Is redundancy a myth?

Italian original: "Redundancy is a fake or not?" – 6 January 2026

Those who follow this blog know I've always kept my independence from guidelines imposed by organisations, official or not. But of course I understand and share the protocols that every group tries to adopt to reduce the risk of accidents: a simple, structured way of teaching a series of steps to follow before you start climbing. The famous checklist, like the one pilots run through before take-off. These safety protocols are very often built on the concept of redundancy, and that's exactly what we're talking about today.

In the climbing and mountaineering world, redundancy is gaining more and more ground, understandably. It looks like something you can embrace as a general guideline.

A practical example is anchors built on multiple points. Points that individually are already designed to handle the expected working loads; the classic lower-off manoeuvre on a chain with two or even three clove hitches; and other "moments" where there's a back-up, if not two. All of this to keep safety margins so high that even if the first level failed, through human error or breakage, you'd still be safe.

But what does the concept of redundancy actually mean? It's a concept we borrow from engineering, since at first sight that's the field closest to the world we move in.

In engineering, redundancy is the duplication of a system's critical components in order to increase its reliability and availability, especially for functions that are vital to the safety of people and plant or to the continuity of production. On the other hand, since adding redundancy increases a system's complexity, physical size and cost, it is generally used only when the benefits outweigh those drawbacks, which calls for a thorough study tailored to the specific case (lifted straight from Wikipedia).

In the photo, an example of redundancy at an anchor whose points each have working loads higher than the breaking strength of every other component in the belay chain: carabiners, slings, rope and so on. But is it really necessary? In general terms it isn't; or rather, it seems deeply irrational. Yet is it good practice, a good habit, to think redundantly so that whatever happens there's a second chance? What are the pros and cons of this mindset in a climber's reality? If I have to imagine a scenario of breakage, error or accident, then I should stop and not build an improvised back-up, but a genuinely new scenario. In improvised redundancy I generally see a loss of critical thinking, longer manoeuvre times, and a lightness in judging the moment, because whatever happens there'll be a second chance.

The idea that a mistake can kill you disappears. So does the idea that underestimating something can involve your partner, directly in the accident or indirectly in the personal and legal consequences that follow. Believing that redundancy can guarantee safety is a mistake. Redundancy takes time, extra gear and thought. Redundancy doesn't cover most of what happens in the belay chain. For example: if you tie in badly, if the only bolt you clipped while climbing breaks, if you set up your belay device wrongly, if the rope or a sling accidentally rubs over a sharp edge, or if you yourself load the rope over a sharp edge, and so on. In all these cases the consequences are almost always fatal.

In short, redundancy can't be applied from one end of the belay chain to the other, so it's a very uncertain concept that leaves black holes where no redundancy exists. It would be much better to start from the basic assumption that the belay chain in general has no redundancy at all, and that in the particular cases where you decide to apply it, you do so because you foresee a possible failure: a peg or a bolt that pulls, a quickdraw without a locking gate opening by accident, or a lanyard without a locking carabiner. Let's look at some practical examples in the field, analysing the three most common belay methods: belaying off the harness, belaying from a single anchor point, and belaying from the master point of a multi-point anchor.

Belaying off the harness is only suitable for low absolute loads on the ground or, on the wall, when the master point is so weak in terms of load or load direction that you'd rather bring your body weight into the braking. You use this method so as not to involve the master point directly in the braking after the obvious upward pull. In these two cases there is redundancy only with the master point, where the belayer is directly involved in the braking and then stays loaded holding the fall.

Belaying from a single anchor point. There's no redundancy here, but unlike the first case the belayer isn't directly involved in the braking, and it's much easier for them to work the brake. If it's a good anchor, is the lack of redundancy really a problem? I don't think so.

Belaying from a master point. We have redundancy and the belayer isn't involved in the braking. Of the three options it's the safest in terms of holding power and the safest for a quick response. But only if there are doubts about the single anchor; otherwise both solutions are valid. Remember that a bolt guarantees a working load of 20–23 kN, while the maximum loads in the belay chain reach 9 kN.

A certified anchor station has working loads of tonnes. It's redundant by design, and the only possible accidents are the whole piece of rock it's fixed in coming away, the lowering ring being so worn that it breaks, or, far more likely, the rope being cut by compression in a groove worn into the metal so narrow that it acts like a guillotine. And yet, for redundancy extremists, clipping into a single ring, even a new one, gives no second chance if the ring opens. A true believer would add at least one back-up to the rope besides the ring. At the crag, when you do the lower-off manoeuvre, you have a redundant anchor station and redundant connecting knots. It's almost impossible to fail. But suppose the climber is experienced. Having made sure the rope can't drop to the ground and being clipped in with a quickdraw, what is the real risk of a quickdraw opening accidentally under load? And how long does it take to untie and retie, compared with feeding a bight through, clipping in with a locking carabiner, untying and pulling the rope through? That's an example of excess redundancy, just like building a master point between anchors that, as we said, individually already hold more than all the gear in the belay chain.

Adding yet another abandoned cord to an anchor made of dubious single points can look like more redundancy and therefore more safety. In reality you're adding even more mess to a "trap" anchor, where some worn cords might break under the simple static load of the climber arriving. Where the tangle is so complex, and the space left on the peg or bolt so small, that someone will probably clip the wrong cord. Or, trying to squeeze a carabiner into what little space is left, they'll load the whole anchor connection over a sharp edge. Excess redundancy is chaos. The right approach would be to cut away all the old stuff and put in a single connecting cord that still allows metal-on-metal contact, not cord squeezed between pieces of metal.

So a redundant approach to the belay chain has to be assessed case by case. In my view it should reasonably be applied when the failure of one of the components involved is foreseeable or conceivable. In a marine environment I always clip into two anchor points, even though to date no certified 316L steel has shown signs of stress corrosion cracking (SCC). But clearly not everyone is always able to check these properties. In normal conditions I decide based on the time and gear available. I reach the anchor and want to lower off quickly: I untie and retie, paying attention to my connection to the anchor and to not dropping the rope. There's no redundancy, I can't afford mistakes. Full stop. Redundancy is not linear, quick or simple, so it must be applied methodically and with concentration.

Rather than relying on systematic redundancy, I find these far more useful: cross-checks between partners (a form of active redundancy); replacing screwgate carabiners with triple-action ones on the various tools you use (certainty that the gate is closed regardless of the human factor); using fall-arrest energy absorbers on both sport and alpine routes, not only when there's a big weight difference, but always; carrying a prusik for any complex manoeuvres; wearing gloves at the anchor; and learning basic self-rescue techniques.

It's been a long journey through different fields and different situations. Let these ideas settle, and if you have any feedback, don't hesitate to share your opinion.