Using a backup when lowering?

Using a backup knot such as the autoblock has become a fairly standard operating procedure when rappelling. It crossed my mind the other day: how is lowering a climber really any different than rappelling? And if it's not different, shouldn't we be using an autoblock to back up a lower just as we back up our rappels? If not, why not?

Note: I don't have an axe to grind here and have never used a backup when lowering, just thinking out loud. 

You mean like a grigri? Also, lowering is done in a fixed stance and not fiddling around with removing gear, less variables/multi-tasking.

I never thought about it until I was dropped about 15' and now depending on the circumstances I use an autoblock.  Belt and suspenders.

Well, an autoblock  backup is often recommended in several lowering scenarios during self- rescue. As a precaution. 

Use a backup when lowering from above. There's not as much friction compared to lowering from below (belaying from the ground)

FrankPS wrote: Use a backup when lowering from above. There's not as much friction compared to lowering from below (belaying from the ground)

That makes a lot is sense, actually. Thanks for the explanation. 

James P wrote: You mean like a grigri? Also, lowering is done in a fixed stance and not fiddling around with removing gear, less variables/multi-tasking.

Right, like if someone had just led or tr'd, and you are on the ground and lowering them with your belay device (which you sometimes use in other circumstances for rappelling). 

Blakevan wrote: I never thought about it until I was dropped about 15' and now depending on the circumstances I use an autoblock.  Belt and suspenders.

When you were dropped, were you being lowered by someone on the ground? 

FrankPS wrote: Use a backup when lowering from above. There's not as much friction compared to lowering from below (belaying from the ground)

We often do this and when lowering in guide mode it is recommended 

FrankPS wrote: Use a backup when lowering from above. There's not as much friction compared to lowering from below (belaying from the ground)

Definitely, but I'm thinking about a ground-based belayer. The issue being not so much the forces involved (which are pretty noticeably larger when lowering a climber from above) as the stakes involved in the event that the belayer loses control of the rope. As I've always understood it, the point of an autoblock on rappel isn't to increase your grip on the rope, it's to take over if you let go completely. 

Optimistic wrote:

Definitely, but I'm thinking about a ground-based belayer. The issue being not so much the forces involved (which are pretty noticeably larger when lowering a climber from above) as the stakes involved in the event that the belayer loses control of the rope. As I've always understood it, the point of an autoblock on rappel isn't to increase your grip on the rope, it's to take over if you let go completely. 

So do you mean that you would attach a prussik from your harness to the belayer's side of the top rope? It would be pretty slow to lower that way, but would work as a backup in case the belayer screws up.

David Bruneau wrote:

So do you mean that you would attach a prussik from your harness to the belayer's side of the top rope? It would be pretty slow to lower that way, but would work as a backup in case the belayer screws up.

Definitely the climber/leader could do it that way but I was thinking of the belayer rigging it just as you would to back yourself up on rappel. 

If you need a backup while your partner is lowering you, just grab their end of the rope and slowly let out slack as you come down. 

I don't see much force difference based on where the belayer is.  The rope weight between the belayer and the TR anchor is 3-4lbs, i.e. ~5% of the tension on that side.  (EDIT: I do agree it is harder to maintain control when the person doing the lowering is at the anchor - probably because the rope between the belay device and the anchor is far from vertical in that situation, so it has more of a tendency to pull the belayer off balance).

I suspect the reason people don't recommend adding a backup before normal TR lowering (with an ATC) is that it introduces its own risk - dropping the climber while setting up the backup.

If you can't trust your belayer to lower you, just rap  ;)

Matt N wrote: If you can't trust your belayer to lower you, just rap  ;)

Agree. 

Or find some way that you are both comfortable with lowering (e.g., increase friction).

Matt N wrote: If you can't trust your belayer to lower you, just rap  ;)

Right. 

If you can't trust a particular belayer to lower you, find a way out of getting lowered and stop climbing with them.

If you can't trust any belayer to lower you, find another hobby.

Optimistic wrote: Using a backup knot such as the autoblock has become a fairly standard operating procedure when rappelling. It crossed my mind the other day: how is lowering a climber really any different than rappelling?

Your question reminde me of this article: https://americanalpineclub.squarespace.com/resources-blog/2017/5/23/assisted-braking-devices
which has some examples of backups for lowering a climber.

And if it's not different, shouldn't we be using an autoblock to back up a lower just as we back up our rappels? If not, why not?

Well, I think that when rappeling, the climber is multitasking: managing the ropes, his stance, lowering device (descent speed and control).

When lowering, the belayer manages the rope and lowering device, while stationary. The climber only manages his stance.

Another option is lowering yourself (as opposed to rappeling). No need to untie, thread half rope length or go off belay. Just ask for some slack to install your lowering device.
https://www.petzl.com/INT/en/Sport/Self-lowering

Greg R wrote:

We often do this and when lowering in guide mode it is recommended 

lowering in guide mode?

Dillon Schwertz wrote:

lowering in guide mode?

Yes, if someone can’t make a move or falls on an overhang, they may have to be lowered. Releasing the locked device can result in loss of braking control and its recommended to have a backup. 

Optimistic wrote: Using a backup knot such as the autoblock has become a fairly standard operating procedure when rappelling. It crossed my mind the other day: how is lowering a climber really any different than rappelling? And if it's not different, shouldn't we be using an autoblock to back up a lower just as we back up our rappels? If not, why not?

Note: I don't have an axe to grind here and have never used a backup when lowering, just thinking out loud. 

The reactions here seem pretty positive, but I almost never see anyone backing up their lowers.

The big difference for me is that when I'm rappelling, I'm doing a bunch of different things:

1. Removing rope from snags.
2. Alternatively: managing saddlebags.
3. Making sure I don't whack my head on overhangs/protrusions.
4. Looking for next rap anchor.
5. Cleaning gear.

When I'm rappelling, I'm basically constantly distracted from keeping my hand on the brake strand. It's not that I ever let go, it's just that I'm not constantly consciously focused on it. So a backup is necessary, since a backup never loses focus.

When I'm lowering someone, I have one job--keep appropriate tension on brake strand--and I'm never doing anything else. So a backup feels less necessary.

With (for example) an ATC or similar device, if you trust your belayer to catch an unexpected lead fall without a backup, it seems like trusting them to lower you without a backup is a much smaller amount of trust. The forces are much lower and much more predictable. This logic doesn't necessarily hold for GriGri style devices where lowering involves overriding the autoblock mechanism.

I'm not opposed to backing up your lowers. It seems unquestionably safer. I'm just trying to come up with some opposing reasons for the sake of discussion.

As a final note, this is a place where the Click Up really shines. As long as the rope isn't super thin, it would be difficult to lower too fast, let alone drop someone, as long as the device is configured correctly.