Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Scariest fall ever?

gfdonc

9-Oct-2012
12:36:58 PM

This one has to be close .. lifted from Tom Evans' El Cap report yesterday:

> My buddy, Scott Deputy, did make a solo NIAD (Nose in a Day), topping out early this morning. Just as night fell a piece of gear pulled on him and he wheeled off for a 70 footer. He was almost to the ramp leading to Camp 5 and plunged past a team of two at the belay below, just missing them as he came by, inverted! His grigri was stuck open.
> He continued downward, lingering in the twilight between life and death.... the rope tangled in his legs and that flipped him upright... the grigri engaged and he was back in the world! His grigri seems to have been jammed by his fifi and kept the device from engaging properly. He was not tied into the end of the rope and had no back up!
>He got some burns on his leg and was bruised but continued on the route. He said the guys at the belay were horrified as he sailed by. When I saw him this morning it looked like he had gone 10 rounds with Mike Tyson! Pretty tough dude that Scott!

hero

9-Oct-2012
2:20:32 PM

I still have a problem with the idea of climbing with a device named after an african good luck charm?


Cool Hand Lock

9-Oct-2012
2:56:49 PM

That's a massive winger.

Mental Jim told me he was belaying someone going for a ground up first ascent at Ben Lomond. On the second pitch the guy ran out 30m with no gear, as it was a closed corner. Fell the full 60m+stretch. Pulled up a few meters off the deck.

Mental Jim shaid he the leader went past the belay quite quickly.

widewetandslippery

9-Oct-2012
4:12:11 PM

I do not know mental jim but I just read enough to know we all need more mental jims


Climboholic

9-Oct-2012
4:31:08 PM

On 9/10/2012 Cool Hand Lock wrote:
>That's a massive winger.
>
>Mental Jim told me he was belaying someone going for a ground up first
>ascent at Ben Lomond. On the second pitch the guy ran out 30m with no gear,
>as it was a closed corner. Fell the full 60m+stretch. Pulled up a few meters
>off the deck.
>
>Mental Jim shaid he the leader went past the belay quite quickly.

The question is: Do you take in slack in that situation?

On one hand, it looks like your mate is going to come pretty close to decking.

On the other, pulling through any rope makes it a factor 2+ fall and buggered if you're going to let this lunatic kill you too.

Discuss...

naticafe

9-Oct-2012
4:35:03 PM

my grigri is always getting jammed in my fifi

I suppose I should shave more often to avoid these close shaves

hi hero

hero

10-Oct-2012
9:39:17 AM

"my grigri is always getting jammed in my fifi"

As Slipper text to Ashby

Hi back.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

10-Oct-2012
10:02:56 AM

NIAD solo without tying into the end of the rope is a risk many wouldn't take, as the first post in this thread admirably highlights.

On 9/10/2012 Climboholic wrote:
>The question is: Do you take in slack in that situation?

It was a roped solo, but if a similar situation arose to a leader while I was belaying them, then I would try to short-rope them but don't imagine I would achieve much by doing so if at a hanging belay.

>On one hand, it looks like your mate is going to come pretty close to decking.

>On the other, pulling through any rope makes it a factor 2+ fall and buggered if you're going to let this lunatic kill you too.

I would take the short roping option, because I nearly always make/use solid multidirectional belays when I climb. On the rare occasions that this isn't the case for me, then the climbing involved is also usually not in FF2 territory.

For the roped soloing that I engage in, I often incorporate load limiting devices (screamers etc), into the system, as well as having backup knots, tied in etc., but I am not trying to climb fast like NIAD stuff.☻

kieranl

10-Oct-2012
10:27:39 AM

On 10/10/2012 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:

>On 9/10/2012 Climboholic wrote:
>>The question is: Do you take in slack in that situation?
>
>It was a roped solo, but if a similar situation arose to a leader while
>I was belaying them, then I would try to short-rope them but don't imagine
>I would achieve much by doing so if at a hanging belay.
>
>>On one hand, it looks like your mate is going to come pretty close to
>decking.
>
>>On the other, pulling through any rope makes it a factor 2+ fall and
>buggered if you're going to let this lunatic kill you too.
>
>I would take the short roping option, because I nearly always make/use
>solid multidirectional belays when I climb. On the rare occasions that
>this isn't the case for me, then the climbing involved is also usually
>not in FF2 territory.
>
You're not going to be able to take in much slack while someone's falling, maybe a metre, 2 if you're really sharp. Might make a difference to them hitting something but you're probably better off hunkering down to hold the fall. If you had a few metres of slack in the belay you could jump off the ledge and that would help but you probably wouldn't have that option.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

10-Oct-2012
10:35:36 AM

On 10/10/2012 kieranl wrote:
>You're not going to be able to take in much slack while someone's falling,
>maybe a metre, 2 if you're really sharp. Might make a difference to them
>hitting something but you're probably better off hunkering down to hold
>the fall. If you had a few metres of slack in the belay you could jump
>off the ledge and that would help but you probably wouldn't have that option.

