Is belaying with a hip belay unsafe?How to belay top-rope climbers who are ascending quickly?If an autoblock inteferes with a belay device will a fireman belay have any effect?Belay checklist?Belay with a broken armHow to use a Munter hitch to belay and rappel?Belaying directly off a ground anchor?Using Gri Gri 2's Carabiner with Another Belay Device?How unsafe is this belay technique really?Dealing with twists in a rope while belayingWhat is wrong with this belay setup?What are known failure modes of the auto-braking mechanism of Grigris?

Are spot colors limited and why CMYK mix is not treated same as spot color mix?

How to handle inventory and story of a player leaving

Do multi-engine jets need all engines with equal age to reduce asymmetry in thrust and fuel consumption arising out of deterioration?

How did medieval manors handle population growth? Were there room for more fields to be ploughed?

Journal published a paper, ignoring my objections as a referee

Why does glibc's strlen need to be so complicated to run quickly?

Drawing probabilities on a simplex in TikZ

The meaning of asynchronous vs synchronous

Shall I fix cracks on bathtub and how to fix them?

Should I judge the efficacy of Samadhi based on the ethical qualities of the meditator?

Term used to describe a person who predicts future outcomes

Count the number of triangles

Is there a way to tell what frequency I need a PWM to be?

Is Nikon D500 a good fit for nature and ambient-lighting portraits and occasional other uses?

Group riding etiquette

How do you say "half the time …, the other half …" in German?

Can a network vulnerability be exploited locally?

Is this position a forced win for Black after move 14?

Is there an in-universe explanation given to the senior Imperial Navy Officers as to why Darth Vader serves Emperor Palpatine?

Looking for a plural noun related to ‘fulcrum’ or ‘pivot’ that denotes multiple things as crucial to success

Should I ask for a raise one month before the end of an internship?

How do I portray irrational anger in first person?

Did ancient peoples ever hide their treasure behind puzzles?

Is the internet in Madagascar faster than in UK?



Is belaying with a hip belay unsafe?


How to belay top-rope climbers who are ascending quickly?If an autoblock inteferes with a belay device will a fireman belay have any effect?Belay checklist?Belay with a broken armHow to use a Munter hitch to belay and rappel?Belaying directly off a ground anchor?Using Gri Gri 2's Carabiner with Another Belay Device?How unsafe is this belay technique really?Dealing with twists in a rope while belayingWhat is wrong with this belay setup?What are known failure modes of the auto-braking mechanism of Grigris?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








4















It has been suggested to me in a comment, about an answer of mine that suggests using a hip belay, that:




There's a reason ATCs, plates, GriGris, etc got popular: they're safer.




I know I stopped using hip belays when I got a proper harness and realized how much more comfortable belaying with a Munter hitch was. I didn't even consider that it might be safer. While I agree that GriGris and other devices with assisted braking capabilities are nominally safer than a hip belay, has there been a climbing accident attributed to the use of a hip belay that would have likely been prevented by using for a belay device without assisted braking capabilities?










share|improve this question





















  • 1





    Gri Gris are an assisted braking device and shouldn't be referred to as autolocking. There's a common misconception that they are autolocking and this encourages people to use them in dangerous ways.

    – Qudit
    7 hours ago











  • @Qudit see edit

    – StrongBad
    6 hours ago

















4















It has been suggested to me in a comment, about an answer of mine that suggests using a hip belay, that:




There's a reason ATCs, plates, GriGris, etc got popular: they're safer.




I know I stopped using hip belays when I got a proper harness and realized how much more comfortable belaying with a Munter hitch was. I didn't even consider that it might be safer. While I agree that GriGris and other devices with assisted braking capabilities are nominally safer than a hip belay, has there been a climbing accident attributed to the use of a hip belay that would have likely been prevented by using for a belay device without assisted braking capabilities?










share|improve this question





















  • 1





    Gri Gris are an assisted braking device and shouldn't be referred to as autolocking. There's a common misconception that they are autolocking and this encourages people to use them in dangerous ways.

    – Qudit
    7 hours ago











  • @Qudit see edit

    – StrongBad
    6 hours ago













4












4








4








It has been suggested to me in a comment, about an answer of mine that suggests using a hip belay, that:




There's a reason ATCs, plates, GriGris, etc got popular: they're safer.




I know I stopped using hip belays when I got a proper harness and realized how much more comfortable belaying with a Munter hitch was. I didn't even consider that it might be safer. While I agree that GriGris and other devices with assisted braking capabilities are nominally safer than a hip belay, has there been a climbing accident attributed to the use of a hip belay that would have likely been prevented by using for a belay device without assisted braking capabilities?










share|improve this question
















It has been suggested to me in a comment, about an answer of mine that suggests using a hip belay, that:




There's a reason ATCs, plates, GriGris, etc got popular: they're safer.




I know I stopped using hip belays when I got a proper harness and realized how much more comfortable belaying with a Munter hitch was. I didn't even consider that it might be safer. While I agree that GriGris and other devices with assisted braking capabilities are nominally safer than a hip belay, has there been a climbing accident attributed to the use of a hip belay that would have likely been prevented by using for a belay device without assisted braking capabilities?







rock-climbing belaying






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago







StrongBad

















asked 8 hours ago









StrongBadStrongBad

8,62524 silver badges55 bronze badges




8,62524 silver badges55 bronze badges










  • 1





    Gri Gris are an assisted braking device and shouldn't be referred to as autolocking. There's a common misconception that they are autolocking and this encourages people to use them in dangerous ways.

    – Qudit
    7 hours ago











  • @Qudit see edit

    – StrongBad
    6 hours ago












  • 1





    Gri Gris are an assisted braking device and shouldn't be referred to as autolocking. There's a common misconception that they are autolocking and this encourages people to use them in dangerous ways.

    – Qudit
    7 hours ago











  • @Qudit see edit

    – StrongBad
    6 hours ago







1




1





Gri Gris are an assisted braking device and shouldn't be referred to as autolocking. There's a common misconception that they are autolocking and this encourages people to use them in dangerous ways.

– Qudit
7 hours ago





Gri Gris are an assisted braking device and shouldn't be referred to as autolocking. There's a common misconception that they are autolocking and this encourages people to use them in dangerous ways.

– Qudit
7 hours ago













@Qudit see edit

– StrongBad
6 hours ago





@Qudit see edit

– StrongBad
6 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3















It not necessarily unsafe, it's just fallen out of use with better gear and techniques. It still has a couple of use cases and it's something I think people should know, but I would never use it for rock climbing unless I had no other choice.



The use cases where it still makes sense is when belaying another climber from above in terrain that could lead to a slip but is not steep enough for actual rock climbing. In that case, a hip belay is faster to set up and use and there shouldn't be a risk of a whipper. Two clear examples might be going up a snowfield while roped and secondly belaying up Class 3 or Class 4 terrain where full-on rock climbing with dedicated anchors is not warranted.



