Rope solo near-death experience

While at the rest, preoccupied with changing my plans, I almost forgot to tie the backup. I dropped my head toward the ground to relax and noticed its absence. I tied the knot, not knowing it would save my life.
* * *
As my scream echoed across the desert, I hit the knot, slamming to a stop. I dangled 40 feet above the ground and 8 feet from the cliff, moaning. The rock and sage stared at me, unable to help. I’d neglected to tell even my fiancé where I was. I couldn’t unweight the rope to rig a rappel, and if I did, I couldn’t get the rope down because it was tied to two anchors. 

No, he doesn't mention what device he used. No, he didn't die. He did write an article and decided to quit "soloing".

Most importantly, I should not have been so fixated on plans and goals. Obsession has a downside.

Obsession has many downs including having to tell everyone the ratings of every pitch that you never fall on.

This is a completely useless article. It seems that the author specifically works at not mentioning what device he was using. How are we supposed to learn from this scenario with the most important information? All we can do is guess. My guess, based on past experience, is that he was using a Cinch. I'm glad he didn't die but I would appreciate if he would be open to sharing the relevant information on his setup so as to help prevent other climbers from experiencing a similar situation.

ClimbingOn wrote: This is a completely useless article. It seems that the author specifically works at not mentioning what device he was using. How are we supposed to learn from this scenario with the most important information? All we can do is guess. My guess, based on past experience, is that he was using a Cinch. I'm glad he didn't die but I would appreciate if he would be open to sharing the relevant information on his setup so as to help prevent other climbers from experiencing a similar situation.

I think you missed the point of the narrative. It's not about the technical details, but the larger implications.

You can fuck up with in many ways. The relevant info is that he almost trusted only one piece to keep himself from taking a ~90' fall.

I understand the technical implications of climbing. I understand that backup knots are a good idea and that rope soloing is fraught with risk. I understand that I can fuck up in many ways, and I understand how to take steps to not. I have advanced knowledge of every self-belay device on (and off) the market. What would benefit me specifically is knowing what device he was using that failed to lock. I have personally seen a Cinch slip in a fall, very similar to what was described in the article. I have not seen any other device slip.

The one thing that I could gain from this article, that I perhaps do not already know, is what device is capable of failing in the scenario he describes. As it stands, the article is entirely useless to me. Perhaps it carries useful implications for others, but I was speaking specifically for me, not for others.

You want your money back or something ClimbingOn?

5.Seven Kevin wrote: You want your money back or something ClimbingOn?

I'd settle for not having my comments turned into something they are not. Take them at face value, because that's all they are. There's no hidden meaning or agenda. I find the fact that the author omitted the device used to be less than useful in furthering my understanding of self-belayed climbing.

I agree that the set up should have been stated. He took the time to name the routes and difficulty, therefore he could mention the set up

I have lead and top rope experienceand i cant even tell from the article whichnhe was doing

ClimbingOn wrote:

I'd settle for not having my comments turned into something they are not.

Rob warden The space lizard wrote: I have lead and top rope experienceand i cant even tell from the article whichnhe was doing

He mentions TR solo in the first sentence, and again in the tags.

Dylan B. wrote:

You are, of course, immune to the mistakes the author made. You would never become overconfident and complacent. You would never lose sight of the big picture. So of course the article is of no use to you.

That's not even close to what he's saying. If something doesn't work then the community should be aware of that. If a device failure almost kills someone it should be known how and why. Honestly to me, not mentioning the device sounds more like user error. Backwards loaded grigri or something similar? They should have still mentioned it but maybe didn't want to admit their mistake. Not cool but I'd at least understand that to an extent. 

Whatever device it was apparently auto locks and cant be used for a rappell

So not a cinch or a gri gri

Seems like a reasonable request to ask what device this guy was using.  

Whatever device he was using, when it didn't immediately catch on his previous fall, that probably would have been a good time to reevaluate the system.  In my view, that and the lack of a proper backup is the real lesson here.

Dylan B. wrote:

The author wanted to focus on the mental errors, not the technical errors. Thus, the omission of gear details.

Seems like the technical errors may have been the errors more in play here, however, as the author mentions several times throughout the article that he was fully aware that the system he was using was sub-par. 

I agree it's extremely frustrating they don't mention what device he was using. This article could really benefit someone who rope solos on the same device if they were to mention it. Maybe convince someone to stop using said device if it's unsuited to this purpose...

EDIT: Seeing as the author's a professor of psychology, I understand his angle. I'm merely saying that knowing the technical details is probably more useful, as I doubt anyone is going to read this article and say: "well, guess I should dial my obsession with climbing back." But someone may say: "well, guess I should change my rope solo system up..."

Its Climbingmag... their new readership cant handle technical details. 

Should've tied a kleimheist with that sling instead of messing with a slipping prusik.

After reading and consideration, I agree with ClimbingOn.  On the whole, a useless article.
“Salient” May be in the title, but it’s filled with non salient details while omitting more salient ones.  He’s all over the map.  If at one point he’s congratulating himself -just before the fall -and reflecting on how he’s proud that he overcame his weaknesses (but really strengths ;) then it would appear that his fuckup is much more technical than mental and he’s retro-analyzing it falsely.  At least insofar as you can claim ANY technical issue is first due to some mental issue.  It’s rarely the gear’s fault.

Soloing is legit. No reason to abandon it for dubious reasons.  Yes, He made decision making errors, but not the ones he alludes to at the end.  

I doubt its a conspiracy.

90% its manufacturered by petzl. 

I too would like to know the device used. There are a few out there that have the possibility for user error. Like the micro traxion (used a lot for solo) can be locked in open position. If the device itself failed then that changes the way you should feel about trusting your gear. If it was user error then it should change the way you feel about trusting yourself.