UKC

Fortunately not too serious an outcome but could have been so much worse.

Pretty much all the places I know have a no helmets policy on auto belays. What's the general concensus on UKC?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3720111/Girl-throttled-helmet-strap...

P.s. Sorry for the DM link, it's the only one I could find.

In reply to Oceanrower:

What the article doesn't mention is whether the kid was treating the auto belay like a funfair ride like 90% of the kids in climbing gyms and spinning in circles or leaning back and screaming.

The problem with that is that without a helmet if they clip a hold while dicking about they are likely to do themselves some damage. Swings and roundabouts really.

The whole article sounds like a precursor to the parents suing the wall.

That said I stubbed a toe at the reach the other day and I'm considering some legal action.. foot modeling career is in bits.

In reply to Sutok:

Sprained (popped) my ankle on a roof 5+ boulder indoors two weeks ago. Can I claim. Harhar!

In reply to Oceanrower:

I would say that if the wall feels that it 'needs' to issue helmets (though there is actually no need to issue helmets) then they should evaluate what climbing helmets are designed to do and issue industrial safety helmets instead where the chin strap is designed to break away under tension.

What do I know?

In reply to Oceanrower:

All the walls i have been to say no helmets on auto belay routes. TBH this isnt really a climbing wall though, its a kids entertainment play centre type thing. In this situation i do not expect 99% of the kids or parents to know the implications so the centre is 100% responsible for this.

At a wall, my daughter who is a similar age knows what she is doing and we accept our own responsibility for our actions.

In reply to Oceanrower:

Atleast she got a free juice out of it!

In reply to 98%monkey:
Its not a wall. Its a clip and climb type setup where anyone can go after a 20min briefing.

As i said, the users have absolutely no knowledge of what the implications are so the centre is 100% responsible in this instance (Unless the kid has done something which is outwith the article but it doesnt sound that way). Its why all of the auto belays i have seen at these type of places have a security magnet thing on the carabiner so only an employee can open/close the biner

In reply to Oceanrower:

Irrespective of whether helmets are worn/allowed it seems sensible with autobelay lines to use the sort of holds used in childrens' play parks which are specifically designed so they can't snag clothing, hoods, straps etc. I guess over time as incidents like this occur guidelines will evolve.
jk

In reply to Oceanrower:

Must admit, the one i have noticed which uses an autobelay but enforces the wearing of helmets is usually the mobile wall setup on a trailer at shows etc. Not sure if its a hard and fast rule for indoor walls to restrict helmet wearing on autobelays but it seems that they are ahead of the game regarding safety than the more 'fun' market

In reply to Andy Say:
"But Tracy was horrified that staff didn't call an ambulance and instead took Katie to Southend hospital's A&E department herself where doctors were shocked to learn Katie had not been given a neck brace after suffering a neck injury."

Ugh! Ugh to the Daily-Mail-ness of the reporting there.

What actually happened there though? It seems to me that the child got into difficulties and a member of staff spotted it and rescued her quickly enough that there was no harm done. Doesn't mean it wasn't potentially dangerous, of course.


Tension greater than the weight of a smallish child probably, if industrial helmets were available in child sizes which as far as I'm aware they're not.
(If I remember right, the EN standard test for an industrial helmet allows the chinstrap to take up to 50kg before letting go.)

Tricky innit. If they give the kids helmets this snagging thing is a possibility, don't give them helmets there'll be trouble when little Johnny bangs his head (besides which, kids generally like being given a special hat to wear, makes the whole thing feel more 'adventurous' to them somehow), and if they modify the helmets themselves they're on very dodgy ground indeed.

I guess the key is careful route setting to avoid 'snaggy' holds, volumes or whatever that may catch the shell of a lid. Bearing in mind that they might also catch other things, the hood of a hoody for example could be equally dangerous.

I see that Daily Hate report mentions that the company in question intend to publish something when they've looked into this, seems a bit unlikely somehow but if they do decide to do that it might make interesting reading.

In reply to deepsoup:

Bike Helmets?

In reply to Oceanrower:

Anyone know if helmets in kids sizes have specially designed chin strap clips to account for the probably lower weight of the user?

In reply to Oceanrower:
The issue is not so much the chinstrap as the extent to which many helmets "overhang" at the back on a small head. Add to this difficulty/inability which kids have in fending off from the wall as we would do in descent plus the preponderance of big jughandles on easy routes and you have a recipe for disaster. I've heard tales of instructors having to solo to alarming height in order to "unhook" young victims - the problem is well known and I'd have thought that most operators would have stopped using helmets on autobelays now?