Agreed (& similar to what I wrote early in my post!)
>>I would try to short-rope them but don't imagine
>>I would achieve much by doing so if at a hanging belay.
☺

As an aside; hanging belays usually act as limited-screamers when the belayer gets pulled upwards to the extent of their tether slack, which helps dissipate some force, but other than that I try not to have excess slack while belaying, unless the leader calls for it!

POST EDIT (heh, heh, heh);
In the future Climboholic writes;
>I was talking about Mental Jim's situation

Fair enough, I stand corrected.
~> The logic still holds good!
☺


Climboholic

10-Oct-2012
11:10:37 AM

I was talking about Mental Jim's situation


The good Dr

10-Oct-2012
12:25:29 PM

There is always this one ...

Coral Bowman
Eldorado Canyon, Colorado; 1978
Scenario: Free-fall after failed rappel
Injuries: Severe rope burns
Elapsed time: Minutes

Coral Bowman, one of Colorado’s strongest female climbers during the late 1970s, hoped to complete the first all-woman ascent of The Naked Edge, the five-pitch 5.11 in Eldorado Canyon. On September 12, 1978, Bowman and Sue Giller quickly climbed several pitches to the first belay of the Edge, trailing a 9mm rope for hauling a pack with sweaters and water. Trading leads, they successfully free-climbed the first two pitches of the Edge, and Giller was leading the easier third pitch when the haul rope jammed below Bowman’s belay ledge. She yelled to Giller to climb back down to the ledge, so Bowman could rappel their single lead rope to the free the stuck haul line, and then reclimb the second pitch on toprope.

Feeling impatient with the delay, Bowman rushed the anchor set-up and failed to reverse the gates of the two biners that clipped the rope to the anchor sling. As she leaned over the wall atop pitch two, the sling pushed open the carabiners and the rappel rope popped out. Bowman free-fell toward the ground, about 300 feet below.

Time seemed to stop. Bowman remembers looking over her shoulder at the ground and imagining concerned friends watching. Then, after plummeting about 20 feet, accelerating fast, she reached out and grabbed the 9mm haul rope with both hands. Though her hands burned horribly from the friction, Bowman managed to slow and then stop her fall. She wrapped the free end of the haul rope around her leg to relieve the strain, and with her hands beginning to stiffen into useless claws, she inserted the skinny haul rope into her carabiner brake and slid down to the anchor atop the first pitch. Giller joined her and began lowering Bowman to the ground for a trip to the hospital, badly shaken but grateful to be alive.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

10-Oct-2012
12:51:33 PM

On 10/10/2012 The good Dr wrote:
>There is always this one ...
>
>
> Coral Bowman
> Eldorado Canyon, Colorado; 1978
> Scenario: Free-fall after failed rappel
> Injuries: Severe rope burns
> Elapsed time: Minutes
>
>(snip)

I have vague memory bells ringing about that appearing in the book by John Long;
Close Calls: Climbing Mishaps and near death experiences.

(Reviews of same can be found here.)

gfdonc

10-Oct-2012
12:53:48 PM

Yes I remember reading Giller's account of that one, probably in Mountain mag.

hero

10-Oct-2012
1:44:19 PM

John Harlin?


Macciza

10-Oct-2012
3:40:45 PM

Lynn Hill - in '89 . . .
Dislocates elbow in seventy-foot ground fall, Buoux, France

Basically I didn’t tie a knot. I put the rope through my harness, but I didn’t finish tying my knot. After putting my shoes on, the rope was still in my harness, but since I had a jacket on which covered my harness, I didn’t notice that my knot was not tied. When I got to the top of the Styx-Wall, I leaned back to abseil back to the ground and just kept falling. I don’t remember exactly, but apparently when I fell backwards I used my arms to steady myself as I was failing. I landed on a tree branch, which slowed me down before I hit the ground.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

10-Oct-2012
8:56:38 PM

On 10/10/2012 Cliff D wrote:
>On 9/10/2012 Climboholic wrote: On the other, pulling through any rope
>makes it a factor 2+ fall and buggered if you're going to let this lunatic
>kill you too. Discuss...
>
>I'd haul like mad, and brace at the last opportunity. It saved my goose.
>Its just a personal preference.
>
>I suppose that hauling in some rope would make the impact a bit more
>than a FF2, but why is that necessarily problemmatic? Were does the "fall
>factor 2+ will kill you" thing come from?
>
Plenty of tests results indicate that FF2 is bad for your (and the gear involved), health!

