learned about figure 8s torquing and breaking a good condition locking biner a year or 2 ago. I don't think everybody has heard it yet, so thanks for bringing it up again. You may have just helped prevent some more needless deaths by sharing it.
Regards:
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
hyhuu
Mar 11, 2004, 3:15 PM
Post #4 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2001
Posts: 492
|
I'm sorry for your loss but I'm trying to understand how did a figure 8 have anything to do with rappelling? Also, isn't the "ausie style" putting the equipment behind you so you can't see it while descending? I completely agree on the backup and proper use of the equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Mar 11, 2004, 3:30 PM
Post #5 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
a figure 8 is not only a [i:acb372c5b8]knot[/i:acb372c5b8] ...
... it is also a belay/rappel device.
[img:acb372c5b8]http://www.kayaksandpaddles.co.uk/rock_climbing/product-pics/ascenders/clog-fig8.jpg[/img:acb372c5b8]
|
|
|
|
|
hyhuu
Mar 11, 2004, 4:09 PM
Post #6 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2001
Posts: 492
|
Dud! How did I miss that? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
qacwac
Mar 11, 2004, 4:34 PM
Post #7 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2002
Posts: 292
|
Thanks a lot. Could you explain inward strength and inward force.
|
|
|
|
|
capn_morgan
Mar 11, 2004, 4:50 PM
Post #8 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 565
|
just curious as to why HB and REI were sued?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 11, 2004, 5:00 PM
Post #9 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
bighigaz,
Thanks for your post and my condolences for your loss. One other thing--you mentioned that the HB carabiner used was "auto-locking" and I have seen instances where, in use, a rope will ride over the auto-locking mechanism and rotate (turn) it to the position where it can be opened. This usually only requires 1/4 turn.
Non auto-locking screw mechanisms, that require several full turns to lock the gate (and that can be tightened pretty tight by the climber) may be somewhat safer for use in rappelling. Just a thought.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
j_from_the_307
Mar 11, 2004, 5:14 PM
Post #10 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2004
Posts: 30
|
I believe by inward force he means the opposite direction from crossloading.
In a crossloading situation, the rope/8/whatever pulls the gate shut and puts the load on the pins.
In an inward loading situation (harder to get into, but still possible, especially with a figure 8) the 8 is pulling the gate inward, or to the open position. No weight is put on the pins, instead, it all is supported by the locking mechanism... which is not designed to support more than a small load. This basically means that the 8 is stuck on the locking mechanism on the gate and all your weight is being supported in this precarious situation.
-J
|
|
|
|
|
stick233
Mar 11, 2004, 5:44 PM
Post #11 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 339
|
In reply to: just curious as to why HB and REI were sued?
I too am wondering why there was a lawsuit. James, I am sorry for your loss. I never want to hear of accidents in the climbing community... but if an accident was to hit close to home, I would have a real hard time suing a manufacturing company. This whole debate could turn into a large flame fest, so I would like to ask you why the companies were sued. From your original post, it does not sound as if there was a production failure?!
Sorry to delve into it like this, I am just curious and mean no ill-will...
|
|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Mar 12, 2004, 12:47 AM
Post #12 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
Good questions...
REI and HB were being sued for several different reasons... I don't get the legality of it all (it's not my field of expertise), but basically it involved negligence, and inadequate warning labels for the consumer (no warnings were published regarding and INWARD force on the gate, though the tests were conclusive, nor were any warnings distributed with the equipment), this is the main reason I wanted to start this forum... I don't know if HB or REI intend on ever making these warning labels.
Also, there was something in the area of consumer confidence... pain and suffering... punitive damages, and several others I can't remember. When the defense motioned to dismiss all of the claims against them, the judge denied them on everything except punitive damages. (The prosecution was not allowed to sue for punitive damages, or "monitary punishment." This was based on the lack of clear and concise evidence that HB and/or REI actually actually had some sort of "evil-mind" or mal-intent to bring harm to the consumer. That made sense to me.
When it came down to it, the prosecution basically felt that the accident could have been avoided if Kyle had understood the dangers of inward failure on the gate of his caribiner.
