Fixed-point lead belay questions

I'm intrigued by the possibility of using a fixed-point lead belay when there's a reasonable chance of a factor-two fall. One question is about gloves. Some sources seem to imply that you must wear them whether using a munter or an ATC. True? Seems like a lot of extra faff especially given that my partner tends to wear crack gloves.

The FPLB also seems most applicable to belays that include bomber bolts. But some apparently do it on gear anchors. Wondering if there are other considerations I should be keeping in mind as I've seen less analysis of such setups.

Also, I tend to use half ropes, which would seem to make the munter a suboptimal choice. Has anyone here belayed on half ropes with a FPLB using an ATC with a redirected brake strand, and if so how smooth/annoying is it? (I understand you can remove the brake-strand redirect once the leader has a couple of unquestionably good pieces in, but this may be less applicable on gear routes because if the pieces failed there would be literally no way to hold the FF2.)

Alternatively, I wonder if the munter FPLB would work with half ropes if: I keep a belay device on my harness ready to go some reasonable rope-length below the munter, and then remove the munter once the leader gets a good piece in, thus switching to the pre-loaded belay device. (So basically the munter is only there for the initial moves off the belay, and there's no issue with trying to have different half-rope lengths out because there's no gear in for those moves.)

On another note, my partner and I tend to use an Alpine Up for belaying the leader with half ropes. I notice that this video (2:59) shows the device being used with a FPLB, but the manual doesn't have anything about that. The video seems to show a redirect being used on a single anchor point so I'm led to question whether it would hold a FF2 under other circumstances. Can you set up the redirect on the master point with this device, as you would with an ATC?

Gloves: YES. Rope slippage in the event of a fall will happen due to the forces involved, but is also a benefit as it helps decrease the overall force. Rope slippage good, rope burns bad. The gloves are great for rapping, especially if using skinny halfs. Take one pair and share with your partner.

FPLB can be used on gear, but that's something you should seek true instruction to learn.

You can use a single munter or redirected ATC on half-ropes easily. Just make sure your rope stack is clean. This is a case where having a belay device pre-loaded is preferred and you transfer to a harness belay once solid gear is placed. Tie an overhand below the device on your harness since you'll be going hands-free when undoing the fixed point system. I haven't used the Alpine Up, but assisted belay devices (ABDs) of any type SHOULD NOT be used for fixed point belay. The hard lock places a huge amount of force on the climber and anchor, which goes back to the using gloves to allow for rope slippage. 

Haven't used this technique before, but love AlpineSavvy and read the piece you linked. The article that you cite recommends the following: not using autobraking devices due to the force dissipating effect of rope slippage; wearing gloves to account for the effect of said rope slippage on one's hands; using a belay plate of sorts for twin ropes, not a munter hitch; and redirecting the brake strand above your belay device only until the first piece of gear is in the wall above the belay. The article also talks about the value of the FPLB in FF2 situations given bomber multidirectional gear, as the result is only one force, the falling climber, acting upon the anchor pieces, versus two forces, the climber and the belayer as their counterbalance. Hope this is helpful.

Why the complicated name? It seems like we already have a standard and widely understood term for this, which is a direct lead belay. Or is "fixed point" a Europeanism for "direct?"

This has been discussed previously on MP: mountainproject.com/forum/t…

It's interesting that real-world measurements show that an indirect lead belay doesn't actually reduce forces on the top piece of gear (in the alpinesavvy article at "Does a fixed point belay increase the force on the top piece of gear?").

Basically this seems to be a technique that is optimized for an anchor with two bolts, one above the other, which is what they apparently have in a lot of areas in Europe, and the technique they're describing is that you do *not* equalize the anchor. Also, you need a piece that can hold against an upward pull. They show how to adapt it to a bolted anchor where the bolts are placed horizontally, which is what we have in the US, but it just seems like they have a square peg that they want to insist on putting in a round hole. This all seems very poorly adapted to trad climbing, where it's often pretty difficult to get a bomber piece that will hold against an upward pull.

But this is mountainproject, so I can guarantee that you'll get 50 posts all contradicting each other, and all saying you're gonna die.

From that IG post...catching a FF1.9 fall on that presumably means the climber's top piece felt the force that the anchor would have felt in a normal redirected belay (or at least, if you use a munter to belay off your harness), so why would they think a multi-point anchor would have ripped if a single piece held? In fact it required two individual placements to hold (the first piece and the directional on the anchor). Doesn't make much sense to me 

Jason wrote:

From that IG post...catching a FF1.9 fall on that presumably means the climber's top piece felt the force that the anchor would have felt in a normal redirected belay (or at least, if you use a munter to belay off your harness), so why would they think a multi-point anchor would have ripped if a single piece held? In fact it required two individual placements to hold (the first piece and the directional on the anchor). Doesn't make much sense to me 

I think the technique is really designed as a way to avoid human failure, not anchor failure. The engineering analysis in the alpinesavvy article seems more like an afterthought meant to minimize the seemingly obvious mechanical shortcomings of the technique.

