This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Years ago, before colour-coded tie-in points on harnesses and before belay loops had "belay loop" written on them, someone I respected suggested to me that it might be a good idea, when tying in to a harness, to also make sure that the rope took in the belay loop as well as the waist belt and leg loop "bridge" tie-in points.
The rationale they gave was that, for a beginner at least, it meant that there was less to remember when tying in if they didn't have to think about which parts of the harness to incorporate and which to leave out. Also, that if the leg loop "bridge" or waist belt tie-in was accidently missed, they still had a connection to these parts via the belay loop. With more experienced climbers too it this approach also provides an extra margin for error as no-one is infallible.
This is still guidance I give to beginners about tying into a harness.
Can anyone see a problem with this approach? One person I worked with recently found this approach disconcerting. Thanks
The rationale they gave was that, for a beginner at least, it meant that there was less to remember when tying in if they didn't have to think about which parts of the harness to incorporate and which to leave out. Also, that if the leg loop "bridge" or waist belt tie-in was accidently missed, they still had a connection to these parts via the belay loop. With more experienced climbers too it this approach also provides an extra margin for error as no-one is infallible.
This is still guidance I give to beginners about tying into a harness.
Can anyone see a problem with this approach? One person I worked with recently found this approach disconcerting. Thanks
I don't quite understand how you would do this. Tie in through the "bridge" points and then somehow tie the next bit of rope to the belay loop? Got a picture? It just seems like a way of over complicating things. There are various methods of how to minimise error when tying into the "bridge" points, about whether to go up or down. So long as partners check each other I don't see why you need to make things more complicated.
In reply to grittyshaker:
I used to do this a long time ago. Changed to get more separation between double ropes - one either side of belay loop - to make it very marginally easier to grab the correct rope when clipping in a hurry. Keeps things a bit less cluttered too.
Can't see any problem but can't see any genuine advantage either.
I used to do this a long time ago. Changed to get more separation between double ropes - one either side of belay loop - to make it very marginally easier to grab the correct rope when clipping in a hurry. Keeps things a bit less cluttered too.
Can't see any problem but can't see any genuine advantage either.
In reply to grittyshaker:
I too was introduced to this. Up through the leg-loop, through the belay loop then through the loop on the waist belt.
However i too dropped this when i started using half ropes.
Oz.
I too was introduced to this. Up through the leg-loop, through the belay loop then through the loop on the waist belt.
However i too dropped this when i started using half ropes.
Oz.
No. Run the rope first up through the leg loop "bridge", "cross" through the belay loop and then up through the waist belt tie-in point before rethreading the fig 8 or tying bowline etc.
Thanks for your responses. I tend not to do it using double rope technique in my own climbing as the added "clutter" of rope around the tie-in can be problematic. I tend to suggest it as an approach for beginners using single ropes while stressing that so long as the waist and leg loop tie-ins are used it is safe.
The idea of the approach is not that it overcomplicates but makes things simpler in removing a decision about which parts of the harness must be tied into. The answer being "all of them". I also encourage buddy checking and "up from below" as a method for tying in.
I agree that the technique only theoretically, if at all, reduces risks.
The person I broached this technique with was so perturbed by it, having previously been told only to tie-in using the leg loop "bridge" and waist tie-ins (which I agreed was perfectly safe) that I don't think I'll refer to it in future.
The idea of the approach is not that it overcomplicates but makes things simpler in removing a decision about which parts of the harness must be tied into. The answer being "all of them". I also encourage buddy checking and "up from below" as a method for tying in.
I agree that the technique only theoretically, if at all, reduces risks.
The person I broached this technique with was so perturbed by it, having previously been told only to tie-in using the leg loop "bridge" and waist tie-ins (which I agreed was perfectly safe) that I don't think I'll refer to it in future.
In reply to grittyshaker:
I'd respectfully suggest that if a beginner can't remember how to tie in, then they shouldn't be climbing except with people who are happy to instruct them! Remembering 'through leg loops, through waist belt' is less to remember than how to tie the knot that they'll be tying in with.
I can only imagine that tying in like this would involve a complete mess of ropes around your belay loop/belay device, especially if using half ropes.
I'd respectfully suggest that if a beginner can't remember how to tie in, then they shouldn't be climbing except with people who are happy to instruct them! Remembering 'through leg loops, through waist belt' is less to remember than how to tie the knot that they'll be tying in with.
I can only imagine that tying in like this would involve a complete mess of ropes around your belay loop/belay device, especially if using half ropes.
I remember a talk given by Marcus Baillie, then a head honcho at AALA, at an IoL Conference a couple of years ago in which he identified the role of human error and lack of attention in climbing instruction accidents. In short, these factors lie at the root of the vast majority of accidents in instructed climbing sessions.
The tie-in technique I've been using seemed like a way, in theory, of compensating for/reducing the consequences of these factors when beginners tie-in. In not presenting a choice of tie-in points, I reasoned, you reduce the requirement for attention and reduce the consequences of a lack of attention in that the climber is less likely to miss a critical tie-in.
Or maybe I'm overthinking it!
The tie-in technique I've been using seemed like a way, in theory, of compensating for/reducing the consequences of these factors when beginners tie-in. In not presenting a choice of tie-in points, I reasoned, you reduce the requirement for attention and reduce the consequences of a lack of attention in that the climber is less likely to miss a critical tie-in.
Or maybe I'm overthinking it!
The technique I've been using doesn't require any different knot to that usually used (with beginners I always use rewoven fig 8).
All I was asking that my clients do was to thread the rope through the belay loop as well as the usual tie-in points.
I'd tend to agree, perhaps, that someone without the flexibility of thought to understand these ideas probably shouldn't be climbing on their own. I think part of the problem was that the person I was working with had begun their instruction with another instructor and I'd shown them something slightly different.
All I was asking that my clients do was to thread the rope through the belay loop as well as the usual tie-in points.
I'd tend to agree, perhaps, that someone without the flexibility of thought to understand these ideas probably shouldn't be climbing on their own. I think part of the problem was that the person I was working with had begun their instruction with another instructor and I'd shown them something slightly different.
In reply to grittyshaker: Tying in through the belay loop might seem like a counter-intuitive thing to do given that it's facing a different direction to the other 2 loops, which would be the source of further confusion, meaning there is more to remember after all.
Thanks all
On balance I think that the theoretical and marginal safety advantages are probably not worth the bother of having a client dissolve in confusion at the prospect of an alternative way of doing something.
On balance I think that the theoretical and marginal safety advantages are probably not worth the bother of having a client dissolve in confusion at the prospect of an alternative way of doing something.
In reply to grittyshaker:
Feels to me that this would be more likely to increase wear on the belay loop itself, particularly if you fall off or get lowered off a route. (Not so much for only 'clean' leading though.)
Feels to me that this would be more likely to increase wear on the belay loop itself, particularly if you fall off or get lowered off a route. (Not so much for only 'clean' leading though.)
Thanks Fraser
I'd thought about this and reasoned that since the belay loop tends to run through the tie-ins, through which the rope passes in any case, increased wear on the belay loop could be discounted. AFAIK accidents due to material failure of harnesses is very rare.
As mentioned above, the main contributor to accidents in instructed climbing is human error/lack of attention. The technique I was using seemed to manage this aspect. The problem, the first I've had, arose mainly because I muddied the water for the client as they'd previously been told to leave out the belay loop (my bad, as they say).
I wonder if any manufacturers of harnesses specifically preclude incorporating the belay loop in tying in? I've not come across it.
I'd thought about this and reasoned that since the belay loop tends to run through the tie-ins, through which the rope passes in any case, increased wear on the belay loop could be discounted. AFAIK accidents due to material failure of harnesses is very rare.
As mentioned above, the main contributor to accidents in instructed climbing is human error/lack of attention. The technique I was using seemed to manage this aspect. The problem, the first I've had, arose mainly because I muddied the water for the client as they'd previously been told to leave out the belay loop (my bad, as they say).
I wonder if any manufacturers of harnesses specifically preclude incorporating the belay loop in tying in? I've not come across it.
In reply to grittyshaker:
Yes perhaps. But my thinking was really that the opposite sides of the rope 'loop' you've formed to tie in with will always try to align under loading. So you're absolutely guaranteed to have quite strong, diagonal abrasion (top and bottom) between rope and belay loop in these situations, much more so than conventional side-by-side abrasion which, to my mind, would be relatively minor.
Yes perhaps. But my thinking was really that the opposite sides of the rope 'loop' you've formed to tie in with will always try to align under loading. So you're absolutely guaranteed to have quite strong, diagonal abrasion (top and bottom) between rope and belay loop in these situations, much more so than conventional side-by-side abrasion which, to my mind, would be relatively minor.
Thanks, yes. You may be right. Still a negligible issue though as material failures of harnesses are a very rare cause of accidents.
What I thought I was trying to manage were:
1 - the likelihood of a mistake in tying in by reducing the amount of attention the climber is required to recruit by eliminating choice about what to tie into.
2 - the consequences of a mistake in that if the climber missed one tie-in there'd still have two direct connections to the rope.
I've only once had a problem with one client "getting" this.
The method I used was common among climbers who began their climbing, on single ropes, before harness tie-ins and belay loops were colour-coded.
What I thought I was trying to manage were:
1 - the likelihood of a mistake in tying in by reducing the amount of attention the climber is required to recruit by eliminating choice about what to tie into.
2 - the consequences of a mistake in that if the climber missed one tie-in there'd still have two direct connections to the rope.
I've only once had a problem with one client "getting" this.
The method I used was common among climbers who began their climbing, on single ropes, before harness tie-ins and belay loops were colour-coded.
In reply to grittyshaker: When showing kids how to tie in, you need to keep it simple, it's a pretty complicated thing to do anyway. Having to explain that the rope needs to go through the belay loop and the harness tie in points would really blow some kids' minds!
There's no point trying to over complicate it, simple is better! There's no problems with not attaching the rope to the belay loop as well, so why complicate it further?