Maybe it could have, and maybe not.
Kyle was rappelling Aussie Style (face first), so no, he couldn't see his equipment. I didn't feel this was entirely important, however, as I have seen crossloading occur in abseiling/military rappel as well... He was also using a method of belay called "figure eight in sports mode" which is actually explained in "Mountaineering: Freedom of the Hill." The defense tried to pass this off on me, saying I had taught him a dangerous unacceptable method of rappelling, and that he and I were reckless. I explained that I used the method because I had learned it from a Petzl catalog, as well as "Mountaineering: Freedom..." and they grudgingly accepted that. BTW, "sport mode" is when the rope wraps/runs through the caribiner, rather than around the neck of the figure eight device... I prefer it as a sort of "modified" stitch plate method. Better rope control, less twisting, etc. Also, I always felt better about having the rope through the biner in the event the eight DID fail, so I could still try to put a bite in the rope to arrest my fall, instead of finding myself in mid air...
I guess when it boils down to it, it was an accident anyway you look at it. We all know there are many methods of rappelling... and we could debate them for hours. At this point I prefer ATC's/Stitch plate over an eight... for obvious personal reasons I guess... I also prefer SCREW gates. Auto lockers just don't seem safe enough for me.
Since this event I have also decided that when I am rappelling for the sport of it (not necessarilly lowering of a climb), I will always back myself up with a ground belay, or a prussik of some sort, or both. It just isn't worth the risk to me anymore.
Hope all this jabber was helpful... let me know if you have any other questions.
|
|
|
|
|
wedgy
Mar 12, 2004, 3:32 AM
Post #13 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2003
Posts: 69
|
once again sorry for your loss. ALL gear states to seek expert instruction before using. experts know the consequences of no backup. probobly not the jist of your thread , but where does personal responsibility come in? P.S. NEVER use a tibloc for a backup. it will shread the rope w/ a short fall. any tooth style device will do this. use prussiks. PLEASE read FISH's warning www.fishproducts.com and click on the "REAPER" on the main site. An incorrectly used product can kill you . the learning curve is steep. Do you blame Ford if you misuse a mustang & get hurt? Take responsibility for your actions, dont blame others because you goofed. just my view. again, sorry for your loss.
|
|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Mar 12, 2004, 4:49 AM
Post #14 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
Wedgy, you are certainly correct. We have to take responsibilities for our actions and mistakes. But at the same time, shouldn't a major manufacturer and distributor be obligated to share all pertinent information with the consumer for their own understanding and safety?-Such as an inward force repeatedly shown to cause a gate to fail at under 500 pounds EVERY time? Learning this certainly affected the way I use my equipment... and the question will never be answered as to whether or not this witheld information could have helped in the slightest to prevent Kyles death.
Along this note, how difficult would it be for the manufacture to raise the quality of aluminum for the locking apparatus to be equal to that of the rest of the caribiner? Could this have made a difference? Probably.
While I'm at it, I just wanted to thank everyone for their responses. I trully appreciate all of them. The issue of fault is no concern to me at this point, because it was an accident. I am just determined to help others to avoid the same fate. You are the first group of peers I have been able to discuss this subject with in full, partly because the case is now finished, but also because you can all see it from different perspectives because you are all climbers! (Most everyone involved in the case trully did not grasp the concept of climbing and rappelling, which adversely affected the Jury and Judge in my opinion, though I feel they did a good job trying to grasp a concept that they had never experienced in actual practice.)
If you have more questions, please ask away... I need to put it all out on the table. Part of the challenge is that the defense wanted to put the fault back on me, when inside I am screaming for them to understand that Kyle was a safe and reasonable individual, and that I only shared my experience with him as I thought it would make the sport safer for both of us. Obviously the defense wasn't interested in this, so I didn't really get to express it...
Oh, and to clarify, I wasn't there when he died. I had climbed/rappelled with him 2 weeks prior.
That's all for now...
