Mountain Project Logo

Another Accident due to mis-use of the Gri-gri

rgold · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 526

While we're all making up, in view of the fact that his tragic misfortune is the source of this thread's obviously engaging controversy, head on over to gofundme.com/jimewing and make a contribution, small or large, to help Jim to get home and deal with some of the awful debt incurred.

bearbreeder · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 3,065
Christian wrote: More thread drift: Anybody else have issues w Petz's new approved technique? Seems that between the bend back towards the lip and the rope being even gently encircled by my gloved hand, enough friction is created that I just cannot feed as fast for fast clips as with the old approved technique. This is with a 9.8 w no dry treatment and Grigri 2.
Alot of the friction is from the rope pile/weight itself

Assuming that your rope is already neatly flaked out ...

What i do when i use a thick fuzzy rope on a grigri that has issues feeding even in the fast fee method

- brake hand slides down a few feet down the brake strand

- holding the strand in the last 3 fingers, that hand comes up to the fast feed position index on the catch and thumb on the cam .. You a small loop of slack on the brake side

- left hand pulls the loop of slack through

- right hand immediately slides back down to the brake position

This basically takes the weight of the rope out of the equation, you trying to pull a small loop through rather than the rope weight/tangle

This is of course not recommended by petzl, personally my partners nor i have any real concerns beyond those you should already watch out for

Of course the real problem is that the grigri is quite sensitive to rope slickness, suppleness, diameter ... Which means that many if not most grigri belayers on not so thin ropes use the fast feed method as "standard" ... Which introduces serious risks

A glance around the gym/crag will show this
reboot · · . · Joined Jul 2006 · Points: 125
John Byrnes wrote: Oh, and BTW, you're wrong in most of your posts, simple as that.
Since you are so sure you are right and even challenged people with your "experiment", let me make a little recommendation, do it yourself again, except this time tie some weights (start w/ 10 lbs) to the brake end instead of "holding it kind of tight", because frankly I have no idea what that means. Then maybe even add a butterfly knot or an ascender on the climber's side so you can really pull down. Adjust the weights until the rope can actually slip up, then you will realize how pathetically little brake force you were applying in your experiment.

Btw, since I was at the gym tonight, I did try that just to make sure I still have my sanity, and I do.
Greg D · · Here · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 883

The elephant in the room may be Petzel's awareness of this flaw. They certainly would not admit this publicly, as this would put them and their product at great risk, although they have admitted flaws indirectly by changing the instructions over time.

But, let's face it. If multiple deaths or serious injuries were occurring at a rate equivalent to this (albeit small) in the automotive industry there would be lawsuits, media attention and recalls. Climbing gear manufacturers have a little bit more latitude since climbing is considered "dangerous". This is not to absolve belayer contribution to these accidents. Clearly this is part of the puzzle. But, what is important to consider is that climbing gear are tools to be implemented and interacted with the climbers. A quick draw gets clipped to a bolt, then the rope to it... by a climber. A cam gets placed, then the rope clipped to it... by the climber. A belayer feeds rope out, takes rope in. Again, climber interaction. Testing this interaction only takes place if the climber falls. On the other hand, the climber and belayer are constantly interacting with the belay device the entire pitch and play one of the most critical roles in the entire life chain.

Climbing gear design is not just "is it strong enough to withstand the forces" but can climbers implement these tools consistently and effectively. And how do we teach the users about the subtle flaws without incriminating our company.

I have taken two undesirable rides in my life. One while being belayed by an atc and a friend that was admittedly not paying attention. While I was free falling and screaming, he locked up and caught me after a 30 foot fall that should have been a five foot fall. He admitted that he thought I needed slack and fed rope just before I fell. He did lock up and caught me no problem before I decked. User error for sure. The device and the user interaction performed as predicted. Fortunately, minor injuries.

The other was a nineteen foot fall on a gri while twenty feet above the ground. There was no extra slack in the system, his intention was to catch me immediately. The device did not lock until the last micro second. Belayer error? Device flaw? Combination of the two? My feet touched the ground when my fall was arrested Fortunately, no injury.

