Mussy Hook Unclipped While Lowering

Camdon Kay wrote:

Do you have a picture of this setup?

Thank you! That is what I was imagining, but I wanted to be sure

It's important to understand how mussy hooks fail before making carte-blanche statements like, "thou shall always have both gates facing out".  As has been discussed earlier in this thread, if a climber brings their rope above a mussy hook and that mussy hook has it's gate facing out, it's possible that when the climber brings their rope back beneath the mussy hook that the rope can fall across the protruding nose of the mussy hook and unclip itself.  There are multiple unfortunate accidents that resulted from this failure mechanism that are well documented in ANAC.  

So, as climbers and developers, how can we avoid this failure mechanism?  The most obvious solution is, don't bring your rope above a mussy hook, or be really super uber careful if you do.  However, this relies on a climber having that knowledge, and a developer cannot control for the level of knowledge that a climber will have (whether or not the climber should have that knowledge is an entirely different debate).  Also, even if one does have the requisite knowledge, we're all human and mistakes happen.  So what design changes can a developer use to help minimize the possibility of the rope being able to fall across the nose of a mussy hook, if for some reason the rope were above the mussy hook?

Option A is to have both mussies at an anchor station spaced very far apart with no possibility of them coming together at a single point (like with chain or some other extension), so that if the rope were to fall across the nose of one mussy hook, the odds of it falling across the nose of the other mussy hook are very low.  In the Option A setup, the rope is required to make two 90 degree turns as it passes through the spaced out mussy hooks while the climber is lowering, and due to the powers of black magic, this introduces a lot of twist into your rope.  It also doesn't completely eliminate the possibility that the rope could somehow fall across both gates of the two mussy hooks at an anchor station and become completely detached from the system.

Option B is to utilize something similar to what's in the photo that Max posted.  With this setup, both mussy hooks are located at a single point and thus you don't run into the rope twisting while lowering that you would in Option A.  In my personal experience, I have never noted a twist in my rope after lowering from an opposite-and-opposed mussy hook arrangement like this.  More importantly, if the rope were to fall from above and cross the nose of one mussy hook then the spine of the other mussy hook would deflect it, thus it is nearly impossible for the rope to unclip itself from the mussies if the climber for some reason gets their rope above the hooks.  Yes, this is contrary to how the ASCA recommends installing mussy hooks.  However, due to the increasing incidence of accidents that are a result of the rope becoming unclipped from both mussy hooks at an anchor station, it seems responsible to not only rely on climber's knowledge of what not to do, but to also introduce some kind of design change that minimizes the risk of things going wrong.  And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did install the anchor that Max posted the picture of.  Hope that doesn't completely discredit me! 

An approach that would seem to address most of the concerns mentioned above: Install one mussy high with gate to left and one cheapo biner low with gate facing right. Done well, this puts virtually all of the wear on the mussy, does not twist the rope, does not result in a mussy nose against rock, and would seem to be safer if climbed above. 

To the experts: is there anything unsafe about such a setup? Is there anything wrong with orienting a mussy sideways? Thanks!

Tyler Swanson wrote:

There are multiple unfortunate accidents that resulted from this failure mechanism that are well documented in ANAC.  

 However, due to the increasing incidence of accidents that are a result of the rope becoming unclipped from both mussy hooks at an anchor station,

Is this really the case?

I'll admit I haven't kept up with ANAM, so am open to being corrected, but I can only recall the incident in the southeast (Sand Rock?) where a young woman is thought to have unclipped her mussy anchor by climbing above it.

There was also a case in the ORG many years ago, where someone climbed above the cold shuts and fell and died. 

I do think looking for a way to minimize this risk while maintaining the safety advantage of lowering anchors is worthwhile.

That being said, opposed mussys often don't lay very well, so maybe not perfect either.

Mark E Dixon wrote:

Is this really the case?

