Climber takes a whip, has a close call....and, a newish belayer

jgfox wrote: This... I idiotically broke my ankle months ago treating a two bolt 60' trad route like a sport route and I still haven't gotten around to posting it in the accident forums. While my reluctance is half embarrassment and half the hardware in my ankle is preventing me from climbing right now, good for Helen for posting it and taking the constructive criticism well. She is a braver person than I am right now.

Sheesh. We all missed this somehow.

How are you doing? How much longer are you stuck in purgatory?

Best, Helen

Billcoe wrote:Only comment I haven't seen yet that should have been somewhere near the top was this (most likely in Rgold or HealyJs posts): Helen, doubling up your belay biner will get you almost twice the strength to stop a fall. The caveat is that they have to be the same size or the effect won't occur. I wasn't there but to me it sounds like you did your part, congrats. I've been climbing 45 years and seen a few falls here or there. Consider if one more piece had pulled on your 5.7, this would be a different discourse and most likely from the sound of it, a fatality. Don't think that couldn't have occurred. If anyone who thinks falling on blocks like that is fine or just wants to scare themselves, google Goran Kropps fatal fall on Air Guitar. Kropp was a true bad ass, having once ridden his bicycle from Sweden to Nepal, climbed Everest, then rode back. Bad ass. Yet he died on @ a 60 foot high column of basalt that looked much like yours Helen. 4 pieces failed, one a biner that broke. A reminder to us all that reality can often be something other than we think. Where you see the locking biner below, there would be 2 identical ones. Reversing them would make them impervious to cross loading as well. I rarely use this as I like to climb longer routes with known partners, but do use it to climb with some 200 lbers and especially on bad or cramped belay stances, this would be a huge help to better lock off if one of them fell at the wrong time. Makes lowering much easier as well if you are not using a Gri or Cinch. Another benefit is that the rope is less likely to bind and will run smoother most of the time. Ropes are getting smaller these days making this even more germane. If your device is rated to 8.7 and your rope is 8.9, you want doubled up biners on an ATC style device. Not specifically commenting on this fall as you have a grippy BD Guide ATC (that is suppose to go to 7.7mm ropes) and a reasonable sized looking rope in the pic. Rope size vs ATC specs matters! I was in love with DMMs stainless ATC and then noted on the Outdoor gear labs review that it didn't hold a fall as well as the BD. Still use it for toproping laps on occasion where I don't want to hike in the weight of a Gri gri or we are doing both multipitch and some toproping up a canyon, like say in Red Rocks. In which case, I didn't even take the Gri on the airplane. http://www.outdoorgearlab.com/Belay-Device-Reviews/Ratings

As this could actually be helpful, could you guys offer up some comments?

To Frank and dhigdon, up thread: not exactly. Yes, it comes off drama queen. I apologize. I changed the title, and got rid of the "me! me! me!" first sentence.

dhigdon, I don't know what nerve I struck, but sorry about that. Have any opinion you want of me, but any thread that gets input from healyje and rgold is not devoid of content.

Yes, I was excited, but my head was sorta off, when I first wrote this up. On that Sunday night, I also tumbled to the fact that I missed an active shooter incident that Saturday, when dropping my Saturday plans for this Sunday trip. Further, the shooter and I had crossed paths before.

All, with time and reflection, I think Nate's biggest mistake was being so stoked to climb a new, unknown place, with rock he had never been on before, that he accepted me as a partner, even after knowing all my limitations. My mistake was being so stoked to climb with anybody at all, that I let this happen, also knowing my limitations.

If Nate had been with Paul, I'm sure he would have had tons of beta, and a patient, knowledgeable guy who would have had him sewing it up. I did my best, but that's still just what's available in the current package of knowledge, skills, and beat up old body, which clearly was not quite enough.

Best, Helen

eh, don't beat yourself up about it. If you climb long enough, you'll have your fair share of close calls. Hell, if you climb long enough you'll probably experience an injury or two, or 10 if you're Hank. What's important is that you learn from it. The mountains can be merciful, but if you're dumb enough to make that same mistake again... good luck. And it sounds like you've had a good week of reflection, discussion, and learning. Get some good sleep, it is the sabbath after all.

