ATC Guide

Mark Nelson wrote:Geir & Jeff -- I can understand the ultimate strength & rope diameter arguments, but the failing of the device in a normal operation of belaying a second or two seconds when hit from the side has been shown to be a weakness of this type of device. It's a fairly big statement to say the AMGA is countering a manufacturer's safety requirement. Especially when Eli has stated numerous times not to put complacency when using these devices while autoblocking.

mark,

going hands free with a plaquette is not complacency if the device is being used appropriately.

both jeff and i are amga certified rock instructors, we were field tested in multipitch terrain. i cannot speak to jeff's exam (i wasn't there), but in mine i went hands free when appropriate and it was completely acceptable. it was also an accepted practice in each of my pre-exam courses.

i would not consider a situation where the device is likely to be struck from the side as appropriate use. if such a circumstance presented itself, i would simply belay using a different method.

I edited my second reply. Sorry, I was in a hurry this morning and was a bit harsh.
I will say this...look at the photo I submitted and you can easily come to your own conclusion. I will be happy to post a video with one of many tests I've done using plaquette devices.

JF

Jim Titt wrote:in a top-rope situation it would be fairly easy to get an impact of 5kn

Really, 5kn? I've never been able to get a load that high in any "top rope" situation I've tested using a dynamic rope. How did you get that data?

Curious,

JF

Interesting looking at your photos. Looks like your Reverso did exactly what we got in testing in that the broken rope has crossed underneath the braking rope and got shredded by the sides of the plate, we stopped once the sheath was gone on our testing because that was what we wanted to know.
You don´t need much slack to build up in the rope to get 5kN, especially if the climber is off to one side and swings. The ASCA tests got up to this level and there are some others, probably from Tom Moyer with much the same results. I´ll see if I can find the link sometime.

Jim,

That would be great if you could get that information and make it available here. I did numerous TR fall tests with a dynamometer directly on the anchor and never got anything close to the 5kn you mentioned.
Please remember, in the pic I posted, the load was a massive pull test with my VW Eurovan and I actually had to shock load the system to get the broken/cut rope.

Thanks,

JF

Jim Titt wrote:You don´t need much slack to build up in the rope to get 5kN, especially if the climber is off to one side and swings.

Not to add to the pedantic nature of this thread, but I have a question about why a swing would increase impact forces.

In a pendulum type situation, the arching trajectory would increase the time it took to put the force on the anchor, thus reducing the force, NO?

I'm no physics geek, but a rope swing is much harder to hold onto when you jump the branch its tied to rather than swing from the bank.

I'm kind of already sorry I asked, but, hey!

Evan

Jim-

Here is one of the tests and Jeff is referring to:

Jeff and I set up a slingshot toprope near the top of a cliff. He positioned himself 5 feet from the anchor and was belaying me with an ATC guide (obviously not in autobloc mode). I stood at the anchor, had jeff pay out 10 feet of slack, and then I jumped off into open space. This was a 10 foot fall with 15 feet of rope out, fall factor .66). We repeated this multiple times. The average peak force on the anchor was 600 pounds (approx 2.6kN). The rope was 10.2mm and my weight was 150 pounds. It's worth pointing out that this was a pretty severe test for a redirected toprope, as the belayer is typically at the bottom of the climb and top roped climbers typically don't have 10 feet of slack in the system. Still, in this unusually harsh test we measured very low forces at the anchor for redirected topropes.

We did a second test that day which may be more applicable to the question posed in the OP. In this test, we measured the force generated when the ATC guide arrested falls while set up in autobloc mode on the anchor. Again, I stood right next to the anchor, had jeff pay out 10 feet of slack, and I launched myself out into open space (factor 1 fall). We measured an average peak force of 900 pounds (approx 4kN). Again, this is a pretty harsh test; it would be very unusual for a follower to be taking factor 1 falls in multipitch climbing.

Although we were not specifically looking for it at the time, I should point out that the failure mode #1 you referred to earlier did not occur in any of the sample falls. In personal experience on the rock I have not observed this occurring.

I am curious how your tests were conducted in your study of failure modes of the ATC guide. Were weights attached to ropes and dropped to simulate a fall, or was a static pulling device used? Also, I am curious if you know of any real-life cases where an appropriately used (right rope diameter, correctly used, etc) plaquette device failed as a result of a fall (either mode 1 or 2 described above). I personally have never read of this occurring, but may have missed a report at some time. Anyone else ever heard of this occurring? Jeff?

Regards,
Geir

Been trying to stay out of this futile debate but Mark N.pulled me in...and I'm a sucka

Dana- of course you should keep your brake hand on the rope- no AMGA guide would disagree with that.

