Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Climber fall on Wind Tower Eldo
Rob Dillon wrote: yeh sure, because the risk of burning your mouth on hot chocolate is exactly comparable to the risk of climbing before you are safely on belay |
Fern Gully wrote: The Eldo speed scene is very real. Lots of people think the risk in the Wind Tower is minimal, and often solo it. Not surprising at all the a climber might just start climbing. I’’m also not saying it’s smart, just in the local context it’s not so crazy. |
rgold wrote: The problem with this method is that, in between the belayer and the follower, rope drag and/or rock features may conspire to prevent that six feet of slack from presenting to the follower. I think pulling up the rope tightly and then immediately putting the follower on belay is better. The belayer should have already attached the device, clipped the rope into any possible redirect, and gotten comfortable before pulling up the rope—and is therefore able to immediately feed the rope into the device and lock the carabiner. After all the rope is pulled up, the follower should always pause before detaching completely from the anchor and then starting to move. The follower should NEVER climb above any significant slack and may have to wait, tug on the rope, and yell before moving again. |
|
Hey all, I didn't want to seem like I'm criticizing the injured climber (not at all my intention!) so I started this new topic to discuss the safety/efficiency of starting to follow before the leader puts you on belay. |
George Bracksieck wrote: Wait, seriously? Why in the world would you not want to belay off of the anchor? Sure there are a few scenarios when you might not want to, but not ever doing it?? |
TJ Brumme wrote: Your question is beside the point of this thread and beside the point of my point. But because you seem dumbfounded, I’ll say that, not terribly long ago, nobody belayed off of the anchor. It’s become fashion because that’s what the AMGA tells guides to do. (I could go off on the AMGA about a lot things….) And it’s more crap that the industry wants to sell you. Belaying off of the anchor requires more time to set up because people have to equalize three pieces, which can be far apart (and which may not be as ergonomic for the belayer’s body), and then tie those together with a long cordalette, and attach the device to the focus of that web, using guide mode. The worst problem with guide mode is that you can kill your follower if your follower wants or needs to be lowered. What if your follower is hanging in space, or is unconscious, or just wants work on your overcammed piece? Trying to lower the follower and losing control of the plaquette belay has happened. Unless you go through a time-consuming, convoluted procedure that doesn’t work well enough, your follower could suddenly be accelerating downward at 32ft/sec/sec. There’s a current thread and older threads addressing that danger. So I tell my rope guns to belay me off of their belay loops. That’s what those are for. |
|
No offense George but I am going to guess you have been climbing for a long, long time. Am I right? I know that the old practices worked back in the day (they did for me too) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't upgrade our skills as new techniques come along. |
|
Hey Eric — I upgrade to new technology and techniques when those are improvements. I just bought a pair of radios, I always wear a helmet with relatively good coverage, and I carry the latest well-maintained protection gadgets because placing good protection is a safety issue. However, I don’t think belaying in guide mode off of the anchor is an improvement in safety or convenience. Guide mode introduces failure modes not present in the “old way.” Another problem with guide mode is that you have to take the follower off belay at the anchor and then remove the device and then attach it to your belay loop and then put your partner on belay for the upcoming lead. If you belayed off of the belay loop, you can just keep your partner on belay during the transition. S/he should be attached to the anchor. You can tie a stopper knot in the rope if you want to let go of the rope and take a drink or whatever. |
I just use a grigri for almost all multipitching, often belaying from the anchor when its comfortable and once my follower reaches the belay they go indirect with a quick hitch and I can swap the grigri. |
Sarah Z wrote: Sorry I can't find it immediately, however there is more current information about studies done since 2009. If I remember vaguely, the issue is about upright with little to no motion to facilitate return blood flow from lower extremities to the rest of the system. Similar to chair based cardiac events, get them prone, if in a harness, get them as prone as you can, which might be just movement of the pooling extremities. Similar to prior recommendations although variance is in the cause and possible temperances. |
George Bracksieck wrote: I know this thread is off on a tangent, but… George, have you checked out the DMM Pivot? I’m a huge fan. I found it to be a massive improvement over the standard ATC. I’ve lowered the second in guide mode quite easily from a few inches to up to 15-20 meters or so, on ropes from 9.8mm to 8.5mm, and have always felt like I had great control (yes, a third hand back up is good practice, but I have never even come close to having it engage). I generally use guide mode if it is a difficult pitch and I think the second might be hanging on the rope for an extended period of time. Around here, with mostly bolted anchors, it’s quick and easy to set up. Trad anchors I’m probably more likely to belay the second off the harness (redirected through a bomber piece or the master point), but not necessarily always If on an easier pitch, I almost always do as you have suggested when belaying a second: a redirected belay off the harness. Then the belay transition is super quick when swing leads as you point out. (A lot of folks around here will ALWAYS belay their second in guide mode regardless, which irks me a bit. They are sometimes surprised when they climb up to the belay and I tell them they are already on belay to lead the next pitch.) Sometimes guide mode, sometimes off the harness, sometimes Grigri, sometimes the Pivot, sometimes a seated off the harness belay, sometimes even a body belay…. For me, it all depends on the variables. |
|
Daniel — I haven’t tried the Pivot. I’ve heard that it does as you say. Everyone I see, however, is using a different device, such as an ATC or Reverso. If everyone would use a Pivot for belaying off of the anchor, the world would be a safer place! |
|