Yep.  You listed two.  I think there's another that resulted in injury in the Salt Lake area from a couple years ago, but forget the details.  I've witnessed a near miss, this thread is about a near miss, and I know personally a handful of others that have experienced near misses.  Taken as a whole, that's a pretty solid body of data that maybe we're doing something wrong with mussey hooks facing out/not opposite and opposed.

I do think looking for a way to minimize this risk while maintaining the safety advantage of lowering anchors is worthwhile.

100% agree.  If there's a simple way to use the same long-lasting, durable tools (mussy hooks) and make the anchor slightly safer in the process without sacrificing usability, it seems like a no brainer to do so.  I've also experienced opposite and opposed mussys twist ropes and I think it happens on long chain extensions in slabby terrain where the mass of the mussy causes it to flop sideways onto the plane of the rock.  The pictured method that Tyler came up with works well because there are relatively few links of chain between the rigid element of the hanger and the mussy, so they're held perpendicular and don't twist the rope.  There is likely some gouging of the rock at the mussy as a result, but in the grand scheme of visual impact on a popular pitch, that is very, very minor.  Especially if it's the sole cost to reduce the potential for injury or death.

Logan Peterson wrote:

An approach that would seem to address most of the l concerns mentioned above: Install one mussy high with gate to left and one cheapo biner low with gate facing right. Done well, this puts virtually all of the wear on the mussy, does not twist the rope, does not result in a mussy nose against rock, and would seem to be safer if climbed above. 

To the experts: is there anything unsafe about such a setup? Is there anything wrong with orienting a mussy sideways? Thanks!

I’ve heard that lowering through one point causes more wear on the gear and rope due to tighter bend radius. However, in the HowNot2 video in the alpinesavvy article linked up thread, Bobby describes the setup you’re offering, except with two mussies at the top (hence three bolts, the obvious downside being more impact on the rock)

Gates on mussy hooks are most typically oriented with both gates facing forward, so it's possible a rope can be inadvertently flipped over the gates and become unclipped.

I strongly believe that mussy hooks should never be used for toproping precisely because the gates are not opposing. 

Local route developers are most likely not considering that the rope can become unclipped when they suggest it’s okay to toprope on hardware they have installed. They are only considering that they are okay replacing the hardware if it gets worn out.

I advise everyone to build your own anchor with personal gear and have only the last person lower off the fixed mussy hooks... and don't change the natural orientation of the mussy hooks when attaching your rope to be lowered. Don’t twist the anchor chain to turn fixed hardware to a different direction other than how it naturally hangs. 

I have had one of the two opposite and opposed anchor draws come unclipped while follower was cleaning the pitch.
the double locking draw was the only thing clipped when they reached the anchor.
i hate unopposed mussys.
i understand why they are used but don’t think they are better than closed anchors.
they are easier, but certainly not safer.
this incident was the only time in 30+ years of climbing that i have seen an anchor draw unclip.
i have had multiple biners unclip over the years in many different configurations.

Climbing systems are supposed to be redundant to virtually eliminate freak failure.

Unopposed mussys are not redundant.

There will be more accidents due to unopposed mussys.

On a slightly separate note, i think one of the more dangerous aspects of mussys, is that ithey promote lack of understanding on how to clean an anchor since mussys are so common.
i watched and yelled at and prevented an accident last year when i looked over while lowering off an adjacent climb to see someone lowering through a slingle sling looped through the achors because they did not know how to properly clean an anchor.
the only way they knew was to fold the rope in half and push through the chains, clip into a bight, and then lower.
they tried that method but the chains were too small so they came up with their own plan which came very close to killing them in front of me.

Mussys, in my opinion, promote a lack of understanding on basic climbing knowledge that may not be needed often but will be needed eventually. 

climberz wrote:

i understand why they are used but don’t think they are better than closed anchors.
they are easier, but certainly not safer.

Sorry, this opinion is incorrect - lower-off systems are much safer than any closed system. There have been loads of severe (often fatal) anchor changeover accidents over the decades, and by far the lowest accident rate has been in places which adopted open systems such as Owens River Gorge - even when the average anchor was two open cold shuts worn at least 1/2 way through.

