Another Autoblock belay failure leading to serious hurt

Bill Lawry wrote:BB: "when using the autoblock lowering anything more than say a foot or two should be an exceptionally RARE case .... limited to rescues, etc ... " ... Or maybe my buddy was half way up the first pitch and then remembered he forgot to grab his water bottle?

see the "climb with competent partners" comment i made above ...

if yr partner is incompetent you shouldnt use the autoblock unless you are well practiced in lowering ... or better yet not use regardless unless your well practiced or climb with em

its that simple

I totally agree with everything BB said, but just to be clear, the accident in this case was not because the belayer was trying to lower the climber to the base of the climb. It was very much an ordinary multipitch situation.

The second hung because he needed both hands to remove a cam. He then asked to be lowered a few feet so he could do the moves. The device had locked up tight and couldn't be lifted by hand, and when the belayer used a sling to release the device, he (predictably) produced a total release and lost control.

The fact that it is so easy to do this is most certainly a failing of the device itself, and I have no problem with the thread title. But the belayer is also a complete idiot, employing technology with well-known and fully documented failure modes with evidently no understanding of how to manage it. It is beyond my comprehension that you can take a partner's life in your hands without the foggiest notion of how to use your equipment. If that's what it means to be an "experienced climber," then the term has lost all useful meaning.

Not only did this leader fail the basic competence test, he also failed the basic decency test. Having dropped the second, the belayer should have burned his hand down to the effin' bone trying to at least slow down the fall.

Many years ago, a climber in the gunks who was roped up but unanchored fell off a ledge. A belayer from another party who was seated right next to the falling climber's rope grabbed the rope and hung on while the climber fell a full pitch to the ground. Thanks to that belayer, who wasn't climbing with the guy who fell and didn't know him, the falling climber survived with only minor injuries. The belayer was much worse off---he did burn his hand down to the bone, and although I don't know what happened to him, I've been told by doctors that his recovery would have been long, painful, and probably not complete.

There was a guy who went a very serious extra mile to save the life of someone he didn't know who was dumb enough to fall off a ledge while unanchored. The belayer in this accident got "frustrated" and just let his second, dropped because of the belayer's own inexcusable negligence, plummet to the base of the pitch.

Climbing can be a fun sport, but every now and then things can get deadly serious in a hurry. In those moments, you hope---you believe---that your partners will be there for you. This accident indicates just how wrong that assumption can be.

actually IMO also part of the problem is the desire to "work the moves" on seconding

not that im against working the moves ... but when yr on autoblock the belayer should have known better ... autoblock is NOT a good way work raise and lower over and over again to "work the moves"

the asshole partner i am i would have said "get your ass up here, its not a gym and yr on autoblock"

if you are going to "work the moves" make sure your partner knows this so he can set up the appropriate belay

Obviously this is a way different set up for a different situation, but this is really how you should be redirecting the auto block. Obviously you would only be using one parallel plaquette, but you get the point. Here the double set up is for a rescue application lowering a 200kg load which creates more friction, so it is safe to assume that a single plaquette can easily control a single 100kg load if done correctly. You can go even one step further as to apply a 3 wrap 6mm or 7mm prussik to the lock off end that is attached to your belay loop in case you do lose control. One thing to also keep in mind is these guys are using low stretch static ropes. Hope this helps.

video: riggingforrescue.com/resear…

Can someone please explain:

Wouldn't the device simply re-engage and stop the fall as soon as the belayer let go of the sling? I always thought that's how it worked. I can't visualize how this happened.

Upon googling for a correct, dummy-proof method for lowering in this setup, I'm more lost than ever. Conflicting info, dead links, and the increasingly useless MP troll forum.

Toad wrote:Can someone please explain: Wouldn't the device simply re-engage and stop the fall as soon as the belayer let go of the sling? I always thought that's how it worked. I can't visualize how this happened. Upon googling for a correct, dummy-proof method for lowering in this setup, I'm more lost than ever. Conflicting info, dead links, and the increasingly useless MP troll forum.

When you are accelerating at 1g, "as soon as" is a long time. People tend to freeze when startled, and if startled" lasts for 2 seconds, your second has taken a 40 footer.

