UKC

Hey just a quick question if you guys don't mind. I was wondering if anyone knows of a way to backup a standard lead belay with a prussiks in case of belay incapacitation?

In reply to gaillard:

You mean if the belayer is knocked unconcious?
If so im sure there is a way of doing it but it would peobably be a monumental faff...

Is there a specific reason you ask?

In reply to gaillard: You really are worried about that "what if scenario" aren't you! You're trying to find out about using double ropes with a cinch aren't you? As far as I'm aware there is no meaningful way to back up a standard belay plate. You just have to trust your belayer! I guess the only way you can back it up is to have a second person holding the lines?

In reply to gaillard: Prussic on the dead rope, i.e identical to an ab, would do it.

But really, if your belayer is incapacitated, you're f*cked. I suppose the lead climber could hopefully be able to construct an anchor, then have enough slack to single rope ab down to his belayer (or, if on halfs, I suppose he could ab normally). If there isn't enough slack to ab, say the belayer has fallen and is keeping the rope taut, you're gonna have an interesting time prussiking down the rope, stripping gear as you downclimb.

In reply to fishy1: Paying out rope with a prussic backup will be a pest too.

In reply to gaillard: Thinking about it the easiest way is probably buy one of those self locking belay devices, I forget the names.

In reply to fishy1:

You don't mean a grigri do you?

Yes if the belayer is knocked unconscious. What is a faff?

Ya I was testing using two faders sums to belay on half ropes, still testing. Talking to their engineers, unfortunately the lead engineer is on holiday at the moment so I am waiting on him.

I am very worried about the what if ! I know climbers have higher levels of risk tolerance than most people but I absolutely love to climb, love to lead hard stuff and don't have that higher level of risk tolerance, weird I know Imagine a couple bees scaring the hell out of a belayer in their ear or something, that kind of junk always happens around me, and rockfall happens often at crowded areas with people at the top, I can't tell you how many times I have had a sizable rock land near my feet belaying.

So call me crazy but the whole system is redundant, and I just can't stand it that the belay is not. Surely there is a way to backup a belay with a prusiks, it shouldn't be so different than escaping a belay or rapping I imagine, anyone have an idea?

In reply to fishy1:

I use half ropes

And of course I don't go out remotely without a party of 3, really helps in case something happens of course.

Thanks for the replies guys, what about holding the prusiks while belaying with it on the dead rope? so if loss of control for whatever reason it will be unheld.

In reply to gaillard:

Sorry, faff is just extra hassle.

Like fishy said, using a french(? i always get the names mixed up!) prussic on the dead rope would work. same set up as an abseil (probably atached to the leg loop on your harness rather than trying to extend your belay plate. it would make paying out rope a bit awkward though.

In reply to gaillard: Quite apart from anything else, the trouble you have is that a prusik loop is made of light cord, and it works by friction. If a bee should happen to land in your belayers ear and sting him to distraction, and you happen at that very moment to fall off, and it also happens to be a reasonably large fall, then the prusik will slip and the cord will melt, landing you back at square one, which is on the ground. Using double ropes is meant to lower impact on your anchors, which is an inherent safety feature. By using an autoblocking belay you are entirely negating this effect as they are not dynamic. Even if your prusik does not melt, and it grabs, chances are it will behave in the same way, i.e. not dynamically. Furthermore using two autoblockers, despite the small size will still be "grabby" and will not be desperately easy to manage. I'm afraid your only real answer, unless you manage to find a tre, is to suck it up and use a belay plate just like everybody else!

In reply to mike kann:

Yes I was wondering about the heat being a problem, but of course this is speculation Why would a prusik slip with more force?, it should cinch tighter I would think...

I am testing only Faders SUMs because not only can you feed rope quickly without touching a cam, but they give a dynamic belay and are good on ropes down to 9mm...

In reply to Stuzz:

Above the belay plate right?

In reply to gaillard:

If you always go out in a party of three then just have the spare person hold the dead rope as a back up! simple, no faff

In reply to Stuzz:

Ha how many people do you know willing to do that on request :P

Plus they are usually eating or doing something else more useful, coil ropes or whatever... but its a good thought for gym

In reply to gaillard: Either it is going to overcome the friction provided, or it will break the sheath, or god forbid the core of the prusik. I would really not think it's a good idea. The other issue is that any system which holds the dead rope will have to be a reasonable distance from the belay plate otherwise it will run into the back of the belay plate and release. The only other system you could explore would be using some sort of clever setup with a reverson 3. There was a system detailed on here as a self belay technique which might work for you?

In reply to gaillard:

No, below the belay plate. I know some people ab with the prussic above but having it below means that when it tightens it locks the belay plate off, rather than just hanging your weight on the prussic.

In all honesty i'm not convinced it would be worth while. There are ways of the leader escaping should the belayer become unconcious and its so unlikely that learning these would probably be more sensible than backing up the belay every time you go out.

In reply to mike kann:


Double ropes are dynamic, even with a completely tied off belay.


Easier way might be to periodically tied knots in the dead rope before you start to lead, and untie them as you feed rope out.

In reply to fishy1: Cheers for that - I never realised.

In reply to gaillard: http://www.mountainz.co.nz/content/article/article.php?article=220406_ropes...

You might be able to rig something like this. I'm not saying what - you might have to work that out, but I can see something working ifyou try hard enough...

In reply to mike kann:

I would be interested to read that, here? http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=370440

Ya I see what you mean about the friction, something will give, but then again it doesn't take much for on the brake side of the plate to hold a leader fall, however I can't see how it could only catch as a backup without the prusik over the plate on the active line (where it could be long enough not to interfere). Hmm maybe if you kept your brake hand in front of it?

Of course this is why the two Faders SUMs seem so attractive to me, easy feeding, dynamic autolock...

In reply to fishy1: P.S. so are single ropes and twin ropes.

I was refering to the belay device - a grigri places far greater loads on the top anchors because there is no rope slippage, unlike most belay devices which allow a certain amount of movement. It has to do with energy absorption over time, and the slippage providing this time...

In reply to fishy1:

Not a bad idea, but would be excruciating for the sore forearms of the leader while he waits, hmm maybe a quick knot that you can just pull undone, what would that be, like a daisy chain or something?

In reply to mike kann:

Ah so this is just the reverso in locking mode for belaying the second except it is the leader in this case... I imagine the cinched up reverso would be hard to unload... is there something obvious to unload them I am forgetting?

In reply to gaillard: On the new reverso there is an unlock hole, in which you insert another carabiner and lever it open. You can then carefully use it to control descent rate.

In reply to gaillard: Infact I think this has to be the best way to do it, exactly as shown in the pictures. To pay out you pull the reverso away from the belayers body, and pay out. Then when the leader falls, the load is applied upwards and the plate will lock, whether the belayer is awake or not...

In reply to mike kann:

I think your right, and with the addition of this little hole you mentioned in to release, that shouldn't be too tuff to use with a biner handy. I wonder if it is dynamic enough?

In reply to mike kann:

Although I must say this seems a bit odd, trying to imagine it all since I don't have one lying around. It would be facing down right, with the wire hanger up. Which means when you brake you are pulling the rope beside the active rope ? Kind of strange

In reply to gaillard:

Id imadgen its slightly dyanmic, but not as much as it would be used normaly. I have nothing to back that up though, its just a feeling

In reply to gaillard: Yep - basically the live rope will actively trap the dead rope, effectively acting as you hand. I would have thought it won't be very dynamic - but I suspect it would be a reasonable solution...

In reply to gaillard: youtube.com/watch?v=93YDB1jj21s&

this is how the new reverso works...

In reply to mike kann:

Well actually unless you used two biners or something it would really hold the device sideways, which I guess is ok. I haven't used a reverso regularly and definitely not in autolock, but is the rope running on the other rope ever a problem with heat and wear and such?

In reply to gaillard: No - it's not running very fast, and when loaded it doesn't slip. I use an ATC guide which is very similar indeed. Never had any issues with heat etc...

In reply to mike kann:

Hmm ok so the whole thing relies on the rope making contact with the other, so the device would definitely have to be upside down, but then you are pulling the brake rope either up (very awkward) or down and possibly past the active rope... isn't that a problem or do I just not understand how it works?

In reply to gaillard: I gues you would need to keep a reasonable amount of slack inbetween you and the climber. You would then pay out slack by pulling the device away from your chest and paying it out... look - I'm not sure it would work, the only way to know is for me to get my kit out and try it... I'll let you know tomorrow...

<Bangs head> A gri-gri is not a self locking belay device!

In reply to JoshOvki:

Well please do continue

In reply to mike kann:

That would be great if you don't mind

After thinking about it, I don't think it matters if the ATC guide is rightside up or upside down, as long as it is clipped through the "guide" ring and not used normally. Because the rope will pull it up to pinch regardless if you know what I mean... I will try too, hopefully we return good results ! Oh can the little eyelet be used to lower a bit on the atc guide like the reverso?

In reply to gaillard:
What you are trying to do is to find a mechanical solution to a human problem. This has been looked at extensively in recent years by the Adventure Activities Licensing Serrvice (AALS), admitedly in regard to instructed scenarios. Their conclusion was that you cannot remove the need for competent individuals, there are a number of articles on their website www.aals.org.uk.

Believe it or not there have been more accidents attributed to poor belaying since the advent of "locking" belay devices than before. Grigris and the others are not fail safe, the manufacturers do not claim they are and experience backs that up.

Climbing is a risk sport and we must accept that risk if we do it. Yes we use experiecne and kit to bring the risk down to an acceptable level but if you reduce it to zero it is not climbing as I know it. This is true even of instructed climbing. Instructors and guides use a variety of methods to have an element of self belay, eg reverso, but they all recognise that you cannot remove the need for a competant person in the loop.

Doug

In reply to gaillard:

Give your belayer a helmet...

In reply to gaillard:


The Faders aren't 'dynamic'. They're also rather expensive, heavy and are going to interact with each other when side by side in at best a very annoying way.

Without meaning to be rude I suggest you address the root cause of your problem by climbing at a safer crag if you and your partner are routinely being menaced by stonefall.

Occasional backup knots on the dead rope can be handy as a guard against catastrophic failure but only really once you're up high since they're a PITA if they're too close together. Handy when the belayer is nodding off. You'll probably still fall far enough to get hurt.

There's always going to be a significant element of risk in climbing. If you can't accept that then perhaps you should look at a safer branch of the game.

jk

In reply to gaillard:


There's no point in getting hung up on how dynamic a plate/device is or isn't. In reality you get next to no slippage in a normal fall (have you caught a fall?) with any device I've ever used, rope stretch and belayer movement do all the work.

jk

In reply to gaillard: You've missed the point - the belayer IS the backup, you can't infinitely regress and keep on backing up the backup, you'll end up never leaving the ground!

Your fears are getting out of control. I think the concept of 'habituation' is quite interesting, i.e. if I haven't been climbing for a while (e.g. years) then things which seemed perfectly acceptable - e.g. abseiling off tat on a sea cliff, or using a relatively poor anchor on a trad route because there's nothing better - seem terrifying. Once I've been out a few times then I become habituated to the situation and can take a more level headed risk assesment. Perhaps you just need to get out more?

In reply to gaillard: There is a very simple method. Rather than tie directly into a belay, make a look in the rope about 1m from your harness and put a big HMS krab onto it. Then tie this into a belay system and belay off the loop or krab. In this way, if your second comes unstuck and you have to escape the system, all you need to do is tied off the second and untie from your rope.

