Are gyms/schools teaching the wrong belay technique?

Ok, I'm pretty new at leading, only at it for a couple of years. I was taught a simple rule that is not set in stone but seems to work for me. No metal to metal, no rope to rope ( textile to textile ). Girth hitching my harness might be the one time I generally break this rule and there are other exceptions of course, but if I break that rule, I think long and hard about what I am doing. The biner on biner belay does not sound like a good idea to me. Great post Brian, lots of food for thought!

On a personal note, I like Mark's comment on this, I always read the manufacturers instructions when I buy any climbing device. I won't assume I am smarter than the engineers/designers who created it.

I don't know about the biner to biner on the harness. Sounds like an issue that just has not reared it's head yet. I would ask my belayer to undo a set up like that for my comfort. Biner through belay loop, or biner through upper and lower on harness - either of those is sufficient. I do it anyway cause I typically climb in the BD bod with no belay loop.

I am a big fan of the first videos method although I don't dip that low (looks kinda weird not to mention catching an ATC in the teeth if someone pops right quick). It is kind of a variation of the hand over hand to the side method I see being used which I really like as there is always one hand on the brake (duh!) and two hands much of the time.

The second video looks horrific and I'm not sure whats up with his huge sweeping Priscilla Queen of the Desert style lock off at the end. What a waste of time/catch/energy. The loop od slack he develops with every pull is also a bit... off.

I climb in the gym one time for every 20 outside, and I definitely see more bad belaying at the gym. My favorite is when people brake off by holding both ropes parallel in the "guide" hand while their climbing partner susses it out. ugh. Unfortunately I've found that if I say anything (iside or out) people usually act like I just insulted their mother.

Isn't it also true that loading a biner in three directions is dangerous, which by the sounds of it is what you do...

I have used the "second" method, where the control hand (not called that for no reason) is below the belay plate almost continuously, and the guiding hand reaches down to hold the rope while the control hand moves back into position. This is the way I learned to do it the UK 30 years ago, and although most of my friends ridicule my devotion to this method, I always seem to be the dude belaying them on the tricky leads and reeling them from above their last runner, while I always seem to fall a very long way before I'm stopped....

Reaction times are certainly better this way, as the rope is almost continuously in its braking position - using the other method I can visualize a situation where, if the timing was right (or wrong if you're the leader) the belayer could lose control of the rope; right at the moment where the rope is in it's "up" position where it's wrapped around the biner and not effectively running through the belay plate, a large force at this juncture might be enough to get the rope running at a speed that could not effectively be braked.

Some additional comments/thoughts for M. Cushman, B. Scoggins, R. Blair, and Leveille:

Let me start by roughly summarizing the responses.

1. I should be more aware of what the harness manufacturers/engineers recommend - and then follow it exactly. I shouldn't second guess them. Moreover, I don't seem to be fully knowledgeable or adequately understand the system and components.

2. (Modern) harnesses are made adequately strong; I would know that if I sufficiently understood how they are designed and constructed.

3. What I am doing is "dangerously unsafe" because I am clipping two biners directly together - the fact that they are lockers is no guarantee: the locking ring is not that strong (can shear at only 150 lbs), and that I may be loading the biner in three directions, which is also unsafe, or subjecting the belay biner to levering forces.

4. There was one famous example of a worn belay loop failing - its not a very realistic concern for a harness in reasonable condition. They are so well and strongly made they basically can't fail when used properly.

First, I want to better describe what I do and don't do - since there seems to be some confusion about it, and that may take care of several of the objections.

a) When climbing/leading, I tie the rope into my Arcteryx harness through both the leg loop and the waistloop - exactly as the manufacturer recommends. When done properly, the loop of the rope parallels the belay loop. Note that the manufacturer does not recommend leading off the belay loop. Why not? More about this later.

b) The biner that is the topic of discussion is fairly large and strong, with a steel screw sleeve, and is clipped through the leg loop and and harness tie in, parallel to the belay loop. I generally keep the locking sleeve facing inward, tucked inside the waist loop hole. When belaying or rapelling, I connect an ATC with a second locking biner through both the belay loop and the first locker. However, since the belay loop is quite a bit shorter than the backup locker, no load is placed on the backup locker when belaying/rapelling unless the belay loop fails, or the backup biner is badly out of position. In other words, the locker is there only for backup, like a second belay loop. (It's also convenient for outdoors - always available to clip into on short notice. Because its through the sewn hole in the waist loop, the backup locker does not migate, rotate out of position, or get in the way.)

When used as described, it has been my experience that the biner does not change the act of tying in, rapelling, or belaying in any way, with respect to rope handling and belay technique, how the system components interact with each other, or how they generate forces.

