Backing up a PAS on a sport multi pitch climb

Ricky Harlinewrote:

...but don't be surprised if you meet someone who's highly credentialed who says otherwise. 

That's highly unlikely. "Highly credentialed" people know better.

Ricky Harlinewrote:

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

Same "concept" - PAS + rope = redundant.
1 + 1 = 2

Ricky Harlinewrote:

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. "...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."

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. 

The guide does not at any point address the redundancy question, at least partially because the question uses "redundant" in a nonsensical way: nothing can be "redundant on its own," redundancy requires multiple components.  The guide immediately shifts to something that does make sense, something you may be confusing with redundancy, which is robustness. What the guide says is that a single rope is robust enough that it doesn't have to be redundant.

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

No, the words you quoted do not confirm that a single rope is by itself redundant. And it is not a semantics issue. 

You're just plain wrong. A single climbing rope is not redundant and telling people to treat a climbing rope that way could lead to risky outcomes.

Good day,

Use gear, in good condition, for its intended purpose. 

Pat Lwrote: 

Are there any reasons why backing up the PAS like this is bad practice? Is this uncommon? 

Back to the original questions.

Is this bad practice? I'd say no, but it isn't great practice either. It's complicating the system, wasting time, and making it challenging for other parties sharing the anchor. Instead of having just a single carabiner in each hanger or ring, now you're trying to cram two or more in the same space. This traps carabiners, makes it difficult to remove carabiners, and possibly causes carabiners to be side-loaded. Instead, a single attachment to the power point of the anchor is clear, cuts down on crossed ropes/tethers, and leaves enough space for everyone at a station.

Is this uncommon? Depends on the demographic. Beginner sport climber? Not uncommon at all. I saw it all the time on a recent trip to EPC. I think it stems from using quickdraws as a TR anchor; there appears to be no power point to clip into (there is, actually), so people clip in direct (*shudder*) to each hanger to clean because they were preached redundancy. Experienced multipitch and trad climbers will almost never backup their clove hitch with another system. They understand and trust the tools being used. 

I feel more safe, secure and confident at belay stations when I'm tethered with both my PAS and cloves in on the rope. I feel like it backs me up if something weird happens or I were needing to move my PAS.

Personally, if you were my partner I'd question your choice to have two attachments but I'd let you do it if you're a novice. It makes you feel warm and fuzzy, so do it for now. You're at the stage where there's a lot of unknown unknowns; sounds like you're trying to mitigate those the best you can. In the long run, you'll find this particular practice is unnecessary, adds faff to your anchors, and slows you down.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

No, the words you quoted do not confirm that a single rope is by itself redundant. And it is not a semantics issue. 

You're just plain wrong. A single climbing rope is not redundant and telling people to treat a climbing rope that way could lead to risky outcomes.

Good day,

lol there's a lot of enthusiasm here for proving me wrong. OK, how about this? I can't understand how his words mean anything other than that he learned this idea in the AMGA, so why don't some of youses guyses explain the meaning of his sentences sentence by sentence from the beginning? If you want to prove me wrong then prove me wrong-- let's get into it. I'm autistic and I not infrequently interpret things very differently to the majority, so if there's a better interpretation of his reply than what I'm seeing then I'm keen to understand what that is. I simply don't see how a different interpretation is possible in the English language, however. So let's dive into it:

Guide:

I’m not sure of a source quoting this.

"This" here refers to the concept of ropes having inherent redundancy. He doesn't know where a source for this concept is.

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

"This concept" refers to inherent rope redundancy again. He learned this concept while training in the AMGA.

Probably derives from original rope manufacturers creating ropes under the standard of:

What derives? "This concept" derives. What is "this concept"? Inherent rope redundancy. So he is saying that inherent rope redundancy probably stemmed for the classification of single, twin, and half ropes.

It seems to me that people are either twisting or completely ignoring the first three sentences of the reply from the respectable rock guide kind enough to entertain my silly internet debates.

And I will briefly re-iterate one point and clarify one point of this argument. I have had this concept stated to me in no uncertain terms three separate times, each time something along the lines of "the rope is the only part of a climbing system that is considered redundant on its own," and again each time it's been when I've had the opportunity to learn from extremely credentialed professionals. One of them being this very guide.

Lastly, people keep thinking of the rope as one thing, whereas those that state the rope is redundant on its own don't think of it as one thing. At least one time this concept was taught to me it was stated that each core strand in the rope can support a climber, and there are many of them and plus a sheath on top of that. So those that believe this concept don't see a rope as one thing, but as 9 or however many core strands plus a burly sheath that must ALL fail in order for total failure to occur. If you have 9 core strands in one rope vs. a similar amount in two skinny ropes there are a similar amount of things that must fail for total failure, so why are, say, skinny twin ropes that much more redundant? 

And again for the last last last time, if y'all think this is stupid and counter-productive idea I'm not here to argue with that. I kinda agree, actually. So I have not been making any appeals to authority, I am not arguing for this concept's usage in climbing education, and I am not defending it. But y'all are asking me to believe that an idea I've had clearly explained to me three separate times by the most credentialed people I've had the privilege to learn from does not exist and is not taught. Bit of a hard sell, that one.

Ricky Harlinewrote: So I have not been making any appeals to authority, ...

Another completely absurd statement. Your whole argument has been based on an appeal to authority.

Tuolumne Climberwrote:

Another completely absurd statement. Your whole argument has been based on an appeal to authority.

