Belaying accident and aftermath

Tim Lutz wrote: So if my partner wants to hip belay me, should I ask to look at their ass?

If the size and rotundity of the ass is shown to greatly impact the quality of a hip-belay, I would insist you look at their ass like your life depended on it.

However, knowing how hard my girlfriend can punch, one's life may also depend on not looking at their ass. Choose wisely.

frank minunni wrote: Wow!!! Aren't you the almighty of climbing safety. I've known a lot of climbers with lots of experience and are safe that have maded mistakes over the years. Accidents do happen, even to the very safe, over the course of a long climbing career. Hopefully none are disastrous. After the description of the belayer in question and his feelings and actions in the aftermath, it's pretty obvious that he takes this very seriously. For you to make such a harsh judgement, especially when you don't know the details of the incedent is pure ignorance. You should take your holier than thou shit and pronounce yourself the God of belays. Maybe you could start your own little church.

You nailed it bud, you drop a climber belaying means you suck at belaying, simple really, and I am in fact an ordained minister in the church of the sub genius , so there!

Greg Maschi wrote: You nailed it bud, you drop a climber belaying means you suck at belaying, simple really, and I am in fact an ordained minister in the church of the sub genius , so there!

Sounds more like you're the minister of the church of "I'm perfect and everyone else should be too."

frank minunni wrote: Sounds more like you're the minister of the church of "I'm perfect and everyone else should be too."

And when it comes to belaying that's exactly right.

Then humans shouldn't be involved

So I have tried to recreate the cinch failure and was unable to do it. That doesn't mean that it isn't real.

I believe it's usually caused by a diagonal pull, so the steeper the route, the more likely it won't lock up. Also, it has almost no friction so even with "cold dead hands" you still might drop someone. Just too many unknowns surrounding it and I'm just not arrogant enough to believe that it can't happen to me.

Lets say I bought a gun and when cleaning it, shot myself in the face. Then I got online (while shopping for a prosthetic face) and found out that sometimes my gun would retain an extra bullet in the chamber after it was apparently empty, but only sometimes. Is it still my fault I shot myself in the face, yes, I should have checked closer. Is it understandable how it happens and maybe time to shop for a different brand (after I have paid off my new face)?

Trango can not admit to a problem or that'll be the end of the company. It's really up to you to use the information available and choose a safer device.

Healyje wrote:Petzl: It's when you pull the brake side of the rope that the cam rotates to brake the rope.

You keep comparing the Cinch to a Grigri, so I can only assume you've not used one or understand how it operates... The Petzl statement does not apply to a Cinch in the same way it applies to a Grigri:

A Cinch will only guarantee to lock if there's rope brake tension AND tension against the device (through the attached carabiner). The Grigri (at least unmodified for rope-solo), will lock with rope brake tension ONLY. (Quick test: feed a rope thru either device but don't attach to anything, then pull (apart) hard on both ends of the rope. The cam on the Grigri will engage, the Cinch will do jack squat). This is why people have been able to use an unmodified Cinch for rope-solo (against the recommendation and all), but not a Grigri.

HAFE's conjecture about diagonal pull illustrates this point, where there maybe very little or no tension against the belayer/device unless the cam engages (at which point, the full fall force will transmit to the belayer & the device attached). This is also why there's all this change on the recommended belay methods like turning it sideway or upside down: they make it easier to load the device from the rope pull for the more common climber/belayer orientations (of course they also partially defeats the easy of rope feeding). But realize these only mask the deficiencies, not eliminate them.

I think it is telling that trango switched their cinch instructions recently for the clip in to have the device flipped upside down with the climber side coming out of the bottom of the device rather than the top like it was originally instructed. I think it was the german DAV that originally came up with this method of flipping the device to increase the reliability of it locking. This wasn't highly publicized and I wonder the number of people who still use the old method.

frank minunni wrote: Sounds more like you're the minister of the church of "I'm perfect and everyone else should be too."

Competent belaying does not require perfection , simply competence.If you are implying that you might catch my fall, I hope to never share a rope with you sir.

rgold wrote: By now we have ample evidence that almost all these devices will in some cases fail to perform as expected, usually because of an identifiable belayer action, but in some cases for reasons that have remained unexplained although endlessly theorized about.

Could you link to any of these? I'm curious.