The point I'm trying to make is that climbing gear and the user have an intimate interaction. Yes, read the instructions. Yes, get proper training (whatever that vague statement means). Watch videos. Bla bla, blah. Anyone can go into a climbing shop, buy whatever they want, and hit the crags. Yet, these rare (someone chimed in above about this same failure mode just the other day. Rare????? Hello????)

These accidents seem to happen mostly to "experienced" climbers and belayers. Did you see the problem now?????

When my belayer is using an atc, I am concerned whether they are paying attention. When my belayer is using a gri I am concerned whether they are paying attention, keeping slack to a minimum, keeping their hand on the brake (break for some), aware of the rare but subtle failure mode, and worried if they smoke cigarettes and drink PBR while belaying.

YMMV

Jim Titt · · Germany · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 490
BillS wrote: This is wrong information. It's very easy for even an untrained novice to quickly discover that this is going to vary quite a bit with the rope being used - for starters.
Well the force to activate the cam is constant but for sure the braking force required to do this is rope dependent, I gave the highest value needed I´ve measured with a brand-new rope of the minimum diameter specified for my GriGri.
Jim Titt · · Germany · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 490
rgold wrote:Jim, I think it fair to characterize what has turned into a lengthy debate (with, of course, the usual ad hominen attacks) as follows. I hope I am being fair to both sides: * I believe there is general acceptance that overgripping with the feeding hand can cause the cam not to engage. The big kerfluffle is about whether this presumably momentary disengaging could lead to total loss of control of the belay if the braking hand is properly placed and activated. * On the one hand we have folks who are saying that with the braking correctly positioned and ready, this momentary disengagement will be corrected and held, and that a loss of control represents a simple failure to use the brake hand correctly. * On the other hand we have people who are saying that doesn't seem to be what has happened in every case, and there appears to be a potential for the belay to fail from overgripping the feeding hand even if the brake hand is properly deployed, especially in cases of new thin ropes and substantial weight mismatch between leader and belayer. A problem with this position is that there doesn't seem to be any good explanation for how it could happen unless the cam either stays disengaged in spite of appropriate braking behavior or takes more than, say, two seconds to engage. Meanwhile, no one---except possibly Bisharat, who claims first-hand observations---has actually seen in detail what has happened in one of these failures. So, as really the only authoritative voice in this thread, I'm interested in whether you think there is any set of conditions that could produce the type of failure we've been speaking of, even if the belayer's braking hand behavior is appropriate. I guess, specifically, the question of interest is not the braking force usually required to activate the cam, but whether something different happens if the initial condition is the rope running through the device at speed. Is it possible that it will then be harder---I think it would have to be much harder in order to validate the second group's assumptions---to activate braking in that case in the under two second window?
There is a rope-related mechanism which interferes with the braking on at least one device I know off once the rope is moving at speed. Theoretically it could apply to all cam-type devices but whether does to the GriGri is pure speculation and going to be very hard to test.
Correctly used (the GriGri) the rope should not be running at speed in the first place so it´s hard to get enthusiastic about testing something which is the consequence of another failure.
amarius · · Nowhere, OK · Joined Feb 2012 · Points: 20

So, who thinks that GG3 should have the following -
- a more asymmetric cam to make sure that pinching action is more pronounced
- a design modification that allows better left handed operation
- friction groove, a la Reverso4, to make lowering less cam modulation dependent

