|
Stormeh
Sep 11, 2008, 8:53 PM
Post #26 of 228
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2008
Posts: 73
|
billl7 wrote: Unless one always re-directs through the anchor, there's almost always space/time for the leader to fall before placing the "jesus nut". If so then the belayer needs to routinely make the switch in brake hand position once the "jesus nut" is placed. After that, being able to switch back in time if the "jesus nut" fails is dodgey at best.
What change in brake hand position is needed in the case of a fall past the belay?
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Sep 11, 2008, 8:57 PM
Post #27 of 228
(7015 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Each piece of protection should be taken as it could handle 5 kn ( or equivalent to one piece). you should build your anchor to handle FF2 x 2 ( leader & belyaer falling on the same time).That would be min of three pieces or more.
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Sep 12, 2008, 12:27 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
tomcat
Sep 11, 2008, 8:58 PM
Post #28 of 228
(7010 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
Yes,I agree Bill.And I am sure we both know the plusses and minusses of re-directs.If the anchor is suspect you are doubling the force with the redirect.If things look sketchy in my world,I will just knot off one rope twenty five feet out from the belayer,well actually just tie the two together since i climb 95% of the time on doubles.So I am just saying that once the first piece blows,and you go FF2,the shit has really hit the fan,and lot's of stuff isn't going to work the way many folks think it will.
(This post was edited by tomcat on Sep 11, 2008, 8:59 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Sep 11, 2008, 8:59 PM
Post #29 of 228
(7008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Carolyn11 wrote: Correct me if I am wrong here but there are circumstances where a two piece anchor is acceptable.
There are times where a one piece and even a no piece anchor is perfectly acceptable. Hard and fast rules are for idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
tomcat
Sep 11, 2008, 9:05 PM
Post #30 of 228
(7003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
Roy is right,and it brings up a subject of some importance I think.Too many people today are climbing using"hard and fast rules",instead of accumulated wisdom.The hard and fast rule says the anchor must be the end all,but in these FF2 falls,mortals will only rarely be able to successfully stop their mates,even if the anchor is truck.
Given the choice between a third X sized cam at the belay,or deploying it in what appears to be a good placement just off the belay,i'll go with the latter every time.
|
|
|
|
|
tomcat
Sep 11, 2008, 9:09 PM
Post #31 of 228
(7001 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
Stormeh.Picture a failure of that first critical piece.Your partner falls past you,and as you try to arrest her,you are whipped around facing down the rock face,as is your belay device,you have now lost your bend back.It's worse on one side than the other.
|
|
|
|
|
tamberly
Sep 11, 2008, 10:52 PM
Post #32 of 228
(6909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2005
Posts: 15
|
I am amazed and grateful they both survived. A big thanks to Clark!
There are a few lessons here or at least good reminders:
1st piece off the anchor needs to be BOMBER or put in 2, if at least to protect your belayer.
2nd, And...running it out 40-50 feet it not a good idea for obvious reasons with only one piece in!!
3rd and MOST IMPORTANT in Tahquitz, check the weather. We came up just after the accident occurred, the roads and trails were destroyed. We knew climbing could be dangerous, as it was extremely likely to encounter thunderstorms/hail activity. This happens all the time in Tahquitz.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 11, 2008, 11:02 PM
Post #33 of 228
(6904 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
tamberly wrote: I am amazed and grateful they both survived. A big thanks to Clark! There are a few lessons here or at least good reminders: 1st piece off the anchor needs to be BOMBER or put in 2, if at least to protect your belayer. 2nd, And...running it out 40-50 feet it not a good idea for obvious reasons with only one piece in!! 3rd and MOST IMPORTANT in Tahquitz, check the weather. We came up just after the accident occurred, the roads and trails were destroyed. We knew climbing could be dangerous, as it was extremely likely to encounter thunderstorms/hail activity. This happens all the time in Tahquitz.
Several people have provided solid technical advice, like the above. Partly what I'm curious about is what the state of mind was of both climbers on this day. Given the inexperience of level of at least one of them, how did they choose this route? Did they consider its protectability? Why did they only use a 2-piece anchor? Did they recognize from the belay that the climb would be run out right off the belay? If so, did they consider bailing? Etc.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Sep 11, 2008, 11:07 PM
Post #34 of 228
(6900 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
Stormeh wrote: What change in brake hand position is needed in the case of a fall past the belay?
