Dealing with damaged rope in a counterbalance rappel

aikibujin wrote:

I can't take any credit for thinking of something quite that complex. All I was suggesting is that after installing a friction hitch above and below the damage, an alpine draw (or similar) is used to create a 2:1 pulley to connect the two friction hitches with additional tension. The reason for this was to create a load on both the hitches and ensure they are engaged correctly. Without tension already on both hitches, I can see a potential that if the rope did break, the hitches might slip. Unlikely, but I think possible, so I wanted to guard against it.

Mathias wrote:

I can't take any credit for thinking of something quite that complex. All I was suggesting is that after installing a friction hitch above and below the damage, an alpine draw (or similar) is used to create a 2:1 pulley to connect the two friction hitches with additional tension. The reason for this was to create a load on both the hitches and ensure they are engaged correctly. Without tension already on both hitches, I can see a potential that if the rope did break, the hitches might slip. Unlikely, but I think possible, so I wanted to guard against it.

Your idea may not be exactly the same as mine, but they use the same principle: pulling the two friction hitches together using mechanical advantage. I believe coming up with the principle is more important than coming up with a step-by-step instruction. A step-by-step how-to may not work in a different situation, but if you understand the principle, you can apply it and come up with different solutions.

An insightful, informative thread on Mountain Project that made it to four pages, mostly stayed on topic, and stayed completely civil?

Yer all gonna die. 

aikibujin:  Nice job in summarizing the options.  I'm sure there might be tweaks, but that is a great service.  I'm not sure it is worth picking these apart further but I'm sure we will :-)

Given that harness hang syndrome is involved, I'll generally hang my hat on almost anything that lets me both a) quickly descend to the injured and mitigate the syndrome (e.g., keep going down via counterbalance rap with them to some other assumed anchor point) and b) not unduly endanger the rescuer. For me, that could mean letting the injured literally hang by a thread - or hopefully soon just a lowly hitch - for a little longer to knot off the damage.

For options that allow clipping to the victim and/or hitching to their rope strand and continuing the counterbalance rap, we should acknowledge that at the point where both start going down that the load on the damaged section (patched, knotted off, or left as is) will likely increase probably beyond what it has seen so far. This is due to running friction over the top 'biner with the load of two people.

So let me get this straight. To this

aikibujin wrote:

Your main criticism what that "This may work in most situations, but not if the damage is far above the second" and/or (I summarize) if the amount of rope available was already pretty tight for reaching the previous belay.

And that somehow disqualified this solution from the synopsis?

What about the cut and pick-off option? On the con side there's the rope recovery issue but if the team was on the first pitch, it's a very fast and safe option for getting the victim down and into the hands of emergency personnel. And in other circumstances, it's also a viable option for those who don't fully trust the approach of prusik-bridging the damage.

I get the feeling that there's a big reluctance to cut the damaged strand but I don't see why that should be a consideration in most circumstances. The rope will have to be cleanly cut sooner or later and there's not much that can be done with a 10 or even 15m bit of rope (and usually what can be done with it typically doesn't require that every last inch of it be salvaged) so, while it might be slightly better to cut at the damaged area, there's not really any big problem in cutting just above the victim's harness knot. If the rescuer is facing further rope-stretcher rappels, topping up the short length of rope lost to reattaching the cut length (and that left on the victim's harness knot) can be easily done with a sling or two.

Regarding Step 1, I think that it would be important to at least suggest pulling/cranking the tails of the two prusiks together as tightly as possible rather than just taking up the slack between them. Prusiks get increasingly more secure the more tension there is on their tails so if the rescuer is going to bet his partner's life (and maybe even his own) on both of these prusiks holding, he might want to get their tails as tensioned as possible. Not necessarily to the point of hauling but as close to that as possible (as Mathias was aiming for, I believe).