If that had been a factor-2 fall in the instagram video, then we should have seen a climber falling down into the camera's field of view and crashing down onto the belayer. In that situation, I'd really prefer that the belayer be using a grigri, not a munter.

Ben Crowell wrote:

I think the technique is really designed as a way to avoid human failure, not anchor failure. The engineering analysis in the alpinesavvy article seems more like an afterthought meant to minimize the seemingly obvious mechanical shortcomings of the technique.

If that had been a factor-2 fall in the instagram video, then we should have seen a climber falling down into the camera's field of view and crashing down onto the belayer. In that situation, I'd really prefer that the belayer be using a grigri, not a munter.

I didn't actually watch the video--i was commenting on the story of catching a 400 ft FF1.9 fall and suggesting that a different belay setup would have ripped the anchor. But I agree, you lose the advantage of an assisted braking device and often the risk of a belayer being incapacitated (by rock fall or whatever) is higher than the risk of a factor 2 anyways. 

Alex C wrote:

I'm intrigued by the possibility of using a fixed-point lead belay when there's a reasonable chance of a factor-two fall. One question is about gloves. Some sources seem to imply that you must wear them whether using a munter or an ATC. True? Seems like a lot of extra faff especially given that my partner tends to wear crack gloves.

Yes. Absolutely wear gloves. Rope slip is an important part of limiting the force in the system (i.e. making the FPB work effectively). Rope slip leads to rope burn unless you're wearing gloves. I use OR crack gloves (they're thin), but they fit perfectly under my belay gloves.

The FPLB also seems most applicable to belays that include bomber bolts. But some apparently do it on gear anchors. Wondering if there are other considerations I should be keeping in mind as I've seen less analysis of such setups.

FPB can be used on bolts, rock gear, and ice screws. Certainly simpler with bolts. However, the system in the video you linked is a pretty straightforward one and fairly simple to do, but you must ensure the masterpoint is secured by the backside of the clove hitch as in the video. Failure to do so negates the advantages of the system. Probably best to get in person instruction for that one.

Also, I tend to use half ropes, which would seem to make the munter a suboptimal choice. Has anyone here belayed on half ropes with a FPLB using an ATC with a redirected brake strand, and if so how smooth/annoying is it? (I understand you can remove the brake-strand redirect once the leader has a couple of unquestionably good pieces in, but this may be less applicable on gear routes because if the pieces failed there would be literally no way to hold the FF2.)

The munter can work with twin technique, but with half technique it's definitely sub-optimal, as you note. In my experience, the redirected ATC is...fine. Ideally, it's the sort of thing where you can remove once the leader has a couple bomber pieces in (but there's risk to that as you clearly recognize).

Alternatively, I wonder if the munter FPLB would work with half ropes if: I keep a belay device on my harness ready to go some reasonable rope-length below the munter, and then remove the munter once the leader gets a good piece in, thus switching to the pre-loaded belay device. (So basically the munter is only there for the initial moves off the belay, and there's no issue with trying to have different half-rope lengths out because there's no gear in for those moves.)

Yes, this hybrid system is often used as a way to introduce an ABD into the system but to use the FPB for the initial difficult/steep/runout/etc. climbing.

On another note, my partner and I tend to use an Alpine Up for belaying the leader with half ropes. I notice that this video (2:59) shows the device being used with a FPLB, but the manual doesn't have anything about that. The video seems to show a redirect being used on a single anchor point so I'm led to question whether it would hold a FF2 under other circumstances. Can you set up the redirect on the master point with this device, as you would with an ATC?

With the alpine up you'd want to ensure at least some space between the device and the redirect, hence the high redirect. If using bolts, you can simply use the high bolt. If using gear, you'd ideally place a separate piece or use the top piece of the anchor if it's bomber. Personally, I'd put a locker on the redirect given how critical it is.

jselwyn wrote: I haven't used the Alpine Up, but assisted belay devices (ABDs) of any type SHOULD NOT be used for fixed point belay. The hard lock places a huge amount of force on the climber and anchor, which goes back to the using gloves to allow for rope slippage.

The alpine up has been the exception to this for a few years, and the mega jul has also been approved by the manufacturer for use with a fixed point belay. However, both require a bomber redirect point that won't interfere with the device, and they come with a panoply of warnings about estimating friction, rope stretch, slip, etc. that would indicate it's an advanced use case and, in my opinion, not the best plan given the current limitations with the technology.

