UKC

Sara Qunaibet has posted on her Instagram of a accident whilst training.

very unfortunate and nasty.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DGdC-UDoTXz/

In reply to Murd:

Grigri?

In reply to TheGeneralist:

distracted belayer?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Distracted is being generous. He was simply not paying the slightest attention to the climber, and holding the GriGri cam open. Amazed the guy talking to the belayer thought that situation was all fine as well.

In reply to Murd:

That's criminal.

In reply to midgen:

It's not uncommon to see belaying like that from good climbers at European sport venues. It obviously works most of the time, as climbers aren't dropping like flies, but I've always liked to watch a new belayer to see how they treat the cam and feeding out before getting on the sharp end. If in doubt, I won't climb with them.

In reply to Murd:

That is horrendous 

In reply to Murd:

That's horrific to watch.

If something like that were to happen in the UK, does anyone know what the legal consequences might be?

In reply to midgen:

Yeah, I was really thinking it was clearly belayer error rather than anything intrinsic to the Grigri. 

In reply to Ciro:

Feeding out isn't really the problem here - there are ways of safely opening a grigri while you feed rope out; it's more that he seemed to be keeping the device open even when not feeding out, which looked to me like his usual modus operandi and a pretty obvious red flag even if he were to be paying attention.

In reply to john arran:

It’s that triple whammy of holding the cam open, having no hand on the dead rope, and not paying any attention to her at all.

If he had done just one of these things in isolation she may have had a chance of catching her before she decked, but the fact he was doing all at the same time is a perfect storm where by the time she started falling it was too late for him to recover. 

I hope she recovers well. The belayer needs to never come near anything to do with climbing ever again.

In reply to Murd:

Unforgivable, that’s not belaying that’s just feeding rope. I’d be pretty pissed off if I were her! Think it’s also a cautionary note to climbers to keep eye on belayer until they can personally trust them.

In reply to Ciro:

I don't know how to use a grigri so can't comment on the technicalities, but otherwise, yes, it looked like fairly standard eurobelaying for confident sport climbers.

In reply to midgen:

Looks like a non climber belaying with next to no instruction or understanding, paying zero attention. 

Text reads:

A Nightmare,
On the second day of the training comp in France for the IFSC World Cup in Korea —Your session starts and ends with one warm-up route. A 13 metres fall led to severe injuries, then the “training comp“ spent in a hospital undergoing surgeries, Unable to walk for 3 months, Relearn to walk after !
And to go back to sport 9 months of rehab minimum. Eventually, the plates and screws need to be removed through additional surgeries, and back to recovery again 🔁.
During this exhausting journey, you watch the opportunities slip away, and you can do nothing.

On top of this,
As an athlete on A National Team you expect to be taken care of!

- I faced reality when I came back from this “training comp”, struggled for months to secure the basic healthcare!!!

-And what's even more disappointing is that no one took responsibility or acknowledged the mistake. This accident was simply treated as one of the “Risk facts in sport climbing” 🤐, leaving me to deal with it alone.

Last thing, I'd really love to know what the old men discussed while destroying my life. Cause I don't know French 🤷🏽‍♀️

In reply to Moacs:

I'm not sure what's leading you to "non-climber". If anything, I'd say this level of total complacency is more likely to come from an experienced climber who thinks they know better.

In reply to midgen:

Quite.

However, I'd also note that she made no apparent effort to make sure her belayer knew she was at the top, that she was ready to descend and had taken in the slack before she lobbed off!

In reply to Robert Durran:

You do see this lassaiz faire style of belaying with a gri gri on a euro sport crags, and although it looks the same at first glance there are a few technicalities why this doesn’t always result in ground falls… 

For example if the belayer had just let go of the gri gri as soon as he felt the slightest tug on it instead of (it looks like) panicking and holding onto it tightly then she might be ok.  Same goes for us he’d just had the slightest grip on the dead rope.

TL: DR yes it looks the same, and that probably what he thought he was doing, but there’s some technical reasons why he wasn’t.

In reply to LastBoyScout:

Erm… no?

Why on earth should she? The belayer should be ready to catch a fall at any point.  That’s literally his job.

My friends and I never do the “safe, take” stuff at the top of an indoor route. Just clip the chains and lob off. 

In reply to Iamgregp:

I always try to check the belayer after clipping the top because once when i didn't, i let go and I fell 10m before my belayer stopped me.

In reply to inglesp:

It has happened numerous times in the UK, outdoors and indoors - to people I know.

Choose your belayers carefully, they have your life in your hands and always do a buddy check - both check knot correctly tied, belay device correctly used and full attention given.

In reply to LastBoyScout:

Victim-blaming of the highest order. Well done!

In reply to john arran:

of the lowest order, John. I generally agree, but, you should always alert your belayer that you are ready to descend.

In reply to Murd:

Personally, I do not think people should talk whilst belaying. The belayer should not talk, nor should anyone talk to the belayer. Not a universally popular opinion.
If people wish to chat, go for a coffee.

In reply to fotoVUE:

Why?

In reply to john arran:

Not at all - the belayer was clearly at fault.

However, I'm suggesting that there was a point at which she could have checked that her belayer was alert and ready to lower her safely and, if she had, the accident could have been avoided.

Personally, I like to be on a tight rope before being lowered. I also teach that as basic communication between climber and belayer.

In reply to inglesp:

There's a precedence in the UK for sueing a negligent belayer with the injured climber winning.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/climbing_wall_belay_partner_sue...

Unfortunately for Sara, she's form Saudi, and the belayer head coach guy, is also form Saudi. I'm pretty sure in Saudi he would win due to a sexist legal system.

In the French system, I don't know how successful you would be trying to sue a foreigner out of country. Especially a country such as Saudi.

In reply to Iamgregp:

And he clearly failed at that job. However, paying out rope and catching a fall is a different technique to lowering someone down.

Well, that's your choice. I prefer to be on a tight rope before being lowered.

In reply to LastBoyScout:

Why? A climber can fall at anytime, the belayer should be attentive from leaving the ground till safely returned to earth.

In reply to RX-78:

Yes but... equally what if a climber unexpectedly slipped/popped off a hold while climbing? (so didn't shout before coming off). Whether or not that's super common is irrelevant because it can/does happen sometimes, so the slightly odd behaviour of jumping off the top without checking shouldn't matter.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Superficially, you may be right, but there are enormous differences within what looks from a distance to be basically the same thing. In fact, the way I belay with a grigri probably looks to some people like it's not a million miles away from that. The most critical differences, however, would seem to be that:

• The lever of the grigri is depressed ONLY for the time it takes to pay out slack, then released, meaning that NO ACTION (i.e. releasing the lever) needs to be taken for a fall to be held unless actively paying out at the time;
• The dead end of the rope is held between the fingers of the left hand AT ALL TIMES, providing enough resistance to stop a fall even while paying out slack. This wasn't easily possible with the first generation grigris but is very much so with the smaller format of newer ones, with the possible exception of those with very small hands.

The not paying attention thing is quite a different matter. Yes, there are times when close belayer attention is essential, and in most cases it will greatly help reassure the climber, but equally there are times where line of sight simply isn't possible. Good belaying shouldn't rely on being able to see the climber and falls should be arrested effectively regardless of whether the belayer can see, or is even watching, what's happening.

In reply to LastBoyScout:

I'm the same. I trust my wife to catch my falls, but when it comes to lowering, it's just habit. 

In this case however, it doesn't make the belayer any less negligent, but anything that helps climbers protect themselves, especially against belayers they may not be familiar with  is worth noting.

In reply to LastBoyScout:

Of course catching someone and lowering someone are different. And he did neither. 

Absolutely, each to their own.  You’re absolutely at liberty to prefer a tight rope before you get lowered, however that doesn’t mean that a belayer should not be ready to catch you should you suddenly abandon this preference and go for the victory whip instead!

Being ready to catch a fall at any and all times times is literally the single most important thing a belayer has to do.  Personal preferences don’t change that.

The reason my partner and I got in to the habit of taking the lob was that we used to do the whole take/lower procedure when we finished a route, but we got some training off a really great coach some years back and one of the first he picked up on was our lack of confidence on the rope, and in each others belaying. He encouraged us to stop all that and start taking the drop to build the confidence in each other. It worked well, but like I say, each to their own!

In reply to montyjohn:

Disgraceful that they should be so negligent. I hope they're no longer head coach.

That this should happen at a national team level is utterly staggering.

In reply to Murd:

This is why I never climb ropes inside. And why I generally steer clear of sport-cragging for that matter.

I want my belayer paying as much attention as me, not having a chat with their pals.

In reply to Murd:

Almost all of us who've climbed for a while would if we're honest at least to ourselves admit that we've made mistakes belaying. I have. And personally I'm not of the opinion belaying always requires 100% attention, it requires situational awareness, judgement and discipline.

That video is however painful to watch.

jk

In reply to captain paranoia:

Don’t think the guy that belayed her was the Saudi coach. Even through the blurring the guy doesn’t look Arabic, and was speaking French to the other guy. Probably an IFSC supplied “professional” belayer?

In reply to jkarran:

We all have. Just not three such bad ones all at the same time…

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Has it been confirmed he's using a grigri? In comps they usually use non assisted belaying devices so assume its the same in training?

In reply to Iamgregp:

Equally appalling...

Video was silent for me, so I didn't hear any chatter.

In reply to PaulJepson: sorry to shatter any illusions but outside and trad can be equally bad in my experience. 

In reply to captain paranoia:

She said in the comments that she’d love to know “what the old men were talking about, as I don’t speak French”.

I don’t think she’d refer to the a Saudi coach like that….

In reply to Murd:

What I've learned from this thread is never to be belayed by anyone who bases their level of attention on potential legal consequences.

FWIW, I've been picked up in the past about talking while belaying (not with a Grigri, never used one) and I admit I dismissed it because "I know what I'm doing." My wake up was being belayed by someone who texted while belaying me. They insisted I was safe and maybe I was, but I couldn't not put my soloing head on.

In reply to Murd:

Is there any conformation that it was a grigri? My first thought (after holy shit I hope she's going to be ok) was that it is actually reasonably hard to hold a grigri open like this and that perhaps this was someone using a neox like they would (albeit dangerously) a grigri.

From playing with a neox it would be easy to do this right?

Obvs docent excuse the terrible belay in any case. 

In reply to J.Taylor:

Apart from a GriGri, what belay device requires you to have a hand over it to allow you to pay out slack?

In reply to 65:

I've had the same experience with discussion in a DofE FB group; more concerned about defending themselves in court than trying to prevent incidents that might end up in court...

In reply to J.Taylor:

I tried to pause the video but you can’t really tell…

I know at IFSC events the belayers use tube-style devices but from where the belayer has his hands it would seem to suggest gri gri.

Doesn’t really matter I guess. All of what he was doing was wrong regardless of device, he’s lucky he didn’t kill her.

Even the fact he’s wearing flip flops is a wee bit worrying for me.

