Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2018 - 07:58pm PT
|
OFFS! I have been caving, climbing, rappelling, and jugging for 40 years. I am an absolute expert in all things SRT, yet I have no freaking clue whatsoever how this rig works!
Can someone please explain WTF is going on here, what was supposed to happen, and why it failed! Someone who actually knows what's going on! Can somebody draw a freaking picture!?
Arg.
If we are to learn from the mistake so as not to repeat it, we must first understand it. I don't understand.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2018 - 08:27pm PT
|
Thank you for your careful post, NutAgain! I appreciate your effort to bring a broader perspective to the whole situation.
That said, I personally don't find your assessment compelling, and I believe that in the interests of future safe rigging (both rock-climbing and canyoneering), this accident bears some careful analysis.
Because I believe that this tragedy was entirely, absolutely preventable (not just some bad-luck, objective gotcha), I sincerely hope that the accident can avoid repeat!
But if we're just going to, in effect, say, "Well, canyoneers have their own game, and we should respect that game," I'm sorry, but I just don't agree. To the extent that their methods are solving problems that shouldn't exist in the first place, by modus tollens those "solutions" are deeply suspect. And this "solution" is suspect on the face of it!
It is easy as a rock-climber to have a holier-than-thou attitude about knowing rope work and to eschew the techniques of another discipline.
That's not what's going on in this discussion, at least not from my perspective. Rigging can be objectively evaluated, both in terms of the situation being addressed and the method of addressing it. If either the situation or the method can sustain better solutions, then the canyoneering community needs to learn from this vast tragedy. And the only way that that can happen is if we do NOT take a "hands off" attitude about objectively assessing how this thing played out.
After taking these classes, I think canyoneering is like an advanced form of rock climbing in terms of rope rigging, anchoring, and problem solving.
It appears that your bias is showing. Your implication is that its "advanced" solutions justify the over-complicated cluster-fornications of rigging that are just begging to be gotten wrong, which is exactly what happened in this case. However, it is not "advanced" to produce a rigging mess that cannot reliably be checked at a glance. These hybrid rap/lower tactics beg for disaster, and the "problem solving" to which you refer can be argued to be "problem creating" in most cases.
IF there were not already better/simpler ways to address the situations, then one would hope that better solutions to things like this eight-block approach could be found! But imo it's completely unacceptable to just accept such tactics as the "necessary" approach to canyoneer-specific situations, like a sort of "cultural relativism" that makes such rigging-messes "right for them."
It is NOT "holier than thou" to state that such rigging-messes are NOT okay. And I decry the relativism that suggests that we don't even have a basis to discuss both "the problems" canyoneers face and the "solutions" they employ to "solve" them.
There is not a single right way to do things- rather a variety of choices/tools and situations where they are applicable. It is just a more variable environment that calls for more creativity.
No! Sorry, but just no! There are multiple "right ways," but there are also multiple wrong ways. And when your "way" is just begging to be screwed up, that "way" bears some deep and serious scrutiny!
You just don't sustain the idea that rapping into a canyon is somehow "more advanced" and "calls for more creativity" than, say, big wall climbing, with the big-waller's multiple anchors, bag management, complex leads and cleans, etc. There is a REASON why rock-climbing has evolved the methods that it has: They are simple, straightforward, can be replicated with a VERY high degree of reliability, can be double-checked at a glance, and yet can be employed in a vast array of complex situations.
There's no demonstrable need for "more creativity" in canyoneering, imo. By contrast, there's the OBVIOUS need for more reliability!
1. Finding mid-point and rapping off two strands of a single rope (or two strands of tied-together ropes) is typical for climbers but is not a first choice for canyoneers for several reasons:
Okay, we're going to consider the supposed "problems" that are begging for the hyper-complicated "solutions" one by one:
Clusterfvck of extra rope at the base of a short rappel to untangle, wasting time to untangle and repack. Doesn't seem like much time to climbers, but if you are doing a 2000 foot descent with bazillions of 30-40 foot rappels, it adds up.