I had a chance to talk to Paul last night. He's a good guy in person, although IMO he comes off a little cocky on here.
OLH

Chris Sharma calls ME for a belay! Jk. People unleash different personalities when writing, versus loitering. Also, when you accomplish a lot for yourself in your trade or hobby, self esteem builds. It gets easier to let shit bounce off of you, when you know your passion. There's always gonna be a hater. I used to be young, naive, and lay in bed, worried about that kid at school, hoping he'd stay sick at home the next day. I'm sure that muscle head Nate will make more alpine sufferfest ascents without dwelling on my silly commentary.

Why didn't the fall stop immediately when the rope pulled tight? Your rope is dynamic.

Old lady H wrote: As this could actually be helpful, could you guys offer up some comments?

Helen, I've climbed for @45 years. I guided for @ 10 of those. I'm not bullshiting about use of a 2nd belay locker improving the belay. Here's a way for you to verify that by yourself: Next time you are on Stems and Jammies or some other climb that has a top rope, ask the person you just lowered (with your single locker) if they would climb it again. Put the extra locker on that I mention above. You'll note the extra friction and extra control you have immediately when you lower them the 2nd time. MUCH EASIER ON YOUR HAND. I had seen articles of full on FF2s tested with this and the numbers recorded (long time before the internet). It comes close to making it twice as strong.

Where's Rich Goldstein, he knows everything. RICH? I've read Rgolds earlier points about needing a gloved hand as the rope will run, but I guess I haven't caught a FF2 yet as I have not had that problem.

As far as the sticking the extra bolts in, that comment was directed at the Black Rocks old timers/regulars. Not to you. Sorry to suggest that you should do such a thing that was not my intention. It should only be done after extensive discourse by the old timers/regulars and consensus by same achieved. I thought that went without saying. Sorry, was wrong about that. Now I went and said it.

Billcoe wrote: Helen, I've climbed for @45 years. I guided for @ 10 of those. I'm not bullshiting about use of a 2nd belay locker improving the belay. Here's a way for you to verify that by yourself: Next time you are on Stems and Jammies or some other climb that has a top rope, ask the person you just lowered (with your single locker) if they would climb it again. Put the extra locker on that I mention above. You'll note the extra friction and extra control you have immediately when you lower them the 2nd time. MUCH EASIER ON YOUR HAND. I had seen articles of full on FF2s tested with this and the numbers recorded (long time before the internet). It comes close to making it twice as strong. Where's Rich Goldstein, he knows everything. RICH? I've read Rgolds earlier points about needing a gloved hand as the rope will run, but I guess I haven't caught a FF2 yet as I have not had that problem. As far as the sticking the extra bolts in, that comment was directed at the Black Rocks old timers/regulars. Not to you. Sorry to suggest that you should do such a thing that was not my intention. It should only be done after extensive discourse by the old timers/regulars and consensus by same achieved. I thought that went without saying. Sorry, was wrong about that. Now I went and said it.

Thanks! That extra friction would be super useful not just for a heavier climber, but I'm thinking would be nice when my climber is working something tough, and wants a lot of tension, and/or is doing the same three feet for what seems like hours.

"Black cliffs", here, anyway. Dunno where "black rocks" is. :-)

Best, Helen

Greg D wrote: You are joking, right? I know exactly how to calculate fall factors, not to mention complex formulas. The point I was trying to make: fall factors are stupid simple to calculate. One number divided by another. I was calculating drool factor, not fall factor. Please delete your post so I can delete mine. Just cluttering up a cluttered thread. There is a 150 character limit. Exhausting.

You said...

Fall factor is such simple math my dog can do it.

Baker, if I have 3 cans of food and it is all for you, what is you food factor? 3/1= 3. Yum. Lots of drool.

You can't have a fall factor of 3 so if you are saying 3/1 = fall factor 3 you are not calculating it correctly. Any factor that would be over 2 is a rope that has been cut. Maybe that isn't what you mean by that statement you wrote and you were just posting random numbers that had nothing to do with fall factor but it confused me.

Old Lady H wrote:That extra friction would be super useful not just for a heavier climber, but I'm thinking would be nice when my climber is working something tough, and wants a lot of tension, and/or is doing the same three feet for what seems like hours.

So long as it's sport and not trad unless they really know what they're doing (and if they did they probably wouldn't be doing this if it was trad).

Healyje wrote: So long as it's sport and not trad unless they really know what they're doing (and if they did they probably wouldn't be doing this if it was trad).

Top rope. :-)

Kyle Tarry wrote: Grigri.

Lining up an Alpine Up try out.

Got a pm from Brian in SLC this morning:

"I was asking about your use of gloves because I was curious as to the reason(s).