It's really simple, just put them on belay some other way before you lower them. If you don't already know how to tie a munter hitch, you're missing out on a really valuable skill that can be used in various situations (eg, your rack consists of 1 carabiner and you need to rappel). Just put them on a munter and lower them using the munter to control their descent.

rgold wrote: Not only did this leader fail the basic competence test, he also failed the basic decency test. Having dropped the second, the belayer should have burned his hand down to the effin' bone trying to at least slow down the fall.

This.

The attitude of the belayer is unreal. "Eventually I let go in frustration"???? Hoe lee crap.

bearbreeder wrote: see the "climb with competent partners" comment i made above ...

Forgetting to take something up multi-pitch makes you incompetent? Asking to be lowered is being incompetent? My mentioning something that wasn't in your list is being incompetent?

Be competent in the ways you use your gear or don't do it.

rgold wrote:It was very much an ordinary multipitch situation. The second hung because he needed both hands to remove a cam. He then asked to be lowered a few feet so he could do the moves.

Lowering for this reason is hardly necessary. If either partner had doubts about the belayer's ability to lower safely, they should have simply not done it.

Toad wrote:Can someone please explain: Wouldn't the device simply re-engage and stop the fall as soon as the belayer let go of the sling? I always thought that's how it worked. I can't visualize how this happened.

This was asked and answered earlier in the thread:

Cody Allen 1 wrote:Would the belayer not just have to let go of the sling he used to lever the device? Why would the guide not stop the fall if you just let go of everything and it went back in to regular autoblock mode?

Em Cos wrote: Not necessarily - it is the weight of the climber that rotates the device into "locked" position. If the rope is running freely, the device is not necessarily "feeling" the weight of the falling climber, so to speak. It may lock up again, it may not.

I'd say test it out and see, but it would be difficult to find a way to do that safely. You'd need a decently heavy weight to represent the climber, and would have to drop it a fair distance to have time to try releasing the sling and seeing what happens, and obviously that could be fatal to any bystanders on the ground.

And AMEN to this:

rgold wrote:Having dropped the second, the belayer should have burned his hand down to the effin' bone trying to at least slow down the fall.

"Let go in frustration"? Not even "my hands burned so severely I was unable to keep holding on..." just frustration.

Em Cos wrote: And AMEN to this: "Let go in frustration"? Not even "my hands burned so severely I was unable to keep holding on..." just frustration.

When I read that, my assumption was he wanted to point to the manufacturer as the culpable party.

Many of us recall the video showing the belayer easily releasing and un-releasing with no significant load on the rope - pretty sure that was a BD video back in the day. Am not offering an excuse. This failure mode was highlighted by a review of the device back in January of 2006: "... you risk losing control of the release tab and forcing the device into a wide-open position, making the rope all but impossible to hold onto."

I put a prusik on my brake end . Gives you redundancy.

Brad Stewart wrote:I put a prusik on my brake end . Gives you redundancy.

Is that sufficient? It seems that using a 2nd belay method (e.g, munter) with or without a redirect to the top is recommended, but I'm having a hard time finding someone who knows WTF to really do here.

Prusik would have been my first thought, too, but now I'm confused...

jeep gaskin wrote:sure it was the belayer's fault but you guys are missing the point that most people don't need an autobloc device and are better off with an atcxp or equivalent. adding a munter hitch isn't a back-up, it's the whole enchilada.you don't need a belay device at all.

No, that's not the point at all. The point is that people should know how their devices work before putting somebody's life in their hands.

Toad wrote: I'm having a hard time finding someone who knows WTF to really do here.

Well, you could read the article that the original first post in this thread referred to:
rockandice.com/climbing-acc…

Front and center there is a photo of the correct set-up - using a munter to lower the climber after releasing the ATC guide device.

Or you could check out this instructional video from BD:
youtube.com/watch?v=KM5c9wl…

Lowering the climber starts at about 2:38 - in this case they show using a munter off the harness.

You could also use a regular belay device off your harness, but most people don't carry two - hence the munter.