I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of "unsolved" cases which are a result of people panicking and squeezing the grigri. Belayer looks away for a second, climber falls, belayer tenses up and squeezes the handle with their thumb, cam doesn't engage. (obviously you should always be watching your climber, but shit happens)

A lot of people use the thumb divot on the handle as a default position, when it should actually be there only when you're feeding slack.

Greg Maschi is a troll. You are way over simplifying this whole thing. The OP asked if it was possible the cinch had a design flaw. IT DOES. Your comments are annoying and counter productive.

Greg Maschi wrote: Competent belaying does not require perfection , simply competence.If you are implying that you might catch my fall, I hope to never share a rope with you sir.

I wouldn't worry about it. Since I have so little experience, you probably wouldn't want me on the belay.

hmmmm ... a few points that i made a few years ago ...

1 ... the DAV tested a whole bunch of assisted locking devices a few years ago ... basically for the cinch they found that its VERY susceptible to "user error" ... they also only recommend using the cinch in the "modified" method (which trango changed to a while back)

they recommend the cinch ONLY for "expert" users ... as a reference the mammut smart and click up are recommended for beginner, experienced, expert and kids ... whilte the gri gri is recommended for "experienced" and expert users ...

you can run the google translate for yourselves

Versagen trotz korrekter
Bedienung?

Gleich sechs Unfälle innerhalb eines
Jahres mit dem Cinch bei einer
Verwendungshäufigkeit von 1 Prozent sind erschreckend viel. Zufall? Wir
denken nein. Die Ursache für die
Unfälle liegt in der tückischen Mechanik
des Gerätes, verbunden mit einer
gefährlichen Bedienungsempfehlung
in der Gebrauchsanleitung des Herstellers.
Das Cinch blockiert nur in bestimmten
Positionen, nämlich wenn
der Seilzug rechtwinklig zum Ablasshebel
wirkt. Wird das Gerät aber so
gehalten, wie in der Anleitung empfohlen
(mit dem Ablasshebel nach
rechts aufgehängt und unter dem
Aufhängepunkt gehalten, s. Abb. 1),
läuft das Seil fast reibungsfrei durch
und das Gerät blockiert nicht.
Problematisch sind also Gerätepositionen,
bei denen das Seil parallel zum
Ablasshebel läuft. Wird im Sturzfall
das Gerät in dieser Position reflexartig
fixiert, zeigt es trotz Bremshand am
Bremsseil keine Bremswirkung. Typischerweise
verbrennen sich die Sichernden
drei Finger der Bremshand –
heikel!
Wer mit dem Cinch sichern möchte,
sollte es mit dem Hebel nach links
an seinem Gurt aufhängen und zum
Seilausgeben quer stellen. Das Bremsseil
wird nun nach links zur Seite hin
ausgegeben (parallel zum Ablasshebel).
Im Sturzfall muss das Seil jedoch
rechtwinklig zum Hebel zur ersten
Zwischensicherung auslaufen, dann
kann der Blockiermechanismus funktionieren
(s. Abb. 2).
Fazit
Das optimale Sicherungsgerät kann
man nicht generell bestimmen; es
hängt vom Einsatzbereich und vor
allem vom Anwender ab.
Halbautomaten sind keine Vollautomaten.
Deshalb muss man das
Bremshandprinzip unbedingt einhalten
und das Seilausgeben so handhaben,
dass es zur Bremsmechanik und
den Reflexen passt. Eine exakte Bedienung
ist extrem wichtig; wie groß
die Bandbreite dafür ist, hängt vom
Gerät ab.
Zur Bedienung des Grigri empfiehlt
die DAV-Sicherheitsforschung
eindringlich die Gaswerk-Methode
(s. Abb. 3). Auch gute Kletterer zeigen
beim Seilausgeben mit Grigri häufig
leichtsinnige Fehlbedienungen mit
kompletter Ausschaltung des Blockiermechanismus.
Das Gerät ist nur
nach intensiver Schulung zu empfehlen
und für Kinder mit kleinen Händen
eher ungeeignet. Bei korrekter
Bedienung ist es allerdings ein Sicherheitsgewinn.
Das Cinch ist extrem empfindlich
für Fehlbedienungen, weshalb es nur
Spezialisten verwenden sollten. Für
Kinder und weniger Geübte ist es sehr
unfallträchtig. Die aktuelle Bedienungsanleitung
führt zu „vorhersehbaren
Fehlanwendungen“.
Die Bremskraft eines dynamischen
Sicherungsgerätes muss auf
Durchmesser und Beschaffenheit des
Seils und auf die Handkraft des Sichernden
abgestimmt sein. Besonders
bei Tuber und Achter ist zu beachten,
dass die Bremswirkung von der
Position der Bremshand abhängt
(Daumen zeigt zum Sicherungsgerät
und Bremshand unterhalb des Geräts!
(s. Abb. 4).

