Man falls to his death while rappelling in Zion National Park

Andrew Rice wrote:

A little quick math sheds light on the issue. A normal dynamic climbing rope elongates 10% under static load of 80 Kg. So 300 feet of rope would stretch 30 feet or so. That would lead to a very bouncy rappel, Among other things. A typical "static" rope stretches 1%-3% under the same load. So 3-10 feet of stretch. The rope in question was an Edelweiss model that lists its stretch as 4.5%. So 4.5% of 300 - approximately 15 feet of stretch in the system.

We also don't know how much the individual weighed with their gear. Could have been far in excess of 80 KG. 

These are all good points. Looking at those from a different point of view:

The initially reported rap progress was at 1/3 to 1/2 of ~300 feet. So 15 feet of stretch from a vigorous fireman’s belay is instead 7 to 10 feet. And we know a vigorous belay - somehow immediately applying full body weight (admittedly hard to do without pre planning) - would usually be several times more than needed to arrest the descent.

My intuition is that available rope stretch wasn’t much of a contributor to the accident, not that you meant it was.

I’m still curious what was meant by “strange oscillations” of the rope at the belayer. The Heaps description refers to this rap as being a “free rappel” after the first seven feet. Indicates Justin was free hanging which means any rope movement horizontally or vertically came from Justin’s movements against perhaps pull-down effort by the belayer. A rap rope swaying side to side would not be strange.

Bill Lawry wrote:

My intuition is that available rope stretch wasn’t much of a contributor to the accident, not that you meant it was.

Hey Bill, 

As I said above, I don't know enough about these devices and techniques to be sure, but my hunch is that rope stretch was an important factor.

Let's say the man started his descent.  At that time, there would be little stretch in the rope, and the person holding the rope below could provide an adequate fireman's belay.  

Then, as the man descended, the rope began to stretch about him.  That would create slack in the rope below him, and the person on the ground would have to very quickly take in a rope to maintain a belay.  I'm not talking about body weight or any real tension.  It's possible that the person on the ground would have to be taking in rope hand-over-hand just to keep slack out of the system. 

If/when the man lost control of the rappel device, there was likely a great deal of slack below, and so no fireman's belay was possible. 

Now, as to loosing control, as others have pointed out, and pictures of the decice show, there are different ways to rig it with different places to loop rope and add friction.  The description of the accident seems to indicate that something happened or the man noticed something he wanted to change.  Maybe something was stuck, or caught, or not opriented correctlly, or about to slip.  Somewhere in the process of making an adjustment or correction, it sounds to me like the rope or device slipped from one orientation to another, resulting in a sudden loss of friction, and the man could no longer control the descent.  And because there was so much slack in the system below, the belayer could not provide a fireman's belay.  

That's how I read it. 

The strange oscilations are probably the result of the tension and forces in the rope above transmitted through a long section of slack rope, sort of like cracking a whip, or a steel cable snapping, or the devise catching and slipping, as others have mentioned.  I could definitely see these things resulting in oscilations or resonance. 

I do wonder why it was impossible to release tension on the rope after the accident.  Perhaps the people below did not feel comfortable moving the man because they thought it would be better to leave everything as it was for an investigation.  Also, even if they had been able to free the rope, it sounds like the people above did not feel confortable descending.  

Hi, Bruno.

I agree with most everything you said.  The exception would be that slack might have been allowed to build up at the foot of the rap.  From the report:

"Justin requested a belay for the final 290’ free-hang rappel over the radio. A member of our group stood at attention and confirmed they were on belay. "

and

"Our belayer reported noticing his trouble and tightening up on the belay"

Edit to add:

The report and a couple of your other comments make a plausible case that whipping of the rope from combined belayer and rappeler actions may have caused a kind of fumble so to speak during attempts to adjust or correct for the amount of friction.  Perhaps there was an unintended and unexpected release of a loop or two.  One of Justin's team mates made a comment in the report that implied to me that Justin started off with an extra loop(s) for friction.

I can be slow on the uptake.  My apologies if I'm just repeating things already in the report or mentioned / understood by folks here.

Bruno Schull wrote:

I do wonder why it was impossible to release tension on the rope after the accident.  Perhaps the people below did not feel comfortable moving the man because they thought it would be better to leave everything as it was for an investigation.  Also, even if they had been able to free the rope, it sounds like the people above did not feel confortable descending.  