Two responses. First, this is a pure convenience consideration, which to my mind doesn't even START to motivate a WORSE clusterfvck at the supposed anchor to "solve" this convenience "problem."
Second, big wall climbers and big mountaineers have been dealing with 2000-foot descents for too many decades to count! Two-rope tactics have proven themselves simple and reliable for those decades. And if you're doing "bazillions of 30-40 foot rappels," then simply bring a mid-length rope along with you. Really, bringing the "extra weight" of a mid-length rope is just "too inconvenient" or "a PROBLEM" that can BEST be solved by this clusterfvck of a hybrid rap/lower setup!?!
Again, this is a pure convenience contrivance to justify a death-anchor-rig that is begging for failure. And it's not like you're getting lots of convenience for little extra risk! These rigging approaches are, conversely, getting a little convenience for a LOT of over-complicated anchor-rigs that are, frankly, a solution in search of a real problem.
Bring another rope. "Problem" solved!
As I said upthread, it's one thing if you find yourself in some unforeseen, desperate situation forcing you to creatively improvise. But literally heading into EVERY canyoneering situation like you're going to have to get "creative" like you're IN that sort of desperate situation, and then justifying such tactics via CONVENIENCE is absolutely a non-starter for me!
If only one side is rappelled, then the other is available to rig for another member of the party from above to lower down to the stuck/injured member, to lower down some supplies, etc. More options saved in reserve.
Wait, so is it just a matter of course that these canyon rappels are filled with people being incapacitated and needing what amounts to a rescue? So, EVERY rap-anchor-rig is set to provide for the rescue of an injured earlier person?
Wow! SO many points could be made here. In no particular order, here's a few striking ones:
First, something is VERY wrong with an approach to getting down canyons that implies that it is just a matter of course that people on rap are going to need rescue from above. That's poor descent-route choice or poor anchor-placement choice or some other very poor choice! Somebody needing rescue from the rap-anchor had better be a VERY rare scenario, or this is a "sport" that is much riskier than, say, the TT motercycle race!
I'm confident that the majority of people doing canyoneering have no idea that all of their anchors are being rigged as though it is just EXPECTED that they are going to need rescue from above! And if that's not expected, then, again, in most situations we have a clusterfvck of a "solution" in search of a problem.
This sounds like the line from racing, "If you're not crashing, you're not trying," except that it's: "If you're not almost dying and needing rescue from above, then you're not canyoneering." Ridiculous! Such a rescue should be RARE, or people are really screwing up. And rigging every anchor as though a rap-rescue IS going to be required seems flat-out bizarre to me!
Second, imagining that a rescue could be required, I can't think of a WORSE way to approach said rescue from above than jumping onto the other side of a rope rigged like we see in the picture from just before the accident or any anchor even rigged "correctly" like that!
The biggest question in such a situation is: Whatever caused the problem down below can happen to ME, the supposed "rescuer." So, I'd BETTER have a much better set of tools at my disposal than the lower person had, or I'm just going to add to the problem that exists down below rather than solve it. You don't get a "better set of tools" by just jumping on the other side of a rope from the same anchor.
If you honestly think that a particular rappel has a high chance of some team member needing rescue from above, then you had better set up a full-on rescue anchor with dedicated rope, anchor placements, and other rigging as the particular situation makes appropriate. This impromptu, hybrid rap/lower rig appears to me to be the WORST of the options you have at your disposal if the odds are high that you're going to need to employ it! Again, this strikes me as a "solution" that's looking for a problem, and if you are CREATING the problem, then you're just grossly negligent.
There is no "cultural relativism" that works here. There's no "their particular problems need creative solutions," because these are just "solutions" in search of problems, and what "problems" there are seem CAUSED by poor choices rather than legitimate safety considerations that can best be solved by these clusterfvck anchor rigs!
And I'm not running scared of "holier than thou" indictment in this discussion, because there ARE objectively safer ways to rig rap anchors than appear to be standard fare for canyoneers (according to your experience and my reading).