In reply to gaillard:

I am pretty confident that any auto locking contraption you could rig with upside-down reversos would be more likely to go wrong and be the cause of an accident than a hypothetical scenario involving bees or unconscious belayers.

If I had to design such a system I would probably use two single ropes and two gri-gris, but as others have pointed out that is not exactly foolproof and a would be a significant faff, plus you would look ridiculous.

The thing is, if you go down that road, where does it end? There is safe and then there is 'safe enough' - climbing is never going to be 100% safe, but then neither is getting out of bed in the morning and we all do that without worrying too much about it. Is it 'safe enough'? difficult to be sure but as belayer incapacitation does not appear to be a major cause of accidents in climbing (where it happens it tends to be as a result of a much wider accident) we can conclude that you would do more to decrease your risk of accident by remembering to double tie in correctly, tie a knot in the end of your lead rope to prevent being lowered off it, and wear your seat belt on the journey to the crag, than you would faffing with auto-locking double-foolproof rope systems.

In reply to gaillard:

I think this and your previous thread evidence a ridiculous degree of paranoia

In reply to oggi:

Agree entirely.

And if you start inventing and testing your own complicated belay methods, the law of unintended consequences will sooner or later, kick your ass.

I'm guessing you're a sport climber used to using auto-locking devices like the fader sum. Maybe you just need a lesson in falling on trad gear.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead: He's just working out his own risk level...no harm in that.

To OP - complicating systems usually brings in risks you haven't thought about. Climbers actually don't have a different perception of risk to others IMO they just get good at balancing conflicting risk issues eg Do you carry lots of safety gear you might need in emergency in the Alps? (long routes with time constraints due to afternoon thawing) No because it makes you slow because of weight and makes an epic more likely.

Dear gaillard.

What you are doing is too much thinking. I suggest you stop it as soon as possible and revert to going on the manufacturers instructions.

Any system involving backing up a belay is likely to be very difficult to use in practice as the belayer will have to feed both the belay device and the backup. You'll end up with poor belaying technique which will be more dangerous in the long run. If I absolutely HAD to do this I'd put a shunt below the belay device.

Otherwise switch to climbing on 1 rope and use a gri-gri or cinch or equivalent. Of course this reduces the redundancy in the rope system but you pays your money, you makes your choice.

Remember that once you've done the first pitch you won't hit the floor if you loose your belayer and fall off anyhow (apart from the start of the second pich and assuming the first pitch is nearly as long as the rope).

In reply to gaillard:
Why don´t you just buy a Hewbolt Double? It is made for exactly what you want, the handling is reportedly pretty hideous but certainly going to be better than any of your other ideas!

Jim

In reply to oggi:

Sorry, but I don't understand your point. Obviously all climbing gear is a mechanical solution to a human problem, and of course you can't get risk to zero, we all know that.

An auto locking device does provide a backup for a belay mistake/accident. If you misuse the device (where the accidents come from) that doesn't make it not safer than a regular tube. It is safer if used correctly, silly to deny it.

If people were dying from putting seat belts around their neck would that make them not an effective backup to the frame of the car? Of course not, it just means there are a bunch of idiots putting seat belts around their neck.

In reply to jkarran:

Agreed.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

How is the belayer the backup? I am only talking about 1 backup here to the only peice in the chain that doesn't have one. And the pieces in the chain only have one backup, where are all these backing of backups you think exist?

Many would say that the terror was the correct assessment and that you are being blinded by lack of accident events to glaze over the consequences. Very similar to how people take road safety so loosely, until they get in a horrible debilitating accident, which many of us either have been in or know people who have.

In reply to jonny2vests:

I am not going to use anything more complicated than necessary. I am just exploring here, there is a history in the climbing communities to be very resistant to change, probably (just a hunch) because the safety of climbers was originally only found through experience since there was not scientists working on the problems. Of course that is a bit different now, but the hesitation to even entertain ideas still seems to be there *sigh*

So YOU wouldn't like a backup to your belay if it didn't cause any added trouble? :P

In reply to gaillard:

Because the belayer is irrelevant if you don't fall off.


That "if it didn't cause any added trouble" is the sticking point there - ain't going to happen. The question is, can you reduce the additional hassle to a point where its worth it.

And if it causes a significant amount of "added trouble", your efforts to reinvent belaying to reduce your perceived risk will be entirely counterproductive. As someone very succinctly put it above, the law of unintended consequences is going to kick your ass.

In reply to gaillard:

The problem is, the thing you're trying to backup isn't the cause of many accidents. Giving too much rope will increase ground fall potential, but that's not helped by your system.

What you need is a guardian angel.

In reply to jkarran:


That goes against the advice of most reliable sources (BMC, MLTUK etc).

In reply to gaillard:

Your belayer is your backup in case you fall off, so two things have to go wrong before you kill yourself - you falling and your belayer being inattentive. This is different to abseiling when only the belayer (you!) has to be inattentive before you kill yourself and hence a backup prussick is often used. Using a prussick while belaying a leader would be a nightmare. Imagine trying to pay out one rope while taking in the other and then doing the opposite five seconds later!

In reply to jonny2vests:


Fine by me. I'm sure it *can* make a difference and I haven't disputed that, I just don't think it does make much difference most of the time.

In run of the mill falls the rope doesn't slip more than a couple of inches through the plate*, if it did I'd be losing fingernails more frequently that I do (never), it's certainly nothing like the two or three feet you'll get dragged up the route or the stretch of the rope.

Ok, in a short factor 2 plate slippage going to be a much bigger influence on peak forces but that's not a normal fall for most people.

*Reverso MK1 and Classic unsprung Stitch being my usual choice. Your mileage may vary.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Can't say I've ever lost a fingernail belaying, why would you?

No its not as significant as rope stretch etc, but it must play its part, otherwise there'd be loads of people with grigris at Stanage.

I've held plenty of falls using both systems (as I'm sure you have), and the snatch of an autolocking device feels very different to a plate (to me). Half the time its grabbed the rope before you've had time to react.

Dunno how much slippage there is with a plate, I'd be guessing.

In reply to jonny2vests:

I've got the latest and snazzyest DMM belay device (V-twin) and am using it with the karabiner that they put with it as a set. With a stiff 10 mm rope its pretty much auto locking when holding lead falls, similar story when using 8.5 mm halves. I can't think that the folk that designed thought it had to slip.

In reply to deepsoup:

"if you don't fall off" thats just silly, we all fall. Specially in sport climbing at your limit, which is where my time is spent.

A grigri with a single rope doesn't cause me or any of the other thousands that use it added trouble (if they know how to use it) in sport. I am only exploring to have the same with double ropes, since I can't find a hewbolt anywhere...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I did not say they don't change, I said they are resistant to change. History books of climbing give plenty of examples.

I bet that waist belt was uncomfortable

People didn't want to carry the sticht plate at first because it was too expensive, complicated and heavy...

In reply to jonny2vests:


Holding the dead rope just below the belay plate while catching a fall (a bad habit I know). If it's slipping through your hand you'll get a burn, if it's slipping through the plate and you're holding it tight then it'll mash your fingers up in the plate (trust me, it does!).


That logic doesn't really stand up. People do what you (you being peers, clubs, mags, DVDs etc) tell them, not what's purely logical.


I really can't say I've noticed the difference in terms of impact as belayer or climber. Maybe because I prefer naturally very grabby plates.

jk

In reply to gaillard:

I don't...

In reply to jkarran:

Haha it's funny when you sign your post jk, its like you are saying every post "joking"

Sorry, just made me laugh

In reply to petellis:

I suggest you start free soloing then because you have no need for gear. Of course most that took that route are now dead.

In reply to gaillard:

Why not fill in your profile. It's hard to pitch sensible answers when you don't know what experience someone has.

I'm guessing you're early 30's, male, been gym climbing for a year or so somewhere outside the uk, recently tried outdoor sport, haven't taken a proper fall, haven't caught one.

I could be totally wrong. I'm not having a dig at you or your experience, just illustrating how hard it is to tell who you're talking to in the absence of some basic info. You could be way more experienced than most of the contributors to this thread for all I know.

jk

In reply to gaillard:

Now you're just being silly, just becase I don't ever use the saftey net doesn't mean I should get rid of it.

The whole thread is based on you repeatedly heading down avenues of poor logic...

In reply to gaillard:


Force of habit, glad it brightens your day.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Nah - I reckon they're a 16-19 yr old male. Big ego, young head on his shoulders, done a lot of sport and indoor climbing. Not very experienced on the trad.

In reply to gaillard:
>Of course most that took that route are now dead.

Lol. Dunno where you're based, but lots of people solo in the UK. Loads. Very few die from it.

In reply to jkarran:



So you reckon you've thought about it harder than the BMC, UIAA, MLTUK, PyB Petzl (and loads of other gear manufacturers) then and their data is flawed.

The only reason we're not using grigris on trad crags is because we're mindless sheep following these, erm, 'experts' instead of your 'logic'.

In reply to gaillard:

Continue banging my head, or explaining how a gri-gri is not a self-locking belay device?

In reply to jonny2vests:


No, I don't think that's a very balanced representation of what I said.

jk

In reply to JoshOvki:

Haha, well you pick ! Explain how it is not self locking, obviously it takes a shock creating the required friction to do it, or it will not lock. And I believe if it has a high enough load it fails as well. Is this what you are referring to?

In reply to jkarran:

Perhaps I misinterpreted you. Feel free to clarify.

In reply to jkarran:

Well I should hope that the advice is the same regardless of level. And of course I was looking for people that might be interested in having a belay backup as well that might want to help exploring ideas. Of course everyone thinks they know best in the world of climbing

At any rate I have been climbing about 4 years consistently, with the year prior all gym work. No trad for me beside backing up sport, plenty of falls and plenty of outdoor and plenty of gear test/anchor test. I'm an engineer and I enjoy the physics that come into play with climbing systems, and of course any engineer would tell you that there is always that 90 percent of knowledge about a system that is completely unknown. Climbing after all doesn't have the research the automotive industry does, by a long long shot.

I enjoy climbing, I do NOT enjoy falling like some haha.

In reply to gaillard:

A gri-gri needs someone holding onto the dead rope! Accidents are caused by people not belaying properly with a gri-gri and not holding onto the dead rope. There are plenty of cases of this.

In reply to jonny2vests:

I thought I'd been pretty clear I my previous posts. I doubt I'll do any better going over the same ground again. Maybe I am just an arrogant idiot, who knows.

jk

In reply to JoshOvki:

Indeed, but these people shouldn't be belaying ! The grigri does what it is designed to do.

In reply to jkarran:

Hey clear to me.

In reply to gaillard:

But if they are knocked unconscious or there is needed something to backup a belay they are not belaying properly anyway!

In reply to JoshOvki:

Yeah. I can confirm that in some cases if the rope is not shock loaded, a gri-gri will fail to engage. This can happen for example if someone sits on the rope rather than falling on to it. I have been on both ends of the rope when this has happened. It's vital to treat a gri-gri with as much care as a standard non-locking belay device.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Well most of the time it is shockloaded, but obviously its not foolproof, but is better than nothing !!

I'm going to do some belay testing tomorrow probably with a ATC Guide in locking mode for the leader or top roping someone. We will see if its viable as a somewhat backup for double ropes !

Anyone know where I can get a Hewbolt Double????? Or HAVE one?