Take a look at the HowNot2 breakdown of steps that climbers have to do in order to lower off a closed system (let alone rappel) - linked in the second post in this thread. Add in fatigue, darkness, weather, distraction, belayer miscommunication, and you rapidly see why messing up at belays during changeovers is arguably the number one killer of climbers over the years.

This was happening back when no one had heard of lower-offs, back when there were FAR fewer climbers, and when the average climber had much more experience and much better training/mentorship than many straight-from-the-gym climbers have today. It didn't matter - people still messed up on just one of those many steps, and severe accidents happened regularly.

The vertical world is unforgiving - gravity is always on. As with anything involving likely death from mistakes, we need to keep it simple. Every single time we climb we need to double check every step, double check our partners, watch out for fatigue and impaired judgment (rushing, weather, low blood sugar, etc, etc). Lower-offs are not foolproof, but they are far safer than any alternative. In the future if climbers have more financial resources, better lower-off hooks will hopefully be available, but that shouldn't prevent us from using the tools we have now to climb smarter.

Max Tepfer wrote:

Yep.  You listed two.  I think there's another that resulted in injury in the Salt Lake area from a couple years ago, but forget the details.  I've witnessed a near miss, this thread is about a near miss, and I know personally a handful of others that have experienced near misses.  Taken as a whole, that's a pretty solid body of data that maybe we're doing something wrong with mussey hooks facing out/not opposite and opposed.

100% agree.  If there's a simple way to use the same long-lasting, durable tools (mussy hooks) and make the anchor slightly safer in the process without sacrificing usability, it seems like a no brainer to do so.  I've also experienced opposite and opposed mussys twist ropes and I think it happens on long chain extensions in slabby terrain where the mass of the mussy causes it to flop sideways onto the plane of the rock.  The pictured method that Tyler came up with works well because there are relatively few links of chain between the rigid element of the hanger and the mussy, so they're held perpendicular and don't twist the rope.  There is likely some gouging of the rock at the mussy as a result, but in the grand scheme of visual impact on a popular pitch, that is very, very minor.  Especially if it's the sole cost to reduce the potential for injury or death.

With respect, it’s only useful data if a) we actually have data on # of accidents per pitch and b) those numbers were compared to # of accidents per pitch on routes (of a similar character [close to impossible to gather this, I suspect] equipped with other hardware configurations.

Without having seen the data—has anyone?—we aren’t factoring in how many accidents/injuries have been avoided by widespread adoption of mussies.

Every accident, every injury, and certainly every death is something to be carefully considered. But I suspect we risk abandoning the good in search of perfection. It wasn’t on a whim that ASCA began its lower-off initiative.

Continued reflection and study are warranted. Presently, we have much talk and nearly all of it centers around anecdotal information.

So I’ll offer yet more anecdotal information, which amounts to very little.

Every single time I’m belaying a climber with limited leading and cleaning experience and I see mussies, I feel relief.

2 (or 10, 20, 50) accidents from improperly using mussies amid climbing’s population explosion? I like those numbers. I certainly don’t trust an inexperienced climber to be less likely to make a mistake with a more complicated system.

Proposition- you are responsible for your partner knowing how to use a mussy hook. Controversial?

Unopposed mussies are perfectly safe.
With an inexperienced person or beginner, I use one of two methods: 

I Use my own gear with locking biners for the toprope anchor and tell them to go to the anchor, not above, and lower. I then follow my own lead and clean the anchors myself. I will sometimes rap the lines to get down, depending on the person belows experience.

The second method is to lead the route, clip directly through the mussys. When lowered, I reclip the last one or two draws from the belay side into my side. The second is instructed not to touch these when going by on the other strand while ascending, and to always stay below the mussys at the top of the route. When being lowered they clean the remaining draws.

With experienced partners, we always use our own gear for the anchor and the second takes care of clipping the last draw as a backup on their way up, if they choose, and clips into the anchor for a backup with whatever system they use (it takes two seconds) while setting the rope into the mussys for being lowered. When below mussys and weighted properly backup is unclipped and climber is lowered  

All of this goes quite fast and requires very little effort. 

