Security of the belay position

[hank moon]

NOTE FROM MODERATOR: This thread was split off from here:
http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?64414



Nice pics as always dude! :2thumbs:

X2 on that, Kurt - fun lookin' day in there. :)

In the pix below, the belayer appears to be in a poor (unanchored) position to catch a fall, but there is often more to the story. So? :haha:

55977

55978

[Deathcricket]

X2 on that, Kurt - fun lookin' day in there. :)

In the pix below, the belayer appears to be in a poor (unanchored) position to catch a fall, but there is often more to the story. So? :haha:


Did you fail to notice the Hulk-like arms of Andy? Your point is irrelevant.

[hank moon]

55997

[oldno7]

X2 on that, Kurt - fun lookin' day in there. :)

In the pix below, the belayer appears to be in a poor (unanchored) position to catch a fall, but there is often more to the story. So? :haha:

55977
55978

It would appear your point is valid. Andy never posts here--So your question might remain unanswered.

Just prior to this, I went side by side(un-aided) with a newer young guy, talking him through was a simple process.

The down climb, as you know--appears intimidating but the amount of quality features in the rock make it rather easy.

I'm going with---the rope was more of a "comfort" feature, rather than actually needed.

I know at least one of the people who had a top rope belay, had been through at least 3 other times un-aided.

[hank moon]

It would appear your point is valid. Andy never posts here--So your question might remain unanswered.

Thanks for answering, Kurt. A few thoughts on Andy's "comfort" or "psychological" belay:

Sometimes a psycho-belay can be useful to get someone down a climb. But, the consequences of a fall should always be fully discussed and understood by all in such cases, and in no case* should the belayer be put at risk by the climber's fall.

In the pictured situation, a fall by the climber could be bad news for people at both ends of the rope, and therefore the entire group. A real belay (or spot...or other safety aid) should be provided whenever possible to folks who want it. In this case, a real belay could have been provided so I am curious what the group's communication was concerning the downclimb, safety, sequencing, etc.

Bottom line for those who may imitate stuff they see on the internet: The belay shown in the photos is not a real belay and not safe. Do not attempt.

[oldno7]

I got some questions for you, Hank.

In a may west type canyon, with a floor at 8-12 feet, and a required stemming length of 40-50'.

At what point does a top rope belay fail to be effective and become more psychological?

Would the height of the belayer affect that distance?

Not condoning or chastising Andy's position, just asking rhetorically.

If there is a range of effectiveness, can this type of stance aid in a "slip" before it becomes a fall, in that distance?

If there was an actual fall--could the rope running through the belayers descending device, actually slow the fall and not put 100% of the downclimbers weight on the belayer in the EFFECTIVE distance?

I'm not sure of some of these questions but I see you are, can you elaborate?

I've still so much to learn....

oops--just saw where you pointed out--"a real belay could have been provided"

assuming by the word "real" you mean a belay that could safely cover the entire distance of this may west section, would you describe where this belay could be situated and how that location will protect the entire section in question. Thanks for your help.

[ratagonia]

I got some questions for you, Hank.

In a may west type canyon, with a floor at 8-12 feet, and a required stemming length of 40-50'.

At what point does a top rope belay fail to be effective and become more psychological?

Would the height of the belayer affect that distance?

Not condoning or chastising Andy's position, just asking rhetorically.

If there is a range of effectiveness, can this type of stance aid in a "slip" before it becomes a fall, in that distance?

If there was an actual fall--could the rope running through the belayers descending device, actually slow the fall and not put 100% of the downclimbers weight on the belayer in the EFFECTIVE distance?

I'm not sure of some of these questions but I see you are, can you elaborate?

I've still so much to learn....

oops--just saw where you pointed out--"a real belay could have been provided"

assuming by the word "real" you mean a belay that could safely cover the entire distance of this may west section, would you describe where this belay could be situated and how that location will protect the entire section in question. Thanks for your help.

I'm with Hank on this... "fake belay" creates danger for both downclimber and fake-belayer.

The term is Mae West, after the lady: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae_west

"In a mae west type canyon, with a floor at 8-12 feet, and a required stemming length of 40-50'. At what point does a top rope belay fail to be effective and become more psychological?"

Without the belayer anchored, it is dangerous from the start. It is sometimes possible for the belayer to find a suitable stance and need to be anchored into a separate anchor, but this is the exception, rather than the rule.

In Mae West canyons, we do not generally belay much of anything. People who cannot solo it should probably not be there.

Falls onto Belays happen very, very quickly. Males 15-45 think that they can catch it/belay it. They cannot. Danger to both parties. This is one reason why, in canyons, a rappel or handline is perhaps safer than a belay. A rappel or handline off a stance (meat anchor) puts lower forces on the anchor and has fewer surprises.

In Spry, there is usually a sling around that jammed stump - thus, an actual anchored belay WAS available - why was it not used? (answer: testosterone poisoning.)

"If there was an actual fall--could the rope running through the belayers descending device, actually slow the fall and not put 100% of the downclimbers weight on the belayer in the EFFECTIVE distance?"

Possible. And lightening could strike the pool below, creating a cloud of steam creating a gentle cushion for the faller to drop into. About the same probability... :naughty:

What you are talking about is a soft dynamic belay. A very proficient belayer, anchored to an anchor, and using a waist or shoulder belay could perhaps do a good job of this, but it would take a lot of practice. More likely, especially when using a device, the rope would essentially lock to a static belay; or the rope would start sliding (dynamic belay) but the belayer would be unlikely to regain control of the rope. In either case, in the situation shown, the belayer would be focused on not falling off the precarious perch, rather than mediating the fall for some theoretical soft landing.

"assuming by the word "real" you mean a belay that could safely cover the entire distance of this Mae West section, would you describe where this belay could be situated and how that location will protect the entire section in question."

Well, no. A real belay would be one that would be effective for at least a small portion of the downclimb. On this one, the intimidating part is getting over the edge and down the first 8 feet, and the person shown, in that position, tied back to the stump, could provide an effective belay for that section. After that, the belay becomes less effective, but might still prevent serious injury. In this case, a person hanging on the belay would tend to fall back into the tight crack which might be a better choice than falling straight down to the ground. Or not. Hard to say.

Glad nothing happened.

Tom who is not Hank.

:moses:

[oldno7]

In Spry, there is usually a sling around that jammed stump - thus, an actual anchored belay WAS available - why was it not used? (answer: testosterone poisoning.)










:moses:


Still learning, Tom. So--from this anchored stump, what is the effective distance that can be protected? You mention that after 8' a belay is less effective, how much less for the additional 30+ feet? Also--the first 8' is the shallowest part of this may west.