In reply to gaillard:

It is not better than nothing, because it leads people to have bad habits (you don't get that with a body belay! ) You could just belay with a standard belay plate, and not back it up.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Well thats their problem if they can't control their habits :P I have good habits and would like a backup

Teaching better is something the climbing communities need I think, there are allll kinds of horrible instructed courses out there...

In reply to gaillard:

What do you mean teaching better is something the climbing communities need? I was taught perfectly well and teach people perfectly well, but I don't teach them with a gri-gri so they take there good habits from using a normal belay plate over if they ever do use a gri-gri.

If you need a backup that much, teach yourself to grip as tight as you can when knocked out. Sorted

In reply to gaillard: Sounds like climbing is far too risky for you and you'd be better off at home wrapped in bubble wrap.

In reply to JoshOvki:

There we go! A mechanical hand that does the terminator grip when knocked out. That would solve my problem.

In reply to gaillard:

So there we have the solution to the problem

In reply to gaillard: 'That would solve my problem'. YOU HAVEN'T GOT A PROBLEM!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


He has got a problem, just not the one he thinks he has!

In reply to flaneur:

Roger that.

In reply to gaillard: You're trying to back up the wrong (effective) part of the system. What you need are two belayers, preferably working in series. Or you could put a helmet on the one you've got.

Glad to be of help.

In reply to flaneur:

Hey we all have our problems I'm just glad mine is with danger and not with saftey like the guy in this video -> youtube.com/watch?v=TY1lNAEzZP0& go to 0:57 hahahha, he is thrilled with the fall and pro poping... now HE has a problem

In reply to gaillard:
My thought is to have a floor based rope-grab device which can take an upward pull; to release the rope to pay out slack you depress a lever with a foot then release it to grab the rope. Study the petzl shunt to see if you can come up with something that work like that.
Pete

In reply to halfwaythere:

Thats a great idea, feet use. I like it, might be time for me to pop on CAD I was just looking at the shunt in the store when I picked up an atc guide (which as far as I can tell should be good in belaying leader with auto lock method) which looks like a nice device. Except to be foot operated something would need to be able to have a foot be able to hold it in place comfortably against a rock face for belay stations I think (suspended from harness).

Off of your idea but I was wondering about self belay methods to back up a normal belay, something like the silent partner is big and heavy and expensive, but I would imagine having it at the belayer and not the climber would still engage correctly. Although I haven't used one, only other self belays.

In reply to dmhigg:

Your definitely right there though, two belayers is ideal, one for each half rope and I've done that but only in gyms where its easy to find people, and of course you avoid the hassel of a double rope belay which a lot of people (at least here in Germany) are not so familiar with.

But of course in parties of two we can't do this, thus my quest. But your definitely right, and you never get a smoother belay than two people on half ropes, its butter

In reply to JoshOvki:

By the teaching comment I just mean that the information (good info) doesn't seem to spread correctly and such within the climbing instructor rings. Everyone has their own books they like and methods which is often based on their (ONE PERSON) experience. I'm used to the scientific community which is pretty stringent on peer review and if there is some new finding it is filtered down pretty efficiently, and standardized in some way.

Take the "magic X" anchor for an example, it has been published more than once now that when loaded the X in the webbing cinches with the other X and it is not self equalizing like many still teach, where the equalette (forgot name, I think thats it) or equivalent anchor serves the same purpose and is truly self equalizing out to a certain angle.

In reply to gaillard:

So very very true.

In reply to gaillard:


Slightly more seriously, this ain't stictly true. Instructors spend a lot of time on peer review: every time I work I've got an eye on what the other folk are teaching, and I'm being equally eyeballed in return: lots of chat as well. In addition to that there are several more official get togethers, as well as publications, to ensure that what is taught is best practice, not just one person's own version of it.

Now, back to the thread..

In reply to gaillard:

Since you were talking double ropes, I kinda assumed you were also talking trad. But even if we are talking about sport climbing at your limit, you still spend relatively little time actually falling off - when you compare it to abseiling or lowering off, in which you are effectively 'falling' 100% of the time. (In that your rope is your primary means of support, rather than itself being the back-up to your hands and feet.)


Nor, it appears, does it offer a significant increase in safety over a more traditional belay device. And in the hands of a less experienced belayer, it may actually be less safe. Hence Petzl's repeated attempts to dispel the myth that its intended to be a 'hands free' device.

Also, if we are talking about trad here, a gri-gri may not be such a great idea. The advantage of a marginal increase in the reliability of the belay is likely to be significantly outweighed by an accompanying increase in the likelihood of gear popping (due to the comparatively un-dynamic nature of the belay).

Also, a gri-gri isn't a good analogy for what you're talking about. Its a well designed, thoroughly tested device. What you're discussing is a home-brew bits of string solution - the integrity of the design process is likely to have less in common with a Gri-gri than it does with a Chris Tan carrier bag screamer. (No disrespect intended to Chris.)

In reply to deepsoup:

Fair comments, I can respect those. But I still hold that as long as an autolock is used correctly it provides a backup to the belayer that is very useful.

And your right this is a home brew thing, but hopefully I can use the well designed feature in only a slightly different way to minimize any short sightings, unlike the introduction of friends that were literally a garage invention hahahha, that guy has nerves of steal.

I do think however that the dynamic belay bit like already discussed here though is more hype than fact. I don't provide a dynamic belay except with my body like another mentioned here, I lock off, of course I am usually on sport so its not as big of a deal. But still, I think most people lock off when a leader falls instead of trying to give a controlled slide with their brake hand, which seems a bit dangerous to me. Either way the dynamic properties are the job of the ropes, and mine are very stretchy But I can see how it could be a concern, but there are backups for the consequences of a little too much force, NOT for a belayer knock out. I still think people here don't give enough weight to the fact that without an autolock or something its the peice in the chain without a backup.

At the gym here for example a girl was killed only a year or so ago because of a belay going out of control. It happens, and a lot accident reports unless you sign up for some journels get forgotten or minimally documented, for example hardly anyone knows about that girl. And I have a variety of skilled partners. Plus double rope belay is more difficult. We already have the grigris and such for single ropes so thats all fine, I am just on about doubles.
Whoa too much caffeine

I spent a little time testing this ATC Guide, face up with it clipped through the autolock ring. It seems to work very well, I couldn't find a position that it would NOT autolock. If both ropes (live and brake side that touch each other) combined diameter was less than the width in one side of the tube, i imagine it wouldn't be effective, but they would probably have to be less than 7.5mm or so. I am using 8.1 beal ice lines, and its fine, so anything bigger would be even better.

I assume that the smaller ring on the front of the device could have a biner put through to use as a release handle similiar to the new reverso 3, even though the BD manual mentions the sling way??

Thanks for the time guys

In reply to gaillard:
Since you mentioned being in Germany I´m curious to know about this accident here, I though I knew about all the fatal ones.

Jim

In reply to gaillard: if your that worried! have you thought of taking up dominoes instead!!!!!!!!!!

In reply to davey_briggs:

I'm not that worried, I just don't think it hurts to have the whole chain that is once redundant. You do it with anchors, pro, ropes (if on half ropes), devices (if dropped etc), methods (escape methods) and now it should be the belaying on halfs And I think the ATC Guide or reverso fit the ticket, easy to belay or at least as easy as normal and I find the autolock when belaying from the harness works very well.

In reply to gaillard:

How do you go about lowering your partner off? Does this also work very well?

In reply to deepsoup:

Well, the reverso manual says to use a carabiner as a sort of handle in the release hole, opposite the reverso hole. The black diamond manual says to use a sling with a redirect to be able to put your weight on it, but I like the reverso method to use with the black diamond guide, and its pretty easy, they fall you stick a carabiner in and pull down. I am still waiting on a response if they have any problem with that (material differences or whatever).

I did hear back from an engineer that commented on the usage of the Guide in auto"assist" mode with belaying leader, and while the list of reasons not to do so was not exhaustive I imagine, they still have done the formal testing with their drop tests. Their main two reasons that were related to safety and not to convenience were as follows:

1. Ropes can invert with the active rope flopping over to the bottom of the brake rope under a high fall factor fall with skinnier ropes (like my 8.1's).
2. If the device isn't properly oriented the rope doesn't sit on the other and doesn't brake etc etc.

Now after my own testing my quick conclusions (still testing) on the above are:

1. Even if they invert, you are still holding an effective tube belay device, so this situation is the same as the grigri I think. A good backup, which is all I am after. Plus it is more unlikely they would invert with half ropes because the carabiner has to turn around for them to invert completely, and with two ropes separated by the metal in between the two tubes, one rope would have to be very slack for the other to twist the carabiner, possible, but very unlikely.
2. When using it from the belay loop, orientation is just as easy as with the grigri, and the grigri as well needs proper orientation, but being short of hit with a giant rock and knocked out, and fall to land with the device perfectly perpendicular to the load, the device will pull itself into a somewhat ok orientation, like the grigri on a biner would. So still I think it is fine.

Their other two reasons were, difficult to feed rope, and the unweighting problem (solved by reverso method, but still waiting to see what they say about that).

Feeding rope doesn't seem to be hard AT ALL, you just pull the rope up and not forward.

In reply to gaillard:

What about multi-pitch routes?

In reply to gaillard:

Got word on using the reverso unweighting method, they didn't think it would be a problem, but still recommended the sling because of damage to the carabiner (maybe use an old dropped one or something) but the sling shouldn't be hard to use either, and can just be left on it all the time.

In reply to jonny2vests:

What about them?

In reply to gaillard

How do you propose to construct your redundancy system on a hanging belay or a crap ledge?

In reply to deepsoup:

If one doesn't want to use a carabiner in the hole (reverso style) I think just a strap of webbing long enough to stand on (assuming your standing) would be very controllable to tilt the device enough to unlock.

And as another note to the ropes inverting, with large diameter ropes this should be a non issue. With half ropes the joker is 9.1 thats probably big enough to never worry about it, but like I said you are still holding a tube belay if they do. I am using 8.1 and will put this to more test this week.

In reply to jonny2vests:

What are you asking specifically? There is no construction involved, beyond the normal use of the device, it just happens to be attached to your belay loop, not the anchor.

In reply to gaillard:

Assuming all this works, there are still plenty of scenarios which remain 'non-redundant', you are only protecting against belayer error. I don't know, but I'm guessing this is not a huge area of risk for reasonably competent climbers.

Do you have any suggestions for backing up the other issues, such as groundfall in the event of gear failure? A top rope perhaps?

Sorry if you think I'm not taking this seriously, I am actually intrigued, but the climber belayer system has evolved over decades and it is simple for good reason.

In reply to jonny2vests: What about a landside of the cliff? Volcanic eruption? Nucleur bomb?

In reply to jonny2vests:

Which part is not redundant? Anchor, protection (giving that you clipped more than one bolt above half the height your at), ropes (half ropes), harness (some people back them up), and belay are all redundant (with this addition). Am I leaving something out?

No I think your being serious no problem, but some things are hard to change, like the magic X example I gave previously, thats just how the community goes. I think a lot of it is because there isn't a huge industry of research behind climbing like other industries but thats just my opinion.

In reply to fishy1:

I will entertain a response to your ridiculous post :P

One could work out the probability of that happening from past experiences and find it is negligible. However belay mistakes and accidents are not. As with rope cuts and gear pulling. So backups are useful, if you don't want them fine, more for me.

In reply to gaillard:

I'm a bit lost now, are you saying all this is about backing up sport climbing? I thought you were doing this to backup trad which you want to get into (there's been lots of talk about double ropes and the like).

Or did I imagine the trad thing?