Tomcat makes a very good point about how habits can betray when the shit hits the fan. Imagine the best breaking position is downward because the pull will be from above. The leader falls, the belayer brakes, the "jesus nut" pulls, and suddenly the breaking position has changed by 180 degrees.
(This post was edited by billl7 on Sep 11, 2008, 11:10 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
snowey
Sep 11, 2008, 11:13 PM
Post #35 of 228
(6884 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2006
Posts: 143
|
jt512 wrote: Several people have provided solid technical advice, like the above. Partly what I'm curious about is what the state of mind was of both climbers on this day. Given the inexperience of level of at least one of them, how did they choose this route? Did they consider its protectability? Why did they only use a 2-piece anchor? Did they recognize from the belay that the climb would be run out right off the belay? If so, did they consider bailing? Etc. Jay
Jay,
Have you ever bailed from an established climb because the climbing above looked a bit runout?
People keep mentioning that if they didn't have enough gear to proceed they should've bailed from the route:
trenchdigger wrote: Make sure you have adequate gear with you to properly protect your route. If you find that you don't have enough gear to safely continue, consider bailing from the route. Your life and health are worth more than a couple of pieces of gear.
Thats BS. Total monday morning quarterbacking. I wouldn't expect them to bail from this route or anyone else for that matter. Trad climbing is about making do with what you have and thinking. This is why no hard and fast rules can keep you safe.
True, if you only brought micronuts and you need doubles of #4 cams on a certain pitch you might want to consider a retreat but this was hardly the case in this situation.
(This post was edited by snowey on Sep 11, 2008, 11:15 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
tamberly
Sep 11, 2008, 11:13 PM
Post #36 of 228
(6883 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2005
Posts: 15
|
I'm interested in that too... I'll ask my friend Tony and see if he can find out.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 11, 2008, 11:20 PM
Post #37 of 228
(6872 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
snowey wrote: jt512 wrote: Several people have provided solid technical advice, like the above. Partly what I'm curious about is what the state of mind was of both climbers on this day. Given the inexperience of level of at least one of them, how did they choose this route? Did they consider its protectability? Why did they only use a 2-piece anchor? Did they recognize from the belay that the climb would be run out right off the belay? If so, did they consider bailing? Etc. Jay Jay, Have you ever bailed from an established climb because the climbing above looked a bit runout?
I've certainly bailed from climbs that I realized were out of my league. Apparently this one was out this team's league. The relevant question is why didn't they realize it, and if they did, why didn't they bail.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Sep 11, 2008, 11:32 PM
Post #38 of 228
(6860 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
snowey wrote: jt512 wrote: Several people have provided solid technical advice, like the above. Partly what I'm curious about is what the state of mind was of both climbers on this day. Given the inexperience of level of at least one of them, how did they choose this route? Did they consider its protectability? Why did they only use a 2-piece anchor? Did they recognize from the belay that the climb would be run out right off the belay? If so, did they consider bailing? Etc. Jay Jay, Have you ever bailed from an established climb because the climbing above looked a bit runout?
snowey wrote: Thats BS. Total monday morning quarterbacking. I wouldn't expect them to bail from this route or anyone else for that matter. Trad climbing is about making do with what you have and thinking.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
snowey
Sep 11, 2008, 11:32 PM
Post #39 of 228
(6858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2006
Posts: 143
|
jt512 wrote: I've certainly bailed from climbs that I realized were out of my league. Apparently this one was out this team's league. The relevant question is why didn't they realize it, and if they did, why didn't they bail.
Based on your climbing profile, Jay, I would guess that on many occasions you were up on a climb that was very challenging to you and pushed on through. Sometimes its too hard to tell when you should suck it up and push your limits a bit or retreat with your tail between your legs. I don't think either of these two options was relevant for these climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
snowey
Sep 11, 2008, 11:37 PM
Post #40 of 228
(6848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2006
Posts: 143
|
saxfiend wrote: I don't think you're getting Jay's point: not just that the climb was runout, but that it was runout right off the belay, which implies the belay couldn't be protected. Big difference.
Its not clear that the climbing is runout right off of the belay. Also, thats something you are bound to encounter if you climb enough. The issue is how to beef up your anchor, climb carefully, etc. (or bail) to keep yourself safe in such a situation. Its not a 1-1 relationship, i.e. if the climbing is run out off of the belay you should bail.
saxfiend wrote: Trad climbing is also about knowing your limitations -- mental, physical or gear. If you're in a situation where you're a climbing team with relatively limited experience, your anchor is dubious and there's little or no prospect of getting in some solid gear to protect that anchor from a catastrophic fall, the best option might be to back off.
