Backing up a PAS on a sport multi pitch climb

Sheath and core = redundant?

Laughable.

Whether y'all find it absurd or counter productive, I think it's important to realize that it's commonly thought of and *taught* that way in industry in both climbing and rope access. So when people say it, it isn't coming from nowhere regardless of how y'all feel about it. 

For beginners reading this. At some point you will have to accept that you can't double up every critical piece of gear: harness, belay device, rope. 

I think it's important to realize that it's commonly thought of and *taught* that way in industry in both climbing and rope access.

Let's see the references.

Ricky Harline wrote:
However, what has been explained to me is that just as the belay loop is by itself redundant by being two separate loops of webbing sewn together, so too is the rope. 

Not all belay loops are two separate loops of webbing sewn together, nor are they required to be.

I think your instructors (or you) may have been using the word redundant to mean sufficient.

Or mixing up the concept of backup and redundancy. In low angle terrain (and free climbing in general), your primary strategy for safety is to support yourself and not fall. The rope is an additional layer of safety that backs up your primary. That doesn’t mean the rope by itself is an inherently redundant piece of equipment by construction. 

Ricky Harlinewrote:

A rope is considered redundant in a climbing system because the sheath protects the core. You have to break two things to get the rope to fail.

To me, redundancy means you have multiple things performing the same function, and all capable of performing without the others. The multiple pieces and legs that go in an anchor all serve the same purpose, and should be able to function on their own. The sheath and core of a rope do two different things, and I wouldn't really trust either on its own. The sheath protects from abrasion, and the core takes the majority of the load and absorbs the majority of the energy. The sheath contributes very little to strength and energy absorption. If you whipped on the sheath alone, there is a good chance you would break it. It's much weaker than a single bolt or single piece of trad gear and would not be rated for free climbing. Without the sheath, the core has very little abrasion resistance, and I'd be far more scared to rappel on just the core of a rope than I would on a single bolt, single carabiner, or single sling, which are at least designed to perform in that situation. Even if some guides are teaching this, I think it dilutes the meaning of "redundant" in a way that would be dangerous if you applied it to other parts of climbing.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

Let's see the references.

I'm going to ask around. I'll do my best to provide them. 

No one considers a climbing rope as being redundant, because it isn’t. Like the belay loop on your harness, it is considered to be sufficiently strong that redundancy isn’t necessary.

This is it. Over and out, molto bene.

Matt Nwrote:

[warning - going to get pedantic on redundant]

How is a single rope redundant?

You F up your tie-in knot and there's no backup.

I'm saving this one. It's priceless. 

One of the issues I see with the contemporary approach to safety is that perfectly sensible ideas get extended beyond their usefulness and applicability, and rather than guiding rational evaluations, they become imprecations meant to carry unquestioned authority---without regard to the details of the situation they are applied to. So now we hear "it's not redundant," not as the beginning of a discussion but rather meant to be the end of all discussion. 

The confusion is furthered by a certain vagueness of the term itself, which, when devoid of a reasonable context, allows for unhelpful statements such as a single climbing rope is redundant because it is made up of more than one component and both have to fail. This idea would make virtually every soft good that is more than a single filament redundant, And in view of the fact that the Edelrid HMPE slings and Blue Ice Alpine Runners are both core and sheath construction, a single one of them would have to be considered '"redundant" too. This is why I called the statement about single ropes "unhelpful." They are not redundant in any practical sense related to climbing.

In the context of climbing safety, redundancy is a response to uncertainty. We employ redundancy when we are not absolutely certain that the system we have can survive the failure of one of its components (or when there is only one component to the system). The uncertainty involved involves a judgment about the probability of failure; without this, there would be endless cycles of backing up everything over and over again. Intertwined with the decisions is the party's tolerance for the perceived risks. The combination of judgment calls and risk tolerances makes redundancy decisions a very personal matter for the party in question, and so not susceptible to general proclamations.

One of the considerations that should factor into the judgments is how complex and/or time-consuming is it going to be to mitigate an unlikely outcome. If something quick and easy prevents a potentially adverse event, then even if the event itself seems highly unlikely, why not guard against it, given that there is no cost in time? On the other hand, it could be a very bad bargain to opt for complex rigging and impose extra procedures that slow up the party in order to protect against something that is very unlikely to happen anyway. In any case, judgments ought to be adapted to the actual circumstances. A two-pitch lowland crag, a ten-pitch cliff, and a 20 pitch Patagonian enterprise shouldn't be getting the same treatment. I can deploy more redundancy on that two pitch climb than I should be doing in the face of a Patagonian storm, and neither approach is a good fit for the other circumstance.

Ok that's the theory as I see it. What about the PAS and the clove hitch attachment? I'd say, first of all, that a general concern of being only attached to a master point with a clove hitch is unreasonable when the rest of the system is fine as described in the original post. And that unreasonablness could in other circumstances lead to time-consuming extra efforts in order to find an second independent attachment point. But in the case described, with a third bolt in place and available, clipping it with a PAS wastes no time and complicates nothing and so is perfectly fine.

Apologies for getting back to a semantic debate after an excellent rgold post, but I reached out to an AMGA Rock Guide who taught in a class I took from him that the rope is considered redundant. Here is the message I sent:

Sorry to trouble you with a semantic debate, but I have a question for you. I have heard multiple times that "the rope is the only piece of equipment that is considered redundant on its own." Perhaps I may be misremembering, but I think you may have said something along these lines in one of the classes I took from you. I brought this up in a discussion and the others find it preposterous, but I've heard the same from other highly credentialed guides as well as when I was getting rope access training.