In reply to LastBoyScout: Victim blaming and doubling down on it. Ironic from someone with your “handle”. A belayer should be prepared at all times and able to stop a fall at all times whether the leader likes to call take or not. Lowering might be different but if the leader drops/jumps from the chain it’s still a catch that is needed. The only check needed was the buddy check at the start. It’s almost like you don’t understand the belayer role and, more worrying, you say you teach it. 

In reply to RX-78: So a poor belayer, you didn’t do anything wrong. Maybe brief your belayer(s) on the service you expect. It’s one of the great unsaid things in climbing, what we expect, want, need from our belayer. Maybe you, me sometimes and others who feel the need to check the rope is tight need to have that conversation before we leave the ground.

In reply to CantClimbTom:

I agree, and getting near the top the belayer should be paying attention as that's when you are often most tired and may lose grip and take a fall. But it's a simple step to do.

In reply to RX-78: Sorry, I don’t get this notion that more/less attention is needed at any point. Near the ground you could slip, a hold spin/break and there is less margin for error. The belayer should be paying  attention from when you tie in and they check the device until you are safely back together on the deck. There’s no lesser attention spot.

In reply to RX-78:

Actually I like my belayer to really pay attention when I’m just a clip or a couple of clips off the ground that’s when even with proper belaying you are most likely to hit the deck.

In reply to Godwin:

Agreed. And I've already stated I place the belayer entirely at fault here.

But the intent when climbing up is not to let go.

The intent when descending is absolutely to let go. And from a personal point of view, I'd like to be sure my belayer is ready for that before committing.

In reply to fotoVUE:

It's interesting you say that, because that's not my impression. I'm sure there are people who are lousy belayers but is it really that common? I don't think I ever seen someone belaying as badly as the chap in the instagram post while sport climbing (or trad climbing) in the UK. The other country I've climbed a lot in is Finland, and although I haven't been indoor climbing in Finland for over a decade, my experience of outdoor climbing there is similar - I just haven't seen belaying that bad.

Funnily enough, I was sport climbing on Saturday and chatting with Andy my partner about my pretty new Edelrid Pinch belay device. He had a go with it to belay me and had no issues at all because it is really close in operation to a standard Grigri 2. But we were chatting about Grigri use and somehow we ended up discussing that we had both seen the worst grigri use in France. A couple of summers back I did some nice climbing at crag in Burgundy, a bit south of Dijon. It was midweek, maybe a bit before the main French holidays begin and most of the other people at the crag were older French local climbers, retirees I would imagine. All of them were friendly and a number chatted to us in English, including one lady who told us she had a made a visit to the UK about 40 years ago especially to climb at Stoney Middleton! But among these older climbers I saw a lot of what I thought was really dangerous grigri use - no hand on the dead rope, holding the device tight with the right hand (but not the dead rope) paying rope out with the left - rather like what is in the video. I've done bits of sport climbing in various central European countries over the last 30 years, including France before, but I don't think I've ever such a strong laissez faire approach to belaying!

In reply to Neil Morrison:

No, absolutely not "victim blaming" - I've stated several times that the belayer is entirely at fault.

You (and others) seem to be willfully missing my point that there was an opportunity to prevent this accident.

And that's quite apart from the idiot that was distracting the belayer!

In reply to LastBoyScout:

Going up or going down, a hold can snap, Spin, the climber can have a funny turn, they could get hit by something, who knows and really if one is going to overthink it, no point tying on, go fishing instead, however there is also no point tying on if the Belayer is not paying attention, may as well Solo, at least you know where you are..
 

In reply to LastBoyScout:

Going to back up Neil with this one 100%. 

If your climbing you don't need to or have to ask your belay to watch you... its a given and part of the deal of belaying. As a climber you should be able to come off any time without warning and be 100% safe when climbing indoors!

If your puffing out our ass and trying hard then you are not going to stop before a move, look down and make sure your belay is paying attention, perhaps asked them to watch, then go for the move. You just have it 100% at the move!

In reply to Murd:

Broken spine. Ouch. That was no belayer, just a belayer shaped object.

In reply to Murd:

Crazy. Hope they recover!

In reply to LastBoyScout:

I can see where you're coming from to an extent. Obviously the belayer should always have a hand on the dead end of the rope; a fall could come at any time. Nevertheless, sometimes we want the belayer to pay extra attention. A climber in extremis will often shout 'watch me!', or indeed, yell at the top of their voice when they do fall off (this may be involuntary), both of which help the belayer, and therefore the climber. In the same way, many will not decide to just jump off the top of a route. But it's a personal choice.   

In reply to LastBoyScout: so why say this "However, I'd also note that she made no apparent effort to make sure her belayer knew she was at the top, that she was ready to descend and had taken in the slack before she lobbed off!" ? You seem to be willfully missing the point that she shouldn't/doesn't have to do that, a good belayer will catch her regardless. Would she have had the same "opportunity" if she had fallen one bolt below because the route was too difficult? 

In reply to LastBoyScout:

“I’m not saying it was her fault, but if she hadn’t decided to walk home alone that night…”

Sorry mate, but it had to be said that your take on this is really not right at all. Did you say you teach people belaying?  Like, professionally?

In reply to Iamgregp:

You're conflating fault with pragmatic action that avoids certain outcomes.

The belayer was totally at fault but (assuming this was someone who had not belayed her before), if she'd checked at a suitable rest point during the route (*) that he was belaying properly, then this might not have happened.

She shouldn't have to do that, but pragmatically it makes sense to do it.

(*) - I'm presuming that as a training (warm-up?) there was somewhere to rest, might be different for a full blown competition route.

In reply to Neil Morrison:

There's a psychology - more prevalent in older climbers but still found today - that the climber doesn't fall. This made absolute sense in light of the very limited safety afforded by the rope, the anchors and the belay system. And if a climber were to be in imminent danger of falling, they would make doubly sure that the belayer was ready to catch them, as doing so was far from a trivial matter. This made perfect sense, especially since falls in days of old were extremely rare and belayers' attentions may not have been permanently well focused.

But in today's world falls are an integral part of the activity. If you're not falling at least sometimes, you're not trying. Rope and belay systems are extremely effective, if used correctly, and it should no longer be necessary - or even advantageous - to alert your belayer to the likelihood of a fall or even to make sure they are paying close attention.

Old habits, however, die hard, which is understandable. But to judge modern climbers by the standards of many decades ago is to fail to understand that times, and technology, have moved on. The OPs incident is notable because it is so rare, with probably hundreds of thousands of climbs completed with few, if any, serious belay errors.

Sure, we all need to be constantly vigilant and aware of potential dangers, but at the same time we should learn to trust the systems that have evolved over many years to keep us safe. You should be no less at risk of injury after having shouted down "watch me" to your belayer than if you hadn't, and you should equally expect a locked off belay plate if you fall regardless of whether the belayer is looking at you, out of sight round the corner, or engaged in any other matter. Yes, it can be reassuring to glance down at your belayer and see them looking up attentively, but if you need to see that to know that they have you safely belayed in the event of a fall, you probably need to reassess your trust in your partner or your trust in the belay system you're using.

In reply to john arran:

There are, but they are less failsafe than the Perzl recommended method, so worth paying attention to, along with other factors, when assessing whether to climb with someone.

In reply to Michael Hood:

I’m not conflating anything, I’m just using another example of a similar stance to illustrate a point.

Frankly, i think any suggestion that the injured party here could, or should, have done anything differently here is rather unhelpful and certainly unwarranted. 
 

In reply to LastBoyScout:

With that comment I would never let up belay me. You should be ready to catch a fall when belaying at any time not just when you’ve been warned and if you think any different I suggest you rethink climbing as a pastime 

In reply to john arran:

What an excellent post, take a bow.

In reply to Iamgregp:

I think that your take on their take is not right at all

I think that they've been clear enough that the belayer is at fault and that the climber was not at fault. Imo, they are allowed to discuss what could be done differently by both parties. I don't think that constitutes victim blaming.

I know you've said that you just jump off at the top of indoor/sport routes, but some people (myself included) check with the belayer that they've taken in. It's pretty widely known that the top of sport routes is somewhere that accidents happen with alarming frequency (I've lost count of the number of threads I've read about people being taken off belay/dropped when they're at the top of sport routes) so I think encouraging two way communication when the leader is at the top of sport routes is a good thing. Obviously the belayer should be paying attention and the check shouldn't be required, but sometimes it can be useful.

Edit to add: For the avoidance of doubt, I think that the belayer is at fault and the climber is not.

In reply to J.Taylor:

This is exactly what can happen if you belay with a gri gri like shown in the video

In reply to Iamgregp:

I don't think this pile on is entirely fair. He's making a fair point that there is an opportunity, not a necessity, to reduce risk by communicating before committing to the rope, as opposed to the route. Maybe the response in this particular thread is inevitable but the point bears consideration.

Sure, it shouldn't be necessary but that can be said of lots of things, until they are. We spend a fortune on insurance.

It's pretty clear who's at fault in that vid but lapses in care or competence do happen, even apparently ones as egregious as this! What can be done to reduce risk? Communication is one thing. I make blind radio calls when flying so others might pick up on my position and intentions and I likewise from their calls. It's not strictly necessary and not even the third line of defence but one day it might save my life or a mate's.

Jk

In reply to john arran: well said.

In reply to Fellover:

Sure, but until the climber and belayer have started that communication with one another (which is often not possible on outdoor routes so it’s a bit of a moot point) the belayer must be ready to hold a fall at any time.

This guy failed in that respect. He did a number of things wrong, she did absolutely nothing wrong. 

 

In reply to Iamgregp:

Yep, the belayer should be ready to hold a fall at all times.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

Glad we agree on that

In reply to fotoVUE:

I don't think I'm being a dick.

Yes, of course it happens in the UK too, but I think it is relatively uncommon, possibly because so many here have trad habits hard wired in to them (I certainly do!).

There is nothing wrong with this apparently nonchalant style of belaying on steep sports climbs once well above the ground if both climber and belayer are happy with it. Having a good bit of slack yarded out at all times means that there is no chance of short roping and might even make the belayer more free to concentrate on holding a fall rather than on paying out slack when actually needed. Admittedly this was a very nonchalant looking example but I have seen more extreme examples (most memorably one of the worlds best climbers at the time sitting on a rock miles out from the crag occasionally chucking coils on the ground where the rope snaked to the rock and up to his mate giving everything to a world class onsight attempt).

In reply to Toerag:

Not the GriGri. You can belay normally quite easily.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I’m old-fashioned enough to think that a belayer should never take his/her eyes off the leader while belaying, i.e. should be paying close attention at all times to what he/she is doing. I don’t think in all my 40 years of active climbing I ever saw any belaying as careless as this.

In reply to RX-78:

...that sounds fine but on that basis you should be checking before the top as well.

In reply to Iamgregp:

She seems to think that his age is more of a relevant factor than his footwear.

In reply to Michael Hood:

It's not just 'someone' though is it? It's someone belaying within a professional training environment.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Yes, as I said, good trad habits (and nothing wrong with applying them to sport, but not always necessary).