2. As I was just taught, the most common approach for rappelling (canyoneer-style) is this: to initiate a single-rope rappel, estimate the distance to the ground, thread the rope through the quick link, and pull out that much rope from the bag and toss; there is ongoing practice to estimate distances and to be able to pull out that specific amount of rope. They get very good at it. Adjust length as necessary to reach the ground. Tie off with a clove hitch on a biner to brake the rope on opposite side of a quick link from the side you are rapping off. But, if there is an inexperienced party member, of if you can't see the rope touching the ground, if you might get a waterfall pounding you, etc... then you tie a backup knot in end of the rope strand to be rapped (e.g. a fisherman's bend) and rig a figure-8 block near the quick link so people above can easily and quickly transition to unlocking the figure-8 block and lowering the person using the figure-8 device. The rest of the rope in the bag is available to lower a person as needed. The rope bag is tossed at this point (not earlier- so as to reduce confusion about which side of the quicklink should be blocked). This method keeps the unneeded part of the rope still stowed in the bag at the base, so it speeds up the repacking and decreases tangling with the rap strand.
That lengthy explanation, sadly, amounts to nothing more noble than "It's more convenient to not deal with more rope than is 'necessary,' and we have no clear idea how much IS necessary, so we 'must' set up a clusterfvck, begging-to-kill-somebody, hybrid rap/lower setup... you know, because, for convenience."
It's a non-starter. The simple alternative (if that "extra" rope on the ground is such a deal-killer) that will immediately work in 99.9% of such cases is to simply lower the first person to get the rope-length exactly right (since that seems to matter a lot, lot, lot), and then rig a traditional rappel on the basis of that length. Again, problem solved, and no clusterfvck, waiting-to-kill-somebody, "creative" rigging is needed.
EVERY supposed "problem" that needs these clusterfvck "creative" "solutions" has a much simpler, tried-and-true solution that can be reliably checked at a glance. These tactics are not "more advanced." They are simply more complicated, less reliable, and without any adequate motivation that I've discovered (your post included).
According to what I have learned so far (and I am far from an expert at this point), there is not a good use case for only having 10 feet of rope left and tying a figure-8 block.
Exactly! So, here was a rap rig that was done by somebody who had been taught the "more advanced" way, and apparently it wasn't in his "bag of tricks" to just set up a simple, straightforward, tied-off rap for everybody to use until the last person went down, at which point it could instantly be re-rigged for the pull-through. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That's not "more advanced." It's over-complicated even when the situation OBVIOUSLY does not call for it. And I don't believe that "the situation" ever calls for "it."
You then go on to try to explain the motivation for the mess, but even you admit that it appears unmotivated by this particular situation. There is just NO good account of why this particular hybrid rap/lower rig was contrived. And the point is that it is always an over-complicated clusterfvck that's just an accident begging to happen.
While the figure-8 block looks like a mess to a rock climber uninitiated to canyoneering techniques, it is actually pretty easy to rig and about as common for a canyoneer as a climber using an ATC guide on an anchor to belay up a following climber.
No, no, no! It apparently is NOT "pretty easy to rig," or you are hereby flat-out accusing the rigger of not just a "mistake" but gross negligence. You're not going to get that one to fly, despite your concerted effort to float the "what's good for them" relativized bit. And if it is as "common" as you say, then canyoneering has a systemic problem on its hands, which bears special scrutiny of its own.
That figure-8 block is a MESS, and it's obviously a mess. It doesn't just LOOK complicated to us poor, unadvanced, simple-minded big wall climbers! It IS an over-complicated clusterfvck that's a "solution" in search of a problem. The guy who rigged that one was presumably trained in its use, as you were. Obviously HE didn't get it right. And that's because it...
IS MUCH EASIER TO GET IT WRONG THAN TO GET IT RIGHT! And that is the problem!
NOBODY looks at an ATC and thinks, "So, I'm supposed to loop this here and then twist and then go back on itself. Let's see. Did I get the twist right? Uhhh, dang, which way? Oh, I'm supposed to have a 'biner here somewhere? Two 'biners? What the crap?"
