Ground Fall | Rappel Failure

The Apron, Squamish, British Columbia

On the afternoon of September 3, 2021, Dany Dalpe (29) suffered a 200-foot ground fall from several pitches up on The Apron in Squamish. At the time, Dalpe was a climber with five years of experience. Though he consistently climbed 5.13 sport routes, his multi-pitch experience was limited to two years, mainly on bolted routes around Squamish. His partner (female, 29) was a beginner climber using borrowed gear. This was her first multi-pitch outing.

Around 12:30 p.m. the pair started up Born Again, a link-up combining sections of established routes with new pitches to create “the best protected 5.10 on the Apron.” Its copious protection, bolted belays, and generally forgiving angle made it a fine choice given the team’s limited experience.

Red line shows the first two pitches of Born Again. Instead of continuing up this route (red arrow), the climbers traversed left and climbed the second pitch of Dream On (yellow line). When their attempt to rappel (yellow arrow) failed, the leader tumbled to the ground. Photo by Kris Wild

To avoid a party climbing above, Dalpe decided to traverse left near the end of the second pitch. After joining Dream On, he found the climbing changed character. The next pitch was less forgiving and had only one protection bolt. At the top of his third lead, Dalpe recalls thinking, “This was not the day I had in mind.” The climbing above appeared even more demanding. “I looked up the next pitch and decided it was not worth it.”

At 1:30 p.m., his climbing partner arrived at the belay, and Dalpe told her they would be descending from there. The partner carried a traditional belay/rappel device, though she was not experienced enough to rappel. Dalpe planned to use his Grigri to lower her and then make a single-line rappel, using her weight at the opposite end of the rope as a counterweight anchor. He untied his partner, threaded the rope end through the rappel rings, retied her, and then used his Grigri to lower her to a prominent ledge. Once there, she traversed to a tree anchor and connected to it with a personal anchor system (PAS). Before lowering her, Dalpe said to his partner, “Go to the tree anchor, clip in, and do nothing.”

Dalpe set his Grigri up to rappel and started down the single strand. Halfway to the tree anchor, the rope became suddenly unweighted and Dalpe fell. He recalls, “I was tumbling and everything went black. Then I hit something…and went black. I hit something again…black. I hit another thing…black. I was probably screaming for five seconds.”

While falling, the rope through Dalpe’s Grigri went slack and, “I saw the rope swirling orange and I kept asking, ‘When am I gonna stop?’ ”

Dalpe hit the ground, rolled a distance, and came to rest at a tree. Climbers approaching the cliff rushed up to help. One called for an ambulance at 1:45 p.m. Another team that was on Born Again rappelled to Dalpe’s partner and lowered her to the ground. At 3:45 p.m., Dalpe was transported by ambulance to the hospital.

He escaped with relatively minor injuries considering his 200-foot tumble (He was not wearing a helmet.) He suffered a broken sternum, two broken bones in the right foot, plus multiple abrasions to his scapula and back of his head. He spent one month on a couch, and four months later he was climbing 5.13 again. (Sources: Interview with Dany Dalpe and report from British Columbia Emergency Health Services.)

Analysis

It appears the rappel failed when Dalpe’s partner somehow managed to untie her knot as he rappelled the single strand. Later, her half-tied figure-8 was discovered to be cinched tight; her end of the rope with the half-tied knot had pulled through the rappel rings—no doubt slowing Dalpe as he tumbled toward the ground. It seems likely she began to untie as soon as she clipped into the anchor, and that some element of the system temporarily held Dalpe’s weight until he had already committed to the rappel.

Counterweight systems—simul-rappelling, counter-ascending, or the descent method chosen by Dalpe in this incident—are for experts only. (In fact, accidents involving such systems have claimed even very experienced climbers.) The entire team needs to understand the necessity and process of maintaining a closed system until both parties are on the ground or securely anchored. Given his partner’s limited experience, Dalpe could have made better choices involving the route, equipment, and rappel method.

The transition from single-pitch sport to multi-pitch—even on a mostly bolted climb with solid chain anchors—presents many challenges. First was equipment. This pair was equipped with a single rope and only one belay/rappel device, which necessitated a complex counterweighted rappel when they decided to bail. Another issue was experience. Dalpe’s partner, through no fault of her own, was clearly in over her head.

Dalpe’s physical climbing ability might have contributed indirectly to the accident. Climbing 5.13 after only a few years is an empowering—and often misleading—experience. In a multi-pitch or trad environment, a metric like a sport climbing grade is an inadequate substitute for proper tools, training, and experience. To his credit, Dalpe chose to descend when he recognized they were over their head on this long route. It takes years of practice to develop the skills and judgment to safely lead an inexperienced partner up a multi-pitch climb. (Source: The Editors.)