In reply to Robert Durran:

Nothing wrong with it? She hit the ground Bob! Maybe you mean the style in general rather than this appalling example, but still plenty wrong with it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

On many trad routes the leader and belayer are out of sight of each other and you’ve got to belay by feel of the rope

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

That makes the "shouldn't" in "she shouldn't have to do that" stronger, but accidents are usually from a combination of factors.

If you can find all the factors then for each of those you can do things like, assess whether it can be mitigated, decide whether there is an element of blame, fault, negligence etc.

One factor in this accident was the climber's assumption that she was being properly belayed. On the face of it and the environment she was in, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable assumption, except that it wasn't.

Is the publicity from this incident going to make more climbers check that their belayers are being attentive - I think that's likely. They shouldn't have to, but pragmatically it might just reduce the risk slightly.

In reply to JimR:

Indeed, Red Lead (VS 5a) or White Slab (HS 4b) at Auchinstarry both usually have the belayer on dry land and climber above the pond out of sight of the belayer and thus you need to belay by feel. 

Loads of other examples especially multipitch climbs where you weave around and may only see the leader for part of the pitch. 

After years climbing with the same partner you get used to watching the two ropes move, mentally noting which one is clipped to the highest gear.

In reply to Iamgregp:

It wasn't an IFSC event at the incident, she was at a team training event before the WC, more than likely gym staff or a team offical

In reply to Neil Morrison:

Obviously there was catastrophic error in the failure to lock off the belay device. But I thought I had made it clear that I was not referring to that; just saying that there was not necessarily anything else wrong.

In reply to JimR:

Of course.

In reply to lcon:

Ah ok. Gotcha. Probably explains why it looks like he was using a gri gri as IFSC belayers use tubes.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

That's the thing isn't it

We can talk about belay technique or whatever; this bloke isn't even looking at her. He's having a chat. Absolutely 100% negligence imo 

In reply to Wide_Mouth_Frog:

So why have I read numerous times about people holding the cam down with their thumb in order to pay out slack quickly? Why have Petzl felt the need to put information out about the correct way to use them?

In reply to Wide_Mouth_Frog:

And yet Petzl themselves publish diagrams and videos showing how to pay out slack quickly by blocking the cam.

Weird that they go to all that trouble when it’s something that you don’t need to do

In reply to Andrew Wells:

Once the climber is high enough off the ground to not hit the deck, you can safely belay without line of sight. 

This may be unpopular given the context of this post, but I still believe you can talk and belay safely (once you've had sufficient practice).

The issue here is almost none of his attention was on belaying. Just enough that he knew she was falling. You could see him panicking, but he couldn't decide what to do about it. 

In reply to Neil Morrison:

I'm with most people, that climbing indoors a belayer should be ready to catch a fall or lower off without communication. Fine if you want to confirm before lowering, that's personal preference and not a reason for a bunch of dislikes. 

BUT, outside, when you are cliping in hard, rethreading, taking tight, lowering.... absolutely DO communicate.  There has been far too many accidents caused by misunderstandings or assumptions between belayer and climber. 

In reply to montyjohn:

Yes, though you should do so when possible for trad and if your partner prefers it for sport.

Of course. No reason why you can't keep a hand on the locking off rope while talking* (just like you can keep your hands on tbe steering wheel of a car while talking), though, again, you should not talk if your partner prefers you not to.

*The fact that there is so much discussion here that makes it sound to me like a grigri somehow complicates this basic fact just reinforces my resolve to avoid them!

In reply to Iamgregp:

That is an interesting question! There's an argument that they're leaving themselves liable when accidents like this happen. Whatever you do, stay safe out there folks

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yep, I belay by feel when belaying a second or someone on toprope and chat away - I'm continually gently tensioning the live rope to feel for slack to take in. Unless the climber's moving my dead rope hand is in 'locked off' position. When leading you need to watch to know when they want slack, if you don't your climber's going to get frustrated when clipping and fall out with you.

With respect to the 'leader should check the belayer is ready' argument - it reduces risk by ensuring the belayer has taken in and doesn't happen to be in the middle of taking in when you load the rope. It reduces slack and shock load on the system, which is good for the rope; and reduces the likelihood of the belayer being surprised and pulled off their feet.  Anyone making a risk assessment of the lowering off process will know it's worth doing!

In reply to john arran:

Its not "victim blaming" to analyse the accident and identify all opportunities to avoid one like it in the future. No-one is denying that the ultimate responsibility for the climber's safety lies with the belayer, but it is only sensible to ask whether there is anything the climber can do to reduce the risks as well. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes it is a good point that the grigri promotes so much discussion which generally you do not see with other belay devices.I am with you it just helps reinforces my view to avoid them, just never felt comfortable using one, and boy have I tried over the years to switch over.Although the new nexos looks more promising/hopeful.

On this video I just find the belayers attitude all wrong, he could easily say " not now" to the person who came over for a discussion.I know quite a few climbers who adopt that position as they have witnessed simlar falls due to lack of attentiveness.The sound of a climber hitting the deck after a long leader fall particularly at a wall is not something you forget easily , and I have witnessed a few of those.

In reply to Patrick1:

100% agree. I remember many years ago being accused of victim blaming when I was having a think and shared my thoughts about the well known incident where a lorry driver changing music channels on a phone killed a family sat in stationary traffic.

The changes I made after that is I always have my lights on when driving, during the day, sun, cloud, whatever the weather. And I make sure to use hazard whenever I slow down near the back of a queue. 

Unfortunately throwing the victim blaming accusation around stifles learning opportunities for how potential victims can protect themselves.

In reply to Patrick1:

I completely agree with that. In this case, however, there's actually a downside to feeling there's an advantage to checking the belaying is sound before lowering. Yes, there's a chance that, if the belayer is doing something dangerous and irresponsible at your expense, that you could prevent an injury, which obviously would be a good thing. But equally there's the psychology to consider. If you don't have absolute trust in your belayer to lower you without checking first, then you also won't have absolute trust in your belayer to catch you if you fall before the top.

Such lack of trust in the rope and belay system holds back a great many climbers from performing at their best. There's an advantage to the belayer too (assuming they're belaying responsibly) in that they get more practice in holding unexpected falls. A lot of people rarely ever fall, preferring instead to shout "take" if they're unsure about a move, and consequently a lot of belayers hardly ever get to catch unexpected falls. For the belay system to work at its best, both climber and belayer need to be very comfortable with, and well practised at, taking and holding unexpected falls.

I get that climbing with a new belayer might justify a degree of caution until trust in their competence is established (although it's barely credible that a belayer at a national team training event would be so incompetent as to justify being cautious), but for climbing with a regular partner the insistence on communication prior to lowering should have no tangible advantage.

In reply to john arran:

You are Hercule Poirot and I claim my £5.

In reply to Murd:

I've watched this topic with some interest; seeing merit from all "sides" of the debate.

I tend to side with the view that there are learning opportunities here and I thought that it might be helpful to remind ourselves of the BMC's participation statement:

The BMC Participation Statement say that: The BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions.

(the emphasis is mine and the source is https://services.thebmc.co.uk/risk-and-safety)

I know that this incident did not happen in the UK and I'm conscious that some of you will think that I'm guilty of victim blaming; but, the fact remains that if you jump off of a wall without checking that it is safe to do so, you do it at your own risk - in other words, you accept the risk that your belayer is an utter knob that might not be paying attention and possibly isn't operating the equipment in the recommended manner.

Personally, I always check that my belayer is ready for my descent just as I always look both ways when I'm crossing the road. Just as belayers should always catch a fall, drivers should stop when they see a pedestrian crossing the street but they don't always! One way to mitigate that risk is to ensure that there is no traffic likely to mow you down before you step off the kerb.

In reply to Murd:

That's an awful incident. I hope she makes a complete recovery.

Having just watched the footage, I am curious who took it, and why. It focuses completely on the belayers. Was somebody filming them for a particular reason?

In reply to john arran:

I agree John; in an ideal world.

However, if this video demonstrates anything, it's that we don't live in an ideal world. Climbers clamber up walls with belayers that they don't know, aren't competent, or just not paying attention. It happens.

For the most part, we get away with momentary lapses of concentration and, if we are belaying competently, then the break hand should save my climber even if I've briefly lost concentration.

There's lots of reasons that we get distracted at busy climbing walls. We've all witnessed the knob that wanders under our live rope, or starts up a line that crosses ours. Clearly, that's not the case here but there are good reasons for accepting personal responsibility for our own safety: if I'm half way up a wall (or topping out), I've no idea what my second is having to deal with.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I don’t agree. Gravity still exists as a force of nature, whatever sport or activity one is indulging in. It never goes away

To neglect it is the exact equivalent of taking one’s eyes off the road while driving (e.g. turning to talk to a passenger).

In reply to montyjohn:

I believe this too but I eventually realised that what the person on the sharp end of the rope believes takes precedence. 

My ex-climbing partner insisted that they could text and belay simultaneously. I wasn’t convinced so that partnership came to an end. 

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

We'll have to disagree then. Trad and sport belaying are different (with trad being a much higher level skill than steep sport).

No, I think the equivalent of not watching the road is taking your hand off the locking rope. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

No, taking your hand off the locking rope is the equivalent of taking your hands off the steering wheel. 

In reply to JohnDexter:

And that’s the thing that’s so difficult about all this. We all climb at our own risk and the ultimate responsibility lies with ourselves.

That’s why the guy who ruined this girl’s life through his negligence is walking around free of any punishment, and she’s lying in a hospital bed, her life and body in pieces with people on the internet posting about how it was her fault even though she didn’t do a damn thing that any of us (well me) hasn’t done a thousand times.

You’re not wrong, we climb at our own risk. But she deserved better and it ought not to be her actions that are questioned. 
 

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

That too. But my point is that keeping your eyes on the climber when belaying steep sport is not necessary if you always have some rope yarded out for clipping and the climber is happy with this. It is not like keeping your eyes on the road driving.

In reply to Iamgregp:

You're right, Greg; it's an odd thread where pretty much every post is right (or at least, has some merit). However, my contribution was more about the opportunity to learn from this poor girl's misfortune rather than apportion (the obvious) blame. I don't doubt who was at fault but what can we learn?

To my mind, if I check that my belayer is ready to take my weight when I'm at the top of the climb, I don't need a Plan B. If I don't check that my belayer is ready, there is no Plan B.

Whilst I respect the choices of others who trust their belaying partners and launch themselves into space without warning (aka, lobbing off), it's clear from this example that things can and do go wrong. Where a belayer is unknown (or, not well known) to us, this simple additional precaution doesn't seem unreasonable.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I would have said the opposite. Belaying someone on a sport route at their limit, with the necessity to pay out slack extremely quickly at times, yet keep them safe, takes more skill. When trad climbing, the rope moves slower, and the main skill is keeping just the right amount of slack in the system (i.e. not much but enough that they can move unimpeded). Two ropes are not much more difficult once used to it.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Exactly. I've got in trouble on here before saying that walking through a city park after dark is best avoided (regardless of gender). Being practical rather than idealistic has nothing to do with fault. 