And here is the guide's reply:

 I’m not sure of a source quoting this. I know we’ve trained underneath this concept within the AMGA. Probably derives from original rope manufacturers creating ropes under the standard of:

• ‘Half’
• ‘Twin’
• ‘Single’

The idea being that a dynamic rope of a certain thickness and above, maybe 8.7’ish, has such a thick core and sheath, that they are durable and strong enough to climb on as a single rope. Thus we have ropes only suited for ‘half-rope’ climbing, and ‘twin-rope’ climbing, and ‘single’ rope climbing. That said, no system is infallible, and with poor edge protection any rope, of any thickness/design can be cut.

So I cannot provide a source other than an AMGA Rock Guide, but he did confirm that the AMGA teaches this idea.

Again, whether or not this is a useful concept for climbers in general or beginners I cannot say. What I can definitively say is that the most credentialed people I've talked to are the ones who have told me this idea, both AMGA Rock Guides and a rope access instructor. Perhaps it's a concept that is counter-productive for beginners or climbers in general when thinking about rope systems; I'm not delving into that debate. The point I would like to make is that it's a concept taught by the AMGA and so you are going to run into it from time to time, especially among those with AMGA or professional rope access credentials. 

Nowhere in your quote does the guide say a single rope is redundant, just that it is adequate. Two  completely different things.

A single rope is NOT redundant.

Why are you using a sliding X to "equalize" a two bolt anchor? 

Ricky Harlinewrote:

So I cannot provide a source other than an AMGA Rock Guide, but he did confirm that the AMGA teaches this idea.

Again, whether or not this is a useful concept for climbers in general or beginners I cannot say. What I can definitively say is that the most credentialed people I've talked to are the ones who have told me this idea, both AMGA Rock Guides and a rope access instructor. Perhaps it's a concept that is counter-productive for beginners or climbers in general when thinking about rope systems; I'm not delving into that debate. The point I would like to make is that it's a concept taught by the AMGA and so you are going to run into it from time to time, especially among those with AMGA or professional rope access credentials. 

To reiterate what was just said: the guide's reply never makes these statements. In fact, quite the opposite.

Marc801 Cwrote:

To reiterate what was just said: the guide's reply never makes these statements. In fact, quite the opposite.

Guide:

I know we’ve trained underneath this concept within the AMGA.

"This concept" here referring to "the rope is the only piece of equipment that is by itself redundant."

Andrew Ricewrote:

Why are you using a sliding X to "equalize" a two bolt anchor? 

because no one has added chains yet

PWZwrote:

because no one has added chains yet

Per the description it's at two bolt anchor, not a rappel station. Most people would just use two opposite and opposed draws, or a quad. My point is that there's no need to "equalize" between two bolts, each of which could probably hold a truck. 

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Guide:

"This concept" here referring to "the rope is the only piece of equipment that is by itself redundant."

Ricky, there is honestly just some confusion between what the guide thinks you're asking, what he is telling you, and how you are interpreting it.  This is a good example of the confusion that can ensue when people use these terms incorrectly, and it further illustrates the need to be precise with our language.  A climbing rope is not redundant.  That's an objective fact.  Anyone who skitters about with their language in a way that makes this at all unclear is not helping anyone.

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Guide:

"This concept" here referring to "the rope is the only piece of equipment that is by itself redundant."

Speaking up from the peanut gallery. Reading what that guide wrote, and a little homework, I'm understanding that half and twin rope should never really be used alone. 1. They must have a companion to share force absorbed in the system. 2. Skinny, skinny, light, and delicate, easier to cut in a fall/be damaged. A single rope can be used alone, its more robust. I can see the thought process of "if we have three types of ropes, and two of them need a partner rope (like a backup) to be safely used, and the third type does not require that backup, then the third type is redundant" but I don't quite think that follows. 

 I'm not saying you're using the word backup, I am. Redundenacy is backup to me. If one of those half/twins break, you do at least have a second. But if you're on one rope that breaks, you're flying. It's sufficient as said, but not actually redundant in the way we use redundant. 

Calling the rope redundant muddies the water tremendously, but discussing what is and isn't sufficient and "super good enough" clarifies things greatly. I remember getting into climbing two years ago and being confused to hell with the constant harping I'd read (top rope and sport) on redundant redundant redundant. Always be clipped in twice at the anchor for redundancy if one tether/bolt breaks, two lockers opposite and opposed for your climbing rope on the anchor for redundancy so the rope can't pop out, two anchor legs isolated for redundancy if one is cut. Two or more loops in your anchor power point for redundancy if one is cut. Never trust a single bolt with your life. But then never saw anything about climbing on a single rope with a single harness? What if those things break? And my two anchor attachments are going to a single loop on my harness? What if that loop breaks? Sure didn't seem redundant to me, that thing which is on such pedestal. Confused the daylights out of me. I eventually realized the gear is fine. User error is the main culprit in accidents. Backup what you can reasonably to reduce such error, trust the rest. 

I find it interesting we're interpreting this so differently. After re-reading my exchange with him it still seems clear to me that he taught this concept in his class and confirmed that he himself learned it from the AMGA. I agree it's not a very useful concept and I am not arguing for its implementation in climbing education. 

So I guess we can agree that it doesn't make much sense to call a single rope redundant, but don't be surprised if you meet someone who's highly credentialed who says otherwise. 

Now let's get back to discussion of a PAS being used with tying in with the rope, eh?