UKC

Hi guys,

I'm not an expert at all, so please if I'm saying something that does not make sense let me know. I won't be offended at all!
I just got the latest Black Diamond ATC Pilot. By reading the instructions, it emerges that the lower part, made of plastic, might break the device by dropping it or walking on it.

Of course, we do take care of our gear, but what if somehow there is a sudden force applied on the bottom part of the device? Would that brake it? If it can break by dropping, it could break easier after loading it suddenly. No?

Of course, I’m sure Black Diamond tested it in different ways and loads. And they made sure this won't happen. However, that warning in the instructions puts some doubts in my mind. What's your opinion? Is it only me thinking this?

Meanwhile, I wrote to Black Diamond, and I'll keep you posted. Following links to the device and the instructions.

- ATC Pilot: https://eu.blackdiamondequipment.com/en_GB/climbing-belay-rappel/big-air-pi... - Instructions: https://eu.blackdiamondequipment.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-bdel/defa...

Cheers, Balandino.

The plastic bit doesn’t take any load in a fall so I wouldn’t worry.

Hi jezb1, thanks for answering, I though the same.

What in case the fall is not caught soon enough and there is a sudden shift of the ATC upwards? Usually in tubular devices is a still cable stopping this, which I guess it's stronger than plastic. Would this force that strong to break the plastic bit? An so, make the belay device not function properly?

I think you're visualising the lock process wrong - when the device locks, it moves downwards, bringing the steel against the carabiner. This will happen even if the fall is sudden and unexpected. 

Personally I thought the plastic was fragile too but after taking a deep breath and stamping on our test model I revised that opinion. It flexes well! 

What Mischa says...

The wire on a regular belay plate is just to keep it in the right spot, it takes no load at any time.

Hi there,

thanks for your answer  Im sure BD would never release a product that has the remote possibility of not being safe. Being not expert and very curious of how things happens and why they are built in that way some concerns came up. But again I'm not expert at all

You say our test model, do you work for Black Diamond/ review devices regularly? Just a curiosity, so I can follow your work  

Considering I'm not expert, why is it then there the wire? Isn't it to prevent that it slides up along the rope? So in that case it takes load?

To attach the tube to your harness. If loaded the wire won't break but be ripped out at the contact with the tube

In the most literal sense it take a load, just not a safety critical one.

I work for an outdoor firm so we often get test models to play with  

What worries me with the Black Diamond ATC Pilot is not the use of material, that I consider safe.

It worries me that the device does not work reliably when you need it most.

It comes in the shape of an auto-tuber, and looks like a cross-breed of the Salewa Ergo Belay, and the Edelrid Jul 2. Unfortunately, it is no way better than these two, it is the worst "supposed-to-be-locking" device I have met.

Make the following test: hang a fixed rope in the first quickdraw in the gym. Attach the device, and hang my 200 lbs into it. This is the situation a belayer is in, lifted from the ground when the climber has fallen. Now you would expect an auto-tuber to lock, wouldn't you? What happens if the belayer loses control of the breaking end?

In this situation, good old Mammut Smart lets the rope slowly creep through, this is fine since both are slowly lowered. Jul 2 locks a bit better. Ergo Belay locks perfectly, no slipping at all. The ATC Pilot lets the rope go through and it accelerates!

So, bring a crash-pad when you test the Pilot

Literally the same thing that happens with any other 'semi-auto'? They're not designed to hold the climber alone - if you want this then buy a grigri, which will do it even if it's not certified to do so. 

Arse to deck? Ouch. 

Regrettably some of the advertising, a large number of "reviewers" and comments on the forums give the opposite impression, that is that they "lock" solidly. This is so widely believed that there are those who propose we should all be using them as they are safer if the belayer becomes incapacitated.

The reality is most of the semi-assisted devices have poor braking force without any help from the belayer AND poor braking force when the belayer is holding the rope as well. 

The plastic part looks like it is just to make the metal structural part pretty and ergonomic...

I know you've got an 'L plate' but as a first post that really is diving in at the deep end.  It's an assisted belay device, not an autoblock-type  device.  You should make yourself familiar with assisted belay devices and their limitations before making such assertions, to which I would expect BD to take exception.

This is not my experience. I am quite happy with the Jul family and the Ergo, the latter blocking most reliably for an autotuber.

Another issue with the ATC Pilot is that there is no clear carabiner recommendation. The instructions just say to use a HMS (type H) one. As HMS carabiners come nowadays with lots of different profiles there are a quite a lot where the Pilot does not work at all.

They have a picture of the BD Gridlock, and on the next picture forbid the DMM Belay master as the gate clip prevents the Pilot from swinging. Now try the Gridlock, and it cannot swing as well because the carabiner's waist is too narrow

I did not say autoblock, I said autotuber. The problem is that there is no norm for the assisted belaying, so users are trapped when similar looking devices behave quite differently.

For auto-blocking, there is EN 15151-1 called "Braking devices with manually assisted locking". This is where the Grigri is in. These devices must block automatically, even with the braking end just hanging down, after 1.8 m of rope running through. One blocked, they must withstand 2 kN for one minute with 0.3 m slip.

