Security of the belay position

[Deathcricket]

Welcome to Bogley.

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.

[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!

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

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.

Originally Posted by oldno7
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

[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/article...troping201.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.