Ben Crowell wrote: Why the complicated name? It seems like we already have a standard and widely understood term for this, which is a direct lead belay. Or is "fixed point" a Europeanism for "direct?" 

Fixed point belay (no need to add "lead" in there) is the direct transliteration of the German fixpunkt and has been in use since at least 2005. Someone a few years ago decided to ignore the name that had been around in English for over a decade and call it a "direct anchor belay," which has now morphed into "direct lead belay," neither of which are uniquely descriptive. As "fixed point belay" has no other meaning to English-speaking climbers, it's the preferred term (or FPB if the abbreviation is needed).

It's interesting that real-world measurements show that an indirect lead belay doesn't actually reduce forces on the top piece of gear (in the alpinesavvy article at "Does a fixed point belay increase the force on the top piece of gear?").

Do you mean "indirect" as in a direct whip onto the belayer's harness, or redirected through some point above the belayer (as many leaders commonly clip a high point of the anchor)?

This all seems very poorly adapted to trad climbing, where it's often pretty difficult to get a bomber piece that will hold against an upward pull.

There are many ways to use the technique with rock protection that can work quite well. The upward pull piece only needs to hold 2-3kN, which is not a huge ask. If rigged appropriately, the upward pull piece can also be the downward pull piece (a cam in a horizontal is a ready example).

The engineering analysis in the alpinesavvy article seems more like an afterthought meant to minimize the seemingly obvious mechanical shortcomings of the technique.

What are the seemingly obvious mechanical shortcomings of the technique?

Derek DeBruin wrote:

What are the seemingly obvious mechanical shortcomings of the technique?

It doesn't use equalization, and it depends on having gear that can hold against an upward pull.

Cornelius Yukon wrote:

If the belayer is lifted during a lead fall, then the anchor needs to protect against an upward pul -belaying off the harness doesn’t alleviate the need to protect against an upward pull.

As a counterexample, belayers at the gym get lifted off the floor all the time, and yet nobody uses a ground anchor at the gym. Furthermore, it's simply not always possible to get in a piece that will hold against an upward pull

For example, sometimes you end up building an anchor using nothing but nuts, because that's what fits the placements you have available. It may be possible to place nuts in opposition vertically, tightened against each other, but this depends on having an appropriately oriented constriction for the bottom nut, and it also has to be located low down and far enough from the other pieces.

As another example, you may be climbing a fairly uniform, parallel-sided vertical crack, and you may just not have that many SLCDs and tricams available in the appropriate sizes. If you're going for the standard 3-piece anchor that will hold against a downward pull, plus another piece to hold against an upward pull, that's a total of four pieces. The leader who has just finished a pitch may just not have that many of those pieces left on their rack, and the person leading the next pitch may also not be happy if every single piece of the useful size has already been used up in building the anchor.

Of course it's a great idea to have a piece that will hold against an upward pull, but the reality is that it's just not always possible.

This system using a direct belay seems to be designed for use with European-style vertical two-bolt anchors, and it also seems to have been designed to reduce the chances that bad things will happen to the belayer. Paying attention to the latter makes a lot of sense, not just because it's fairly common for the belayer to get hurt catching a high-factor fall but also because when bad things happen to the belayer, it can cause them not to be able to maintain the belay and catch the fall properly.

But let's think about the kinds of things that we actually have to worry about happening to the belayer in a high-factor fall. For the following, visualize the traditional setup, where the belay is indirect, the belay device is an ATC, and anchor is a gear anchor, not a bolted anchor. Then we can consider ways of improving that setup.

(1) The leader's body falls and lands on the belayer's body.

(2) The leader falls past the belay before placing any pro, and the belayer gets pulled downward, which is an awkward situation in which to catch a fall.

(3) The leader has placed pro, so the belayer gets pulled upward, but the upward pull is violent enough that bad things happen: (a) the belayer isn't used to this situation and freaks out, (b) the belayer gets pulled into a roof or pulled into the wall, (c) the anchor isn't designed to hold against an upward pull, so it fails.

(4) The fall is violent enough that the belayer has trouble maintaining their grip on the brake strand. They lose control and drop the leader completely.

(5) The fall is violent enough that the anchor fails completely.

We already have adequate solutions to almost all of these problems without resorting to a direct belay.

For #5, anchor failure, we have a well-established set of practices, embodied in the SRENE acronym. These practices work so well that it's virtually impossible to open up an issue of Accidents in North American Climbing and find an example of a total anchor failure, except in cases where someone violated one of the standard principles. On the other hand, it's very common to see accidents because of non-solid or non-redundant anchors. Although the benefits of equalization and no-extension are probably not as great, they are still based on totally solid mechanical principles. This near-perfect safety record suggests to me that SRENE is a big success, and it would be really, really dumb to completely abandon equalization when building gear anchors.