In reply to JohnDexter:

Yeah I agree it is a bit of an odd thread. Lots of good points made!

We can all see what’s gone wrong here, and we’re all in agreement who is at fault but there’s been so many posts on what she could have done to prevent this and I’d have expected more on who the guy was, how he was allowed to have that level of responsibility, why wasn’t his belaying picked up on immediately, what are the checks and procedures in place to stop this happening again etc.

If someone at my local wall belayed like that I’d expect the duty manager to be on them in minutes. Why didn’t that happen here? 

I think these are some pretty pressing questions.  Not that any of us know the answered of course!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

If you think that belaying sport is more difficult than trad, then you are probably doing it wrong (most likely treating it like trad!).

In reply to Robert Durran:

If you think that belaying sport is easier than trad, then you are probably doing sport wrong (most likely treating it like trad!)

🤔😉

In reply to john arran:

Sport treated as sport, all you have to do is have enough slack out so that clipping is always possible and keep your hand on the locking rope. How can that possibly not be easier than trad belaying (unless the need to regularly shout allez/venga/send it dude adds significant issues for you)?

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think a good sport belayer will be very active and control the catch, making it nice and soft, a more involved and dynamic process than trad belaying. 

Don't worry Robert, weather is bucking up and you can get outside and off ukc 😉

In reply to Iamgregp:

Do you mean other forums when you say this, or are you referring to this thread?

If you mean this thread then I don't follow as I think everyone has agreed it was his fault and not hers. I also haven't come across any other forum suggesting otherwise.

When there is an incident like this, everyone's actions should be questioned surely. Anything that can be learnt to prevent even one more such incident is worthwhile of a few questions. And presumably for you to conclude in your mind that her actions should not be questioned, you must have questioned her actions to conclude that.

It's not unwise to be thinking about how we can protect ourselves from someone else's screw up. You effectively say it yourself here:

I would extend this further though, and say that you are responsible for yourself and your fellow climbing partners. 

In reply to Godwin:

Which is realky just a luxury in sport climbing usually possible because the rest is so easy. It might sometimes actually be important in trad but would require excellent judgement as to when it is appropriate rather than potentially dangerous.

Off to sunny Spain shortly to refine my sport belaying🙂.

In reply to montyjohn:

I meant the comments under her Instagram post, clearly written by people who don’t climb or understand where the issue is.  

I really don’t know what the benefit of questioning her actions is.  Seems like a waste of time to me as she did nowt wrong, anyone can see that.  

And yes, I looked at her actions on the video and could see within 30 seconds she wasn’t at fault.  That's all that’s needed, sorry if you’re not able to make as quick an assessment.

In reply to Iamgregp:

If the discussion leads to behaviours which might prevent similar accidents in future then it is not a waste of time.

In reply to abcdefg:

Rock steady wide angle video, the rucksack in the foreground and wall in the background do not budge, no human reaction to the fall so not a casual or hand held phone video. I certainly couldn't hold a phone that steady for the climb and then without reaction to the fall.

It looks to me that somebody set up a phone on a mini tripod (on the floor assuming the rucksack is on the floor) to record the whole climb from top to bottom for coaching purposes or social media.

When it focuses on the belaying, I think that's post accident zoomed in editing of the same wide angle video. I'm not 100% sure and I'm no expert but the perspective looks the same to me.
 

In reply to elsewhere:

It's very easy these days to turn a shaky hand-held phone video into a 'rock steady' one retrospectively.  My phone can do it in two button presses; "edit" and then "stabilise".

In reply to deepsoup:

Yes, but that still crops the video to stabilise it. Which doesn't seem to be the case here. Anyways, I'd say it's pretty clearly a phone or cam on the floor to record the whole thing for training purposes. And it's not really relevant to the belayer issue here.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Ah, I can't read those. I shouldn't imagine Instagram is a great source for the best minds.

I feel like we're having two different conversations here. I suspect we all could tell almost instantly she wasn't at fault. But I can then spend hours thinking about it (and have) to see what I can incorporate into my own decisions to avoid this. That's not an accusation of blame.

In reply to JohnDexter: But you need them ready to take your weight all the rest of the time. Weird that you trust them until you reach the chain but not when you do. 

In reply to Neil Morrison:

I always check my knot when I get to the chain before weighting the rope. Doesn't everybody do that?

In reply to Robert Durran:

If you've had to re-thread the rope, that makes sense. Otherwise, no. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Not me, no.

In reply to Robert Durran:

But do you check the belayer is paying attention all the time? Which was the point. And do you check that knot before you inadvertently lob off when a hold spins or you slip?

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Well it's sort of belt and braces for when you have forgotten whether you remembered to check your knot at the bottom.

In reply to Neil Morrison:

I habitually say "watch me here" whenever I get to a hard bit.

No, but I struggle to shake off my trad mentality of very rarely falling, so needing the knot in these situations is rare but I definitely need it for the lower off.

On the fairly rare occasions when I do achieve the psyche for a proper sport mentality I don't do any of these checks after leaving the ground.

In reply to Robert Durran:

that won’t help much when a hold spins, you slip or, outside, a hold snaps.

Glad you are getting there at times but, from experience and you must have been luckier than me, I’ve needed that knot indoors, outdoors, trad and sport lots of times. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Interesting that in your profile you claim your sport working grade is 7c+ There are not many climbers that can do that with a trad mentally 🤔

In reply to Steve Woollard:

It was a localish  route ( The Silk Purse (7c+) ) which I had played on on a top rope for years for training and eventually could top rope fairly consistently, so I thought it would be good to lead it. So I worked it to death on a top rope until I was confident I could do so and then sent it on my very first lead attempt. So no lead falls in the whole process. This was 25 years ago. Until fairly recently it and two easier routes on the same wall were the only "properly" worked routes I had redpointed, others being the very occasional second or maybe third go at a failed onsight (I usually just walk away if I fail on an onsight). I suppose I'm not really a proper sport climber. I don't like being belayed "sportily" and it doesn't come easily to me to belay "sportily".

In reply to Murd:

I really don't understand the amount of discussion about the various factors involved here. He wasn't holding the brake strand while overriding the cam and the climber decked. The cause here is just blindingly obvious.

Any talk about her not announcing her descent or him being distracted feels completely irrelevant. I would catch this fall unannounced every single time even if I were wearing noise canceling headpohnes and playing table tennis with my free hand. I'd be scared to be belayed by someone who wouldn't.

Https://youtu.be/sO4TI9F-sEE?si=-fqioyzZH_dYCG2i

At 30:19 you can see the exact same belaying from a British climber. There are shit belayers and good belayers everywhere from every nation 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yep. I check everything. Then I shout down "got me?" and until I hear a "yes, got you" and the rope goes tight I don't let go of the chain or unclip myself.

I'm amazed at the people who just clip and drop at the belay with no downward communication and I'm even more amazed by their "it's cool to do that" attitude.

Whilst I think the guy in the video needs to go to jail I can't help thinking that if the girl had done the "got me?" "yes, got you" thing she'd be climbing this week and not in traction for 6 months.

And to anyone who thinks that that is victim blaming - give yer head a wobble.

E

Someone made an analogy earlier with a zebra crossing, and I think its a good one, so I'll repeat it. Imagine we were watching a video of someone walking out onto a zebra crossing and getting mown down by a car. It would be absolutely clear who was at fault - drivers have an absolute obligation to stop for pedestrians on zebra crossings, so no question that the driver was at fault. But who, watching the video, would not also think "Shit, I really must try and look both ways before stepping onto a zebra, then hopefully this won't happen to me".

And the people saying "Well, you don't call down to your belayer when you unexpectedly fall off, do you?" are missing the point. Its - always - about minimising risk, you can never eliminate it altogether. If I fall unexpectedly I have to hope the belayer was paying attention / holding on / hadn't just had a heart attack(!) etc.  I've done everything I can to minimise the risk in that situation. But when voluntarily descending I do have the opportunity to do something additional to reduce the risk - so why not do it?

In reply to Enty:

I have done that but only as part of rare fall practice indoors and I would have warned my partner of the intention.

In reply to JMAB:

Absolutely nobody is disputing that. But the discussion has moved on to ways in which we might protect ourselves from others' carelessness or incompetence. On the road I think it would be called "defensive driving".

In reply to Patrick1:

Articulated better than I.

In reply to Patrick1:

People don’t call down to there belayer because it is teaching your brain that your belayer can only catch you if you call down. Which I’m sure you can appreciate would have a detrimental impact on their climbing. 
 

to be able to try hard on sport you have to trust the system completely you don’t do that by second guessing it every time you climb a route. 
 

of course if you’ve been messing on rethreding a lower off outside non of this applies and good communication with your belayer is essential. 

In reply to Enty:

And if she'd fallen a few moves lower? I was dropped from about a metre below the very top of Awesome Walls Sheffield when I took an unexpected fall. The only thing that meant that I walked out of there was that my belayer jumped on the pile of rope and actually stopped the fall with my feet on the floor. My head still isn't 100% where it used be before that and it's been years.

It is unbelievable that we're even having this discussion, this is a professional athlete in a training scenario where they would be expected to repeatedly climb to failure and fall off unexpectedly, and their belayer needs to be asked whether they've got them, seriously!?

It is.

In reply to Patrick1:

The irony here is that if the belayer had had a heart attack, there is a very good chance that they would have held this fall just fine, the cam would not have been held open.

In reply to Enty:

Me too. However this wasn't one punter belaying another at their local wall (and even then it would have been totally unacceptable). This was a training camp for climbers competing at international level where it is apparently quite normal to clip and drop, and where one would expect to find belayers with a high level of competence.

What I find almost as shocking as the belayer's failure is the dismissal of the incident as just one of those things. Did the French authorities not investigate this, or were they fobbed off? The whole thing seems to have been swept under the carpet. 

Of course we all accept the risks when climbing, but in doing so we rely on our belayers to exercise a reasonable standard of skill and attention, otherwise we might as well be soloing.  This is especially so in a scenario such as this, where the climber may not know the belayer and must trust the organisers to appoint competent belayers. Presumably in this case her national team contracted with a French climbing wall to provide facilities, including belayers. 

I am also shocked by the apparent lack of support she has received. Surely her national body should have been assisting her to obtain appropriate health care? France has a law of tort which holds people responsible for their actions or negligence (and I think in some circumstances there may also be criminal liability), and it seems obvious from the video that the belayer was negligent (or if the device was indeed faulty as claimed then someone was negligent in not checking it).  On the face of it she should have grounds for claiming compensation. There are obvious difficulties in doing this from outside France and not speaking French, but again her national body should be supporting her. Perhaps they fear (probably with good reason) that they too might be legally liable.

The failings here seem to go well beyond the incompetence and culpability of one individual, no matter how egregious.

In reply to Patrick1:

Yes exactly! This is kind of what I was saying.

E

In reply to Alkis:

That's sort of the point that some of us are making, Alkis; this was exactly the scenario that you describe except the belayer DID NOT have them and she decked.