In reply to gaillard: Just had a thought, would a clove hitch hold a lead fall? If so, omit a belay plate entirely.

In reply to jonny2vests:

Both, sport and trad. I do want to do more trad, but my majority of time is spent with sport climbing. I sport on half ropes. Either way this is about a belay backup, so it doesn't really matter how the rest is protected.

In reply to fishy1:

I don't know if your serious or not but either way, I don't think so as that is the main argument for not using them. But you can't feed rope through them at any reasonable speed.

In reply to gaillard:

How do you sport climb on doubles?

In reply to jonny2vests:

Same way as you trad climb on halfs... clip alternate (when you can). if the whole route is absolutely straight up, either use different size runners from left to right clips or just clip them together all the way up.

In reply to gaillard:

Right. You are actually bonkers, you know that? But I like you.

In reply to gaillard:

Oh, my mistake, I thought you said you'd tried it.
See, my concern would be this:

While you're climbing, the belay system is your back-up - a second's inattentive belaying will probably not result in any mishap, because even when sport climbing its actually fairly unlikely to coincide with a fall.

While you're being lowered you are completely dependent on the belayer and the belay device, 100% of the time - so a second's mishap *will* coincide with your weight being on the rope, and may lead to groundfall.

So if the price you pay for a marginal increase in the security of a belay is a cumbersome system for lowering, I think you may find the cost outweighs the benefit.

When you're talking about low probabilities there's always some guesswork involved, there just aren't enough accidents to compile meaningful statistics. My gut feeling is that I'd rather trust my belayer to belay me competently, and lower me off in the traditional fashion than guard against a moment's belaying indiscretion by requiring him to lower me off while standing on one leg.

In reply to jonny2vests:
Mad as a porridge knife.

In reply to gaillard: '..."if you don't fall off" thats just silly, we all fall. Specially in sport climbing at your limit, which is where my time is spent...'

I don't know if anyone else has explained but this is one of the fundamental differences in approach. In sport you expect to fall off so everything must be bomb proof, in trad/mountaineering/scrambling the maxim is 'don't fall' and make a judgment about using backup when you can't 'guarantee' not falling. 'Keep it simple, stupid' as someone else said is also key.

In reply to Nigel Modern:

I agree with your general point, and realise that you're trying to explain it to a sport climber. Not sure I'd agree when it comes to trad though. Not these days. Ever heard 'if you're not falling you're not trying'.

In reply to deepsoup:

I don't find it more cumbersome to lower than a grigri, so if thats cumbersome to you then this isn't for you. The carabiner acts as a handle similiar to the grigris, and the brake hand with it work in combo just like the grigri.

In reply to Nigel Modern:

I know the mantra, thats a fine thing to strive for but the fact of the matter is we all fall.

In reply to gaillard: I haven't read all the thread, so this might have been said before. One way of doing this that many people have used is to put a longish French prussic on the brake hand side of the plate and clip this to a rear tie-in point of the harness if it has one.

The idea is to keep a couple of yards of rope between the plate and the prussic so you can pay out fast. If the belayer messes up the prussic will limit the length of the fall.

In reply to David Coley (SDMC):

It has but I would love some more detail if you don't mind as to exactly how you pay out rope without it getting stuck and without holding it. I understand a french prusiks doesn't slip as much but one will have to feed rope both ways through it quickly, so which side do you put your brake hand, the free end or between the plate and prusiks?

In reply to gaillard:

Hmm I still think a prusiks around both dead ropes would be handleable. But only if one keeps their brake hand inbetween the prusiks and the plate, so that when paying out rope their hand is grasped right before the prusiks, preventing it from grabbing. And of course taking in rope is no problem, one just would have to make sure and when they slide their brake hand up to make sure and pull the dead end (with their active hand) below the prusiks.

If anyone wants, give it a shot with your rope and let me know what you think, I don't think it adds any difficulty once its habit.

In reply to gaillard:

Also as someone mentioned the shunt might be perfect, because if you pull the brake rope into you, I believe that should unlock enough to feed, going to go try. Am I obsessed with finding a belay backup, YES. But hey maybe I'll turn something good up.

In reply to gaillard:

So why not design something from scratch if you're that obsessed (and I presume capable). There's clearly a hole in the market though I suspect it'll be a solution looking for a problem. Still... that worked out ok for LASER

jk

In reply to gaillard:

A french prussik slips more than almost any other prussik knot. It's used because it can be released under tension, unlike the classic & klemheist etc.

Apart from anything else, belaying with a french prussik is one of the dafter solutions to your befuddling conundrum. It would be a mare to manage the rope effectively and would likely introduce more problems than it solved.

In reply to gaillard:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/OBSESSION
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/OBSESSION

In reply to jkarran:
As you say it is a solution looking for a problem. As far as I know there have been 8 devices on the market , all of which have failed due to lack of demand.
One problem is that all the devices like the TRE Sirius lock both ropes when only one is loaded which is not quite what a trad climber wants as the other rope is generally going to be used for rescue etc.

In many ways it is curious this thread has gone on so long, on RCcom it got trashed within about 6 hours but then we Brits are so polite!

The logic of alternate clipping on a sport route somehow escapes me, I know you are a logical and intelligent chap so maybe you can check my thinking here:-
I clip the first bolt with one strand and the second with the other, I then clip the third with the first stand again, before the fourth bolt I fall and the bolt/draw/krab below me is nose clipped/gate opens/whatever and fails. I hit the ground.
If I do the same alternate clipping but this time get further, the fifth bolt fails. It appears that on a normal (spaced) bolted route the same occurs only I hit the ground from further up.
With a single rope this does not happen.
Is there a flaw in my reasoning somewhere?

Incidentally my inquiry of last night on this thread regarding the accident in Germany was a straw man.
The OP was justifying his opinions against the advice of others with vastly more experience (and apparentley intelligence) by quoting an accident in Germany where uncontrolled belaying led to a fatality. In reality this particular death of a young girl (there have only been two fatalities indoors in Germany in the last 10 years) was nothing to do with the belaying but was caused when she clipped her harness karabiner not into the fig 8 knot but the loop formed by the stopper knot which was not very well tied. On lowering-off the stopper failed, a prime example of the back-up killing you when concentrating on the basics would have meant she would be looking forward to this Christmas.

I doubt there is much more to be said.

Jim

In reply to gaillard: I know the mantra, thats a fine thing to strive for but the fact of the matter is we all fall.

I don't know much about trad but I think people are pretty selective about falling depending on how they feel about the pro. In alps/general mountaineering I'd suggest not falling.

Sounds like your digging may have come up with a possibility (French Prusik well out of the way), so well done but I think you're wrong when you persist that climber's need teaching about risk...actually they are (some of) the experts.

In reply to jimtitt:


It's not my time or money I'm suggesting he spend He may also come up with something ingenious.


Aimed at me? Your logic is normally impeccable but in this case I can't see what you're getting at (probably me being slow). Belayed properly and assuming there's similar rope stretch in a half vs full I can't see how you can be worse of with halves (except working sport on a set of half will mash them pretty quickly).

jk

In reply to jkarran: 'sport on a set of half'

Best to use as twins I think

In reply to gaillard: Hey just a quick question if you guys don't mind

...was the start of this post :O)

In reply to jkarran:
Certainly not aimed at you:~)

My logic was fairly good, I was working on the OP´s hypothesis that the/a rope got cut as well where having one (the wrong) uncut half rope didn´t seem to have helped!
Perhaps all that thinking and welding today desrves a beer!

Jim

In reply to jkarran:

If I can not find a solution soon I probably will, might even market it. However I have a lot on my plate, and a quicker solution would be desired.

In reply to Nigel Modern:

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that, but excuse me if I did.

In reply to Nigel Modern:

I don't know why anything is wrong with using halfs on sport. Please enlighten me if there is a reason besides the old hum drum of its overkill... perhaps but not any harder to use, so no big deal.

Not to mention clipping over your head is wonderful, as is the low drag.

In reply to jimtitt:

Ya I think this was mentioned before. While your right if your rope is cut and the other ropes last protection is less than half the distance from you to the ground you will hit the ground. HOWEVER, if its not your alive, and thats better than any single rope rope cut would have. ALSO if your on multipitch the other rope always catches (with a huge fall factor, but with great anchors, your golden).

In reply to jimtitt:

You bet it does, I have a nice weissbier right in front of me, grab one !

In reply to gaillard: To bring rope into the system you keep both hands between the plate and the prussic and faff around a lot. But to pay out to the climber it is the same as normal as one tries to keep 2m of slight in the system.

In reply to gaillard:

Ok some failed tests:

Ok well it turns out that the faders sum handles can get caught on each other because of the rounded big side of a carabiner.

With mammut smarts it doesn't lock correctly because often the rounded part of the carabiner is drawn into one smart not going flush with the locking position like it should.

With the reverso/atc guide there is a risk of the rope inverting, which requires the carabiner to twist around.

With the prusik behind the belay plate, it is impossible to take in rope without holding the belay plate. This is because the belay plate must be on a longer line than the prusiks from your harness. So when you go to pull behind the prusiks, the belay plate goes slack and pulls into the prusiks, and the normal method of pulling in with the active hand is impossible.

Now for the good tests:
The kong ghost belay tube, has a ring for autolock guide belaying, and a ring where the carabiner for the ropes goes around, the rope carabiner ring effectively prevents it from twisting solving the problem of inverting ropes. I haven't done testing to lower but pulling gently on the rope carabiner while holding brake hand should be easy enough. I don't like the idea of normal falls being caught with rope on rope, seems like a prusiks with a really small contact area, can't be good. Any thoughts?

Prusiks ABOVE the belay device. This method is simple and works great with double ropes, simply grab the prusiks to pull rope in or out. If anyone has any scientific tests on the dynamic loading of prusiks I would love to read it. But a many wound prusiks I would think is very strong. And as long as the attachment line is at arms length (no longer so you can reach it) this should only come into use as a backup, since the brake hand will catch falls. Of course one could hold the prusiks in active hand AND let go of brake hand, but that is unlikely I think. Thoughts?

In reply to gaillard:

I think you're talking to yourself here!

In reply to petestack:

Well I hope someone might take interest in what I am interested in, but thats life :P

I guess when something surprises your belayer you'll be O.K.

In reply to gaillard: You are SO right! The fact that I - and everyone I climb with - hasn't experienced such circumstances in 40+ years is entirely beside the point!

I'll go further - I think we should also all be obliged to carry radio beacons linked to GPS' so that when things go wrong - you know, we fall off at exactly the same moment as our belayer falls asleep - we can just press a panic button and have the big yellow taxi on the scene in minutes.

After all, if it can save JUST ONE LIFE, surely it's worth it?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

So why do you and everyone else use redundant anchors? Have YOU ever had an anchor fail?

In reply to gaillard: like i said earlier wrap yourself in bubble wrap and stay on the couch.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Even more interesting to your cynicism is the fact that there are so many grigri's in use. All I am looking for is a similiar item (or alternative) for half ropes. Why does everone get so hostile in forums geesus, relax its just a discussion, and I am only looking for helpful ideas to come up with a device that fills the role of a grigri in half ropes.

In reply to gaillard:


Well we don't always for starters, I for one make a judgement on where redundancy is necessary. The thing with belay anchors though is that you're often totally reliant on them rather than as a backup.

Oh and I had one fail recently. Thankfully one of four

jk

In reply to gaillard:

Well, for one, you've repeatedly ignored advice suggesting that the redundancy you are aiming at isn't really the risky part of climbing. You call yourself an engineer, so be logical and rationalise:

You are not managing RISK, you are trying to manage your own FEAR.