It does send out a confused message when normal belayed sessions are run in helmets and these are perceived to be the norm - personally I've always questioned whether this should be so. My own suspicion is that helmets got brought indoors along with commercial groups around the same time that operators started to see walls as a positive option to rainy days top-roping at crags, nobody bothered to challenge this and it became rooted, even although a helmet is first and foremost a stonefall-shield.

I've asked a number of indoor instructors about instances where a helmet has received a bang withing the normal context of climbing and lowering on a bottom-rope (ie occasions where it's presence has justified itself). None of them could remember a single example.

It may of course be that a compromise is possible, but that may require someone to think outside the box and design a helmet that is designed for a small head and for bumps and scrapes rather than a single catastrophic impact. It may well be that this helmet wouldn't look much like the helmets we currently see at walls, perhaps something softer and more conformable, perhaps a bit like this? http://www.sheldonbrown.com/images/HairnetsmDSCF0011.JPG

In reply to gethin_allen:

Very unlikely I would think. Unlike industrial helmets, the chinstraps on climbing helmets are not designed to release under load. (The EN standard they conform to requires the chinstrap not to release at anything below a 50kg load - the exact opposite of the standard for industrial helmets.)

In reply to Sutok:


Have a go at actually reading the article. Let me know if you get stuck.

In reply to Jamie B:


It wouldn't be difficult to come up with a 'weak' chinstrap for that matter. The problem is that such a helmet wouldn't comply with the EN standard that it would need to in order to be CE marked as a climbing helmet. It presents a would-be manufacturer with some potentially quite significant problems to overcome regarding the legalities/liabilities, maybe insurance issues, dunno - and all for a very small market in which people arguably don't need to be wearing helmets anyway.

In reply to Oceanrower:

A tough one to call as we dont know all the circumstances.

Personally I don't see much point on helmets in walls (top rope only).

They just appear to be for ott h&s types or commercial groups/outings -whereby they must take all reasonable precautions to avoid danger to the clients (and subsequent litigation).

If this was one of those non-permanent walls (almost cylindrical in shape with 4/5 auto belays around it) they often have a metal bar at the top through which the rope runs and leads the rope a good 2 ft away from the wall (at the top).

On those types of walls...any fall is going to be clean as your body will fall away and the arm at the top will ensure you stay away from the wall.
So helmets are a bit ott (unless its just a precaution against swinging back in).

On normal climbing walls, similarly its the return swing that offers most danger as the fall often swings you away from the wall...but usually this only occurs on a overhang. A sheer vertical will have you fall vertical and slightly away....again ott in the helmet front.

Either way a bit of a freak.

In reply to Oceanrower:

The Fun Factory.
I'd suggest it's a moneymaking concern where the issue of helmets is merely lip service to satisfy users of an element of attention to safety.
The auto belay is simply a fallible mechanical device that avoids the proper supervision of a competent belayer. Fine in a proper climbing wall but not suitable, I would say, in a 'Fun Factory' environment.
A bit of extra redundancy should be in place for kids and unwary parents in these circumstances, and that can only mean proper supervision, not the reliance on devices.

In reply to Oceanrower:

I would suggest something like a rugby head guard would be more suitable for this job. ENough to remove any real impact if the kid slipped whilst on the auto belay (As pointed out above the chances of swinging into a wall with much force are slim). Plus its velcro strap and no real 'gaps' for the cap to catch on. Maybe not giving the kids such a 'rock climber' experience but probably safer. This is for the indoor 'fun' market i am referring to

In reply to birdie num num:

Seems a bit unfair. Auto belays have proven themselves *much* more reliable than human belayers, at least once the climber has clipped in properly.

In reply to gethin_allen:


all climbing helmets have straps that don't fail at a given load, so if you decide to cartwheel or flick down a boulder field, the helmet 'should not' detach before your head or helmet disintegrates. As Andy Say says above industrial lids fail, so if the builder slips and is some how hung up by a hat on scaffolding, the strap clip with release.

The logic answer would be a little rubber band or clip where the excess helmet straps clips or runs into, problem solved by the simplest means, not the most complex or costly.

In reply to deepsoup:


Our wall has a no helmet policy on autobelays, and we don't helmet our own groups for any sessions, whether on ropes or autos. We have a few helemts which we can choose to use if we are teaching lead falling, or for using when we are route setting, but we don't use them indoors other than that. I have never heard of parents complaining about our lack of helmets, even on the odd occasion that someone does bang their head. I think you would have to try pretty hard to bang your head hard enough to do any real damage in a top roping setting that is properly supervised!! (I'm not going to say you couldn't - I'm sure someone somewhere has managed!!). If external groups use the wall and want to put helmets on their clients, that is fine, but they can either choose to remove helmets for autobelays or not use them.