Every contributor to this thread accepts that the belayer is in the wrong.

Everyone seems to accept that you shouldn't HAVE to call down.

Some of us think that calling down ain't a bad idea. Those that choose not to, jump off knowing the risks.

In reply to Alkis:

What an awful thing to happen to that girl. I hope she recovers well.

Agree with you. Reading through the thread, two attitudes emerge: she did nothing wrong vs yes, but- she could have done more.

Without trying to pick up every detail posted, analogies like the zebra crossing are misleading because they ignore the relationship between the belayer and climber. We don’t have prior agreements with all car drivers on the road, whom we know and trust, to stop at the crossing if we step out. It’s nonsensical.

I used sport climb more. Previously, climbing with very good partners, day in, day out, there’d be no need to double check their attentiveness. Arrive, clip, drop. Wrong handed in a sequence? Just drop.

The reason is simple. The minimum standard of belaying is safe, every single time, no exceptions and there’s an established relationship with the belayer, knowing they’re competent, of trust.

The man belaying Sara Qunaibet holds a senior position in a national organisation with belaying one of his core responsibilities. Should she have had complete trust in that belayer?

It’s easy. There’s an obvious presumption of competence from a young girl working with a coach in that situation. He’s demonstrably unfit for the role, but she had every reason to think otherwise.

There’s not much ‘we’ can learn from that tbh. You’ll take as much extra care with belayers as your level of trust, that nagging voice in your head, demands.

That’s it. The rest is just victim blaming.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

Well, that's the problem with analogies: they're always misleading.

As George Box was fond of saying, all models are wrong, some are useful.

Insofar as your charge of victim blaming, I call BS.

Every single part of the system failed in this instance. EVERY SINGLE PART!

1. A lack of supervision in the climbing centre
2. Someone distracting the belayer
3. The belayer allowing himself to be distracted
4. The belayer not using the equipment in the prescribed manner
5. The climber making a decision predicated on a flawed assumption (that her belayer was paying attention)

Some of these failures are minor in comparison to the #3 & #4 on my list but a correction to ANY (including #5) of those failures probably would have prevented the accident.

It's not victim blaming to point out that if you act on an assumption and that assumption is incorrect, the consequences can be severe (or, fatal): it's simply a statement of fact. Whether of not that assumption should have been correct or not is a moot point; the consequences of getting it wrong are axiomatic in this case.

In reply to Patrick1:

Joem has partially answered this.

Because you are then transferring some of that responsibility from the belayer to the climber. By checking the belayer at certain points you are implicitly taking some of that responsibility from them and encouraging a view that actually it's ok for them not to pay attention because you'll give them a shout at situations where you especially think they will be needed.

I really hate to go there, but it's like those gaggles of school kids you sometimes see walking to school in high Viz..... Normalising the idea that drivers don't need to actively look out for normal kids dressed normally.

In reply to JohnDexter:

I wonder how many of those trying to shut down a very worthwhile discussion by playing the "victim blaming" card are actually, to at least some extent, questioning their own assumptions and approach to sport belaying. 

In reply to Godwin:

Because your safety is both your responsibility and your belayers. It is very simple. Stack the odds in your favour. Good communication between your belayer and yourself is essential. Don't leave it to chance.

That is not to say that in this case the belayer was at fault, obviously.

Always do a buddy check, both of you should check your knot and that the belayers device is correctly threaded. Then when you get to the anchors, look done and say take.

In reply to JohnDexter:

Well 'everyone' is wrong. You should always call down.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I don't know the answer to that, Robert.

I've avoided the obvious counter-charge that the accusation is little more than virtue signalling (until now, anyway ). I accept that the climber is under no obligation to shout down to their belayer and I've said as much a number of times. Notwithstanding, I am completely bemused by the resistance (witnessed by the number of dislikes my posts garner) to the simple (and obvious) idea that acting on a flawed assumption has obvious consequences (at least, in this case).

As always on UKC, positions become entrenched and anyone with a different opinion is obviously stupid/evil/naïve/ill-informed... (take your pick). Clearly, I'm not blaming the climber and if I have intimated otherwise, I apologise; nonetheless, I can't see any benefit of lobbing-off over calling down and only advantages to the latter option.

In reply to fotoVUE:

That got a like from me because it made me laugh. However, I'm a big proponent of personal choice

Don't call? Accept the risk!

In reply to Robert Durran:

It’s funny - I think yours and my approach are diametrically opposed to one another. Although I’m a pretty mediocre climber, the one thing I feel I do well is my headspace. Every time I go sport climbing I’m looking to get into that sport climbing mindset of climbing up to my very limit and beyond and therefore taking multiple falls in a session.

I can get myself there pretty easily - even if it’s day one of a trip I’ll be looking to warm up on something of a moderate grade for me, and something difficult by the end of the day.

Inside it’s just the same - I’ll be looking to get into that zone as soon as possible, and part of the warm up routine of getting there is warming up my brain getting into that happy to take falls mode - and that means taking drops at the chains (sometimes don’t even clip them) without having shouted down first, and certainly not making sure that slack is taken in (I like a good bit of slack out when I take falls).  It’s about teaching my brain and my body that my belayer will catch me, regardless or not of whether they have prior warning. 

Given that this was a warm up for the lass who fell here I suspect she was doing exactly the same. And the belayer clearly should have been ready for that, and that’s why I think the “she could have done xyz” argument pushed by some here is a total distraction that misses the point of why she did what she did. And given who the belayer was and the environment she was in, that was certainly not an unreasonable expectation.

In reply to JohnDexter:

No, it is a matter of the purpose of the discussion on the thread.

Any analysis of any accident will show a chain of decisions which taken differently could have produced a different outcome.

When we climb (or do anything), we make ongoing assessments of risk. We all do it, with greater or lesser skill. By definition, it is context specific. If you cannot make sound assessments of the risk to which you are exposed at a specific moment, there is a danger of things going wrong.

Was Sara's risk assessment at fault? Yes, obviously. Was it a reasonable assessment for her to make? For that' you must look at the context and the many factors influencing her decision.

Athlete belayed by a senior coach at national level. Young female belayed by older male. Saudi and French cultural setting. Team culture and training.

It is easy to be a keyboard critic. She made a risk assessment, it was wrong. We make risk assessments, hopefully we'll be smart enough to recognise they need to be unique to every changing situation we find ourselves in and behave accordingly.

Hard and fast rules of what she should have done to avert the accident? Probably, don't be a climber in a national team. 

Talk about lessons to learn here, but there's only one: make good dynamic risk assessments and don't fall into rigid thinking to keep safe.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

“Well you see madam, when you decided to walk alone through the woods that night you made a risk assessment that was wrong”

In reply to Enty:

When was the last time you saw a competition climber do that? 

And before you start with it wasn't a competition it was training; you train as you compete. Otherwise your training for the wrong thing. 

In reply to Iamgregp:

Its worth thinking about why we watch videos of horrific incidents like this. Presumably, for most of us, its not about taking some sort of pleasure in someone else's misfortune. So, for me at least, it is about learning lessons that I can apply to my own situation. Certainly one of those lessons is "When I'm belaying I must not get distracted". But another is definitely "When I'm climbing I mustn't assume that even a professional belayer in a national training centre won't make mistakes" - and the rest flows from that. As has been said above - if you want to jump off from the top without any checks that's absolutely up to you. But this video clearly demonstrates that that is a higher risk strategy than checking that your belayer is paying attention first, because even if you have every reason to assume that they'll have you, occasionally, as demonstrated here, they won't.

In reply to Iamgregp:

And in your implied scenario, that would be correct, wouldn't it? Outcomes can't be changed after the fact.

But it redirects the responsibility to the victim who in this case, almost certainly behaved reasonably at the time.  Saying what she 'should' have done in the guise of 'lessons we can learn' is just victim blaming.

Our lesson is to make careful judgments in different settings, that's it.

In reply to Patrick1:

In an analogy with a zebra crossing, Sara Qunaibet was mown down by a drunk driver while she was still on the pavement.  

Whether or not it's 'victim blaming'*, it really shouldn't surprise anyone that pointing out what she did wrong comes across as rather insensitive to say the least.  It isn't those expressing the view that this is somewhat out of order who most need to give their heads a wobble imo.

*(It is.)

In reply to mrjonathanr:

But I don't think anyone is saying that she "should have" done anything different. Certainly I'm saying that I absolutely would have done what she did - who would imagine that a professional belayer in a national training centre couldn't be relied upon? But now I've seen that actually, you can't rely on a belayer, even in that situation, so that opens up some things that she "could have" done differently, had she known that in advance. Unfortunately for her, she couldn't have known that in advance. But, thanks to the video, I can, so I can do things a little bit differently to her, and so be a little bit safer. That's how we learn.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Your approach to sport climbing is certainly the "correct" one. Mine undoubtedly holds me back, though I have occasionally made efforts to overcome it and gained an onsight grade or two as a result. But mostly I'm happy to live with it and enjoy myself anyway. Last time I forced myself to do fall practice, I climbed "correctly" the very next day and fell off and broke my finger!

In reply to mrjonathanr:

I think that misunderstands what risk or a risk assessment is. When we make a risk assessment we estimate the chances of things going pear shaped if we follow a course of action and then decide whether or not to accept that risk. If things then do go pear shaped it doesn't, necessarily mean that we estimated the risk inaccurately, just that we got unlucky.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

I think it is really "could" rather than "should".

And nobody is blaming the victim.

And if that lesson results from this discussion it is a good thing.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

Calling it victim blaming stops people from discussing  and learning other ideas. It polarises people.

In reply to neilh:

Yes, use of the phrase is usually just a tactic to shut down sensible discussion where people are free to see nuance rather than just black and white.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'd go a little further than that, Robert.

Risk assessment has two elements; likelihood and impact.

In most sport climbing environments, the likelihood of your belayer not catching you is low but the impact (consequence) is high: that would place the risk in a medium/high category which (under any normal circumstances (certainly commercial environments)) would require mitigation.

In dynamic risk assessments, we make these decisions almost unconsciously (often based on experience) and this is where it usually goes wrong.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

Didn’t say it wasn’t correct. But it’s not helpful is it?

In reply to neilh:

Doesn’t seem to have stopped anyone here.

In reply to Iamgregp:

I don't know, but it certainly feels like running the gauntlet!

In reply to Iamgregp:

Do I think that women who walk alone through the woods at night are "asking for it", and at fault if they get attacked? Absolutely not. BUT, do I tell my daughters not to walk alone through the woods at night? I absolutely do. Apportioning blame and mitigating risk are not the same thing.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Its not really sensible discussion though is it. The belaying is so far below the acceptable standard that the actions of the climber are basically irrelevant. If the belayer had their hand on the dead rope they could be as distracted as they like and nothing bad would have happened. 

In reply to Iamgregp:

You are right, Greg; it hasn't .

But, surely the point in contributing to a discussion forum is that people can express conflicting ideas and views without getting shut down or belittled.