Not sure where your testosterone poisoning comment comes from, I guess older gay men have differing views..(you made the bed)We can talk testosterone or gay, I'd say if one is accurate--so is the other!!! Or--we can talk of technical canyoneering, your choice..

[ratagonia]

Still learning, Tom. So--from this anchored stump, what is the effective distance that can be protected? You mention that after 8' a belay is less effective, how much less for the additional 30+ feet? Also--the first 8' is the shallowest part of this may west.

(bickering removed)

(bickering removed)

The canyoneering part of your question is not really answerable. Each situation is different; each geometry must be considered on its own merit.

The question is, is the fall with a belay better than the fall without a belay?

At the end of that traverse, the belay would make things worse. If someone slips, say 5' above the ground, they would most likely naturally land safely (especially there, where soft, flat sand is the landing). With the belay, they would almost reach the ground, and then get tugged to the side at the last moment - not a good situation.

Tom, not Hank.

[Scott P]

In a may west type canyon, with a floor at 8-12 feet, and a required stemming length of 40-50'.

At what point does a top rope belay fail to be effective and become more psychological?


So--from this anchored stump, what is the effective distance that can be protected? You mention that after 8' a belay is less effective, how much less for the additional 30+ feet?


Also--the first 8' is the shallowest part of this may west.


Oldno may chew me out for asking, but personally I'm totally confused what is meant by the questions and what is asked above. :ne_nau: Is there a Mae West section in Spry (I haven't done Spry)? Or are we speaking of more than one canyon referring to Mae West in general? Is the question on how to belay a Mae West canyon? Other than perhaps a rim crew I haven't heard of anyone using a belay in a Mae West canyon.:ne_nau:

[oldno7]

Testosterone makes men, gay or straight, think they can do things they cannot. Sorry Kurty, didn't mean to get you worked up. "Testosterone poisoning" is a phrase in common use amongst us liberals.

The canyoneering part of your question is not really answerable. Each situation is different; each geometry must be considered on its own merit.

The question is, is the fall with a belay better than the fall without a belay?

At the end of that traverse, the belay would make things worse. If someone slips, say 5' above the ground, they would most likely naturally land safely (especially there, where soft, flat sand is the landing). With the belay, they would almost reach the ground, and then get tugged to the side at the last moment - not a good situation.

Tom, not Hank.

Not worked up at all--just clarifying, you suggest testosterone was the reason for Andy's top belay, or pseudo belay if it is.
I'm suggesting that your testosterone leaning to the gay side, may be the reason for your casting stones in glass houses.

I do like--and agree with this answer though:
"The canyoneering part of your question is not really answerable. Each situation is different; each geometry must be considered on its own merit. "

So--there ya have it, Tommy

Ya see, I was the one who said I neither condone or chastise Andy's action but willing to learn.

And then ya go lobbing stones at those who can throw.

carry on.....

[oldno7]

Oldno may chew me out for asking, but personally I'm totally confused what is meant by the questions and what is asked above. :ne_nau: Is there a Mae West section in Spry (I haven't done Spry)? Or are we speaking of more than one canyon referring to Mae West in general? Is the question on how to belay a Mae West canyon? Other than perhaps a rim crew I haven't heard of anyone using a belay in a Mae West canyon.:ne_nau:

Not sure why I would chew you out for a legitimate question.
Yes, there is a nice little section in Spry that can be a 8-10 rappel, or you can stem it for 40-50'.

It is a nice introduction to may west canyons, complete with very good, albeit sometimes sharp traction on either side.

And I agree--A belay in a high stemming section is of little value, other than psychological.

[ratagonia]

(bickering removed)

[ratagonia]

Oldno may chew me out for asking, but personally I'm totally confused what is meant by the questions and what is asked above. :ne_nau: Is there a Mae West section in Spry (I haven't done Spry)? Or are we speaking of more than one canyon referring to Mae West in general? Is the question on how to belay a Mae West canyon? Other than perhaps a rim crew I haven't heard of anyone using a belay in a Mae West canyon.:ne_nau:

In Spry - not really a Mae West, but a stimulating downclimb, that ends up being much easier than it looks. I think Kurt was trying to generalize the question.

There is a belay often done in Sandthrax, mostly because there is a pin in place at the start of a silo. But the silo is not too difficult, not being as wide as it looks from that stance.

Tom

[oldno7]

Perhaps, Kurty, rather than your cryptic myopic ill-informed insults, you'd like to talk about canyoneering.

WTF? Stop being a douche. :nono: :facepalm1:



Tom :moses:

Ahh--said the douche who started the parade of insults.:roflol:

Carry on Tommy boy, I got so much more to add but I'll refrain for you,princess.....

Oh yea--technical canyoneering, seems somebody suggested that several posts back.

Keep slinging your pebbles, or not...

[ratagonia]

(bickering removed)

[oldno7]

No insult was made by me. Well, to anyone other than you.

:moses:

No problem, I can handle insults, princess, you on the other hand:lol8:

wish I could hang around but I have to leave for a bit, catch up with you later...

[Scott P]

In Spry - not really a Mae West, but a stimulating downclimb, that ends up being much easier than it looks. I think Kurt was trying to generalize the question.I see.

That was why I was confused as to what is being referred to.

Haven’t done Sandthrax either, so wasn't familiar with that belay spot.


Yes, there is a nice little section in Spry that can be a 8-10 rappel, or you can stem it for 40-50'.

It is a nice introduction to may west canyons, complete with very good, albeit sometimes sharp traction on either side.
If interested, a Mae West slot refers to a canyon that pinches out to a few inches and that you must climb up and over “looking for the wide spots” (if you can rap into it as described above, it wouldn’t be a Mae West). It is referred to a Mae West slot because she (an actor) had a curvy body which is likened to the cross section of a slot canyon where you must climb up and find the wide spots (i.e. the breast and hips). It would be completely different than what you are (or seem to be-I haven't done Spry) referring to above.

[blueeyes]

Maybe I can shed some light onto why the belay was done. After my explanation maybe or not, you will decide it was the right thing to do even if it was not an effective/safe way to do it.

One of the hardest things as a parent is learning to let go. Andy, Cory, Sarah and I were last to come up to this down climb and before I could even say anything Spencer was half way across with Kurt. One of my biggest fears in these tight little canyons is stemming anything and falling. I have not done much of it and it scares the shit out of me more than rappelling. This past January I had a moment in one of the Leprechaun’s and thanks to trackrunner I did make it through. Kurt did a fantastic job of talking Spencer down this. However in my overactive imagination all kinds of scenarios were playing themselves out in those few minutes that Kurt and Spencer made their way successfully through this obstacle. I never said a word out loud so Spencer could hear my fear but Andy heard my mumblings.