Post traumatic injury, there is often caution to not move someone least doing so injures them further - you probably understand.  And it is unclear precisely when he passed.  Hard to say in this circumstance what the concerns were.  And it did read that the comfort level of the ones remaining to rap was understandably low.  My read of the report is that once the tension was resolved it was dark.  After discussion of experience levels, the SAR advise was to stay put.

coming purely from a climbing perspective and knowing extremely little about canyoneering, i highly recommend going down the rabbit hole that is offered in the accident analysis - bottom/fireman's belay test

there are a number of things that stood out (in what i thought was a well done experiment):

1.) 8 out of 10 tests 'failed'!  those are some pretty poor odds...

2.) there are some interesting hypothesis in the summary section

i'm wondering if using some sort of 'grab' other than hands (eg prussik connected to rope and belayer body) would allow better breaking on the belayer end

looking at the kong hydrobot i would say that the amount of friction it generates once the additional wrap on top is lost (which seems woefully easy to pop off) is significantly less than a regular tube style belay device in climbing (eg bd atc, etc.) in hard brake mode (ie what is [should be] normally used in free hanging/steep/loaded rappels).

while i can certainly understand the (previously made) argument that not all situations in canyoneering are favorable for having a 'third hand' back-up (eg potential water immersion/entrapment), i can't really find anything in this accident report/situation that would warrant NOT using a self-backup/third hand (as seen from a climbing perspective).  could someone more familiar with canyoneering shed any light on this?

From the accident report; "When Justin was about 100’ into the rappel (approximately 200’ off the deck), both his teammate and our belayer noted that Justin appeared to be adjusting his device and “kicking his leg.” Our belayer reported noticing his trouble and tightening up on the belay, despite what they described as “strange oscillation” in the rope."

My take from this is that the Kong Hydrobot was in a low friction configuration early in  the rappel and then Justin was trying to add friction with more wraps but could not due to the tension from the fireman's below. I can imagine Justin trying to bounce to get slack in the dead side to get the extra wrap.  This is pure speculation on my part. Some experimentation with the device and the rope that was used might yield insight. I need to go back through the posts to see if the rope used was specified.

I agree with Bill above. I believe the “ slack” for the belayer here is a red herring and has little to nothing to do with the actual root cause.   The Slack buildup rate in a 100 ft of rappel on a static rope is trivial.   Been doing Fireman belays for 35 years in military, fire service, and recreational climbing.  Something different happened here. 

The report (as far as I gleaned) doesn’t specify the rope diameter or whether single or double rope for the rappel.  Based on description of yellow Edelweiss Canyon rope it seems it could be 9.6 or 10mm.   Let’s say worst case it was 9.6mm and most probably single rope rappel.  

Then his initial rappel would be rigged something like this…

seems a “Fireman’s” belay with this device is less than ideal.   A full hard pull would tend to rotate the device and potentially pull off the extra friction wraps. (The vibrations felt on the line?) At very least, any attempt to add friction wraps would be fighting your belayer.

I have no experience with this particular device, but it seems something else had to go wrong for a free fall to begin with about 200’ of rope (with or without a belayer pulling ) hanging below you.   I generally prefer “looser” belay devices and skinny ropes and I’m at a near hands free dead stop with that much rope below me.  

It seems the most probable scenario here was potentially that Fireman’s belay and Kong Hydrobots don’t mix well, but somehow the struggle between the rappeler and the belayer to add back friction resulted in a “perfect storm” of dynamic loss of rope control from both simultaneously that was able to initiate the free fall which couldn’t be recovered from.  

As always, I’ll plug learning minimal WFR skills to be better prepared when shit goes south quickly.

Also, side note:   the leader of the group doesn’t usually go down first.  

old5ten wrote:

coming purely from a climbing perspective and knowing extremely little about canyoneering, i highly recommend going down the rabbit hole that is offered in the accident analysis - bottom/fireman's belay test

there are a number of things that stood out (in what i thought was a well done experiment):

1.) 8 out of 10 tests 'failed'!  those are some pretty poor odds...

2.) there are some interesting hypothesis in the summary section

And none of those ten tests went less four bars on the brake bar rack. And all tests with four bars failed.

A Kong hydrobot with no wraps looks to me akin to three bars … though I have experience with neither it nor a brake bar rack. And it is a bit of a stretch to compare that way.

Interesting stuff...seems like my initial interpretation about rope stretch was likely wrong.

Thanks for the informative and respectful discussion. 

