Mountain Project Logo

How do YOU ensure your belayer is competent?

S. Neoh · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 35

^^^ Nice historical perspective.
Coincidentally, the first instance of a belayer dropping a climber I witnessed first hand also occurred in the Fall of '92 or '93, not long after I had started climbing. Like Rob described above, it too occurred during a lower from a TR situation. There was no knot on the belayer's end of the rope and the rope ran thru the belay device when the climber was still about six feet off the deck, leading to, luckily, minor injuries but a badly bruised ego. The trad climb was put up by folks who either had 55m ropes or assumed the belayer will step up a few feet into the climb when lowering the climber. Most of us only had 50m ropes then. But, during the winter following that trip, I went out and bought myself the only 55m rope I ever owned.

bearbreeder · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 3,065

Saw folks this weekend belay ledgy trad climbs with a large loop of slack touching the ground

They were new trad climbers fresh from the gym

;)

bearbreeder · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 3,065
S. Neoh wrote: Sigh.
And they were quite a bit back from the wall as well

;)
David Gibbs · · Ottawa, ON · Joined Aug 2010 · Points: 2
bearbreeder wrote:Saw folks this weekend belay ledgy trad climbs with a large loop of slack touching the ground They were new trad climbers fresh from the gym ;)
Hey, you don't want to short-rope your leader, right?

Cause, that's the WORST!
S. Neoh · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 35

[bullshitmode]
Not to mention more slack = softer catch, right? How is it that all these old geezers do not know or get this?
[/bullshitmode]

Above is blatantly not true. Seriously. :)

David Gibbs · · Ottawa, ON · Joined Aug 2010 · Points: 2
ViperScale wrote: Maybe it is english issue here but did you just say you took a 60m fall on a 60-70m rope? The route I assume you are talking about has bolts so the only way I can see to take a 60m fall on a 70m rope is if you climb to the next anchor and did not clip a single bolt OR you had the entire rope out before even starting to climb, or your belayer didn't even put you on belay (which if this happened I have to say was your own fault for starting to climb when you ere staring at your partner not having you on belay), or he took you off belay while climb (was he trying to kill you on purpose?), or the english translation isn't working right.
I didn't actually take the fall -- but it would have been either almost 60m on a 60m rope, or almost 70m on a 70m rope. (We had one 60m and one 70m rope, I forget which one I was climbing on at that point.)

I was not leading, I was following. Pitch 8 of a multi-pitch climb, so I was over 200m off the ground. Doing it in a group of 3.

One person lead the pitch, then told the other two of us we were on belay. No, I couldn't check the belay -- he was 30m away from me at that point.

When I got to the end of the pitch, I saw that the setup was such that he had an ATC Guide setup in not-guide-mode. He had the rope running up through the ATC, over a biner then down through the ATC, with the ATC hanging off the retaining loop/wire, not off the guide-mode hole in the ATC. So, basically, the ATC was providing no friction -- the "belayer" would have had to catch a fall simply by holding the rope while it ran over the biner. He would not have been able to hold it.

If I had fallen at the start of the pitch, I'd have gone 30-40m or so; at the end of the pitch;at the end of the pitch, the full rope length. Well, unless I got lucky and a tangle of rope jammed in the device.
Colonel Mustard · · Sacramento, CA · Joined Sep 2005 · Points: 1,241

I haven't read this thread.

That said, have we reached the point in the well trodden argument where it's decided by internet authorities that nobody knows how to belay? Because that's always a great moment.

Guy Keesee · · Moorpark, CA · Joined Mar 2008 · Points: 349
Colonel Mustard wrote:I haven't read this thread. That said, have we reached the point in the well trodden argument where it's decided by internet authorities that nobody knows how to belay? Because that's always a great moment.
Not quite their yet, need a few more crazy stories.....

good safety
Healyje · · PDX · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 422
Colonel Mustard wrote:I haven't read this thread. That said, have we reached the point in the well trodden argument where it's decided by internet authorities that nobody knows how to belay? Because that's always a great moment.
Everyone knows how to belay, they just don't know how not to drop people.
Buff Johnson · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2005 · Points: 1,145

because you can't just hold the rope, you need to hooooolld the rope

J · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2012 · Points: 19
Jake Jones wrote: 1. The extra slack = soft catch thing is a very common misconception.
Disclaimer: I am not an engineer and I am sure most of the folks in this forum are much more intelligent than I am. I also agree that a soft catch is generated when the belayer "goes with the fall/hops" and does not brace for it. Lastly, I just quoted Jake as a reference to what I am talking about.

Question: If we start considering rope stretch into this, wouldn't the increased amount of slack add to the total amount of rope in the system leading to a greater distance the rope will stretch? (i.e. 10 ft of rope will only stretch 1 ft, whereas 15 ft of rope will stretch 1.5 ft)And in the end, wouldn't this provide a greater distance over which the climber would decelerate and therefore experience a less abrupt stop in their fall?