I have used it before in both those cases and caught a slip but wouldn't suggest doing it for any Class 5 rock climbing (especially from below such as at a climbing gym.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    I think the main issue is that it has less stopping power than a belay device. While you could use it (as early climbers did) this reduces the safety margin. On top of that, it's quite uncomfortable to hold a fall with a hip belay when on less than vertical terrain. Using it for a quick belay on easy scrambling makes a lot of sense.

    – Qudit
    7 hours ago











  • @Qudit I would like to see actual numbers regarding stopping power, but the question I am really interested in is has the difference in stopping power of a hip belay and an ATC/plate ever been the cause of an accident.

    – StrongBad
    7 hours ago











  • This report suggests the stopping power of a hip belay is about 225 pounds. Does anybody know the stopping power of an ATC or plate?

    – Moormanly
    5 hours ago












  • This article cites This paper as claiming that "an ATC device maxes out at about 2 Kilonewtons of braking power."

    – Moormanly
    5 hours ago











  • @Moormanly to quote the report "Sitting belays, with the climbing rope passing around the waist, were by far the most secure positions and rarely yielded in failure."

    – StrongBad
    4 hours ago


















0















Here is a tidbit from Climbing Magazine:




Hey, 35 isn’t old! It’s definitely not old enough to use hip belays by default, since the first belay devices came out in 1970. The hip belay is a good technique to know for rolling but still “no-fall zone” alpine terrain.




This states that hip belays haven't been an accepted default practice since 1970. (Interestingly as you will see below this date might show how Europe was more advanced than Europe in the field of climbing safety.) Next the article clarifies that hip belays are a good technique for low angled alpine terrain. That doesn't describe modern rock climbing in the context you're advocating for using hip belays.



In the book Accidents in North American Climbing 2016 they have a section about belaying technique and the history of advances in belaying technique. They start by explaining that the earliest belaying is simply a person hanging onto a taut rope for dear life. Then people started to realize that's a terrible plan so they leveraged friction Here's some snippets from that book (emphasis mine, also please pardon the liberal use of ellipses I retyped the text from a scanned image of the book. If you follow the link you should see the full text.):




The addition of friction to the belay system allowed smaller belayers to secure bigger climbers. Wrapping the rope around features in mountain terrain or the belayer's body provided enough friction to hold larger loads.



...



Since the addition of friction to the system, every major evolution in belaying has involved some sort of technology. First came the carabiner, which not only allowed belayers to augment their friction belays but also invited the use of hitches, tied to carabiners, as belay tools. The most effective of these was the Munter hitch.



The Munter hitch offered a breaking position that was the same as the pulling position, so the belay cycle was easy to teach and learn. It soon became the predominant belay technique in all disciplines. (Before the advent of reliable protection, dynamic belays, and nylon ropes, belaying was primarily the duty of the leader. A second might belay the leader, but the leader was not expected to fall, nor was it widely expected that a leader fall could be caught.) ...



THE MODERN ERA



... However, by the Second World War, climbers began to use nylon ropes and other equipment that could handle the forces of leader falls. ... Pushing the limits of difficulty also became more common-leading to more falling.



Belayers around the world also began to experiment with new belay tools that redirected the braking position 180 degrees-the most common early example was the Sticht plate, but the same principle applies to today's tube-style devices.




As you can see people started moving away from body/hip belays almost immediately. They first used technology like carabiners and Munter hitches to increase the friction and decrease the strength required by the belayer. Then after WW2 when they finally had gear that was reasonably capable of handling falls they ended up creating belay devices that use many of the same principles of modern belay devices. The reason why people moved towards the belay device and away from body/hip belays is the whole paradigm changed in climbing. Initially like the book said:




belaying was primarily the duty of the leader. A second might belay the leader, but the leader was not expected to fall, nor was it widely expected that a leader fall could be caught.




This morphed into people pushing the limits with leaders falling and expecting to get caught by their belayers. In order for this to reliably happen the belayers needed belay devices. I don't think you're going to find modern accident reports pointing to hip belaying a lead fall as the cause of the accident because climbers have recognized since WW2 that belay devices are a force multiplier. As such people don't use body/hip belays on modern technical rock climbs so there aren't accidents to record.



In my opinion I think you need to justify why a technique that was completely abandoned in the context you were using (modern technical rock climbing) is safe. The climbing community is primarily focused on two things, safety and praticality. They still embrace the hip/body belay in low angle alpine environments when a leader is belaying a follower in a no fall zone where falls are unlikely. If the technique was as safe as a belay device then you'd see it recommended for modern technical rock climbing. Indeed the first improvement on the body/hip belay, the Munter hitch, is still taught as a viable modern technical rock climbing belay technique. Climbers are endlessly practical as long as the result is safe. Body/hip belays simply aren't safe for modern technical rock climbing.




Original Answer



A hip belay will never be able to have as much security and holding power as a belay from a device or munter hitch. With a hip belay you can never get as much friction on the rope because the minimum radius is the size of your body. A munter hitch or proper belay device can practically fold a rope 180 degrees. Another strike against a hip belay is you need to use more strength to maintain the friction. I can comfortably hold a 200 lb weight using a belay device like an ATC attached to my harness with one hand. I wouldn't be happy doing the same using a hip belay. Furthermore I the unfortunate circumstance where the belayer gets lifted up then a hip belay is deadly because if the belayer rolls the wrong way the hip belay turns into a person holding a rope behind their back.



Finally there's no escaping a hip belay. With any kind of belay device you can rig a reasonable escape. For example from an ATC you can free your break hand by wrapping the rope around your leg. That allows you some freedom of movement and frees both hands to build an anchor. When you're holding a hip belay one hand must be firmly committed to maintaining the belay and your body must remain relatively immobile because any motion will increase the load on your break hand.



Hip belaying a leader while rock climbing is dangerous. Just like pounding a 2x4 into a crack. Either one might hold a fall and both have been used successfully but neither one should be considered safe. Today we have much safer options. Carabineers and belay devices are cheap insurance.




Hip belays can be appropriate for low angle falls especially when belaying a follower. This is because the forces are low and recovery after a fall is quick. Furthermore the chances of a bad fall in these situations is so low that the additional risk caused by a hip belay is more than offset by the increased speed.






share|improve this answer



























  • I agree that there are lots of hypotheticals where a hip belay can be problematic, what I am looking for is an actual accident caused by using a hip belay that could have been avoided by a friction device.

    – StrongBad
    2 hours ago











  • @StrongBad I reworked my answer to add sources and address your concerns. The main thrust of my addition shows that people immediately moved away from body/hip belays as soon as equipment was good enough to actually catch falls. They wouldn't have done this if there wasn't a clear benefit to using belay devices. This also means that accident reports aren't going to be found because anyone with skill used belay devices as soon as they were available.