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Mar 12, 2004, 8:21 AM
Post #15 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
thats stupid.
figure 8 is very unsafe as it is and because of "aussie" stylish rpaeel he couldnt control what hes device was doing. ahd how could the rope break the biner???? i you use the figure8 properly, the rope doesnt touch the biner at all. moreover if you just LOOK at the biner, it should be clear to you that the gate safety system is NOT intended to hold any serous stress. its just there to prevent the biner from opening when hittin a rock or becasue youre clumsy. thats exacly why you get about 4 page of instructions with a quickdraw.
US lawsystem is a farse. you can sue anybody becasue they didnt tell you not to do something stupid. like if you ran your car into a tree and sued the manufascturer for not posting "dont colide with trees or you might die" in the car manual.
sounds like darwin at work to me.
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Mar 12, 2004, 2:27 PM
Post #16 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
I'll add my condolences to the myriad posted here. As the Irish say, "Sorry for your troubles."
Now, about the cross-loading. I'm trying to visualize what happened without the benefit of a picture. The locking biner got oriented in an inappropriate direction. That is, the harness was in the middle of the spine on one side, and the figure 8 on the other, and neither were in the curved parts of the biner, right? So then what happened? I'm imagining the 8 twisting or torquing. Is that the "lever action" you described? I can see how that would put undue stress on the biner, or especially the locking mechanism. And then the locking portion sheared or broke? Is that right?
And by the way, I applaud your courage in going over this for the benefit of your fellow climbers. I know that when I recount the death of a loved one, I often get pretty torn up over it. Even after years have passed.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Mar 12, 2004, 2:50 PM
Post #17 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: thats stupid. figure 8 is very unsafe as it is and because of "aussie" stylish rpaeel he couldnt control what hes device was doing. ahd how could the rope break the biner???? i you use the figure8 properly, the rope doesnt touch the biner at all. moreover if you just LOOK at the biner, it should be clear to you that the gate safety system is NOT intended to hold any serous stress. its just there to prevent the biner from opening when hittin a rock or becasue youre clumsy. thats exacly why you get about 4 page of instructions with a quickdraw. US lawsystem is a farse. you can sue anybody becasue they didnt tell you not to do something stupid. like if you ran your car into a tree and sued the manufascturer for not posting "dont colide with trees or you might die" in the car manual. sounds like darwin at work to me.
I agree with your opinion, overlord, but maybe you could have found a more sensitive way to voice it. :(
|
|
|
|
|
awsclimber
Mar 12, 2004, 2:54 PM
Post #18 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 118
|
I would say the lawsuit was successful, It never occured to me that the inward strength of a biner would be so much lower than the crossloading strength of a biner. 2 KN is a very small force while climbing. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 12, 2004, 3:02 PM
Post #19 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Along this note, how difficult would it be for the manufacture to raise the quality of aluminum for the locking apparatus to be equal to that of the rest of the caribiner? Could this have made a difference? Probably.
However, a locking carabiner (even one with a nylon locking mechanism) and figure 8 can certainly be used safely if they are used correctly. There is no scenario I can think of that could have led to your cousins death, that did not involve him making a critical mistake in rigging his rappell. As I said previously, I am truly sorry for your loss, but I think it was really wrong to file a lawsuit against HB and REI here.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
montgomerywick
Mar 12, 2004, 3:06 PM
Post #20 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 60
|
although i am sympathetic to the surviving family, I am floored by the lack of personal responsibility for the actions taken...I have always presumed and taught that the equipment we use is suspect and may fail under minimal stress in ways you can or cannot imagine..it is one of the inherent risks in the sport...the stated theory of negligence does not and should not override the assumption of risk...i cannot believe this case settled...
sorry for being negative under the circumstances of a death of someone you knew and taught, but you need to quit climbing ASAP. period. forever..
to give my final legal analysis, utter bs
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Mar 12, 2004, 3:27 PM
Post #21 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
Sorry to hear about the loss.
I have a question. Was he aware of the possibility of the 8 levering the gate open? Did you teach him to be aware of this? There have been more than a few accidents due to this.
I think it's pretty crappy that those companies were sued.
Thanks for being upfront about this whole thing.
|
|
|
|
|
jcinco
Mar 12, 2004, 3:39 PM
Post #22 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 395
|
I am also sorry to hear about the tragedy. My condolences.