So cowboy up and get with the falling off. Mick Ryan wrote a useful article on this:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1838

In reply to gaillard: I still don't understand why you are so obsessed with this but I will humour you.

There is no issue at all with rope to rope contact in a reverso style plate - it is exactly the same if a second falls off and you have not taken in the slack. You might see some glazing, but I doubt anything more than that. Secondly lowering is a bigger issue than you think it is - if the plate is loaded it is very difficult to just tug it a bit to get it to release. Secondly without the ring on the reverso or guide it will be nigh on impossible to control the rate of descent just by pulling on the carabiner. That is why this thrid generation of reverso has the re;ease ring in the first place...

As for your second idea, if you truly think that that is a good idea then you need your head checking. You are saying that you want to depend on a small diameter prusik to arrest a fall - diameter is related to strength for a start. Secondly it WILL either melt the cord or strip the sheath. Thirdly it will activate before the belay plate and take out of the loop any dynamic movement which helps absorb the impact - you are talking about shock loading a prusik! It's just a crap idea - sorry to be so blunt... I think I might even know somwhere that has a TRE for sale - it was there a couple of years ago and I doubt it's been sold in the meantime... I can find out the number for you if you like - but that is how concerned I am that you will do yourself a mischief...

In reply to mike kann:

* 04 92 23 41 48
* 04 92 23 52 86

His name is Jerome Portejoie and it's Sport 2000. I know he had it lieing in a corner gathering dust. Try your luck. It's got to be better than attemting to kill yourself...

In reply to gaillard: Surley a troll I give you 10/10 I've never seen a thread like this last so long! Without any abuse either - WTF has happened to UKC, I'm not sure I like it any more.

In reply to krikoman:

Mick will be here in a minute to give you the statistics

In reply to gaillard: Prusik above is dangerous as others have pointed out and I'm not a fan of the more complex gadgets eg Gri Gri but I can't work out why you dismiss a prusik tucked well out of the way eg on leg loop. This is not dissimilar to someone holding the dead rope (with slack) behind a novice belayer. I haven't tried it yet guys but I know other climbers who are sensible use it and I'm not afraid of falling and neither is gaillard IMO

Gaillard: As I've said before, be careful of complicating a system and be careful introducing factors which may have unforeseen consequences.

This thread has been useful as it has had some important issues aired. Not everybody is happy with 'Do it the way everybody else does or you'll die.'

IMO gaillard is just working through the issues for himself, though he doesn't yet seem to acknowledge some of the more dynamic aspects of risk management - perhaps I've missed this.

In reply to Nigel Modern:

If he was (we were) truly interested in risk management, we'd never get in another car let alone go climbing.

In reply to jonny2vests: I can't believe you don't risk manage, climbers have to or they'll end up dead, probably. Perhaps you misunderstand me.

In reply to Nigel Modern:

We all risk manage, but a lot of the time we're fooling ourselves.

Driving to a crag is risky, but we do it because its not scary. Falling off, a lot of the time, is arguably less risky but most climbers avoid it as much as possible because it is scary.

In reply to jonny2vests: We all risk manage, but a lot of the time we're fooling ourselves.

Agreed - often but not always part of the mind games

In reply to jonny2vests: There are 2 extremes...those who obsess about gear to control their fear and those who leave it to fate.

I try to strike a balance but would never climb with a fatalistic climber and would wear ear plugs (but feel quite safe) with an obsessive.

In reply to gaillard:


yeah right.

In reply to Nigel Modern: Here's me trying to get flamed for supporting gaillard and no one's being at all considerate...typical UKC - no decent abuse available when you want it.

In reply to Nigel Modern:

Yes, and both extremes have a deluded sense of risk management. I suspect very few get it right though, me included. And most are probably the former category when at their limit.

In reply to gaillard: I don't know what type of engineer you claim to be, but you don't strike me as someone with the slightest cue about safety engineering.

If you did want to take a logical and analytical view of safety within climbing (which you obviously haven't) then the starting point would be a full Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) combined with a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA).

PRAs normally use Event Tree Analysis and Fault Tree Analysis. However, in addition to the these methods, application of human factors engineering is essential. The accuracy and utility of PRAs depends crucially on human reliability analysis (HRA) and common-cause-failure analysis (CCF). HRA deals with methods for modeling human error while CCF deals with methods for evaluating the effect of inter-system and intra-system dependencies which tend to cause simultaneous failures and thus significant increases in overall risk.

If you did go down that route, then you would not be trying to come up with new belay methods and would instead be thinking primarily in terms of human factors and how safety initiatives such as Crew Resource Management (CRM) could be applied to climbing and mountaineering.

In reply to Mark Stevenson: Nice put down...bit of a false dichotomy, no? Even though you do say primarily.

What's the guy done wrong?

All he's done is challenge a few assumptions

Hey guys, thanks for the responses, interesting post for sure, I appreciate the support too of course Forums can be rough at times ! People say all kind of stuff they would say completely different to your face, but thats life haha.

So first of all, I don't think people would disagree here that one of the most likely things that can go wrong in any system involving human control is human error, and like i've said before there is no belay backup, and thats the only HUMAN part of climbing, besides clipping and placing protection. So I still am confused as to the resistance on having a belay backup, but either way it doesn't matter, if people don't want them thats their choice. I don't get a thrill out of being unsafe like a lot do. I was just climbing a multi pitch out in the alps this weekend and geesus christ, almost everyone out there at every (ONE BOLT) anchor were people with ONE sling GIRTH HITCHED to their belay loop belaying people to the first bolt probably 3 meters up. RIDICULOUS. So perhaps I am a safety nut but I think more likely most others are just danger nuts hahhaa, just a joke.

Mike I appreciate the number, I will call them right away on monday, I have checked everywhere here you must have some good shops ! Oh and your certainly right in the lowering, I was testing this weekend, and when it is on your belt you can't use the pully effect with your body weight like you can when its on the anchor, so that seems to be the real issue. Of course you could belay from the ground or anchor up... but I think I found a method I like better. And after reading some drop tests I would have to agree too about the prusiks, they will melt most likely. And no worries I won't do something I know won't be safe, and I don't rely on my own tests of course unless I do them in a formal way...

Of course getting in a car scares the hell out of me ! Of course with driving you often have some control over your fate, but not when someone belays you on a fall :P There are many myths in climbing and like Nigel said we fool ourselves a lot. Just look at the drop tests on trad gear, there is often very little margin for safety even if it does hold. Even the best placements come no where near a well bolted bolt.

Mark your right I am not a safety engineer, I wish I was, it's very interesting ! Mechanical and systems is me of course

So I think what I have settled on, is that the only two realistic options are to either use TWO silent partners as the main belay, and someone backing them up (or not) OR since that could still have issues of them interfering with each other, and is expensive, I'll use knots. The knotting system I think will be about 4 backup knots (clove hitch) for a 30m pitch, tied to the belayer on "extra" belay loops stuck in (webbing). So on leading he just has to unclip a girth hitch every 7.5m (not hard) and then the leader can belay up the second either with a atc guide or clipping clove hitches at the same spacing (little more cumbersome, but top rope belaying is a cinch). And of course since its half ropes, the backup knot need only be tied into the rope that was last clipped. And if you can't see them, tie both. This is safe and doable, what do you guys think? This or stick with belaying from the bottom with an atc guide from the anchor?

Thanks again guys, i'm glad there is a community out here that can actually discuss things with some effectiveness :P Now where is my weissbier

In reply to gaillard:


Can I watch? Sounds hilarious.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

Why ? People use this method soloing... I don't see what the difference is if some other human has the end of the rope instead of yourself... in fact I tend to trust myself more than anyone but my girlfriend.

In reply to gaillard:

Just wondering if you've ever seen that silly video about ice climbing with four axes?

In reply to petestack:

No but I would love to, sounds funny, and not applicable here :P Obviously using a redundant system that doesn't work isn't any better...

In reply to petestack: Ha ha, classic. Can't find it now but I imagine it was produced by some self-appointed 'expert'. Sure someone will find a link...

In reply to gaillard:

So why not applicable here?


Just watch it (link below) and tell me what's so very different?

In reply to dan1987:

Nope, it was allegedly supposed to be a joke but I simply got bored with it!


Two minutes' Googling and it's all yours:
youtube.com/watch?v=Qd8bHA53wko&

In reply to petestack:

Haha, well the guy obviously intended to make it a joke. But if took seriously, on a fall I imagine technically it would be more secure. Of course I know next to nothing about ice climbing but isn't it usual to put in ice screws on the way up? I didn't think people relied only on ice axes, which was why I said the redundancy wasn't useful. If they do then sure its more secure, doesn't mean its fun, or fast enough. But then again I don't ice climb anyways so what do I know :P

How strong IS an ice screw anyway, on average of course because from what I have read they are hard to predict?

In reply to gaillard:


What about the actual movement and decision-making of the climbers? I see this as the central element of climbing, but I wonder if you do? You seem more interested in creating ropework clusterf*cks.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

Sure I do, but I don't rely on it, I want a system I rely on (down to a certain probability, like car impacts), and humans don't fit that ticket, in body structure, reasoning ability, or physical ability.

Think about it this way, MOST people DON'T climb, for obvious reasons and no one blames them for it, I don't and people shouldn't in my opinion, its their own call. I love to climb, but I get no "rush" like base jumpers do etc or from the "freedom" of being run out 10 meters provides. This weekend I just heard a climber I was with say "its not climbing without some danger". Well perhaps to him but to me its better climbing if that were possible I like climbing for other reasons and if I can have a manageable system with negligible chance of failing, perfect. Then I enjoy climbing even more because I can dyno to the top if I want

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

Good to know ! Your right ice screws wouldn't fit my style then haha, but if it is like the route in the picture, I think I could manage that, but me climbing trad would be me carrying tons of gear, but I like the guys amount of placement there in the picture

In reply to gaillard:

you seem to be taking climbing in the total different direction to most people, in terms of trying to solve a problem by making it more complicated.

How many pieces of gear do you use on a trad belay?!

In reply to JoshOvki:

What do you mean exactly?

And I try to keep things as simple "as possible", its like Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler".

And giving up redundancy (this case the belayer) invalidats that for me, some others not, its just a judgement call.

In reply to gaillard:

Well when you get to the top of a trad climb (or top of the first pitch if multi-pitching) you need to setup a belay, I wondered how many pieces of gear you put in the for the belay.

I still sounds like you are over complicating it. Next issue is if your harness fails.

In reply to JoshOvki:

At least two, and I primarily use the "Quad" (two point version of "equalette") or the "equalette". My harness is backed up with my chalk bag nylon of 7mm I believe. Which I also clip through etc...

In reply to gaillard:

I am surprised it is not 6! :p


As in seriously?

In reply to JoshOvki:

:P Whats the trouble? Its not really that hard you know, after all it is my chalk bag cord... geesus :P

In reply to gaillard:

In fact i've seen it before...

But something I HAVE NOT seen, if we are talking about safety here, is people wearing helmets leading in the gym.. I can't wait till they get that rope behind their leg. Of course I don't either but thats besides the point. Stupid I know.

In reply to gaillard:

I would hate to see the damage that would do to you if your harness did fail! Other than your belayer is there anything you haven't backed up?

