UKC

I had to redo a safety test at a well-known climbing wall today, as I haven't climbed there in yonks and my details seemed to have disappeared into the ether. Passed, as you'd expect, but I was criticised for using the slot of the belay device furthest away from the spine of the krab.

Errr...have I missed something? Has anyone in the history of climbing ever had an accident based on the slot of the belay device they chose to use? If I belay on a single rope I always use that slot as it means you dont have to unclip the belay device from the krab, and so there's less chance of fumbling and dropping it 200m down a multipitch. Am I unsafe? Are my climbing partners all still alive only by the grace of God?

It was also mentioned that the rope loop should be smaller than my belay loop. Quoi? I just about butt the knot up against my tie-in point before I rethread it, it can't practically get any smaller.

Where do these people come from?

In reply to tehmarks:

I pick the slot at random, I cannot imagine there be a situation where the hole would make a difference, if you are just using one the device will just orientate itself 5mm over. Both slots can be done without unclipping it from your harness. For the tie-in loop yeah it should be smallish to stop you accidentally getting it caught, but smaller than your belay loop sounds odd, as you can just get your belay loop caught. I imagine they were told as a rule of thumb it should be the same size as your belay loop and miss-remembered?

In reply to tehmarks:

A small amount of 'knowledge' and an official 'cap' is a potent combination.

In reply to tehmarks:

I think for some combinations of plate and krab, the which slot you use can change the way it sits when locked off.  Inner slot -> the plate sits on the top bar of the krab. Outer slot -> it sits on the corner of the krab. The second case can be stickier/less consistent. 

I fixed that problem by not using that plate with that krab...

In reply to tehmarks:

Adherence to pointless minutiae is a sign of general ignorance. 

Inadequate though you are with your slots and knots all bollixed up, at least they somehow let you squeak through!

In reply to tehmarks:

I did my RCI training recently and was told the rope loop should be smaller than the belay loop.

It's not a safety issue especially in indoor or sport climbing but more of a potential comfort thing for trad. Imagine you build your anchor with rope, clip everything back to the rope loop, and also belay from the rope loop. If you clipped any karabiner through the belay loop as well then if the rope loop is smaller it won't pull on the harness. This makes everything a bit more comfortable and a little bit easier to escape the system if need be. If the rope loop is bigger and you clipped through both then you're harness can get twisted and it's just a little bit more uncomfortable.

Hope that made sense?

I think the main benefit for me is it keeps everything out of the way when clipping a draw. I don't understand how people manage with the loop and "stopper" below their knees.

In reply to tehmarks:

thiests would argue that this is the correct answer

In reply to CrawfMatt:

But:

1. Why would I clip both the rope loop and belay loop when I could just clip the rope loop?
2. It's not possible to make my rope loop much smaller; the knot is nigh on touching my lower tie in point when I rethread it. If it were any smaller my harness would be crushing my nads by default.
3. This is at an indoor wall.

It just doesn't make sense.

In reply to rgold:

The reason it annoys me is that among all the noise, genuine points of safety may well be lost on the less experienced novice who isn't yet able to filter the stupidity.

At best they'll spend the next n years convinced they're only safe using their belay device in one specific way, and at worst they'll realise it's it's bollocks and assume the advice to tie a stopper on their bowline is equally nonsensical.

In reply to CrawfMatt:

The belay loop is that size on purpose. The designers have made it that way.

If I was going to be super pedantic I reckon we should aim for our knot loop to exactly match it. But as long as its broadly similar who cares?

I wouldn't want it smaller than the belay loop as it pinches the harness points together, but I wouldn't want it massively oversized as it's just a pain then. 

In reply to tehmarks:

I use either a Reverso or ATC.  In neither case does the manufacturer's instructions specify which slot to use.  Black Diamond's instructions for the ATC Guide seem to show the slot closest to the spine in one diagram and furthest in another. but neither are very clear except after close study.  It certainly does not indicate that it matters which one to use or that it is wrong to use the other slot (which these instruction sheets usually do if something is potentially unsafe).

https://eu.blackdiamondequipment.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-bdel/defa...