Flying Cams

Ancient Art, Fisher Towers, Utah

Jeff Weinberg on top of Ancient Art. Photo by AAC staffer Robert Hakim

Mo Leuthauser, a climber from Colorado, was starting the last pitch of the Stolen Chimney route on Ancient Art, the spiraling sandstone formation in the Fisher Towers of Utah, when she noticed a soft spot on one of her harness gear loops. She mentioned it to her partner but kept climbing. As she was being lowered from the top of the tower, “I heard a pop and saw my cams and nuts fly off the left side of my harness and hurl hundreds of feet down the tower, toward hikers below. I screamed ‘rock’ as loud as I possibly could, and luckily the hikers were able to get out of the way in time. No one was hit or injured.”

Leuthauser was using an all-around harness that was about four years old. Although harnesses generally are safe to use for considerably longer (depending on the amount and style of climbing you do), this is a good reminder to inspect all the components of critical gear regularly for wear or damage. Dropping cams this way not only creates a hazard for anyone below, it also could be very expensive!

The Sharp End: Episode 75

The Sharp End · Bad Fall, Broken Face (Ep. 75)

It’s the diamond jubilee of Ashley Saupe’s Sharp End podcast, which the AAC helped launch back in 2016, after Ashley approached the club about transforming stories in Accidents in North American Climbing into an interview format. In this month’s show, Ashley interviews climber Joe Lovin about a nasty tumble he took while leaving a Colorado crag, just after sending his first 5.12! As always, it’s an educational and entertaining look at the type of accident that could happen to any of us.

The monthly Prescription newsletter is supported by the members of the American Alpine Club. Questions? Suggestions? Write to us at [email protected].

It is not uncommon for rappelling climbers to commit to a simultaneous counterweight arrangement for rappelling. In this arrangement, the descending climbers can rappel simultaneously, and it is commonly referred to as simul-rappelling. When performed correctly, simul-rappelling results in a measurable efficiency, requiring less time for the two rappellers to move simultaneously than taking turns. However, the counterweight arrangement of simul-rappelling makes the climbers interdependent. If either climber loses control, makes a mistake in rigging, or if either side of the counterweighted rope is severed, both climbers suffer the consequences of the mishap/mistake.

As result, simul-rappelling is a technique that should only be selectively and carefully deployed. If not, if climbers fail to justify the technique or use it too causally, the probability of a single mistake affecting both climbers increases. Instead, the following principles can be used to justify simul-rappelling, or reject the technique when it is not justifiable, and they can provide some guidance for rigging a simul-rappel in a way that minimizes the opportunities for a catastrophic error.

Only the aggregated efficiencies of simul-rappelling justify the risks involved. On a single rappel, simul-rappelling may only save the team seconds, but multiple rappels can aggregate their efficiencies for a measurable benefit.
Simul-Rappelling magnifies the importance of best rappelling practices. Remaining secure during setup, using appropriate backups, managing the ends of the rope, and avoiding entanglements are concepts vital to all rappelling, but simul-rappelling arrangements demand that both rappellers adhere to sound fundamentals.
Since the risks of simul-rappelling are severe, and since efficiencies are part of what justifies the technique in the first place, the simplest setups with the fewest components are easier to double-check, easier to inspect, and harder to mistake.

Long well-bolted climbs like Space Boyz require many rappels to descend. In this kind of context, the efficiencies of simul-rappelling might justify the technique.

The rappel descents from a place like Seneca Rocks just aren’t long enough to necessitate Simul-Rappelling. It’s harder to justify such a consequential arrangement when the efficiencies don’t add up.

If a descending team decides to simul rappel, the rigging is critical. If both rappellers use an assisted braking device, like a grigri, if they enlist a knot-block at the anchor, and if they interconnect their tethers and anchor, they’ve set up a simul-rappelling rig that provides quick transitions at each anchor and provides the rappelling team with a few different kinds of backups.

Assuming a simul-rappel is justifiable, both rappellers can find efficiencies from using Assisted Braking Devices. As always, managing the ends of the rope is a wise choice.

Blocking a knot isolates at least one of the rappellers from the consequences of the counterweight arrangement.

The interconnected rappellers can give each other a backup when there is a blocked knot in the rope. Plus, the rappelling team can simply bump this anchor from one station to the next, staying connected during the entire rappel.