    – Erik
    1 hour ago













Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "395"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2foutdoors.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f22992%2fis-belaying-with-a-hip-belay-unsafe%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3















It not necessarily unsafe, it's just fallen out of use with better gear and techniques. It still has a couple of use cases and it's something I think people should know, but I would never use it for rock climbing unless I had no other choice.



The use cases where it still makes sense is when belaying another climber from above in terrain that could lead to a slip but is not steep enough for actual rock climbing. In that case, a hip belay is faster to set up and use and there shouldn't be a risk of a whipper. Two clear examples might be going up a snowfield while roped and secondly belaying up Class 3 or Class 4 terrain where full-on rock climbing with dedicated anchors is not warranted.



I have used it before in both those cases and caught a slip but wouldn't suggest doing it for any Class 5 rock climbing (especially from below such as at a climbing gym.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    I think the main issue is that it has less stopping power than a belay device. While you could use it (as early climbers did) this reduces the safety margin. On top of that, it's quite uncomfortable to hold a fall with a hip belay when on less than vertical terrain. Using it for a quick belay on easy scrambling makes a lot of sense.

    – Qudit
    7 hours ago











  • @Qudit I would like to see actual numbers regarding stopping power, but the question I am really interested in is has the difference in stopping power of a hip belay and an ATC/plate ever been the cause of an accident.

    – StrongBad
    7 hours ago











  • This report suggests the stopping power of a hip belay is about 225 pounds. Does anybody know the stopping power of an ATC or plate?

    – Moormanly
    5 hours ago












  • This article cites This paper as claiming that "an ATC device maxes out at about 2 Kilonewtons of braking power."

    – Moormanly
    5 hours ago











  • @Moormanly to quote the report "Sitting belays, with the climbing rope passing around the waist, were by far the most secure positions and rarely yielded in failure."

    – StrongBad
    4 hours ago















3















It not necessarily unsafe, it's just fallen out of use with better gear and techniques. It still has a couple of use cases and it's something I think people should know, but I would never use it for rock climbing unless I had no other choice.



The use cases where it still makes sense is when belaying another climber from above in terrain that could lead to a slip but is not steep enough for actual rock climbing. In that case, a hip belay is faster to set up and use and there shouldn't be a risk of a whipper. Two clear examples might be going up a snowfield while roped and secondly belaying up Class 3 or Class 4 terrain where full-on rock climbing with dedicated anchors is not warranted.



I have used it before in both those cases and caught a slip but wouldn't suggest doing it for any Class 5 rock climbing (especially from below such as at a climbing gym.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    I think the main issue is that it has less stopping power than a belay device. While you could use it (as early climbers did) this reduces the safety margin. On top of that, it's quite uncomfortable to hold a fall with a hip belay when on less than vertical terrain. Using it for a quick belay on easy scrambling makes a lot of sense.

    – Qudit
    7 hours ago











  • @Qudit I would like to see actual numbers regarding stopping power, but the question I am really interested in is has the difference in stopping power of a hip belay and an ATC/plate ever been the cause of an accident.

    – StrongBad
    7 hours ago











  • This report suggests the stopping power of a hip belay is about 225 pounds. Does anybody know the stopping power of an ATC or plate?

    – Moormanly
    5 hours ago












  • This article cites This paper as claiming that "an ATC device maxes out at about 2 Kilonewtons of braking power."

    – Moormanly
    5 hours ago











  • @Moormanly to quote the report "Sitting belays, with the climbing rope passing around the waist, were by far the most secure positions and rarely yielded in failure."

    – StrongBad
    4 hours ago













3














3










3









It not necessarily unsafe, it's just fallen out of use with better gear and techniques. It still has a couple of use cases and it's something I think people should know, but I would never use it for rock climbing unless I had no other choice.



The use cases where it still makes sense is when belaying another climber from above in terrain that could lead to a slip but is not steep enough for actual rock climbing. In that case, a hip belay is faster to set up and use and there shouldn't be a risk of a whipper. Two clear examples might be going up a snowfield while roped and secondly belaying up Class 3 or Class 4 terrain where full-on rock climbing with dedicated anchors is not warranted.



I have used it before in both those cases and caught a slip but wouldn't suggest doing it for any Class 5 rock climbing (especially from below such as at a climbing gym.






share|improve this answer













It not necessarily unsafe, it's just fallen out of use with better gear and techniques. It still has a couple of use cases and it's something I think people should know, but I would never use it for rock climbing unless I had no other choice.



The use cases where it still makes sense is when belaying another climber from above in terrain that could lead to a slip but is not steep enough for actual rock climbing. In that case, a hip belay is faster to set up and use and there shouldn't be a risk of a whipper. Two clear examples might be going up a snowfield while roped and secondly belaying up Class 3 or Class 4 terrain where full-on rock climbing with dedicated anchors is not warranted.



I have used it before in both those cases and caught a slip but wouldn't suggest doing it for any Class 5 rock climbing (especially from below such as at a climbing gym.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 7 hours ago









Charlie BrumbaughCharlie Brumbaugh

55.6k19 gold badges160 silver badges324 bronze badges




55.6k19 gold badges160 silver badges324 bronze badges










  • 1





    I think the main issue is that it has less stopping power than a belay device. While you could use it (as early climbers did) this reduces the safety margin. On top of that, it's quite uncomfortable to hold a fall with a hip belay when on less than vertical terrain. Using it for a quick belay on easy scrambling makes a lot of sense.

    – Qudit
    7 hours ago











  • @Qudit I would like to see actual numbers regarding stopping power, but the question I am really interested in is has the difference in stopping power of a hip belay and an ATC/plate ever been the cause of an accident.

    – StrongBad
    7 hours ago











  • This report suggests the stopping power of a hip belay is about 225 pounds. Does anybody know the stopping power of an ATC or plate?

    – Moormanly
    5 hours ago












  • This article cites This paper as claiming that "an ATC device maxes out at about 2 Kilonewtons of braking power."

    – Moormanly
    5 hours ago











  • @Moormanly to quote the report "Sitting belays, with the climbing rope passing around the waist, were by far the most secure positions and rarely yielded in failure."

    – StrongBad
    4 hours ago












  • 1





    I think the main issue is that it has less stopping power than a belay device. While you could use it (as early climbers did) this reduces the safety margin. On top of that, it's quite uncomfortable to hold a fall with a hip belay when on less than vertical terrain. Using it for a quick belay on easy scrambling makes a lot of sense.

    – Qudit
    7 hours ago











  • @Qudit I would like to see actual numbers regarding stopping power, but the question I am really interested in is has the difference in stopping power of a hip belay and an ATC/plate ever been the cause of an accident.

    – StrongBad
    7 hours ago











  • This report suggests the stopping power of a hip belay is about 225 pounds. Does anybody know the stopping power of an ATC or plate?

    – Moormanly
    5 hours ago












  • This article cites This paper as claiming that "an ATC device maxes out at about 2 Kilonewtons of braking power."