Now, I'll respond to some of the specific concerns I read. By way of personal introduction, let me say that I have been climbing a long time, in a variety of settings (alpine, trad, big wall, sport, gym), with a lot of people, in a lot of venues. I've owned and used a good variety of equipment, known gear designers/manufacuturers, and used to sew some of my own gear back in the day. I read manufacturer's info and factor it into how I use gear. I subscribe to the philosophy that, particularly outdoors, a climber must take complete ownership for his or her own safety, as well as that of one partners. That's part of what makes climbing so great. So right or wrong, I have not arrived at my thoughts naively.

With respect to harness failure: I had a friend who once TORE OUT HIS COMMERCIALLY MADE harness (bridge jumping), and was injured when he subsequently hit the water. Wake up call! I once took what should have been a run-of-the mill fall and heard the sickening sound of webbing tearing before I came to rest. I looked down at my harness - which was neither old nor visibly particularly worn - and saw that the stitching on the right leg loop had completely torn out. Wake up call! I am sure you have heard such stories, or have some of your own.

The point is that neither equipment design nor manufacture is a flawless process, and moreover, equipment wears out in subtle ways. You only learn in retrospect the flaws in new products the designers and manufacturers give us. I have in my closet some hollow biners manufactured by Salewa - for a short time were considered the cutting edge in light equipment - but actual use demonstrated that they were death traps because they snapped easily if they were stressed in unusual ways (i.e., repeated flexing, or levering). Just a few months ago I had to check one of my ropes because the manufacturer (Sterling) had issued a recall. Way back in the day, some companies sold stoppers and other nuts that were out of plastic or resin(!!).

All equipment potentially wears out, and not always in ways that are easily discerned. The critical points to worry about are any that potentially lead to disaster when they do fail - like belay/rapell loops. Yes, belay loops are stoutly constructed, but why do harness manufacturers tell us to thread the rope through the leg loop and waist loop, rather than simply tying into the belay loop (which traces the same path) if the belay loop is virtually infallible? Because they understand that it is not infallible, if fact it's a potential weak point in the system that is one should strive to eliminate (or back up) when possible. My sentiments exactly.

Belay loops are strongly made, but they ARE NOT REDUNDANT. That is precisely the problem I am addressing with my simple little locker. In engineering, redundant refers to having two or more independently functional systems to accomplish the same task, just in case one fails. Redundant is two parachutes; two separate flood alarms in a nuclear reactor containment structure; two alarm clocks, climbing with duel ropes; two or more independent anchors at a belay; tying the rope into both the waist and the leg loops of the harness. I recall that some instructional books on climbing advise wrapping a short runner around your waist belt and into the locker to (redundantly) back up the belay loop while rapelling. Essentially, that's what I'm doing, except with a piece of metal in the form of a locking caribiner.

Since I am in fact belaying and rapelling off the belay loop, the concerns expressed about cross loading of the biners don't apply except in the case that the belay loop fails. But even then, given the forces possible during belaying and repelling, I think the gate strength and cross-loading strength is more than adequate. As far as unclipping goes, I think you may have it backwards - its harder to accidentally unclip with the backup. Just to check it out, I tried to twist the belaying biner off various configurations. I could easily do it with two biners clipped together (with at least one of them unlocked), and I could easily do it with the belay loop alone (by positioning the loop across the unlocked gate and pulling inward), but it was all but impossible when the belay biner was clipped into both the belay loop and the backup locker.

The issue of levering is a worthwhile matter. However, I don't think that there is a realistic chance for it to occur with a locking biner placed on the harness as described. Unlike the bolts and rock on the cliff, the harness and human waist are too soft and flexible to provide a foundation for the type of levering that has damaged biners on the protection side of the system, particularly with decently strong locking biners. Quite simply, there is no rigid base against which to apply enough force to create the lever. Even if the biners twisted violently as a chain, the action would be to momentarily tighten the harness against the waist, which would help dissipate energy.

You know, it's not like manufacturers have perfected climbing equipment design and thus we can all relax because it's a done deal. Its constant evolution, constant change - in fact one of the aspects of climbing I have always loved is the engineering smarts and beauty that keeps popping up in the equipment. But you have to keep up with it. For example, I just ordered a new Petzl harness last week, touted for its innovative design, new materials, and lightness. Ditto on a new helmet (for the big stuff) which sacrifices the rigid outer shell to make it lighter and more comfortable. The same thing continues to happen with the design and fabrication of other essential equipment: ropes, biners, and belay devices are constantly getting lighter, thinner, pushing the envelope on the trade off between safety on the one hand, and comfort, function, lightness, and convenience on the other hand. Not all current equipment will necessarily stand the test of time and usage. It's a tricky balance.