In reply to CrawfMatt:

I thought belaying from the rope loop was a discredited idea these days? Significant risk of ring loading, which rethreaded eights and most bowline variants tend to handle rather badly.

In reply to tehmarks:

Totally agree on why it's an issue indoors, was just trying to come up with a case why someone might say it needs to be smaller. It's definitely not commonly taught that it needs to be smaller in my experience. For trad, it was explained to me as more of a "just in case" you clip both. I think it's best to just clip the rope loop too. 

To get it to stay smaller than the belay loop when weighted you do need to to pull it pretty tight. In practice I aim for about the size of the belay loop too.

In reply to tehmarks:

Ask what the staff member in question has done on grit.

In reply to tehmarks:

I didn't think size mattered, I'm always conscious of which slot I'm using though.

In reply to tehmarks:

It doesn't matter what side the rope is through the belay. The rope will center itself naturally and won't be any further away from the spine in either configuration, a couple of grams of metal on the left or right doesn't change this fact.  

The only way this might be affected is if something external was pushing on the belay device to force the rope over to one side. 

In reply to FreshSlate:

I always use the slot on the right as I'm right handed, gate on the left. Is that right or wrong then?!

I was told the rope loop should be be no bigger than the belay loop so make it quite small.  Yes it does pinch the tie in points together a little but doesn't seem matter?

But yes, this is nitpicking rather than a safety issue.  I would have expected the instructor to confirm that what you were doing is perfectly safe, but that what they were suggesting would be better (albeit an opinion).

Next they'll be telling you whether to tie in top to bottom or bottom to top!

(not really, everybody knows only weirdos tie in top to bottom)

In reply to tehmarks:

There's a limit to how small you can tie the loop. I always use a bowline when wall climbing, as it's easier to untie after being loaded, as when lowering off. That means I need at least a certain size of loop to get the stopper knot on.

On the other hand, when I'm teaching groups, usually kids, I always use a re-threaded fig-8 - in that case, you want the loop small, so that the stopper knot can't smack them in the face.

Incidentally, my Dad failed his first assessment at our local wall on a technicality on belay practice, but passed on his bowline tie-in. On the second attempt, he passed the belay part, but failed the tie-in, as the wall seems to have changed it's policy and now doesn't allow bowlines!

In reply to tehmarks:

Incidentally, I always find it amusing that no wall I've ever been to has accepted my SPA qualification as evidence of belaying competence and I ALWAYS have to do their assessment!

I'm quite happy to do it, I just try it out of interest.

In reply to krikoman:

Yeah, so you've been told...

In reply to krikoman:

But everyone agrees it's much better if the stopper is snug

In reply to Iamgregp:

Yeah, they're probably gates-out losers too.

In reply to tehmarks:

Which wall?

My harness doesn't have a belay loop - so the problem is solved.

In reply to tehmarks:

I thought it made sense on a regular harness to use the slot on the side you are handed (i.e. the right hand slot if right handed) as it just sits nicer.  Being right handed that then means I clip the krab right to left, so it is near the spine.  It had never occurred to me to do otherwise.  On an alpine harness (where it's horizontal) I've never considered it to make any difference at all.

Interesting.  I suppose the argument is that the nearer the gate it is the more likely it is to rub on and undo the gate?

In reply to AlanLittle:

It's not often done at walls, but on the crag isn't the idea that it makes it easier to escape the belay if you need to do so for whatever reason?

In reply to john arran:

Once you have got the slots sorted, better starting thinking about what protection you might need.

In reply to John Stainforth:

Lately I've not been bothering about protection, I have been soloing a lot though.

In reply to AlanLittle:

Those people ;0)

In reply to Neil Williams:

Outdoors, belaying from the rope loop means any force of a falling climber goes through the rope and back to the belay point. Using the belay loop the force comes directly onto the belayer first.

In reply to brianjcooper:

To the 'dislike'.  RTFM 

By rope loop I mean the tied into the harness loop and knot.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Westway.

In reply to Neil Williams:

How's that supposed to work then? If you were talking about a separate rope loop as the master point of the belay, American style, then I could concede the "ease of escape" point. But if you're talking about your tie-in loop as I thought we were, then I don't see that it makes blind bit of difference.