DAV Panorama 3/2010 Cinch 1

DAV Panorama 3/2010 Cinch 2

Cinch: nur für Experten

Sieben Unfälle beim Sichern des
Vorsteigers in einem Jahr sind erschreckend.
Alles Fehlbedienungen.
Sie liegen in der komplexen Bedienung
des Geräts begründet: Da das
Cinch keine Feder besitzt, kann man
nur dann Seil ausgeben, wenn man
das Gerät „offen“ hält. Der geradlinige
Seildurchlauf reduziert die Reibung
fast auf null.
Gefahren: Bereits das Verändern der
Position des Geräts kann zur Fehlfunktion
führen. Hält man das Gerät
wie in der Bedienungsanleitung vorgegeben,
kann es trotz Einhalten des
Bremshandprinzips versagen (siehe
Erklärungen in DAV Panorama 3/10).
Beim Ablassen ist die Reibung sehr
gering, eine zusätzliche Umlenkung
im Bremsseil ist zu empfehlen.
Fazit: Sehr komplexes Gerät mit versteckten
Bedienungstücken und daher
hohem Unfallpotenzial. Nur für
Experten.
Click-Up: häng

bergfuehrer.at/steiermark/a…

2 ... the necessity of replacing the pin on the cinch has been known on the intrawebs for at least 5 years ...

cascadeclimbers.com/forum/u…

3 ... the cinch has not real bend ... in case of cam failure to engage the rope will ZIP through the device, there is no backup ... with a gri gri, it will act as a low friction ATC even if the cam fails to engage ....

4 ... there have been tons of "failures" of cinches by people claiming to be experienced users ... they have claimed the device failed to cam ...

a simple search gives you the threads

google.ca/#psj=1&q=trango+c…

^ This

So basically, using summary above:

1. If used in the "modified" configuration, the safety is essentially on par with a gri-gri

2. The device will wear out over time - as all do, and users should periodically inspect their devices (ropes, harnesses, belay devices) to ensure safety.

3. The feed configuration lends itself to quick feeding, and does not introduce a significant bend as seen in other devices. We are all so informed, and need to decide whether to accept this design.

4. "Tons of failures". This particular site, while damning some for repeating things until they are true, seems to come to consensus based on little else than who says things most often, and the most loudly.

If you are interested in actually delving into the sites that your search brought up, you would see the device was endorsed by outdoorgearlabs.com, the Alpinist, etc. Not sure if you believe these are condemnations of the device, but they do not appear to be.

While I am not naive enough to believe that there is a data clearing house that tabulates the various failures of climbing belay devices, I would suggest that "tons" of people have been belayed by this device without incident. Do paralleling these two concepts, both of which are completely subjective, offset one another?

5. Regardless of above, the issue still lies in the application/use of the device in the hands of a human - much like a car. When you run into the back of someone is it the failure of the vehicle which was designed to accelerate foward, or of the human who was texting or looking at something else?

6. The argument regarding whether the device cams with or without a carabiner is moot - when do you plan on utilizing either device without it being attached to a carabiner? It is not as though an ATC would would particularly well without a carabiner either - does that make it an inferior device as well?

Then again, perhaps just threading the rope through any of these devices and walking away is tantamount to the belaying skills of a large number of people now climbing.