I was next. What I should have done was declined let the other two ladies go, taken a walk back down the canyon and rid myself of the images in my head. Pulled myself together and come back to do the down climb. But I didn't I started off without the belay and couldn't do it. Andy new I was perfectly capable and had just psyched myself out. So he offered the belay a placebo if you will. As soon as the rope was on my belt I relaxed enough to make the down climb. Not at any point was I ever in need of it. In fact not long after I got started Andy told me to unhook it, and he told me at this point the belay is doing you no good. You can see Cory doing the same thing in her photo, she did take it off further out but that is only because she moved through it faster than I did and Andy didn't get her attention until that point. Faced with this same down climb again I wouldn't even hesitate.

As pointed out the belay is not safe if a fall happened, especially if you are at the end of the down climb were it widens out. I don't think the intent was to belay a fall. More help me get to where I felt comfortable doing the down climb. I couldn't have used a hand line as I needed hands, feet back and ass against the walls. A rappel was offered and I declined. I didn't want to rappel because I want to learn to down climb. The start on that was a bit awkward, narrow and I was having a hard time figuring out how to get down so that my feet were on one wall pushing me into the other wall. I started a couple times and the way Andy had me set up was able to pull up on the rope a bit to help me back up, I was kind of getting myself stuck. Where he was standing he had more freedom to help me then if he was anchored…I think. Anyway, once I was past the narrower section where I kept getting stuck I was fine, felt secure and Andy had me unhook the rope.

[Deathcricket]

As Hank was pointing out, you SHOULD chastise Andy's action, because it was and could be in the future a danger to himself and others.

Tom http://www.bogley.com/forum/images/smilies/gerg.gif

And just like that, Andy and crew enter the "Very unsafe and dangerous, do not hang out with these guys" club. Poor Hummingbird too, on her first trip! Surprised she didn't die. :haha:

Welcome Andy and crew to the "Unsafe Adventurers Club" or "B-Team", please wipe your feet off and leave your helmets at the door.

I actually have a video of someone rapping that area, let me put it up. After some discussion we (our group) decided it was easier to stem it and the rest of the noobs on our trip did so. But we did use a guinea pig to test out the rap. I don't see any problem with the belay Andy used personally. It's a skinny crack and while he could not arrest a complete fall, one is very unlikely to occur. About the same odds as a lightning strike I guess, although math isn't my strong point. By simply pulling on the rope he could take 20-50lbs off the "stemmer" which would help them retain traction/friction. Which is little danger to him and beneficial to a new person. So a win/win. And it does give new people a sense of safety, which is really all they need to get over the 1st 5 foot section which is the only hard part. Once they are down in the crack they see it's not so bad.

I say "carry on" and ignore the armchair quarterback critiques. As our older group begins retirement, they will become less relevant as time goes on, and less threads will get distracted into gay segways.

56138


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYFwqPPQCh8

[blueeyes]

PS. You guys drive me nuts with the bickering. Worse than an old married couple! This canyoneering section needs some chocolate, pms pills and a tub of ice cream.

Lighten up ya all... go play outside.

[ratagonia]

Maybe I can shed some light onto why the belay was done. After my explanation maybe or not, you will decide it was the right thing to do even if it was not an effective/safe way to do it.

...



Thanks for the details, Chere.

Hanks point, which I support, was that the "belay" was not actually a belay, but a false belay, and was dangerous both for the false-belayer and for the downclimber. In the event of a slip, many things could have happenned, some of them quite bad.

An effective belay for the first part was available. There was an anchor behind the dude that he could have been clipped into.

While the pseudo-belay may have made you feel safer, it in fact subtracted from your safety. So it was not the right thing to do. I would expect Kurt, an experienced and proficient canyoneer, to recognize this difficulty; instead of recognizing the opportunity to bait me for his own entertainment.

Tom :moses:

[ratagonia]

(bickering removed)

[blueeyes]

Tom,

And now you are baiting him with your last sentence. If your intent is to teach, please teach. But do it with the heart of a teacher, why at any point do negative remarks have to be made? You asked a question, instead of waiting for an answer from Kurt, you gave a negative reason, testosterone poisoning. Thread kinda went downhill from there.

So, (<---for Hank) Andy should have clipped himself into the anchor before belaying us. A belay in that situation is only effective for a certain length because once you are out far enough if you fall you will swing back and hurt yourself more than if you just fell to the canyon floor. If the person being belayed would have fallen with Andy standing where he is in the photos and without being anchored, both the climber and belayer would be hurt.

Chere'

[Deathcricket]

Yes. Exactly why you are a proud member of the Z-Team.

Tom :moses:

And here I thought you liked being a "bottom man". *shrug*

[ratagonia]

Tom,

And now you are baiting him with your last sentence. If your intent is to teach, please teach. But do it with the heart of a teacher, why at any point do negative remarks have to be made? You asked a question, instead of waiting for an answer from Kurt, you gave a negative reason, testosterone poisoning. Thread kinda went downhill from there.

Chere'

Point taken.

"Testosterone Poisoning" was not meant as a negative, it was meant to be descriptive. Guys in a certain age range think they can do things that they can't. "If she falls, I'll just catch her". Yes, he might, but then again, if she falls when he is not paying attention, maybe not. Maybe he will be pulled off his stance, and fall on top of her. Maybe this, maybe that...

A "belay" is not a "maybe" kind of thing. The whole point of a belay is to provide certainty. In this case, the certainty could be provided by being clipped into an anchor, even a meat anchor of other people further back in the slot, if a more-traditional anchor is not available.

Tom

[oldno7]

To sum this up, real quick:

The ONLY place a belay is effective in this situation IS the initial 8'!!!!!!!!!(preferably climbing straight down, any amount you proceed OUT from the belay, only creates a pendulum-- in that first 8')

It doesn't matter if you sit down and do a meat belay, tie off to an anchor or stand on your head, thems the facts!!!

Once someone is farther out, say 15-50' and the drop is 10' this is a moot point.

You will not drag the belayer with you as you will be hitting the bottom, due to the FACT that you have more rope out than drop.

So anything past 8-10' in THIS instance, is a pseudo belay.

The belayer is not at any additional risk and the belayed has been on their own since 8.25' of this move out into stemming.(I just added the .25 for fun, it could be closer to .178965)

[blueeyes]

Makes sense.

.178965 :lol8:

[hank moon]

Issues of safety are best discussed with a clear mind. I'm gonna let this thread cool down a bit before going further with it. Perhaps we might all might consider what we have posted and make some friendly updates, even if (no, especially if) the ego resists it.