    – Moormanly
    5 hours ago











  • @Moormanly to quote the report "Sitting belays, with the climbing rope passing around the waist, were by far the most secure positions and rarely yielded in failure."

    – StrongBad
    4 hours ago







1




1





I think the main issue is that it has less stopping power than a belay device. While you could use it (as early climbers did) this reduces the safety margin. On top of that, it's quite uncomfortable to hold a fall with a hip belay when on less than vertical terrain. Using it for a quick belay on easy scrambling makes a lot of sense.

– Qudit
7 hours ago





I think the main issue is that it has less stopping power than a belay device. While you could use it (as early climbers did) this reduces the safety margin. On top of that, it's quite uncomfortable to hold a fall with a hip belay when on less than vertical terrain. Using it for a quick belay on easy scrambling makes a lot of sense.

– Qudit
7 hours ago













@Qudit I would like to see actual numbers regarding stopping power, but the question I am really interested in is has the difference in stopping power of a hip belay and an ATC/plate ever been the cause of an accident.

– StrongBad
7 hours ago





@Qudit I would like to see actual numbers regarding stopping power, but the question I am really interested in is has the difference in stopping power of a hip belay and an ATC/plate ever been the cause of an accident.

– StrongBad
7 hours ago













This report suggests the stopping power of a hip belay is about 225 pounds. Does anybody know the stopping power of an ATC or plate?

– Moormanly
5 hours ago






This report suggests the stopping power of a hip belay is about 225 pounds. Does anybody know the stopping power of an ATC or plate?

– Moormanly
5 hours ago














This article cites This paper as claiming that "an ATC device maxes out at about 2 Kilonewtons of braking power."

– Moormanly
5 hours ago





This article cites This paper as claiming that "an ATC device maxes out at about 2 Kilonewtons of braking power."

– Moormanly
5 hours ago













@Moormanly to quote the report "Sitting belays, with the climbing rope passing around the waist, were by far the most secure positions and rarely yielded in failure."

– StrongBad
4 hours ago





@Moormanly to quote the report "Sitting belays, with the climbing rope passing around the waist, were by far the most secure positions and rarely yielded in failure."

– StrongBad
4 hours ago













0















Here is a tidbit from Climbing Magazine:




Hey, 35 isn’t old! It’s definitely not old enough to use hip belays by default, since the first belay devices came out in 1970. The hip belay is a good technique to know for rolling but still “no-fall zone” alpine terrain.




This states that hip belays haven't been an accepted default practice since 1970. (Interestingly as you will see below this date might show how Europe was more advanced than Europe in the field of climbing safety.) Next the article clarifies that hip belays are a good technique for low angled alpine terrain. That doesn't describe modern rock climbing in the context you're advocating for using hip belays.



In the book Accidents in North American Climbing 2016 they have a section about belaying technique and the history of advances in belaying technique. They start by explaining that the earliest belaying is simply a person hanging onto a taut rope for dear life. Then people started to realize that's a terrible plan so they leveraged friction Here's some snippets from that book (emphasis mine, also please pardon the liberal use of ellipses I retyped the text from a scanned image of the book. If you follow the link you should see the full text.):




The addition of friction to the belay system allowed smaller belayers to secure bigger climbers. Wrapping the rope around features in mountain terrain or the belayer's body provided enough friction to hold larger loads.



...



Since the addition of friction to the system, every major evolution in belaying has involved some sort of technology. First came the carabiner, which not only allowed belayers to augment their friction belays but also invited the use of hitches, tied to carabiners, as belay tools. The most effective of these was the Munter hitch.



The Munter hitch offered a breaking position that was the same as the pulling position, so the belay cycle was easy to teach and learn. It soon became the predominant belay technique in all disciplines. (Before the advent of reliable protection, dynamic belays, and nylon ropes, belaying was primarily the duty of the leader. A second might belay the leader, but the leader was not expected to fall, nor was it widely expected that a leader fall could be caught.) ...



THE MODERN ERA



... However, by the Second World War, climbers began to use nylon ropes and other equipment that could handle the forces of leader falls. ... Pushing the limits of difficulty also became more common-leading to more falling.



Belayers around the world also began to experiment with new belay tools that redirected the braking position 180 degrees-the most common early example was the Sticht plate, but the same principle applies to today's tube-style devices.




As you can see people started moving away from body/hip belays almost immediately. They first used technology like carabiners and Munter hitches to increase the friction and decrease the strength required by the belayer. Then after WW2 when they finally had gear that was reasonably capable of handling falls they ended up creating belay devices that use many of the same principles of modern belay devices. The reason why people moved towards the belay device and away from body/hip belays is the whole paradigm changed in climbing. Initially like the book said:




belaying was primarily the duty of the leader. A second might belay the leader, but the leader was not expected to fall, nor was it widely expected that a leader fall could be caught.




This morphed into people pushing the limits with leaders falling and expecting to get caught by their belayers. In order for this to reliably happen the belayers needed belay devices. I don't think you're going to find modern accident reports pointing to hip belaying a lead fall as the cause of the accident because climbers have recognized since WW2 that belay devices are a force multiplier. As such people don't use body/hip belays on modern technical rock climbs so there aren't accidents to record.



In my opinion I think you need to justify why a technique that was completely abandoned in the context you were using (modern technical rock climbing) is safe. The climbing community is primarily focused on two things, safety and praticality. They still embrace the hip/body belay in low angle alpine environments when a leader is belaying a follower in a no fall zone where falls are unlikely. If the technique was as safe as a belay device then you'd see it recommended for modern technical rock climbing. Indeed the first improvement on the body/hip belay, the Munter hitch, is still taught as a viable modern technical rock climbing belay technique. Climbers are endlessly practical as long as the result is safe. Body/hip belays simply aren't safe for modern technical rock climbing.




Original Answer



A hip belay will never be able to have as much security and holding power as a belay from a device or munter hitch. With a hip belay you can never get as much friction on the rope because the minimum radius is the size of your body. A munter hitch or proper belay device can practically fold a rope 180 degrees. Another strike against a hip belay is you need to use more strength to maintain the friction. I can comfortably hold a 200 lb weight using a belay device like an ATC attached to my harness with one hand. I wouldn't be happy doing the same using a hip belay. Furthermore I the unfortunate circumstance where the belayer gets lifted up then a hip belay is deadly because if the belayer rolls the wrong way the hip belay turns into a person holding a rope behind their back.



Finally there's no escaping a hip belay. With any kind of belay device you can rig a reasonable escape. For example from an ATC you can free your break hand by wrapping the rope around your leg. That allows you some freedom of movement and frees both hands to build an anchor. When you're holding a hip belay one hand must be firmly committed to maintaining the belay and your body must remain relatively immobile because any motion will increase the load on your break hand.



Hip belaying a leader while rock climbing is dangerous. Just like pounding a 2x4 into a crack. Either one might hold a fall and both have been used successfully but neither one should be considered safe. Today we have much safer options. Carabineers and belay devices are cheap insurance.