I genuinely respect your view in this thread and I feel no need to engage in name-calling or finger-pointing. I just hold a different view to yours and have tried to explain why I think that my opinion is valid. I, for one, welcome your opinions and counterpoints; that's how we learn from each other. 

In reply to All:

I've watched a lot of IFSC lead comps over the last few years.

Never, not once, have I seen a competitor check with the belayer before they either fall off unexpectedly, you know, as in, what happens when leading or when they manage to top the route.

EDIT - Please correct me and show the time when a competitor checked with the belayer if I am wrong.

It is expected, 100%, that the belayer is paying attention to the climber.

Can you imagine what would happen if any competitor hit the ground because the belayer was not doing their job properly?

No one would be saying the competitor should have checked before letting go.

In reply to Patrick1:

Same.

But if something terrible like that happened to one of my daughters I don’t think I would be pointing out their poor risk assessment to them after it happened.

And I don’t think you would to yours either. 

But here you are pointing this out about this lass here. She’s someone’s daughter too.

In reply to joem:

If it is as seen as going beyond the horrible incident in the video (about which I really see no disagreement as to it's cause) to a more general discussion of sport climbing risk mitigation then I think it iis sensible and valuable.

Nobody is saying she should have checked with the belayer before jumping off in this particular situation, but I think there might well be a case for punters doing so in a crowded climbing wall with lots of distractions and the potential complacency of mundane routine.

In reply to Iamgregp:

OK, we appear to be stretching the analogies a little tight here.

This isn't a sex issue. If the climber in question was a male, I would be making the same observations. 

Moreover, regardless of the climber's sex, I am sympathetic to her plight: it's a terrible thing and NO ONE on this thread has suggested otherwise. I do feel that we're in danger of engaging in some unpalatable innuendo about the intentions of some contributors to this discussion.

Edit: typo

In reply to Robert Durran:

Fair enough though perhaps it would be better had in a separate thread as I certainly read all of this discussion through the lens of this particular accident. 

In reply to Iamgregp:

If my daughter had been attacked walking in the woods, you're absolutely right, it would be very wrong of me to say to her "Well, that was a silly thing to do, wasn't it"? However, I can imagine I would absolutely tell an internet forum full of strangers "Don't walk through those woods - they're dangerous". Indeed, I can imagine she would herself be keen that I spread the word, so that what happened to her didn't have to happen to other people. As I said above, apportioning blame and mitigating risk are not the same thing.

In reply to JohnDexter:

Of course - I didn’t think there was any gender/sex issue here. If the climber who had the accident was male I’m sure our positions would be exactly the same. Though my wording would have been slight different as I don’t have any sons! 

I appreciate that you’re not saying anything out of turn, incorrect or indulging in any victim blaming and we’re all very sympathetic.

And yes, we probably are stretching the analogies a bit!

In reply to Patrick1:

Yeah I understand your point. But I think the learning should not be “don’t take a lob off the top of the route without checking first as that’s dangerous” but ought to be “don’t hold the cam open on your gri gri, whilst not holding the dead rope”

But the they’re both rules already, so I think the learning really is whomever made it possible for that bloke to be belaying her on this camp needs to rigorously review their vetting and processes as that should never have happened.

And the bloke needs to never belay anyone ever again.

I mean after all, I’m not wrong in saying she could have avoided this happening if she’d just stayed in bed that day rather than going climbing - but it’s a pretty silly suggestion!

    It’s crazy just to lob off the top of a route without checking with your belayer. A friend of mind was killed doing this. He had said he wanted to lower himself off when he finished the route so as to make it easier for him to recover the quick draws. After reaching the top and shouting safe, he was taken off belay. He clearly had forgotten that he was to lower himself as as was seen to unclip his safety lanyard and jump back and fell to his death. He was an extremely accomplished climber and had even worked with the Austrian army mountain team. But just a stupid silly mistake cost him his life. Sometimes we can laugh at silly mistakes but if one happens when lowering or abseiling etc, the consequences can be fatal.

In reply to Patrick1:

How about "If she hadn't walked through those woods, she'd be ok now", which seems to me rather closer to your first example than your second?  There are a fair few posts upthread saying that, and doubling down on it.

In reply to JohnDexter:

It is extremely counterproductive in a discipline where the difference between trusting the system and not trusting the system is the difference between success and failure. Even *thinking* that you may have to check whether the belayer has got you screws your climbing up. I have fallen off sport routes when I got a sudden tinge of uncertaintly about something stupid mid-crux (including "is my belayer paying attention?", and "did I do my knot right?") affected my movement and I got spat off.

You have to sport climb the way you boulder, and you don't get there by training your brain to check your belayer any time you are likely to need them to do their job.

PS: I do personally shout down, and take, and all of these “counterproductive” things most of the time. Yes, I get people’s point that there was an opportunity to avoid this particular incident by doing so, but that really doesn’t change the fact that that would have only helped in these exact circumstances here, and that the belayer would have dropped them in all circumstances where shouting in advance is literally impossible.

In reply to Climber_Bill:

Quite so.

And using the belay device correctly!  This situation is quite different to a 'normal' climbing partnership - this was someone belaying a stranger on a professional basis, accepting a professional duty of care to take the job seriously and criminally negligent of that duty.

I'm not so sure we need to imagine it now - apart from a long road to recovery for a severely injured climber, apparently not that much.

I wouldn't have thought so previously, but I'm pretty sure now that people would be saying exactly that on here.

In reply to Alkis:

I don't disagree with that but, the argument is a little one-dimensional if you'll forgive me for saying.

It's easy to trust a system when you are familiar with your second and know with (reasonable) certainty how they'll behave. That does not appear to be the case here.

When I flake my rope, I check for damage. When I tie-in I do a buddy check. These are simple safety checks that help maintain my confidence in the system. Remember, the system itself is dynamic and small changes, errors, omissions, and extraneous factors, can all have significant impacts on how the system functions.

I'm making the assumption here (and it is an assumption) that this "team" (for want of a better word) were unfamiliar with each other: that must introduce doubt into the system and additional safety checks and precautions seems like a sensible approach (to me). Again, this would form part of the dynamic risk assessment - I don't know this person, what are the implications of that? Anything else is to blindly accept that everything will be fine.

For sure, if I want to push my sport grade, it won't be with an unfamiliar belayer or system.

In reply to JohnDexter:

Have you read Alkis's post above?  (13:38)  This was not a team and there was no second - it was a competitor in training for lead competition, being professionally belayed as she would be in competition (or at least she had every right to expect so), and the first paragraph there nails it.

In reply to deepsoup:

Exactly. Context is everything here.  What we may or may not do in our recreational climbing is one thing. The role of a high-level athlete in any discipline is to focus on their performance, it is their team's responsibility to take care of other matters to allow them to do this. It was entirely reasonable for her to expect that the belayer provided for her would be competent, and it was the responsibility of those organising the training camp to ensure this, not her.

In reply to JohnDexter:

There's always a way to avoid every accident if you adapt your behaviour, but real people make assumptions about the world, otherwise they live in a permanent state of fear about cars pulling out in front of them etc.

As a professional climber being belayed by a coach or climbing professional and climbing thousands of routes a year, presuming that you're going to be belayed safely is "normal" (presuming you're not going be belayed safely is verging on paranoia and will probably adversely affect your climbing)

In reply to timparkin:

Yep, I don't disagree with any of that Tim (although, I'm not sure what the difference is between real people and everyone else).

The trouble is...

She wasn't being belayed safely.

The fact that she was an elite athlete doesn't somehow protect her from harm (as evidenced in the video) as many such athletes (A.Honnold, L. Hill, B Gobright, et al) will attest. Sure, elite athletes take a different perspective to risk to we mere mortals but they are not immune to the same perils as we.

Whatever her expectations (reasonable or otherwise), many of the contributors to this discussion seem to be ignoring the simple fact that she lobbed off the top of the wall and hit the ground. Her expectations didn't protect her. Is that someone else's fault? Of course it is and no one has claimed any differently.

Edit: typo

In reply to timparkin:

I know where you are coming from, Tim. But that's the problem, presumption. In fact the opposite could occur, you could climb even better if you have complete trust in your belayer. Hopefully this is a wake up call to many, every time you do a route your death or injury could occur, that's not paranoia, nor is it common sense (an awful term), it's a fact. You stack the odds in your favour by always doing a buddy check and having clear communication between climber and belayer. I've witnessed and heard of too many accidents to make me think any different.

In reply to JohnDexter:

Apologies.

Including Brad Gobright in my list was not, on reflection, in good taste.

In reply to JohnDexter:

 

Exactly. The focus should be on what allowed her to be belayed by somebody who was either incompetent or complacent enough )possibly both) to allow this to happen. That’s the problem, not all this noise about what she could have done.

The fact that she’s a high level Athlete just means that she has a reasonable expectation that somebody who has been employed to belay her has been put in that position because they have a high level of competence. I’m sure if it was just some random person she met down the local wall she would have been more cautious, and taken some of the actions people have suggested.

In reply to Patrick1:

You are far more likely to be attacked by some one you know, in a familiar setting in a town or city than in some woods at night where no one is likely to be hanging out.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Yes, I can get behind that. I would hope that it's something that will be reviewed by the national team and the appropriate lessons learnt.

Slightly less comfortable with this; I still believe that we all (elite, or otherwise) hold some responsibility for our own safety. But, maybe that's why I'm not an elite athlete

Couldn't help but notice that she wasn't wearing a helmet either.

(... runs for cover!)

In reply to john arran:

You're a very naughty boy!

In reply to fotoVUE:

That's exactly what I meant - presuming your not safe = poor performance, presuming you are safe (have complete trust) = good performance

In reply to JohnDexter:

Of course her expectations didn't protect her, that was the belayers job. And as a professional athlete being belayed by a professional belay (hopefully with a training qualification) then you should expect good practice and not to be dropped. To expect otherwise would be to have no faith in the culture in which you've invested. 

The professional athletes you mentioned were the climbers, not the belayers by the way. And they're not 'trained/qualified' in the same was as you would expect a coach at an olympic training facility.

In reply to Patrick1:

Drivers do have an obligation to stop for pedestrians on a zebra crossing.

However I do hope you don't go around stepping straight onto a zebra crossing without checking that there isn't a vehicle just a metre or so from said crossing and still moving, because there's zero chance of them stopping in time. In fact, if I was to see such an action, then any witness statement I gave to the Constabulary would have to include a phrase such as "must have been a suicide attempt".

In reply to john arran:

I'm reminded of that poor "young climbing sensation" Italian lad who was killed after a supposedly responsible adult with his youth team built quickdraws by clipping the bent gate krab into just rubber keeper ring on the end of the dog one. 

In reply to Spottywot:

Sorry you lost a loved one. It's a haunting event you describe. Such a basic mistake that any of us could make. Horrible. 

In reply to TobyA:

Tito Traversa.  The 'responsible adult' was sent to prison for negligent manslaughter.