[DesertDuke]

Nice pics Old No 7. You always have good shots. However, I think I can clear this whole thing up. Obviously some members on this thread would feel better about your safety if you would just place a bolt there for his anchor. They are asking you to bolt the place so that they will feel better about the belay anchor next time. Just hang a shiny, new bolt, give us a pic of the new bolt, and all will be happy. Be sure to use stainless so that it sticks out more in the new picture. (OK, not really, I just couldn't help it)

Duke

[oldno7]

Issues of safety are best discussed with a clear mind. I'm gonna let this thread cool down a bit before going further with it. Perhaps we might all might consider what we have posted and make some friendly updates, even if (no, especially if) the ego resists it.

That was with a clear mind and I was never heated up.

You haven't seen how us white,male,gun totin',conservative,native Utahn folks get when we're actually pissed off, but theres time.

As far as this thread--I think everyone who participated did indeed express their opinion, if you want to start a dead horse thread, have at it.

This was a trip report--have you ever posted a trip report hank?

No??probably not--your more the instigator type, who turns and runs in the face of battle.

Then returns after the fact expressing bravado for having been a player.

I can only suggest(again) that you start your own thread, if you want to continue your dog and pony show here, expect the same reactions.

So, continue as you see fit.

[oldno7]

Nice pics Old No 7. You always have good shots. However, I think I can clear this whole thing up. Obviously some members on this thread would feel better about your safety if you would just place a bolt there for his anchor. They are asking you to bolt the place so that they will feel better about the belay anchor next time. Just hang a shiny, new bolt, give us a pic of the new bolt, and all will be happy. Be sure to use stainless so that it sticks out more in the new picture. (OK, not really, I just couldn't help it)

Duke

Thanks Duke

I will consider your safety suggestions in the future but it would take many bolts to protect a high stemming section of canyon.

somewhat like a via ferrata.

[Deathcricket]

Thanks Duke

I will consider your safety suggestions in the future but it would take many bolts to protect a high stemming section of canyon.

somewhat like a via ferrata.


If you're thinking of placing bolts I would suggest saving one for Misery canyon, like 2nd to last rap.

Thanks and best wishes from your pal on the Z-team! :hail2thechief:

[tyro]

Sorry to break the informal peace accord but I've re-reviewed this thread and feel that a response is warranted from the supposed "dangerous" canyoneer.

Hank,

In response to your inquiry as to the safety of my approach in assisting three members of my group at the entry of a specific downclimb in Spry Canyon, I provide the following: There is no effective belay position or anchor at that location that allows for a safe belay through the lateral length of the slot. Therefore, as was discussed between the four of us at the top, I would provide roped support to assist the downclimbers through the entry portion of the slot. It was discussed that a belay extending further out than the jammed log end would initially create a more dangerous pendulum situation than a vertical fall. The downclimbers were advised that the rope should be disconnected as soon as they found a location, beyond the initial entry, where they were comfortable enough to utilize their hands to detach the biner/rope. As you can view from the photos, as Hummingbird was moving out past the log, I was feeding rope out and there was slack in the rope behind her as evidence that any belay or rope support had ended. In the next photo of Cory, you will see that I was pulling up the slack to take up the rope as she disconnected and discontinued any rope support. These three downclimbers did a great job of maneuvering down and across the slot. The two who had not done it previously proved to themselves that they were capable of doing it in the future just as well without the rope. Chere’ provided a very good overview of the situation in her post. You asked if I could have supported each individual’s weight enough to mitigate a fall. The answer is an unequivocal “yes”. Yes, because I have done so in similar past situations and, in this instance, I used the positive results of past experience to make the judgment call. The reasons for this “belay” were multiple and I won’t endeavor to justify any of them as I don’t feel justification is required. Safety in this maneuver was supported by our discussion prior to committing to the downclimb. All parties knew the expectations and fulfilled their roles as discussed. Could something have gone wrong? Certainly. Each and every time we get on rope, downclimb, upclimb, take on keeper potholes, rap from a sand trap, rap from a water trap, rap from a fiddlestick, handline down a sketchy downclimb, scramble up slickrock in the rain, etc…. the unexpected can occur. I use my learned experiences to make judgment calls and don’t subject others to unsafe conditions. Safety is, and will always be, a primary consideration for me and all who travel with me, whether in canyons or elsewhere. You suggested a warning to other canyoneers that this photo shows a potentially dangerous belay and I don’t disagree. If it were intended to be a conventional belay several other warnings would be warranted as well. I believe the original post was intended to be a trip report and has unfortunately been hijacked but am certain Kurt wouldn’t have any objection if you wanted to use it as a training aid.
That all went well, and six of us had an entertaining day in the canyon, did not occur by luck or coincidence. We practiced due diligence and applied prudent technique at whatever level was required. The facts and our successful day bear this out.
If your initial inquiry was prompted in the constructive vein, I appreciate your effort to make a genuine contribution to the canyoneering community. If not, we’ll eventually be at odds. I’ve read some of your informative posts in the past and it seems they have been posted with the intent to educate and inform. I take your inquiry of my approach in this instance as an extension of your endeavor to bring the best practices to canyoneering. I trust this answers your questions insofar as this particular issue as I have no intent to further prolong discussion of this matter.


Tom,

It’s unfortunate that my first post on Bogley has been triggered by speculation and snide comments. I would have much rather simply continued to disregard the petty and self-aggrandizing comments that appear to be your trademark but since you’ve made this personal by categorizing me as a danger to myself and others, I suppose a response is warranted now. Please see my response to Hank for an account of the rope assist provided to three members of our group in Spry Canyon. That is all the detailed response forthcoming from me on that subject. If there is a need for you to further debate my actions, it will be without supplemental comment from me. If you’re involved in additional discussion, please try to make it constructive so members gain some benefit from their time invested.

