Mussy Hook Unclipped While Lowering

Didn't see how it happened, but the mussy hooks were installed both gates facing out of the wall, and I was finishing my lead coming up to the anchor, and I twisted both inward maybe 45 degrees so that I could clip them facing opposite directions. As I was getting lowered and cleaning, there was a pop, I dropped a few feet, and looked up to see myself now on only one mussy hook. It was raining and the anchors at the top were exposed to it, so maybe more rope slippage, with the slight twist under tension helped the rope slip up and press the gate open? 

Was it because I tried to set them up opposite facing? Is that wrong for this reason? Why aren't mussy hooks set up to begin with facing opposite directions, one gate into the wall, one out? 

I also remember reading an accident, I forget the details, but something like where a climber was top roping and trying to clean, and was too high on an anchor with long chains and mussy hooks, and dropped onto the mussy hooks, both unclipped, and the climber hit the deck and perished. Is this relevant? My thought is that if the mussies are opposite facing, having your waist above the lowest parts of the anchor isn't a fatal mistake?

AlpineSavvy Article

Mussy hooks give a false sense of security because they have a gate, but the gate isn't really functional.

Yes, it was because you twisted them and tried to make them be reversed and opposed they should just both be pointing out from the rock

Grant Tobinwrote:

AlpineSavvy Article

Thanks for the article. A few questions. 

1. One of the ASCA quotes in the article is "If the hooks are placed in very overhanging terrain this [nose issue of rock abrasion] ceases to be a problem, but the opposition of the hooks still causes more friction on ropes and the hooks themselves." Is this really true?
2. Why is the standard for lower offs these repurposed tow hooks, as I understand from the linked HowNot2 video? Why not those perfectly symmetric old style oval carabiners, which probably wouldn't abrade the rock the way the nose of those hooks do, and wouldn't wear themselves or the rope as fast due to asymmetries? Is it an economic decision? 
3. Seems strange to get behind climbing protection that has this specific odd restriction about where your hips should be. Is the 72 kN per mussy really necessary in exchange for the strange body position restriction? There are a number of scenarios I can think of, where you are on a ledge, or you kept climbing higher, or you are just shorter, or there's just a really appealing jug or ledge to grab up high, and somehow your hips end can end up above the mussies. Maybe it's just me, but there's something oddly idiosyncratic about the condition that there is this one piece of gear you shouldn't climb above. I've also seen mussy hooks on multi pitches, like 7 pitches up, and more commonly on single pitch climbs with a second pitch extension, which makes this mindset flip even stranger.

Sounds like by forcefully being twisted it essentially behaved like a backclip. When loaded it twisted back and caused part of the rope to press across the gate, opening it and letting everything fly out. Maybe exacerbated by the load varying. 

Would be hard to guarantee without witnessing it or recreating it. 

Larry Morganwrote:

Sounds like by forcefully being twisted it essentially behaved like a backclip. When loaded it twisted back and caused part of the rope to press across the gate, opening it and letting everything fly out.

I’ve seen this exact thing happen. It makes me wonder if long chains should be avoided when using hooks? Obviously cheaper/lower visual impact too, if the rock allows for it. 

Why would you twist them? First off if your hammering on TR, toss in your own equipment to save some wear… respect the crag. Second, just a mere locker in the system even if using the mussy’s solves this problem. I’m sure that’s what the article states.

In all seriousness though, putting things into “tension” to try to create something is basic 101 of what not to do. When you clip into things, makes sure they are true and plumb.

mussy hooks are great until they are not. Using them responsibly and with more education is a must. I am always an advocate to play with your gear. Take it to a crag, build a little anchored setup at home, use a tree or tie up your kids. Play with it. Get familiar, try many types of scenarios to make sure you are competent in what you are doing. Climbing isn’t golf. When you have a bad day, you can’t slam a 6 pack and punch the wall in the clubhouse. You’re going home with some damage at best. 

Redacted Redactbergwrote:

Thanks for the article. A few questions. 

1. One of the ASCA quotes in the article is "If the hooks are placed in very overhanging terrain this [nose issue of rock abrasion] ceases to be a problem, but the opposition of the hooks still causes more friction on ropes and the hooks themselves." Is this really true?
2. Why is the standard for lower offs these repurposed tow hooks, as I understand from the linked HowNot2 video? Why not those perfectly symmetric old style oval carabiners, which probably wouldn't abrade the rock the way the nose of those hooks do, and wouldn't wear themselves or the rope as fast due to asymmetries? Is it an economic decision? 
3. Seems strange to get behind a climbing pro that has this specific odd restriction about where your hips should be. Is the 72 kN per mussy really necessary in exchange for the strange body position restriction? There are a number of scenarios I can think of, where you are on a ledge, or you kept climbing higher, or you are just shorter, or there's just a really appealing jug or ledge to grab up high, and somehow your hips end can end up above the mussies. Maybe it's just me, but there's something oddly idiosyncratic about the condition that there is this one piece of gear you shouldn't climb above. I've also seen mussy hooks on multi pitches, like 7 pitches up, and more commonly on single pitch climbs with a second pitch extension, which makes this mindset flip even stranger.

