Autoblock backup through haul loop for rappel?

rgold wrote: I don't agree with this. I have no idea "most climbers" and "90% of the time" come from, but if true, then a lot of people are using a suboptimal method for no good reason. Apparently adequate installations can fail if the leg holding the autoblock is raised and almost all will fail if the climber inverts for some reason. It would be one thing if avoiding these issues required a complicated and time-consuming work-around, but that isn't the case here; girth-hitching a sling is hardly a major faff. I'm not a big fan autoblock backups for every rappel, but if you are going to use them, it makes no sense to choose a method with possibly fatal gotcha's when a simple alternate eliminates them. Additional advantages of the extended device are that is allows for a bit of increased friction while also enabling the rapid installation of a very substantial friction-increasing set-up if needed while in mid-rappel.

I get sick of agreeing with rgold. I really hope he posts some nonesense at one point so I can get stuck into him... But for the moment, I'm stuck agreeing with this in its entirety.

To be honest a big pet peeve of mine is the leg loop autoblock (or autoblock that is unreliable). I'm happy not using them, but if I'm going to use one I'll use one properly.

FrankPS wrote:This is not the main purpose of extending a rappel. First, it is how you pre-rig an inexperienced partner.

I'm not sure why you would be pre-rigging a partner like that. If you partner requires pre-rigging then your partner is under your duty of care and YOU need to have control of their rappel/lowering.

FrankPS wrote:Second, it is a more comfortable and more stable rappel.

I haven't found this. But each to their own...

rgold wrote: I don't agree with this. I have no idea "most climbers" and "90% of the time" come from, but if true, then a lot of people are using a suboptimal method for no good reason. Apparently adequate installations can fail if the leg holding the autoblock is raised and almost all will fail if the climber inverts for some reason. It would be one thing if avoiding these issues required a complicated and time-consuming work-around, but that isn't the case here; girth-hitching a sling is hardly a major faff. I'm not a big fan autoblock backups for every rappel, but if you are going to use them, it makes no sense to choose a method with possibly fatal gotcha's when a simple alternate eliminates them. Additional advantages of the extended device are that is allows for a bit of increased friction while also enabling the rapid installation of a very substantial friction-increasing set-up if needed while in mid-rappel.

I'm going to have to throw my vote in Ted's favor. Extending the rappel is simply not necessary in many cases. Climbers have been safely rappelling off the belay loop since the plate belay device was invented, and the traditional method is still the recommended way to rappel by most major manufacturers as is illustrated in their user manuals.

There are advantages to extending the rappel, such as those you covered, but there are also disadvantages too. I don't really see one option being exceptionally more safer than the other, and I think it's silly that some climbers try to push the extended rappel as the only "truly safe" option. This is like arguing that the GriGri is the only truly safe belay device and achieving a safe belay is not possible with the ATC. Both rappel methods are plenty safe when done by a trained climber, using the correct gear in the correct manner.

20 kN wrote: I'm going to have to throw my vote in Ted's favor. Extending the rappel is simply not necessary in many cases. Climbers have been safely rappelling off the belay loop since the plate belay device was invented, and the traditional method is still the recommended way to rappel by most major manufacturers as is illustrated in their user manuals.

I don't think rgold was suggesting that extending is necessary or that rappelling off the belay loop is not safe. (Note: Plate belays were invented before belay loops were common AFAIK, the default orientation of the plate twisted 90degrees)

Speaking for myself, the issue is leg loop prussiks. I've seen so many done poorly at the best of times and all have a good chance of failing if the climber inverts. If you are going to have a backup, then you should make sure its reliable!

(I only extend on the rare occasion I use a an autoblock.)

If only someone could invent a device to "lean to rappell traditionally in the gym" then we could solve this problem...

Alex Krueger wrote:Nonetheless, I don't see anyone online suggesting to use the haul loop for the autoblock backup on a rappel. I assume that means it is a stupid idea for some reason I am missing. Do ya'll think this is a safe setup?

No one is suggesting it because:

1) Haul loops aren't universally guaranteed to hold a load (unlike modern belay loops). Sure YOUR harness may be strong enough for 12kN, but most aren't. (Note, it' NOT rated, just manufactured strongly. There's no standard from a certifying body, and I'm assuming BD doesn't do specific QC checks for it's strength. The 12kN listed in this article for that style loop I would assume is a design target. blackdiamondequipment.com/e…).

Even if you still decide this is OK for YOU, this factor is doubly important because someone who doesn't know better may decide to mimic you, not understanding if their loop is constructed in a way that MAY hold them. Regardless of how stupid it is to blindly do that, people in general are dumb. Be a good role model :-)

2) In the unlikely chance you end up hanging by your haul loop: see #1. Also, this is a big fucking safety issue. (Sorry for language, but I think it's important for emphasis). For the first part, you're more likely to end up upside down if hanging from the haul loop due to how it's situated and oriented on the harness. Now imagine yourself in this situation. How do you get out of it? You also don't have access to the knot, so you don't know it's condition, or can work to fix any possible problems.