Aside from the above, there are a few points that warrant response:
1. You made the comment to Kurt: “As Hank was pointing out, you SHOULD chastise Andy's action, because it was and could be in the future a danger to himself and others.” Tom, you have no information to support that accusation inasmuch as you don’t know what communication occurred or what strategy was determined between members of the group. You’ve based that comment on still photos of an event in which you did not participate. Suppose I begin advising others that you are a danger to the canyoneering community because you broke your arm after disregarding warnings from fellow experienced canyoneers while you were using an unsuitable “water trap” as an anchor. I don’t voice that opinion because it’s not my place to speculate on the particulars of an episode in which I don’t know the detailed interaction of the participants or the conditions under which your decision was made. If you feel the need to direct others in chastisement of me for what I feel were perfectly appropriate actions, then what should we say to you, for what in that instance, “appeared” to be your obvious stupidity? And, following that same protocol, maybe all the paying customers who have received instruction from you at ZAC should be retrained because “your action was, and could be in the future, a danger to yourself and others.” Think of all the new canyoneers they’ll pass your dangerous teachings to. Wow…… this is pretty easy to call someone else dangerous, and even stupid, when I don’t have to be responsible for gathering facts before running my mouth. See the correlation, Tom? Perhaps the Bogley forum and new canyoneers could be better served by informing them that, “depending on the circumstances, this action could be unsafe if proper precautions are not taken by both the downclimber and the rope handler.” Using your ignorance as a springboard to disparage others has no merit whatsoever. It would seem you’d have realized that by now.
2. Another comment: “In Spry, there is usually a sling around that jammed stump - thus, an actual anchored belay WAS available - why was it not used? (answer: testosterone poisoning.)” I can’t say for certain whether there was a sling on the stump or not but it is totally irrelevant as the climbers were starting from above the log and that is where the support rope was provided. If the anchor or “belay” was below them we would easily create an increased fall factor. Are you suggesting I should have increased their exposure?

So, now we come to the subject of “testosterone poisoning” and your reference to males in the age category of 15 – 45, as though they have defective thought processes compared to yours. Well, perhaps I missed out on my chance to exude testosterone during my years from 15 – 45 or, perhaps I did display an abundance of testosterone but can’t remember it now that I’m 61 years old. I can remember most occurrences within a few weeks’ time though and I can assure you that you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think my judgment was recently clouded by excess testosterone. At this point in life, a little testosterone serves my needs completely.

3. You may not remember but a few years back I had you on “belay” when we, along with Courtney, were going to rap from the pour off in refrigerator canyon just below the foot bridge on the way to Angel’s Landing. You and I downclimbed the boulders, then I climbed back up and threw you a line so you could safely explore closer to the edge. I was not attached to an anchor but was in a standing position so that I could view and mitigate a fall by you, should one occur. You were then perfectly fine with that scenario. Now, would you consider that to have been a pseudo belay? Were we both endangered because you wanted a bit of psychological support? Were you intentionally putting me at risk that day? Have you been putting fellow canyoneers at risk for years now? Or did we both make a judgment call that served the situation perfectly well? Think about it!

4. Here’s a quote from you that, had you made it your focal point, would have made this entire post much more beneficial to the community at large especially since you had no insight to the interaction of our group. “The canyoneering part of your question is not really answerable. Each situation is different; each geometry must be considered on its own merit.” A constructive conversation could then have ensued highlighting the pros and cons for handling the subject situation.

So, Tom, why is it that the vast majority of derisiveness in this forum originates with your comments? Have you not yet seen your shortcomings in this regard? Can you not see that you hijack many threads with inane and unwarranted comments? Such a shame that you either can’t, or won’t, tame your childlike impulsiveness and follow the spirit of the thread, realizing that it’s not all about you. Unfortunately, it seems you have a proven propensity for tossing belittling comments at others with no basis in fact. Hopefully this is not due to ego or pomposity on your part because that would make you a very little man and this sport needs better role models than that. Many give you a pass and chalk your inconsiderations up to “Tom’s foolishness” but you and I know that acceptance of that behavior will only perpetuate more of the same, so, you get no pass from me. Perhaps you’ll eventually find a way to soften your approach with common sense and courtesy so as to help unite this community rather than divide it. For the record, I welcome common sense discussions or critiques consequent to any actions I perform or suggest in the canyoneering world; after all, you’ll notice that I post under the name “tyro” which is from medieval latin, meaning: beginner, learner, or apprentice. I only ask that the comments be responsibly derived and delivered.

I have been a Bogley member for about three years now and have refrained from posting due to my disdain for run-on asinine, and/or unsupported speculations that have been posted from time to time. It’s my hope that this response will put speculation of this particular “belay” to rest and future critiques will be more constructive. My apologies to all for having dipped my feet into the muddied waters of Bogley controversy.

[Iceaxe]

I used my massive moderator skillz and split this off into it's own thread best I could. Because once you get past the food fight there is some useful information.

Original thread is here: http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?64414

56186

[Iceaxe]

And I agree--A belay in a high stemming section is of little value, other than psychological.

FWIW: When I encounter a high stemming situation with my kids I normally climb just in front of them. With my kids this gives them the same comfort level as a "fake belay", it also allows me to assits with a foot hold or hand hold if the need arises.

:popcorn:

[oldno7]

FWIW: When I encounter a high stemming situation with my kids I normally climb just in front of them. With my kids this gives them the same comfort level as a "fake belay", it also allows me to assits with a foot hold or hand hold if the need arises.

:popcorn:

Excellent point!

This is what I did with Spencer.

[tyro]

And I would have done the same with one person but couldn't with three.

[oldno7]

And I would have done the same with one person but couldn't with three.

Exactly!

Now quit posting so much--you've doubled your post count in just a few hours:mrgreen:

[Iceaxe]

Sorry to break the informal peace accord

Welcome to Bogley. :2thumbs:

[Deathcricket]

Welcome to Bogley. :2thumbs:

He's been around a while. I did I canyon with him, DeanPaul (Deeps), and Kevin (Cirrus2000) like 3 years ago. Really cool guy, can't say enough good things about him.


(bickering removed)

So that's why he always gets so mad when I misquote him, and then complains to the mods. Like when I posted that Terminator "come with me if you want to live" pic 2 weeks ago. It makes the frequent retraction of hostile comments more difficult when he sobers up. :lol8:

[BW123]

__

[joeb]

I started coming to this web site to learn more about canyoneering - but I have discovered it is much more entertaining to read than the yahoo user comments on Obamacare! :popcorn:

But seriously, I often run a "safety" line to of my 60 pound kids where I am not fully anchored when it is a short drop and more psychological than not - as long as I have the line taunt and am in a reasonable position, I don't sweat it - hopefully, this doesn't put me in to Death Cricket's "dangerous and unsafe" club :2gun::2gun:

Of course, on bigger drops or where concerning larger sized adults, I would be secured off to an anchor (not sure if large old utah males are considered adult - but that discussion may require a different thread!)

[ratagonia]

Sorry to break the informal peace accord but I've re-reviewed this thread and feel that a response is warranted from the supposed "dangerous" canyoneer.



Thank you for a thorough and extended response, Andy.

Amazing kerfuffle over my un-funny two word joke... I am sorry for that, as much of the meat of the discussion was missed due to the resulting food fight.




http://www.bogley.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by oldno7 http://www.bogley.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?p=503239#post503239)
It would appear your point is valid. Andy never posts here--So your question might remain unanswered.



