Question about belaying from anchor in the ground on top of multi pitch route?

Ted Pinson wrote: Cool, thanks...although it's a shame he didn't show how to set it up nor belay for very long. At Devil's Lake, most of the approaches are from above, so people typically setup anchors from the top of the cliff, making this much more practical.

https://vimeo.com/93138771

you can find the rest of the video series online ...

just note that the brits do things a bit different than yanks or canucks ...

no doubt some gym bred safety nazi will see the vid, pull out the AMGA SPI book and run around screaming "UNSAFE UNSAFE UNSAFE!!!"

;)

I don't care what any safety Nazi sayz.
She had me at beeelay.

thx for the vid.

rgold wrote:People with sharp eyes might notice that the (standard) British belay handling technique would have the practitioner drummed out of the corps by the US belay police.

Is it the crossing hands that are the problem? My husband failed a belay test at a gym here for that - we still aren't sure why it's considered unsafe in the US?

(British expat in Seattle)

Oh and I was also wondering - why is a direct belay "preferred", assuming you know how to escape the system with a harness belay?

Cat Nelson wrote:Oh and I was also wondering - why is a direct belay "preferred", assuming you know how to escape the system with a harness belay?

Its so modern climbers can go hands free and take kool pics ... And post em on fbook in real time

;)

My questions are...  

Without having tried this yet, it appears to me that in this example and in the last example of the flat top out in the vimeo link that user bearbreeder posted, that if the second fell, it would still pull the leader downwards and also pull the belay device into the ground. How is this any better?

Could something similar be done with an extended master point like user Zac Munro mentioned. And you could still use a belay device (not in guide mode), if there is potential for ground or rock to hold it open if it gets mashed into it. This would seem to alleviate any problem with potentially being pulled into the ground as your rope attatchment to the master point can be made longer. 

Thoughts?

Thanks! 

I'm not really understand what issue to seem to be finding with this method of belaying. I've done it numerous times and while it isn't quite as comfortable and easy as doing a guide-mode belay standing on a fat ledge, it works well enough. It may just be something where you need to do it in order to understand it. 

Hey eli,

I did try it this weekend and it ended up being exactly what I was concerned about. When the second falls or weights the rope, the rope wants to pull downward, and even though the leader is off to the side and not under the rope, it painfully pulls downward on the harness into the ground. Either I'm missing a crucial part of this setup, or people have not caught much falls on this setup. At this point it would seem to make more sense to me to make an extended master point and belay in this same method so the leader is completely out of the movement of the rope when it is weighted. Am I missing something about this?

anotherclimber wrote:people have not caught much falls on this setup. At this point it would seem to make more sense to me to make an extended master point and belay in this same method so the leader is completely out of the movement of the rope when it is weighted. Am I missing something about this?

I started climbing before devices like ATC Guide and Reverso (ver. 1) were even on the market, so I belayed a lot off my harness, especially on top out pitches with nothing above me to re-direct the rope. I've caught and held plenty of falls on this setup. Yes, it's uncomfortable, but like everything in climbing, you have to evaluate different tradeoffs and decide what best for your particular situation. Seated belay directly off your harness is actually very comfortable for the leader if the follower isn't hanging on the rope. But if your follower is going to hangdog all over the place, then it gets old pretty quick. If you expect your second will hangdog a route, you can extend a masterpoint over the edge and do a hanging belay off the masterpoint. But hanging belay isn't exactly like sitting in a chair either, especially if you don't have any ledges to stand on.

In the case of the route the OP was asking, I climbed it a few years ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy. I remember the edge of the topout being pretty pointy, with the top sloping downwards away from the edge. So if you extend a masterpoint over the edge and hang off the thing, I would certainly be concerned with the rope getting severally abraded. Re-directing the rope through the anchor is also not a good option, since when you're standing (or sitting) at the edge, the anchor is actually below you. So seated belay directly off the harness, however uncomfortable, is the best option in this case.

Yeah, it's probably not gonna be comfortable if your second is hanging or falling a lot. IMO it will be more comfy than a hanging belay, though. Regardless of comfort, though, it is perfectly safe. It also helps if you sit just slightly out of line with your tie-in to the anchor. Then, instead of belaying off your belay loop you belay off your tie-in loop and the load goes directly to the anchor with you sitting off to the side. 

anotherclimber wrote:

 When the second falls or weights the rope, the rope wants to pull downward, and even though the leader is off to the side and not under the rope, it painfully pulls downward on the harness into the ground. Either I'm missing a crucial part of this setup, or people have not caught much falls on this setup. At this point it would seem to make more sense to me to make an extended master point and belay in this same method so the leader is completely out of the movement of the rope when it is weighted. Am I missing something about this?

The old codgers here who were climbing before harnesses and sticky rubber and belay devices and cordelettes have (each) caught hundreds of upper-belayed falls this way with a friggin' hip belay fer chrissakes.  Moreover, in many cases, the anchor was a backup (or maybe there wasn't an anchor) and everything was held by proper body bracing.  In some cases there was some manageable discomfort, but nothing either major or dangerous for the party.  So man up youngsters!

Or don't man up, because there is no reason nowadays for what I call a "harness-level" belay to be uncomfortable. The secret is not to belay off the harness belay loop.  You set up your anchor so that your tie-in is snug and clip your belay device to the rope loop, not the harness belay loop.  If sitting, you sit with the belay device slightly to the side (left side if braking right-handed), so that the rope to the second runs parallel to your left leg (the main point being it shouldn't run over either thigh).  By the way, this is incorrect as far as bracing is concerned, but this is not an old-school braced belay.  You now have a direct belay off the anchor (with the added advantage of a dynamic connection that will absorb some of the impact load). Nothing is going to pinch or pull painfully downward.