At the end of the day, it's much better to just extend and block off your belay loop. You're not really saving anything by doing it this other way.

How often do you guys get inverted on a rappel?

I see the point, but honestly am not convinced that this is a 100% mandatory, must-be-done-every-time system. It's also more complicated and, as evidenced by this thread, confusing than a standard rappel off of the belay loop. While rappelling accidents are undoubtedly the #1 source of injury and death in climbing, this doesn't address that. Have there actually been any accidents caused by an autoblock failing in this way?

Anyways, I'm not arguing against extending a rappel, more about canonizing it. TS, you do not need any additional or special gear to do this; that is just an example. This video shows a few different ways of doing it. Note that both involve the use of your personal tether, which you should have, anyways.

vimeo.com/113362076

patto wrote: so I can get stuck into him

Consider editing.

What's with all the people lately fixing shit that's not broken? Just use a time-tested method that works. It's time-tested and people still use it for a reason. If you're bored, climb scary shit. Or french free/aid it like I do so that you can tell yourself that you "put it up" for your friends to try on top rope. This is just nonsense though. Seriously.

don'tchuffonme wrote: Consider editing. What's with all the people lately fixing shit that's not broken? Just use a time-tested method that works. It's time-tested and people still use it for a reason. If you're bored, climb scary shit.

Go to a major metropolitan gym (DC, Northern Virginia, Boston, San Fran) and look at the new demographic of the clientele. Lots of very brilliant and highly educated people from the software industry and other sciences who are often new to fitness/sports/the outdoors etc.

A big appeal about climbing for many from this group is the idea that it's a "thinking man's extreme sport", as well as the nifty gear and rigging that you get to use. This bunch tends to have a much greater understanding (in theory but not practice or experience) of physics and engineering, and apply what they know to understanding climbing gear and systems -- combined with inexperience and a lack of mileage on real rock, you end up with some folks zeroing in and really only giving focus on what they (think) know best.

Add in some of the stereotypical social awkwardness associated with the group, and you get the kinds of guys and girls that have produced some of the more entertaining/frustrating gear and anchor posts lately.

20 kN wrote: Extending the rappel is simply not necessary in many cases. Climbers have been safely rappelling off the belay loop since the plate belay device was invented...I don't really see one option being exceptionally more safer than the other, and I think it's silly that some climbers try to push the extended rappel as the only "truly safe" option....Both rappel methods are plenty safe when done by a trained climber, using the correct gear in the correct manner.

You misunderstand the point. "Necessity" and "safety" are in the eye of the beholder. Climbers have been "plenty safe" in rappelling off the belay loop without a backup---and with other methods before the existence of belay loops---for more than a century before the perception that rappelling is "unsafe" without an autoblock backup.

Beyond the extremely vague notions of what is or is not "safe" or "necessary," my point has nothing to do with the "safety" of the attachment point for the device. It has to do with consistent thinking about backups once you decide you are "not safe" without one.

If you are using a rappel backup, then you are concerned about the potential for a very rare failure mode---the loss of control of the brake strand. Given this perspective, you can choose two approaches to backing up, one (device on belay loop and autoblock on leg loop) with its own very rare failure modes, and one (device extended and autoblock on belay loop) without them.

Given that the choice to back up is entirely motivated by the potential for rare failures, and given that both methods are equally easy to implement, why in the world would you purposely choose a method for protecting against rare failures that introduces its own rare failures, when the alternative does not introduce comparable new potential problems?

The only possible answer is to claim that you won't ever raise the autoblock leg, and won't get knocked out and end up inverted (say because of a pack). At that point, you are mired in inconsistencies involving guarding against some outcomes while proclaiming others of similar likelihood to be totally under your control.

So my point isn't about "safety" or "necessity" at all, words that never appeared in my remarks. It is about staying true to the ideas that motivate using a backup if you choose to do so.

Thanks for everyone's replies to what I realize is a pretty silly question.

Your universal disapproval of attaching the autoblock to the haul loop has prompted me to further practice extending the rappel with a single sling tied with an overhand/figure-eight knot (as the helpful video indicated). With this tied sling already prepared, extending the rappel does indeed seem very simple and safe, so that's what I'll practice and to use from here on.

Ted Pinson wrote:Note that both involve the use of your personal tether, which you should have, anyways.

Yeah, I pretty much always stay tied in to the rope.

Even on rappel? :p

rgold wrote: Given that the choice to back up is entirely motivated by the potential for rare failures, and given that both methods are equally easy to implement, why in the world would you purposely choose a method for protecting against rare failures that introduces its own rare failures, when the alternative does not introduce comparable new potential problems?

Almost all methods to improve safety have, mostly in unusual circumstancees, the possibility of introducing danger. Extending the rappel device introduces the new problem of the device hooking on an edge or protrusion when rappeling past an overhang. Especially troubling when it's cold, wet, windy, and dark.

rob.calm

I like extending and backing up a rappel for the usual reasons listed, but the primary one is comfort.