But what we're talking about is different, and Jeff and Geir have summed it up well...nothing to worry about with these auto-blockers when used correctly and being aware of the two main potential weakness with these that Greg D. sums up well above.

The engineers at BD told me that they'd call it 'auto-lock' not 'auto-block' except for 'the lawyers' as it's possible to screw any of these things up and blame it on the manufacturer.

It's pretty much impossible to belay two people simultaneously (which is what these devices are designed to do) without taking a brake hand off one strand, at least if the seconds are moving at any speed. I know there's no rush to climb fast back east but we have bigger rocks and mountain weather out here and don't give me that Mt. Wash bs about bad weather:)

Certainly back-up knots in the brake hand are never a bad idea but impractical in the typical 2 follower situation. If I've got just one follower, of course I'll keep my brake hand on mostly but certainly it's not an issue if I let go to eat a chip, drink h2o, etc.

After dozens and dozens of AMGA programs that I've been involved wtih where we belay with this method on 5-25 pitch routes with two followers - everyone seems happy with the results and no close calls yet that I'm aware of other than the wrong loop being clipped into the belay anchor - yikes!

Eli Helmuth wrote:Been trying to stay out of this futile debate but Mark N.pulled me in...and I'm a sucka Dana- of course you should keep your brake hand on the rope- no AMGA guide would disagree with that. But what we're talking about is different, and Jeff and Geir have summed it up well...nothing to worry about with these auto-blockers when used correctly and being aware of the two main potential weakness with these that Greg D. sums up well above. The engineers at BD told me that they'd call it 'auto-lock' not 'auto-block' except for 'the lawyers' as it's possible to screw any of these things up and blame it on the manufacturer. It's pretty much impossible to belay two people simultaneously (which is what these devices are designed to do) without taking a brake hand off one strand, at least if the seconds are moving at any speed. I know there's no rush to climb fast back east but we have bigger rocks and mountain weather out here and don't give me that Mt. Wash bs about bad weather:) Certainly back-up knots in the brake hand are never a bad idea but impractical in the typical 2 follower situation. If I've got just one follower, of course I'll keep my brake hand on mostly but certainly it's not an issue if I let go to eat a chip, drink h2o, etc. After dozens and dozens of AMGA programs that I've been involved wtih where we belay with this method on 5-25 pitch routes with two followers - everyone seems happy with the results and no close calls yet that I'm aware of other than the wrong loop being clipped into the belay anchor - yikes!

I'm a sucka too Eli! I tried to stay away and Jeff pulled me in! :) :)

seriously though, thanks for your input.

Regards,
Geir

During a learn to lead trad course I took a couple of summers ago I was admonished by my AMGA certified instructor over my reluctance to release my brake hand while belaying my second using the ATC Guide. Always keeping my hand on the brake side is so deeply ingrained I just don't think I could do otherwise. The exception, as Eli Helmuth pointed out above, is when belaying 2 followers. Then you have no choice but to briefly let go.

a bit late in the topic for me but i also use the BD ATC Guide for any multipitch stuff. I always use it off of the anchor when bringing up a second and have never had a problem with the rope slipping. whether a small TR fall or just hanging on the rope it keeps its cool. though as many have said it is always nice to keep that break hand handy just incase something were to go wrong. but when set up properly i feel very safe with the device.

John Wilder wrote: Not true- the AMGA as an organization teaches that the guide style devices are hands free belay devices that you can walk away from without tying off if using them in auto block mode- including a rescue scenario.

I can't speak for what you experienced,

letting go of a "monitored device" that is rigged properly and oriented in direction of pull, for a drink or to work the second rope happens all the time and it if it happens it's done with judgment that has come with experience, I don't find it hard to maintain the brake and still multi task the small items, like a drink or changing a layer, but what you suggest, Leaving a a device all together unblocked I highly doubt is being taught or condoned anywhere in the industry, from the manufactures recommendations, to educating bodies, I highly doubt anyone would deem it acceptable to just walk away from an unblocked device. I would not feel good about it, but too each his own.

I don't think the AMGA as an organization is teaching this practice, but I wouldn't do it if I had the choice.

After 15 years of using plaquettes in Seconding mode, I am still yet to see one slip or fail when rigged correctly, If someone has a story that wasn't pilot error, I would love to hear it.

Eli Helmuth wrote: I let go to eat a chip, drink h2o, etc.

"eat a chip" so that's how you stay so thin!

Seriously, Eli, Geir, Joe and everyone else, thanks for the input.

JF

Joe I think that is kinda the point we are seeing.