There's no point trying to over complicate it, simple is better! There's no problems with not attaching the rope to the belay loop as well, so why complicate it further?
In reply to ozbaker:
Why do people insist on threading up uphill?
If you go downhill gravity is on your side and if you forget or miss the second element you will be suspended by the waist belt rather than the leg loops.
> (In reply to grittyshaker)
> I too was introduced to this. Up through the leg-loop, through the belay loop then through the loop on the waist belt.
> However i too dropped this when i started using half ropes.
>
> Oz.
> I too was introduced to this. Up through the leg-loop, through the belay loop then through the loop on the waist belt.
> However i too dropped this when i started using half ropes.
>
> Oz.
Why do people insist on threading up uphill?
If you go downhill gravity is on your side and if you forget or miss the second element you will be suspended by the waist belt rather than the leg loops.
In reply to timjones: How on earth can you "forget or miss" 50% of the entire harness?
In reply to timjones:
Going downwards makes it harder for me to thread the leg loops, as I can no longer see them. I find it so much easier to go through the legs lops and then the waist loop as you can actually see what you're doing. Pay attention when you tie-in and check your handiwork when you've finished, and there shouldn't be any problems. If people find themselves only tying in to their leg loops on a regular basis then maybe shouldn't be climbing!
Going downwards makes it harder for me to thread the leg loops, as I can no longer see them. I find it so much easier to go through the legs lops and then the waist loop as you can actually see what you're doing. Pay attention when you tie-in and check your handiwork when you've finished, and there shouldn't be any problems. If people find themselves only tying in to their leg loops on a regular basis then maybe shouldn't be climbing!
In reply to grittyshaker:
I have a couple of questions to a couple of people here and don't know how to put the quotes in so bear with me.
Gritty:
"As mentioned above, the main contributor to accidents in instructed climbing is human error/lack of attention." Surely on an instructed session, the instructor checks everything before people leave the ground.
"the likelihood of a mistake in tying in by reducing the amount of attention the climber is required to recruit by eliminating choice about what to tie into." Surely you would want them to increase the attention they pay when tying in.
Teh_Mark:
"Going downwards makes it harder for me to thread the leg loops, as I can no longer see them." Can you close your eyes and bend down and touch your toes. If the answer is Yes (as it is with most people) the the thing of no longer seeing them is not really that true.
Here is one for you. In a group of three have two blindfolds, one for the person climbing and the other for the person belaying. Person three is there to check that knots are correct, belay device correctly loaded and an extra hand on the dead end of the rope just in case.
On an easy top-roped wall, the two people are blindfolded and given the rope to tie-in and the other to belay. It's a fun little thing to do, it won't improve your footwork or your on-sight skills, but it will improve your ability tie in without seeing where you are and mean that you have to speak to each other. NOTE. When lowering the climber they often end up sat on the floor at the end. And if you can get a load of people to try it, you can even make a game of it. After all climbing is all about fun whilst staying safe.
Ashley
I have a couple of questions to a couple of people here and don't know how to put the quotes in so bear with me.
Gritty:
"As mentioned above, the main contributor to accidents in instructed climbing is human error/lack of attention." Surely on an instructed session, the instructor checks everything before people leave the ground.
"the likelihood of a mistake in tying in by reducing the amount of attention the climber is required to recruit by eliminating choice about what to tie into." Surely you would want them to increase the attention they pay when tying in.
Teh_Mark:
"Going downwards makes it harder for me to thread the leg loops, as I can no longer see them." Can you close your eyes and bend down and touch your toes. If the answer is Yes (as it is with most people) the the thing of no longer seeing them is not really that true.
Here is one for you. In a group of three have two blindfolds, one for the person climbing and the other for the person belaying. Person three is there to check that knots are correct, belay device correctly loaded and an extra hand on the dead end of the rope just in case.
On an easy top-roped wall, the two people are blindfolded and given the rope to tie-in and the other to belay. It's a fun little thing to do, it won't improve your footwork or your on-sight skills, but it will improve your ability tie in without seeing where you are and mean that you have to speak to each other. NOTE. When lowering the climber they often end up sat on the floor at the end. And if you can get a load of people to try it, you can even make a game of it. After all climbing is all about fun whilst staying safe.
Ashley
In reply to ashley1_scott:
Yes, but presumably in many cases, there's also an aim to develop them to the point where they can climb unsupervised, and the aim of all these ideas is to make sure they have a safe system for tying in alone?
This one I totally agree with
We had a similar dicussion on a recent course - not for beginners, but for mountain rescue members, where there's a fair danger of being distracted part way through putting on harness/tying in to rope. The suggestion there was that it's more effective to impose the discipline of not talking to people whilst they're tying in (and not allowing yourself to be distracted partway through tying in) than imposing fairly arbitary rules like threading waist first, linking in the belay loop or insisting on a particular knot.
This makes sense to me - any near misses I've seen are because people have been distracted part way through tying in, and then failing to go back to the correct point to continue. Perhaps putting an extra stage into the process (ie making sure you pass through the belay loop) just increases the chances of this....?
> Gritty:
> "As mentioned above, the main contributor to accidents in instructed climbing is human error/lack of attention." Surely on an instructed session, the instructor checks everything before people leave the ground.
> "As mentioned above, the main contributor to accidents in instructed climbing is human error/lack of attention." Surely on an instructed session, the instructor checks everything before people leave the ground.
Yes, but presumably in many cases, there's also an aim to develop them to the point where they can climb unsupervised, and the aim of all these ideas is to make sure they have a safe system for tying in alone?
> "the likelihood of a mistake in tying in by reducing the amount of attention the climber is required to recruit by eliminating choice about what to tie into." Surely you would want them to increase the attention they pay when tying in.
This one I totally agree with
We had a similar dicussion on a recent course - not for beginners, but for mountain rescue members, where there's a fair danger of being distracted part way through putting on harness/tying in to rope. The suggestion there was that it's more effective to impose the discipline of not talking to people whilst they're tying in (and not allowing yourself to be distracted partway through tying in) than imposing fairly arbitary rules like threading waist first, linking in the belay loop or insisting on a particular knot.
This makes sense to me - any near misses I've seen are because people have been distracted part way through tying in, and then failing to go back to the correct point to continue. Perhaps putting an extra stage into the process (ie making sure you pass through the belay loop) just increases the chances of this....?
Thanks for all this food for thought (and the blindfold climbing game).
On balance I'm probably going to drop it. The safety benefits, if they exist at all, are theoretical and marginal, I think, and it's not worth the confusion that can take place if instructors in the centre I work are using even slightly different tie-in methods. The problem I had only occurred because I picked up a group for the second session of three in an adult beginners' course after they'd already been taught to tie-in. I offered this method as an alternative, not a replacement, while insisting that the method they'd been taught was entirely correct and safe. The one person who had a problem was so confused I wondered whether they actually had a more general learning/emotional difficulty.
Just a few points -
The method I was using was common (if not usual) on single ropes when I began climbing in the late 80s.
There's no "extra stage" as such.
While it's right that increased attention to safety systems is a good thing, it's useful to be able to reduce the attention required of safety systems. Humans are generally not good at operating systems that require a lot of attention.
A related issue is, as I understand it, that AALA are now recommending following studies by Marcus Baillie, for beginner top-rope sessions, that climbers are clipped in rather than tied in (ideally using an auto-locking 'biner). The rationale for this is that:
1 - By far the majority of accidents are caused by inattention of the instructor/climber to safety processes.
2 - It (clipping in) requires less attention of the instructor/climber to ensure a safe connection to the rope and that this then frees attention of the instructor/climber to monitor other aspects of safety.
The "thread everything" approach I was taking seemed, to me, to have the same advantage.
On balance I'm probably going to drop it. The safety benefits, if they exist at all, are theoretical and marginal, I think, and it's not worth the confusion that can take place if instructors in the centre I work are using even slightly different tie-in methods. The problem I had only occurred because I picked up a group for the second session of three in an adult beginners' course after they'd already been taught to tie-in. I offered this method as an alternative, not a replacement, while insisting that the method they'd been taught was entirely correct and safe. The one person who had a problem was so confused I wondered whether they actually had a more general learning/emotional difficulty.
Just a few points -
The method I was using was common (if not usual) on single ropes when I began climbing in the late 80s.
There's no "extra stage" as such.
While it's right that increased attention to safety systems is a good thing, it's useful to be able to reduce the attention required of safety systems. Humans are generally not good at operating systems that require a lot of attention.
A related issue is, as I understand it, that AALA are now recommending following studies by Marcus Baillie, for beginner top-rope sessions, that climbers are clipped in rather than tied in (ideally using an auto-locking 'biner). The rationale for this is that:
1 - By far the majority of accidents are caused by inattention of the instructor/climber to safety processes.
2 - It (clipping in) requires less attention of the instructor/climber to ensure a safe connection to the rope and that this then frees attention of the instructor/climber to monitor other aspects of safety.
The "thread everything" approach I was taking seemed, to me, to have the same advantage.
In reply to Carolyn:
I think you're getting a bit carried away when you talk of aritrary rules. It's more a matter of getting into simple habits that minimise the chances of any mistakes or lapses of concentration that you may make having serious
consequences. You make your own choices as to which ones you use but it's always a good idea to stack the odds in your favour
> We had a similar dicussion on a recent course - not for beginners, but for mountain rescue members, where there's a fair danger of being distracted part way through putting on harness/tying in to rope. The suggestion there was that it's more effective to impose the discipline of not talking to people whilst they're tying in (and not allowing yourself to be distracted partway through tying in) than imposing fairly arbitary rules like threading waist first, linking in the belay loop or insisting on a particular knot.
I think you're getting a bit carried away when you talk of aritrary rules. It's more a matter of getting into simple habits that minimise the chances of any mistakes or lapses of concentration that you may make having serious
consequences. You make your own choices as to which ones you use but it's always a good idea to stack the odds in your favour
The "thread upwards" thing. Which I also often suggest to beginners. Is, as, far as I understand it, another exercise in the management of "theoretical risk". It seems plausible that to thread upwards limits the possibility of the climber missing out the leg loop bridge tie-in. However, I wonder now that if, in giving a beginner something else to remember, one doesn't actually increase the risk of them getting something else wrong.