Thanks for answering, Kurt. A few thoughts on Andy's "comfort" or "psychological" belay:

Sometimes a psycho-belay can be useful to get someone down a climb. But, the consequences of a fall should always be fully discussed and understood by all in such cases, and in no case* should the belayer be put at risk by the climber's fall.

In the pictured situation, a fall by the climber could be bad news for people at both ends of the rope, and therefore the entire group. A real belay (or spot...or other safety aid) should be provided whenever possible to folks who want it. In this case, a real belay could have been provided so I am curious what the group's communication was concerning the downclimb, safety, sequencing, etc.

Bottom line for those who may imitate stuff they see on the internet: The belay shown in the photos is not a real belay and not safe. Do not attempt!


There were/are two parts to the question that got intermingled and confused. As usual, we here in Internet-land have only the pictures provided to work with, and responded to those. And, we are thinking of the GENERAL CASE, rather that the very-specific circumstances of the moment; whereas you, being there, focus on the specific circumstances of the moment.

The two questions are:

Q1. How safe is a belay made by a standing, perched, unanchored belayer? and

Q2. Can the horizontal part of the slot be effectively belayed, and if so, under what circumstances?

---

Q1:

Hank and I were focused on Q1. Hank said this is dangerous as a general practice. Kurt agreed. You agree. I agreed and got a rash of poop for doing so... (?) although perhaps mostly for the two words I used.

We all agreed that, in general, an un-anchored belayer perched above a slot is not a solid, safe and reliable method most of the time. The particular circumstances in Spry, however, perhaps make it safe there, in particular: 1a. a solid, experienced, proficient belayer; 1b. the belayer is actively attentive; 1c. the geometry is favorable, with good places for the feet; 1d. the downclimbers were aware that the belay was somewhat precarious. All these HELP. But may I suggest a few minor changes that would improve the safety of the situation: 1e. toss a sling around the stump and clip the belayer to it (that way, if the belayer is pulled off, at least they would not go all the way to the bottom); 1f. move to a seated belay position at the first opportunity (a seated position being significantly more stable than a standing, stemming position); and/or 1g. may I suggest using a hip belay? Should the belayer start to get pulled off, it is much easier to controllably release some force when using a hip belay rather than a belay device.

Q2:

Kurt was focusing on the second part of the question, the part that is less answerable by anything other than "it depends". You guys thought that the belay did not improve safety for the lower, horizontal part of the downclimb. I said I did not think it did so either. I may have added (and in any case will add now) that later in the downclimb, when the tug on the belayer would be OUT rather than down, the only effect of the belay would be to endanger the perched, un-anchored belayer. And I know you, Andy, are smart enough not to keep a tight belay across that section, if you had any belay at all.

---

The kerfuffle seems to have originated with misinterpretation of two words: "testosterone poisoning". I see it is an obscure term, since many are unfamiliar with its semi-humorous use. Perhaps some would find a glance at the short Wikipedia article entertaining:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_poisoning

It appears that Kurt and perhaps others heard something other than what I said. And just to be clear, Testosterone Poisoning is not limited to men of a certain age range, nor even particularly to men; though the related behaviors are stereotypical for youngish males. We humans are an optimistic species. We see a task and see the opportunity for success, and move forward. We think we can do things - and we can most of the time. Among other things, it means we can go canyoneering. It takes optimism to go canyoneering.

In this case, you had good reasons to be optimistic: experience, understanding of the limitations, attention to detail. So no, please excuse my hyperbole, you were not a danger to yourself and others. I hope in the future, you also apply careful consideration when providing a belay and take into account all the many factors involved, as I know you will.

However, that was not the problem presented to the class. In the general case, a perched, un-anchored belay is not a safe thing to do. Perhaps the general, perched, un-anchored belayer (optimistically) would likely catch the falling downclimber - say - oh, 70% of the time. That is a piss-poor catch-percentage for a belay => that is a pseudo-belay. Perhaps you disagree, and think YOU would... but then we get to the details of this *specific* circumstance, with the qualifications stated, and I AGREE that YOU would have caught the falling downclimber (on the first part of the downclimb) 100% of the time, and that you provided an effective belay.

So what is the problem here?

---

Kerfuffle.

Much ado about nothing.

Hank had a question about a couple pictures in a charming Trip Report. Kurt replied and asked a question about safety. Hank replied that he is concerned that there are safety issues, especially in the general case. I agreed with Hank and expanded a little on the second part of Kurt's question, and tossed in an un-funny joke and... FOOD FIGHT!

Wow. I am deeply flattered. I express my opinion on a technical canyoneering issue, and then all sorts of people get all bent out of shape. My opinion must be HUGE, Overwhelming, Imperial! Is my opinion SO dominating, that people can't say "No Tom, I disagree. my opinion is (something else)" - rather than having to insult and degrade me (calling me OLD!), and making me into a supervillian rather than just disagreeing with me, or say I am a bit over-the-top (happens once in a while) and could maybe tone it down? Mulling over these posts the last two days, re-reading them, etc. I stand amazed at the kerfuffle created by such two small words. I will examine my responsibility in the matter, and make some changes to my behavior, certainly. It is unfortunate that I am given the power to create such conflict so easily.

Tom

(spicy pony head)

[tyro]

Thank you for a thorough and extended response, Andy.

Amazing kerfuffle over my un-funny two word joke... I am sorry for that, as much of the meat of the discussion was missed due to the resulting food fight.

[/COLOR]

There were/are two parts to the question that got intermingled and confused. As usual, we here in Internet-land have only the pictures provided to work with, and responded to those. And, we are thinking of the GENERAL CASE, rather that the very-specific circumstances of the moment; whereas you, being there, focus on the specific circumstances of the moment.

The two questions are:

Q1. How safe is a belay made by a standing, perched, unanchored belayer? and

Q2. Can the horizontal part of the slot be effectively belayed, and if so, under what circumstances?

---

Q1:

Hank and I were focused on Q1. Hank said this is dangerous as a general practice. Kurt agreed. You agree. I agreed and got a rash of poop for doing so... (?) although perhaps mostly for the two words I used.

We all agreed that, in general, an un-anchored belayer perched above a slot is not a solid, safe and reliable method most of the time. The particular circumstances in Spry, however, perhaps make it safe there, in particular: 1a. a solid, experienced, proficient belayer; 1b. the belayer is actively attentive; 1c. the geometry is favorable, with good places for the feet; 1d. the downclimbers were aware that the belay was somewhat precarious. All these HELP. But may I suggest a few minor changes that would improve the safety of the situation: 1e. toss a sling around the stump and clip the belayer to it (that way, if the belayer is pulled off, at least they would not go all the way to the bottom); 1f. move to a seated belay position at the first opportunity (a seated position being significantly more stable than a standing, stemming position); and/or 1g. may I suggest using a hip belay? Should the belayer start to get pulled off, it is much easier to controllably release some force when using a hip belay rather than a belay device.