Jim Titt · · Germany · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 490
amarius wrote:So, who thinks that GG3 should have the following - - a more asymmetric cam to make sure that pinching action is more pronounced - a design modification that allows better left handed operation - friction groove, a la Reverso4, to make lowering less cam modulation dependent
The cam design pinches the rope well enough,the slip force is in the region of 4 to 9kN depending on the model and rope. If the cam was re-designed to give more leverage then lowering/releasing would be even more difficult which is the bug-bear with this type of device, increasing the braking force is easy, getting rid of it isn´t,for example the Camp Matik has already had a handle re-design to make lowering easier even before it has been released on the market.
If the actual pinch point was changed the danger of damaging the rope becomes much greater, currently one great benefit of thew Grigri is it doesn´t shred the rope no matter what one does.
The Grigri is excellent left handed, just install it on your harness upside down and feed out downwards. This also has the advantage that lock-up is effectively guaranteed and the entire 14 pages of this thread redundant.
A high-friction groove somehwere on the side-plate would be nice, however it twists the rope like mad, in the front part it would be o.k. If lowering is a real problem then one can either use the Petzl solution to the problem (Freino karabiner) or a re-direct on a leg loop.

An alternative concept is to "hide" the cam to prevent the belayer interfering with it, this is effectively what the Edelrid Eddy does. Not my choice of device for that very reason.
David Coley · · UK · Joined Oct 2013 · Points: 70
Top Rope Hero wrote:Petzl itself says you’re just flat, dead wrong about this weird, don’t-touch-the-climber’s-strand thingy. ........ Or maybe just read the damn instructions that come with it. Call me crazy…
At most climbing walls in the UK there is a poster from Petzl on how to use a grigri. These all mention that you must not keep hold of the climber's side of the rope when holding a fall.
slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103
reboot wrote: ... FWIW, the OP kind of rubs me in the wrong way in mentioning "pro" climbers in rifle to bolster his point, since one of them dropped a climber (with a Grigri) there last season.
same here.

also, something else that i found annoying later in this thread was describing how "5.13 climbers have fallen off this 5.11" - what does that have to do with anything?

i am always amazed how people will dance around the facts and fixate on side issues. it was hot and humid. this route bouts 5.13 climbers. if you have a hand on the climber's side it somehow magically nullifies the effect of having the brake hand firmly applied.

its a simple fact - an inadequate amount of force was applied to the break end to arrest and maintain the fall. this is inarguable. sure, grabbing the climber's side of the rope can hinder the operation of the cam, but this is a side argument.

so, getting to the root cause of it all....

was the belayer considered competent for this situation? hmmm, 15 year old girl, substantially outweighed, slick rope. i'm seeing some yellow flags here.

did the belayer execute the belay as she has been trained? if so, who trained her and how was she trained to belay? if she varied from her training, why?
slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103
John Byrnes wrote: 2) Since this failure-mechanism is not well-known even by the experts, why would you expect your garden-variety climber to know about it? 3) That this type of failure happens more often than anyone suspects. Oh, and BTW, you're wrong in most of your posts, simple as that.
The issue of the climber's side hand hindering the cam from engaging has been known about for a long long time. But again, it is a side issue. It is not only the belayers hand that can cause this, but interfaces between the rock and rope, etc. I have had it happen to me when the climber fell on an arete, swung around and collided with the rope. It caused a momentary hiccup with the cam. But again, a firm grip on the brake side kept it from being an issue.

I don't think anybody is arguing with you that a climber's side hand can hinder the cam from engaging. I don't have any problem with that. However, calling that a root cause of a belay failure is something I don't agree with.
slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103
David Coley wrote: At most climbing walls in the UK there is a poster from Petzl on how to use a grigri. These all mention that you must not keep hold of the climber's side of the rope when holding a fall.
The problem with instructions is that they are often 'revised' to deal with man's constant ability to find new ways (or excuses) to have accidents.
highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion · · Colorado · Joined Oct 2012 · Points: 35
cracked.com/blog/5-ways-tec…

Entry number 5 is remarkably on topic for this subject.
slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103
Gunkiemike wrote:IWhether a backwards Grigri will catch any particular fall is still up for debate, but IMO it is NOT "just like an ATC".
it isn't up for debate - like i said above i watched a person, literally 20 feet away from me, catch a substantial lead fall with his grigri threaded backwards. it didn't even burn his hands. his underwear on the other hand probably didn't fare so well though...
csproul · · Pittsboro...sort of, NC · Joined Dec 2009 · Points: 330
slim wrote: it isn't up for debate - like i said above i watched a person, literally 20 feet away from me, catch a substantial lead fall with his grigri threaded backwards. it didn't even burn his hands. his underwear on the other hand probably didn't fare so well though...
Well gee, then it's conclusive. No further investigation needed. Never mind that others, including myself, have tried it and it didn't work. No matter that it may be dependent on rope diameter, rope fuzz/age, dry treatment, friction in the rope, climber weight, grip strength of the belayer...As long as you saw it, that's good enough for me.

