A PSA on belay gloves and brake hands

A belay device does not make someone a good belayer..none of them. practice and paying attention makes some one a good belayer.

And the palm up on the brake hand ???

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote: I generally don't take any issue with what you say. The above is misinformed and the exact technique you're talking about has caused accidents with the grigri. In fact, it was one of their original warnings on the device 20 years ago. Think about it, a firm grip above the device will lessen the force below the rope. This force isn't enough to activate the cam and it just keeps slipping. The fall usually stops when the belayer burns his hand and lets go.

If you're holding the brake it will ALWAYS engage the cam.

Slap a GriGri onto your harness and then ask your partner to slowly pull rope. If you have any kind of grip on the brake strand it will lock the device.

What you're talking about has happened many times and is a true concern but is a result of not holding the brake and firmly clutching the climbers side.

If you think about it, 'GriGri panic mode' should be 'just let go of everything'. Petzl is definitely NOT going to endorse this.

Eric Carlos wrote: I am not going to argue with you as you are not understanding logic. .

easy dude. I'm asking a question, no reason to be an asshole. you keep saying whats wrong without saying what would be correct. if you don't know, or don't know how to explain it in text, feel free to keep quiet. the posts below you obviously feel theres more to it than your condescending point of view.

JRZane wrote: easy dude. I'm asking a question, no reason to be an asshole. you keep saying whats wrong without saying what would be correct. if you don't know, or don't know how to explain it in text, feel free to keep quiet. the posts below you obviously feel theres more to it than your condescending point of view.

What would be correct is to always have the rope locked off in the belay device except when feeding. Brake hand below the ATC.

john strand wrote:And the palm up on the brake hand ???

I hate those palm up belayers...

JRZane wrote: easy dude. I'm asking a question, no reason to be an asshole. you keep saying whats wrong without saying what would be correct. if you don't know, or don't know how to explain it in text, feel free to keep quiet. the posts below you obviously feel theres more to it than your condescending point of view.

He said what's correct. You're not reading it. It seems like you don't understand that your belayer didn't have a rope in the brake position. You correct that by having the rope in brake position unless you're feeding in or taking out slack.

rocknice2 wrote: Unless he had 3 feet worth of slack between his non-brake hand and the ATC, I don't see how he would have burned that hand. Unless he dropped you. Or are you saying that as you dropped the rope in hand, to form a large amount of slack at the base of the route. He then grabbed the rope above the slack.

of course I wasn't a witness to exactly what happened on his end, but from what I gathered from our discussion:

1. he shorted me just a touch on my initial clipping attempt (I was reaching pretty high above my head to clip.)

2. As he was taking another arm length of rope through the device to give me more slack, I fell.

3. He said his initial movement was taking steps back (reasonably flat belay area), so yes, I'm assuming there was considerable slack between the device and his off-hand. 3ft? maybe not THAT much.

Thanks- I've gotten a lot out this already. keep em comin.

ebmudder wrote: What would be correct is to always have the rope locked off in the belay device except when feeding. Brake hand below the ATC.

Bill Kirby wrote: He said what's correct. You're not reading it. It seems like you don't understand that your belayer didn't have a rope in the brake position. You correct that by having the rope in brake position unless you're feeding in or taking out slack.

I get all that. but IT WAS during feeding. his brake hand WAS in brake position. It was the slack between the device and his off-hand (the one that got burned) that I'm asking about.

This was all in the initial description.

To your question of "[I] have yet to hear specific solutions. i.e. how would there not be enough slack in the rope to burn during a fall if the belayer is paying out during a clip?"

Paying out to clip would put slack between the belayer's top hand and the climber. To get a rope burn, your belayer either had slack between top hand and the ATC or there wasn't slack and it was a bad/no brake lock off situation.

dp- wrote:To your question of "[I] have yet to hear specific solutions. i.e. how would there not be enough slack in the rope to burn during a fall if the belayer is paying out during a clip?" Paying out to clip would put slack between the belayer's top hand and the climber. To get a rope burn, your belayer either had slack between top hand and the ATC or there wasn't slack and it was a bad/no brake lock off situation.

correct. so in a situation where the belayer is praying the climber makes the clip (as I'm sure the climber is too) whats the solution for keeping no slack between the device and the offhand while remaining in brake? sounds like the offhand would be pulling upwards towards the climber being stopped by the belay device which is also being pulled down by the brake hand?

the reason i think there was a good brake is his brake hand had zero injury.

As the climber, you could have potentially helped the situation by trying for a higher clipping stance. I don't know the route so discount accordingly. There's always less rope out when you clip at your waist.