I agree 100%. But their anchor didn't have to be dubious and it is entirely possible that they could have gotten more gear in to protect the belay if they had made that a priority.
(This post was edited by snowey on Sep 11, 2008, 11:38 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 11, 2008, 11:45 PM
Post #41 of 228
(6834 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
snowey wrote: I don't think this one was necessarily out of their league. At least not so far out of their league that they should have bailed.
The outcome seems to suggest otherwise.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
snowey
Sep 11, 2008, 11:50 PM
Post #42 of 228
(6823 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2006
Posts: 143
|
jt512 wrote: snowey wrote: I don't think this one was necessarily out of their league. At least not so far out of their league that they should have bailed. The outcome seems to suggest otherwise.
There is no doubt they fucked up. Our disagreement is based on definitions.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Sep 11, 2008, 11:51 PM
Post #43 of 228
(6821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
From Llama's post at http://www.supertopo.com/..._id=665169&tn=60:
The leader had been climbing less than a year and leading trad less than that - a half dozen trad leads mentioned plus a couple gear placement sessions. Sounds like someone who would need a good mentor on the team.
Edit: Llama also stated that the leader currently does not recall much about the day.
(This post was edited by billl7 on Sep 11, 2008, 11:56 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Sep 12, 2008, 12:14 AM
Post #44 of 228
(6792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
jt512 wrote: snowey wrote: I don't think this one was necessarily out of their league. At least not so far out of their league that they should have bailed. The outcome seems to suggest otherwise. Jay
the thing is, probably most trad climbers that you talk you probably have a story that goes "oh yeah, we got on this climb, and didn't have enough gear, and it was runout off the belay..." it certainly doesn't mean that they bailed.
Most climbers also have stories about popping off on easy terrain unexpectedly.
Most climbers are fortunate, and experienced enough, never to let these two stories coincide.
Unfor
|
|
|
|
|
bones
Sep 12, 2008, 12:27 AM
Post #45 of 228
(6771 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 253
|
I have climbed this route a few times, combining both pitches as one, and also with a belay at the bolts on the ledge to the right. The climbing is a little awkward right after the ledge, like many Suicide cracks, but I don't remember it being runout at all.
Anyway, I'm glad to hear that the two climbers are recovering well.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Sep 12, 2008, 12:36 AM
Post #46 of 228
(6762 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
When enough things are stacked against the team then the route is out of the team's league ... but did this team sense they might be? I saw one mention that the leader had led harder trad routes this season. No doubt that was a factor in the decision to continue.
(This post was edited by billl7 on Sep 12, 2008, 12:56 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
tomcat
Sep 12, 2008, 12:57 AM
Post #47 of 228
(6743 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
Looks like an easy ground incident to me.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Sep 12, 2008, 1:43 AM
Post #48 of 228
(6714 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
I keep seeing that the anchor failed, is this the case? If so, how is it that the (unconscious?) belayer was not pulled from the route as well?
I assume that with the belayer unconscious, the rope was pulled through her belay device, and that she used this to get down from the climb once she regained consciousness. Would this be a good assumption? If not, how did she get off the route?
I do of course wish the team the best and speediest of recoveries, and that no long-term mental anguish results from this incident for either of the two climbers.
edit to add:
nevermind.. i found the information i was looking for in the supertaco thread.
(This post was edited by stymingersfink on Sep 12, 2008, 1:50 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 12, 2008, 1:46 AM
Post #49 of 228
(6711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
stymingersfink wrote: I keep seeing that the anchor failed, is this the case? If so, how is it that the (unconscious?) belayer was not pulled from the route as well? I assume that with the belayer unconscious, the rope was pulled through her belay device, and that she used this to get down from the climb once she regained consciousness. Would this be a good assumption? If not, how did she get off the route?
She was rescued.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 12, 2008, 2:46 AM
Post #50 of 228
(6670 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: zeke_sf wrote: Has it been completely cleared up yet whether the anchor failed or if she lost control of the belay? It was both! The anchor failed...
Are you sure, Jay? This is an important question--and one that I had too. Someone on the scene who posted in one of the other threads (either here or on ST) said that there was no other pulled gear attached to the rope tied to the fallen climber. If that was the case, where did the two pulled anchor pieces end up?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