I find this type of belay to be superior overall perhaps 80--90% of the time for multipitch trad climbs without bolted belays, because the device in the harness-level position can be handled more quickly and with notably less effort, with none of the dumb gotcha's that make guide-plate belays annoying and occasionally dangerous.  The guide-plate belays are, in my opinion,  oversold for their ability to promote belayer inattention in the service of getting other stuff done.  The usual result is an unpleasant belay for the second that alternaties between too much slack and way too much tension. Moreover, unexpected motions of the belay plate can (in rare circumstances) make  it unreleasable, and, in inexperienced hands, a dangerous lowering situation is possible.

I do find the direct guide-plate belays useful, if the anchors are positioned for them, in cases when managing the rope is critical, which is to say at times when you can't just pile the rope on the belay ledge.  For example, getting the loops on a flaked rope right is far easier if you can, from time to time, go momentarily hands-free and adjust things.  Another example is that the harness-level belay, done while standing, requires some bending over, and if there is something awkward about the stance to begin with, back strain can become a worse outcome than the epicondylitis so many people get from pulling ropes through a guide plate. On the other hand, belaying two seconds on two ropes is not an example, this can be done much more effectively with a harness-level belay.

rgold wrote:  The crack makes this an extreme example, but I still think any time the belay anchor is so low that the device will be pulled to the ground by a load, the direct guide belay is contraindicated. 

Not mentioned yet in the thread, but another possible issue with a direct belay where the device would/could be laying on the ground is the risk of getting something (dirt/small rock fragment, bit of glass) into the device along the rope path.  I seem to recall reading an accident report & analysis online a while back where this was thought to be the cause of a Grigri core-shotting then cutting a rope.

I must be missing something. I did indeed belay off of the figure eight tie in loop, not my belay loop. My end of the rope went from my tie in back to the anchor, and back to me and clove hitched to my belay loop and was tight. And I was sitting off to the side so the rope had a direct line to the second without me under it. It is though a good eight inches or so from the height of my hip to the ground when doing this. While it was safe and I wasn't going to let go of my second, it was painful as my upper left thigh was being squashed by my harness from the weight of the second pulling the rope down towards the ground. 

Maybe you just have sensitive thighs.      If it looks as if the rope to the side will be uncomfortable, it also works in many cases to run it between the legs.  Now that I think about it,  I  I do that as much as the side position.

rgold wrote:

Maybe you just have sensitive thighs.      If it looks as if the rope to the side will be uncomfortable, it also works in many cases to run it between the legs.  Now that I think about it,  I  I do that as much as the side position.

Ha! After this last experience I'm not sure I'm brave enough to try that. The whole point of this exercise for me was to reduce discomfort and pain while I'm top belaying, not increase it. 

anotherclimber wrote:

Ha! After this last experience I'm not sure I'm brave enough to try that. The whole point of this exercise for me was to reduce discomfort and pain while I'm top belaying, not increase it. 

That's actually what I always do: I belay with the rope between my legs, not off to the side. There's enough give in the harness and the belay loop so if the second falls, the belay device is pulled away from your belay loop, not straight into the ground the way you're imagining it. Nothing will get pinched! (Unless you're sitting at the very edge of the cliff, with sensitive body parts dangling right over the lip...)

I´d just put an HMS on the anchor and belay with a Munter hitch, walking to the edge of the cliff if I wanted to look over. It´s worked fine for the last half a century.

Jim Titt wrote:

I´d just put an HMS on the anchor and belay with a Munter hitch, walking to the edge of the cliff if I wanted to look over. It´s worked fine for the last half a century.

This. I find this to be the easiest way to do a belay directly off the tie-in. That way you to don't have to hold the brake end up at your chest to achieve the braking angle. 

I bring the brake strand back to my hip.

If you are going to use Munter Hitches with half ropes you have to use two on separate Munter carabiners.

If the anchor is remote and you want to be near the edge for communication, then if you are using a device or a Munter  on the anchor, you'll need four times the edge-to-anchor distance to get started, whereas a harness-level belay only requires twice this distance, so in some cases you'll either need to stand back nearer the anchor or else use a harness-level belay.

In my experience, pulling the ropes through a harness-level belay requires a lot less effort than through a remote anchor.  

Of course, if you are using a device rather than a Munter on a remote anchor, then you won't be able to pay out slack in case the follower needs to step down.

The cure for the remoteness problems is to tie a power point in your anchor lines and hang your device or Munter off that rather than putting it on the anchor.  But in this case, beware if you are standing, because the weight of a falling follower can pull you down.

rgold wrote:

To Rich: I've tried belaying off the harness and braking at my hip, but when I'm sitting at the edge of a ledge I find that taking in slack and then bringing my brake hand to my hip results it a lot of large movements. I go from learning over the edge to take in slack to then sitting back upright to brake, and doing that every time I take up any slack seems too tiring. Perhaps I'm just lazy.

With a munter, OTOH, I can just stay leaning over the edge and take in slack while simultaneously being in the brake position.

I feel as though I'm missing some key point that makes it less work to belay off the harness when sitting at the edge, which is really the only situation I find myself opting for a harness belay.