Belay technique discussion

Eric Engberg wrote: The physics nerds can argue endlessly about the theoretically greater impact force a GriGri might impose on the system.

There's nothing theoretical about it. It has been verified empirically in more than one test. For example,



A 50% higher anchor load could make a catastrophic difference in some cases, no? (50% is not a typo: in the fall factor 1 situation the Grigri anchor load is 50% higher than the Reverso load---6 kN vs. 4 kN.) In many cases, maybe even in most cases, the extra load may not matter, but does the party know at the outset whether the pro will always be up to the extra loading?

As usual, the decisions are ultimately situational. Is the climb one with the kind of dangers that might incapacitate a belayer? Is the climb one with an abundance of small pro? What if both conditions hold?

Paul Deger wrote:I was just failed at gym today...the argument given was "your brake hand is leaving the rope."

Haha, most of the UK will fail this test, since it is standard practice for them to let go with the so-called brake hand, as they seem to be laboring under the terrible misapprehension that either hand is capable of braking. (See my sarcastic comments about the American belay police reaction in my previous post in this thread.)

For the standard UK technique, see, for example, 7:19 of

vimeo.com/159051560

That said, just do whatever the gym wants you to do, and bite your lip when someone with 1/10 of your climbing experience and knowledge lectures you on your incompetence. The poor kid doesn't know any better and is just trying to do his or her job, and it is easy enough to do things the way they want you to, precisely because you have the experience to be able to vary your procedures and are not inflexibly attached to the one true way.

As for testing, any differences in specific technique are likely to be overwhelmed by what experimenters have found to be substantial variations in individual performances from trial to trial. I recommend forgetting about it and getting on with life.

I see so much messed up stuff while climbing. I usually keep quiet but bad belay is one area where I usually speak up. I recently suggested a climber with 40 years of experience that he needed to be more attentive to his break hand. He has probably forgotten more than I will ever know but I felt I had to speak up. The thing that most often freaks me out is during the first 30 feet of a lead belay. I so often see way too much slack. Gear will hold but you will still deck or see a small belayer stand right under s large climber. Lead will deck but he will crush your back not his . It's just common sense. I usually only comment to people I know or are climbing with .

Thanks RGold!--I love Empirical evidence!
"Physics Nerd" Thanks--never been called that before!

roger fritz from rockford, IL wrote: Some gyms have specific guidelines as to what is acceptable for setups and belay technique. In the event that I step indoors to climb, I always ask questions with the staff to clarify any idiosyncrasies they might have. I am their guest in their gym and I am their liability, so I am willing to yield my preferred method(s) to adapt to theirs. I hope wherever the gym was, you were able to clear this up and get some laps in! Cheers

All good points! I understand lawyers and liability rule the day. And the first staff I encountered at this gym many months ago was open to a conversation that we both walked away informed. Their is a difference between the conversation, "We are required by our insurance coverage that you use this technique" vs "There is only one way to belay and if you do not do it my way, you will kill your partner" which is how the conversation went the second time.

I've only used three gyms. Two of them let you use whatever tie-in you want (I always use a bowline) and belay with whatever device you want (I always use some type of ATC plate). The third requires figure-8 tie-ins (which are really hard to untie with their ropes), has its own Grigri's installed on every toprope, and insists on them for lead belaying. (This last gym also requires you to sign the same multipage waiver form every single time you come to the gym.) So it seems to me that the lawyers and insurance companies haven't exactly standardized the procedures, and the requirements from gym to gym can be very different.

A lot of gym staff are college-age students, some of whom have little or no experience outside of a gym environment. They have to promulgate the party line to keep their jobs, and may well believe the absoluteness of their pronouncements. For example, I recently saw a highly experienced multiply-certified guide get hilariously lectured on the defects in his belaying technique. As I said in an earlier post, it is best to smile, acquiesce, and carry on (which, by the way, was what he did).