If you can't get an ATC right easily and immediately, then you should not be climbing. Period! There's no rocket science to it. But this figure-8 block is a MESS that even "competent" people can MORE EASILY screw up than get right, and you cannot just glance at it and know that it's right.
There is NO comparison between use of an ATC and this mess that shouldn't ever be needed and for which there are simpler and better solutions if you honestly believe that something like it is going to be needed!
Totally within the realm of normal rigging.
You can SAY it, but, then, I respond that there is something VERY wrong with a sport that considers this clusterfvck to be "normal."
If we had something this screwed up in rock-climbing, and people were dying from its use, it would spark long and very hard discussion. There's been gear that's gone by the wayside, and there are tactics that have gone by the wayside, because climbers live on the KISS principle and die from violating it. If some approach is NECESSARILY more complicated, to the point that it BEGS to be screwed up by otherwise competent people, then it's the "problem" that needs closer examination, NOT a defense of the clusterfvck tactic.
The one danger is that you need to make sure that one of the bights is crossing the big hole of the figure-8 rather than running up the side. A half twist in the rope makes this difference. If that piece is missed, then it could conceivably slip under a load. From the report on canyoncollective:
Casey did not put a twist in the figure 8 block, nor did they secure the small hole of the 8 with a carabiner.
And there we have it. You proceed to negate the comparison to the ATC you earlier made. Nobody here (being just unadvanced rock-climbers, of course) is going to be convinced that this mess SHOULD be considered just "normal rigging."
However you try to relativize it, this rigging approach is just begging to kill people. In this particular case, it should have killed ONLY the guy who rigged it, not an innocent woman who trusted him to get it right and went before him.
It sounds like this is exactly the mistake that was made. When making the figure-8 block, the rope was not properly twisted to ensure the rope diagonally crossed the big hole, and a biner not placed in the small hole clipped to the pull-side rope. My training emphasized both of these to keep the rope in place for desired functionality. Perhaps the biner was missed because of not having enough rope on the end, waiting for the two ends to be joined.
Yeah, and "perhaps" it's just an overly complicated "solution" to a "problem" that either never REALLY exists or for which better, simpler, actual solutions exist.
It's easy to second-guess what actually happened or what a person does in the moment, because there are so many moments for decision-making, balancing efficiency vs. margin of safety, and that is something that makes rock climbing and canyoneering such a fun and rich experience.
Now it appears that you're moralizing to us unadvanced rock-climbers that we should just "let it go" and "accept" that canyoneers have their own game that requires "more advanced" tactics that we really aren't in a position to "judge" (not having advanced experience and all). You treat "advanced" like it's a GOOD thing, and then enjoin us to not "judge" because we're not qualified to do so.
But DYING in entirely preventable ways does bear the scrutiny of those of us in the climbing community who DO employ rope-rigging tactics in every moment of our rich experience. When your "moments of decision-making" rely on a method that is SO flawed at its inception, that method bears serious scrutiny, and it does NOT make the experience more "rich" to keep using a method this deeply flawed and easily screwed up!
When "advanced" just means "more complicated for no compelling reason," we ARE in a position to judge the merits of the assertion that "more complicated is better."
After careful analysis we might all arrive at a consensus of an optimal approach in a situation and learn from it.
That is sincerely what I hope emerges from this thread, and I sincerely hope that canyoneers will stop by and get a glimpse of the almost universal condemnation of these tactics from we lowly, unadvanced rock climbers.
The "consensus of an optimal approach" should be: KISS! And KISS again!
These clusterfvck "solutions" in search of a real problem SHOULD be condemned, and, as I said, I'm not running scared from a "holier than thou" accusation here. There ARE better solutions to all of the supposed problems, and we "unadvanced rock climbers" have spent about 100 years of trial and error sorting out the best bang-for-buck approaches to 99.9% of the situations that canyoneers face. I have NO sympathy for the .01% of situations that lead people to think that employing this "hammer looking for nail" approach is the catch-all for all canyoneering situations, so that such clusterfvck rigging is "common" in that community.