For #3, the belayer getting manhandled, we have a good solution, which is that if possible, we include in the anchor a piece that will hold against an upward pull. When we're able to do this, the rope really can't move the belayer very far, and problems with their getting banged around are almost completely eliminated.

For #2 and 4, the belayer losing control, we have grigris. Because a grigri works so well for this purpose, it seems really, really dumb to me to switch to using a munter, which is a much harder way to hold a hard lead fall. No way in hell do I ever want to be lead belayed on a munter if I can possibly avoid it. There's a reason why historically, people moved directly from hip belays to tube-style devices, and a munter was never a standard way to give a lead belay. A belay device is just obviously a better method than a munter.

For #1, the leader's body falling onto the belayer's body, we have two good methods of mitigation. One is that the leader is always going to try to get in some densely spaced pieces of pro straight out of the belay. The other is that the belayer can use a grigri, which eliminates the risk that when they get crashed into they'll just lose control of the brake strand and drop the leader completely.

I think a direct belay could make some sense if you have European-style vertical bolted anchors and if the belayer is totally inexperienced and has never held a lead fall. But translating this into a technique for use with gear anchors seems like an incredibly bad idea to me, for the reasons given above, as does the use of a munter rather than a belay device.

Cornelius Yukon wrote:

The DAV also claimed using a munter lessens the forces on the anchor.

It does this at the expense of making it *much* more difficult for the belayer to maintain control of the rope. That's a really lousy bargain. And SRENE anchors basically don't fail, so we should not be weakening other parts of the safety chain in order to lessen the chance of anchor failure (nor should we be tinkering with SRENE).

The GriGri has a possible failure mode of mechanical obstruction of the cam if it hits the rock. In a particularly violent fall, this could also happen at the first quickdraw.

This is a very unlikely mode of failure. There is no comparison between the safety of getting belayed with a grigri versus a munter.

Ben Crowell wrote:

As a counterexample, belayers at the gym get lifted off the floor all the time, and yet nobody uses a ground anchor at the gym.

In this scenario, the belayer isn't going to fall to their death if they have an anchor failure, since they are standing on the ground.  Up high on a multipitch route, an anchor failure is a different situation entirely.  The two are not comparable.

As another example, you may be climbing a fairly uniform, parallel-sided vertical crack, and you may just not have that many SLCDs and tricams available in the appropriate sizes. If you're going for the standard 3-piece anchor that will hold against a downward pull, plus another piece to hold against an upward pull, that's a total of four pieces.

A uniform, parallel-sided crack is one of the easiest possible scenarios to have an anchor capable of handling upward force.  You do not necessarily need to have a special 4th piece to hanbdle upward pull, you just need to have an anchor that is resistant to failure when loaded in that direction.

But translating this into a technique for use with gear anchors seems like an incredibly bad idea to me, for the reasons given above, as does the use of a munter rather than a belay device.

Consider your experience level compared to people who use or endorse this technique, both people in this thread and highly experienced European mountain guides.  I am not suggesting that we blindly follow the advice of others, but we also ought to be careful not to be so sure of ourselves when the folks we're arguing with have orders of magnitude more experience.

Kyle Tarry wrote:

In this scenario, the belayer isn't going to fall to their death if they have an anchor failure, since they are standing on the ground.  Up high on a multipitch route, an anchor failure is a different situation entirely.  The two are not comparable.

I don't follow your logic here. Getting pulled upward doesn't equal anchor failure.

Kyle Tarry wrote:

A uniform, parallel-sided crack is one of the easiest possible scenarios to have an anchor capable of handling upward force.  You do not necessarily need to have a special 4th piece to hanbdle upward pull, you just need to have an anchor that is resistant to failure when loaded in that direction.

I don't think this is quite right. Normally I'm building my anchor using pieces around head or chest height, with the master point at around waist height. If I build such an anchor out of three SLCD's, then sure, it will hold against an upward pull -- but it won't prevent me from getting picked way up in the air if there's a massive enough force on the climber's strand of the rope. If the goal is to keep me from getting manhandled in a high-factor fall, then I really do need a fourth piece somewhere down near my knees or feet.

Consider your experience level compared to people who use or endorse this technique, both people in this thread and highly experienced European mountain guides.  I am not suggesting that we blindly follow the advice of others, but we also ought to be careful not to be so sure of ourselves when the folks we're arguing with have orders of magnitude more experience.