Hip belays can be appropriate for low angle falls especially when belaying a follower. This is because the forces are low and recovery after a fall is quick. Furthermore the chances of a bad fall in these situations is so low that the additional risk caused by a hip belay is more than offset by the increased speed.






share|improve this answer



























  • I agree that there are lots of hypotheticals where a hip belay can be problematic, what I am looking for is an actual accident caused by using a hip belay that could have been avoided by a friction device.

    – StrongBad
    2 hours ago











  • @StrongBad I reworked my answer to add sources and address your concerns. The main thrust of my addition shows that people immediately moved away from body/hip belays as soon as equipment was good enough to actually catch falls. They wouldn't have done this if there wasn't a clear benefit to using belay devices. This also means that accident reports aren't going to be found because anyone with skill used belay devices as soon as they were available.

    – Erik
    1 hour ago















0















Here is a tidbit from Climbing Magazine:




Hey, 35 isn’t old! It’s definitely not old enough to use hip belays by default, since the first belay devices came out in 1970. The hip belay is a good technique to know for rolling but still “no-fall zone” alpine terrain.




This states that hip belays haven't been an accepted default practice since 1970. (Interestingly as you will see below this date might show how Europe was more advanced than Europe in the field of climbing safety.) Next the article clarifies that hip belays are a good technique for low angled alpine terrain. That doesn't describe modern rock climbing in the context you're advocating for using hip belays.



In the book Accidents in North American Climbing 2016 they have a section about belaying technique and the history of advances in belaying technique. They start by explaining that the earliest belaying is simply a person hanging onto a taut rope for dear life. Then people started to realize that's a terrible plan so they leveraged friction Here's some snippets from that book (emphasis mine, also please pardon the liberal use of ellipses I retyped the text from a scanned image of the book. If you follow the link you should see the full text.):




The addition of friction to the belay system allowed smaller belayers to secure bigger climbers. Wrapping the rope around features in mountain terrain or the belayer's body provided enough friction to hold larger loads.



...



Since the addition of friction to the system, every major evolution in belaying has involved some sort of technology. First came the carabiner, which not only allowed belayers to augment their friction belays but also invited the use of hitches, tied to carabiners, as belay tools. The most effective of these was the Munter hitch.



The Munter hitch offered a breaking position that was the same as the pulling position, so the belay cycle was easy to teach and learn. It soon became the predominant belay technique in all disciplines. (Before the advent of reliable protection, dynamic belays, and nylon ropes, belaying was primarily the duty of the leader. A second might belay the leader, but the leader was not expected to fall, nor was it widely expected that a leader fall could be caught.) ...



THE MODERN ERA



... However, by the Second World War, climbers began to use nylon ropes and other equipment that could handle the forces of leader falls. ... Pushing the limits of difficulty also became more common-leading to more falling.



Belayers around the world also began to experiment with new belay tools that redirected the braking position 180 degrees-the most common early example was the Sticht plate, but the same principle applies to today's tube-style devices.




As you can see people started moving away from body/hip belays almost immediately. They first used technology like carabiners and Munter hitches to increase the friction and decrease the strength required by the belayer. Then after WW2 when they finally had gear that was reasonably capable of handling falls they ended up creating belay devices that use many of the same principles of modern belay devices. The reason why people moved towards the belay device and away from body/hip belays is the whole paradigm changed in climbing. Initially like the book said:




belaying was primarily the duty of the leader. A second might belay the leader, but the leader was not expected to fall, nor was it widely expected that a leader fall could be caught.




This morphed into people pushing the limits with leaders falling and expecting to get caught by their belayers. In order for this to reliably happen the belayers needed belay devices. I don't think you're going to find modern accident reports pointing to hip belaying a lead fall as the cause of the accident because climbers have recognized since WW2 that belay devices are a force multiplier. As such people don't use body/hip belays on modern technical rock climbs so there aren't accidents to record.



In my opinion I think you need to justify why a technique that was completely abandoned in the context you were using (modern technical rock climbing) is safe. The climbing community is primarily focused on two things, safety and praticality. They still embrace the hip/body belay in low angle alpine environments when a leader is belaying a follower in a no fall zone where falls are unlikely. If the technique was as safe as a belay device then you'd see it recommended for modern technical rock climbing. Indeed the first improvement on the body/hip belay, the Munter hitch, is still taught as a viable modern technical rock climbing belay technique. Climbers are endlessly practical as long as the result is safe. Body/hip belays simply aren't safe for modern technical rock climbing.




Original Answer



A hip belay will never be able to have as much security and holding power as a belay from a device or munter hitch. With a hip belay you can never get as much friction on the rope because the minimum radius is the size of your body. A munter hitch or proper belay device can practically fold a rope 180 degrees. Another strike against a hip belay is you need to use more strength to maintain the friction. I can comfortably hold a 200 lb weight using a belay device like an ATC attached to my harness with one hand. I wouldn't be happy doing the same using a hip belay. Furthermore I the unfortunate circumstance where the belayer gets lifted up then a hip belay is deadly because if the belayer rolls the wrong way the hip belay turns into a person holding a rope behind their back.



Finally there's no escaping a hip belay. With any kind of belay device you can rig a reasonable escape. For example from an ATC you can free your break hand by wrapping the rope around your leg. That allows you some freedom of movement and frees both hands to build an anchor. When you're holding a hip belay one hand must be firmly committed to maintaining the belay and your body must remain relatively immobile because any motion will increase the load on your break hand.



Hip belaying a leader while rock climbing is dangerous. Just like pounding a 2x4 into a crack. Either one might hold a fall and both have been used successfully but neither one should be considered safe. Today we have much safer options. Carabineers and belay devices are cheap insurance.




Hip belays can be appropriate for low angle falls especially when belaying a follower. This is because the forces are low and recovery after a fall is quick. Furthermore the chances of a bad fall in these situations is so low that the additional risk caused by a hip belay is more than offset by the increased speed.






share|improve this answer



























  • I agree that there are lots of hypotheticals where a hip belay can be problematic, what I am looking for is an actual accident caused by using a hip belay that could have been avoided by a friction device.

    – StrongBad
    2 hours ago











  • @StrongBad I reworked my answer to add sources and address your concerns. The main thrust of my addition shows that people immediately moved away from body/hip belays as soon as equipment was good enough to actually catch falls. They wouldn't have done this if there wasn't a clear benefit to using belay devices. This also means that accident reports aren't going to be found because anyone with skill used belay devices as soon as they were available.

    – Erik
    1 hour ago













0














0










0









Here is a tidbit from Climbing Magazine:




Hey, 35 isn’t old! It’s definitely not old enough to use hip belays by default, since the first belay devices came out in 1970. The hip belay is a good technique to know for rolling but still “no-fall zone” alpine terrain.