This lovely woman died for NO other reason than that the rigger employed "hammer looking for nail" thinking, and the only "hammer" in his holster was apparently a method that is just begging to kill people. And I haven't heard even the start of a justification for it yet.
We would all hate to lose the freedom to take risks in rock climbing, and similarly, we should respect the same right for folks who are into canyoneering as a separate discipline.
This discussion has nothing to do with freedom. You're off on a red-herring tangent now. This discussion has everything to do with trying to objectively assess both the situation and the approach to rigging that killed a young woman!
What does "separate discipline" have to do with it? You (and every canyoneering site I've visited) fail to make the case that the "situations" that emerge in canyoneering are BEST handled with such sketchy tactics as what killed this young woman.
There's no relativism here, as you keep trying to float. There are some very simple principles here regarding using ropes to descend. It's really the SAME discipline, and the whole range of "situations" have been faced by some climber at some point. Canyoneers don't occupy some lofty pinnacle of of "advanced" rope management that we shouldn't "judge." But "judging" is precisely how we (and, hopefully, the canyoneers) will learn to do better!
Sometimes mistakes happen, for unforseeable or for preventable reasons. Sometimes we are tired, have a brain-fart, or for inexplicable reasons just make a mistake- we are human.
VERY true, which is why the KISS principle trumps convenience. If your method can't be verified and double-checked at a glance, then it's over-complicated. And if you're in a situation that literally, genuinely requires some serious complication (such as a big rescue), then you had BETTER have multiple, very-competent eyes reviewing the rigging and a lot of rigging redundancy.
This was not a case of "mistakes happen." This was a case of a system that is BEGGING for a mistake to happen. And until canyoneers own up to the obvious fact that this "hammer" almost never (I would personally say NEVER) finds its nail, then this sort of mis-rig will happen again.
If we all wanted to be as safe as possible, we would sit on the couch and watch TV or sit behind our computers and type on this forum all day.
Look, I get that you're trying to give canyoneers some benefit of the doubt here, but these red herrings are not helping the case.
There is a VAST difference between calculated risk-taking in which you get the chop through something not working out as hoped and THIS mess! THIS mess was the almost necessary result of the fact that the rigging is ridiculous, unnecessary, and not a genuine solution to any problem that can't be better solved in a simpler and more reliable way.
But there is much beauty in the world, and rock-climbing specific rope rigging is not sufficient to safely get in and out of some of these places.
False. I'm sorry to be so frank, but I'm just not gonna drink that Kool-aid in the face of this tragedy.
Show me a "situation," and I'll show you a safer, better, simpler "rock-climbing specific rope rigging" tactic that doesn't have anybody asking, "So, this loop goes... I think... here. And was it a twist like this?... or, oh crap, I think this goes over and...."
Two ropes, some slings and 'biners, and two waterproof radios. Done. Me and my partner are going ANYWHERE your "canyoneer tactics" are supposedly required to negotiate. This rigging question was NOT about "to bolt or not to bolt." This rigging question was all and only about securing the rap rope(s) to the anchor. The consistency of the anchor is another issue entirely. THIS death resulted all and only from a choice to employ a RIDICULOUS rigging setup. And you attempt to find some wiggle room out of that fact by asserting that "rock-climbing specific" tactics CANNOT work for these canyoneering situations.
And that assertion is, flatly, false.
If you are ignorant from a realm of knowledge, unfamiliar with the problems that are being solved by a set of techniques, not tuned in to the spirit of the activity and what makes it interesting for some of its participants, it is better to listen first and learn before working from your different realm of experience and passing judgment.
In general, that's good advice. But in this case it's terrible advice! You've spent your entire post making one assertion: Most rock climbers don't even know the advanced rope-rigging tactics that canyoneers have developed to solve problems that are nothing like what climbers encounter. But that assertion is false on all points.