I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who climbs mainly multipitch trad in California, and almost every anchor I use is a gear anchor. Because that's the kind of climbing I do, I depend on other people here in North America who are more experienced than I am to develop practices, teach classes, and write books that are well adapted to this type of climbing. The two standard books used here are:

Gaines and Martin, Rock Climbing: The AMGA Single Pitch Manual

Long and Gaines, Climbing Anchors

Gaines and Martin is the book we used as a reference when I took the AMGA SPI class. The practices described in Long and Gaines are the standard ones that have been followed in the training given by both the climbing clubs I've been involved with.

There are objective reasons to follow these practices for the type of climbing we do here and the types of anchors we have here. Those reasons include (1) a safety record as documented in year after year of Accidents in North American Climbing, and (2) fundamental mechanical principles.

Ben Crowell wrote:

I don't follow your logic here. Getting pulled upward doesn't equal anchor failure.

The larger point I was trying to make is that you cited common single pitch gym practices in a discussion about multi pitch trad anchors.  Things that are standard in one environment don't necessary apply to the other because there are so many situational differences.

I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who climbs mainly multipitch trad in California, and almost every anchor I use is a gear anchor. Because that's the kind of climbing I do, I depend on other people here in North America who are more experienced than I am to develop practices, teach classes, and write books that are well adapted to this type of climbing. The two standard books used here are:

Gaines and Martin, Rock Climbing: The AMGA Single Pitch Manual

Long and Gaines, Climbing Anchors

Gaines and Martin is the book we used as a reference when I took the AMGA SPI class. The practices described in Long and Gaines are the standard ones that have been followed in the training given by both the climbing clubs I've been involved with.

There are objective reasons to follow these practices for the type of climbing we do here and the types of anchors we have here. Those reasons include (1) a safety record as documented in year after year of Accidents in North American Climbing, and (2) fundamental mechanical principles.

There are lots of other perspectives out there beyond those two books (and an AMGA certification that doesn't even apply to multi-pitch).  Rather than simply dismissing the thoughts and wisdom of a whole bunch of climbers with far more experience than ourselves, we ought to consider what they have to say, even if they don't strictly agree with the "canon" of North American anchor building.

The fixed point belay is just another tool in the toolbox.  It might not be a great fit in every single scenario you have in mind, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss it for all of trad climbing, based on a few routes in California and 2 books.

BTW, if you want to read more about this in a book written by Americans, Chauvin and Coppolillo cover it in their book "The Mountains Guide Manual," starting on page 68.

Derek DeBruin wrote:

The alpine up has been the exception to this for a few years, and the mega jul has also been approved by the manufacturer for use with a fixed point belay. However, both require a bomber redirect point that won't interfere with the device, and they come with a panoply of warnings about estimating friction, rope stretch, slip, etc. that would indicate it's an advanced use case and, in my opinion, not the best plan given the current limitations with the technology.

Hello, long time lurker here, I have an interest in FPB for lead as my main partner is signifcantly lighter than me. I also like the idea of using it with an assisted braking device for extra safety but am conscious of the "minimal slippage" issue. 

I've researched this quite a bit and haven't come across anything about the relative slip factors for different assisted braking devices. And I don't think I've seen anyone recommending using one on a FPB for lead. If you have any resources on the topic you could point me to I'd be very grateful. 

Multipitch Boulderer wrote:

Hello, long time lurker here, I have an interest in FPB for lead as my main partner is signifcantly lighter than me. I also like the idea of using it with an assisted braking device for extra safety but am conscious of the "minimal slippage" issue. 

Edit: It is a good idea to use FPB for this (source: AMGA training slides)

I don't think weight differential is really a good reason to use this... its a multi-pitch application so your partner should be anchored in, which should prevent them from being yanked up too much. In most situations you should use a standard lead belay because the belayer can move off the anchor and thus absorb some force (similar but not identical to on-the-ground cragging). FPLB should be used in situations with an initial run out, or first piece that is in an odd direction. Example, I climbed a multi last weekend where (due to crap rock and ledge location) the first bolt on the next pitch was 10 ft L and 2 ft up from the anchor. I used the FPLB here as a fall (especially low on the pitch) would have yanked me sideways and smashed me into the rock feature next to me. If the pitch were a runnout I would attach a standard lead belay behind the FP munter and then remove the munter once the first good piece was in (no reason to unnecessarily twist the rope).

Alex C wrote:

Also, I tend to use half ropes, which would seem to make the munter a suboptimal choice. Has anyone here belayed on half ropes with a FPLB using an ATC with a redirected brake strand, and if so how smooth/annoying is it? (I understand you can remove the brake-strand redirect once the leader has a couple of unquestionably good pieces in, but this may be less applicable on gear routes because if the pieces failed there would be literally no way to hold the FF2.)