This states that hip belays haven't been an accepted default practice since 1970. (Interestingly as you will see below this date might show how Europe was more advanced than Europe in the field of climbing safety.) Next the article clarifies that hip belays are a good technique for low angled alpine terrain. That doesn't describe modern rock climbing in the context you're advocating for using hip belays.



In the book Accidents in North American Climbing 2016 they have a section about belaying technique and the history of advances in belaying technique. They start by explaining that the earliest belaying is simply a person hanging onto a taut rope for dear life. Then people started to realize that's a terrible plan so they leveraged friction Here's some snippets from that book (emphasis mine, also please pardon the liberal use of ellipses I retyped the text from a scanned image of the book. If you follow the link you should see the full text.):




The addition of friction to the belay system allowed smaller belayers to secure bigger climbers. Wrapping the rope around features in mountain terrain or the belayer's body provided enough friction to hold larger loads.



...



Since the addition of friction to the system, every major evolution in belaying has involved some sort of technology. First came the carabiner, which not only allowed belayers to augment their friction belays but also invited the use of hitches, tied to carabiners, as belay tools. The most effective of these was the Munter hitch.



The Munter hitch offered a breaking position that was the same as the pulling position, so the belay cycle was easy to teach and learn. It soon became the predominant belay technique in all disciplines. (Before the advent of reliable protection, dynamic belays, and nylon ropes, belaying was primarily the duty of the leader. A second might belay the leader, but the leader was not expected to fall, nor was it widely expected that a leader fall could be caught.) ...



THE MODERN ERA



... However, by the Second World War, climbers began to use nylon ropes and other equipment that could handle the forces of leader falls. ... Pushing the limits of difficulty also became more common-leading to more falling.



Belayers around the world also began to experiment with new belay tools that redirected the braking position 180 degrees-the most common early example was the Sticht plate, but the same principle applies to today's tube-style devices.




As you can see people started moving away from body/hip belays almost immediately. They first used technology like carabiners and Munter hitches to increase the friction and decrease the strength required by the belayer. Then after WW2 when they finally had gear that was reasonably capable of handling falls they ended up creating belay devices that use many of the same principles of modern belay devices. The reason why people moved towards the belay device and away from body/hip belays is the whole paradigm changed in climbing. Initially like the book said:




belaying was primarily the duty of the leader. A second might belay the leader, but the leader was not expected to fall, nor was it widely expected that a leader fall could be caught.




This morphed into people pushing the limits with leaders falling and expecting to get caught by their belayers. In order for this to reliably happen the belayers needed belay devices. I don't think you're going to find modern accident reports pointing to hip belaying a lead fall as the cause of the accident because climbers have recognized since WW2 that belay devices are a force multiplier. As such people don't use body/hip belays on modern technical rock climbs so there aren't accidents to record.



In my opinion I think you need to justify why a technique that was completely abandoned in the context you were using (modern technical rock climbing) is safe. The climbing community is primarily focused on two things, safety and praticality. They still embrace the hip/body belay in low angle alpine environments when a leader is belaying a follower in a no fall zone where falls are unlikely. If the technique was as safe as a belay device then you'd see it recommended for modern technical rock climbing. Indeed the first improvement on the body/hip belay, the Munter hitch, is still taught as a viable modern technical rock climbing belay technique. Climbers are endlessly practical as long as the result is safe. Body/hip belays simply aren't safe for modern technical rock climbing.




Original Answer



A hip belay will never be able to have as much security and holding power as a belay from a device or munter hitch. With a hip belay you can never get as much friction on the rope because the minimum radius is the size of your body. A munter hitch or proper belay device can practically fold a rope 180 degrees. Another strike against a hip belay is you need to use more strength to maintain the friction. I can comfortably hold a 200 lb weight using a belay device like an ATC attached to my harness with one hand. I wouldn't be happy doing the same using a hip belay. Furthermore I the unfortunate circumstance where the belayer gets lifted up then a hip belay is deadly because if the belayer rolls the wrong way the hip belay turns into a person holding a rope behind their back.



Finally there's no escaping a hip belay. With any kind of belay device you can rig a reasonable escape. For example from an ATC you can free your break hand by wrapping the rope around your leg. That allows you some freedom of movement and frees both hands to build an anchor. When you're holding a hip belay one hand must be firmly committed to maintaining the belay and your body must remain relatively immobile because any motion will increase the load on your break hand.



Hip belaying a leader while rock climbing is dangerous. Just like pounding a 2x4 into a crack. Either one might hold a fall and both have been used successfully but neither one should be considered safe. Today we have much safer options. Carabineers and belay devices are cheap insurance.




Hip belays can be appropriate for low angle falls especially when belaying a follower. This is because the forces are low and recovery after a fall is quick. Furthermore the chances of a bad fall in these situations is so low that the additional risk caused by a hip belay is more than offset by the increased speed.






share|improve this answer















Here is a tidbit from Climbing Magazine:




Hey, 35 isn’t old! It’s definitely not old enough to use hip belays by default, since the first belay devices came out in 1970. The hip belay is a good technique to know for rolling but still “no-fall zone” alpine terrain.




This states that hip belays haven't been an accepted default practice since 1970. (Interestingly as you will see below this date might show how Europe was more advanced than Europe in the field of climbing safety.) Next the article clarifies that hip belays are a good technique for low angled alpine terrain. That doesn't describe modern rock climbing in the context you're advocating for using hip belays.



In the book Accidents in North American Climbing 2016 they have a section about belaying technique and the history of advances in belaying technique. They start by explaining that the earliest belaying is simply a person hanging onto a taut rope for dear life. Then people started to realize that's a terrible plan so they leveraged friction Here's some snippets from that book (emphasis mine, also please pardon the liberal use of ellipses I retyped the text from a scanned image of the book. If you follow the link you should see the full text.):




The addition of friction to the belay system allowed smaller belayers to secure bigger climbers. Wrapping the rope around features in mountain terrain or the belayer's body provided enough friction to hold larger loads.



...



Since the addition of friction to the system, every major evolution in belaying has involved some sort of technology. First came the carabiner, which not only allowed belayers to augment their friction belays but also invited the use of hitches, tied to carabiners, as belay tools. The most effective of these was the Munter hitch.



The Munter hitch offered a breaking position that was the same as the pulling position, so the belay cycle was easy to teach and learn. It soon became the predominant belay technique in all disciplines. (Before the advent of reliable protection, dynamic belays, and nylon ropes, belaying was primarily the duty of the leader. A second might belay the leader, but the leader was not expected to fall, nor was it widely expected that a leader fall could be caught.) ...



THE MODERN ERA



... However, by the Second World War, climbers began to use nylon ropes and other equipment that could handle the forces of leader falls. ... Pushing the limits of difficulty also became more common-leading to more falling.



Belayers around the world also began to experiment with new belay tools that redirected the braking position 180 degrees-the most common early example was the Sticht plate, but the same principle applies to today's tube-style devices.