What I'm about to say may seem harsh, but you posted this information on a public forum for feedback.
It is plainly obvious that a locking carabiner can't take very much of an inward force on the gate. We're talking everyday common sense here... kind of like the obvious warning of not spilling a cup of hot coffee on your lap.
Just because there wasn't an explicit warning, doesn't excuse you and you're friend from being responsible for your actions. Suing the company was frivolous and complete BS. It is this type of lawsuit that gives a bad name to valid litigation.
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Mar 12, 2004, 3:54 PM
Post #23 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
jcinco wrote:
It is plainly obvious that a locking carabiner can't take very much of an inward force on the gate. We're talking everyday common sense here... kind of like the obvious warning of not spilling a cup of hot coffee on your lap.
I disagree. I was surprised that as little as 500 lbs of inward force could break the biner. I'm sure I'm not the only one to whom it was not "plainly obvious." On the other hand, I am WELL aware of what the ratings stamped onto a biner mean. Maybe the manufacturers should also include a "cross-load rating" on the spine of the biners.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 12, 2004, 4:05 PM
Post #24 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
I'm very sorry for your loss.
I hate to say it, but this means of failure has been know in the climbing and caving communities since at least 1998. The UIAA has a bulletin out about it as well, but IIRC, the bulletin probably dates from after your cousin's death. Wouldn't be surprised if your cousin's death was a precipitating factor in the extra publicity the UIAA gave to the problem. I'm sorry it took another death for the word to get out that rappelling using the fig-8 (or any stiff metal device with a hole that can catch on and lever the gate) is dangerous. You are right, the locking sleeve is not designed to withstand the amound of torque which can be generated by this means, so the nose of the biner punches through the locking sleeve, allowing the gate to open. Our difference of opinion is this: I believe that modern locking carabiners *are* properly designed for the forces that should be applied to them. The true problem is with the method of rappelling that was done. The force applied to the locking sleeve of the biner in the accident that killed your cousin Kyle is was caused by a rappelling method that is without a doubt unsafe.
Perhaps I should pause to mention that you are right - it's not fair to blame you for teaching this method to your cousin. At the time you did so, I'm certain that it was a commonly accepted practice. However, this is no longer the case! If the same accident were to happened today, I would certainly hold culpable the person who set up the rappel in that way.
I'm so sorry it often takes a serious accident to demonstrate that a long-believed safe method can turn out to create unsafe circumstances. The fig-8 version of the EDK is another example of this case.
Again, my condolences.
GO
-------------------
For those who may be interested, here is a synopsis of what's happening:
-------------------
from the website: http://www.wbcrt.org/way-out/WayOut/issue4.html
WARNING - Figure Eight Descenders Can Break Karabiners
This report is a condensed version of a report by the BMC Technical Committee which investigates equipment failures.
A copy of the full report may be obtained by sending a stamped addressed A4 envelope to: Brian Jopling, 31 Holbeche Rd., Sutton Coldfield, West Mids. B75 7LL
Background
An equipment failure resulted in the death of a student at a outdoor centre. All of the equipment used was standard and in good order. A sit harness was in use, with a belay loop to which the figure-eight descender was attached by a screwgate karabiner. The rope was a static rope. The student was a novice who had learned to abseil the previous day and was now taking part in a 40m sponsored abseil. No safety rope was used because a high speed abseil precluded the paying out of a safety rope quickly enough. A instructor was at the bottom to apply a brake load to the rope in the event of a problem.*
The student made a couple of false starts - 40m is a long way to a novice - and then launched into the abseil. Almost immediately the student became detached from the rope and fell to his death. The figure-eight was still on the rope near the top and the krab was still on the harness with the gate open but with a NOTCH IN THE SLEEVE. The sleeve was still fully screwed up. The notching of the karabiner gate had been noted before but the cause had not been established.