Alternatively, I wonder if the munter FPLB would work with half ropes if: I keep a belay device on my harness ready to go some reasonable rope-length below the munter, and then remove the munter once the leader gets a good piece in, thus switching to the pre-loaded belay device. (So basically the munter is only there for the initial moves off the belay, and there's no issue with trying to have different half-rope lengths out because there's no gear in for those moves.

Half ropes are rated for individual falls, that's why we can clip them each to different pieces. Just put a munter FPLB on the strand you're NOT clipping first and then have the belay device on behind the munter with both strands. Feed out the non-muntered strand for the first piece while the FPLB munter protects the 1.9FF. That's what I'd do anyway... Some IFMGA guide might have a slicker concept up their sleeve. 

All of this stuff works for catching falls. FPLB is just safer and more highly recommended by guides and people running tests for the high factor and awkward direction belays. If you can work it in for your 1.9FF situations and switch out while keeping your partner on belay the whole time then you're good. 

Ben Crowell wrote:

As a counterexample, belayers at the gym get lifted off the floor all the time, and yet nobody uses a ground anchor at the gym.

Ground anchors may indeed still have appropriate applications at the gym, though in some cases they have been replaced with belay pipes for top rope and ohms for leading.

 Furthermore, it's simply not always possible to get in a piece that will hold against an upward pull

Whether acknowledged or not, the lowest piece of any anchor that isn't explicitly built to protect against upward pull is the upward pull piece. So unless you plan on ripping out the belay if the leader falls after placing a piece in the next pitch, I strongly advise considering the consequences of an upward pull.

plus another piece to hold against an upward pull, that's a total of four pieces.

There are other rigging methodologies that don't require a 4th piece. The backside of the clove hitch method in the video upthread is just one relatively simple way to achieve this that is readily understood by many climbers by merging the need for upward pull immobility with a generally well known technique.

Of course it's a great idea to have a piece that will hold against an upward pull, but the reality is that it's just not always possible.

As noted above, in this case, expect to rip the anchor upward if the pieces really cannot hold any upward pull at all.

 and it also seems to have been designed to reduce the chances that bad things will happen to the belayer. Paying attention to the latter makes a lot of sense, not just because it's fairly common for the belayer to get hurt catching a high-factor fall but also because when bad things happen to the belayer, it can cause them not to be able to maintain the belay and catch the fall properly.

Yes, this is pretty much the entire point of the fixed point belay. As a positive externality, the FPB also happens to reduce loads on the anchor.

 where the belay is indirect, the belay device is an ATC, and anchor is a gear anchor, not a bolted anchor.

Again, you're not clear what you mean by indirect belay. Is the leader's end of the rope redirected through an anchor component, or is the rope running from the belayer's belay device directly to the leader? If the former, loads on the anchor dramatically increase and the belayer is at significant risk of hand injury at a minimum and possibly dropping the leader. If the latter, the belayer is at significant risk of trauma to the soft tissues where the harness sits (which may include internal injury) and is also quite likely to drop the leader altogether as the braking position will be up instead of down in the case of a factor 2 fall.

(1) The leader's body falls and lands on the belayer's body.

Do you mean the leader literally falls in the belayer's lap? or the latter case I described just above?

(2) The leader falls past the belay before placing any pro, and the belayer gets pulled downward, which is an awkward situation in which to catch a fall.

Not just awkward, but likely to end in injury and a dropped leader.

(3) The leader has placed pro, so the belayer gets pulled upward, but the upward pull is violent enough that bad things happen: (a) the belayer isn't used to this situation and freaks out, (b) the belayer gets pulled into a roof or pulled into the wall, (c) the anchor isn't designed to hold against an upward pull, so it fails.

Yes. On this we pretty much agree.

(4) The fall is violent enough that the belayer has trouble maintaining their grip on the brake strand. They lose control and drop the leader completely.

Quite likely in cases 2 and 3 as you've described above.

(5) The fall is violent enough that the anchor fails completely.

Is this somehow different from 3?

We already have adequate solutions to almost all of these problems without resorting to a direct belay.

Except obviously your point 3c, because you've asserted that anchors aren't built for upward pull anyway.

For #5, anchor failure, we have a well-established set of practices, embodied in the SRENE acronym. These practices work so well that it's virtually impossible to open up an issue of Accidents in North American Climbing and find an example of a total anchor failure, except in cases where someone violated one of the standard principles. On the other hand, it's very common to see accidents because of non-solid or non-redundant anchors. 