:-/
:-/
In reply to grittyshaker:
Do you have a reference for this rather bizarre piece of "dumbing down".
If the problem is inattention then using processes that allow people to be even less attentive appears to be a retrograde step. I wonder what sort of "studies" have been carried out?
> A related issue is, as I understand it, that AALA are now recommending following studies by Marcus Baillie, for beginner top-rope sessions, that climbers are clipped in rather than tied in (ideally using an auto-locking 'biner). The rationale for this is that:
>
> 1 - By far the majority of accidents are caused by inattention of the instructor/climber to safety processes.
> 2 - It (clipping in) requires less attention of the instructor/climber to ensure a safe connection to the rope and that this then frees attention of the instructor/climber to monitor other aspects of safety.
>
>
> 1 - By far the majority of accidents are caused by inattention of the instructor/climber to safety processes.
> 2 - It (clipping in) requires less attention of the instructor/climber to ensure a safe connection to the rope and that this then frees attention of the instructor/climber to monitor other aspects of safety.
>
Do you have a reference for this rather bizarre piece of "dumbing down".
If the problem is inattention then using processes that allow people to be even less attentive appears to be a retrograde step. I wonder what sort of "studies" have been carried out?
In reply to timjones: Agree down is better than up.
I heard it from Marcus himself at an Institute for Outdoor Learning conference a couple of years ago. The reason I think it might now be "official AALA policy" is that the centre I work at are adopting it.
The clip-in idea is recommended for "group taster/fun" type sessions rather than "learn to climb" type sessions. For the later type of session you'd still teach tying-in.
The issue this is attended to address, as I understand it, is that humans generally struggle to consistently operate complex systems well, particularly when their attention is also required eleswhere.
Marcus made reference to reading he'd done in aircraft accident investigation and mistakes made in hospitals.
I'm not sure this is "dumbing down" but more a case of reducing the amount of attention required to achieve a safe connection to the rope so as to free up attention for other things.
The clip-in idea is recommended for "group taster/fun" type sessions rather than "learn to climb" type sessions. For the later type of session you'd still teach tying-in.
The issue this is attended to address, as I understand it, is that humans generally struggle to consistently operate complex systems well, particularly when their attention is also required eleswhere.
Marcus made reference to reading he'd done in aircraft accident investigation and mistakes made in hospitals.
I'm not sure this is "dumbing down" but more a case of reducing the amount of attention required to achieve a safe connection to the rope so as to free up attention for other things.
Thanks Mike
The theoretical issue is not that there's "no problems not attaching the rope to the belay loop as well". It's rather that there is a problem, at least in theory, in that if in trying to remember which 2 of the 3 parts of the harness to tie into, the climber misses out the wrong one. The "thread everything" approach theoretically limits this possibility, I think.
The theoretical issue is not that there's "no problems not attaching the rope to the belay loop as well". It's rather that there is a problem, at least in theory, in that if in trying to remember which 2 of the 3 parts of the harness to tie into, the climber misses out the wrong one. The "thread everything" approach theoretically limits this possibility, I think.
Marcus also made reference to his extensive experience in investigating accidents in instructed climbing as part of his work with AALA.
In reply to grittyshaker:
I think he is totally overlooking the fact that everyone works in different ways. I always tie in on "group tasters" because
a) I believe that we should see every session as a "learn to climb" session rather than operating some sort of fairground ride activity.
b) the process of tieing in steadies things up and allows you to chat to and gain the confidence of the climber whilst teaching them a skill
c) I've never thought "did I tie that climber in OK" because the process is memorable. I have however found myself thinking "did I do that screwgate up" or "did i clip it to the correct part of the harness". Having to call a new climber back to check this sort of thing cannot be good for their confidence! Introducing an autolocking krab to cover for the fact that you are using a process that conflicts with the way your mind naturally operates is sloppy and lazy IMO. The introduction of extra gadgets with moving parts
d) Does reliance on gear with extra moving parts that need to be maintained and inspected actually make things any safer?
I also think that justifying this sort of recommendation by comparing climbing to flying and hospitals is sloppy reasoning.
I'm guessing that this is not an "official AALA policy" but a policy ecommended by the MIA that oversees your centre, I'm surprised that you don't have contact with that MIA who would probably have explained why "they" were implementing that policy. As far as I am aware the AALA don't tend to have policies on this sort of thing, they tend to leave it to the advisors that oversee the centres.
> I heard it from Marcus himself at an Institute for Outdoor Learning conference a couple of years ago. The reason I think it might now be "official AALA policy" is that the centre I work at are adopting it.
>
> The clip-in idea is recommended for "group taster/fun" type sessions rather than "learn to climb" type sessions. For the later type of session you'd still teach tying-in.
>
> The issue this is attended to address, as I understand it, is that humans generally struggle to consistently operate complex systems well, particularly when their attention is also required eleswhere.
>
> Marcus made reference to reading he'd done in aircraft accident investigation and mistakes made in hospitals.
>
> I'm not sure this is "dumbing down" but more a case of reducing the amount of attention required to achieve a safe connection to the rope so as to free up attention for other things.
>
> The clip-in idea is recommended for "group taster/fun" type sessions rather than "learn to climb" type sessions. For the later type of session you'd still teach tying-in.
>
> The issue this is attended to address, as I understand it, is that humans generally struggle to consistently operate complex systems well, particularly when their attention is also required eleswhere.
>
> Marcus made reference to reading he'd done in aircraft accident investigation and mistakes made in hospitals.
>
> I'm not sure this is "dumbing down" but more a case of reducing the amount of attention required to achieve a safe connection to the rope so as to free up attention for other things.
I think he is totally overlooking the fact that everyone works in different ways. I always tie in on "group tasters" because
a) I believe that we should see every session as a "learn to climb" session rather than operating some sort of fairground ride activity.
b) the process of tieing in steadies things up and allows you to chat to and gain the confidence of the climber whilst teaching them a skill
c) I've never thought "did I tie that climber in OK" because the process is memorable. I have however found myself thinking "did I do that screwgate up" or "did i clip it to the correct part of the harness". Having to call a new climber back to check this sort of thing cannot be good for their confidence! Introducing an autolocking krab to cover for the fact that you are using a process that conflicts with the way your mind naturally operates is sloppy and lazy IMO. The introduction of extra gadgets with moving parts
d) Does reliance on gear with extra moving parts that need to be maintained and inspected actually make things any safer?
I also think that justifying this sort of recommendation by comparing climbing to flying and hospitals is sloppy reasoning.
I'm guessing that this is not an "official AALA policy" but a policy ecommended by the MIA that oversees your centre, I'm surprised that you don't have contact with that MIA who would probably have explained why "they" were implementing that policy. As far as I am aware the AALA don't tend to have policies on this sort of thing, they tend to leave it to the advisors that oversee the centres.
In reply to grittyshaker:
I'd say that the real problem is that the centre is not ensuring that all of it's instructors are teaching the same process. Beginners on a multi lesson course really ought to be taught the same processes throughout IMO.
> Thanks Mike
>
> The theoretical issue is not that there's "no problems not attaching the rope to the belay loop as well". It's rather that there is a problem, at least in theory, in that if in trying to remember which 2 of the 3 parts of the harness to tie into, the climber misses out the wrong one. The "thread everything" approach theoretically limits this possibility, I think.
>
> The theoretical issue is not that there's "no problems not attaching the rope to the belay loop as well". It's rather that there is a problem, at least in theory, in that if in trying to remember which 2 of the 3 parts of the harness to tie into, the climber misses out the wrong one. The "thread everything" approach theoretically limits this possibility, I think.
I'd say that the real problem is that the centre is not ensuring that all of it's instructors are teaching the same process. Beginners on a multi lesson course really ought to be taught the same processes throughout IMO.
In reply to Oceanrower:
In a word, 'distraction'. I've done it once in 16 years of climbing - it's very disconcerting only having your leg-loops tied in!
> (In reply to timjones) How on earth can you "forget or miss" 50% of the entire harness?
In a word, 'distraction'. I've done it once in 16 years of climbing - it's very disconcerting only having your leg-loops tied in!
In reply to gd303uk:
I have given this a lot of thought but came down on the side of "up". The reason being that if you forget to complete the knot, which I believe is a very common occurrence and has happened to me a couple of times, the rope has more chance of dropping away completely before you get too high. By threading from the top you add a bend and decrease the chance of the rope dropping away.
Al
> (In reply to timjones) Agree down is better than up.
I have given this a lot of thought but came down on the side of "up". The reason being that if you forget to complete the knot, which I believe is a very common occurrence and has happened to me a couple of times, the rope has more chance of dropping away completely before you get too high. By threading from the top you add a bend and decrease the chance of the rope dropping away.
Al
In reply to grittyshaker:
That's interestin. Is there really evidence of a significant number of accidents due to instructors tieing beginners in incorrectly or failing to check how they have tied themselves in?
> Marcus also made reference to his extensive experience in investigating accidents in instructed climbing as part of his work with AALA.
That's interestin. Is there really evidence of a significant number of accidents due to instructors tieing beginners in incorrectly or failing to check how they have tied themselves in?
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:
I'd say down because
a) if you forget the second thread you're still attached to a load bearing part of the harness that woun't cause you to invert if you fall.
b) gravity helps
c) if working with groups who may require assistance it's a lot less fiddly and invasive for the person you are tieing in
d) if I ever get absent minded enough to "forget to complete the knot" I think I'd rather have the rope with me so that I stand some chance of remedying the situation if I spot it. If it's fallen to the floor it won't be much use to me ;(
> (In reply to gd303uk)
> [...]