* "Rock climbing" has developed over about 100 years OF solving every imaginable situation in which ropes can be employed to get up and DOWN every imaginable terrain. KISS is the principle that has guided its evolution into what is an amazingly simple, reliable set of rope-management skills that CAN be employed in every imaginable situation with greater reliability and safety than the alternatives.
* Canyoneering is a very recent development OUT OF rock-climbing tactics from the 60's. To the extent that it evolves away from rock-climbing tactics, it is a VERY legitimate question to ask: What problems are solved by these "advanced" tactics that are not adequately solved by traditional rock-climbing rigging tactics?
Neither you nor any reading I've done even start to make the case, imo, that "the problems" require solutions beyond traditional rock-climbing rope-rigging. These "advanced" tactics emerged 100% due to convenience considerations, which you as much as admit in your post.
Some might feel that a 10% increase in convenience is worth a 40% increase in risk. (It's not like setting up the clusterfvck rig in the first place is "free!") But that's a point that should be CONTEMPLATED, not just dismissed as "judging what you don't know!" And it is reasonable for people on this site to look at the whole situation and say, "THAT is just not worth it, especially when there are SO much cleaner ways to handle most of these supposed 'canyoneer-specific situations."
* Finally, even if you could make the case that some small subset of canyoneering situations require "advanced tactics" like the figure-8 block (which I presently deny), that doesn't even start to make the case that such tactics should be considered "normal rigging" for the majority of situations in which tried-and-true traditional "rock-climbing specific" rigging is not only adequate but BETTER!
EVERY case in which a canyoneer is thinking, "Time for an 'advanced tactic,'" is a case when that same canyoneer SHOULD be thinking, "Is this really NECESSARY, or is there a KISS way that's safer?" When you go straight to clusterfvck as your first choice, that indicates an overarching problem in how canyoneering training is approached.
I started to apologize for a WoT, but this stuff is literally life and death, and a really systematic response to your post was needed, imo.
My "tone" is straightforward, as befits the gravity of the relativism you've expressed. I honestly not bashing on you personally, and I honestly do appreciate your efforts to clarify things from a canyoneer's perspective. But I just find no merit in that "canyoneer's perspective," when the result of it is over-complicated clusterfvck rigs for convenience that is not even necessary most of the time and that perspective results in approaches that are literally just begging for fatal mistakes.
KISS, unless you can make a COMPELLING case otherwise (and then I'm going to really scrutinize "the situation")!
Joy died NOT just from "human error" or a "simple mistake." That would be tragic enough. What worries and even angers me is the systemic problem that you have carefully enlightened us about in the canyoneering community that strongly suggests that this sort of clusterfvck is "normal rigging."
THAT is flat-out scary and SHOULD be to anybody that knows another Joy that is thinking about participating in this activity!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2018 - 08:32pm PT
|
Look how easy a figure8 block is to re-rig for lowering while loaded!
Yeah, right.
And you're going to do that while panicked at the fact that you have a helpless or dying person down there that you MUST, RIGHT NOW get lowered.
This is a "solution" in search of a problem. And it produces more problems than it "solves."
As PTPP would say, "big wall theory" that doesn't withstand practical scrutiny. It's bad if it were safe. But it's so easy to screw up that it's not even safe.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2018 - 08:36pm PT
|
And, even when it's set up entirely correctly, it is NOT a "lock." It is entirely dependent upon rope type, diameter, and other rope-specific considerations. "Safety" with this setup requires even more considerations beyond just getting the twists and turns right (which is a lot already).
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
F
climber
away from the ground
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2018 - 08:43pm PT
|
Good lord.
I tried to rappel that 3 post million word WOT, but rapped off the ends of my 200m in the process.
To put it succinctly... don’t f*#k up.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2018 - 08:55pm PT
|
I tried to rappel that 3 post million word WOT, but rapped off the ends of my 200m in the process.
I'm glad it didn't result in fatality!