I'll agree that calling the issue a root cause (holding the climber's side) may be an injustice and that proper control of the brake hand is the primary concern, but there is nothing wrong with people being aware of another factor that can contribute to difficulties in belaying. Just another in a list of things that belayers should be thinking about. IMO, your dismissal of the potential problem is much worse than the overblown warning.
David Coley · · UK · Joined Oct 2013 · Points: 70
csproul wrote: I'll agree that calling the issue a root cause (holding the climber's side) may be an injustice and that proper control of the brake hand is the primary concern, but there is nothing wrong with people being aware of another factor that can contribute to difficulties in belaying. Just another in a list of things that belayers should be thinking about. IMO, your dismissal of the potential problem is much worse than the overblown warning.
Possibly not a root cause, but if Petzl think it worth using space on their poster to bring this to our attention, and the poster only has space to cover a few points, then it looks like they at least think it more than a minor issue.

Out of interest, in the USA do the posters not show this? Or are there no posters at the gyms?
sherb · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2012 · Points: 60

Etched in metal right on the grigri there is a picture of how the grigri is threaded, where the climber should be, and where the brake hand should be.

If I hold a gun backwards and point to myself instead of the intended target, whose fault is it? Come on. Idiots shouldn't belay.

csproul · · Pittsboro...sort of, NC · Joined Dec 2009 · Points: 330
Ana Tine wrote:Etched in metal right on the grigri there is a picture of how the grigri is threaded, where the climber should be, and where the brake hand should be. If I hold a gun backwards and point to myself instead of the intended target, whose fault is it? Come on. Idiots shouldn't belay.
Definitely some truth to this, but a really bad attitude IMO. If you haven't made simple mistakes like this, you've either not been climbing long enough or not paying attention. It will happen. That's why it is important to have a routine in place to catch mistakes before they become accidents, and that's why you have your partner check things too. Climbing with a Grigri threaded backwards is just as much the fault of the climber who doesn't check it as it is the fault of the belayer who did it in the first place. The attitude that "only idiots make mistakes" is exactly the complacency that leads to accidents, and also makes for a shitty climbing partner.
bearbreeder · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 3,065

Theres been two times i put on a grigri wrong ... And this is after years of safe use

The first time i threaded everything but only put thr biner through one hole, fortunately i caught the problem a few feet off the ground

The second case was the same error, but in this case the climber was higher up ... I clamped the grigri closed as hard as i could and slowly lowered

Im both cases we did the double checks, i would consider both partners and myself pretty "safe" climbers

And it still passed by ...

Now before MP starts jumping on the "you incompetent" bandwagon

Keep this report in mind where 4 trained firefighters did their checks and still let a critical mistake pass by leading to a fatality

Before the rappelling attempt, four people looked at or inspected Marovich’s rappelling gear: the spotter trainee who installed the “O” ring, Marovich, and in the helicopter a spotter, and another helitack crewperson who did a “buddy check”.

Marovich fell, unarrested, shortly after stepping out onto the helicopter skid. He was pronounced deceased about 30 minutes later.


wildfiretoday.com/2010/03/0…

No one is immune to brain farts ... John long, lynn hill, etc... All found out the hard way

There is also a serious issue with double checks IMO, there is a blind faith in them, but thats another thread

Morgan Patterson · · NH · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,945
bearbreeder wrote:Theres been two times i put on a grigri wrong ...
Sounds like you're making stories up now...
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Another Accident due to mis-use of the Gri-gri"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.