The following conclusions were drawn by Neville McMillan, Chairman of the BMC Technical Committee, from the instructor’s report and trials carried out under controlled conditions. In the full report Neville draws attention to the consequences for outdoor centres and climbers which are not included here. The student had made several false starts allowing the figure-eight and karabiner to become slack on each occasion. The small eye of the descender had moved over the karabiner gate and had been corrected by the instructor at least twice. On the fatal instance this was either not noticed or not corrected fully. When the gear is loaded with the eye in this position there is a tendency for the descender to turn over and take up an abnormal configuration, as can be seen in Fig.1.
Picture 4a available shortly.
In this position the karabiner can be loaded axially and apply leverage to the gate. Under test conditions, with an unscrewed gate, it can easily be shown that the eye can open the gate allowing the karabiner and figure-eight to become separated. This does not happen on all occasions but a simple trial will show how easily the abnormal configuration fails to straighten itself out. Tests were carried out using a tensile testing machine, using a new karabiner of the same model and the following results were found. The peak failure forces (the forces required to break the sleeve) were:
Test 1; 0.77 kN
Test 2; 1.04 kN
Test 3; 1.03 kN
The damage to the sleeve was identical to that seen on the karabiner damaged in the accident. The student weighed 98kg which equals a gravitational force of 0.96kN. He therefore could apply his body weight WITHOUT CAUSING A FAlLURE in the abnormal loading situation but a sudden loading would cause about twice the 0.96 kN force which would easily break the gate as described. The area of damage is shown in Fig.3. It is noted by the author that the hypothesis can never be proven but This hypothesis is considered to be the most likely emanation of the events.
The author also notes that although this abnormal configuration can occur when using a Maillon Rapide there is much less danger because the maillon can withstand a three-way load better and the construction of a Maillon includes threading to both sides of the gate which obviates the need for a thin sleeve as in a screwgate karabiner. **
Figure 4c available shortly.
The Potential For a Similar Accident When Belaying.
Since the accident described above there has been a report of a non-fatal belaying accident in Germany. The damage to the karabiner sleeve was reported to be identical - a notch in the screwgate sleeve. Neville McMillan notes that this failure mode must be a rare occurrence as is does not seem to have been noted before and suggests that a short tape between the figure-eight and the karabiner would prevent the abnormal loading.
l have been surprised at just how easily this type of loading can occur. Try it for yourself and see. What is common is that the rig will often pull back into line, how many have heard the "click" at the start of a figure-eight abseil? I have found that all abseiling devices that use a hole or slot can reproduce this failure mode, or another very similar mode, where the bottom of the hole or slot (in the device) can lock behind the back of the sleeve forcing the top edge of the hole or slot to lever directly onto the gate and can easily exert enough force to notch the gate WITHOUT THE TWISTING MOMENT, see Fig.2.
Picture 4b available shortly.
A feature of this mode is that the karabiner and descender are "in line" and from above can appear to be safe.
Several teams use the figure-eight descender to belay stretcher lowers or to protect a haul, certainly the WBCRT does, and I would recommend that Pose who do examine their procedures to ensure that they are safe. The WBCRT is actively looking at rescue belaying, made more urgent with the reports of the failure to hold rescue loads with many common devices and/or techniques.
AS A INITIAL RECOMMENDATION I SUGGEST THAT WE SHOULD BELAY FIGURE-EIGHTS USING A LARGE MAILLON TO CONNECT TO THE ANCHOR.
* I personally find this method of bottom belaying to be extremely suspect and even more unlikely to succeed when attempting to stop a high speed abseil. It appears to me that this can only succeed when the bottom belayer applies a load right from the start.
** My italics.
Brian Jopling, Equipment of Officer WBCRT and MRC representative on the BMC Technical Committee.
|
|
|
|
|
rock_diva
Mar 12, 2004, 4:29 PM
Post #25 of 179
(34793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 24, 2002
Posts: 320
|
James,
Thanks for sharing all the information, especially considering the emotions involved.
I feel like I'm always careful to check myself and my partner when climbing/rappelling but after your post I'll be even more cautious with locking caribiners and crossloading them. I often go canyoneering with groups that have very little experience and I am who they consider the expert... your post has helped me to realize the gravity of that position.
We all have a responsibility to help others learn proper safetly techniques. James, thank you for teaching us.
~Shelley
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