Also, regarding the cons of Option A, it was clearly discussed upthread that the issue is not only the risk of the prusiks failing to grab the rope if it finally snaps but also of them getting abraded, loosened, cut and/or moved by rubbing on the rock, catching on bumps and edges, etc. during the descent. And the same applies to Option C

Regarding the risk of the prusiks just not grabbing the rope, since I seem to be in a small minority with my fear of that happening, I should at least clearly spell out what I think is the main issue. If the rope finally snaps, its ends may well be badly frayed and stretched. The diameter ratio and cord flexibility that allowed the prusiks to grab well on the intact rope may not work at all on these unraveling ends.

jktinst wrote:

As mentioned earlier, as soon as the rescuer realizes that the victim's strand is damaged, he should join the two strands of rope above him. He can then keep rappelling down to the victim...

I didn't "disqualified" your solution. These two sentences are Greg D's solution, which was posted before yours. So I simply grouped the wall of text that came after under "Option B". I pointed out a situation when you can't close the loop as you suggested, that doesn't mean I didn't actually try to read everything and understand your solution. But whether you cut and pick-off, or ascend the rope, all that comes after Option B. If you want to go into detail on what you will do once you reached the follower, feel free to continue or start your own thread. But you did not propose any new solution to safely reach the follower that is fundamentally different than the options I have summarized.

Bill Lawry wrote:

aikibujin:  Nice job in summarizing the options.  I'm sure there might be tweaks, but that is a great service.  I'm not sure it is worth picking these apart further but I'm sure we will :-)

Thank you! It's Mountain Project, I'd be surprised if this thread doesn't keep on going for 10 more pages. But I think my job here is done.

aikibujin wrote:

I didn't "disqualified" your solution. These two sentences are Greg D's solution, which was posted before yours. So I simply grouped the wall of text that came after under "Option B". I pointed out a situation when you can't close the loop as you suggested, that doesn't mean I didn't actually try to read everything and understand your solution. But whether you cut and pick-off, or ascend the rope, all that comes after Option B. If you want to go into detail on what you will do once you reached the follower, feel free to continue or start your own thread. But you did not propose any new solution to safely reach the follower that is fundamentally different than the options I have summarized.

This is one of various possible step twos in your synopsis whereas it's the critical first step in my approach. Your synopsis is built around first rappelling to the damaged area and prusik-bridging it whereas I've made it clear that I don't trust that and explained why. I have looked for alternative solutions and indicated that I felt that the joining of the two strands should be carried out as soon as the rescuer spots the damage (hopefully while still well above it). You're certainly entitled to pick and choose what to include in your own synopsis of your own thread, leaving out, among other things, what to do after the rescuer has reached the victim, but I wanted to point out that I feel that there are pretty fundamental points that didn't get included.

On another note: the damage may have been caused by a sharp edge which may be continuing to saw the rope with every tug and swing as the rescuer rappels to that spot. So I thought I'd remind us that, as a matter of basic general precaution in any self-rescue, the rescuer should take a few seconds to try and examine the whole rope between him and his partner. If he spots an area that's potentially problematic but has clearly no yet caused much damage, of course, it would make sense to see if the rope could be moved off of it right then. Otherwise care should generally be taken to avoid moving the victim's strand. Of course, in this thread's scenario, the rescuer should become even more careful after spotting the damage, for example by bringing himself to the damaged strand when aiming to hitch the two strands together (or prusik-bridge the damage) and to continue staying aligned with that strand as much as possible when rappelling down to the victim.

I'm also of two minds regarding the possibility of padding that sharp edge. I'm concerned that any attempt at inserting padding between the rope (with the victim's weight on it) and the edge might take up time that is simply not available and/or put additional stress on the damaged area. On the other hand, it seems that it should be possible to quickly slide a thin piece of slippery material (1in tubular webbing, a strip ripped from the rescuer's clothes, etc.) without disturbing the rope much and that, once in place, it should slow down further damage. I suppose that it's one of those things that can only be decided based on what the damage and the rest of the situation looks like.

aikibujin wrote:
 I believe coming up with the principle is more important than coming up with a step-by-step instruction. A step-by-step how-to may not work in a different situation, but if you understand the principle, you can apply it and come up with different solutions.