In reply to gaillard:

Strange you saying that, I would be more likely to wear a helmet when belaying rather than climbing. Quickdraws hurt when dropped on your head! However when outdoors I tend to wear it all the time, unless I'm at the top of a climb.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Nope Thus the point of this thread, and I am still curious about others thoughts on the knot system, specifically how to make it easiest to clip to harness (where etc)...

True, it would be tight, but I would be alive

In reply to JoshOvki:

Well ya that too ! I've already been hit by one haha. But I meant for having your head hit the wall when you invert from your rope pulling behind your leg. Its really hard to keep in front of you, specially with two

In reply to gaillard:

Sorry I don't quite understand the first bit of your post (it is nearly 2am mind.)

Would you really be alive?! That could do so much more damage. Saying that if there was a big enough force to break a harness you would be pretty dead anyway.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Oh no problem You should get to bed then ! haha of course its 3 here...

I was referring to higher up in the thread where I mentioned to use a knot system to backup a belay. Similar to how you would lead soloing or top rope soloing with a silent partner or some other device.

Well I was thinking more in terms of malfunction or didn't notice a cut that was part way through etc.. those kind of things, not a 15kn fall hahaha that would break my hip and rupture my liver !

In reply to gaillard: So let's hope you don't need slack rope in a hurry, like clipping a bolt...Your mistrust in your belayer is making his/her job very complicated.

In reply to gaillard:

You keep banging on about how some people like to live on the edge etc, do you really think most of us are like that?

You're still confusing risk with fear. And you're still failing to address the real issue, YOUR HEAD.

If you're really that bothered, and haven't got the head for lead climbing, then top rope or second (backing up a leader belaying a second is trivial).

In reply to petestack: Two minutes' Googling and it's all yours:

Is it worth pointing out that the (presumably spoof) video is 'suggesting' something positively dangerous? Any slip with the feet will shock load the axes...all in the name of safety! If you are holding the axes you automatically do a dynamic move to stop a fall if a placement gives, which in ice they often do.

To Gaillard - the system you're looking at now does seem too complicated though I guess you'll get used to it. Can't see you choosing it for eg Alpine multipitch and for me it's on routes like this that belayer errors are more likely - tired, cold, rock fall. Moving quickly is key on most Alpine routes. It's the territory...it probably is more dangerous and if we choose to do it we accept the risk. That's why I can't see me doing the longer AD routes (even if I was capable) and I'll mainly stay at PD.

In reply to dmhigg:

Its not hard to unclip a knot that unties itself (like the clove hitch) with one hand, and one just needs to keep on eye on the knots and do it a bit early if they need to.

I don't mistrust the belayer, quite the opposite. But they are human, and humans make mistakes, often times they are "instinctual", a reaction that can't be avoided.

In reply to jonny2vests:

No I don't, and its a good point, but I have met a surprising amount of people that would do a runout for all kinds of unjustified reasons, in my opinion. How many climbers do you know that would insist that a route be lead to be "accomplished" even if its easily possible to set up a top rope anchor?

Its not a fear issue, I just don't trust humans not to make mistakes or react to something badly. Gear does what it does with physics and the times it doesn't is just a poor understanding of the physics :P

In reply to Nigel Modern:

Yes its a good point, and even if he were to use that system he should still be holding one at any time. But its a good example of a backup not being thought out.

Ya its a bit more complicated than people are used to but manageable right? Its the same as with soloing and people manage that I assume (I've done it once or twice)?

Of course the two silent partners would be even easier than normal belaying, but I would need fatter ropes, and they are not designed to be clunking around next to each other, but still worth a shot considering my objectives?

In reply to gaillard:


By bringing top-roping into the mix you have just ensured that this thread will stay alive for another week!

You dont get the tick if you top-rope, obviously. But if you get something else out of it fair enough.

In reply to gaillard:

Yeah, but if you had more experience, you'd realise that whilst some of these ideas might sound logical on paper, they are ridiculous in reality. You're trying to change a fundamental aspect of climbing whilst having relatively few experiences of it.

Whats more, we're talking about sport climbing(!) here aren't we?

In reply to gaillard:

Not really true. This is where human factors engineering comes in. In many cases it could be termed either 'common sense' or just learning from experience, but in others it involves understanding trade-offs such as ones between redundancy and complexity or responsibility and complacency which may result in counter-intuitive conclusions. The outcome will be the implementation of strategies to either change behaviour or change the required actions to reduce errors.

As a result of this type of analysis, instructors in the UK armed forces are now recommended not to use or teach stopper knots when tying in with re-threaded figure of eights. As already mentioned on this thread their presence causes a significant number of accidents due to 'mistakes', so the decision was made not to use them.

In relation to this issue, you might be interested to know that the Health and Safety Executive think that even when kids are climbing relying on a human back-up with a normal belay device is actually far better than relying on a more complicated mechanical device:
'Gri-gris.
These seem to cause as many problems as they solve. This seems mostly to be caused by a false belief that they are ‘fail-safe’. They are not. There is a strong argument that provided a tail is used they have NO advantages over a conventional belay plate, and several disadvantages'

Also in the same document they suggest that encouraging participants to fall off is an effective way to reduce 'mistakes' when belaying by maintaining higher levels of attention:
'Stimulation and interest.
Rather than ensuring that no-one’s weight goes on the rope without considerable warning and preparation should we not be encouraging kids (and adults) to jump off?' Focuses the mind wonderfully!

Managing 'safety' requires a holistic and pragmatic perspective which acknowledges that low levels of risk are perfectly acceptable and trying to eliminate risk completely may be futile or even counter-productive.

In reply to gaillard:
Firstly, it's good that we review practices from time to time. Just because a procedure is tried and tested doesn't mean it cannot be improved.

However, if you're going to introduce additional equipment or techniques into the belaying process you need to be sure they will not cause more problems than they solve. For example, the belayer must not be distracted from concentrating on the leader's actions by having to fiddle with backups on the rope. The backups must not prevent the rope from being paid out or taken in quickly when necessary.

Most instances of human error on the part of belayers can be put down to inattention or inexperience. In both cases the better solution, in my opinion, is training. For supervising a very inexperienced belayer a human backup is to be preferred over a mechanical one.

I accept there are occasional situations where a belayer is incapacitated by injury or illness. However these are very rare, and before introducing extra backups we need to be very sure that they are proportionate to the level of risk.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:
In reply to Howard J:

Both very good posts! You both make very good points, well thought out and logical. I appreciate the write ups!

There are a couple things I don't think are being considered here though. First would be that I am looking for a solution for Me, and my partners. Not a solutions to teach to all the gyms and classes out there etc, which much of the time have greatly different considerations.
For example, the Grigri, when I use a single rope, my belay technique is fine and the grigri provides its extra level of security. Non of the problems other careless or ill taught individuals cause with a grigri would apply with my party.

And I would love a human backup but we don't always have that luxury of 3 people parties...

And no worries I am testing the systems safely to make sure that they are easy, and only add safety. However I would have to disagree that the best solution is better training. I do think that is nessesary, however I don't think we can escape our natural ability to ALWAYS make SOME mistake. Our brains are mere storage of pathways that have activated some other brain pathway and been "correct" in a sense in the past, it is very easily to fool, unlike a CPU. We will always make mistakes, so I think introducing a non living backup is great If one can't find two humans...

On that note, I had a nice long session today with some buddies testing the backup knots and how quickly one could learn and be proficient not to hinder the leader or second. It seemed to go FANTASTIC ! Before the leader climbs you tie your clove hitches (we used about 8 for a 30m pitch, 6 up, 2 down, of course we were in a gym so outside it would be just 6 probably, depending on features). Once we got used to this, tying the hitches before the lead was fast. And unclipping them one handed while the leader progresses (as long as he isn't speed climbing !) is simple as apple pie. But it does take practice, just like any technique, but not a ton of practice.
Tying the knots as a top roper ascends is a touch harder with one hand but is a fast two motion movement for a clove hitch, and one can yard in slack in between the movements if necessary. This would take a couple days to be fast enough with, but once done it is very fast. But of course the climber shouldn't keep climbing if he notices any build up of slack, but that is no different than normal.
And belaying for the second is as simple as using a guide mode atc. No need for the knots.
I am not using the guide mode atc for leader climbing because it is so difficult to unweight without having the device off your body to use your body as leverage, as others have pointed out might be the case.

So all in all the knot system is quite easy, and would prevent death if a belayer let go for any reason. Although it could be an additional 6 meters they fall, but hey, no death, maybe broken bones.

So in review for multipitch, the only added difficulty here is tying some knots before the leader climbs, unclipping them in one swift click as they climb. For the second just use a reverso style atc or atc guide.

Of course I want to solo some so I might break the bank and get two silent partners and use knots to back that up... should be fun

Tschau !

ps. I am curious about the backup knot reverse advice with the UK armed forces. What kind of problems did that cause?!

In reply to gaillard:

If the stopper doesn't butt up against the fig8, a small loop is formed. I believe this loop has been mistakened for the climber's tie in loop with disastrous consequences.

Easy to do when systems become complicated with multiple anchors, 2 ropes, the harness gets quite 'busy'. This is why a reductionist approach is used in many aspects of climbing. The law of unintended consequences can have counter intuitive effects, maybe worth bearing in mind gaillard...

In reply to gaillard:

I'm not sure if it will work but worth suggesting, how about tying an italian hitch onto the dead rope and have that clipped to a rear gear loop? If the person comes off with the belayer unconscious etc it will make the level of decent slower (it won't stop them), and should make paying out rope etc still not too bad.

In reply to jonny2vests:

Tie in loop for what? A second rope?

Of course your right, but to me a well rehearsed system that is as simple as possible without sacrificing safety those unintended consequences in other areas that I think are more frequently occurring. Either way you could say your same statement against the "normal" climbing system being safe, so I think its pretty moot.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Interesting suggestion. I think this counts as basically having two belay plates in series since the munter hitch is just used as a belay. I tried this with the prusiks, and the shunt, and just couldn't find a way to operate both in any kind of "keep brank hand on" sort of fashion. Perhaps you could try it out, sometimes its an easy series of movements that just escapes sight.

And if you mean using it WITH the friction it provides, as in not touching the hitch, well then your moving at the speed that the hitch lets you, which won't be fast enough as far as I could see, perhaps I have a bit of setup wrong? But a very interesting idea none the less !

In reply to gaillard:

When you tie in, you rethread a fig8, this is your tie in loop. With multi-pitch climbing this loop normally remains until the route is finished. It is normal to use this rather than the harness loop as a strong point (semi-direct loading). So if you mistake the loop between the fig 8 and a stopper for the tie in loop when attaching to mid route anchors, bad things happen.



I don't understand. Some punctuation would help.

In reply to gaillard: Re fo8s, as Jon say the issue is when two mistakes are made. First the stopper knot is badly tied and is not hard up against the main knot, the second mistake is then that the loop formed is then clipped with nasty consequences. The fact that two simple mistakes have occurred causing multiple serious accidents is interesting of itself.

In this case there are various options, one being to try to improve training to ensure the stopper knot is tied properly in the first place. However in this case it was decided that 'Training' alone was unlikely to work since as all instructors were already well trained so a reductionist approach was adopted.

Therefore I'd fully agree that 'training' is not the only solution. You need to ensure that what you train is sensible, intuitive, easy to do and remember, not susceptible to short cuts and doesn't introduce other issues.

In reply to Mark Stevenson: 'Gri-gris. 'Stimulation and interest.

Well done HSE - personally, I've never felt they were the dark side, despite what some on UKC seem to assume.