Q2:

Kurt was focusing on the second part of the question, the part that is less answerable by anything other than "it depends". You guys thought that the belay did not improve safety for the lower, horizontal part of the downclimb. I said I did not think it did so either. I may have added (and in any case will add now) that later in the downclimb, when the tug on the belayer would be OUT rather than down, the only effect of the belay would be to endanger the perched, un-anchored belayer. And I know you, Andy, are smart enough not to keep a tight belay across that section, if you had any belay at all.

---

The kerfuffle seems to have originated with misinterpretation of two words: "testosterone poisoning". I see it is an obscure term, since many are unfamiliar with its semi-humorous use. Perhaps some would find a glance at the short Wikipedia article entertaining:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_poisoning

It appears that Kurt and perhaps others heard something other than what I said. And just to be clear, Testosterone Poisoning is not limited to men of a certain age range, nor even particularly to men; though the related behaviors are stereotypical for youngish males. We humans are an optimistic species. We see a task and see the opportunity for success, and move forward. We think we can do things - and we can most of the time. Among other things, it means we can go canyoneering. It takes optimism to go canyoneering.

In this case, you had good reasons to be optimistic: experience, understanding of the limitations, attention to detail. So no, please excuse my hyperbole, you were not a danger to yourself and others. I hope in the future, you also apply careful consideration when providing a belay and take into account all the many factors involved, as I know you will.

However, that was not the problem presented to the class. In the general case, a perched, un-anchored belay is not a safe thing to do. Perhaps the general, perched, un-anchored belayer (optimistically) would likely catch the falling downclimber - say - oh, 70% of the time. That is a piss-poor catch-percentage for a belay => that is a pseudo-belay. Perhaps you disagree, and think YOU would... but then we get to the details of this *specific* circumstance, with the qualifications stated, and I AGREE that YOU would have caught the falling downclimber (on the first part of the downclimb) 100% of the time, and that you provided an effective belay.

So what is the problem here?

---

Kerfuffle.

Much ado about nothing.

Hank had a question about a couple pictures in a charming Trip Report. Kurt replied and asked a question about safety. Hank replied that he is concerned that there are safety issues, especially in the general case. I agreed with Hank and expanded a little on the second part of Kurt's question, and tossed in an un-funny joke and... FOOD FIGHT!

Wow. I am deeply flattered. I express my opinion on a technical canyoneering issue, and then all sorts of people get all bent out of shape. My opinion must be HUGE, Overwhelming, Imperial! Is my opinion SO dominating, that people can't say "No Tom, I disagree. my opinion is (something else)" - rather than having to insult and degrade me (calling me OLD!), and making me into a supervillian rather than just disagreeing with me, or say I am a bit over-the-top (happens once in a while) and could maybe tone it down? Mulling over these posts the last two days, re-reading them, etc. I stand amazed at the kerfuffle created by such two small words. I will examine my responsibility in the matter, and make some changes to my behavior, certainly. It is unfortunate that I am given the power to create such conflict so easily.

Tom

(spicy pony head)[/INDENT]





Tom,

The written word is particularly subject to misinterpretation and exactly why there's much more need to exercise caution when using this medium. As far as I'm concerned, we're on the path to a civil and constructive discourse as evidenced by your belaying suggestions above. That fulfills my goal of providing a worthwhile thread environment where everyone benefits.

Thanks for your input.

Andy

[tyro]

Tom,

Sorry I didn't address the Q1 and Q2 portions of your comment - I was being pulled away from the keyboard with other priorities. Just briefly.... My feeling on Q1 is that a standing, unanchored, belay can be very unstable and I don't recommend it in general. In this instance it worked just fine "for the intended purpose." I agree that The brief window of opportunity for assisting the climber, from this position, is shortened even more as the climber moves outward. The longer both parties can maintain a more pronounced vertical relationship, the better. I have to disagree on the suggestion of using a shoulder or hip belay though. The laws of physics (of which I know very little) dictate that I should keep the load lower and close to my legs. A shoulder belay would have me loaded up high, more prone to tipping, and less able to use my legs for support. A hip belay, while a bit better than a shoulder belay, subjects my body to rope burns and can twist me from my front facing position as the rope will tug me from one side or the other. My tools in the belay chain (harness, biner, and belay or descending device) are designed to take a reasonable load and I can better control friction without disrupting my stance or injuring myself. YMMV Again, this approach is based on a very short opportunity to provide an assist. As the vertical relationship diminishes, so does the argument for a standing, unsupported belay.

Q2 - You're quite correct that as the relationship between belayer and climber changes from vertical to horizontal the danger to both, in this instance, increases. This is why I focused on the point of our communication before the downclimb. Everyone knew of the short window and when rope support would no longer be provided, based on the geometry.

One reason it's impossible to cover all the bases related to the appropriateness of this maneuver is that we're dealing with, not only variables, but dynamic variables that encompass skills and abilities, landscape features, mindsets, available equipment, relationship of angles, etc.... These all fit into the equation and I, in no way, recommend this as a standard practice. When you have tools in your toolbox though, and have confidence in how to use them, I feel careful application is warranted. Judgment, judgment, judgment! So, I think we're all in agreement regarding this technique and the appropriate use. It can be performed safely and in this instance it was. No problem - no "kerfuffle."

Responding to your last paragraph: You should be flattered! Your opinions reach a large number of people who take your words to heart and use your direction to guide them through life threatening canyons. The "kerfuffle" wasn't necessarily focused on two small words, although they undoubtedly contributed. The important thing though is that this site, and your written word, reaches a large group of people whose canyoneering mindsets are influenced by what and how issues are discussed here. If we do our part, responsibly, then we reap the benefits of having a lot of great, safe, partners to canyoneer with. If we're always in the trenches, lobbing grenades at each other, we lose. But, you already know this so I'll stop preaching to the choir.

Andy

Andy

[blueeyes]

Responding to your last paragraph: You should be flattered! Your opinions reach a large number of people who take your words to heart and use your direction to guide them through life threatening canyons. The "kerfuffle" wasn't necessarily focused on two small words, although they undoubtedly contributed. The important thing though is that this site, and your written word, reaches a large group of people whose canyoneering mindsets are influenced by what and how issues are discussed here. If we do our part, responsibly, then we reap the benefits of having a lot of great, safe, partners to canyoneer with. If we're always in the trenches, lobbing grenades at each other, we lose. But, you already know this so I'll stop preaching to the choir.