I agree with mussies being a poor choice for climbing anchors. I think the reason they get used is because they are cheap, readily available, and last for years and years. There are of course steel carabiners that fit the bill but I believe they cost a similar amount for way less material so over time they cost more since they need replacing more often.

Side note, im not sure why you describe it as an odd restriction. More than one person has died because they climbed above the mussies so its an important thing to teach beginners...

Some of you guys would freak if you came across some open shut anchors.

Mussys aren't perfect, but I think it would be hard to argue that they haven't reduced lowering accidents, even given the risk of climbing above them.

(Which afaik, has only caused one fatality, as deeply sad as that single death is)

If I read the original post correctly - the solution to the problem that wasn't was the problem

Take TAKE wrote:

The other thing that happens is often Mussy hooks are installed as a hardware upgrade. It is possible that the original "clip in point" was higher and/or equipped with rings or something that you can climb above without worrying about unclipping, but the addition of chain, quicklinks, and/or Mussy hooks lower that clip in point to a less ideal position.

Mark E Dixonwrote:

Some of you guys would freak if you came across some open shut anchors.

In case OP and anyone else is wondering, Mussys came about to replace cold shuts that are intentionally left open so you can just drop the rope into them. This is a great example of a very worn shut.

Some of the slightly more modern ones added a flimsy gate:

Marc801 Cwrote:

In case OP and anyone else is wondering, Mussys came about to replace cold shuts that are intentionally left open so you can just drop the rope into them. This is a great example of a very worn shut.

Some of the slightly more modern ones added a flimsy gate:

Thanks for this info and the pictures. Found this accident on cold shuts that seems quite similar in concept, at least in one aspect, to the mussy hook accident in alabama:

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/107614432/a-tragic-lesson-anchor-shuts-from-above

The commonality seems to be an open system with gates that are oriented out of the wall gives the illusion of a closed system, which can be catastrophic if you treat it as such. It makes me wonder if both the cold shuts and the mussies had no gates in them, whether those accidents would have happened. 

I made a similar conceptual error in treating mussies like carabiners or draws that you could try to make "opposite and opposed."

Hey… where did all of take TAKE’s responses go? They were providing excellent information. I thought maybe they blocked me, but I checked out this thread not logged in, and it’s still gone. What gives? What kind of monkey business are the mods up to this time?

Redacted Redactbergwrote:

...As I was getting lowered and cleaning, there was a pop...

I had this happen once. In my case, the mussys were loaded in a slightly weird way. The anchor was horizontal, but 90 degrees to the rest of route. While lowering, the rope was effectively pulling sideways on the anchor about 30 degrees, causing one mussy to be fully loaded and the other to be a little bit slack, and also jamming the mussys into the rock, not free hanging.

I was careful while loading the rope, but saw that the hooks were going to be crammed into each other. The mussy further away was loaded fine and taking all the weight, but the closer one was a little bit slack and being jammed into the rock. As I was lowering and moving around a little bit to clean gear, there was a pop and I looked up to see the unloaded mussy had completely detached from the rope.   

There’s a reason you don’t see that garbage in Europe.  

Other people have said it, but mussys shouldn’t be opposite and opposed, they should both face outward from the rock. A friend got a shipment of mussys to add to climbs from ClimbTech (years ago), and in the original instructions it said to have them both gates out because the shape of the basket isn’t designed to be opposed. Something about how the rope runs over the opposed baskets causes twists in the rope that can cause them to unclip, or cause one to clip to the other, also leading to a potentially dangerous situation. 

Molly is correct, mussy hooks are meant to be installed with both gates facing forward and should only be used so the last person in a group can lower to the ground after cleaning the group’s personal anchor setup.

Mussy hooks should not be used for toproping precisely because the gates are not opposing. They are not installed on routes for toproping.  

Anna Brownwrote:

Molly is correct, mussy hooks are meant to be installed with both gates facing forward and should only be used so the last person in a group can lower to the ground after cleaning the group’s personal anchor setup.

FWIW, in central Oregon we’ve started installing them opposite and opposed on a single 3/8” mallion oriented so the mussies are perpendicular to the cliff. (Largely due to the increasing number of incidents with undereducated climbers misusing them and getting hurt/killed or almost getting hurt) Time will tell, but it certainly seems safer and less nuanced than the standard ‘both gates out’ that the asca recommends.

Generally yes it's bad practice and why not build your own anchor - however I've talked to locals who developed certain areas and they were fine with it. If you're not sure about local ethics then don't do it. Where I've been sure it's ok I usually still build my own, the only exception being if its the end of the day and both of us are tired and my partner isn't sure they can get through the route and might want to bail.   https://19216811.cam/ 

Max Tepferwrote:

FWIW, in central Oregon we’ve started installing them opposite and opposed on a single 3/8” mallion oriented so the mussies are perpendicular to the cliff. (Largely due to the increasing number of incidents with undereducated climbers misusing them and getting hurt/killed or almost getting hurt) Time will tell, but it certainly seems safer and less nuanced than the standard ‘both gates out’ that the asca recommends.

Do you have a picture of this setup?