At an early point in history for me, I kept hearing that - understand the principles and do not rely on just memorizing steps.  It is the reason I have not elaborated much on suggested steps even though desired by some.  Plus one quickly gets bogged down in the "what if" sub-scenarios as we tend to sink to the worst-case circumstances.

On the other hand, there is a bit of a learning curve to get enough experience amassed to comfortably brainstorm about a fresh scenario.  Nothing will replace actually getting out and practicing.  So, getting up on the soap box ...

Practice.  A couple times a year. Use the "off season" for it so the reason you climb - joy - doesn't get displaced.  Pick some arbitrary scenario and physically explore self-rescue.  Start on forgiving terrain and work up to the vertical.    Though perhaps fuzzy at first, the involved principles will crystallize over time.  The benefits will be apparent and extend beyond true self-rescue scenarios, including getting to know you partners better. 

Excellent job summarizing all this and the several options and their pro's and con's. You are right that the first order of business is backing up the second's rope. With that in mind, it appears to me it would be very easy to combine option A temporarily of friction hitch above and below the damaged rope connected to each other, and then enact option D. I still suspect that cutting the damaged loop on the alpine butterfly may be necessary to get a clean rope pull for another rappel. 

Bill Lawry wrote:

At an early point in history for me, I kept hearing that - understand the principles and do not rely on just memorizing steps.  It is the reason I have not elaborated much on suggested steps even though desired by some.  Plus one quickly gets bogged down in the "what if" sub-scenarios as we tend to sink to the worst-case circumstances.

On the other hand, there is a bit of a learning curve to get enough experience amassed to comfortably brainstorm about a fresh scenario.  Nothing will replace actually getting out and practicing.  So, getting up on the soap box ...

Practice.  A couple times a year. Use the "off season" for it so the reason you climb - joy - doesn't get displaced.  Pick some arbitrary scenario and physically explore self-rescue.  Start on forgiving terrain and work up to the vertical.    Though perhaps fuzzy at first, the involved principles will crystallize over time.  The benefits will be apparent and extend beyond true self-rescue scenarios, including getting to know you partners better. 

These have been interesting threads!

Literally the first thing I learned was ascending with prussik Purcell's, and I'm so glad that's what happened.

That introduced me to the idea that very simple systems can do remarkable things. And, my mindset is totally different than if I had learned "do it this way" only. Learning different ways to do things will always interest me, as will the "puzzle it out for the fun of it" threads.

Those tied ascenders also totally hooked me on climbing!

Best, H.

aikibujin wrote:

Your idea may not be exactly the same as mine, but they use the same principle: pulling the two friction hitches together using mechanical advantage. I believe coming up with the principle is more important than coming up with a step-by-step instruction. A step-by-step how-to may not work in a different situation, but if you understand the principle, you can apply it and come up with different solutions.

I agree thoroughly with this. To me this is one of the reasons for wrapping my head around threads like this. 

jktinst wrote: Regarding Step 1, I think that it would be important to at least suggest pulling/cranking the tails of the two prusiks together as tightly as possible rather than just taking up the slack between them. Prusiks get increasingly more secure the more tension there is on their tails so if the rescuer is going to bet his partner's life (and maybe even his own) on both of these prusiks holding, he might want to get their tails as tensioned as possible. Not necessarily to the point of hauling but as close to that as possible (as Mathias was aiming for, I believe).

Regarding the risk of the prusiks just not grabbing the rope, since I seem to be in a small minority with my fear of that happening, I should at least clearly spell out what I think is the main issue. If the rope finally snaps, its ends may well be badly frayed and stretched. The diameter ratio and cord flexibility that allowed the prusiks to grab well on the intact rope may not work at all on these unraveling ends.