I could be completely wrong, but I just thought I would ask the question...
BigFeet · · Texas · Joined May 2014 · Points: 385
JoshL wrote: Question: If we start considering rope stretch into this, wouldn't the increased amount of slack add to the total amount of rope in the system leading to a greater distance the rope will stretch? ...And in the end, wouldn't this provide a greater distance over which the climber would decelerate and therefore experience a less abrupt stop in their fall?
In a perfect environment, yes. More rope to absorb the energy over a period of time means, the force that is applied to the climber is at a slower rate. The force is distributed/dissipated through a longer time frame. Short rope, energy will be put off much faster. Increased acceleration due to the falling distance being increased is another issue to consider the system having to deal with, though.

More rope in the system means more energy being absorbed through the rope/system, but this is not the end-all-be-all approach. In fact, it can be a bad idea at times.

There are factors to consider, such as, falling onto a ledge because too much rope is out. It could cause a cheese grater effect on a not so vertical slab climb. Depending on how much... a possible ground fall. On and on...

If the fall can be arrested with the least amount of energy going directly onto a piece of pro, or into the climber... this is the optimal approach. There are ways to do this, and the situation at the time will determine what approach may be better than others.
J · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2012 · Points: 19
BigFeet wrote: In fact, it can be a bad idea at times. There are factors to consider, such as, faling onto a ledge because too much rope is out. It could cause a cheese grater effect on a not so vertical slab climb. Depending on how much... a possible ground fall. On and on...
I completely agree that it doesn't work in every situation. I was just purely thinking in the "perfect environment" situation where none of the other factors are an issue(ledge, slab, ground fall, etc).
rgold · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 526
JoshL wrote: Question: If we start considering rope stretch into this, wouldn't the increased amount of slack add to the total amount of rope in the system leading to a greater distance the rope will stretch? (i.e. 10 ft of rope will only stretch 1 ft, whereas 15 ft of rope will stretch 1.5 ft)And in the end, wouldn't this provide a greater distance over which the climber would decelerate and therefore experience a less abrupt stop in their fall? I could be completely wrong, but I just thought I would ask the question...
What you are ignoring is that the "greater distance over which the climber would decelerate" means that more fall energy is created and the system has to deal with that too. The interplay between rope stretch, fall distance, and the amount of rope available for energy absorbtion is encoded in the fall factor. Adding slack to the system makes the fall factor closer to 1. If the fall was less than FF1, then the peak load will be increased by adding slack. If the fall was greater than FF1, then the peak load will be decreased by adding slack.
nathanael · · Riverside, CA · Joined May 2011 · Points: 525
A large group was gathered at Military Wall on September 12 playing music, possibly loud enough to make communication between climber and belayer difficult. Climber was getting into the upper knee bar on Reliquary (5.12b) when he fell near the last bolt. The climber landed on the belayer’s dog, killing it instantly.

The belayer was holding the GriGri in her right hand with fingers over the cam, preventing it from locking, and said she didn’t know how it could have happened. Worse yet, she said this was the third time it has happened to her.


This is by far the most outrageously hilarious and instant act of karma I've ever read. She killed her own dog! Is this real life??
mark felber · · Wheat Ridge, CO · Joined Jul 2005 · Points: 41

Not really hilarious, I feel bad for the dog. How did that woman find three partners to do this to? Wouldn't word start to get around after the first time she did it?

BigFeet · · Texas · Joined May 2014 · Points: 385
mark felber wrote: How did that woman find three partners to do this to? Wouldn't word start to get around after the first time she did it?
Being good looking could explain things. I agree, poor dog!
Jon Powell · · LAWRENCEVILLE GEORGIA · Joined Jan 2012 · Points: 110
Nathanael wrote:A large group was gathered at Military Wall on September 12 playing music, possibly loud enough to make communication between climber and belayer difficult. Climber was getting into the upper knee bar on Reliquary (5.12b) when he fell near the last bolt. The climber landed on the belayer’s dog, killing it instantly. The belayer was holding the GriGri in her right hand with fingers over the cam, preventing it from locking, and said she didn’t know how it could have happened. Worse yet, she said this was the third time it has happened to her. This is by far the most outrageously hilarious and instant act of karma I've ever read. She killed her own dog! Is this real life??
Not sure why the dog dying was hilarious
frank minunni · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined May 2011 · Points: 95
Jon Powell wrote: Not sure why the dog dying was hilarious
Because it sounds like something from a Monty Python movie.
I'm sure if you're there, it's not funny but if you're not then, well...it's pretty funny.
lozo bozo · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2015 · Points: 30

Would have been funnier if the women got taken out instead of the pups

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "How do YOU ensure your belayer is competent?"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.