In reply to gaillard: Theres lots of posts here, so sory if I'm repeating anything. Has any one said Gri-gri.

1)If your partner does take a knock the gri-gri lock tight, and you'll know straight away as you won't be able to climb any further.
2)You sound safety consious so I guess the belayer will be safely anchored to the wall so they won't fall very far on a multipitch climb.
3) All you have to do is place some strong gear to abseil from, release yourself from the end of the rope and ab down the rope and heroicly rescue your ailing partner.

Gri-gris are supposed to be strong as an ox so you shouldn't need to worry about taking a big swing either as long as the gear placement is sound

In reply to jonny2vests:
In reply to Mark Stevenson:

So what are they clipping to the area between the stopper knot and the figure 8? I have never had a need to clip anything between my figure 8 and my harness, your saying people use that bit of rope?? Sorry if this is my ignorance coming through

In reply to Tom_Harding:

Yup, I am thinking about 2 silent partners for use with two 9.8mm ropes... and since drag won't be an issue if I have backup knots to myself, the heaver rope I don't mind a bit. However, how should I tie two silent partners to my harness without them interfering with each other? The manual recommends the tie in at a biner clipped to waist and legs. I wonder why they don't like the belay loop... Because then I could have two oriented the right way on the belay loop not to interfere. Or perhaps two but one on a short sling above the other?

In reply to Mike_Gannon:

Good suggestion, and I do use a grigri on single ropes but I almost am always climbing with half ropes, so the grigri is out unfortunately

In reply to gaillard:


Commonly used in the uk for constructing an equalised belay very quickly and simply. It's especially useful with halfropes. Most folk seem to clovehitch back to an HMS (or two) on the fig8(s), personally I just tie back into them with more fig8s because I don't usually carry spare screwgates.

jk

In reply to gaillard:

Is the silent partner more reliable in normal operation than even an average belayer with a plate? You can't belay normally with it, it has to be allowed to slip before it'll work. They're also huge, really huge and ferociously expensive. There's no way they'll sit comfortably side by side on a belay loop.

Silent partner is for minimising risk while rope soloing. Minimal risk rope soloing is still way beyond the risk you seem uncomfortable with already! You're trading an attentive belayer for a clove hitch on a seatbelt mech' that'll drop you an undefined distance before stopping*. Also, you can't lower off, it locks until unweighted. It's a terrible idea, one of the worst yet, I'm sorry but it is.

*Silent Partner is a cool piece of kit for what it is, don't get me wrong but it's NOT suitable for this if your objective is to minimise risk.

jk

In reply to jkarran: Surely the obvious solution is to get two silent parteners on each half rope?

In reply to jkarran:

An equalized belay? Do you mean tying into an anchor?

In reply to jkarran:

I have heard others speak of a time they heard that a silent partner has failed however I know of none, but it isn't likely a very used item so statistics I'm sure go out the window... However I like its design. The slipping you speak of is still turning the drum which will cause it to lock up. So saying it "slips" is kind of a misnomer. And honestly its not THAT much bigger than a grigri... but it is twice as heavy. And it unlocked when it is fed backwards, has nothing to do with weight... although to do that you have to pull up

Still it can be used as a hands free belay in front of a belay while he does some sort of backup behind it... that would be even easier than normal belaying...

But I still like it used as soloing, which I don't find dangerous if your around others and you follow all the safety practices, because they are more than most belayers use...

So why won't they both fit on a harness? Or more importantly will they interact with each other in a bad way.

In reply to fishy1:

Is this facetious or serious? :P

In reply to Mike_Gannon:
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

In reply to gaillard:

The ANCHORS! What else? Read my post. It is standard practise to clip the anchors to your tie in loop when belaying rather than your harness loop, BUT accidents have occured when the loop between the fig 8 and the stopper have been mistaken for the tie in loop. Alles klar?

In reply to gaillard:


Never heard of one failing either but it's really not intended for sport climbing!


Slips, spins, runs... whatever, it's not totally predictable exactly how and when it'll catch.


It's *huge* and it needs to be unweighted before it can be turned back to unlock it


We have a different view of how hard normal belaying is


Again, our views on this differ


They're huge! they're nearly 4" wide with central mounting points so they'll not sit well side by side on one krab, even a huge one and on two they'll be a pain in the ass with a good chance of them interfering with each other.

If you want to do it, go for it, I doubt you'll come to much harm but I don't think you'll actually be achieving your objective (quite the opposite). I personally think you'll just annoy and alienate your belayer.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Two harnesses?

In reply to jkarran:

Wait! Two Gaillards!

Ooops, the law of unintended consequences just resulted in them annihilating each other.

In reply to gaillard: Blimey...still running, what's the hit count?

In reply to jonny2vests:
Isn't that gonna rip a giant hole in the space time continuum and create a black hole? Well done, you've just annihilated the galaxy...

In reply to Nigel Modern:

Nowhere near the Matterhorn thread

In reply to jkarran:

Its designed primarily for lead sport climbing...


4mph


Well actually you just need to be able to pull it back, weighted or not, and that should only require pulling half the weight...


Either way it doesn't get easier than hands free !


So whats the difference in safety if there are people around?


I wonder about at two different heights though, one on a short runner... but your statement is fair enough

Problem is there doesn't seem to be a company now behind the silent partner so I can't talk to the engineers that designed the darn thing... always some hurdle you know?

In reply to jonny2vests:

Well even though your joking I bet a harness could be designed that is simple and could take two silent partners. Its hard enough just to get normal backup knots on a harness much less silent partners...

In reply to gaillard:

???????????????????????

The backup knot is on the rope loop. There's plenty of room.
Did you understand the earlier post re: fig 8s and stoppers?

In reply to gaillard:


Unfortunately there are only 7 climbers in the world who are as paranoid as you, so it's a pretty limited market...

In reply to jonny2vests:

I meant belay backup knots, as described in the silent partner manual.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

Perhaps I'll make one out of webbing One for me and... thats it

In reply to gaillard: This is such a silly thread, tell your belayer you'll kick his ass if h drops you and have done like the rest of us do!

In reply to tatty112: Does this thread hold the record for being the longest discussing solutions to a problem that doesn't exist?

Can we now start one 'How to avoid choking to death on our early morning cup of tea'? No that anyone ever has, but you can't be too careful...

Guys as well as the silent partner, rock exotic make the soloist (www.acmeclimbing.com/ProductImages/rockexotica/soloistlg.jpg) same effect but in a much more praticle size. The silent parter is what you want if your doing solo big walling or the like.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Certainly this thread must break the record for the most incorrect spellings of Prussik :~)

In reply to jimtitt:
It's Prusik (one 'k'); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prusik

In reply to stewieatb: Pmsl....

In reply to stewieatb:

You´d be surprised,"Dr. Karl Prusik (1896 - 1961) (also spelled Prussik)"

Jim

In reply to stewieatb: Although strictly speaking it would be on s, not one k

In reply to jimtitt: This forum has already coined a name for one knot - the 'paranoid punters knot' (for the double sheet bend with reef in the middle.

What about 'jam knot;' instead of pru??? knot, to avoid spelling contraversies in the future?

Just my small contribution to the cause of reducing conflict in the world.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
>

The PPK I'm sure James Bond uses on of those, didn't think he was paranoid, just goes to show.

In reply to gaillard:

On multi-pitch (and even single pitch if the belayer is tied in and anchored) you will belay from your tie-in loop so it is very possible to clip the belay device to the stopper knot loop instead.

On stances with out of reach anchors you will use the rope and connect it back to your tie-in loop with a karabiner and clove hitch. Again it is possible to clip the loop formed by a badly tied stopper knot.

Finally, you do get the situation where people are looking to secure themselves to a close anchor so if inexperienced or stressed, clipping to the loop formed by a badly tied stopper knot is a plausible option.

Badly tied stopper knots are unfortunately so common that it is just Murphy's Law in action - if it can go wrong, eventually at some point it will go wrong.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'm still confused about what the problem that doesn't exist even is, and some of the solutions are even more confusing!


Do you think i could sue the tea company if i choke on their tea?

In reply to mike kann:
It´s all the fault of the dastardly `ß´. This got messed about with in the German Rechtschreibreform of 1901. After this it was/could be written as s when Latinised. After the new reform in 1996 it is back to ss (or not as the case may be). The rules about ß in Austrian names changed in Karl Prus(s)ik´s name changed during his life and I expect he was as confused as the rest of us!

In reply to jimtitt: That's pretty damned interesting actually - finally we're getting some useful information I'd not thought about the sharfes S...

In reply to Nigel Modern:

The Adventurous Activities Licensing Service (what used to be AALA) which is now part of the HSE are actually pretty much spot on and have some excellent information online.

In reply to mike kann:

Would that be the scharfes with the c....?!

In reply to mike kann:
Ah well, the new Rechschreibreform has got rid of all that rubbish and so you get words with three s´s in a row nowadays, in fact you get this crap:- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Nitnatsnok/Liste_mit_W%C3%B6rtern_mit...

Naturally ignored totally!

In reply to Scott
Don´t waste your life reading this drivel!
(I just read the customs tariff list for Bermuda so need some light relief).

Jim

In reply to scott titt: Yeah - I just can't spell...

In reply to jimtitt:

I believe the reference is to the accident in Munich, where a girl died while toproping. As far as I know this was not due to a mistake at the belayer´s end (aside from not checking her tie in). Apparently she was clipped not into the main bight of a figure eight knot but another loop that formed after the knot partially opened. This loop then failed when she loaded the rope to be lowered,

Christian

In reply to gaillard:

Wow. I think he's given up!

In reply to gaillard:

best troll ever!

In reply to mlmatt:

I think not. Have you read his other posts?

In reply to jonny2vests:

Given up on what?

In reply to mlmatt:

Honestly, try and be a little more friendly, I am no troll.

In reply to gaillard:

even with getting rid of a real person as a belayer you've surely missed the one thing that doesnt make this system redundant, You!

basically you're relying on yourself being completely spot on with the rigging every time (because you havent got a second set of eyes to check over / notice things if they're wrong and as you've said we all make mistakes)

maybe you could get a robotic version of you to go to the crag and rig up the system and climb for you?
that way the system would be completely redundant and safe as you'd be at home which would also remove the most dangerous part - driving to the crag!

In reply to gaillard:

What do you think?

Northern Climber makes a good point. And a funny one too.

In reply to Northern Climber:

Thats what your climbing partner is for, a partner check :P

Honestly, you would think considering it is lives on the line that you guys would be a little more interested in having your belay backed up, after all its one of the more common accidents in climbing. I don't know why you wouldn't want one...

In reply to gaillard: ' after all its one of the more common accidents in climbing' - no it's not! Where do you get that idea from??? Abseiling is dangerous; decking out is dangerous; having belays fail (especially in winter) is dangerous; belayers falling asleep and/or being knocked out and dropping their leaders is virtually unheard of! (Nipper Harrison dropped a leader in the Gorge in 1970 IIRC, but that was because Nipper was 12 years old and the size of a mouse and he was belaying some tree trunk using a waist belay, as we all did back then. The leader survived, anyway.)

In reply to gaillard: but you've just rendered your climbing partner useless and therefore he or she will not want to hang around checking over your rigging instead of climbing themselves seen as though you've just developed a 'totally redundant' system of belaying without the need for a real person.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: i thought falling asleep was common on winter belays!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Look I am not going to do your research for you, but just because you haven't heard of the accidents doesn't mean they don't happen. Very few climbers "hear" of the accidents, you have to search them out in journels. And since I don't know what kind of journal access you have all I can do is point you to the Accidents in North American Mountaineering on Google books. Look at the statistics page and then review the cases. Not to mention it happens more in gyms than outdoors where a lot of the other common failures like nuts pulling out are minimized.