As you can see people started moving away from body/hip belays almost immediately. They first used technology like carabiners and Munter hitches to increase the friction and decrease the strength required by the belayer. Then after WW2 when they finally had gear that was reasonably capable of handling falls they ended up creating belay devices that use many of the same principles of modern belay devices. The reason why people moved towards the belay device and away from body/hip belays is the whole paradigm changed in climbing. Initially like the book said:




belaying was primarily the duty of the leader. A second might belay the leader, but the leader was not expected to fall, nor was it widely expected that a leader fall could be caught.




This morphed into people pushing the limits with leaders falling and expecting to get caught by their belayers. In order for this to reliably happen the belayers needed belay devices. I don't think you're going to find modern accident reports pointing to hip belaying a lead fall as the cause of the accident because climbers have recognized since WW2 that belay devices are a force multiplier. As such people don't use body/hip belays on modern technical rock climbs so there aren't accidents to record.



In my opinion I think you need to justify why a technique that was completely abandoned in the context you were using (modern technical rock climbing) is safe. The climbing community is primarily focused on two things, safety and praticality. They still embrace the hip/body belay in low angle alpine environments when a leader is belaying a follower in a no fall zone where falls are unlikely. If the technique was as safe as a belay device then you'd see it recommended for modern technical rock climbing. Indeed the first improvement on the body/hip belay, the Munter hitch, is still taught as a viable modern technical rock climbing belay technique. Climbers are endlessly practical as long as the result is safe. Body/hip belays simply aren't safe for modern technical rock climbing.




Original Answer



A hip belay will never be able to have as much security and holding power as a belay from a device or munter hitch. With a hip belay you can never get as much friction on the rope because the minimum radius is the size of your body. A munter hitch or proper belay device can practically fold a rope 180 degrees. Another strike against a hip belay is you need to use more strength to maintain the friction. I can comfortably hold a 200 lb weight using a belay device like an ATC attached to my harness with one hand. I wouldn't be happy doing the same using a hip belay. Furthermore I the unfortunate circumstance where the belayer gets lifted up then a hip belay is deadly because if the belayer rolls the wrong way the hip belay turns into a person holding a rope behind their back.



Finally there's no escaping a hip belay. With any kind of belay device you can rig a reasonable escape. For example from an ATC you can free your break hand by wrapping the rope around your leg. That allows you some freedom of movement and frees both hands to build an anchor. When you're holding a hip belay one hand must be firmly committed to maintaining the belay and your body must remain relatively immobile because any motion will increase the load on your break hand.



Hip belaying a leader while rock climbing is dangerous. Just like pounding a 2x4 into a crack. Either one might hold a fall and both have been used successfully but neither one should be considered safe. Today we have much safer options. Carabineers and belay devices are cheap insurance.




Hip belays can be appropriate for low angle falls especially when belaying a follower. This is because the forces are low and recovery after a fall is quick. Furthermore the chances of a bad fall in these situations is so low that the additional risk caused by a hip belay is more than offset by the increased speed.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 1 hour ago

























answered 2 hours ago









ErikErik

8,7232 gold badges31 silver badges66 bronze badges




8,7232 gold badges31 silver badges66 bronze badges















  • I agree that there are lots of hypotheticals where a hip belay can be problematic, what I am looking for is an actual accident caused by using a hip belay that could have been avoided by a friction device.

    – StrongBad
    2 hours ago











  • @StrongBad I reworked my answer to add sources and address your concerns. The main thrust of my addition shows that people immediately moved away from body/hip belays as soon as equipment was good enough to actually catch falls. They wouldn't have done this if there wasn't a clear benefit to using belay devices. This also means that accident reports aren't going to be found because anyone with skill used belay devices as soon as they were available.

    – Erik
    1 hour ago

















  • I agree that there are lots of hypotheticals where a hip belay can be problematic, what I am looking for is an actual accident caused by using a hip belay that could have been avoided by a friction device.

    – StrongBad
    2 hours ago











  • @StrongBad I reworked my answer to add sources and address your concerns. The main thrust of my addition shows that people immediately moved away from body/hip belays as soon as equipment was good enough to actually catch falls. They wouldn't have done this if there wasn't a clear benefit to using belay devices. This also means that accident reports aren't going to be found because anyone with skill used belay devices as soon as they were available.

    – Erik
    1 hour ago
















I agree that there are lots of hypotheticals where a hip belay can be problematic, what I am looking for is an actual accident caused by using a hip belay that could have been avoided by a friction device.

– StrongBad
2 hours ago





I agree that there are lots of hypotheticals where a hip belay can be problematic, what I am looking for is an actual accident caused by using a hip belay that could have been avoided by a friction device.

– StrongBad
2 hours ago













@StrongBad I reworked my answer to add sources and address your concerns. The main thrust of my addition shows that people immediately moved away from body/hip belays as soon as equipment was good enough to actually catch falls. They wouldn't have done this if there wasn't a clear benefit to using belay devices. This also means that accident reports aren't going to be found because anyone with skill used belay devices as soon as they were available.

– Erik
1 hour ago





@StrongBad I reworked my answer to add sources and address your concerns. The main thrust of my addition shows that people immediately moved away from body/hip belays as soon as equipment was good enough to actually catch falls. They wouldn't have done this if there wasn't a clear benefit to using belay devices. This also means that accident reports aren't going to be found because anyone with skill used belay devices as soon as they were available.

– Erik
1 hour ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to The Great Outdoors Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2foutdoors.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f22992%2fis-belaying-with-a-hip-belay-unsafe%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу

Israel Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Geografie | Politică | Demografie | Educație | Economie | Cultură | Note explicative | Note bibliografice | Bibliografie | Legături externe | Meniu de navigaresite web oficialfacebooktweeterGoogle+Instagramcanal YouTubeInstagramtextmodificaremodificarewww.technion.ac.ilnew.huji.ac.ilwww.weizmann.ac.ilwww1.biu.ac.ilenglish.tau.ac.ilwww.haifa.ac.ilin.bgu.ac.ilwww.openu.ac.ilwww.ariel.ac.ilCIA FactbookHarta Israelului"Negotiating Jerusalem," Palestine–Israel JournalThe Schizoid Nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic Language in Search of a Semitic Past„Arabic in Israel: an official language and a cultural bridge”„Latest Population Statistics for Israel”„Israel Population”„Tables”„Report for Selected Countries and Subjects”Human Development Report 2016: Human Development for Everyone„Distribution of family income - Gini index”The World FactbookJerusalem Law„Israel”„Israel”„Zionist Leaders: David Ben-Gurion 1886–1973”„The status of Jerusalem”„Analysis: Kadima's big plans”„Israel's Hard-Learned Lessons”„The Legacy of Undefined Borders, Tel Aviv Notes No. 40, 5 iunie 2002”„Israel Journal: A Land Without Borders”„Population”„Israel closes decade with population of 7.5 million”Time Series-DataBank„Selected Statistics on Jerusalem Day 2007 (Hebrew)”Golan belongs to Syria, Druze protestGlobal Survey 2006: Middle East Progress Amid Global Gains in FreedomWHO: Life expectancy in Israel among highest in the worldInternational Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2011: Nominal GDP list of countries. Data for the year 2010.„Israel's accession to the OECD”Popular Opinion„On the Move”Hosea 12:5„Walking the Bible Timeline”„Palestine: History”„Return to Zion”An invention called 'the Jewish people' – Haaretz – Israel NewsoriginalJewish and Non-Jewish Population of Palestine-Israel (1517–2004)ImmigrationJewishvirtuallibrary.orgChapter One: The Heralders of Zionism„The birth of modern Israel: A scrap of paper that changed history”„League of Nations: The Mandate for Palestine, 24 iulie 1922”The Population of Palestine Prior to 1948originalBackground Paper No. 47 (ST/DPI/SER.A/47)History: Foreign DominationTwo Hundred and Seventh Plenary Meeting„Israel (Labor Zionism)”Population, by Religion and Population GroupThe Suez CrisisAdolf EichmannJustice Ministry Reply to Amnesty International Report„The Interregnum”Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs – The Palestinian National Covenant- July 1968Research on terrorism: trends, achievements & failuresThe Routledge Atlas of the Arab–Israeli conflict: The Complete History of the Struggle and the Efforts to Resolve It"George Habash, Palestinian Terrorism Tactician, Dies at 82."„1973: Arab states attack Israeli forces”Agranat Commission„Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?”original„After 4 Years, Intifada Still Smolders”From the End of the Cold War to 2001originalThe Oslo Accords, 1993Israel-PLO Recognition – Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat – Sept 9- 1993Foundation for Middle East PeaceSources of Population Growth: Total Israeli Population and Settler Population, 1991–2003original„Israel marks Rabin assassination”The Wye River Memorandumoriginal„West Bank barrier route disputed, Israeli missile kills 2”"Permanent Ceasefire to Be Based on Creation Of Buffer Zone Free of Armed Personnel Other than UN, Lebanese Forces"„Hezbollah kills 8 soldiers, kidnaps two in offensive on northern border”„Olmert confirms peace talks with Syria”„Battleground Gaza: Israeli ground forces invade the strip”„IDF begins Gaza troop withdrawal, hours after ending 3-week offensive”„THE LAND: Geography and Climate”„Area of districts, sub-districts, natural regions and lakes”„Israel - Geography”„Makhteshim Country”Israel and the Palestinian Territories„Makhtesh Ramon”„The Living Dead Sea”„Temperatures reach record high in Pakistan”„Climate Extremes In Israel”Israel in figures„Deuteronom”„JNF: 240 million trees planted since 1901”„Vegetation of Israel and Neighboring Countries”Environmental Law in Israel„Executive branch”„Israel's election process explained”„The Electoral System in Israel”„Constitution for Israel”„All 120 incoming Knesset members”„Statul ISRAEL”„The Judiciary: The Court System”„Israel's high court unique in region”„Israel and the International Criminal Court: A Legal Battlefield”„Localities and population, by population group, district, sub-district and natural region”„Israel: Districts, Major Cities, Urban Localities & Metropolitan Areas”„Israel-Egypt Relations: Background & Overview of Peace Treaty”„Solana to Haaretz: New Rules of War Needed for Age of Terror”„Israel's Announcement Regarding Settlements”„United Nations Security Council Resolution 497”„Security Council resolution 478 (1980) on the status of Jerusalem”„Arabs will ask U.N. to seek razing of Israeli wall”„Olmert: Willing to trade land for peace”„Mapping Peace between Syria and Israel”„Egypt: Israel must accept the land-for-peace formula”„Israel: Age structure from 2005 to 2015”„Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 306 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 188 countries, 1990–2013: quantifying the epidemiological transition”10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61340-X„World Health Statistics 2014”„Life expectancy for Israeli men world's 4th highest”„Family Structure and Well-Being Across Israel's Diverse Population”„Fertility among Jewish and Muslim Women in Israel, by Level of Religiosity, 1979-2009”„Israel leaders in birth rate, but poverty major challenge”„Ethnic Groups”„Israel's population: Over 8.5 million”„Israel - Ethnic groups”„Jews, by country of origin and age”„Minority Communities in Israel: Background & Overview”„Israel”„Language in Israel”„Selected Data from the 2011 Social Survey on Mastery of the Hebrew Language and Usage of Languages”„Religions”„5 facts about Israeli Druze, a unique religious and ethnic group”„Israël”Israel Country Study Guide„Haredi city in Negev – blessing or curse?”„New town Harish harbors hopes of being more than another Pleasantville”„List of localities, in alphabetical order”„Muncitorii români, doriți în Israel”„Prietenia româno-israeliană la nevoie se cunoaște”„The Higher Education System in Israel”„Middle East”„Academic Ranking of World Universities 2016”„Israel”„Israel”„Jewish Nobel Prize Winners”„All Nobel Prizes in Literature”„All Nobel Peace Prizes”„All Prizes in Economic Sciences”„All Nobel Prizes in Chemistry”„List of Fields Medallists”„Sakharov Prize”„Țara care și-a sfidat "destinul" și se bate umăr la umăr cu Silicon Valley”„Apple's R&D center in Israel grew to about 800 employees”„Tim Cook: Apple's Herzliya R&D center second-largest in world”„Lecții de economie de la Israel”„Land use”Israel Investment and Business GuideA Country Study: IsraelCentral Bureau of StatisticsFlorin Diaconu, „Kadima: Flexibilitate și pragmatism, dar nici un compromis în chestiuni vitale", în Revista Institutului Diplomatic Român, anul I, numărul I, semestrul I, 2006, pp. 71-72Florin Diaconu, „Likud: Dreapta israeliană constant opusă retrocedării teritoriilor cureite prin luptă în 1967", în Revista Institutului Diplomatic Român, anul I, numărul I, semestrul I, 2006, pp. 73-74MassadaIsraelul a crescut in 50 de ani cât alte state intr-un mileniuIsrael Government PortalIsraelIsraelIsraelmmmmmXX451232cb118646298(data)4027808-634110000 0004 0372 0767n7900328503691455-bb46-37e3-91d2-cb064a35ffcc1003570400564274ge1294033523775214929302638955X146498911146498911

Черчино Становништво Референце Спољашње везе Мени за навигацију46°09′29″ СГШ; 9°30′29″ ИГД / 46.15809° СГШ; 9.50814° ИГД / 46.15809; 9.5081446°09′29″ СГШ; 9°30′29″ ИГД / 46.15809° СГШ; 9.50814° ИГД / 46.15809; 9.508143179111„The GeoNames geographical database”„Istituto Nazionale di Statistica”Званични веб-сајтпроширитиуу