In reply to TobyA:

Thing is it wasn’t a supposedly responsible adult, it was the (non climbing) mother of one of the other kids in the group. To allow someone without in depth knowledge of gear to put together such a key part of the gear, and not have an actual responsible adult check them before they were used was total negligence.

In reply to Iamgregp:

So it was, I'd forgotten that bit.  To clarify my post above it was the instructor responsible for the youth club trip, and not the other kid's mother, who was found guilty of manslaughter.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2018/05/instructor_sentenced_in_tito_traver...

In reply to mrjonathanr:

Yes, we do; and that relationship is defined in law.

In reply to Alkis:

Good post until your last two words. I do wish folk would stop going on about 'victim blaming'. Not a single person on here has said she is to blame; in fact the only ones talking about blame are those accusing others of it.

In reply to Iamgregp:

If it is common practice for competitive climbers to simply let go at the top of a route (which, even though I did a 'WTF' the first time I saw it, does appear to be the case), then the belayer should be expecting that, and be ready to hold the fall, and lower off safely.

In this case, the belayer failed spectacularly in this duty. I think we're all agreed on that.

The rest of the argument appears to be on whether this apparently established practice is sensible.

It's not a practice I'd like to see adopted for outdoor sport venues, since the repeated shock loading cannot be good for the longevity of fixed protection.

In reply to JohnDexter:

Given that her national team seems to have washed their hands of her and are dismissing it as just part of the risks of climbing I'm not confident that will happen. However there are certainly lessons here for all national teams to take greater care when booking training facilities and to undertake full due diligence. The BMC rules for competitions require organisers to provide "a competent belaying team consisting of belayers trained to belay in a competition manner". I'm not sure what qualifications, if any, there are to certify that level of competence, but I would suggest that the same consideration should probably apply to training facilities, especially at international level.

In reply to deepsoup:

Sorry. That was my clumsy turn of phrase. I was referring to the outcry that would arise from such an incident.

Yes, unfortunately I have to agree with you,

I have watched lots of young comp climbers being trained to specifically push themselves to, and past, their limits whilst leading and getting used to falling without saying anything or being in the slightest bit worried. That includes falling whilst clipping and just letting go at the top.

To enable them to do that, they trust their belayers totally and absolutely believe they are looking after them. It’s essentially a f’ing contract between competitors and the organisation that they are going to be safe and belayed properly.

In reply to timparkin:

As the OP title this thread seems most valuable as a Reminder (to anyone, not just professionals) about complacency and distraction when belaying.

Several reasons and solutions have been suggested, all worthy of consideration. Reasons are not the same as blame.

I can remember 2 instances of being poorly belayed.

First was saying I was coming down when bottom roping with a group of friends at Harrison's. The guy let go the rope and I landed on my back (relaxed and unhurt). I was with a group,  I didn't know it was belayer's first time out and that he had no knowledge of climbing or ropework. I had made an incorrect assumption. Now if climbing with anyone inexperienced I emphasize importance of braking hand position and get them to support my weight on a low runner.

Another time trad leading first pitch, pulled up rope to clip first runner which made belayer fall over. That almost pulled me off but luckily one hand on a jug. Several actions might have prevented this including belaying before first pitch, warning about pulling up rope....I was at least partly responsible.

After a break from climbing I was toproping and lowering someone at local wall with brake hand always above plate.....member of staff pointed this out. Initially I was annoyed (old climber syndrome?) but then apologized as I was completely in wrong. If I was belaying a leader would I have belayed badly and potentially dropped them? I'm not sure, but it was a good reminder.

In reply to Murd:

Not sure if this has been raised already but I think anyone saying that it is good practice to warn before jumping off the top is missing the cultural implications of it. This could be wider culture, or just the relatioship between you and your climbing partner.

By warning before jumping off you are, whether you intend to or not, create a concious or uncoincious expectation for the belayer that they will be warned before you come off. This could actually make them less prepared to catch an unexpected fall and in the long term could make things more dangerous. By jumping off without warning regularly you are emphasizing that they must always be ready to catch you and giving them constant practice.

I'm also wondering if anyone here actually projects sport climbs? Whenever I projecting something near my limit I'm possibly taking a couple dozen falls on my first few goes working out the sequences. If I get into a bad position I just jump off. If I get a bit pumped while working it I just jump off. If I fluff a move where I could save it, I usually just jump off. This is before we even touch on me just falling off from failing the move. I don't warn for these, why is warning after clipping the chains any different?

My climbing partner has zero problem catching me with no warning and finds the idea that I'd even consider needing to warn her strange. Perhaps one reason is that when she was initially taught to belay she was almost immediately put to belaying a leader who would take whips without notice from high up (with a backup belayer). Probably reinforced all the good habbits early.

In reply to Howard J:

Interestingly enough I saw a post on Reddit from someone who is an IFSC approved competition belayer and they talked about the training they had to get the certification. It was quite intense, and somewhat different to how they would normally belay. In particular they always use a tube style device and don’t “hold” falls. When the climber falls, they’re expected to catch them and slow them down, but to continue to lower them down to the ground without ever holding them stationary on the rope.

Not sure why, maybe it makes it clearer for the audience that the climber is off?

Bit irrelevant really as clearly the guy in the case wasn’t doing that, and it looks like he was using a gri gri…

In reply to JMAB:

Great points. This has been an illuminating thread highlighting the lack of faith/trust in the belayer amongst many contributors. I do wonder what those that feel the need to shout and check at the chain are like as belayers. I wonder if their expectation is that they will get a warning shout to alert them as they belay their mates. 

In reply to oldie:

Interesting examples, thanks for sharing. The first two sound, unfortunately, the result of someone being a complete beginner. The latter is worrying if I've understood it correctly; unless for some reason there's a lot of friction in the system, with a typical belay plate this would often result in an uncontrolled drop all the way to the ground.

In reply to Iamgregp:

It does demonstrate that IFSC belayers are extremely well trained and competent in a specific style of belaying that competitors are expecting.

The individual is the video did not seem to be in the slightest bit competent or safe.

In reply to JMAB:

Nail on the head!

CB.

In reply to daWalt:

Fair point but when was the last time you were watching a lead comp and the belayer wasn't looking up and people were stopping to talk to them?
It's a bit disingenuous to compare a comp environment with a training environment. It also looked like she was on a warm up route and not full gas.

E

In reply to Murd:

Saw a guy at the new Manchester Wall a couple of weeks ago as I was on my way out who had slack on the floor whilst belaying. His leader was 75% of the way up, but still. Should have said something &  several other people had noticed too

In reply to Iamgregp:

Far too many posts to wade through here but fundamentally just keep a hand on the dead rope from when the climber leaves the ground until they get back down again. Saw belaying every bit as bad as this (minus the outcome) at Kilnsey last year and was stunned.

In reply to Neil Morrison:

It is probably more often just a dislike of falling and preferring to be taken tight before letting go rather than a lack of trust in the belayer.

In reply to Iamgregp:

When I entered the British veterans championship at Ratho for fun a few years ago I was somewhat disconcerted to find this mode of belaying (I really don't like being belayed indoors on a tube device even with proper locking off and really hold back and climb very conservatively if I end up being so). I just had to assume they were highly competent and forget about it - in that situation in front of hundreds of people one can't very well say "watch me here" at every tricky move or just say "take" when the pump takes a proper hold!

In reply to Robert Durran:

TBF if somebody belayed like that at a comp at Ratho, and hopefully at any other reputable venue they would be relieved of their duties very swiftly.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Definitely. Most climbers have a natural and unresolved fear of falling to some degree, and would not choose to fall or jump off. That's why for many it can be handy to get committed above gear on a route and try hard until failure or they win through; it's too easy to step back down otherwise.  

In reply to Neil Morrison:

Just a sign of a climber who is more nervous about falling off imho ( and will in all probability have a trad background)! Climbing has to its advantage  all sorts of personalities. 
 

It is an interesting discussion. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I find it interesting that for an onsight situation. that the tube is used instead of a grigri. Never knew that. 

In reply to Michael Gordon: Fair enough but a bit too simplistic to just say it’s a fear of falling off. It’s important to dig into the reasons for that if you want to resolve it. In that mix of factors that cause a fear of falling trust in the belayer, conditioned by your own experiences, is a deep seated contributor for some (maybe even many). A quick read of Chapter 6 of Climb Smarter by Dr Rebecca Williams gives a great explanation of a range of factors and, re belayers, says “You will probably find you have more trust in some people than others, which is normal and natural. Trust is affected by things like length and quality of the relationship, thoughtfulness, communication and attunement (how in tune you are with each other).” She also speaks about very negative or even traumatic experiences which will impact. These will sometimes have been with belayers. 

In reply to Murd:

Shocking video and particularly poor "belaying". But, we all see bad practice at the wall, and we all occasionally get a little lax with the finer points of belaying. An important reminder to be the best belayer you can be, every time, and to be reflective and self-critical about our own belaying practice. We also need a culture where it is acceptable to kindly, tactfully but directly and firmly point out the belaying errors of our friends, partners and other climbers around us.

In reply to Murd:

A lot of talk on this thread about the belayer and climber.
How about us as observers. If any of us had been at the wall and seen this would we have intervened and told the belayer to concentrate?

In reply to Wimlands:

It's not entirely clear that concentration would have helped. He was holding the grigri open and when she fell his instinct was to grip it tighter rather than release it. The biggest problem was woefully poor belaying technique regarding his use of the device. Unfortunately it wouldn't have been at all clear to a casual observer that he was keeping the grigri permanently open, nor that he would have no idea what to do when it was loaded.

It's quite possible that, were he to have been paying more attention, he might have reacted differently to the rope coming tight and releaased his grip on the grigri, but we can't know that for certain. And as has been pointed out many times during this thread, any belayer using a grigri correctly would hold a fall regardless of how much or how little they were concentrating.

In reply to Wimlands:

I think this is a really good question. And a tough one to be honest about.

I naturally avoid confrontation and find myself being frustrated when I see something wrong, acknowledge it, and then don't do anything about it or decide to way after the moment has passed.

What I have done in the past is go tell a member of staff (somebody continuously clipping in the wrong way) but that's not good enough. If that happened with this belayer it's too late by the time a member of staff can intervene.

I don't think advising him of the errors he's making would have helped. Just added more distraction and almost certainly moved the blame to you. Not that it should matter.

I also would have wrongly assumed that despite his terrible technique he's still going to grab the rope when he feels it moving. Of course he is. So why have the confrontation.

It's shameful to admit this but I think the right thing to do would be (and this is obviouse with hindsight) grad the dead end, and just say something like, I can see you're distracted, let me help you out.

But I wouldn't naturally do this. Which is pretty poor. 

In reply to john arran:

All very odd for a person in his role…he surely must have held countless falls….

In reply to montyjohn:

...

The problem is you're looking at a professional climber being belayed by a another professional climber who is also the coach for the team. It would take some balls to approach them and tell them they're doing it wrong. More than I would have, I would presume that despite the bad belaying (which I've seen many times) the coach would still be able to catch a fall - fairly fundamental for someone who is being paid to do the job. 