B

old5ten wrote:

coming purely from a climbing perspective and knowing extremely little about canyoneering, i highly recommend going down the rabbit hole that is offered in the accident analysis - bottom/fireman's belay test

there are a number of things that stood out (in what i thought was a well done experiment):

1.) 8 out of 10 tests 'failed'!  those are some pretty poor odds...

2.) there are some interesting hypothesis in the summary section

i'm wondering if using some sort of 'grab' other than hands (eg prussik connected to rope and belayer body) would allow better breaking on the belayer end

looking at the kong hydrobot i would say that the amount of friction it generates once the additional wrap on top is lost (which seems woefully easy to pop off) is significantly less than a regular tube style belay device in climbing (eg bd atc, etc.) in hard brake mode (ie what is [should be] normally used in free hanging/steep/loaded rappels).

I'm stunned. Thank you for the test results, I'd always felt super confident I'd be 100% giving a firemans belay....thank you for correcting my false belief. Great link old5ten.  https://verticalsection.caves.org/nh/49/bottblay.html

Mark Pilate wrote:

I agree with Bill above. I believe the “ slack” for the belayer here is a red herring and has little to nothing to do with the actual root cause.   The Slack buildup rate in a 100 ft of rappel on a static rope is trivial.   Been doing Fireman belays for 35 years in military, fire service, and recreational climbing.  Something different happened here. 

I just want to be very clear what I was saying, since we're talking about a death here and because, I'm sure, the belayer and other witnesses/companions/family members are also dealing with a lot of grief. I'm not saying that slack in the rope was a PRIMARY cause of the accident. The primary cause, by definition, was the rappel being rigged without adequate friction in the system. A fireman's belay, also by definition, is just a backup safety mechanism.

Clearly the primary cause is that either the initial rappel was rigged without enough friction or something happened mid-rap like the rope popping off the additional friction wraps of that device.

My point about rope stretch is that I don't think anyone giving a bottom belay is going to be able to add enough additional force, BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF ROPE INVOLVED, to add enough friction to the already-failing rappel device. Also worth noting and always remembering that a "fireman's belay" is really a safeguard against inexperienced rappellers who might panic or lose control, but it's unlikely to overcome a defective rappel setup.

I think that link to the study of bottom belays at that bridge in West Virginia says it really well, "Excluding all other factors a rappeller will always be able to brake or stop if they have enough friction rigged. And a bottom belayer will always be able to perform a bottom belay if there is enough friction in the system. If a rappeller can't stop or a bottom belayer can't stop them, then there is not enough friction in the system."

Also, re. people not using 3rd hands in canyoneering rappels where water is involved: That makes sense in waterfalls and going into water, but the final Heaps Canyon rap is totally dry all the way. It lands on a literal pebble beach beside the emerald pools. There's no safety reason one could not or should not have been used on this particular rap. 

I just want to point out that the Bridge Day tests were pretty extreme compared to the circumstances of this accident (i.e., THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A BOTTOM BELAY ON LONG DROPS by Jim Kovach).

The test set up allowed the mass to fall for two seconds before the bottom belayer was allowed to attempt to arrest the fall.  For a free fall, that results in speeds above 40 mph.

In the case of this accident, the bottom belayer was actively managing slack from stretch and more before the “free fall” started.  Very different. And to be clear myself, it seems likely that the bottom belayer was doing everything they were asked to do as best they could under the circumstances.

As to the most likely cause of the accident, I’ll refer back to Mark’s description of the perfect storm here. - a touch of overconfidence that a fireman’s belay could make up for circumstances not imagined or thought possible by the rappeller; circumstances that likely arose as both the belayer and the rappeller struggled to add friction. In short, pilot error of which most of us have the potential. 

To start: There but for the grace of God go I.

I’m gathering that adding friction with this device requires that a fireman’s belay not be used as it prevents lifting the brake strand to add friction, or perhaps in this situation to add back friction that was somehow dropped.

To the bridge tests: A 2 second delay for effective reaction and response seems about normal.

In this case, did the leader go down first because the others had even less understanding of the processes for adding friction?

It appears from the dimensions of the hydrobot’s keeper hook that some bizarre reason related to weight resulted in a completely defective device.

Certainly my condolences to the family and friends of the deceased.