>
> I have given this a lot of thought but came down on the side of "up". The reason being that if you forget to complete the knot, which I believe is a very common occurrence and has happened to me a couple of times, the rope has more chance of dropping away completely before you get too high. By threading from the top you add a bend and decrease the chance of the rope dropping away.
>
> [...]
>
> I have given this a lot of thought but came down on the side of "up". The reason being that if you forget to complete the knot, which I believe is a very common occurrence and has happened to me a couple of times, the rope has more chance of dropping away completely before you get too high. By threading from the top you add a bend and decrease the chance of the rope dropping away.
>
I'd say down because
a) if you forget the second thread you're still attached to a load bearing part of the harness that woun't cause you to invert if you fall.
b) gravity helps
c) if working with groups who may require assistance it's a lot less fiddly and invasive for the person you are tieing in
d) if I ever get absent minded enough to "forget to complete the knot" I think I'd rather have the rope with me so that I stand some chance of remedying the situation if I spot it. If it's fallen to the floor it won't be much use to me ;(
In reply to timjones:
I'm not sure you're actually disgreeing with me? If you are, I don't think I've go your point!
When I was talking about "imposing arbitrary rules", what I meant was insisting all team members (or students, or climbing wall users) tie in using only one of the range of safe methods, rather than allowing them to use whichever of those safe methods they personally prefer. You can argue theoretical advantages to most methods until the cows come home. Or more likely until the bar stops serving! Probably more relevant to experienced climbers than a group of novices, though.
If you've got a group of novices, I'd think it makes sense to consistently teach a single method until that becomes second nature. Equally, if you'd got someone who learnt to tie in with a different (but safe) method, trying to change that probably increases the risk of error, at least in the short term or when under pressure.
> I think you're getting a bit carried away when you talk of aritrary rules. It's more a matter of getting into simple habits that minimise the chances of any mistakes or lapses of concentration that you may make having serious
> consequences. You make your own choices as to which ones you use but it's always a good idea to stack the odds in your favour
> consequences. You make your own choices as to which ones you use but it's always a good idea to stack the odds in your favour
I'm not sure you're actually disgreeing with me? If you are, I don't think I've go your point!
When I was talking about "imposing arbitrary rules", what I meant was insisting all team members (or students, or climbing wall users) tie in using only one of the range of safe methods, rather than allowing them to use whichever of those safe methods they personally prefer. You can argue theoretical advantages to most methods until the cows come home. Or more likely until the bar stops serving! Probably more relevant to experienced climbers than a group of novices, though.
If you've got a group of novices, I'd think it makes sense to consistently teach a single method until that becomes second nature. Equally, if you'd got someone who learnt to tie in with a different (but safe) method, trying to change that probably increases the risk of error, at least in the short term or when under pressure.
In reply to timjones:
a) Not once have I failed to thread both waist and leg loops
b) Gravity also helps with my method
c) Not relevant to me
d) I have probably failed to complete the knot on 4 or 5 occasions but that is in 50 years, to put it into context, and on a three of those the rope fell to the ground either before or as I clipped the first runner.
I would also add that threading up feels more natural to me. It's certainly not a big deal or something I would lose sleep over. It's a similar "none problem" to the way gates face on either end of a QD.
Al
a) Not once have I failed to thread both waist and leg loops
b) Gravity also helps with my method
c) Not relevant to me
d) I have probably failed to complete the knot on 4 or 5 occasions but that is in 50 years, to put it into context, and on a three of those the rope fell to the ground either before or as I clipped the first runner.
I would also add that threading up feels more natural to me. It's certainly not a big deal or something I would lose sleep over. It's a similar "none problem" to the way gates face on either end of a QD.
Al
Thanks Tim
I agree entirely with your point a) but the centre I work at believes differently. We run children's parties as well as more formal sessions. Not quite fairground rides though
I think that tying in can work in exactly the way you describe in b) but Marcus' point was that the attention involved in tying in could distract from supervising other aspects of safety.
I have the same experience that you describe in c). Marcus' contention would be, I think, that the way you say your mind operates isn't natural and that through repetition of the same activity, or if we are distracted, say by simultaneously supervising another bell-ringing rope together with the one we are tying in, we all have a tendency to be "sloppy and lazy".
The point made at the conference was that the vast majority of accidents are caused by inattention/distraction, not equipment failure. Perhaps too much attention is given to equipment inspection proportionate to the role equipment failure plays in accidents?
Marcus, I guess, clearly found that useful parallels could be drawn/lessons learned from different sectors of safety critical work (where there is more research/literature?)
I'll speak to our tech advisor about the source of the guidance, you may be right about your last point. I was told it was "an AALA thing" by my boss and this seemed plausible as I'd originally come across the idea from Marcus.
This discussion really is very interesting and I'm finding it really good CPD. Thanks for your input everyone.
I agree entirely with your point a) but the centre I work at believes differently. We run children's parties as well as more formal sessions. Not quite fairground rides though
I think that tying in can work in exactly the way you describe in b) but Marcus' point was that the attention involved in tying in could distract from supervising other aspects of safety.
I have the same experience that you describe in c). Marcus' contention would be, I think, that the way you say your mind operates isn't natural and that through repetition of the same activity, or if we are distracted, say by simultaneously supervising another bell-ringing rope together with the one we are tying in, we all have a tendency to be "sloppy and lazy".
The point made at the conference was that the vast majority of accidents are caused by inattention/distraction, not equipment failure. Perhaps too much attention is given to equipment inspection proportionate to the role equipment failure plays in accidents?
Marcus, I guess, clearly found that useful parallels could be drawn/lessons learned from different sectors of safety critical work (where there is more research/literature?)
I'll speak to our tech advisor about the source of the guidance, you may be right about your last point. I was told it was "an AALA thing" by my boss and this seemed plausible as I'd originally come across the idea from Marcus.
This discussion really is very interesting and I'm finding it really good CPD. Thanks for your input everyone.
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants: Cheers Al I see you point, but for me threading down is still a better choice for reasons stated above, ie if for what ever reason you are distracted and miss something out at least your waiste belt is connected an not just your leg loops,
I will give this more thought though,.
I have also under different circumstances ; usually excitedly talking about ,, well anything , while tying in, forgotten to thread the leg loops , I felt foolish, my partner that day was a lecturer in outdoor ed' , but was happy that the down thing made sense. At this time.
I suppose as long as we all do a budy check on each other, it doesn't matter much which way we go, as long as it is safe and checked by your mate before you set off.
I have never tied in to all three though, leg, belay and waiste.
I will give this more thought though,.
I have also under different circumstances ; usually excitedly talking about ,, well anything , while tying in, forgotten to thread the leg loops , I felt foolish, my partner that day was a lecturer in outdoor ed' , but was happy that the down thing made sense. At this time.
I suppose as long as we all do a budy check on each other, it doesn't matter much which way we go, as long as it is safe and checked by your mate before you set off.
I have never tied in to all three though, leg, belay and waiste.
I think it's more that in the time it takes, and with the attention it recruits, for an instructor to tie the knot, other members of your group may not be being adequately supervised.
You look up from tying the knot to find that your second group of bell ringers has set off up the wall not tied in/is throwing stones/is having a figh/has encountered a problem. Then you get lemons...
You look up from tying the knot to find that your second group of bell ringers has set off up the wall not tied in/is throwing stones/is having a figh/has encountered a problem. Then you get lemons...
Missing either waist belt or leg really didn't ought to be too much of an issue at the wall, or crag in nice summer conditions where it's fairly easy to see what's going on, did it? Yes, it may happen sometimes, but should be pretty obvious on a final visual check.
I've always thought of it as an issue for winter or horrible wet weather conditions, where you're trying to tie in wearing lots of clothing (making it hard to see harness clearly) and gloves/cold hands (making it hard to feel what you're doing). Certainly, I've recently switched to a harness with permanently threaded, double buckled waist because of the difficulties of rethreading harness waist buckle under those kinds of conditions, and tying in can be nearly as tricky.
I've always thought of it as an issue for winter or horrible wet weather conditions, where you're trying to tie in wearing lots of clothing (making it hard to see harness clearly) and gloves/cold hands (making it hard to feel what you're doing). Certainly, I've recently switched to a harness with permanently threaded, double buckled waist because of the difficulties of rethreading harness waist buckle under those kinds of conditions, and tying in can be nearly as tricky.
I'd like to say, at this point, that my recollection of Marcus' views is "as far as I remember". Happy to be corrected. Anyone else remember his talk/encountered the points I describe?
Yes. This was a problem. My method wouldn't have raised an issue if:
1 - the group hadn't been taught another method previously
2 - I'd not misjudged the student's ability to "get it"
My centre are now aiming to ensure that such courses are delivered by the same instructor across the 3 sessions.
In reply to grittyshaker:
Could get interesting if the guy ever makes that assertion in my presence. I have an intense dislike oif such lazy reasoning
I'd say that tieing one climber in whilst another is off the floor with bell-ringing being used is exceedingly sloppy practice. If necessary slow the session down and make them wait for a while. It doesn't matter whether you are tieing in or clipping you are allowing yourself to become distracted from the supervision of belaying.
I don't think it's about inspection, it's about the unecessy using more complex equipment due to laziness or the need to speed climbers. Simple gear with less moving parts is safer than the reliance on gadgets IMO.
It would be "an AALA thing" because the centre should have a suitably qualified advisor who will define the practices that should be used.
Bosses often resort to lazy explanations such as it's "an AALA thing" because they are unwilling or unable to explain the real reasons behind operating procedures. It's rather like Marcus saying "the way you say your mind operates isn't natural", people who do this don't deserve our respect IMO ;(
> I have the same experience that you describe in c). Marcus' contention would be, I think, that the way you say your mind operates isn't natural
Could get interesting if the guy ever makes that assertion in my presence. I have an intense dislike oif such lazy reasoning
> and that through repetition of the same activity, or if we are distracted, say by simultaneously supervising another bell-ringing rope together with the one we are tying in, we all have a tendency to be "sloppy and lazy".