NutAgain's post was a WoT in its own right, and it was heartfelt and deserved a heartfelt and systematic response.
As you just found out, nobody forces you to read it. LOL
|
|
RussianBot
climber
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2018 - 08:59pm PT
|
I’m sorry. My condolences to family and friends.
Some people like to climb, some like to rappel down waterfalls. Some like both. If we need more than that to justify to ourselves what she was choosing to do for herself, that’s on us.
|
|
okie
Trad climber
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2018 - 09:14pm PT
|
I'm surprised to hear that Werner actually rappelled anything. I thought he went to the top of everything, no matter how desperate, and hiked miles off the backside, often postholing through thigh deep snow or some such schizz, otherwise "you didn't do the route."
|
|
BruceHildenbrand
Social climber
Mountain View/Boulder
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2018 - 09:53pm PT
|
Nuts again wrote:
Bruce- this concern about single-strand rappels and assumption of rope-lengths was the biggest question I had going into the training I just did. What I learned was that you should have 3x the amount of rope for the longest drop, spread over two ropes. At least one rope should be double the length of the longest drop. I was also taught a minimum party size of 4 for safety margins (e.g. 1 injured person, 1 stays back, and 2 can safely proceed to exit canyon to a spot with reception or to go get help- you often need to work as a team to get past obstacles). As in any activity, people cut corners on that. I've been assuming I would do canyons with just 2 people like in rock climbing. This illustrates a situation of what can happen if we make that choice.
So a couple of comments.
If the party which had the accident was doing a 160 foot rappel on a 200 foot rope (as stated) then they violated exactly what you were taught.
Secondly, if they were doing a 160 foot rappel on a 200 foot rope why were they using a figure 8 block since it would not provide them with any advantages of using it?
BTW, I still don't understand all the complexity. The goal should not be to create something which is 'neat' or 'cool', but rather something which is 'safe.'
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
from Poofters Froth, Wyoming
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2018 - 09:57pm PT
|
That voodoo figure 8 sh#t is nuts... Good Lord!
RIP to the departed...
|
|
cragnshag
Social climber
san joser
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2018 - 10:08pm PT
|
I'm thinking that maybe the reason these canyoneering folks have adopted these overly-complicated rap riggings is owed to the fact that the state of the art came about in relatively recent times. And the obsession with safety above all else being a hallmark of these recent times, it makes some sense that they would rig a rappel in a certain way to "safegaurd" the party for an unlikely, but possible problem. But by trying to be ultra-safe and prepared for anything that could happen to the rapper, they are actually putting themselves in more danger.
In my somewhat distant past I worked as an inspection engineer for a state transportation agency. Our group would often use rope rigging to perform inspections hundreds of feet off the deck. At the time, we were required to use all steel locking carabineers and super heavy duty full-body harnesses. A steel locker is good for 15,000 lbs. That is 3x safer than an aluminum locker that is rated at 5,000 lbs. Right? You see where I am going with this? We were so weighed down with unnecessary mass, we were actually more likely to get tripped up, not to mention fatigue wearing us down. So in an effort to be more safe, we were actually less safe. And there was nothing I could do about it because we had to follow the "safety" rules or get reprimanded.
And you know what, most of the guys in the crew were terrified of hanging off ropes to begin with. It's the ones that were the most scared that bought into the false theory that you need overly beefy gear to be safe.
Maybe it's the same thing with modern canyoneering? Maybe it's irrational fear that is driving the acceptance of stupidly complicated rigging for the "just in case" scenario? In their obsession to feel safe, they make their activity more dangerous...
But whatever. The canyoneering folks will figure it out in due time. As the activity matures, the collective experience will contribute to revised norms for rigging.
As climbers we have over a hundred years of history to draw upon in our collective experience. I read and re-read many years of AINAM during my formative climbing years. I benefited from learning how things went wrong for others, so I would try to avoid similar mistakes. Perhaps the canyon descending folks could start publishing AINAC to collectively analyze canyoneering accidents? They will need to figure this out on their own. I doubt they will listen to a bunch of "unsafe" climbers tell them how to rap.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2018 - 10:09pm PT
|
That voodoo figure 8 sh#t is nuts
Mr Fish, could you please email Madbolter the secret of yer conciseness?