I'm fairly confident you couldn't accurately determine a difference based on what you've asserted here, as it's tautological. An anchor that failed is not solid by virtue of the fact that it failed. So, sure, I suppose any anchor that failed violated the SRENE acronym, but that doesn't mean that the party employing it didn't attempt to have it meet the SRENE criteria. Also, it's absolutely possible to find anchor failures in the annals of climbing. Some food for thought: the average rate of catastrophic anchor failure in Yosemite is about 1 failure per 5 years (usually with double fatality). There was a recent complete failure plus a near miss in Europe (the German speaking alps, don't remember where); miraculously no fatalities. And last year (2 years ago now perhaps) an anchor failed in Idaho while someone was rappelling (1 fatality).

Although the benefits of equalization and no-extension are probably not as great, they are still based on totally solid mechanical principles.

That depends on how you define "principle." Theoretically, sure. Empirically, equalization (as a special case of load distribution) is incredibly difficult to achieve in the field and extension will straight up get you killed, so no extension is pretty important.

 This near-perfect safety record suggests to me that SRENE is a big success, 

You're asserting a causal relationship when at best there is a correlation.

and it would be really, really dumb to completely abandon equalization when building gear anchors.

You could completely abandon equalization and proceed through the entirety of an aggressive climbing career unscathed provided that you construct non-extending series anchors on solid components. Equalization is not necessary. I'm not necessarily saying it should be abandoned, but we should be realistic about the fact that the lowest piece of the anchor will see the highest force in both upward and downward pull unless you've gone to significant effort to make something else happen instead.

the rope really can't move the belayer very far, and problems with their getting banged around are almost completely eliminated.

The belayer can get moved twice the length of their lanyard to the anchor. This can be a sizeable distance, and certainly enough to injure the belayer.

For #2 and 4, the belayer losing control, we have grigris. Because a grigri works so well for this purpose, 

Agreed, GriGris are great tools, but they do have their failure modes. You're also ignoring hybrid belay techniques, whether intentional or not.

it seems really, really dumb to me to switch to using a munter, which is a much harder way to hold a hard lead fall. 

A munter is more than adequate for holding lead falls, as demonstrated by repeated testing of its use for FPB.

No way in hell do I ever want to be lead belayed on a munter if I can possibly avoid it. 

You're welcome to your preferences, though the munter has worked for decades.

There's a reason why historically, people moved directly from hip belays to tube-style devices, and a munter was never a standard way to give a lead belay.

This not an accurate depiction of the history. The munter definitely had a place between the hip belay and the ring/plate/tube.

 But translating this into a technique for use with gear anchors seems like an incredibly bad idea to me, 

Again, you're welcome to your preferences, but the FPB can be employed with gear anchors just fine.

 the use of a munter rather than a belay device....making it *much* more difficult for the belayer to maintain control of the rope.

This is just flatly wrong. The munter produces exceedingly adequate friction to arrest a leader fall with the brake hand held in any orientation relative to the load strand.

And SRENE anchors basically don't fail

But they have and do.

so we should not be weakening other parts of the safety chain in order to lessen the chance of anchor failure (nor should we be tinkering with SRENE).

Yes, we should absolutely test hypotheses and abandon poor ones in favor of better ones. This is generally regarded as scientific progress. When the stakes are high as they are in climbing, we should be skeptical and cautious, but we should absolutely learn and adapt accordingly.

There is no comparison between the safety of getting belayed with a grigri versus a munter.

Except there is, because both require a human operator and the GriGri does have failure modes. More to the point, you're creating a false dichotomy since you can hybridize the techniques.

Getting pulled upward doesn't equal anchor failure. 

True, but you've asserted this possibility repeatedly.

If I build such an anchor out of three SLCD's, then sure, it will hold against an upward pull -- but it won't prevent me from getting picked way up in the air if there's a massive enough force on the climber's strand of the rope. If the goal is to keep me from getting manhandled in a high-factor fall, then I really do need a fourth piece somewhere down near my knees or feet.  

Exactly. The FPB prevents this.

I depend on other people here in North America who are more experienced than I am to develop practices, teach classes, and write books that are well adapted to this type of climbing. The two standard books used here are:

Gaines and Martin, Rock Climbing: The AMGA Single Pitch Manual

Long and Gaines, Climbing Anchors

There's certainly wisdom in this. But bear in mind that books get out of date at some point, and they might be wrong to begin with. The study regarding extension in Long and Gaines has long since been debunked as not applicable to the author's conclusions.

Multipitch Boulderer wrote:

Hello, long time lurker here, I have an interest in FPB for lead as my main partner is signifcantly lighter than me. I also like the idea of using it with an assisted braking device for extra safety but am conscious of the "minimal slippage" issue. 

I've researched this quite a bit and haven't come across anything about the relative slip factors for different assisted braking devices. And I don't think I've seen anyone recommending using one on a FPB for lead. If you have any resources on the topic you could point me to I'd be very grateful. 