Have to agree with George. (Yes, I'm an old guy.) I see a lot of modern techniques and strategies that seem to be pushed by AMGA that can be overly complex. I personally don't belay directly off an anchor (not talking about redirecting the rope while belaying). It's good to have a lot of different tools in one's toolkit for different situations, but I believe that simplicity in systems, especially for multipitch free climbing should be emphasized more than it sometimes is. I get to the belay at the end of a lead, make a bomber anchor, equalize the pieces by using a combination of a figure eight knot and clove hitches in my end of the rope, pull up all the slack and immediately put my partner on belay. Simple and unambiguous to my partner. If you haven't heard me yell "on belay" because of wind, or other circumstances, you know to start climbing shortly after the rope comes tight (maybe waiting a minute or so to be absolutely sure). I have an old partner I climbed with extensively who was hard-of-hearing and this system worked great even with a partner that could never hear belay signals. |
Brad White wrote: It’s hard to beat the simplicity of using a “guide mode” device. Similarly, the way they operate makes them quite secure, with a couple known and avoidable failure modes. Like most climbing systems, if the devices are used improperly, it can lead to accidents, but I would argue there are more ways a belay off the harness from above could become compromised. While there are some new failure modes introduced with “guide mode“ and ways the brake assist can be defeated (intentionally or accidentally) they also solve many problems inherent to belaying off your harness: securely belaying two followers at once, setting up a quick haul system to help one or both followers through a move, it opens up the ability to complete other tasks while belaying follower(s) assuming you maintain control of the brake strand(s), and keeps the load off of your harness and body if the followers are hanging a lot. It generates less load on an anchor than a redirect, and is more ergonomic for your body than a body belay with an anchor “back up” (which was how I first learned). The accidents that have been caused by trying (improperly) to lower with a plate/guide style device have created a lot of fear, but the causes are easily avoided. It’s analogous to saying grigris are dangerous because if you fully open up the cam without holding the brake, your climber is going to fall, or that a munter is dangerous because if you tie it wrong, it doesn’t work. The lowering systems do not need to be complex, are easy to learn, and are quite secure. I think it is important for people to know how to belay off their harness from above, but >90% of the time, I choose to belay off the anchor as I believe it is more secure, and provides a wider array of options if something goes wrong. It is definitely more comfortable for me and my follower(s). |
|
I seriously doubt the accident has happened due to poor communication. When the leader takes all the slack ("it's me"), the follower waits a minute to be put on belay and then starts climbing. This works well even without communication. But after climbing 15 feet he or she can notice that extra slack is not taken. This is a sign of no belay. If the follower did not wait that min, it was really unwise. If the leader thought that after rope goes tight and then a min later there is a slack again, he should be warned about what's happening. My lesson from this situation - don't take any slack nor do rope management as a leader before you build an anchor and got ready to belay from the top. Especially if communication is poor. This will drastically shorten the time between taking all the slack and putting a follower on belay. |
George Bracksieck wrote: That's not the best way to do it. Another new school trick - simply trade belay devices with your follower. 1. The follower gets to the anchor and sits back on the locked guide-mode ATC. The follower hands the ATC on their harness to the (previous) leader. 2. The leader uses the follower's ATC to put the follower on lead belay on the slack side of the rope (not the side being weighted by the follower). 3. As they start climbing, the follower (now the leader) removes the ATC they were sitting on and takes it with them. It's true that there is an extra stop or two here but that is negated by the fact that a follower usually wants to sit on an anchor anyway to grab gear. |
|
One of the themes that emerges from this and many other accident threads is the danger of unnecessary efficiency at the cost of genuinely necessary safety. As others have pointed out Wind Ridge is not a lengthy enterprise requiring high efficiency or speed. Casualizing belay transitions, setups, or other non-climbing or "easy" portions of a route that leaves any climber open to potential disaster is a terrible idea. Efficiency that retains safety is the ultimate goal, one seriously undermined by inadvertent exposure to potentially lethal risk. |
|
Peter Thomas, you make some good points, and I don't really disagree with anything that you said upthread. For me, I would include a leader belaying two following partners at the same time as one of those techniques that is overused. As Peter Beal describes it, this would be sacrificing necessary safety in the name of efficiency that is often unwarranted, in my opinion. Whenever I follow a pitch at the same time a 3rd is, (and I rarely follow in this manner, to be honest), I wonder, what if one of us falls and swings wildly into the other? What if I'm above the other follower, and I accidently pull a rock off? What if I accidentally drop a piece of gear or something else onto the other follower?? The last time I followed a pitch with another follower was on an ice climb. The thought of the other falling and swinging into me with all those sharp points was kinda scary. Now, if you're racing an incoming storm, or darkness, or any other factor that is a true safety concern, then having two followers climb at the same time makes perfect sense and I am personally all for that. And I have that tool in my toolkit for those rare occasions. But I see parties doing this when there is no time consideration at all (cragging in Eldo, for example) that I am aware of, and that's when I think this technique is overly complex and not worth the sacrifice of safety. I would include simo-rapping in the same category . . probably makes a situation safer if speed is of the utmost importance, but too risky in ordinary circumstances. |
|
I wonder to what extent rope stretch may have played a role here. If the leader was belaying at the walk off ledge, that is at least 150 feet probably more. A 176 pound follower with 9% static elongation in the rope will fall 13 1/2 feet just from stretch. Multi pitch belayers, remember to pre-tension the rope when belayer your follower, especially if he or she is on the ground or starting from a ledge. |
Peter Beal wrote: A hearty second to this. Sometimes people speak as if every climb is a rush from a Patagonian storm. It often sounds as if a climb is a very unpleasant situation one has to get out of as quickly as possible, Sure, it is possible to be super inefficient and slow, and this can create problems on routes of moderate size, but I think the pendulum has swung too far in favor of efficiency shortcuts that (a) don't actually add up to all that much time saved, and (b) introduce risks that are not in general preferable to going just a bit slower in most cases. |