I agree with the first paragraph. For the second, this has certainly occurred to me. For myself, I've been thinking that any friction hitches used to backup the damaged area should be sufficiently far enough away from it which may also provide some room for slippage if it does happen. This would require the rescuer to inspect and feel the rope. 

jktinst wrote: On another note: the damage may have been caused by a sharp edge which may be continuing to saw the rope with every tug and swing as the rescuer rappels to that spot. So I thought I'd remind us that, as a matter of basic general precaution in any self-rescue, the rescuer should take a few seconds to try and examine the whole rope between him and his partner. If he spots an area that's potentially problematic but has clearly no yet caused much damage, of course, it would make sense to see if the rope could be moved off of it right then. Otherwise care should generally be taken to avoid moving the victim's strand. Of course, in this thread's scenario, the rescuer should become even more careful after spotting the damage, for example by bringing himself to the damaged strand when aiming to hitch the two strands together (or prusik-bridge the damage) and to continue staying aligned with that strand as much as possible when rappelling down to the victim.

I'm also of two minds regarding the possibility of padding that sharp edge. I'm concerned that any attempt at inserting padding between the rope (with the victim's weight on it) and the edge might take up time that is simply not available and/or put additional stress on the damaged area. On the other hand, it seems that it should be possible to quickly slide a thin piece of slippery material (1in tubular webbing, a strip ripped from the rescuer's clothes, etc.) without disturbing the rope much and that, once in place, it should slow down further damage. I suppose that it's one of those things that can only be decided based on what the damage and the rest of the situation looks like.

This all good advice to heed. 

Bill Lawry wrote:

At an early point in history for me, I kept hearing that - understand the principles and do not rely on just memorizing steps.  It is the reason I have not elaborated much on suggested steps even though desired by some.  Plus one quickly gets bogged down in the "what if" sub-scenarios as we tend to sink to the worst-case circumstances.

On the other hand, there is a bit of a learning curve to get enough experience amassed to comfortably brainstorm about a fresh scenario.  Nothing will replace actually getting out and practicing.  So, getting up on the soap box ...

Practice.  A couple times a year. Use the "off season" for it so the reason you climb - joy - doesn't get displaced.  Pick some arbitrary scenario and physically explore self-rescue.  Start on forgiving terrain and work up to the vertical.    Though perhaps fuzzy at first, the involved principles will crystallize over time.  The benefits will be apparent and extend beyond true self-rescue scenarios, including getting to know you partners better. 

Spot on! Although I'd add that practicing can happen on a day it's too wet to climb but dry enough to practice. Or maybe you don't have a full day to get out there. I'm all for not taking away from the joy of climbing, but don't delay practicing rescue scenarios. And do it somewhat regularly to keep the ideas, principles, systems, and steps in your head. 

Old lady H wrote:

These have been interesting threads!

Literally the first thing I learned was ascending with prussik Purcell's, and I'm so glad that's what happened.

That introduced me to the idea that very simple systems can do remarkable things. And, my mindset is totally different than if I had learned "do it this way" only. Learning different ways to do things will always interest me, as will the "puzzle it out for the fun of it" threads.

Those tied ascenders also totally hooked me on climbing!

Best, H.

Hopefully you won´t take this too negatively BUT a modicum of pedantry is in order since you´ve posted this several times. A Purcell Prusik is a way of tying an adjustable lanyard, not ascending a rope. And Prusik (the hitch used to ascend a rope) is spelt with a capital P as it is a proper noun (somebodies name).

Jim Titt wrote:

Hopefully you won´t take this too negatively BUT a modicum of pedantry is in order since you´ve posted this several times. A Purcell Prusik is a way of tying an adjustable lanyard, not ascending a rope. And Prusik (the hitch used to ascend a rope) is spelt with a capital P as it is a proper noun (somebodies name).

Anyone capable of using the phrase "modicum of pedantry" is welcome to proceed with same. :-)

I will try to convince auto fill to allow caps when I tell it to.

And, yes, very, very useful lanyards. Including for ascending a rope when attached with a Prusik hitch. You can back down with them, too.

Thanks, sir! Helen

anotherclimber wrote:

I agree with the first paragraph. For the second, this has certainly occurred to me. For myself, I've been thinking that any friction hitches used to backup the damaged area should be sufficiently far enough away from it which may also provide some room for slippage if it does happen. This would require the rescuer to inspect and feel the rope. 