In general, and ABD is not advised for a FPB. The two devices I'm aware of that manufacturer's have tested for it are the Alpine Up and the Mega Jul. If you elect to got that route, I'd do so with care and follow the manufacturer's directions. I'm not personally sold on it yet and hope to see an specifically engineered solution in the future. Fundamentally, you're making a risk management trade off: is the belayer more likely to lose control due to surprise/injury/maladaptive instincts when getting pulled by the leader, or losing control of the brake strand for some other reason not directly related to the lead fall?

However, you can use a hybrid technique:

1. Put ABD on belayer's harness.

2. Dump a bunch of slack in front of ABD.

3. Apply FPB using a munter on the anchor.

4. Belay until the leader has a sufficient amount of protection (you get to define "sufficient").

5. Remove munter hitch and continue to belay with ABD off the harness.

Whether this makes sense for you and your partner will depend on the actual weight disparity and how much the belayer might actually get lifted once the leader has placed protection. I'm about 80kg and have used this with a 60kg partner. Once we had sufficient rope in the system my belayer got lifted, but it was a very reasonable amount and they were able to control the belay without issue.

Sam Bedell wrote:

I don't think weight differential is really a good reason to use this... 

Weight differential is actually a great reason to use the FPB.

its a multi-pitch application so your partner should be anchored in, which should prevent them from being yanked up too much.

The belayer can get pulled a significant distance, and also get pulled quite violently into the wall (because they are anchored), which can lead to injury. So again, great application for FPB and a primary reason it has been explored as a belaying tool.

 In most situations you should use a standard lead belay because the belayer can move off the anchor and thus absorb some force (similar but not identical to on-the-ground cragging). 

FPB reduces force for both the belayer (none/very little) and the anchor. Force on the leader is increased in the case of FF2 (though still "tolerable") and is otherwise comparable.

FPLB should be used in situations with an initial run out, or first piece that is in an odd direction. Example, I climbed a multi last weekend where (due to crap rock and ledge location) the first bolt on the next pitch was 10 ft L and 2 ft up from the anchor. I used the FPLB here as a fall (especially low on the pitch) would have yanked me sideways and smashed me into the rock feature next to me. 

Great application of FPB.

If the pitch were a runnout I would attach a standard lead belay behind the FP munter and then remove the munter once the first good piece was in (no reason to unnecessarily twist the rope).

Great time to use the hybrid technique.

Just put a munter FPLB on the strand you're NOT clipping first and then have the belay device on behind the munter with both strands. Feed out the non-muntered strand for the first piece while the FPLB munter protects the 1.9FF. That's what I'd do anyway... 

That's not a bad idea. How easy this is to make happen depends on when the munter is removed, the specifics of the pitch, belay device used, etc. The belayer could also just put a tube device on the anchor and use it to FPB directly with the same concepts as half rope technique belayed from the harness.

Weight differential is actually a great reason to use the FPB.

I stand corrected... AMGA certified: use the FPB for big weight differential!

Sam Bedell wrote:

I stand corrected... AMGA certified: use the FPB for big weight differential!

Whoa, there. I should be clear I don't speak for the entire AMGA, but yeah, I do think weight differential is a good reason. More importantly, I want to recognize your open mindedness and humility here. I respect that.

Here's my real-world experience with FPLB falls.  I do a lot of lead rope soloing with a modified gri-gri as the self-belay device on my harness, and have fallen 3 times in total.  I do not use any energy-absorption setups at my ground anchor (too rube-goldberg-esque and ultimately not worth it), so the catches are just like a FPLB with a gri-gri.  I'll list them from least severe to most severe.

1) Rope tied to a tree at the bottom, then clove hitched to a quickdraw at the first bolt.  Fell on overhanging terrain at the 5th bolt.  Felt like a normal lead fall, totally comfortable.

2) Rope tied to 1st bolt, cloved to a quickdraw on the second bolt.  Foot slipped around the 4th bolt with the bolt around waist high.  Felt like getting caught with a belayer keeping me tight, no big deal.

3) Rope tied to 1st bolt, cloved to quickdraw at 2nd bolt.  Fell with my waist above the second bolt(!) with the slack inherent in the system, this translates to a fall factor somewhere in the 1.5-2 range.  It was jolting, but I was fine and nothing happened.

Conclusion: dynamic ropes are doing all the heavy lifting in our belay systems, the rest is just icing, don't worry so much about it.

(A finer point about this system, the clove hitch on the quickdraw is tied to keep the rope taut between the bottom-most anchor and the first bolt/piece.  If I fall after placing a piece above the clove, the rope length between the bottom anchor and the clove can still contribute stretch as the quickdraw goes from pointing down to pointing up.  With this system, you really try to not fall on the anchor or the first piece, but as my real-world experience shows, it's not the end of the world if you do)