Just read the latest American Alpine Club Accidents in North American Climbing article on belay technique and realized I've been out of the upswing in movement to auto-assisted belay devices along with a change in belay techniques. What I've found missing in what is espoused is an adherence to simplicity. The more complex something is the more likely it is to fail, and that includes techniques and devices. In my years of teaching and guiding, I've always taught what I termed the "iron ring" technique to belay. Once the belayer stated to the climber that a belay was "on" that meant the brake hand was now thought of as an "iron ring" that never departs or opens from the rope until the belay was safely removed. I've also read the talk about a 3-step or 4-step method, the cross-under, the hand-over-hand, and the shuffle techniques among others. All have their disadvantages and advantages. While the climbing rules and ethics committees argue until the next mountain range rises on our coasts over what technique should be the standard, I believe they have it right in stating there is no one "right" technique. For simple devices when taking in rope I still believe that the method where the guide hand opens to grasp both ropes far above the belay device while the brake hand remains locked on the rope and then slides back to six inches or more above the device (to always provide rope to lock-off) and then moves the belayer's end of the rope to a lock-off position is still a very safe method. Adding steps such as the hand-over hand, 4-step, and so on is all okay when using the corresponding devices require such gyrations; however, in all my years of mountaineering, teaching, guiding, and climbing around the world the best safety addition to any technique is simply a pair of gloves! Let's keep the hands on the ropes folks and maybe add a pair of gloves. I don't see a need to make standards complicated nor eliminate valid technique from what is acceptable regarding a standard. I've known many an old-timer that could belay today's sport climber, trad climber, or ice climbers with either an axe-belay or hip belay that most today would have hard-time matching their skill in making a safe catch. Techniques don't die folks, they build upon what has preceded them. I will say I believe many climbers today are begetting their feelings of safety from the technology hanging from their waist and what is read or viewed on the internet, rather than from building their own personal skill, confidence, and security with arsenals of well-practiced techniques on real peaks and cliffs using the simplest of tools.

I would be more scared of the weight differential between the climber and belayer that sent her flying up into the air and forward into the wall (in the 3.5 minute video near the top of this thread. It is the video titled "Rock Climbing Basics: Belaying the Leader").

The added fall distance by her being pulled up and in could be the difference between catching the leader mid-air on a fall and the leader falling 2, 3, 6 feet farther and possibly landing on a ledge. Due to no fault of my belayer, I did land on a ledge about the same time he caught the fall and it resulted in a severely broken ankle.

While so many of you express concern about the control determined by hand position and you do not seem to be concerned about the
1. added fall distance I mention above; or,
2. the fact the belayer, when pulled up and into the wall while belaying from the harness, becomes trapped in the system with no way to get themselves out or to effect a rescue of the fallen climber if that may be needed (as it was in the case of my fall).

Would any of you consider setting up an anchor with slings, pro &/ or your cordelette that the belay device could be fixed to so that if there is a fall it is held on that anchor, not on the belay loop attached to the belayer's mid-body? In that case whether the belayer is anchored in (which she is not in the video) or not, the climber is held on the belay device at a fixed anchor. Please do not tell me the system needs to be 'dynamic' any more than the slack and friction involved with the lead and the fact the rope is made to be dynamic.

Climbing is dangerous.b e safe.

Doug,

I'm in total agreement with your suggestions/concerns. I would be anchoring as I too have witnessed and experienced belayers dragged and lifted into out of control positions, trapped, or injured in the action. Anchoring does not seem to be favored by the "charts" as it were. I'd guess you too are an old-schooler like myself that is both very well-read and experienced. I'd guess you too give more importance to real-life scenarios where controlled environments do not in any way measure up to all the charts and columns ranting about which ropes and fingers do what and how often. Both the belayer and the leader's safety should come first along with the ability to control such safety factors. Too many people do not realize how many factors play a part. Instead they rely too heavily on devices or rote methodology to control only a fraction of safety contributors at a belay, rather than employing important skills in finding dangers and addressing the whole picture for both leader and belayer. The answer is that all factors in a climbing environment play a part in the rope team's safety and what will happen when a fall occurs. I'd rather be prepared as you've suggested with an anchor assisting me in staying where I can retain control, escape the belay, control fall distances at my will depending on terrain/gear/and leader preferences, and avoid injuries to myself and my partner.

Paragraphs my friend, paragraphs...

JKzxcv wrote: Hypothetically if a climber falls 20 feet their velocity will be about 36 ft/s and if an unsuspecting relaxed brake hand takes 0.2 seconds to establish a tight grip, the climber will fall an additional 7 feet (more with rope stretch.