Presuming you don't want to just untie your loop and drop your partner to his or her doom - assuming you even could untie it under load - then you still need to get the load off onto a prusik in order to unload the belay device. And the process for doing that is the same whether the device is on your belay loop or a loop of rope.

In reply to tehmarks:

It is a lifetime ambition of mine to get good enough at the trick where you make a fig-8 by whipping the rope around in a fancy pattern then throw the end through the loop which you've formed in mid-air that I can use it in a wall safety test.

In reply to AlanLittle:

Sometimes, when they've been faffing at the crux for hours while a savage wind blows at the top of the crag...

In reply to AlanLittle:

The escape problem does arise without a separate rope loop as the belay master point if the climber has rigged the belay anchor  entirely with the climbing rope.  Yes, there is no difference in the transferring of load to the anchor, but you don't have a rigged anchor if you are clipped back to the rope tie-in loop and then untie your tie-in as the next stage of the rescue process.  You could presumably transfer the load to one piece of your anchor directly, but wouldn't be able to use the load-distributing rigging set up for the belay.  These considerations do not arise if the anchor has been rigged with a cordelette or slings.

All that said, I think way too much attention is directed to belay escape.  It is an exceptionally rare situation that truly requires it and on-the-spot improvisations may suffice anyway.

In reply to brianjcooper: you're still going to need to explain it to me

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I got pretty good at making very difficult to do (especially to undo...) knots in the rope seemingly just by throwing it down on the rope tarp at the crag, although probably that's not exactly what you had in mind, right? 

In reply to rgold:

Couldn't agree more. Haven't been climbing as long as you - only 40 years - but I've never had to do it, & don't know anybody who has either.

In reply to LastBoyScout:

But you see they're WALL qualified, and you're not, so they do know better than you. (And the "children" testing us do so like to show off their "superiority").

I alternate the left and right slot to spread the wear on the belay device. 

As for the rope loop, I have seen people with giant loops that are 3 feet long, in that case, I can certainly see how it can be caught on a hold/bolt. A little bigger or small then your belay loop, whatever. 

In reply to fred99:

Of note is that SPA is a logbook award - you can pass it and not go near a wall or rock in 20 years and forget everything - it should always be reviewed in conjunction with a logbook of experience and has little or no value on its own.

It's probably quicker to do a belay check (which takes all of 5 minutes) than read through your logbook, particularly when using the awful piece of software that is DLOG.

In reply to krikoman:

I used to think that until my wallpaper fell off!

In reply to tehmarks:

You are at climbing wall. There are pretty girls in tight vests there. For your partners sake, use a gri gri rather than a belay plate. 

In reply to Presley Whippet:

My climbing partner is a pretty girl in a tight vest. No one could possibly accuse me of being an inattentive belayer.

In reply to tehmarks:

There is always someone better off than you. 

In reply to brianjcooper:

Which can be beneficial if you are on really poor anchors and wish to give the most dynamic belay possible it's surprising how much force you can take out of a fall by resisting a pull with your body, slowly transferring the weight of the second from you to the anchor. 

In reply to tehmarks:

Had it before where some jobsworths told me that my DMM Sentinel HMS wasn't suitable for belaying! I can agree that it's a little too grabby on some belay devices like the edelrid mega jul but with a standard ATC it functions the same as almost any other HMS.

No wonder the braehead ice wall is always empty. 

In reply to JohnBson:

Presumably they were hoping for one of those belay krabs with some clever way of preventing cross-loading?

In reply to tehmarks:

Nope. I was just given a 'normal' HMS and a 5 minute lecture along the lines of why you don't risk it when winter climbing... I thought this quite unnecessary as I had been trad climbing over 10 years, had a few winter seasons under my belt, and was qualified to a higher level in instructing climbing than SPA. 

In reply to wbo2:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/skills/belaying_-_rope_loop_or_belay_lo...

In reply to JohnBson:

Agreed.  

What are these slots you all speak of? 

In reply to zimpara:

Try this simple approach to answering your own question.