In summary, the general opinions I seem to be hearing is either that a) belay loops are so strongly made there's no point in worrying about it, or b) just do what they tell you in the few pages of often poorly written manufacturers' instructions (which, truth be told, rather than being a complete description of all relevant factors, are written in large part to provide maximum protection from liability and are aimed at the the lowest common denominator user) and don't think about it. Not my style. I've never been a safety freak - far from it in fact - though I have gotten a bit more cautious as the years go on (and people I knew have gotten the chop). I don't worry too much, but I do worry a little, and take the extra step when it's easy and the potential payoff is high. One way was to throw in the extra biner to increase safety at a known natural weak point in the protection system, and then I forget about it.

So I don't think I am ignoring manufacturers' instructions, I think I am supplementing the system consistent with their intentions. And if I am second guessing the design engineers (although I don't think I am), so be it. The reason I started this thread is because I try (at least occasionally) to think carefully about technique and equipment, and value the measured opinions of others who do as well so I can keep it right.

Ultimately, at some point safety becomes the responsibility of each individual (adult) climber. Safety cannot be guaranteed even in the relatively controlled setting of the gym, though we all try our best. But once new climbers begin to climb under their own supervision outdoors, they are truly on their own and their best chances for safety comes from being able to independently make sound judgments about new and unexpected situations as they are encountered. Climbers need to be introduced to that reality at the beginning of the learning process, not at the end.

I could be misinformed, but I thought that bypassing the belay loop while tying in was supposed to help keep you upright in a fall?

As far as redundancy goes, my climbing partner always ties in through his harness with a loop that approximates the size of his belay loop and simply clips both when belaying. Soft, dynamic backup and convenient overkill, rather than having a biner lurking near the jewels:)

Philstein:

Not sure exactly what you are saying... Modern harness should be designed so that when you tie in the rope as you described, or you are clip in to the belay/rapell loop, they weight the harness the same way and you hang upright.

On some older harness, the tie in points were too low, below the center of gravity, and you could flip and stay upside down.

In my opinion, what your friend does is perfectly fine, but would not apply to rapelling, belaying when you are not tied in to the rope.

Steven, we are all responsible for our own safety. You are free to do what you like and rationalize your decisions, but you are in the vast minority of people who think the belay loop needs to be backed up. Do you know anyone else who backs up the belay loop with a locker? I don't.

Therefore, don't be surprised when you are questioned about it by a gym employee. They are not physicists. They do not make their own gear. They may question the practice just like others in this thread have. Then they default to the way they can be sure is safe: the way the manufacturer suggests the equipment is to be used.

Because they do this doesn't mean they are ignorant or cannot think for themselves. They may know 20 ways to belay and 20 ways to set up a belay device, but this just ain't one of them.

quote from above- "Belay loops are strongly made, but they ARE NOT REDUNDANT."

I would just like to point out that for all practical purposes Belay loops ARE REDUNDANT. Look down at it close and check out that it is a long piece of webbing doubled over with linear stitching and bar tacking. With the stitching and bar tacks it creates two independent pieces of webbing therefore creating redundancy. Think of it like a cordalette. If you pre equalize the cord while anchoring(clipping to pieces of gear or rapping a tree, equalize and then tie a knot you are creating a redundant anchor out of a single continuous piece of gear) Very much like the belay loop. The only difference is one has stitching and bar tacks and the other has a knot to isolate two effective pieces out of one.

I would also like to point out that most climbers use not redundant pieces of gear all the time- Like leading on a single rope, belaying from a single locker, using only one belay device etc etc....

The bottom line in in my book is to use the gear how the manufacturer recommends and seek professional instruction for things you don't know how to do.

Cheers,

Dale Remsberg

Mark:

I didn't invent it, if that's what you are implying. Yeah, I've seen others do it.

Dale:

I wholeheartedly agree that as climbers we often to rely on components of the safety system that are not redundant: one rope, one belayer, etc.

But by your reasoning, a single rope is a thousand times redundant because it has thousands of strands. No, that makes it strong, but not redundant. A single knife swipe could theoretically cut a single rope or belay loop.

You yourself made the crucial distinction: it takes knots to totally separate one piece of cord into independent (redundant) anchors. (Thus, it would take two or more separate, independent failure actions to take out the entire system.)

I think the logic behind tying in to the two tie-in points (waist and leg loops) and not the belay loop is to avoid the nylon-on-nylon abrasion that might occur between the rope and the belay loop. Granted the tie-in points are still nylon, but they tend to be a bit more reinforced and there are two of them to spread out the load.

The logic for belaying/rapping off your belay loop is to avoid potential cross-loading/tri-axial loading situation.