Eli, Joe, Jeff, Geir & et. al. -- you guys are rock stars no question, but there does seem a bit of a mixed message or a message that isn't all that clear with respect to using these devices. As some of these comments suggest, people are being instructed that the device is all good, when it's really an open system and it should be treated and respected as an open system.

I can understand why a CYA is used by a manufacturer, certainly. But BD has a point in their directions, there is a safety concern. There is a real weakness when actively belaying that can open this rig. Simply snapping ropes within the intended direction of load doesn't tell us that problem.

Maybe some of this is my opinion, but it does seem there is a mixed message from the guides; maybe also one that counters BD's instruction.

John Wilder wrote: Not true- the AMGA as an organization teaches that the guide style devices are hands free belay devices that you can walk away from without tying off if using them in auto block mode- including a rescue scenario.

Disclaimer - I am not speaking on behalf of AMGA. These are my personal observations.

What you hear from AMGA-certified guides/trainers may be merely their own interpretation of "best practices", or it may be more deeply rooted within the AMGA system. I hear lots of folks attributing things to the organization when there is no basis for doing so.

That being said, there was a time when we all thought the Reverso, ATC-Guide, Gigi etc were "hands-free" devices. They were actively marketed as such. And yes, the AMGA Technical Handbook (1999 version, at least) refers to these as such. But in the interim, the manufacturers have become a bit more conservative in their descriptions; see the lawyer-based policy comment above. So I would imagine that nowadays you'll find AMGA personnel advising to keep a brake hand on at all times. One thing that I believe never changes is AMGA's position that hardware is to be used according to the manufacturer's directions. When that changes, so does AMGA instruction (as long as the individual providing instruction is keeping current). But once again, there is always the opportunity for personal interpretation to find its way in there. Climbers - even AMGA guides - are highly individualistic. So you can hear things like, "You can do it that way, but I wouldn't."

Man, a loooot of theoretical rhetoric in here. I've used my BD Guide on a sh*tton of pitches, hands free, and used it to tie off my second at the belay, never any slippage. Used correctly I find it very fool proof. Has anyone EVER had a different experience? Probably not, next topic.

I'm going to open another can of worms here. We know these plaquette devices do not slip or fail under normal conditions. Let's just say one did or the second locking binner failed, whatever. As far as I can tell, the topic of the thread has moved to weather or not you need to keep your break hand on the rope at all times. Simply keeping your hand on the rope is going to do absolutely nothing if the device fails... something to think about.

JF

Despite my heavy tone at times (just teasing about the east coasters, having grown up that way), I do believe that we should question all of our practices and be open to new/other ideas, and be willing to change our methods based on the most accurate information available. Otherwise, we'd still be belaying off our hips ( I still do occasionally) and placing ice screws at a downward angle.

As an AMGA trainer, I'd recommend to keep the brake hands on whenever possible and if not, tie a knot in the brake hand when necessary (like 'walking away'). And of course the reality of two person belaying is that it's not really possible or necessary to keep the brake hands on 'at all times' if everything is rigged correctly, etc.

Interesting question Jeff about things breaking? I guess it'd be a catastrophe, eh? Same with rope breaking, harness, rappel carabiner, etc...

JV- what, no trolling in this forum - it's in your blood! I liked the troll yesterday about nailing the TOFC...might make that thing easier to jam with some good pin scars? You da man...any progress on the JVMGA Manual...can't wait to check it out!

Eli Helmuth wrote: JV- what, no trolling in this forum - it's in your blood! I liked the troll yesterday about nailing the TOFC...might make that thing easier to jam with some good pin scars? You da man...any progress on the JVMGA Manual...can't wait to check it out!

Ha Ha, bored and killing the rainy days up here. It's the thick milk that has settled low in the valley, The milk that sits around for a few days. Not really trolling, just, stirring, and I backed up my TOFC comment with legitimate advice for JOD.

You know I'm not hear that often, so if I am you can assume its weather and just checking in for entertainment value. Been putting up great new routes up here, one of these days you need to check it out. I'm off to France next week for about a month of work, but Eli if your in this neck of the woods this fall you need to come play up this way. It's not bad.

BACK TO TOPIC

I think the Op's Question has been answered multiple times in this Thread, I know I have answered it a few times and so have many others in here. And now like most threads, It has taken turns and brought up some other interesting topics and debates. Open Discussions are great.

So for the OP one more time and anyone else that is not sure

"Tom Grummon
Jul 26, 2010
Out of curiosity how reliable is the auto-block on an ATC Guide?"

VERY RELIABLE!!!!!!!

Used correctly I find it very fool proof. Has anyone EVER had a different experience?

(waiting for anyone to respond...and thereby risk being labeled a fool)