Jake Jones wrote: I do. Works fine. All my climbers are still alive and prefer my belaying with a Cinch (the horror) to anyone else with any other kind of device. I would say I've caught upwards of a few thousand falls now on a Cinch. No close calls, no complaints. I wonder what could cause this strange phenomenon?

what strange phenomenon? That the low rate of occurance means you are anecdotally in the number of climbers that hasn't dropped someone with a cinch? Why would trango change their instructions if there was not a real problem? I was just like you a few years ago. Adamant that there was nothing wrong with the cinch after having caught hundreds of falls over a ~4 year period. then one day it didn't catch when my climber slouched into the rope. She didn't deck, I had a full grasp of the rope and burned the shit out of my hand but held on with no help from the cinch. I can only hypothesize the rate at which she slouched into the rope was approximately the same rope speed as when you are feeding slack so it didn't catch. The device requires a tug or rotation to catch, which the new attachment ensures due to the orientation of the rope. Why the insistence on using a method the manufacturer no longer condones?

I assume "sichern" is the German verb for belaying, just translated too literally in this case without the climbing context

Sieben

Paul Hassett wrote:So basically, using summary above: 1. If used in the "modified" configuration, the safety is essentially on par with a gri-gri 2. The device will wear out over time - as all do, and users should periodically inspect their devices (ropes, harnesses, belay devices) to ensure safety. 3. The feed configuration lends itself to quick feeding, and does not introduce a significant bend as seen in other devices. We are all so informed, and need to decide whether to accept this design. 4. "Tons of failures". This particular site, while damning some for repeating things until they are true, seems to come to consensus based on little else than who says things most often, and the most loudly. If you are interested in actually delving into the sites that your search brought up, you would see the device was endorsed by outdoorgearlabs.com, the Alpinist, etc. Not sure if you believe these are condemnations of the device, but they do not appear to be. While I am not naive enough to believe that there is a data clearing house that tabulates the various failures of climbing belay devices, I would suggest that "tons" of people have been belayed by this device without incident. Do paralleling these two concepts, both of which are completely subjective, offset one another? 5. Regardless of above, the issue still lies in the application/use of the device in the hands of a human - much like a car. When you run into the back of someone is it the failure of the vehicle which was designed to accelerate foward, or of the human who was texting or looking at something else? 6. The argument regarding whether the device cams with or without a carabiner is moot - when do you plan on utilizing either device without it being attached to a carabiner? It is not as though an ATC would would particularly well without a carabiner either - does that make it an inferior device as well? Then again, perhaps just threading the rope through any of these devices and walking away is tantamount to the belaying skills of a large number of people now climbing.

well paul if you actually used yr google translate-fu on the DAV article you would quicly realize that

1. they collect all this data from their associated climbing gyms in germany about accidents

2. they basically said the cinch was the "most prone" to user error

3. they arent a shill "gear review site" but the largest alpine club in the world with extensive testing, research and data collection

also when a grigri wears ... it still provides some braking as many old sport climbers can attest to ... as the wear is more spread out on the camming surfaces ...

the cinch its all focused on that pin ...

honestly no one except for maybe trango (and they aint talking) has the same data on indoor climbing and belaying as the DAV with the cinch and other devices

all these issues are well known with the cinch and have been for years

call it "user error" if you want ... but even the DAV says its the device most prone to such

just give someone an ATC and call it a day

but this is MP where everyone MUST be right even on accident threads in the face of actual data ...

bearbreeder wrote: well paul if you actually used yr google translate-fu on the DAV article you would quicly realize that 1. they collect all this data from their associated climbing gyms in germany about accidents 2. they basically said the cinch was the "most prone" to user error 3. they arent a shill "gear review site" but the largest alpine club in the world with extensive testing, research and data collection also when a grigri wears ... it still provides some braking as many old sport climbers can attest to ... as the wear is more spread out on the camming surfaces ... the cinch its all focused on that pin ... honestly no one except for maybe trango (and they aint talking) has the same data on indoor climbing and belaying as the DAV with the cinch and other devices all these issues are well known with the cinch and have been for years call it "user error" if you want ... but even the DAV says its the device most prone to such just give someone an ATC and call it a day but this is MP where everyone MUST be right even on accident threads in the face of actual data ...

This is the key point. Trango quietly changed their instructions, and have been mum on the whole thing. Malcom Daly who used to post here regularly also avoided the discussion when asked directly about the issues and their experiences.

redlude97 wrote: This is the key point. Trango quietly changed their instructions, and have been mum on the whole thing. Malcom Daly who used to post here regularly also avoided the discussion when asked directly about the issues and their experiences.

and he even visited the site not too long ago

Malcolm Daly