I see Steve's point about the belay loop maybe not being redundant, no matter how many loops of webbing are bar-tacked together, it can still be cut and fail all at once. I personally think that it's strong enough, provided you inspect/replace your harness on a regular basis. I don't begrudge anyone takeing the extra step of backing up their belay loop, though, especially if their harness is getting on the older side. If you're really worried about it, a technique that I've seen is simply tying a small loop of cord (5-6mm) parallel to the belay loop. Maybe you could then wrap both loops (the original belay loop and the back-up tied one) in some cloth tape to form one easily clippable loop. It'd look pretty ghetto, but it would probably be less cumbersome than a locking biner as a backup.

-Scott

Steven,

If I am representing the "less experienced" climbers here and maybe the person at the gym I feel your system adds a level of complexity that is unacceptable to me. As I gain more experience climbing, I have really come to appreciate eloquence in systems that are easier to inspect. By connecting two lockers together you are hooking together 2 rigid devices that seem to have a lot of potential to twist, cross load, etc...

I have climbed and been taught by some very experienced climbers and I spend a lot of time reading about rigging, anchors etc... I have never seen or heard of your system so I wouldn't expect that others have either. I have also not heard of any considerable failure rate on belay loops. If I felt the need to back up my loop I would probably favor a textile solution like Philisteins above.

If it works for you great! I wouldn't expect an employee at a climbing gym to accept it though.

Steven Amter wrote:Dale: I wholeheartedly agree that as climbers we often to rely on components of the safety system that are not redundant: one rope, one belayer, etc. But by your reasoning, a single rope is a thousand times redundant because it has thousands of strands. No, that makes it strong, but not redundant. A single knife swipe could theoretically cut a single rope or belay loop. You yourself made the crucial distinction: it takes knots to totally separate one piece of cord into independent (redundant) anchors. (Thus, it would take two or more separate, independent failure actions to take out the entire system.)

Actually the stitching and bar tacks does make it redundant- As you describe the swipe of a very good knife could cut both pieces of the belay loop just as the knife could cut both(two or more depending on how many pieces you have in your anchor) strands of the master point in a tied off anchor-

The rope is completely different because there is no bar tacking or stitching in the rope therefore no isolation of any one point of the rope(that is part of the reason they stretch so much). A rope does not have thousands of strands but rather(somebody who makes ropes help me out here)is assembled with something like 16, 24 or 32 bobbins(I should know the answer to that one- sorry) But the point is none of them are isolated with stitching or bar tacks although with friction in the rope small individual strands can be compromised and the rope will still functions.

I'm just talking about the master point of an anchor which is basically a belay loop(although not as strong). yes the master point may have two or more strands depending on how many pieces you have in your anchor but imagine a two bolt anchor that is pre equalized with a 48" runner. This set up will have two pieces of runner in the final master point. They are isolated with the knot which will become the weakest part of the system assuming the bolts are good etc etc... Now look again at the belay loop. It is a piece of webbing doubled over and tripled over at the bar tacks. Also the belay loop has linear tacking as well. Think of the bar tacking as the knot although it is stronger than the knots used to pre equalize most anchors.

So yes the belay loop is only one piece of material but with the bar tacking and stitching it is the same as a knot except stronger. If you use a runner to equalize two bolts and tie it off you are only using one piece of material. After you tie the the master point it is basically a belay loop(Master point)that we belay off of.

good topic-

Cheers,

Dale

Scott Bennett wrote: The logic for belaying/rapping off your belay loop is to avoid potential cross-loading/tri-axial loading situation.

You wouldn't get cross-loading exclusively by using one method over the other (& neither setup will be a tri-axial situation), what the loop does do more is help keep a cleaner system in this example.

In looking at solid anchoring versus marginal anchoring is where you will find more applicable ideas in redundancy; most all rock anchors are marginal by definition which is why we rig distributing loads and load limiters should any one point fail.

The other thought is in anchor tie-in redundancy, i.e. when working around the anchor. You don't want to become detached by inadvertently brain-farting and unclipping yourself. So two points of contact can help. Also at the anchor is lead belaying, use the rope as the belayer's shock absorber and have a secondary tie-in should friction or rock/ice fall fail your primary; you can also have the rope loop tie-in at the belayer's end clipped into the belaying biner to offer that redundancy if looking at rockfall & potential for cutting the belay loop.

Here at NASA we have an acronym; SPOF or Single Point of Failure, we like to keep these to an absolute minimum, and if possible completely eliminate them from a system. If we can't, all sorts of hoops have to be jumped through involving failure mode analyses, risk mitigation, likehoods, risk acceptance, etc.

So if you can realistically and practically, eliminate a SPOF then I encourage you to do so, do not forget that SPOFs are not limited to hardware, then can be procedural and/or based upon techniques also.