1. Get any ATC-style belay device out (a picture will suffice if you don't have one to hand)
2. Look at it

In reply to AlanLittle:

I've had to escape from the system three times in about 37 years of climbing. So not very often, but at least one of those times would have been very serious if I had not known how to do so. If you've got an injured, incapacitated partner hanging off your harness without other help immediately avavilable, you're pretty stuffed if you don't know how to do it. 

In reply to Iamgregp:

It does make sense to teach novices to tie in top to bottom so that if only one thing is looped it is the bit that matters.

I never do so myself though.

In reply to tehmarks:

I think the problem here is that most climbing walls presumably would like the users to belay in the way in which they teach their beginners. I've not really thought about the two issues that you mention. Although I thought that people who climb offwidth/squeeze chimneys liked big tie in loops to prevent the chance of the not getting wedged and impeding upward progress. I think I read this on an American website - so it might not be so common. 

I was recently criticised for the way in which I was with belaying with a grigri at a local wall. I didn't challenge the floor walker in front of the other customers, but did email the manager. They agreed that I was using the device exactly as was shown it the Petzl instructional videos. They said that this is not how they instruct people, and that their concern was that beginners could copy what I was doing using a different device. I suspect that the same might be true with the two things you bring up. If they specify to the beginners that the loop should be a designated size, it probably looks contradictory if experienced climbers deviate from this.  

In reply to TonyB:

I don't think that could apply here. You'd have to be really looking to see which hole of the device someone was using, and it's entirely inconsequential even when applied to other devices designed for double ropes.

I can't make my rope loop any smaller without pinching my harness together, which is clearly incorrect.

In reply to TonyB:

I wonder what's the wall's legal situation would be if it were emerge in court that they were teaching use of a safety device differently from the manufacturer's instructions.

In reply to AlanLittle:

Having practiced rescue scenarios a fair bit, it’s certainly easier to do stuff if the weight is going into the rope loop and hence directly into the anchors as opposed to going into the harness loop and hence you bearing the brunt of it. You are right that the steps for escaping the system or an assisted hoist for example would be the same either way but from a practical point of view not having the second’s weight going into your harness makes life a lot easier. Of course if the belay is not great (and there is no other choice), it maybe best to take the strain directly.

I wouldn’t make the rope loop smaller than the harness loop though. They just feels wrong because it messes wither the intended geometry of the harness.
 

Someone told me it’s a good idea in case the fig 8 isn’t tight as it would then cinch under load, making the loop longer. However surely the answer there is to sort out the fig 8...

In reply to rgold:

You wouldn’t want to leave the casualty hanging on a single piece (or two or more unequalised pieces). If the pieces are within reach, you would create a master point with a sling (or with the dead rope) and use that. If they are out of reach, there’s another trick you can use but it‘s not easy to describe without diagrams / photos.

In reply to Misha:

I think you misunderstood my point.  I mentioned that as an (unappetizing) option for escape if the anchor had been rigged with the rope only and clipped back to the the tie-in loop, rather than into a separate overhand or butterfly loop tied just in front of the tie-in loop.  If you clip back to the tie-in loop, then when you undo that loop to escape you've also undone your rigging.  So sure, you can re-rig the entire anchor with slings and then transfer the load to that, but as you note that can be both awkward and involved if the anchor pieces aren't within reach.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Agreed, and sorry you had those experiences.   Everyone should know belay escape strategies. Early in my climbing career (August of 1960) there was a tragic fatality in the Tetons that could be attributed to inability to escape the belay (in those days there was no common knowledge about self-rescue in the US).  The leader fell past his second and ended up hanging in space below the belay ledge.  The second was pulled violently up to their anchor and pinned there, unable to do anything but hold on.  The leader eventually died, I don't know whether there were injuries or whether it was just from suffocation, since those were the days before harnesses.  Perhaps both were involved.  I don't think the leader was very far below the belay ledge, and if the second could have freed themselves a rescue might have been possible before the leader lost consciousness.

My comment about overemphasis was that not every rigging technique has to be optimized for belay escape, and like almost everything else in climbing, one makes decisions on the spot about what's going to be best in terms of a host of considerations, with belay escape possibly not high on the list.  Saying this or that method is no good "because you can't escape the belay" is usually wrong, but also overemphasizes that one particular consideration.

