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. 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. |
|
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) |
|
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: |
|
How often do you guys get inverted on a rappel? |
|
patto wrote: so I can get stuck into him Consider editing. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
Thanks for everyone's replies to what I realize is a pretty silly question. |
|
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. |
|
I like extending and backing up a rappel for the usual reasons listed, but the primary one is comfort. |
|
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). |
|
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. |
|
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. |