Catching high fall factor falls - back up knot(s)?

Jake Jones wrote:... You can also keep climbing past where the pitch would normally end- to where you would place a piece on the beginning of the next pitch, and do just that. Place a piece. If you're leading that next pitch, clip in normally to that piece. If you're swapping leads, then back clip the first piece so that when your partner climbs up to it, he's clipped in correctly...

I found out over the past couple of years that this has long been a recommendation in Europe (UIAA, DAV, Petzl). I like the fact that it takes advantage of the generally lower fall factors at the end of the previous pitch (provided you've slung your pros well) to better protect the beginning of the next one. I've been applying this approach for a few years now whenever I can but there are contraindications. One of those is if the belay is at a ledge. Consequently the approach tends to be more applicable in steep multipitch sport routes than in more moderate trad routes.

I also apply the option of lowering the belayer but only as a third choice because it mortgages rope that may be needed to complete the next pitch and/or to clip the first pro of the following pitch and because it tends to put the belayer in a less comfortable position (typically hanging below the main belay when that belay might be a comfortable ledge). My second choice approach to eliminate the possibility of an FF2 just off a mid-route belay gives away the fact that I don't apply these approaches only when encountering runouts or tricky stretches right off the belay. I apply them whenever I can because FF2s don't happen only on runouts or tricky stretches.

That second option needs the double rope technique and good pro options just off the belay. For the first couple of pros of the pitch I place and clip the next pro at arm's length while avoiding climbing above the previous pro and while being belayed securely on that previous pro (I've taken note of rgold's frequent assertion that the Alpine Up is the device that best allows the belayer to pay out lots of slack on one rope - for the arm's length clip - while holding the other rope nice and tight).

Of course, while these options eliminate the possibility of an FF2 right off the belay and decrease the likelihood of a high factor fall a bit higher, these are not necessarily eliminated. healyje's usual response to the topic debated here is that for high factor falls, one should just hold the brake hand behind the hip and that always struck me as pretty good advice since it works for both proper FF2s and for high factor falls on one or two pros off the belay, eliminates the need to remember to flip the brake hand up and also puts that brake hand nice and far from the belay device.

There are a multitude of solutions to the danger of a factor 2 fall. If there is a non negligible risk then you should deal mitigate the risk.

All those who have said that tying a knot to stop a FF2 is difficult should improve their skills. Seriously it is not that hard and I've done it many times to add a backup to the FF2.

It should be placed such that it only needs to be removed once there is minimal risk of a FF2.

VaGenius wrote:The concept of high factor falls on double ropes has evidently escaped our protagonists. Aaaaaaaayyyyyyy greeeeee grreeeeee duuuuuuuuuuuhhhhzzzzzz noooooooooooht weeeeeeeeerrrrrrkkkkk ooooooooohhhhnnn teeeeeeeeeeeewwwwww rrrrrropes.

but what if you used two grigris?!

No kidding D.
Maybe we should just retitle this on how to take a dirt nap with the baby jesus.

Where are all of these routes that you guys are taking these supposed Factor 2 Falls on?

Compared to falls w/ belay fuck ups...nowhere

One possibility hinted at (use a of prussik) but not yet suggested is to use a load limiting device (like a screamer) attached between the harness and belay device. In their current form most commercial devices will deploy too long and risk losing control over the catch. A short Purcell prusik might however, work to reduce the load on the belay strand by about 2-3 Kn. This would need to be tested before relied upon. It is a simple thing to rig. See picture below. The one pictured is clipped with a fifi, but it could just as well be clipped with a locker and tube type belay device. The contraption attaches to the harness with a girth hitch around the usual tie in.

short purcell with fifi

When high whipper potential exists, you must trust your belayer 100% ( i think you should always,but).

I agree with the above "belayer has one job" bit...i can also say the only time I have tied a knot for back up is for a hand drilling session that was really sketch i was ready with the hand over hand method.

Sorry I'm late to the party. There's some good info here; some not so good. But what's really missing is actual experience, even with the N-year climbers, where N is a large number.

There seems to be several people who claim to have held high FF falls. Here's an example of what happens in an approximately 1.7 FF fall:

1) The rope mantel was burned for about a foot where it passed through the single carabiner. I'm talking black, crispy, see the core through the cracks.

2) The cams on a Metolius TCU were flattened.

3) My partner caught me with a Stitch-plate and no gloves and his hand was NOT burned.

So if your equipment was not damaged in similar way, then it wasn't a very high FF fall you caught. Just having the belayer move, and/or allowing several feet of rope to slide through the device, will absorb a lot of energy.

I believe it was rgold who said most belayers hold their brake hand a few inches from the device. He's right and they are wrong. If you're faced with a high FF fall, position your brake hand as far away from the device as you can (2-3 feet) with the rope-angle in the "locked" position (maximum friction). If your partner falls, allow the extra rope to slide through the device (it's almost impossible to stop it!) while maintaining the rope angle. When your hand hits the device much of the energy should be already absorbed.

NOTE: in my example, my belayer did NOT allow rope to slide. He had his hand a few inches from the device and it locked almost immediately (a Stitch plate provides more friction than many modern passive devices). Since he was tightly anchored and couldn't move, all the energy was absorbed by the rope (and me).

John, the rope must have slipped at least a foot if a foot of it burned, right? With your hand far enough from the plate, you could have a foot of slippage and still not have rope run through your hand to burn it. Or perhaps it really didn't slip but had a foot of stretch?

Once the rope moves through the device, the energy absorbtion mechanism changes from stretching the rope to work done against friction. Once you are doing work against friction, the fall factor isn't relevant and the actual height of the fall is what matters. This means that if there is slippage, then not all Factor-2 falls are equivalent.

I mentioned earlier that way way BITD I and my friends held scores of factor 1.8 falls with a test weight and a hip belay. It was simply impossible to do that without some rope slippage. Of course, the weight (about 150 lbs) was not entirely realistic. However, at least some industrial testing standards suggest that it would have simulated catching about a 200 lb real person.

The rope never burned in any of those tests. The genuine factor-2 fall I caught in the field was with a hip belay so no rope burning possible. The factor 1.8 fall with a Reverso 3 I mentioned also resulted in no burns to the sheath.

All this makes me think the burns you observed were because the rope really didn't slip but just stretched (and then probably partially recovered), keeping it in contact with the hot carabiner longer than if the rope had run.

rgold wrote:John, the rope must have slipped at least a foot if a foot of it burned, right? With your hand far enough from the plate, you could have a foot of slippage and still not have rope run through your hand to burn it. Or perhaps it really didn't slip but had a foot of stretch? ...SNIP... All this makes me think the burns you observed were because the rope really didn't slip but just stretched (and then probably partially recovered), keeping it in contact with the hot carabiner longer than if the rope had run.

I think Mark just locked me off and the rope didn't slip much at all. So yes, I agree that stretch over the carabiner is probably what burned the rope.

Since I've never heard of a rope burning in the UIAA tests, it's possible my fall was higher than 1.7, or the rope was dirty/fuzzy, or something else was involved that I can't imagine. My memory is that the rope was in fine condition and clean.

Also remember the cam was flattened. I don't think that happens all that often either. Anyone know? I still have it as a souvenir.

This experience, which scared the shit out of both of us, is what prompted me to learn (and later teach) the dynamic method I described earlier. As you say, allowing the rope to slip effectively lowers the fall-factor. It also helps prevent you from spiking your partner into the wall.