1. Using a prussik, I'm just moving a knot out to an angle, no moving rope.

2. I can go as slow as I wish and stop as often or for as long as I want. A free hanging rappel is one of the few times you can just float in space and breathe for a short bit.

3. I'm female, which means my harness is much higher on my body than a guy's harness would be. Putting hair, clothes, and old lady body parts close to the rappel device.

4. I'm very short, so #3 is compounded. Extending the rappel gets all that out of my way.

5. I assume I am capable of being an idiot. With both a prussik and the rappel being rigged before leaving the anchor, if I somehow blow the rappel rig and also don't test it, the prussik is there.

Would someone expound a bit on this failing when inverted? A prussik isn't directional, so??

Best, Helen

I personally am a fan of extending the rappel... sometimes. But that video was so clusterf&*ky. It involves no less than 3 locking carabiners and tying knots into a dual purpose anchor/extension sling. Is it too complicated? No. But it is just complicated enough to introduce confusion. Most rappelling accidents occur when the climber either raps off the end of the rope or doesn't connect the rappel correctly in the first place. Just... keep it simple.

rob.calm wrote: Almost all methods to improve safety have, mostly in unusual circumstancees, the possibility of introducing danger. Extending the rappel device introduces the new problem of the device hooking on an edge or protrusion when rappeling past an overhang. Especially troubling when it's cold, wet, windy, and dark. rob.calm

I've never seen nor heard of the device actually hooking. It can sometimes scrape against the rock, which is disconcerting but not even close to the problem of backup failure caused by the autoblock running into the device. Even the scraping can often be eliminated by proper body positioning (and not extending the device too far, eg above head level).

In other words, you shouldn't equate potential failure of the backup with some scratches on your atc when deciding which method to use.

Old lady H wrote:I A prussik isn't directional, so??

It has nothing to do with directionality, as the pull on the knot will be the same (i.e. towards the device) regardless of your body orientation. If you invert, with your thigh and autoblock attachment point now above your waist, it is guaranteed that the leg-loop mounted autoblock will collide with belay loop-mounted device and so there will probably be no backup effect.

I've seen people slip and invert while fully conscious, and have heard about people inverting as part of the collision process in a longish pendulum while on rappel. If something knocks you out (one of the major scenarios advanced in favor of rap backups), you might easily turn upside down, especially if you are wearing a heavy rack on a shoulder sling or a pack.

Ted Pinson wrote:Even on rappel? :p

On rappel I use a sling or cord that I am already carrying with me. A couple of overhand knots, girth hitch my harness hard points and I am in business in a matter of seconds.

20 kN wrote: I don't really see one option being exceptionally more safer than the other, and I think it's silly that some climbers try to push the extended rappel as the only "truly safe" option.

I do not think that extending the rappel is the only safe method. I have decided that I now want to put both climbers on rappel before I take off so we can check each other and that is difficult to impossible without extending the rappel. Not 100% with that but usually how I roll.

I think there is a disconnect in the assumption you have started with:

rgold wrote: If you are using a rappel backup, then you are concerned about the potential for a very rare failure mode---the loss of control of the brake strand. .... Given that the choice to back up is entirely motivated by the potential for rare failures, and given that both methods are equally easy to implement, why in the world would you purposely choose a method for protecting against rare failures that introduces its own rare failures, when the alternative does not introduce comparable new potential problems? .... It is about staying true to the ideas that motivate using a backup if you choose to do so.

This makes sense. However, that is not the only reason to use a third-hand style back-up. I use one nearly every time I rappel, primarily so that it is already in place and it is easy, quick, and reliable to go hands free when I would like to, primarily to deal with straightening out the rope on the way down if I am the first one to rap. I accept that if I am hit by falling rock or other similar rare occurrence, I may die - whether from a fall to the ground from loss of rap control from inverting after losing consciousness, or just from head trauma from the rock itself. And indeed, that could happen while rapping, climbing, or just standing at the base. It's one of those objective hazards we have to accept going climbing, though I do my best to mitigate it when possible.

Sometimes I use a third-hand, sometimes I don't, occasionally I extend the rap, but it is true this can cause its own set of problems if your device gets stuck (not merely scraped and scratched) on the lip of an overhang. More a potential issue for beginners. Yes, you can prevent this with good body positioning, just as you can prevent lifting your leg above your waist with good body positioning. (and yes, I understand there are certain rare circumstances when body positioning may not be under your control). On occasions when I am carrying a heavy pack, I will usually hang it from my belay loop on rap to prevent issues that come with making myself top-heavy, but extending the rappel can be a good way to deal with this also.

Like almost everything in climbing, it always depends... I think it's best to be competent with multiple techniques and use good judgment in deciding which to use when. But deciding that a course of action (third hand on leg loop) makes no sense based on the original motivation for said action, (prevent catastrophic rap failure in case of unconsciousness) when you are really just making an assumption on that motivation in the first place.. well it seems a bit unlike you, rgold. Great discussion though, as always! :)