I wonder how people arrive at the methods they use. In a general sense, and, more specifically as to how it effects what they know and how they know it.

Being somewhat involved in canyoneering, I hear that folks "need" gloves to rappel. My response is that folks need to learn how to manage friction and use of a device, then employ gloves to save wear and tear on their hands if need be. But, to have to rely on gloves...it seems we've lost the game at that point. So...similar for belaying with gloves."

Brian, here's the reply, public, as I promised:

Everyone, I don’t view gloves in the same class as a helmet, rather, a personal preference, and last chance hope for my hands in a disaster.

I actually rarely wear gloves, other than for cold weather, even doing things most people wear them for like working an axe or sledge hammer.

So Brian, here’s my list, YMMV

1. Yes, I was first taught by someone to wear gloves for rappel, and also for belay. I can rappel and belay just fine without, but as this is my main climbing partner (and son), I respect his wishes when I climb with him.

2. I have very, very, small hands. In lowering, even with all the callouses I have, I still get blisters with a long session during the lowering, as a rope fills my whole hand.

3. They are also old hands. When my grip is closed at all, I’ve got a pretty good wad of loose skin where the webbing is, vulnerable to those blisters, but, also sucked into an ATC. Once. Once is enough. Only rgold , myself, and one or two other people on the planet believe it, but, yes, it is possible to have rope pulled through an ATC while it is braked, and suck that skin right in there. Not fun. It also means braking with your off hand long enough to yank your now damaged hand out of the device, possibly while you are up in the air. When this happened last weekend, just a bit of cloth was caught, and easily dealt with.

4. I am one of those who will grab a moving rope, if that’s what it takes. There are plenty of threads detailing accidents where hands have been sacrificed to save a climber. I’ve not done this, but you bet I would if faced with it. And yes, the chances of me having my gloves on right at that moment, if it came, are hit and miss.

5. My hands are my living. In the above scenario, Id rather not lose my ability to work. At 60 years old, if I was not able to do my job, it is most likely the end of it.

All that said, if the gloves I have on were interfering, off they would go. I rely on feel, like many of you, and so far, that has worked with the gloves I use. Gloves are ONLY to mitigate probable minor nuisance damage, possible less likely but painful damage, and highly unlikely but severe damage in dire circumstances. Honestly, the last is the one that really matters, because it matters even more to the person who is rocketing toward the ground, for whatever reason.

Again, totally up to the individual, but those are pretty much my reasons for wearing gloves for rappel and belay.

Best, Helen

ViperScale wrote: You said... Fall factor is such simple math my dog can do it. Baker, if I have 3 cans of food and it is all for you, what is you food factor? 3/1= 3. Yum. Lots of drool. You can't have a fall factor of 3 so if you are saying 3/1 = fall factor 3 you are not calculating it correctly. Any factor that would be over 2 is a rope that has been cut. Maybe that isn't what you mean by that statement you wrote and you were just posting random numbers that had nothing to do with fall factor but it confused me.

With rope stretch, you can *technically* have a fall factor higher than 2. It's just that people treat the fall-factor model as a fundamental physical law, rather than a model that approximates reality. I would argue that the fall-factor model approximates reality only within the error bars that neglecting rope stretch during calculation provides.

Petsfed wrote: With rope stretch, you can *technically* have a fall factor higher than 2. It's just that people treat the fall-factor model as a fundamental physical law, rather than a model that approximates reality. I would argue that the fall-factor model approximates reality only within the error bars that neglecting rope stretch during calculation provides.

I don't think stretch counts because that is the point at which the force is being dispersed when it starts to stretch. So I guess technically by the length formula you are past factor 2 but to get past factor 2 you are also losing the amount of force.

Someone who is in physics may know better than me but that would be my guess why they don't count it towards a higher fall factor.

Petsfed wrote: With rope stretch, you can *technically* have a fall factor higher than 2. It's just that people treat the fall-factor model as a fundamental physical law, rather than a model that approximates reality. I would argue that the fall-factor model approximates reality only within the error bars that neglecting rope stretch during calculation provides.

Actually, no. Fall factor is based on the fall before stretch. So, 2 is the highest, based on the concept. Although some like to talk about the theoretical higher than 2 based on the rope snagging behind a flake during a fall.

Drool factor can easily go as high as 6.

So if you jump off a 400ft cliff and have a 10ft rope hanging off you with a biner tied to the end and that biner caught a bolt after falling 300ft you would technically be higher than fall factor 2... but highly unlikely and you would still be dying at that point.