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2018 - 04:39am PT
|
Ryan Tetz wrote:
If you truly need to lower on rappel or anticipate one in a potential situation you should use a munter mule knot as I saw also listed on the referenced canyoneering site as an alternative to this odd ball technique choice. I'd hate to be the last guy that has to rap on the 8 device not clipped off if you are going to leave it in the system as pictured too and re-rigging the anchor otherwise multiple times with new systems seems needlessly complex.
The munter mule is still an advanced technique for the inexperienced, but at least it can be readily visually verified. It should still be tied off and clipped off appropriately. I agree with Ryan's recommendation.
To reiterate, if you need a releasable system to potentially lower a stuck rappeller from above,
 use a Munter mule knot (Pass the Pitons Pete uses this knot to dock a haul bag, so this may help him understand, too)
it has to be properly backed up, in case you tied the knot wrong. This can be done by making a figure eight loop in the tail and clipping it to the anchor.
if the potential lowering distance (full rappel length) is greater than half your rope length, tie both your ropes together and set up the Munter mule knot above the knot that joins both ropes. Otherwise the joining knot would have to be passed through your lowering system. This can actually be done with a Munter hitch on a regular big HMS biner, if the person is not too heavy, but it's best not to be forced to do this.
from
https://www.climbing.com/skills/save-yourself-a-guide-to-self-rescue/
The Munter mule knot is a standard knot for escaping a belay.
It does not require extra equipment like an aluminum figure eight.
It could "twist" the rope if you actually have to lower someone, but since this should be a rare event, it's no big deal.
|
|
clifff
Mountain climber
golden, rollin hills of California
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2018 - 08:23am PT
|
The canyoneers seem to want the excess rope up at the anchor, so they can have some lower capability if required. In this case, about 40 ft, which might be enough to get someone down or to a ledge.
No. The person rappelling should have all the rope so that the dangerous lowering operation is not needed. With the full 200' of rope the rappeller can get down on his own - no lowering required. Holding a reserve of rope back creates the dangerous situation.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2018 - 08:32am PT
|
clifff
Obviously, you have NOT seen all the different possible scenarios that can occur in canyoneering that can benefit from top lowering options ....
I know of one such case happened here where if that option was there the rappeller would be alive today.
|
|
clifff
Mountain climber
golden, rollin hills of California
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2018 - 09:00am PT
|
OK. What are the details of that case and other possible scenarios.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2018 - 09:15am PT
|
Werner, are you suggesting that climbers rig raps that will allowing lowering. Seems like it is adding a dangerous layer of complexity for an extremely rare event. I could imagine a situation where it might be a good idea, small children, absolute noobs, waterfalls. Just little evidence that this is an event that is causing injury. We do know that cute tricks (simul-rapping) is killing people.
More details of your example would be nice
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2018 - 09:18am PT
|
I'm not suggesting anything to climbers to be defacto standard.
I'm just making aware of different options available according to time and circumstances if needed .....
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2018 - 12:03pm PT
|
^^^ Yes, but I think that what worries most of us is that this trickery seems to be the go-to first-choice rig for canyoneers, even when it's obviously not the best choice.
It's one thing to have some trick up your sleeve for that 1/10000 situation. It's another thing entirely for the community to seemingly be teaching this trickery as the go-to tactic for "safe" rap rigs. Certainly such trickery is emphasized on canyoneering sites, and even in NutAgain's small experience he was taught this stuff out of the gate.
The canyoneering community is still in its infancy, and I expect that eventually such tactics are going to get weeded out of common practice. Enough people will have to die, and there will have to be enough community scrutiny. Discussions like this one, hopefully, will contribute to that scrutiny, as there are some hybrid climbers/canyoneers here.
These "advanced" tricks should not be the go-to rig!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!