>FWIW, FF2s generate as much force as a top runner fall (eg, factor 0.4
>fall), so it stands to reason that 'FF2 and a bit' wouldn't generate that
>much more force on an anchor.
>
?
I think that you are a fair way off the mark with your comments. Maybe do a search on FF2 on Chockstone (search button is on left of screen), and you may find enlightenment(?), as the subject has been discussed a number of times already.
☺

pecheur

10-Oct-2012
9:02:03 PM

On 10/10/2012 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>On 10/10/2012 Cliff D wrote:
>>FWIW, FF2s generate as much force as a top runner fall (eg, factor 0.4
>>fall), so it stands to reason that 'FF2 and a bit' wouldn't generate
>that
>>much more force on an anchor.
>>
>?
>I think that you are a fair way off the mark with your comments. Maybe do a search on FF2 on Chockstone (search button is on left of screen), and you may find enlightenment(?), as the subject has been discussed a number of times already.
>☺

Is Cliff D a troll? I'm beginning to wonder.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

10-Oct-2012
9:11:53 PM

On 10/10/2012 Cliff D wrote:
>Thanks. I understand that the force falling on gear placed above (e.g.,
>FF .4) is actually greater than on the anchor with a FF2. But I'm not a
>tech wiz. I'll do a search like you said on CS.

>EDIT

>And of course it goes without saying, that falling onto the anchor is something to avoid. But my point/question, if there was one, was that given a fall on the anchor was going to happen, a FF .04 generates the same force as a FF2, and presumably FF2+. And these forces are usually in the magnitude of 5Kn.

>I wouldn't be more concerned about FF2 or FF2+ falls, than FF.4 falls on gear.

Your concept of force is incorrect.

A fall factor 2 is greater than a fall factor of any number less than 2.
It is the relationship between distance fallen and amount of rope in the system (read paid out from the belay device), available to absorb the force generated.
If you fall twice the distance of the available rope paid out to absorb that force, then you have a FF2.
Any gear that holds, between the fallen climber and the belay lessens the distance fallen, and thus the available rope paid out to absorb the lesser distance of fall is correspondingly greater, ... hence a lower FF is involved.
~> The force involved is (to all practical intents and purposes), the same, but the difference is that more rope paid out absorbs the force and thereby reduces the transferring of that same force to the gear, the climber, and the belay.

The transfer of a FF 2 force onto gear/climber/belay is greater than the force of (any number less than 2), your example of a FF 0.4; ... so all those components are happier/healthier for having the lesser force (your example again of FF 0.4), transferred to them!

kieranl

10-Oct-2012
10:09:07 PM

On 10/10/2012 Cliff D wrote:
>On 10/10/2012 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>
>Hi M9. You went to a lot of effort thanks. I know a little about FFs,
>but tx for the review:) I read research from the GAC reporting on loads
>on anchors at various FFs (FF.4 and 2). The loads were equivalent in both
>situations, and actually greater on occasion with FF.4 (gear placed above
>anchor).
>
>~> The force involved is (to all practical intents and purposes), the
>same, but the difference is that more rope paid out absorbs the force and
>thereby reduces the transferring of that same force to the gear, the climber,
>and the belay.
>
>I'm unsure that I follow you. Doesn't the rope transmit/is a conduit for
>the force that is experienced at the anchor? If the force at the anchor
>with a FF.4 is the same as for a FF2, doesn't it follow that the forces
>through the rope are the same.
>
>I tried the search engine... no luck getting it to work. This question
>is not important anyways, I can't imagine that it influences a great deal
>about how you choose to climb. Or maybe I've gotten it wrong all this time.
>
>EDIT Here's some of the research I had read
>
>Chris Semmel, German Mountain Guide, and researcher for the GAC, using
>dynamometer testing in “real-life” scenarios found that:
>• In a top runner fall (eg, factor 0.4 fall) forces are in the range of
>4.2 to 7 kN, depending on the type of belay and the device used, with the
>great majority of devices and belay
>types generating about 5 kN at the runner.
>• Factor 2 falls did not generate greater fall forces than those sustained
>by the top
>runner in much less “severe” falls. Even with nearly static “direct off
>the anchor”
>belay methods such as a GriGri attached to a bolt, factor 2 falls generated
>only
>about 5 kN of force.
>
>Chris reached the following conclusions:
>• The belay anchor can never be loaded much beyond 5 kN, even in factor
>2 falls
>directly onto the anchor.
>• Upward pull forces on a fixed-point belay can virtually never be much
>in excess
>of about 2.5 kN, even in the most severe falls.

Cliff it's really simple. A fall of say 40 metres generates a force, lets call it X.
When the climber hits the end of the rope (or the ground) that force acts on its surroundings. Part of that force will be dissipated by stretching the rope.If a rope requires a force of Y to strech a metre of rope then, if you have 20 metres of rope out (i.e. factor 2) then the rope will absorb 20Y of the force X, leaving X-20Y to be distrbuted between the anchors and the climbers body. On the other hand if you have 40 metres of rope out from the belay, then 40Y force will be distributed to stretch the rope and X-40Y force is available to act on anchors and the climbing.
This is a gross simplification but anything more complex is beyond me.
So, the more rope out for a given fall length the less force will act on the anchors and climber.

There are 36 messages in this topic.