The point is, you aren't really "lowering" with the ATC in guide mode. What you are doing by releasing it is taking it out of the system entirely, leaving you with merely a rope running through a carabiner. You need to put a separate lowering method into the system - a different belay device, a munter off the harness, a munter off the anchor. A prussik might work as a back-up keeping the rope from running through the device, but I wouldn't want to use a prussik as the primary method of lowering for any great distance.

I am not the first person in this thread to explain this, I think if you read carefully you'll find many climbers who know WTF to do here.

Em Cos wrote:I think if you read carefully you'll find many climbers who know WTF to do here.

I did a bit of internet based research - 93.4% of people posting on interwebs can not read carefully. Not quite sure why that is, perhaps I need to read that research more carefully.
Perhaps, I need to re-read the whole thread, but wasn't video you just posted posted before?

Not in this thread, though it's certainly been around and has been posted elsewhere on the forum before. The article I linked to was posted in the OP, and at least one other time in this thread, and referred to several times. The information was posted many times, in many ways. I was trying to present the information again to help alleviate Toad's lingering confusion.

Bill Lawry wrote: Forgetting to take something up multi-pitch makes you incompetent? Asking to be lowered is being incompetent? My mentioning something that wasn't in your list is being incompetent? Be competent in the ways you use your gear or don't do it.

yes bill it does

theres plenty of climbs in the world where its a traverse or overhand on the first pitch where you cant be lowered and then climb back up safely unless the follower is versed in placing gear on the way back down, and many times not even then especially with poor communication options

in fact i can think of several in squamish thats like that right off the bat where you basically want to rap back down and relead up if yr partner forgot something

if your partner is CONSTANTLY forgetting stuff at the base where lowering back down i more than once of a blue moon event ... hes incompetent

all it takes a few seconds to look around before heading off to prevent this ...

find a competent partner so yr not always lowering folks back down off a multi

;)

Em Cos wrote: Not necessarily - it is the weight of the climber that rotates the device into "locked" position. If the rope is running freely, the device is not necessarily "feeling" the weight of the falling climber, so to speak. It may lock up again, it may not.

Gravity rotates the belay device into a position that allows the device to go into auto block. The climbers end then presses the brake end into the vee slots. I think you know this part.

I've never tried if it would or wouldn't lockup. Personally I think it would. Maybe not instantly but once the friction developed by the climbers side rubbing against the brake side and that same rope being driven into the slots. The rope will stop moving further. You can speculate as to whether the two sides traveling in opposite direction, under load, would burn through each other. Remember the friction doesn't absorb the fall. It just has to developed enough friction to hold the rope as that does the work.

Another way it may not lockup is if the rope is traveling so fast as to have the brake side physically lift the device into a horizontal position. I don't find this likely at all. The friction of the traveling rope passing over the biner will pull it towards the vee slots and start the lockup process. Pulling the device back down into a vertical position, where it naturally belongs due to gravity.

rocknice2 wrote: Gravity rotates the belay device into a position that allows the device to go into auto block. The climbers end then presses the brake end into the vee slots. I think you know this part. I've never tried if it would or wouldn't lockup. Personally I think it would. Maybe not instantly but once the friction developed by the climbers side rubbing against the brake side and that same rope being driven into the slots. The rope will stop moving further. You can speculate as to whether the two sides traveling in opposite direction, under load, would burn through each other. Remember the friction doesn't absorb the fall. It just has to developed enough friction to hold the rope as that does the work. Another way it may not lockup is if the rope is traveling so fast as to have the brake side physically lift the device into a horizontal position. I don't find this likely at all. The friction of the traveling rope passing over the biner will pull it towards the vee slots and start the lockup process. Pulling the device back down into a vertical position, where it naturally belongs due to gravity.

I'm with you. I just can't see how this would happen. Maybe the belayer was using an odd carabiner (i.e. too small) in the device that minimized the potential friction.

Would be interested to know what sort of carabiner the belayer was using, as it could possibly have contributed to the accident?
Also, the belayer ought to have his ass kicked for dropping his leader like that. WTF is wrong with people??

EDIT: I think the title of this thread somewhat misleading? I don't think the auto block device failed-the belayer did.