I'd say that tieing one climber in whilst another is off the floor with bell-ringing being used is exceedingly sloppy practice. If necessary slow the session down and make them wait for a while. It doesn't matter whether you are tieing in or clipping you are allowing yourself to become distracted from the supervision of belaying.
>
> The point made at the conference was that the vast majority of accidents are caused by inattention/distraction, not equipment failure. Perhaps too much attention is given to equipment inspection proportionate to the role equipment failure plays in accidents?
> The point made at the conference was that the vast majority of accidents are caused by inattention/distraction, not equipment failure. Perhaps too much attention is given to equipment inspection proportionate to the role equipment failure plays in accidents?
I don't think it's about inspection, it's about the unecessy using more complex equipment due to laziness or the need to speed climbers. Simple gear with less moving parts is safer than the reliance on gadgets IMO.
> Marcus, I guess, clearly found that useful parallels could be drawn/lessons learned from different sectors of safety critical work (where there is more research/literature?)
>
> I'll speak to our tech advisor about the source of the guidance, you may be right about your last point. I was told it was "an AALA thing" by my boss and this seemed plausible as I'd originally come across the idea from Marcus.
>
> I'll speak to our tech advisor about the source of the guidance, you may be right about your last point. I was told it was "an AALA thing" by my boss and this seemed plausible as I'd originally come across the idea from Marcus.
It would be "an AALA thing" because the centre should have a suitably qualified advisor who will define the practices that should be used.
Bosses often resort to lazy explanations such as it's "an AALA thing" because they are unwilling or unable to explain the real reasons behind operating procedures. It's rather like Marcus saying "the way you say your mind operates isn't natural", people who do this don't deserve our respect IMO ;(
In reply to grittyshaker:
What are bell ringers?
Are you sure you're not inventing problems, then solving them?
What are bell ringers?
Are you sure you're not inventing problems, then solving them?
In reply to Carolyn:
I'd agree that it is more of an issue in winter. I'd say that most harnesses are unlikely to fail due to this as long as they are worn correctly. However the winter thing is another good reason to go downhill IMO. At the end of the day the risk of inversion is greater if your tie in point is lower and this risk is already increased in winter as I will usually be climbing with a pack on my back.
> Missing either waist belt or leg really didn't ought to be too much of an issue at the wall, or crag in nice summer conditions where it's fairly easy to see what's going on, did it? Yes, it may happen sometimes, but should be pretty obvious on a final visual check.
>
> I've always thought of it as an issue for winter or horrible wet weather conditions, where you're trying to tie in wearing lots of clothing (making it hard to see harness clearly) and gloves/cold hands (making it hard to feel what you're doing). Certainly, I've recently switched to a harness with permanently threaded, double buckled waist because of the difficulties of rethreading harness waist buckle under those kinds of conditions, and tying in can be nearly as tricky.
>
> I've always thought of it as an issue for winter or horrible wet weather conditions, where you're trying to tie in wearing lots of clothing (making it hard to see harness clearly) and gloves/cold hands (making it hard to feel what you're doing). Certainly, I've recently switched to a harness with permanently threaded, double buckled waist because of the difficulties of rethreading harness waist buckle under those kinds of conditions, and tying in can be nearly as tricky.
I'd agree that it is more of an issue in winter. I'd say that most harnesses are unlikely to fail due to this as long as they are worn correctly. However the winter thing is another good reason to go downhill IMO. At the end of the day the risk of inversion is greater if your tie in point is lower and this risk is already increased in winter as I will usually be climbing with a pack on my back.
In reply to grittyshaker: I see the biggest danger is teaching novices in such a way that they come away with a "set of rules" and this seems to be borne out and encouraged by the instructors who are contributing to this thread.
Al
Al
In reply to jon:
When instructing groups it is always useful to carry a set of handbells to keep those who aren't climbing occupied. You need to be attentive in case a bell becomes detached and hits one of the other particpants
> (In reply to grittyshaker)
>
> What are bell ringers?
>
> What are bell ringers?
When instructing groups it is always useful to carry a set of handbells to keep those who aren't climbing occupied. You need to be attentive in case a bell becomes detached and hits one of the other particpants
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:
You appear to be the only one who has mentioned rules?
> (In reply to grittyshaker) I see the biggest danger is teaching novices in such a way that they come away with a "set of rules" and this seems to be borne out and encouraged by the instructors who are contributing to this thread.
>
>
You appear to be the only one who has mentioned rules?
In reply to timjones:
How does passing the rope down through the belt and leg loops as against upwards change the height of your tie in point?
> (In reply to Carolyn)
> However the winter thing is another good reason to go downhill IMO. At the end of the day the risk of inversion is greater if your tie in point is lower and this risk is already increased in winter as I will usually be climbing with a pack on my back.
> However the winter thing is another good reason to go downhill IMO. At the end of the day the risk of inversion is greater if your tie in point is lower and this risk is already increased in winter as I will usually be climbing with a pack on my back.
How does passing the rope down through the belt and leg loops as against upwards change the height of your tie in point?
In reply to timjones:
The instructors appear to be discussing how they operate and the reasoning behind the choices that they make.
> (In reply to Al Randall)
> [...]
>
> You appear to be the only one who has mentioned rules?
> [...]
>
> You appear to be the only one who has mentioned rules?
The instructors appear to be discussing how they operate and the reasoning behind the choices that they make.
In reply to timjones: Yes you could be right, perhaps I'm picking up on something that does not exist.
Al
Al
In reply to jon:
IME people tend to get the first stage correct and then struggle with the second. If you get the second stage wrong whilst going uphill you will be tied in to your leg-loops which leaves a lower tie in point.
When wearing more bulky layers in winter, I find it far easier to hold clothing (plus my stomach) in with one hand whilst poking the rope down through the waist belt rather than faffing about trying to push the rope end uphill against clothing and beergut
> (In reply to timjones)
> [...]
>
> How does passing the rope down through the belt and leg loops as against upwards change the height of your tie in point?
> [...]
>
> How does passing the rope down through the belt and leg loops as against upwards change the height of your tie in point?
IME people tend to get the first stage correct and then struggle with the second. If you get the second stage wrong whilst going uphill you will be tied in to your leg-loops which leaves a lower tie in point.
When wearing more bulky layers in winter, I find it far easier to hold clothing (plus my stomach) in with one hand whilst poking the rope down through the waist belt rather than faffing about trying to push the rope end uphill against clothing and beergut
In reply to jon:
I assume Tim means that if you (accidently) only tie in through the waist loop, your tie in point is going to be higher than if you (accidently) tie in through your leg loops. And that passing the rope through the waist first (ie tying in downwards) increases the likelihood that you'll at least catch the waist loop.
In reply to Timj:
Assuming I've understood you correctly above... Yes, I agree on all counts, I think - harness is unlikely to fail - and you're likely to survive - if you're tied in through only either waist or legs, but I'd definitely prefer to be tied in through only the waist as you're much more likely to stay upright. Tying in going down probably increases the chances of this.
I have a feeling my default is still to start at the bottom, though, despite agreeing the top is likely to be better (and starting at the top is what I'd choose to teach a beginner).
> How does passing the rope down through the belt and leg loops as against upwards change the height of your tie in point?
I assume Tim means that if you (accidently) only tie in through the waist loop, your tie in point is going to be higher than if you (accidently) tie in through your leg loops. And that passing the rope through the waist first (ie tying in downwards) increases the likelihood that you'll at least catch the waist loop.
In reply to Timj:
Assuming I've understood you correctly above... Yes, I agree on all counts, I think - harness is unlikely to fail - and you're likely to survive - if you're tied in through only either waist or legs, but I'd definitely prefer to be tied in through only the waist as you're much more likely to stay upright. Tying in going down probably increases the chances of this.
I have a feeling my default is still to start at the bottom, though, despite agreeing the top is likely to be better (and starting at the top is what I'd choose to teach a beginner).
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:
Climbing is a very personal sport, I think that we all have different points at which we "bite" or perceived rules and guidelines.
As a volunteer instructor I'm likely to walk away if anyone ever tells me that I have to use fiddly triact krabs or the horrendous belay master
> (In reply to timjones) Yes you could be right, perhaps I'm picking up on something that does not exist.
>
>
Climbing is a very personal sport, I think that we all have different points at which we "bite" or perceived rules and guidelines.
As a volunteer instructor I'm likely to walk away if anyone ever tells me that I have to use fiddly triact krabs or the horrendous belay master
In reply to timjones:
Jeez, where do you find these people?
> IME people tend to get the first stage correct and then struggle with the second.
Jeez, where do you find these people?
In reply to Carolyn:
I can identify with that. There's something about disturbance to established routines that somehow manages to disturb my confidence when climbing ;(
> I have a feeling my default is still to start at the bottom, though, despite agreeing the top is likely to be better (and starting at the top is what I'd choose to teach a beginner).
I can identify with that. There's something about disturbance to established routines that somehow manages to disturb my confidence when climbing ;(
In reply to jon:
They are human just like I am!
I'm rather envious of your apparent perfection in evrything you do
> (In reply to timjones)
>
> [...]
>
> Jeez, where do you find these people?
>
> [...]
>
> Jeez, where do you find these people?
They are human just like I am!
I'm rather envious of your apparent perfection in evrything you do
In reply to timjones: Don't get me wrong, back in the days before suing and litigation I was an Instructor myself at a centre in Derbyshire so I appreciate the difficulties but I am detecting amongst new climbers a sense that climbing is about rules where as for me climbing has mostly been about applying common sense. I am sure many would have been appalled by some of our practices in the "old days" but of one thing I am certain, we were safe.
Al
Al
In reply to timjones:
Not perfect at all Tim, but in 25 years of guiding and almost twice that of just climbing, I've never come across the problems you seem to encounter on a regular basis.
Not perfect at all Tim, but in 25 years of guiding and almost twice that of just climbing, I've never come across the problems you seem to encounter on a regular basis.
In reply to jon:
How may 8 year old novices do you encounter whilst guiding?