Let me restate: fall-factor is often defined as "distance between where you fell and where you stopped"/"amount of unstretched rope between you and your belayer".

Its true definition is 2*"rope between Climber and last piece of pro"/"total amount of rope out". It assumes that neither value changes over the course of the fall, for any reason.

We could clarify it and say ("amount of rope between Climber and last piece at beginning of fall" + "distance below last piece of pro and Climber at time rope begins to catch")/"total amount of rope amount out at the time of the catch", but even this allows for a fall factor greater than 2. And it ignores the possibility of a swinging fall, even as it accounts for the belayer taking in slack.

But the problem persists: the incredibly crude model is treated as some kind of fundamental physical law.

ViperScale wrote:So if you jump off a 400ft cliff and have a 10ft rope hanging off you with a biner tied to the end and that biner caught a bolt after falling 300ft you would technically be higher than fall factor 2... but highly unlikely and you would still be dying at that point.

I'd like to see your dogs calculations on that one. It would probably just turn around and start digging....

OLH, sorry, Black CLIFFS....doh. I might have been drinking, no other excuse although Black Rocks would be more appropo. BTW, if you get on an overhanging rappel, where you are in space, remember that double biner trick and use it there. Good stuff.

I am surprised after reading through all this that no one mentioned taking the hand on the climber strand and doubling up on the brake strand when catching a fall.

That and listen to the advice about doubling up biners while belaying. If you want more friction for lead belaying a more rectangular cross section like the BD vapor supplies a ton.

Extended rappel on icy 8mm rope, high friction of ATC guide, doubled vapors and 155lb climber. I was worried because my hands were freezing, didn't have much dexterity with big BD guide gloves. I had to actually manually feed rope into the ATC at the start of the rap. Your hand will not be getting sucked into the belay device with two biners unless your leader has horribly fucked up right off the anchor.

Factors to consider to determine actual fall distance are really good things for leaders and belayers to understand. Often, the actual distance comes as a surprise to many, at least in certain situations, such as the OP.

So, let's look at it per the OP's numbers:

2/3 of the way up a 60 foot route=40
10 feet above last piece=20 feet of free fall on 40 feet of rope. 20/40=.5

A modest fall factor. But, this puts the leader at 20 feet above the deck before the belayer has even felt the fall. Now, a bit of slack comes out of the rope. Let's assume Helen is super attentive and keeping a close belay. So, only 2 feet of slack.

Leader is only 18 feet above deck.

Now, rope begins to stretch. Let's go super conservative here. 10%. (It was probably more). 10% of 40=4

Leader is 14 feet above deck.

Belayers gets lifted 2 feet.

Leader is 12 off deck.

Rope slips through device 2 feet.

Leader is 10 feet off deck.

Helen feels pop. Piece blows.

Let's say piece below is only 4 feet below the highest piece. That puts 8 more feet of slack in system.

Leader is only 2 feet off deck. Helen get lifted another 2 feet.

Leader is hitting the deck just as the fall comes to a stop.

Whoa! You guys are super lucky.

Belayer weight vs leader weight can be a critical factor despite how comfortable you are belaying heavier leaders. Rope slippage, too, can be the difference between an exciting fall and an injured leader. It's nothing personal. It's just the laws of physics.

Petsfed wrote:Let me restate: fall-factor is often defined as "distance between where you fell and where you stopped"/"amount of unstretched rope between you and your belayer". Its true definition is 2*"rope between Climber and last piece of pro"/"total amount of rope out". It assumes that neither value changes over the course of the fall, for any reason. We could clarify it and say ("amount of rope between Climber and last piece at beginning of fall" + "distance below last piece of pro and Climber at time rope begins to catch")/"total amount of rope amount out at the time of the catch", but even this allows for a fall factor greater than 2. And it ignores the possibility of a swinging fall, even as it accounts for the belayer taking in slack. But the problem persists: the incredibly crude model is treated as some kind of fundamental physical law.

Arrrg. Wrong again. Fall factor in NOT often defined, IT IS DEFINED as ... And it ignores swing because the leader won't swing until the rope begins to tension. The fall factor is over at this point.

Fall factor is a formula to simplify an approximation of fall forces. It is not some law of physics. It can be used in a more complex formula, which will also include leader weight and other factors to calculate resultant forces.

Viper's analogy above is technically correct.