In reply to Northern Climber:

huh? What are you talking about, who said the partner wasn't belaying?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Not to mention you can get on google and type in something silly like "climbing accident belay mistake" and read through the tons of user accounts of being dropped or dropping. It is very common and I wish you would not make people think it is not. Obviously google is often a bad source of information so if you want the real facts just sign up for some free journals. Most don't obviously, but those that care to know just what might hurt them would be wise to.

After all the accident reports I have read I am REALLY surprised at how many people live through 100 foot or similar falls, its quite amazing. The human body is tuff !

In reply to gaillard:

I have never heard of a leader being dropped by their belayer in an outdoor climbing context. You are getting absurdly worked up about something that only happens indoors.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

Well its documented. I'm sorry but you'll just have to go read it for yourself if you don't trust my word that I have read it. Once again, it doesn't really matter what you "haven't heard", as few things that happen are "heard" unless they are about someone famous.

Like I said obviously many more drops happen indoors and as far as the German Alpine Association study that was done said that it is the #1 accident.

I just gave you a creditable reference available on Google Books that shows some outdoor context.

In reply to gaillard: i thought you were trying to remove all human error from the system and therefore make it fully redundant, or is this not the case?

In reply to Northern Climber:

Well no clue if your being sarcastic or not as this is the internet so I'll give it a whirl :P

Its obvious one cannot eliminate all human error as humans set the stuff up. So I would like the individual systems to have a backup, not an unreasonable thing to do. Most things do, except the belay, which is why this thread is here :P

I think the knot system (attached to the belayers harness) is an easy one to work, and I can't seem to find something more suitable.

In reply to gaillard: No luck with the tre?

In reply to gaillard:
>

Sometimes you dont make much sense. What do you mean?

I'd agree with the above posts in that if belayer accidents were common, then we, as experienced climbers, would have experience of it whether directly or indirectly.

As it is, we generally don't, we all know about the real dangers, as listed by Rob Exile Ward. If you have some real stats and you're not waffling, then post links. I think any of us would be interested to see what you're reading.

In reply to gaillard: I haven't heard of a belayer dropping their leader without some other uncontrollable factor being to blame. Personally speaking in my climbing group of friends i've never heard of anyone being dropped and injured never mind dropped and killed.

This thread is completely pointless. I can only assume people keep encouraging you because it's entertaining watching you scrabble around with statistics that don't exist to prove there is a problem that doesn't exist in the hopes of finding a solution that doesn't exist.

In reply to jonny2vests:

Well the OP is partly right and partly wrong (even though I think he´s been out in the sun too long!).

Those ever reliable chaps at the DAV in Germany produce complete statistics for climbing accidents in Germany, and as the health insurance system means even visits to the doctor get claimed on their members insurance they get a very clear picture of what happens.

Outdoors (including the alps and sport climbing) accidents involving lowering and belaying failures only make up 6.7% of the total number of accidents and in most years there are no fatalities.

Indoors, because most of the objective dangers have been removed, belaying failures and lowering failures make up the vast majority of accidents. Belaying 33% and lowering 17%. None of these has however been fatal in the last 10 years despite what the OP has posted previously.

The Dutch national federation (NKBV)survey their climbing walls and report 49% of the accidents are caused by faulty belaying but don´t seperate belaying and lowering. As nearly all their walls are top-roping only there isn´t much fundamental difference I guess. No fatalities are noted.

Not tying on properly is the next most common cause of accidents indoors with both countries giving ca.33%. These are inevitably more serious and account for two deaths in Germany.

In reply to jimtitt:

Good stuff, thanks Jim. Quite surprising to hear that most Dutch walls are TR only. I thought they were ahead of the game with climbing walls.

In reply to jonny2vests:
Sorry, I should have written that more carefully. They say that 93% of wall visitors only toprope!

Jim

In reply to jimtitt:

I'm actually surprised it's that high. Then again, having been to some German Klettergarten, they are not far removed from climbing walls (see next point)


Indoor climbing is also an area where fall-catching and lowering are integral and frequent, so you would expect shortcomings to be more frequently exposed. It is also an arena with a far greater proportion of inexperienced and occasional participants.

If I go to the wall regularly with someone whose belaying is 99% effective, before I have done 100 climbs I would expect to get dropped. Howverer, like most climbers, I'm quite conservative leading on trad and dont fall off much (let's say 1 lead in 30 maximum). Even if I have taken my 99% effective belayer from indoors, what are the odds off my 1-in-30 failure chance co-inciding with his? 1 in 3,000 I make it. It's actually more as I'm unlikely to be climbing outdoors (where there is greater risk and engagment) with somebody who is only 99% effective.

This does not strike me as sufficient risk to justify extremely clunky faffing around with prussiks and knots, which will probably create more problems than it solves. You'd achieve more and faster by working on your partner's belay skills.

In reply to jonny2vests:


Maybe they are. Maybe they've sussed that their key demographic is under-skilled dabblers. Or that they can decrease their premiums by taking lead-climbing off the menu?

In reply to gaillard:


OK, I just did that. For the benefit of others who may be interested, here is a link:
http://tinyurl.com/yc578m5
I can find no mention in there of any accident that could have been avoided or the outcome improved by the use of redundant, auto-locking belay devices. Can you cite the page numbers of the instances you found?


I Googled "climbing accident belay mistake". In the first four pages of hits I found only this that seemed at all relevant to the fears you are expressing:
http://www.putraclimb.com/2009/03/belaying-partner-safely-part-1/

"16 of the 31 accidents, involving roped climbing, the belayer held the fall of the climber;
injuries sustained were mostly minor. 15 of the 31 accidents, the belayer failed to hold the fall of the climber, resulting in the climber hitting the ground."

That sounds promising. But read further:

"Based on standard presumption, one would expect the 15 ground falls to be caused by lack
of attention, excess slack or wrong handling of the ropes. But this was not the case. The facts revealed that 14 out of 15 accidents were caused by incorrect handling of the safety equipment (in one case, the exact cause could not be identified)."

So in 31 accidents, none could be attributed to belayer inattention, but 14 were attributed to the belayer mis-using the equipment. That does not support your proposed 'solution', which is to put more equipment in the system. That article suggests that, unless equipment can be devised which it is impossible to mis-use (and adding prusiks below the belay device certainly does not qualify on that score) then adding equipment to the system also adds to the chain of things that can go, or be done, wrong.


This makes me think that you really must be a troll. Do you really expect people to trust you when you decline to cite any actual evidence in support of your assertion? If the information exists, please tell us where it is. Your reference to "Accidents in North American Mountaineering" is not, as far as I can see, in any way adequate. You need to provide some robust evidence, or else accept that other people with as much experience as you - and sometimes a whole lot more - are not going believe you.

Don't get me wrong: I absolutely accept that belayers do make mistakes, and that in some bizarre combination of circumstances a life that might otherwise be lost could possibly be saved by using double ropes independently belayed with auto-locking belay devices. I just don't believe that it happens nearly enough to justify the widespread adoption of any of the 'solutions' that you have so far proposed.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

Yeah, its just that most of the climbing walls I hear about are monsters. You wouldn't get a top rope on them.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1827

In reply to Martin W:

Good effort Martin.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead: I was at portland over the summer when a guy on top rope fell 6 or 7 meters, he ended up below his belayer with the bone sticking out of his leg and the rope all wrapped around it... ooowww. They were begginers and only climbing a grade 3 sport route!

I still have no idea how he dropped him though, i dident want to ask at the time...

In reply to Tom_Harding:

Portland is bolted, has lots of easy grades, is one of the closest crags to London and is usually sunny. It's as close to an outdoor climbing wall (with associated muppetry) as you're going to get.

Just out of curiosity, does top-roping happen here a lot? And do those doing it put their own krab on the lower-off?

In reply to mike kann:

The numbers don't seem to be in service, nor does their webpage, but I haven't gotten a bounce back from the email yet so we will see on that. Does the number work for you? Maybe I'm not dialing correctly from Germany.

I appreciate the numbers regardless.

In reply to jonny2vests:

What I meant about the knot system was what I described in a post higher up, could be much higher up hahhaa.

It basically the system that the silent partner advocates, and this is for the leader only, as for belaying the second, a reverso or atc guide works fine. You take the rope yet to be payed out before the leader starts climbing, and clove hitch it at 5 meter or so intervals to a supportive part of your harness (on a krab). Then as they climb you just release the krab and the knot falls apart. Its very easy and the worst thing that can happen is short roping the leader, but its not a huge deal as that only happens if your not paying attention.

And I'm sorry but saying that if you haven't experienced it or heard about it happening that its not a real danger sounds foolish. I have never taken a factor 2 fall or heard of it happening with out digging the info out, but know well enough that they are dangerous, and build anchors accordingly, as do many. Thats just an example where your statement doesn't hold, there are many others.

In reply to jimtitt:

I said it was more common indoors than outdoors...

And 6.7 percent is nothing to scoff at, thats serious, and the consequences are too. Climbing injuries on drops are usually never mild, if they are not fatal.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

I'm definitely not advocating anything except the knot system, I tested the others and they are not feasibly safe for different reasons as I stated before.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead: No its a real problem in the poular areas. The topo outs all have resined stapples and the ones in popular areas have deep grooves in them as much as half way through the bar. This wasent the cause of the accident this time though, it just seemed like there was a huge amount of slack out for some reason.

In reply to Martin W:

Well I don't know why your having such a hard time searching so here are some page numbers of cases only available in the preview since I don't know what kind of access you have.

2003-

p59
p36

2002-

p3
p49
p52
p53
p69
p76

Those are falls that could have been prevented with an adequate belay. There are more but you need the full version. Not to mention this is just ONE source, there are other journals that you can access in journal databases, easily done through universities.

Not to mention its obvious this is a huge statistic indoors and is reason enough for a backup.

Honestly I mentioned earlier about resistance to possible change in the history of climbing and boy if this thread isn't a testimonial to that...

And about that page you found (you will find more on subsequent pages of the search) it says mis use of the equipment, meaning bad belayer technique if you read on... I see bad belayer technique on very experienced individuals ALL the time, in fact I rarely see a proper BUS technique on belaying a second... which is sad.

Once again I am not a troll, and you would seem more credible yourself if you didn't hurl insults. Belay mistake is not a bizarre combination of things, it happens, and there is no backup. I have never said I advocate using two auto lockers, I was just talking about the possibility, the only thing that seems to work safely is the knot system. Or a TRE but they seem to be hard to find !!

In reply to Tom_Harding:

The rope was wrapped around the bone!? Or the leg?

Still, unfortunate accident, specially on top rope

How is it in portland, I was considering a trip

In reply to Tom_Harding:


Eeek, sounds scary. Hope the top-ropers are contributing substantially to the bolt fund!

In reply to gaillard: Bone.... yes he was screaming very loadly for peolple to get it off... Hope hes Ok i never heard any more about it.

Portland is as boring and samey as ever but the weather good so i cant complain...

In reply to Jamie Bankhead: I very much doubt it....

In reply to Tom_Harding:

There's always Swanage. Went back this year after a 16 year gap. Boulder Ruckle is awesome!

Does anyone know how I can get in contact with the people that make the silent partner? Wren doesn't own the product anymore right? Anyone know who does?