Well, if you think about it, in self-rescue you try to never trust your life or your partner's (never mind both) to a single prusik. The prusik may be used as a back-up to another safety system (as in rappelling) or it is itself backed up by another safety system. When setting a PMMO to escape the belay, you back it up with a knot on the rope or something equivalent. When ascending, your foot prusik is supposed to be also linked to your harness, as a back-up to your harness prusik. When hauling, the primary haul prusik is backed up by the progress capture system, etc.

And here you are, perfectly happy to trust your partner's life or both your lives to one or two prusiks which must absolutely stay 100% solid on either side of major damage on the rope! I know perfectly well just how solid a single prusik can be when it's well set on an intact rope. I've never seen one slip when ascending/descending or testing self-rescue systems. They never slipped either when I tested a variety of haul systems at the crag and up in my backyard tree, repeatedly hauling test weights of up to 110 kg (I weigh about 70 kg with my gear). But prusik-bridging a damaged rope in a CB rappel situation is a different animal. Before the damage is spotted, the prusik to the victim's strand is just a back-up but the second we start using it as a primary component of the rescue system, things are not the same anymore. As the rope breaks, the core threads may not all break neatly in the same circumscribed area, some may get torn from further up or down the rope, making the rope softer and less resistant to the grabbing action of a prusik.

Step 1 / Option A: if you unclip the prusik above the damage from your harness in order to attach it solidly to the one below, both lives then depend on both prusiks being completely failure-proof. If you don't release the top one from the harness, it becomes a lot trickier to properly tighten them against one another and then it's more like the partners are each relying on a separate prusik.

Option B: here, both partners are exposed during Step 1 but, at least, once the rescuer transfers himself to the rope-to-anchor loop-closing hitch, he is pretty much 100% safe. Of course, the victim is still relying on both bridging prusiks until something else gets put in place for him (not specified in the synopsis).

Option C: same as Step 1/Option A to start with (up to the end of the initial lowering). Following that the rescuer gets properly safe when he clips into the anchor but the victim stays exposed even if the bottom bridging prusik is clipped to the anchor. The victim gets truly safe only once slack has been released above the bottom prusik and the knot bypassing the damage has been tied.

Option D: as for B, the rescuer is safe once he clips to the loop-closing hitch but the rescuer gets safe only once hauling has released enough slack for the knot to be installed.

If you want to back-up these prusiks, you basically need two more prusiks set further out on either side of the damage so now you have 4 bridging prusiks around the damage, some, if not all of them with pretty long tails. That's where I was headed when I started feeling that this wasn't making sense for me and I needed to look at other options.

anotherclimber wrote:

I agree thoroughly with this. To me this is one of the reasons for wrapping my head around threads like this. 

I agree with the first paragraph. For the second, this has certainly occurred to me. For myself, I've been thinking that any friction hitches used to backup the damaged area should be sufficiently far enough away from it which may also provide some room for slippage if it does happen. This would require the rescuer to inspect and feel the rope. 

This all good advice to heed. 

Yes, this whole thread and the other, if you can follow, are full of good  solutions and thinking.

 and this is a scary thread !

in decades of climbing, and on miles of chossy Rock,  I've never had to use these rescue techniques. It is a must, to practice the simple systems.  Get them ' 'dial'd in'.  be comfortable with less, and be able to improvise. That said - keep to the K.I.S.(s) standards, Prioritize, & know your limitations.

And anotherclimber, ! Your 'computer-foo',  astounds! How did you place multiple quotes, separated by your own comments in that excellent post ?

jktinst wrote:

...Option B: here, both partners are exposed during Step 1 but, at least, once the rescuer transfers himself to the rope-to-anchor loop-closing hitch, he is pretty much 100% safe. Of course, the victim is still relying on both bridging prusiks until something else gets put in place for him (not specified in the synopsis).

...Option D: as for B, the rescuer is safe once he clips to the loop-closing hitch but the rescuer gets safe only once hauling has released enough slack for the knot to be installed.

ERRATUM: of course, no 100% safety hanging from a single rope-to-anchor loop-closing hitch but at least this one is set higher up and well-away from the damaged area; plus if you really want to back it up, it would require only adding a second hitch, not a third and a fourth.