Andy

Andy

:2thumbs::2thumbs::2thumbs:

[denaliguide]

shoulder belays? I thought those went out with hemp rope. guaranteed to bring you to your knees. ever try to catch a bucket of sand using a shoulder belay? it doesn't take much of a drop to set you off balance. find a suitable location like the edge of a balcony or roof, tie yourself in to something so you don't get yanked off said suitable location, and try a shoulder belay. drop a 40 lb bucket of sand 10 feet and see how it feels. let us know how it goes.

sitting hip belay with legs braced? as solid today as ever. sure you might get a wee rope burn if you don't have a shirt on but if you set it up right is a great way to add dynamic potential to your belay. not so good standing. i have caught many leader falls with a hip belay when i was learning to climb. not exactly painless but it does do the job. great when you carry minimal gear.

in my opinion using a device attached to your harness is not near as effective in producing a dynamic belay mostly due to the need for your brake hand to be in front of your body instead of behind your hip. it is counter intutitive. that's my two cents.

[Bo_Beck]

Might be of interest? I've used this technique on various occasions to great effect. A standing belay can and does work very well if done properly.

http://www.rescuedynamics.ca/articles/pdfs/Shortroping201.pdf

A couple photos of proper technique during a training done at SCSP in 2007. A standing belay with potential force vectored thru the axis of the hips to the extended foot. I caught falls on vertical terrain without problems.

[Brian in SLC]

Nice shots, Bo!

Was funny...last week, my climbing partner forgot his belay device on the ground, after he lead a pitch. We had to top out as the rappel line was a multi anchor thing off to the way right. Hip belay, no problemo.

I learned how to belay with a hip belay, and, have caught really hard, long falls with one. No issue.

As far as the standing unanchored position in the aforementioned photo: hmmm. Hard tellin' not knowin'. Psychological belays can be nice, but, if the belayed person actually needs a belay...and slips, then, it best be secure or both folks are gonna be in a bad way. Whenever I put someone even on a casual belay, I assume they're going to fully weight the rope...and position accordingly.

Sometimes those lessons are learned the hard way. Had a partner above me fall many years ago. Went flying past me...I had a poor anchor and when his weight hit it, everything went south. I came loose and tumbled but managed to come to a stop, but, not before my poor partner skidded through a rock band. Ugly flesh wounds to his ribs (tore through jackets and shirts), but, we both walked away from it. Coulda been much, much worse.

Be careful out there...

[tyro]

I should clarify that my response to Q1 and Q2 above were in reference to the specific belay in Spry and in general to unanchored belays, if not familiar with appropriate technique. Those pics show someone who obviously has the skills, terrain, communication, etc... in their favor. I like that the pics show the load being offset by the hips and through the leg; the strongest part of the body. Again, dynamic variables dictate the nature of the belay, as you and I have seen on numerous occasions. If I can use a Rich Carlson quote: "it depends."

[Kishkumen]

In one of the many posts in this tread someone stated:

"There is no effective belay position or anchor at that location that allows for a safe belay through the lateral length of the slot."

I always take some trad climbing "nuts" with me to use in situations like this. There were many places that a nut could have been put in and used as an anchor and then removed when the last experienced person goes down.

I think the message of everyone in this is "Safety First". We as canyoneers should do all we can to provide safety for ourselves and for others. If a situation is unsafe and someone gives us advice/feedback, we should listen and try to learn.

[tyro]

In one of the many posts in this tread someone stated:

"There is no effective belay position or anchor at that location that allows for a safe belay through the lateral length of the slot."

I always take some trad climbing "nuts" with me to use in situations like this. There were many places that a nut could have been put in and used as an anchor and then removed when the last experienced person goes down.

I think the message of everyone in this is "Safety First". We as canyoneers should do all we can to provide safety for ourselves and for others. If a situation is unsafe and someone gives us advice/feedback, we should listen and try to learn.

That quote would be from me. Please note that I refer to a singular belay position, not multiple. From what I gather, you're suggesting that a nut, or nuts, could be placed further along the slot and multiple belay stations could have been used. I'm not certain where the belayer would position him/her self as one's stance becomes even more tenuous as one moves further out. But it seems reasonable that if you wanted to belay from another single position and there was a good spot for a nut you could do it. I have to say though that the crux, for the climbers involved, was at the entry and that's where the assist was provided. The rest of the stemming proved no problem.

You're right in that "Safety First" is the most important message we're trying to get across here. In that vein, I'd recommend that everyone read the article that Bo linked to in his post above. It gives an excellent overview of shortroping technique that can be used in varied terrain, from snow/ice, to mountaineering, and to canyoneering.

[Bo_Beck]

Nice shots, Bo!
Was funny...last week, my climbing partner forgot his belay device on the ground, after he lead a pitch. We had to top out as the rappel line was a multi anchor thing off to the way right. Hip belay, no problemo.
I learned how to belay with a hip belay, and, have caught really hard, long falls with one. No issue.

Thanks Brian! I really enjoyed the full day class that Kirk Mauthner provided for us in "Shortroping". It's always good to have a few "proven" tricks up your sleeve.


As far as the standing unanchored position in the aforementioned photo: hmmm. Hard tellin' not knowin'. Psychological belays can be nice, but, if the belayed person actually needs a belay...and slips, then, it best be secure or both folks are gonna be in a bad way. Whenever I put someone even on a casual belay, I assume they're going to fully weight the rope...and position accordingly.

The standing shoulder belay is very effective for more or less "static" belays. It certainly wouldn't be fun to try to catch a "dynamic" event this way! The purpose is to insure little to no slack during the assist.


Sometimes those lessons are learned the hard way. Had a partner above me fall many years ago. Went flying past me...I had a poor anchor and when his weight hit it, everything went south. I came loose and tumbled but managed to come to a stop, but, not before my poor partner skidded through a rock band. Ugly flesh wounds to his ribs (tore through jackets and shirts), but, we both walked away from it. Coulda been much, much worse.
Be careful out there...

Proof! Dynamic events will be spooky! Kirk told me of a new route he was attempting in the Bugs and he tried arresting a 120 meter fall! (this is a 400' fall!) The belay was directly off the anchor. His partner decked into a snow bank after lots and lots of rope stretch and cratered deep into the bank (maybe 3 meters into the bank?) and fortunately sustained several severe fractures, but lived to climb another day!

[qedcook]

I've caught a few falls from a less than ideal belay spot before. You should always do everything you can to make yourself as secure as possible (obviously). I'm not stating anything people don't know, but a fall generate a lot of force. As to the pictures, it looks like a few steps upcanyon would make for a safer belay.