JRZane wrote:In doing so, his non-brake hand was on the rope ABOVE the ATC.

climbing friend,

only a terrible belayer would be getting rope burns. in fact rope burns are, yes, myah, almost certainly proof that they are inexperienced / terrible at belaying.

the only problem is that they get quite scared and death grip the climbers side of rope, possibly while not locking off the brake strand quickly and properly.

do not be death gripping the climbers side of the rope and you will not get burn

CR701 wrote:As the climber, you could have potentially helped the situation by trying for a higher clipping stance. I don't know the route so discount accordingly. There's always less rope out when you clip at your waist.

agreed. if you look at the pic of the route, you can't even see the clip I missed bc its tucked up over top the lip. Not the best bolting location (in my ignorant opinion) bc you are essentially in the middle of the crux move right there. and the draw lays awkwardly on rock where as putting the bolt on the face of the overhanging section would protect the route and have it nicely hanging into space. but I'm not a bolter so theres prob an explanation for this.

I knew I was already far above the last clip, was tired after climbing prob 20 routes throughout the day and was already feeling the pump. Certainly didn't help the situation.

JRZane wrote: I get all that. but IT WAS during feeding. his brake hand WAS in brake position. It was the slack between the device and his off-hand (the one that got burned) that I'm asking about. This was all in the initial description.

Based on your description of the length of the fall, and the burning of his hand, your belayer allowed a good deal of rope to feed through the belay device before catching you.

Even if he pulled 3' of rope through the device after shorting you, his hand should still have been outstretched on the rope 3' away from the ATC. If it was locked off, nothing (or very little) would have payed out, and he would likely not have burned his hand.

If he had slid his hand back towards the belay device, the same thing would have happened (no burn). If he stepped backward to take some slack out same result.

If for some reason he let go of the rope and picked up some length of it more than an arm's length away from the belay device, theoretically that would allow a good deal to slip through his grasp before the ATC caught the fall...but that's a hypothetical that doesn't make much sense in reality.

I think you have to accept that the belayer is not remembering what happened. More likely than not they let go of the brake strand for some reason, tried to stop the fall with their non-brake hand, and luckily for you, cranked down on the brake strand at the last second.

Even when feeding or taking in rope on lead, the belayer doesn't need to have the brake hand high above the device, and if they do that to feed rope quickly, they just as quickly need to bring their hand back down. The non-brake hand isn't really involved that much except to assist feeding out rope, not taking in or assisting the catch.

It's embarrassing for the belayer when this happens, and they may imagine something occurred to excuse the mistake. We don't have any more details than what you've provided, so there are hypotheticals that could lead to what happened. For example the rope could be so thick and fuzzy, the only way the belayer could feed it was to completely release the braking function of the ATC, and not recovering quickly enough.

Similarly the rope could be too thin for the device, and it slipped a lot so the belayer attempted to grab on with the non-brake hand to assist. The correct technique, however, would be to let go of the non-brake strand, bring the non-brake hand beneath the brake hand and grab the brake strand with both hands. I can sympathize with an inexperienced belayer panicking and trying to hold both ends of the rope, but as others have noted, this is not correct technique.

JRZane wrote: of course I wasn't a witness to exactly what happened on his end, but from what I gathered from our discussion: 1. he shorted me just a touch on my initial clipping attempt (I was reaching pretty high above my head to clip.)

Although the fact that he had rope burns on his non-break hand is fairly definitive proof that the belayer was mainly to blame for this (near) accident, I would say you didn't do yourself any favors by clipping so far above your head. I would recommend against doing this unless you're at an absolutely solid stance, because as you saw, the consequences for failure are pretty severe. I don't know the route, but the chances are on a 5.9 you probably could have run it out a bit more and clipped from your waist. Although it feels scarier, this is actually safer because the belayer doesn't have to take as much slack out, and it's much less strenuous to clip.

That being said, your belayer needs to work on his catching instincts. He should never have gotten rope burn on his non-break hand because it shouldn't have been on that side of the rope in the event of a fall. As others have said, practice falling and catching in a gym. As soon as a person falls, your instinct should be to bring the break hand down and move the non-break hand below it to support. Holding onto the climber's end of the rope in the event of a fall is poor technique.

Also, stepping backwards is a bad instinct as well. Although it'll feel like you're taking in slack (this does work for regular belaying), in the event of a fall, you're just going to get dragged further toward the first bolt.

Your belayer moving backwards probably didn't do you any favors. That would take slack out of the rope. The rope angle also helps explains the belayer being lifted off the ground. It might be that after backing up, your belayer took a couple of steps forward and then grabbed high on the rope, putting slack between the top hand and the ATC.

You might want a 3rd person to evaluate/coach this particular belayer while you're climbing(and/or provide a backup belay). It's not something that can be fixed with a gri-gri or gloves.