I'm guessing that most of the people you instruct will already have a pretty good idea of the basics due to the paid or volunteer instructors and climbing buddies that you appear to be belittling on this thread!
> (In reply to timjones)
>
> Not perfect at all Tim, but in 25 years of guiding and almost twice that of just climbing, I've never come across the problems you seem to encounter on a regular basis.
>
> Not perfect at all Tim, but in 25 years of guiding and almost twice that of just climbing, I've never come across the problems you seem to encounter on a regular basis.
How may 8 year old novices do you encounter whilst guiding?
I'm guessing that most of the people you instruct will already have a pretty good idea of the basics due to the paid or volunteer instructors and climbing buddies that you appear to be belittling on this thread!
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:
I think you're underestimating the huge increase in the volume of children and adults that attending beginners courses and taster sessions these days. This requires a large number of extra instructors.
When you started things were simpler. When I started instructing over 20 years ago just about every instructor was already an experienced climber. Things have chnaged a lot since then. It's not necessarily about litigation, it's also about the level of experience of the instructors that centres and the voluntary sector are using in order to keep pace with demand.
Both of us will have introduced people to climbing who would not otherwise have experienced it. In a sense we are both part of the numbers game that has changed the culture of climbing and created a necessity for the rules, guidelines and SOPs that you appear concerned about.
> (In reply to timjones) Don't get me wrong, back in the days before suing and litigation I was an Instructor myself at a centre in Derbyshire so I appreciate the difficulties but I am detecting amongst new climbers a sense that climbing is about rules where as for me climbing has mostly been about applying common sense. I am sure many would have been appalled by some of our practices in the "old days" but of one thing I am certain, we were safe.
>
>
I think you're underestimating the huge increase in the volume of children and adults that attending beginners courses and taster sessions these days. This requires a large number of extra instructors.
When you started things were simpler. When I started instructing over 20 years ago just about every instructor was already an experienced climber. Things have chnaged a lot since then. It's not necessarily about litigation, it's also about the level of experience of the instructors that centres and the voluntary sector are using in order to keep pace with demand.
Both of us will have introduced people to climbing who would not otherwise have experienced it. In a sense we are both part of the numbers game that has changed the culture of climbing and created a necessity for the rules, guidelines and SOPs that you appear concerned about.
In reply to timjones: I never instructed children but to some extent have to plead guilty as charged. In fact when I thought that I might resurrect an instructing career and embarked on SPA and ML I was very disappointed to find that all of the proposed work was with children so abandoned the idea. Fair play to those who do it but I decided that it was not for me.
Al
Al
I agree. I introduced the "thread everything" approach to a group of beginner/improver adults as an alternative which might be safer while reiterating that the method they'd been taught was perfectly safe. In doing this I was trying to motivate their thinking about safety. Perhaps I was being too clever by half!
I was really taken aback by the response of one of the clients who just couldn't handle this and whose response made me think there might be some underlying confidence/learning issues. I'm finding this discussion really helpful in resolving future approaches.
I was really taken aback by the response of one of the clients who just couldn't handle this and whose response made me think there might be some underlying confidence/learning issues. I'm finding this discussion really helpful in resolving future approaches.
In reply to timjones:
How many 8 year old novices with beer guts do you take winter climbing?
I'm not belittling this thread, instructors or teaching methods - just questioning the undue emphasis placed on certain things and their perhaps perceived dangers. Some things need to be emphasised - not being distracted when tying in is an excellent example. I also worked as a climbing instructor for three years. It was a revelation.
> How may 8 year old novices do you encounter whilst guiding?
How many 8 year old novices with beer guts do you take winter climbing?
I'm not belittling this thread, instructors or teaching methods - just questioning the undue emphasis placed on certain things and their perhaps perceived dangers. Some things need to be emphasised - not being distracted when tying in is an excellent example. I also worked as a climbing instructor for three years. It was a revelation.
In reply to jon:
None! But I work on the assumption that they may take it up one day. In which case it seems right and fair to start them off with the simple practices that I believe "stack the odds in my favour" when I climb. They may not develop a beer gut, but most of them are likely to feel the cold and ware bulky clothing to keep them warm on stances.
Hopefully they will think for themselves and they may well choose to do things differently but at least if they're daft or desperate enough to copy me for the rest of their lives they'll be somewhere near right
I guess it depends on which things you are talking about? When it comes to threading downhill with young groups the clincher for me is that many of them will expect or need help and it is much less intrusive if you are threading downhill and gravity is doing most of the work.
> (In reply to timjones)
>
> [...]
>
> How many 8 year old novices with beer guts do you take winter climbing?
>
> [...]
>
> How many 8 year old novices with beer guts do you take winter climbing?
None! But I work on the assumption that they may take it up one day. In which case it seems right and fair to start them off with the simple practices that I believe "stack the odds in my favour" when I climb. They may not develop a beer gut, but most of them are likely to feel the cold and ware bulky clothing to keep them warm on stances.
Hopefully they will think for themselves and they may well choose to do things differently but at least if they're daft or desperate enough to copy me for the rest of their lives they'll be somewhere near right
> I'm not belittling this thread, instructors or teaching methods - just questioning the undue emphasis placed on certain things and their perhaps perceived dangers. Some things need to be emphasised - not being distracted when tying in is an excellent example. I also worked as a climbing instructor for three years. It was a revelation.
I guess it depends on which things you are talking about? When it comes to threading downhill with young groups the clincher for me is that many of them will expect or need help and it is much less intrusive if you are threading downhill and gravity is doing most of the work.
Bellringers = group of three in bottom roping scenario. One climbs, one belays (often Gri-gri), one tails the rope.
In reply to grittyshaker:
I'd say that is just tailing by a peer.
Bellringing is very different and it requires a lot of attention from the instructor if you have a "lively" group! It can keep extra group members engaged but does little to teach them about proper belaying
> Bellringers = group of three in bottom roping scenario. One climbs, one belays (often Gri-gri), one tails the rope.
I'd say that is just tailing by a peer.
Bellringing is very different and it requires a lot of attention from the instructor if you have a "lively" group! It can keep extra group members engaged but does little to teach them about proper belaying
I haven't read every single reply on this topic but here's my thoughts on what's come up.
Threading up or down? Threading up you can see what's going on more easily. Threading down you are at least secured to a load bearing part of your harness if you miss the leg loop attachment point. Both ways are correct and climbers should choose whatever feels right for them. Likewise instructors shouldn't prescribe methods as right or wrong. On the one hand if you encourage to thread from the top novices will at least be secured to their waist loop but if they thread upwards they'll more easily see what's going on. Prescribing rules doesn't fit with a sport where there are a number of ways of doing things right but it can be confusing for a novice if you give them too many options and instructions on subtleties that some experienced climbers and instructors don't get. I think I thread from the bottom but it's such an automatic thing for me, thinking about it now I can't remember which way I actually do it! At the root of all of this discussion I think it should be encouraged amongst everyone to double check themselves and each other. Complacency and distraction cause problems that simply checking each other would help eliminate.
Clipping in. I don't do it because I'm worried half way through an hour long taster session I'll forget how to rethread a figure eight or become distracted and not check it, but simply because it is quicker. On a taster or fun session clients want to climb and particularly if you have a larger group they can get a bit narked if you spend more time tying and untying knots than getting them on the wall. I think this is an unfortunate symptom of modern society that want quick and easy access to activities or whatever else but instructors should bear in mind what the client has paid for and what they want. I try and include an element of learning in all sessions but sessions should be tailored for the group or individual involved. I have to say I never clip in juniors in full body harnesses as clipping in normally raises the knot to an appropriate height to smack them in the face.
Threading up or down? Threading up you can see what's going on more easily. Threading down you are at least secured to a load bearing part of your harness if you miss the leg loop attachment point. Both ways are correct and climbers should choose whatever feels right for them. Likewise instructors shouldn't prescribe methods as right or wrong. On the one hand if you encourage to thread from the top novices will at least be secured to their waist loop but if they thread upwards they'll more easily see what's going on. Prescribing rules doesn't fit with a sport where there are a number of ways of doing things right but it can be confusing for a novice if you give them too many options and instructions on subtleties that some experienced climbers and instructors don't get. I think I thread from the bottom but it's such an automatic thing for me, thinking about it now I can't remember which way I actually do it! At the root of all of this discussion I think it should be encouraged amongst everyone to double check themselves and each other. Complacency and distraction cause problems that simply checking each other would help eliminate.
Clipping in. I don't do it because I'm worried half way through an hour long taster session I'll forget how to rethread a figure eight or become distracted and not check it, but simply because it is quicker. On a taster or fun session clients want to climb and particularly if you have a larger group they can get a bit narked if you spend more time tying and untying knots than getting them on the wall. I think this is an unfortunate symptom of modern society that want quick and easy access to activities or whatever else but instructors should bear in mind what the client has paid for and what they want. I try and include an element of learning in all sessions but sessions should be tailored for the group or individual involved. I have to say I never clip in juniors in full body harnesses as clipping in normally raises the knot to an appropriate height to smack them in the face.
In reply to timjones:
I always get people to thread the rope themselves, male or female, young or old. No problem about being intrusive and they learn better if they do something themselves. I've also worked with young kids. I find that if you involve them at all stages - the above is a good, if minute, example - then they are less likely to just carry on chatting to their mates etc.
Gone are the good old days of clipping a steel screwgate into their harness (waist belt) and doing it up with a pair of pliers...
I always get people to thread the rope themselves, male or female, young or old. No problem about being intrusive and they learn better if they do something themselves. I've also worked with young kids. I find that if you involve them at all stages - the above is a good, if minute, example - then they are less likely to just carry on chatting to their mates etc.
Gone are the good old days of clipping a steel screwgate into their harness (waist belt) and doing it up with a pair of pliers...
Agree with nearly everything there.
