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