I don't think the burns had anything to do with the device, and I don't think the belayer deserves the criticism. It is always comforting to try to blame someone when things go wrong, but things can happen without someone being at fault. The same thing would have happened with a Grigri, but the analysis of the incident is more definite with an ATC.

An ATC was used, the brake hand was unscathed, but the non-brake hand burnt, indicating that no rope ran through the device. So what happened is that, at the instant of the fall, the belayer had pulled in slack with the non-brake hand but had not yet pulled all of it through the device. The remaining slack between the non-brake hand and the device was then pulled back through the non-brake hand by the fall, causing the burns.

This is an issue that could happened to the most experienced of belayers. The slack from the blown clip had to be taken in, but the fall happened before all of it was pulled through. This is not a situation where the belayer should have had his non-brake hand off the rope---unless the strategy is to let the leader fall the extra distance created by the slack from the blown clip.

Maybe better awareness/faster reactions/higher degree of coordination from the belayer could have prevented this. More effectively, the leader could have seen the handwriting on the wall sooner and given the belayer more time to get the slack out of the rope, perhaps by not trying the third clip after two had failed. But I'd put the incident in the "shit happens" category.

The main message: next time use those gloves.

rgold wrote:I don't think the burns had anything to do with the device, and I don't think the belayer deserves the criticism. It is always comforting to try to blame someone when things go wrong, but things can happen without someone being at fault. The same thing would have happened with a Grigri, but the analysis of the incident is more definite with an ATC. An ATC was used, the brake hand was unscathed, but the non-brake hand burnt, indicating that no rope ran through the device. So what happened is that, at the instant of the fall, the belayer had pulled in slack with the non-brake hand but had not yet pulled all of it through the device. The remaining slack between the non-brake hand and the device was then pulled back through the non-brake hand by the fall, causing the burns. This is an issue that could happened to the most experienced of belayers. The slack from the blown clip had to be taken in, but the fall happened before all of it was pulled through. This is not a situation where the belayer should have had his non-brake hand off the rope---unless the strategy is to let the leader fall the extra distance created by the slack from the blown clip. Maybe better awareness/faster reactions/higher degree of coordination from the belayer could have prevented this. More effectively, the leader could have seen the handwriting on the wall sooner and given the belayer more time to get the slack out of the rope, perhaps by not trying the third clip after two had failed. But I'd put the incident in the "shit happens" category. The main message: next time use those gloves.

Thank you. All great points with plenty of things to focus and work on. The posts above you were very helpful as well. Thank you all for taking the time to type up such thoughtful and experienced responses.

As some wise old geezah says above ....

Was there burns on the BRAKE hand??

If not then it does suggest thr the brake hand was in the locked position, especially on a fal of that magnitude, and that wasnt the issue

In which case the belayer had too much slack out .... Which a grigri wouldnt solve

What the belayer needs to do in that case is to lock off (which they did if theres no burns on the brake) and drop to the ground or run back ... Which to be fair is easier with a grigri

In this case the burn on the non brake were not due to a belay lock failure ...

;)

rgold wrote:I don't think the burns had anything to do with the device, and I don't think the belayer deserves the criticism. It is always comforting to try to blame someone when things go wrong, but things can happen without someone being at fault. The same thing would have happened with a Grigri, but the analysis of the incident is more definite with an ATC. An ATC was used, the brake hand was unscathed, but the non-brake hand burnt, indicating that no rope ran through the device. So what happened is that, at the instant of the fall, the belayer had pulled in slack with the non-brake hand but had not yet pulled all of it through the device. The remaining slack between the non-brake hand and the device was then pulled back through the non-brake hand by the fall, causing the burns. This is an issue that could happened to the most experienced of belayers. The slack from the blown clip had to be taken in, but the fall happened before all of it was pulled through. This is not a situation where the belayer should have had his non-brake hand off the rope---unless the strategy is to let the leader fall the extra distance created by the slack from the blown clip. Maybe better awareness/faster reactions/higher degree of coordination from the belayer could have prevented this. More effectively, the leader could have seen the handwriting on the wall sooner and given the belayer more time to get the slack out of the rope, perhaps by not trying the third clip after two had failed. But I'd put the incident in the "shit happens" category. The main message: next time use those gloves.

But that's not the scenario that was described. The OP said he had been shorted trying to clip, and the belayer then pulled out more rope to enable the clip. Since the climber didn't make the clip, why would the belayer have pulled the slack back in? You may be right that he did so as the climber started to fall, and didn't have time to pull in more slack with the brake hand, but that is still an inappropriate belay technique and led to his hand being burned. Gloves or no gloves, correct technique would have protected the belayer and the climber, who nearly grounded.