To be clear it's not Marcus saying "the way you say your mind operates isn't natural". It's me saying that we can all be distracted and, that being the case, it's perhaps a good idea to have ways of working that:
1 - reduce the chances of becoming distracted
2 - reduce the consequences of becoming distracted
In that sense "lazy" and "sloppy" are just other words for "distracted". We can all be distracted but perhaps our distractedness rarely bites us on the bum and, of course, some people are more able to recruit more attention than others and are less likley to be distracted in the same circumstances.
If you are never even temporarily (and fortunately inconsequentially?) distracted while working/climbing then, perhaps, in that way - the way your mind works isnt't "natural". If any of us are...
It's perhaps fortunate that our moments of distraction don't also coincide more often with two other "lemons".
To be clear it's not Marcus saying "the way you say your mind operates isn't natural". It's me saying that we can all be distracted and, that being the case, it's perhaps a good idea to have ways of working that:
1 - reduce the chances of becoming distracted
2 - reduce the consequences of becoming distracted
In that sense "lazy" and "sloppy" are just other words for "distracted". We can all be distracted but perhaps our distractedness rarely bites us on the bum and, of course, some people are more able to recruit more attention than others and are less likley to be distracted in the same circumstances.
If you are never even temporarily (and fortunately inconsequentially?) distracted while working/climbing then, perhaps, in that way - the way your mind works isnt't "natural". If any of us are...
It's perhaps fortunate that our moments of distraction don't also coincide more often with two other "lemons".
Should've added that the belayer typically faces away from the wall and is often seated, that's what I understand by bell-ringing.
I agree that it teaches them little but does have the advantage of, sometimes, keeping larger groups occupied. I don't tend to use it when teaching NICAS groups or adult learn-to-climbers. I do use it more often in tasters and "fun sessions".
I agree that it teaches them little but does have the advantage of, sometimes, keeping larger groups occupied. I don't tend to use it when teaching NICAS groups or adult learn-to-climbers. I do use it more often in tasters and "fun sessions".
In reply to jon:
I'd agree that it's good to get people to do it for themselves but there are always odd people who want to know it's done correctly by someone else. If it's their forst climb and they are nervous I'm not going to effectivley say "you won't get any help from me".
As for teaching rules what they will see is someone explaining how to thread the rope on their first climb and asking them to watch how to tie the knot. The second time they climb most will be asked to try to tie the knot for themselves.
I'm fortunate in that I volunteer my time to instruct Scouts and Guides. they are both progressive training organisations and that is what members get when they climb with me. I also train and assess other instructors to do the same job, they will be taught simple effective methods, at assessment I expect to see safe methods rather than my own way of doing things.
As for the sort of production line that the "birthday party" business involves with it's focus on packing them through quickly, I'd sooner do 9 to 5, 5 days a week at the local poultry factory! Why dumb our sport down for cheap entertainment?
> (In reply to timjones)
>
> I always get people to thread the rope themselves, male or female, young or old. No problem about being intrusive and they learn better if they do something themselves. I've also worked with young kids. I find that if you involve them at all stages - the above is a good, if minute, example - then they are less likely to just carry on chatting to their mates etc.
>
> Gone are the good old days of clipping a steel screwgate into their harness (waist belt) and doing it up with a pair of pliers..
>
> I always get people to thread the rope themselves, male or female, young or old. No problem about being intrusive and they learn better if they do something themselves. I've also worked with young kids. I find that if you involve them at all stages - the above is a good, if minute, example - then they are less likely to just carry on chatting to their mates etc.
>
> Gone are the good old days of clipping a steel screwgate into their harness (waist belt) and doing it up with a pair of pliers..
I'd agree that it's good to get people to do it for themselves but there are always odd people who want to know it's done correctly by someone else. If it's their forst climb and they are nervous I'm not going to effectivley say "you won't get any help from me".
As for teaching rules what they will see is someone explaining how to thread the rope on their first climb and asking them to watch how to tie the knot. The second time they climb most will be asked to try to tie the knot for themselves.
I'm fortunate in that I volunteer my time to instruct Scouts and Guides. they are both progressive training organisations and that is what members get when they climb with me. I also train and assess other instructors to do the same job, they will be taught simple effective methods, at assessment I expect to see safe methods rather than my own way of doing things.
As for the sort of production line that the "birthday party" business involves with it's focus on packing them through quickly, I'd sooner do 9 to 5, 5 days a week at the local poultry factory! Why dumb our sport down for cheap entertainment?
In reply to timjones:
No, you're not saying that at all. You'd be standing next to them reassuringly. Obviously, if their nerves are completely shot or if they're completely uncoordinated I'd do it for them...
I was referring more to theading the rope through the harness, not tying the knot necessarily, though if it was appropriate I'd let them do that too.
> If it's their forst climb and they are nervous I'm not going to effectivley say "you won't get any help from me".
No, you're not saying that at all. You'd be standing next to them reassuringly. Obviously, if their nerves are completely shot or if they're completely uncoordinated I'd do it for them...
> As for teaching rules what they will see is someone explaining how to thread the rope on their first climb and asking them to watch how to tie the knot.
I was referring more to theading the rope through the harness, not tying the knot necessarily, though if it was appropriate I'd let them do that too.
In reply to jon:
Those are two reasons for doing it for them. I also find that a small minority of people like the simple reassurance that you are looking after them on their first climb, they tend to ask you to help and I wouldn't deny them that help/reassurance. It's more common when they are abseiling for the first time and are nervous about heights.
I was thinking of both. I'd tend to expect anyone over the age of 10 to be doing both for themselves pretty quickly.
> (In reply to timjones)
>
> [...]
>
> No, you're not saying that at all. You'd be standing next to them reassuringly. Obviously, if their nerves are completely shot or if they're completely uncoordinated I'd do it for them...
>
>
> [...]
>
> No, you're not saying that at all. You'd be standing next to them reassuringly. Obviously, if their nerves are completely shot or if they're completely uncoordinated I'd do it for them...
>
Those are two reasons for doing it for them. I also find that a small minority of people like the simple reassurance that you are looking after them on their first climb, they tend to ask you to help and I wouldn't deny them that help/reassurance. It's more common when they are abseiling for the first time and are nervous about heights.
> I was referring more to theading the rope through the harness, not tying the knot necessarily, though if it was appropriate I'd let them do that too.
I was thinking of both. I'd tend to expect anyone over the age of 10 to be doing both for themselves pretty quickly.
Yes. The "birthday party" aspect of a small part of some of the work I do is probably the aspect I enjoy least. Even NICAS can degerate into a rather rushed checkbox process driven by employer and parent expectation. Many of the youngsters I see doing NICAS are also impatient with the consolidation aspect of the award which I think may be a reflection of their school experience driven by a checkbox assessment culture...
I other work I'm fortunate to work with people for whom their climbing experience strikes a deeper chord.
In reference to my original points, in future, I'll probably think very carefully about giving even adults a choice of how to do things.
My experience with this one client really was very salutory in the degree of upset it caused them.
I other work I'm fortunate to work with people for whom their climbing experience strikes a deeper chord.
In reference to my original points, in future, I'll probably think very carefully about giving even adults a choice of how to do things.
My experience with this one client really was very salutory in the degree of upset it caused them.
In reply to Oceanrower:
I've done it, but I couldn't tell you how on earth I did it. Ironically, it was shortly after I'd been explaining to my partner of the day about the advantage of threading the harness downwards, so when I came to be lowered off I was attached by the waist belt rather than the leg loops. Basically, it only takes a moments distraction, same as forgetting to finish the tie-in knot.
I don't buy the argument that it makes it harder to see the leg loops. I thread my harness downwards all the time and I've never had a problem seeing the leg loop tie-in point. I suppose it might depend on how big your beer gut is...
Then there's the question as to whether it matters which part of the harness you are tied in to. In terms of the strength of the harness, the UIAA sit harness hanging strength test must be carried out with the harness tied in through both the waist belt and the leg loops. There is a second requirement that the waist belt must be tested for pull-apart strength, but there is no corresponding strength test for the leg loops alone. A simple test at home makes it clear that hanging from the waist belt alone, while not as comfortable as hanging from the belay loop or a proper tie-in, is basically stable. Hanging from the leg loops alone, on the other hand, is not at all comfortable and is highly unstable - it feels like it would be very easy to invert. In the event of a fall in which the climber was temporarily incapacitated, being tied in only to the leg loops would leave them in an uncomfortably precarious position IMO.
> (In reply to timjones) How on earth can you "forget or miss" 50% of the entire harness?
I've done it, but I couldn't tell you how on earth I did it. Ironically, it was shortly after I'd been explaining to my partner of the day about the advantage of threading the harness downwards, so when I came to be lowered off I was attached by the waist belt rather than the leg loops. Basically, it only takes a moments distraction, same as forgetting to finish the tie-in knot.
I don't buy the argument that it makes it harder to see the leg loops. I thread my harness downwards all the time and I've never had a problem seeing the leg loop tie-in point. I suppose it might depend on how big your beer gut is...
Then there's the question as to whether it matters which part of the harness you are tied in to. In terms of the strength of the harness, the UIAA sit harness hanging strength test must be carried out with the harness tied in through both the waist belt and the leg loops. There is a second requirement that the waist belt must be tested for pull-apart strength, but there is no corresponding strength test for the leg loops alone. A simple test at home makes it clear that hanging from the waist belt alone, while not as comfortable as hanging from the belay loop or a proper tie-in, is basically stable. Hanging from the leg loops alone, on the other hand, is not at all comfortable and is highly unstable - it feels like it would be very easy to invert. In the event of a fall in which the climber was temporarily incapacitated, being tied in only to the leg loops would leave them in an uncomfortably precarious position IMO.
In reply to timjones:
Nor would I. Who said anything about denying somone of something? There are many possibilities between teaching someone how to do something by letting them try, and doing it for them, none of which include denying them of anything.
> they tend to ask you to help and I wouldn't deny them that help/reassurance.
Nor would I. Who said anything about denying somone of something? There are many possibilities between teaching someone how to do something by letting them try, and doing it for them, none of which include denying them of anything.