In reply to tehmarks:

The only reason for belaying from the slot nearer the spine of the crab is that it makes it slightly easier to tie off the belay device. I imagine the member of staff would lose their mind if you did that at the wall though...

In reply to tlouth7:

You are assuming that this individual has a mind of his/her own.

In reply to rgold:

Totally agree that a master point is way easier for rescue situations and when you’re block leading but tying in directly with the rope seems to be the standard British way. Of course a master point is not always going to be appropriate. 

In reply to Misha:

I was once told by a "fully qualified climbing instructor" at a well known wall that the reason there were two holes in my belay plate was because one was for thinner ropes and than the other...

In reply to Misha:

If you put an overhand or butterfly knot in the rope beyond the tie-in loop (you can choose how far beyond), then you get to tie in with the rope and have a master point (which, because of the choice, is just where you want it).  You can use a guide belay plaquette on this masterpoint if you are so inclined, and are set up for belay escape if that rare eventuality arises.  Of course, this is not the same as a cordelette master point; the climbing rope rigging has to be taken down and re-installed for the second if leading in blocks.

In reply to gravy:on some older devices that was the case.  There was a thicker hole for your 11  and a smaller hole for a second 9.  Haven't seen that for a while

In reply to wbo2:

https://cdn-uploads.mountainproject.com/forum/65492.jpg

In reply to tehmarks:

Nonsense like that should be enjoyed with a polite but persistent sting of 'thank you but why?' questions, you'll quickly either get to something interesting or telling 'because I say so'.

jk

In reply to rgold:

I think that's one of the best but simplest ropework tips I've ever seen 

In reply to Robert Durran:

It was one of my favourite takeaways from Mr. Coley and Mr. Kirkpatrick's brilliant multipitch climbing ebook and website.

In reply to tehmarks:

I'm right handed so always used the right slot on single ropes, now I'm swapping to the left slot to ensure the device wears evenly....

In reply to Neil Williams:

There are 2 types of climber, those who can escape the belay and those who can't.  Your chosen tie in and belay methods have little influence on your other abilities.

In reply to timjones:

I don't think the climber that needs half an hour to escape the belay is the same type as the one who needs five minutes.  The chosen tie-in and belay methods are among the factors that might influence such discrepancies.

In reply to rgold:

There is no way that the point that you belay from should account for that big a difference in the time taken to escape the system.

The processes are fundamentally the same regardless of where you choose to belay from.

In reply to timjones:

The half-hour timing is a bit hyperbolic, granted.  But I still think the "two types of climbers" oversimplifies the situation and trivializes the potential effects of different rigging methods.  In particular, if you rig your anchor entirely with the rope and your belay position puts the anchor pieces and power point, if there is one, out of reach, than the details of how you construct your rigging could significantly affect the timing and difficulty of freeing yourself from it.

I think this is particularly true when the rigging is arranged, as I think is fairly common, so that the various strands are clipped back to the belayer's tie-in loop, which means that the belayer cannot untie that loop and escape without also undoing the anchor rigging.  This is one of the reasons I suggested adding an overhand or butterfly loop at a convenient distance beyond the tie-in loop and clipping the anchor strands to that.  With that done, the belayer can untie their tie-in loop without any effect on the integrity of the anchor.

In reply to tehmarks:

I wanted to climb with my daughter (13) at a local climbing centre, because she's under 18 they wanted her to book in to take a test before allowing her to belay. I can understand their concerns but she already has Nicas Level 4 which is a much more complete way to show competence than a belay test so I wonder why they don't accept it. What's the point of having a NICAS scheme if it's not nationally recognized?

Anyhow we did the booking, paid our £10 and showed up, but they failed her because she didn't know the details of an old fashioned center harness with a double back strap (she knows how to fit her own harness correctly). They then proceeded to say she can re-test but not for another month, and they won't do the test in evenings or weekends as they are busy, at which point we gave up.

Of course all the adults showing up aren't subject to this test and would most likely fail it also, but hey!