Now there is EN 15151-2, "Manual braking devices", this covers all simple tubers and the assisted devices we discuss here. The definition requires a manual force on the braking end that continuously increases the force on the load end. The norm now demands that the device does not fall apart when 7 kN are applied, but that's it. There is no requirement at all, how much even a simple tuber has to increase the force for the load, and in particular there is no norming of the additional assistance!

Do I understand that you agree that the Pilot is on the low end of the assisted functionality?

Your experience isn´t the same as measuring their performance, the Ergo already comes with a reputation as being weak as does the Pilot and there is nothing in their design that says this isn´t so, the MegaJul is measurably weak and the others of the family can be expected to be the same since the basic principle is the same.

Whether you are happy with the performance is different to the real performance.

I have made no statement whatsoever on the level of assistance provided by a BD Pilot, and therefore any understanding that you may have about my position on the matter is entirely without foundation. 

If you want a summary of my position, it is that different devices have different characteristics and that a user should be familiar with the device that they are using.  A change of device should be accompanied by a degree of caution until the user has become familiar with the new device.  The user may subsequently find that he prefers one device to another.

However since the the manufacturers provide no information whatsoever about the effectiveness of their devices all the potential customers have to guide their choice are some vague (or downright misleading advertising claims), poor reviewing by the media and the internet grapevine. Finding out a device isn´ t in fact adequate the hard way is a poor way to go about things.

I fully agree on this!

Yes. This is where "The Missing Norm" should come in , part -3 assisted devices, so we would have a minimum level to rely on.

Just calm down and buy a grigri? 

It´s impossible to write a standard which covers how effective "part 3" devices are so they get the choice of being tested as manual assisted locking or as manual devices. None of the semi-assisted devices locks up reliably without a belayer under certain circumstances and measuring the braking effectiveness is out of the question so the only options are outside bodies and people doing comparative testing and reports from users who have found some limitations of the devices, as is the case with the OP (and others).

Why? It is measured with a 'normative hand' on the breaking side, i.e. a friction device that slips at 250N which is the average adult holding strength. You can then measure that a simple asymmetric tuber holds about 2.2 kN.

Maybe I am completely missing the point here, other than that of a supposedly missing standard, but it seems to me that all that you have done is ascertained that the failure modes of devices when the manufacturers' instructions are ignored are not the same.  This comes as no surprise. 

It seems furthermore that you are looking for a device that fails safe when misused, which would be a different thing altogether.

If you are talking about why is there not a standard for how much assistance a braking device provides I'm quite sure that Jim is far better placed than most to provide a decent answer, although I rather suspect he's got better things to do.

I have got around the problem of which device to buy next by the simple expedient of asking someone at a wall if I could borrow their device for a route to see what it's like.

We know HOW to test it (though most of us prefer to use the pulled weight system as it has a lot of advantages), the problem is a test which can be performed in the various laboratories around the world. For this you need an enormous range of "standard" ropes to be kept in permanent availability and this is extremely unlikely to ever happen.

The default method which is used outside the standard is to compare the braking force to a widely available device which has a long production history, previously this was the original ATC and more commonly nowadays the benchmark is the ATC XP. This would be unnaceptable to the standards authority so the solution would be to develop a purpose built belay device which can be replicated at any time but even then there are problems if someone makes for example a smaller belay device than is the norm, that is what do we optimise our standard device for?

We as researchers can produce comparative tables of the various devices but that isn´ t the same as an industrial manufacturing standard. I can tell you that a Reverso produces less force than an ATC XP for example but I can´t tell you what braking force you will achieve with your rope.

The next ugly problem that arises is what is going to be pass or fail? It is well known in the research world that no conventional belay device actually produces enough braking force to cope with a worst case situation so either the standard would have to accept a lower value (this isn´t going to happen) or all current conventional belay devices are going to fail.

To add to Jim's expert remarks, "real performance" is mostly in mild situations (low fall factors and/or substantial system friction), in which the weaknesses of the various devices are obscured, leaving the user with only the convenience of handling  as a judgement point.

When we had hip belays, no one had to certify your ass.  The minute we start producing gadgets that are supposed to substitute for your ass, all kinds of issues arise...

Ah well yes, thats the other problem with writing the standard! The law (directive) that applies to the standard is for Personal Protection Equipment to prevent injury from falling from height and defines PPE as something the potential faller is equipped with, a belay device falls well outside this remit as the faller isn´t carrying it but the work-round is to call them abseil devices as well.

AND they must function with no input or interference from the user (or anyone else), that is they must be automatic. So for one category of device the test is hands free and the other category the device must merely be strong enough (to abseil with presumably).

The ability for a belay device to stop a faller when operated by a third person comes in no concievable way under the directive and thus is not part of the standard requirements. To change the directive would be a bad idea when regarding rock climbing generally as it already allows us a very generous interpretation of the basic concept which the directive was designed to cover, because we are involved in a sport doesn´ t exempt us from examination from politicians.

The simplest and obvious solution to all this is for all interested bodies to get together and decide on a testing protocol then fund the testing so the information on belay device performance is readily available to all climbers. In the meantime I shall look out of my window for some flying pigs!