In reply to summo:

I don't think it was the excess strap that was the problem. The problem is usually that the helmet overhangs the back of the head on children and that part can catch on holds

In reply to girlymonkey:


my understanding was the excess strap slotted in behind a hold?

In reply to summo:

re-reading the article, that does sound like what it suggests. Seems unlikely though, unless the back of the hold wasn't flush with the wall. It would be pretty tricky to get a loose end of strap to stick that firmly in a hold, whereas there have been numerous cases of the helmet its self catching on holds. It seems more likely that it is a case of journalists not really understanding the situation. The chin strap would be what strangled her, but I would guess that it's due to the shell of the helmet catching

In reply to summo:

Impossible to tell from that DM article, and the journalism is such (in the DM of course, but also journalism generally is such) that even if it did say explicitly one way or the other I don't think that would be very reliable.

As girlymonkey says I think it's more likely that it was the shell of the helmet that caught. All the adjustment in the cradle is at the back, so the front of the shell remains close to the forehead and the smaller the head the bigger the 'overhang' at the back.

In reply to girlymonkey:

Sounds eminently sensible. Do you have any specific policy regarding route setting and the holds used on the autobelay lines?

In reply to deepsoup:

No, we don't. I don't know of any incidents of people getting anything caught on any holds though. Many of our holds wouldn't be the shape anyway to easily catch on clothes, harnesses etc. I may start to consider this more when setting from now on though!!

In reply to deepsoup:


Possibly less critical if helmets aren't worn. Kids on autobelays will generally require big holds! Another key element of design is the suspension point for the unit - ideally this should be extended out from the top of the wall as this helps keep fallers/descenders clear.

In reply to Oceanrower:

I understand the safety benefit of the frame having the autobelay further from the wall but from a young climbers perspective it can be a right royal pita. My young daughter uses auto belays at our local fitness centre which have this setup. It really annoys her when she is doing a technical move near the top and its the auto belay pulling her away from the wall for the move rather than her ability.

We now lead a grade or so lower and top rope the harder grades because the auto belays were spoiling it for her. But that means i dont get to climb

In reply to deepsoup:

Well in this instance it just proved itself fallible. An auto belay device is not capable of hauling a child back up again as a human belayer would be. I don't think it's unfair, I just don't believe auto belay devices are suitable for 'The Fun Factory' or other places where there is no competent supervision for children.
No problem in climbing walls.

In reply to summo:

Rather than jury rigging helmets, the wall could go along with the rest of the industry and not allow helmets on autobelay lines. Unless there's people hurling rocks at them from above, in which case it's reasonable to balance one risk against the other.

In reply to climbwhenready:

And, I believe, the manufacturer recommendations (although I could be misremembering).

In reply to Jamie B:

No doubt, but while unlikely, it is possible for other things to snag though. Clothing mostly, I suppose.
Ghastly true story - the (adult) son of a work colleague died a couple of years ago when he fainted (he had a touch of flu or somesuch) and his hoody caught on a fencepost.

In reply to birdie num num:

Heh. That's a good point, there is that.

Nevertheless I can't help feeling that human belayers, particularly the human belayers that might be employed by a "fun factory" type establishment to belay kids for minimum wage, would prove all the more fallible.

In reply to Oceanrower:
It's a bit odd how at work i had to pay nearly £700 to have a few guys trained to step out a crane basket on a auto belayer. My 7 year old son can jump off on them(climbing wall) without any formal training. Makes me think why a 7 year old is considered competent but a bunch of 30 something construction workers are considered to require training. £££££££

In reply to fmck:

I suspect we all know what you mean - but the "AW" in "H&SAW 1974" probably still has a lot to do with it.

In reply to fmck:


You'll mean a fall arrest, not an auto belay.

In reply to mwr72:

I suspect not. I think he means a controlled descent device (not so much a fall arrest device as an emergency exit) - in which case the experience of being lowered on one is very much like an autobelay.

In reply to Thelittlesthobo:



I run one of those.

We have a no helmets policy.

But then the company is an outdoor company & not a "fun" company.

In reply to deepsoup:




Not a fan of any of the scandal sheets, but if the sentence prior to your quote,


"She was put into the recovery position and later regained consciousness, before being offered her a free juice by staff."

has any truth to it; and staff didn't suggest calling an ambulance I'd have some concerns about that.