So 7 feet of rope just passes through both hands and the belay device with the brake hand in the brake position. ?? Is your belayer unconscious.

Bogus.

You are correct, Capt. Darkness. I began climbing in the 1970's when we read Royal Robbins' books 'Basic Rockcraft' followed by his equally thin 'Advanced Rockcraft' introducing climbing's essential skills. Our other printed resources was 'Mountaineering: Freedom of the Hills'. Those few publications gave us enough information to get started. From there we built our own repertoire of skills based on personal and peer experience.

I agree on the belayer anchoring. I had taken a 20 yr hiatus from climbing and was surprised to see on my return this as no longer common.

I also appreciate the recognition of no "one size fits every situation" approach to belaying and recognize gyms are in a unique situation (due to many drivers) of taking a more narrowed approach on what is allowed.

In the end, what will keep me and my partner safe and alive to see another fun day on the crag requires knowledge, skill, awareness, discernment, flexibility and openness to feedback and learning something new. I have learned much in this discussion and appreciate all shared.

One thing I haven't seen in this thread is with the pinch and slide method, when you bring your brake hand close to the ATC to take in slack, if the climber falls and you grip the rope tightly, your hand will most likely get pulled into the ATC a bit. When I was helping oversee a Boy Scout climbing group, this exact thing happened. Luckily the belayer had oversized leather gloves on and his gloves got sucked into the ATC and thus left his fingers unhurt, and the backup belayer caught him (BSA climbing regulations require one, they also only teach the pinch and slide method while requiring an ATC).

Doug - 80's for me; but, similar backgrounds and likely some similar partners. Eplumer - "pinch and slide" is safe when performed properly. Problem is too many people either let go instead of keeping the brake rope hand permanently around the cord, or like you mention bring the hand down to too close to the device. I stand with the safest improvement any belayer can make is to wear gloves. I also mentioned before that the braking hand should at all times only slide down to leave a good six inches between it and the device. Sadly I've never seen this taught but have witnessed the pinched hand occur all too commonly. In this fashion by leaving space the lock-off can occur at any point in time with the "pinch and slide" and there is never any pinching of one's hands. Greg - the 7 feet was hypothetical. Friction in the system of rope on rock and rope against carabiners greatly reduces the rope action in larger falls. I'd agree the number is bogus in real life; yet many people miss the fact that in real falls outdoors above and beyond what's typically taken in gyms the rope will slide even if devices (auto-assist or manual) are in their locked-off positions. Concerning the 7 feet - maybe the belayer was just enjoying a really good brew when the partner fell. If the leader was too slow maybe the action was just plain boring. The poor belayer was just there so long that too many brews were consumed and indeed he's now unconscious. 7 feet on a 20er? Sounds okay. Who'd waste a good beer for seven feet? Finish the sip, set it down, and then lock the bloke off. Adding some air miles just builds character and the suds make the belay so much more enjoyable. Just kidding about the brew I'm hoping all realize...

I third the use of gloves. With less concern of rope burn, I find I maintain better "feel" of the rope and thus more control and allows a much smoother lowering. Key, though, is well fitting gloves - poor fit can impair feeling and controlling the rope. Awareness + gloves = increase skillfulness and safety in belaying.

It sounds like Sarah is describing the "Shuffle Technique", as depicted here:

youtu.be/BOIAYx-d4HE?t=4m30s

Sarah, if you are still following this thread, was that the technique that you took issue with?

EDIT: Skip to 4:30 to see the Shuffle Technique

Sorry to revive an old thread but I just needed to vent a bit because I just automatically failed the lead belay test at my gym for using the shuffle method (which my tester called “the death shuffle”) to constantly manage the slack on my belay and I’m so glad @khoi posted the video from the AAC with John Long explaining this method as acceptable under the Universal Belay Standard because I was pretty studious before my test and even took a course at my gym where the instructor must’ve seen me do this and never mentioned it as a problem. I completely understand that it’s not as safe as PBUS and I’m going to drill the habit out of me to be as safe as I can be, but I think the AAC needs to update their official YouTube video to explain that the shuffle isn’t currently acceptable by some gyms and climbers standards.