This tragic event has raised some really interesting food for thought and further study/analysis on long rappels (especially more for cavers and canyoneers who use devices not typical in the climbing world)

• I’d re-think the use of stainless steel brake bars for long single rope rappels.  They’re durable, but less effective. 
• Don’t like the rope geometry (angles) compared to an ATC style.  I wouldn’t use one, but if I did, it’d have 6 bars.
• Jim Titt I believe has some past data/studies of SS belay devices being less effective (or perhaps I’m mis-remembering)
• The bridge test study was a good attempt and “first pass”, but the DOE didn’t really isolate the key variables and wasn’t really clear on the full procedures (ex: details around the initial conditions/tensioning in the rope above and below the weight when it was released at time zero….and Did the belayers move laterally from their initial position, or just use hands from a stationary position to try and catchup).  
• I think allowing 2 secs of free fall is a bit much. Id hesitate to draw any conclusions from the test other than if you are giving such a belay, definitely pay attention! 
• The Hydrobot is a unique animal and needs more study to say anything definitive in the tragic situation at hand.  

Billcoe wrote:

I'm stunned. Thank you for the test results, I'd always felt super confident I'd be 100% giving a firemans belay....thank you for correcting my false belief. Great link old5ten.  https://verticalsection.caves.org/nh/49/bottblay.html

Apologies if this is obvious- It's important to recognize that the efficacy of a fireman's belay will vary greatly from one type/style of device to another.   I spent a lot of time using brake racks in my first few years of SAR and a brake rack in particular is not well suited for an effective fireman's belay. For anyone not super familiar with brake racks, the "emergency brake" position, sorta like with a munter, is pulling up toward the loaded strand- which causes the bars to squeeze together and dramatically increase friction.  A fireman's belay will make that movement impossible for the user.  Sure, if the person on rappel is unconscious then a fireman's belay on a brake rack is better than nothing.  I personally don't know any rock climbers use a brake rack style device, so don't throw in the towel on the fireman's belay- assuming you and your partners primarily use tube style devices. 

But it is worth questioning and mentally dissecting any system we've been using for a while.  I suspect many folks don't really understand how much stretch a modern 9.skinny rope will have in the event you need to use a fireman's belay on a tube style rappel and how that needs to be planned for- especially on mutlipitch rappels where you can just grab the belay strand and leap down slope 20' to engage a fireman's belay.

The Hydrobot in particular looks to operate differently than a traditional brake rack (as used in the Kovach experiment).  It has only one sliding brake bar and relies on the user to add wraps externally to dial in the friction.  Mark's suggestion seem very plausible- that the Hydrobot and a fireman's belay are also not well suited for each other given the setup and geometry of that device.  It honestly seems very odd that the horns on the Hyrdobot are so minimal. Speculation- so much so that the rope could get pulled off the horns by a fireman's belay- effecitvely reducing friction in the system rather than adding it.  I'm used to a Scarab, which has much more restricting horns that really capture the external wraps.

Mr Rogers wrote:

In canyoneering, when in water obstacles, many times you would NOT want a 3rd hand. It can be deadly to do so.
Just pointing out that canyoneering is a different sport than climbing so your advice is solid for the climbing space, but not accurate for canyoneering space.

As pointed out earlier in the thread, this particular rap was totally dry. While I wouldn’t identify as a canyoneer per se, I have done a bit of easy canyoneering and rubbed elbows with some “Canyoneers”. One thing I have noticed as a bit of a trend amongst that community is a tendency towards a dogmatic approach and lack of emphasis on application: the right technique and the right time. I’ve been with “Canyoneers” in a totally dry canyon that refused to use a third hand for the exact same reason stated above. Which begs the question: given that we know there is no flowing water below us, which is a more appropriate technique: a third hand that could prevent loss of control of the rap and subsequent decking, or the ability to easily escape the rappel in the non-existent raging river below?

A tragic accident, my condolences to the friends and family. A good reminder to consider the proper application of tools (much has been said on the specific device and ropes) and technique to provide the most margin of safety given the terrain and conditions.

Tim N wrote:

As pointed out earlier in the thread, this particular rap was totally dry. While I wouldn’t identify as a canyoneer per se, I have done a bit of easy canyoneering and rubbed elbows with some “Canyoneers”. One thing I have noticed as a bit of a trend amongst that community is a tendency towards a dogmatic approach and lack of emphasis on application: the right technique and the right time. I’ve been with “Canyoneers” in a totally dry canyon that refused to use a third hand for the exact same reason stated above. Which begs the question: given that we know there is no flowing water below us, which is a more appropriate technique: a third hand that could prevent loss of control of the rap and subsequent decking, or the ability to easily escape the rappel in the non-existent raging river below?