Like you, I would probably have approached a member of staff and asked "is it normal for a countries climbing coach to belay like that?". Hopefully I would have said it earlier than the fall as I presume it wasn't the first time he belayed like that. 

If it were my own local wall, I'd definitely say something as I don't want them wall shut down because of accidents that screw up insurance!

In reply to those who think Sara Qunaibet should be communicating with her belayer like she's climbing at The Depot:

When Toby Roberts was battling up the headwall in the Olympic final last summer, was he shouting "WATCH ME" to his belayer as he made another almost-off move? Do you expect Janja Garnbret to shout "TAKE" every time she clips the chains? Aside from the futility of making yourself heard above the din of the crowd, both are utterly focused on climbing - 'in the zone' - and must have such total confidence in the belayer as to completely forget them. Training for competition involves mimicking what you do in a competition, again and again and again, until it becomes autmatic. A national team climber should not and should not need to check their belayer at any point including clipping the chains. Slight doubt will impede their performance even marginally. 

How people climb recreationally has no bearing on this: I aim to do a buddy check every time I leave the ground and check my belayer before I start to lower. I encourage everyone I climb with to make this a habit. 

This poor woman was lamentably failed by a highly experienced coach who, before this incident, was working for a number of international teams (named on reddit if anyone cares to look). By her account on instagram she has subsequently received less than comprehensive support from her national team. How much this is due to inexperienced and incompetent management, or to her being a young woman from a socially conservative country, is anyone's guess. I'm sure we all hope she gets the best possible outcome including a lot more support from the Saudi team. 

In reply to flaneur:

Has anybody actually said she should have? It's been pointed by many that she didn't, but that's not saying she should have.

If I'm watching a rally driver roll their car down a hill this could be a great lesson for the kids how speed kills. If your aim is to get form A to B in one piece don't copy the professionals. Extreme example granted.

If you want to be the best climber you can be, and dropping off helps that, great. Nothing wrong with informed decisions.

But mere mortals like me can still take learning points from this. I don't care about pushing myself to the limit, I do enjoy progress, but I also get enjoyment without pushing myself. So if I want to prioritise extra safety checks against progress, great. Another well informed decision.

For my curiosity, if this was to happen in the UK I understand there is a strong possibility of taking legal action against the belayer (someone higher up in the thread referenced the case I think).

Is the belayer insured in such circumstances? Partly from the climber's perspective, if the belayer is insured, you should be able to recover damages to help support medical care and then vice versa the belayer should have a degree of coverage. I can't recall offhand if BMC membership or my AAC cover can be used to address legal bills.

In reply to flaneur:

I think you are leaping to the wrong conclusion!

Posters totally recognise what you are saying in that sort of competitive environment.

But in the context of most peoples use at a climbing wall its not the same scenario. So people are sharing experiences about what they do.No harm in that.

In reply to fotoVUE:

If you are climbing at your limit and fall unexpectedly, when do you call down?

In reply to whispering nic:

Why, soft catch is the standard for Comp style belaying. 

In reply to Wimlands:

When we're startled the brain just stops reacting appropriately, it can take a long time (in context) to recover, doesn't really matter how experienced we are, once startled if we haven't been working in a fail safe way we aren't going to respond promptly and appropriately.

jk

In reply to john arran:

My understanding is that this is the whole point of a Grigri and similar devices. Neither hand on the rope or on the Grigri, not concentrating, still catches the fall.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Wow. No chance.

E

In reply to Michael Hood:

I've only used a grigri for one session, and a while ago and decided it wasn't for me. From memory, the thickness of the rope and exactly where you hold the brake hand drastically changed how the grigri behaved. I didn't like this. 

It could definitely slip through, but not always.

In reply to Enty:

I reckon there’s some chance, depending on rope thickness, speed of fall etc, but that’s certainly not how they’re designed to be used!

Given the choice between taking a drop with someone like this idiot on the video holding the cam open, or not touching the thing at all I’d choose the latter.

Not choice I’d ever like to have to make mind!

Click up would almost certainly make the catch hands free imho. Click Up is far superior to a Gri Gri and that’s a hill I’m prepared to die on! 
 

In reply to flaneur:

And I think people have been trying to 'learn lessons' for their own, recreational climbing.

Which is fair.

As I said above, if dropping off after touching the top is established competition practice, then the belayer should have been expecting that, and know how to use their belay device. That he didn't is a disgrace. Which leads me to suspect that the chatting completely distracted him from his job. Just as it impairs driving competence.

In reply to Enty:

I may be misunderstanding your point here, but the problem is that it holds most of the time, especially with thicker ropes. That is a problem because it trains some people that it is okay to belay like that, even though it is very much not guaranteed to hold. If there was no chance it would hold people would not end up with that level of complacency.

In reply to Alkis:

My point was that someone thought that a Grigri is designed to catch when there's no hand on it or the rope.

E

In reply to Alkis:

The Grigri doesn't teach anyone anything; it's simply a collection of components designed to assist climbers to achieve specific goals. If the user chooses to use the device other than in the recommended fashion, that's on the user.

To posit that the device's very construction and usage engenders complacency is to chuck Petzl under the bus.

I don't use the Grigri personally (but I have used one professionally) but, properly used, it's an outstanding (if not a little expensive) piece of kit.

In reply to JohnDexter:

Compared to the newer generation of assisted breaking devices I’m not sure the gri gri is outstanding.

It’s been around for a long time, and was largely the only device in this category for decades, but there loads of devices out there now which are cheaper, simpler, and less likely to lead to accidents than a gri gri.

I’ve seen 3 people dropped from the top of a route indoors (all only received minor injuries, thankfully) and although it was different circumstances that lead to them, all of them were caused by an error by a belayer using a gri gri.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying they’re bad, or even unsafe. But for me they’re not outstanding, nor even the best in class any more.

In reply to JohnDexter:

I think you are misunderstanding me here. I am not blaming the GriGri for this, and I do use either that or a Smart for all my sport climbing. I took Enty's message to mean that the GriGri will never catch without a hand on the rope. It's not designed to, but it will /most/ of the time.

In reply to Alkis:

My bad.

I've obviously over-interpreted your post. Apologies.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Don't disagree with any of what you say, Greg. That's why I prefer the simplicity of a belay plate but I've seen folk fail to thread the rope through the crab on a Verso before now (clipping the retaining wire and missing the rope strand): it happens and that's why buddy checks are so important.

The fewer moving parts in a system, the happier I am

In reply to lcon:

Eh? You don't, everyone knows that. It's when you clip the finishing anchors it is best practice to call down, take, before you get lowered.

In reply to fotoVUE:

The like/dislike ratio to the post where you originally said this would seem to suggest this is not a widely held view.

Probably because, y’know, it’s not true…

In reply to fotoVUE: best practice to me, when the belayer and climber are in sight of each other, is that the belayer hears and/or sees the chain being clipped and steps back to take up the slack. No shouting, no fumbling to pull rope through the plate quickly, no fuss, attentive from start until the climber is back on the ground, climber and belayer in tune. Obviously not always feasible but generally is indoors and on many sport routes.

In reply to Wimlands:

Thats a cool question.
I work in a couple of centres,  when i am in uniform "hoodie" i would have no problem approaching,  and asking,  can i offer some help?

i think out of hoodie,  i would be less likely,  mostly because  being told to FK off  doesnt make a day better.

In reply to Iamgregp:

I feel compelled to point out that the like/dislike ratio on UKC rarely bears any resemblance to the quality or veracity of an argument. It's probably a better indicator of how entrenched the views of various contributors have become.

To be honest, I think that we should all be entitled to decide what's best practise for ourselves.

In reply to JohnDexter: Isn’t that how the whole thread kicked off? Someone displaying their own take on best practice.

In reply to Neil Morrison:

Fair point but, in my defence, I was referring to the act of notifying a belayer that one is ready to descend; perhaps I could have made that clearer.

In reply to JohnDexter:

Fair point, but even if you don’t shout down and take the belayer should be able to catch you so it doesn’t really matter.

In reply to Neil Morrison:

Exactly how we do it, surprising how many people prefer a noisy running commentary!

In reply to Neil Morrison:

Can't comment on outdoors sport as I hardly do it nowadays (gah,  I really should), but indoors I find it best to discuss with my partner what level of communication we want when they/I reach the belay. Drop off vs shout & tight, etc.

Can I mention that the grigri seems spectacularly bad at it's job nowadays? I've been using the Revo for a few years now and it's infinitely superior for belaying leaders onsighting rather than dogging routes. Better at paying out slack than an ATC, and nothing to accidently hold down to prevent holding N unexpected fall. 

In reply to Iamgregp:

Ha! Ignore the Like/Dislike ratio. It says nothing. Best practice when you reach the anchors (at the top of the route) on a sport route is to look down and shout take to your belayer. Or at a minimum, make eye contact.

You are of course free to do what you want, but if you clip the anchors and jump off, one day you may end up on the floor.

In reply to fotoVUE:

Yes you’ve said this. Repeatedly. Move on.

In reply to montyjohn:

I once wondered about saying something to someone belaying a couple of lines along from me. I didn't. A minute later there a was someone screaming with a compound fracture of their leg on the floor.

More recently I grabbed the dead rope of the belayer next to me and told them they needed to keep hold of it too. They looked confused and annoyed. I just kept hold until a staff member came and took over. He would almost certainly have dropped the climber if he had fallen.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Having been handed a Gri-Gri a couple of times and been baffled and given up after shortroping by the second clip (and lowering seemed overly complicated), I chose a Click-Up when they were pretty new as my first assisted advice. It is undoubtedly the ideal choice for someone used to using tube devices. All my regular partners are now converts and use one.

I was discussing with a partner just two days ago whether they would lock automatically if you let go of the dead rope. From tugging at the live end myself, I suspect they would with a reasonably thick rope but probably not with a slippery thin one. I think I shall test it with a backup.  

In reply to fotoVUE:

I think this discussion has become a bit silly (these things usually have once people start preaching about "best practice"). There is no right answer and the key is that belayer and climber have actually communicated in advance about how they are going to do things with the belayer accepting what the climber wants when belaying both in terms of providing slack and in communication. If they can't agree on this then perhaps best not climb together. Obviously the situation of a competition is different where a climber has to accept how it is done. I think that being belayed by somebody new without having a conversation first is a bit daft.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I’d always used a tube style device, then when my partner and I started getting more into leading I campaigned hard for us to get a gri gri but she just wouldn’t have it as she didn’t like the change in technique. Eventually I talked her into a click-up after asking advice as to what the most similar to a tube style, and now she’s a total evangelist for them.

I honestly can’t understand why people still belay on sport routes with a tube device, when the click up is essentially exactly the same action…

In reply to Iamgregp:

Expense?

In reply to Murd:

A good analysis of the accident by Hard Is Easy.

youtube.com/watch?v=WBGkKqLhM8Y&

In reply to Anyone

What I'm totally flummoxed by is the pixelation of the belayer and confidante's faces in the video. I can't get my head around that at all.