In reply to Martin W: - Your last point could be an argument for incorporating the belay loop into the tie-in knot.
In reply to jon:
I don't know that anyone did. I'm just endeavouring to explain that IME situations where people ask you to thread their harness are not uncommon. this is the main reason I would thread downhill on group sessions myself and teach those who don't reuire help the same in order to ensure consistancy.
> (In reply to timjones)
>
> [...]
>
> Nor would I. Who said anything about denying somone of something? There are many possibilities between teaching someone how to do something by letting them try, and doing it for them, none of which include denying them of anything.
>
> [...]
>
> Nor would I. Who said anything about denying somone of something? There are many possibilities between teaching someone how to do something by letting them try, and doing it for them, none of which include denying them of anything.
I don't know that anyone did. I'm just endeavouring to explain that IME situations where people ask you to thread their harness are not uncommon. this is the main reason I would thread downhill on group sessions myself and teach those who don't reuire help the same in order to ensure consistancy.
In reply to grittyshaker:
Depending on the harness design incorporating the belay loop may increase the strength of the tie in. I can't think of a harness design that has a loop that links waist and leg loops where it would reduce the risk of inverting.
> (In reply to Martin W) - Your last point could be an argument for incorporating the belay loop into the tie-in knot.
Depending on the harness design incorporating the belay loop may increase the strength of the tie in. I can't think of a harness design that has a loop that links waist and leg loops where it would reduce the risk of inverting.
In reply to timjones: - belay loop can be too long to engage leg loops when loaded if waist belt tie in used?
I guess one of the most important aspects of this thread is that it is encouraging us (me at least) to think very carefully about safety and to be conscious about the value of the techniques we use that we assume assure it. Fantastic CPD!
Thanks everyone!
Thanks everyone!
In reply to grittyshaker:
But all the weight will still be on the waist via the rope even with the rope through the belay loop it wont actually be pulled by the rope.
Try hanging by the five different methods
1, waist only
2, legs only
3, waist & belay loop
4, belay loop only
5, waist & legs
You will find that
1, most weight is supported via the waist but the belay loop will pull the leg loops up albeit lower than normal.
2, weight supported by legs only unless you invert then the belay loop will support the waist.
3, exactly the same result as in 1 above because the rope cant pull the belay loop high enough to have any effect. So the legs are still only pulled slightly via the belay loop.
4, weight spread evenly over legs & waist just like tying in with a rope properly threaded through both waist & leg loops
5, as 4 above.
As adding the belay loop into the tying in is adding nothing to the system why do it?
Just to spice things up.
As 4 & 5 result in the same support yet 4 only need one item threading so is simpler should we be tying in via the belay loop when indoors?
> (In reply to timjones) - belay loop can be too long to engage leg loops when loaded if waist belt tie in used?
But all the weight will still be on the waist via the rope even with the rope through the belay loop it wont actually be pulled by the rope.
Try hanging by the five different methods
1, waist only
2, legs only
3, waist & belay loop
4, belay loop only
5, waist & legs
You will find that
1, most weight is supported via the waist but the belay loop will pull the leg loops up albeit lower than normal.
2, weight supported by legs only unless you invert then the belay loop will support the waist.
3, exactly the same result as in 1 above because the rope cant pull the belay loop high enough to have any effect. So the legs are still only pulled slightly via the belay loop.
4, weight spread evenly over legs & waist just like tying in with a rope properly threaded through both waist & leg loops
5, as 4 above.
As adding the belay loop into the tying in is adding nothing to the system why do it?
Just to spice things up.
As 4 & 5 result in the same support yet 4 only need one item threading so is simpler should we be tying in via the belay loop when indoors?
In reply to Richard Wilson: Thanks for that. Probably the most persuasive argument. It's not so much "adding the belay loop" as not requiring a decision to be made about what to leave out.
Attracted by the idea about just the belay loop...
Attracted by the idea about just the belay loop...
In reply to Richard Wilson:
Or clip into the belay loop with a (auto-locking) screwgate which is also clipped into a Fig 8 on the bight tied in the rope and left there for the duration of the session - presumably what the ALAA bloke was talking about?
Personally, I don't have any problem with that for top-roping at a wall (well, anywhere I suppose, it's just I only really do it at a wall). It's quick (meaning you're unlikely to be distracted partway through) and adequately strong. And was pretty much standard practice when I first climbed at indoor Walls (with a normal screwgate).
The downside is you're not teaching people a technique that's useful if they want to move on to lead climbing. That's not necessarily an insurmountable problem, but certainly people don't always remember the details of what's appropriate when.
But I doubt there's a perfect solution that's best in all situations. Everything's going to be a bit of a compromise....
> Just to spice things up.
>
> As 4 & 5 result in the same support yet 4 only need one item threading so is simpler should we be tying in via the belay loop when indoors?
>
> As 4 & 5 result in the same support yet 4 only need one item threading so is simpler should we be tying in via the belay loop when indoors?
Or clip into the belay loop with a (auto-locking) screwgate which is also clipped into a Fig 8 on the bight tied in the rope and left there for the duration of the session - presumably what the ALAA bloke was talking about?
Personally, I don't have any problem with that for top-roping at a wall (well, anywhere I suppose, it's just I only really do it at a wall). It's quick (meaning you're unlikely to be distracted partway through) and adequately strong. And was pretty much standard practice when I first climbed at indoor Walls (with a normal screwgate).
The downside is you're not teaching people a technique that's useful if they want to move on to lead climbing. That's not necessarily an insurmountable problem, but certainly people don't always remember the details of what's appropriate when.
But I doubt there's a perfect solution that's best in all situations. Everything's going to be a bit of a compromise....
In reply to Carolyn:
In some countries that is the only way you are allowed to "tie" in.
> (In reply to Richard Wilson)
>
> [...]
>
> Or clip into the belay loop with a (auto-locking) screwgate which is also clipped into a Fig 8 on the bight tied in the rope
>
> [...]
>
> Or clip into the belay loop with a (auto-locking) screwgate which is also clipped into a Fig 8 on the bight tied in the rope
In some countries that is the only way you are allowed to "tie" in.
In reply to Carolyn: - yes, that's what the "AALA bloke" was on about and the technique we're moving to at a centre I work at for "just for fun" sessions.
In reply to grittyshaker:
I think you should just teach it the 'proper' way. Anything else is likely to confuse, create 'myths' about tying in, and ultimately undermine confidence.
Let's say they tie-in properly. Would you then tell them it's unsatisfactory because it hasn't done whatever you want with the belay loop? If no- then there's your answer. If yes, then you'll have to come up with a half truth about why it's unsatisfactory.
I think you should just teach it the 'proper' way. Anything else is likely to confuse, create 'myths' about tying in, and ultimately undermine confidence.
Let's say they tie-in properly. Would you then tell them it's unsatisfactory because it hasn't done whatever you want with the belay loop? If no- then there's your answer. If yes, then you'll have to come up with a half truth about why it's unsatisfactory.
In reply to grittyshaker: Discussing threading up or down, and whether it's better to be tied into only the waist loops or only the leg loops misses the point - you should be tied in properly. The reason this doesn't happen (and I've done it myself) is almost invariably due to being distracted.
We're all easily distracted, and so for me one of the important elements of tying in is to consciously remind myself of the need not to let myself be distracted. I make a point of not talking, or letting myself be talked to, when tying in.
The second point is always to check yourself and your partner.
If you make these elements part of the tying-in routine then even if you make a mistake it will be picked up before you start climbing.
The OP's method is only "safer" if you've tied in incorrectly and missed out one of the elements. Far better to make sure you've tied in correctly in the first place. Check or deck.
We're all easily distracted, and so for me one of the important elements of tying in is to consciously remind myself of the need not to let myself be distracted. I make a point of not talking, or letting myself be talked to, when tying in.
The second point is always to check yourself and your partner.
If you make these elements part of the tying-in routine then even if you make a mistake it will be picked up before you start climbing.
The OP's method is only "safer" if you've tied in incorrectly and missed out one of the elements. Far better to make sure you've tied in correctly in the first place. Check or deck.
It always stuck in my mind when I was being trained back in the day someone saying 'In the unlikely event of the belt and leg loops failing...how would you feel about holding someone on your arms?' Same goes for tying into the belay loop.
Probably was Marcus..he was a very thorough instructor and used a lot of psychology in his teaching process.
I went through all 3 bottom up but can see the point of bottom down.
mind you...harnesses were perhaps less well constructed back then!
Repeating and activity over and over does naturally increase unconscious action due to over learning and lodging the action in our subconscious mind. Its a human process and allows us to free up our conscious mind to consider other problems while completing a well repeated action efficiently
However its also open to more error naturally.
To not be aware that one's mind is...as a human being....affected by the process is in my mind sloppy.
Probably was Marcus..he was a very thorough instructor and used a lot of psychology in his teaching process.
I went through all 3 bottom up but can see the point of bottom down.
mind you...harnesses were perhaps less well constructed back then!
Repeating and activity over and over does naturally increase unconscious action due to over learning and lodging the action in our subconscious mind. Its a human process and allows us to free up our conscious mind to consider other problems while completing a well repeated action efficiently
However its also open to more error naturally.
To not be aware that one's mind is...as a human being....affected by the process is in my mind sloppy.
In reply to cobbwebb:
I'm struggling to see the point of this "saying"?
If both belt and leg loops fail is there any means of tieing in that will save you?
> It always stuck in my mind when I was being trained back in the day someone saying 'In the unlikely event of the belt and leg loops failing...how would you feel about holding someone on your arms?' Same goes for tying into the belay loop.
I'm struggling to see the point of this "saying"?
If both belt and leg loops fail is there any means of tieing in that will save you?
In reply to timjones:
lol
Right you are!
I'm thinking of somat else
Serves to ponder through your responses before posting
Ta for pointing that out
lol
Right you are!
I'm thinking of somat else
Serves to ponder through your responses before posting
Ta for pointing that out
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...