I find this thread interesting, because the OP clearly reflected on his mistake(twisting an anchor to achieve an orientation he preferred). Mussy comes unclipped and everyone starts up on how dangerous climbing above mussy anchors is?  I understand Mussy hooks are not ideal, and yes I really love captive steel carabiners too.  Problem is that 99% of climbers are just users….so where do the funds magically appear for the $75 anchor we all want to see?  Should we go back to constantly swapping out leaver biners on routes?  Most of you here don’t even remember what we are replacing. A Chain link most likely.

So would you all prefer we go back to chain links for anchors?  Having to untie every time you finish a pitch?  For those of you complaining about Mussy’s, are you willing to drop $500 just to equip your favorite 10 routes with Draco’s? Or maybe sacrifice a weekend to do anchor replacement in your favorite area?  Thought not. Complaining online about something you don’t understand sounds much more enjoyable.

I don’t know of a single developer who would complain about anyone swapping out Mussy’s for captive steel carabiners. Just be ready to replace them when they wear out. Until you’re ready to put your money where your mouth is, maybe consider NOT complaining about this gift horse. I am 100% confident that the lower off initiative has the potential to save many more lives than improper use of mussy hooks will ever claim. 

phylp phylp wrote:

Unopposed mussies are perfectly safe.

[ description of process that ensures they are safe ]

That's the case with any common climbing gear. It's all perfectly safe, if used correctly.

Not all gear comes with an instruction manual. Even obscure failure modes cost lives. That's why we need to constantly educate each other and always be willing to learn and change our own beliefs, no matter how much experience we have.

I'm glad the OP posted their mistake. If it prevents one person from doing the same, it is a very valuable post (certainly more valuable than all the posts mocking the OP)

Maybe, like any other piece of climbing gear, mussies are not appropriate in every instance.  Like places where it's easy to go above them or where they are not able to hang free of the rock, as they were designed to be used.

If a route has the potential for a novice to climb above the two mussy hooks, modify one side to make it a French-style layout. Remove a mussy and add a short piece of chain with a US Stainless captive eye carabiner. Still easy to clip. Concentrates ~99% of the wear on the mussy hook and discourages top roping thru the fixed hardware. Most climbers will want to TR off two slings and their own 'biners instead. 

Yeah, the only reason I bother to reiterate stuff that’s been said dozens of times in other threads, is in case it reaches even one person who did not see it before. Either method a or b would have prevented the heartbreaking Sand Rock fatality. 

There's no need for creative anchors, clipping the the lead bolts as a backup, or even worrying about someone going a bit above the mussies. Some very simple practices will work in any situation, even for newbies:

1. Don't toprope through mussies or any fixed equipment meant for descending. Use them only for lowering, not climbing.
2. Don't try to circumvent item #1 by routing the rope through the mussies and then adding "backup" gear that will need to be cleaned (this is a cause of the Sand Rock fatality.)  If you are going to toprope, build a proper anchor, use it exclusively to hold the rope.
3. When cleaning gear from an anchor and preparing to lower on any system: Use a tether and weight the lowering system before removing the tether (standard practice for any transition, including rappels)

D K wrote:

There's no need for creative anchors, clipping the the lead bolts as a backup, or even worrying about someone going a bit above the mussies. Some very simple practices will work in any situation, even for newbies:

1. Don't toprope through mussies or any fixed equipment meant for descending. Use them only for lowering, not climbing.
2. Don't try to circumvent item #1 by routing the rope through the mussies and then adding "backup" gear that will need to be cleaned (this is a cause of the Sand Rock fatality.)  If you are going to toprope, build a proper anchor, use it exclusively to hold the rope.
3. When cleaning gear from an anchor and preparing to lower on any system: Use a tether and weight the lowering system before removing the tether (standard practice for any transition, including rappels)

If you do 3 then why is 2 necessary? Surely your step 3 would have prevented the accident you mention?