A tragic accident, my condolences to the friends and family. A good reminder to consider the proper application of tools (much has been said on the specific device and ropes) and technique to provide the most margin of safety given the terrain and conditions.

I was not saying anything that had to do with this particular accident. So to offer clarity...
The advice to ALWAYS have a 3rd hand is not relevant when applying it to a different sport.
It can be dangerous in canyoneering and it has its place in canyoneering. Making that judgement comes down to experience, knowledge, situation, etc etc.

i've been thinking about this a bit more and want to touch on a couple of points:

is two seconds a long time in terms of reaction for a fireman's/bottom belay?  

if we think on a purely physiological basis, we're talking about (in basic terms) signal transmission to the brain, interpretation by the brain, signal transmission back from the brain to muscles, and muscle activation.  under the best of circumstances, (visual) reaction time is about 0.3 to 0.4 seconds and that is 'very' fast (ie full anticipation and lots of practice/'muscle memory'). so, 2 seconds is about five to six times that.  seemingly a fairly long time.  

now let's say that we substitute the (very common, think arc/bls timing) 'one-one thousand, two-one thousand' as a measure of time for two seconds.  if we apply that to a rappelling scenario, ie something happening high above us, is it really that far fetched?  we're not holding the fireman's tightly initially, we have to recognize that our rappeller is in trouble, and we have to tighten our grip, then generate enough force to stop.

while 2 seconds may appear to be a 'long' time, it actually seems quite reasonable for a test scenario.

- a second (and more important than reaction time) point relates to the friction in the system.  in some ways we're thinking of the third hand, etc. as a 'fail safe.'  something happens with the rappel device and the back-up prevents us from going to the ground.  

in reality it really behooves us to think about the rappel device, the back-up, and the combination of the two.  

in terms of a rappel device this seems (or should seem) quite obvious, but how many times have i reminded someone with an atc that that low angle rap in high friction mode is going to be a jerk fest or that free hanging rap in low friction mode is going to be hard to control and potentially have adverse consequences. 

the same is applicable to back ups.  howNOT2 came up with a really nice video a few years back that is quite eye opening: prusiks, auto blocks, and kleimheist break tests - note how some back ups slide and some actually work better. obviously there's always the number of wraps, the diameter differences, etc., but there are also inherent differences that many people aren't aware of/don't consider.

in this accident it seems that it was the combination of rappel device and back up that failed - not enough friction in the device and not enough ability to generate force on the fireman's (to overcome the lack of friction up above).  btw i'm NOT saying that whoever provided back up that day is at fault, to me they were tasked with an impossibility.  

it would be interesting to perform the bridge tests with an atc vs a brake bar setup.  

Does anyone have a first hand anecdote of using a fireman's belay to stop an out of control rappel?  In an actual emergency, not as an exercise.

To me, the point of the belay is to not allow it to get out of control.  I can’t say I ever stopped a 2 sec freefall, but I’ve stopped several people who I thought were going too fast to check on their status and re-calibrate.  

To me the key details from the bridge test is not so much the time (though I still think it’s too long), but how/when the release occurred and the weight transfer between the two rope systems.   My reading/interpretation of the test report seemed to indicate that the weight was held and released (remote electronics) by the haul line, starting the 2 second countdown.  

This initial condition (if true) would essentially impart a very sudden transfer (shock load) to the rap line and create an accelerated starting point at “Time 0” for 2 secs compared to more typical “normal conditions” where the weight would  be released from the haul line and then held statically for a bit on the rap line prior to slack release on the rap line at Time 0 simulating loss of grip.  

To me, to properly interpret the results, the devil is in the details (unknown) on the procedures used in the test.  

I would bet good money that an ATC style device would out-perform a 4-5 bar brake bar or a hydrobot in a repeat test.  

Cocoapuffs 1000 wrote:

Does anyone have a first hand anecdote of using a fireman's belay to stop an out of control rappel?  In an actual emergency, not as an exercise.

Not me really. Still, I once talked my wife into letting me control her ATC rappel with a fireman’s belay.

We started with me fully braked and she let go. No problem.

As I relaxed the brake-strand tension, I recall surprise at how much I was having to go without any descent on her part.

Then she literally started to free fall. which of course alarmed us both.

This was more than a decade ago.  She went 5 or 10 feet before I reacted enough to stop her.

I’ve never been enthusiastic about the reliability  of a fireman’s belay. I have similar doubts about a third hand though the Sterling HollowBlock impresses me - though not meaning to derail from the question.