From: AS.MSW@forsythe.stanford.edu (Marc Whitney)
Subject: Re: Cathedral Pk. Accident, Yosemite
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:16:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.012617.21434@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>,
jmorton@euler.Berkeley.EDU (John Morton) writes:
>I have some more details from the recent Cathedral Pk. accident.
>The information comes from a former Yosemite Mtn. School instructor who
>spoke at length with the people involved in the recovery.
>
>The couple were an experienced man ("a 5.11 climber") and an
>inexperienced woman, climbing on the SE Buttress of Cathedral Pk.,
>a 5.6 route which I would guess to be 800 ft. in length, at an
>angle of maybe 60 deg.
>
>From the gear attached to the climbers, it was derived that the
>man was belaying the woman from above at the time of the accident.
>There was no protection between them (not surprising - this is an
>easy route, commonly soloed).  He was anchored to two smallish
>nuts, and was belaying her through one of them.  Apparently she
>fell; one nut pulled and then the other.
>
>I have never liked this belay method, which I believe has come
>into common use since the advent of belay devices.  A plate is
>pretty quick in a lower belay situation, but the upper
>belay is always a hassle because the plate is so far away from
>your body.  This forces you to lean way over and take very small
>bites as you uprope.  For this reason you see many climbers set
>up the belay so that the rope runs upwards (as is natural) to a
>piece, then down to the climber.  Europeans frequently transfer
>the device itself to one of the anchor points.
>
>The consequence of a severe fall is that this piece rips first,
>spins you around, then shock-loads the next thing in line.
>(The poor devil who clipped his/her device to the piece is left
>holding the rope with palm-friction.)
>The first piece is not contributing to the anchor at all:
>either it holds the fall (and you don't need your body anchor)
>or it pulls and your anchor is subjected to more than it would
>have seen if you had used a trad-style braced-feet position.
>
>At a time when most belays were on ledges I was taught that
>the body position was very important in holding falls.  The
>anchor was always lined up with the potential direction of pull,
>something which is made difficult with harnesses which have no
>anchor points in back.
>
>I am pretty superstitious about belay anchors.  I _never_ lean
>on them unless I have to, and in such a case I make it more
>redundant than usual.  I think the reason for this is that I
>have held many falls without pulling on the anchor, and always
>operate with my body (and technique) as the first line of
>defense.  I am therefore also quite confident of unanchored
>body belay positions when doing 4th class.
>
>I now invite you to punch holes in my reasoning.
>
I don't think there are any holes to punch.  There is an added
possible factor:  when you use a plate in an upper belay it is slow
as you note -- the result is that the second often climbs faster
than the belayer can take in rope and considerable slack developes.
 (After being roundly cursed by a second who felt I was taking in
rope to slowly, I now almost always revert to a hip belay when
belaying from above.)  The slack allows a falling climber to
accelerate; if there is enough slack the falling second can produce
a considerable force on the belay position.  While a good anchor
should be strong enough to hold this, if you can keep the slack out
you never have to test it.  With a snug belay all the anchor will
ever have to hold is body weight less friction.