I have been arguing that it is a concept that is taught. People are saying no one is teaching this. I am not arguing the merit of the idea, merely its existence. How is saying "X concept exists and it was said by Y person" an appeal to authority? How else can I possibly make the argument that it exists and is (or at least was at one time) being taught?

You seem determined to have the last word whether that word makes sense or not. I'll leave you to it, but I suggest you should realize the horse died long ago and quit flogging it.

Tuolumne Climberwrote:

You seem determined to have the last word whether that word makes sense or not. I'll leave you to it, but I suggest you should realize the horse died long ago and quit flogging it.

As someone on the autism spectrum investigating these sorts of communication misunderstandings is how I've managed to improve my communication and social skills. I am actually not that interested in the rope systems debate itself but rather how we're arriving at such different conclusions from the same information. 

It's paid large dividends for me as these differences in understanding happen quite a lot less frequently than they did when I was a young adult, so it seems like a worthwhile investigation to me. 

Interestingly, everyone telling me that I'm wrong has not explained their arguments, with the exception of rgold who made a solid and reasonable argument of his interpretation but which still provides no explanation for the first three sentences of the guide's message which are the part that seems most important to me. 

I am making a sincere effort to understand what y'all are saying and understand y'all's perspective, but I cannot do that without further explanation. If you are uninterested in doing that then I fully understand. Dealing with neurodivergent people who don't process information in the typical way isn't for everyone and I don't begrudge anyone who finds it exhausting and not worthwhile. 

Peace, brother and or sister.  

Ricky Harlinewrote:

As someone on the autism spectrum investigating these sorts of communication misunderstandings is how I've managed to improve my communication and social skills. I am actually not that interested in the rope systems debate itself but rather how we're arriving at such different conclusions from the same information. 

It's paid large dividends for me as these differences in understanding happen quite a lot less frequently than they did when I was a young adult, so it seems like a worthwhile investigation to me. 

Interestingly, everyone telling me that I'm wrong has not explained their arguments, with the exception of rgold who made a solid and reasonable argument of his interpretation but which still provides no explanation for the first three sentences of the guide's message which are the part that seems most important to me. 

I am making a sincere effort to understand what y'all are saying and understand y'all's perspective, but I cannot do that without further explanation. If you are uninterested in doing that then I fully understand. Dealing with neurodivergent people who don't process information in the typical way isn't for everyone and I don't begrudge anyone who finds it exhausting and not worthwhile. 

Peace, brother and or sister.  

Appreciate that you are trying to understand more completely and I hope this helps. Redundancy by definition is a system design in which a component is duplicated so if it fails there will be a backup. That simply cannot occur with a single rope, so whether or not the AMGA is teaching it as redundant is irrelevant. Of course, if they are, they should immediately stop. Have a great day.

Ricky, respectfully.. I think it will help you understand what everyone is telling you by forgetting everything you believe about this subject. Try and wipe everything you know or have heard about this rope being redundant idea from your mind. Do that first. Now approach it from a fresh perspective and a clean slate.

It is an objective fact that certain pieces of gear we use as climbers are not redundant. Your belay device, your harness, and the rope all fit into this category. There is no debate about this. These are facts.

Ok now that you have that new idea firmly planted in your mind, revisit what you have been told by others. But do this with the knowledge that sometimes, even AMGA certified guides or rope access instructors use words incorrectly. They make mistakes. Or they say things that might be appropriate or true in one context, but not in another. Have you ever met people in life that use language casually or with imprecision? It happens all the time.

What everyone is trying to tell you is that it doesn’t matter what you have heard on this subject; you are wrong. Furthermore, there are a lot of very experienced people chiming in on this thread. Literal decades or maybe even centuries worth of collective climbing experience! A lot of us know or have interacted with guides on numerous occasions, and we are telling you that whatever you have heard is wrong, and isn’t commonplace or normal. 

Ricky I think one possible answer to your question is that instructors will teach things that are not true during official courses. That can be because they're just teaching what they were taught, or they think it's the best way to present material to that set of students, or some combination thereof. 

A classic example is teaching beginning climbers that a rethreaded figure eight on a bight is the only safe way to tie into a climbing rope. If they stick with climbing, later on those folks will find out it's not true, there are other knots that people use for various reasons. But hopefully by that point, they have greater knowledge and experience to help them deal with those nuances. There is no reason to get into those details with beginners.

"Everything needs to be redundant for safety, and the rope counts as redundant" seems like a simple way to avoid a conversation that can be really nuanced and complicated (as evidenced by this thread). I am certainly willing to believe you heard instructors say that.

At this point in my experience, though, I feel confident applying my own judgment to say that a single rope does not actually fit the definition of redundant. But I also think that not everything needs to be redundant to be adequately safe for the purposes I intend to use it.

Ricky Harlinewrote:

I have been arguing that it is a concept that is taught. People are saying no one is teaching this. I am not arguing the merit of the idea, merely its existence.

No, you haven't/no you aren't. Go back to the first page and look at your first post in this thread.

 How is saying "X concept exists and it was said by Y person" an appeal to authority?

Reread the thread and count how many times you've referred to an AMGA guide, rope access instructors, and "highly credentialed" individuals. This is the very definition of "appeal to authority".

Now back to the redundant issue: you said all the core strands and the sheath would need to fail for the rope to fail and that's why it's redundant. However, the point that you're either missing or ignoring is that all that isn't separate - those strands and the sheath functions as a single unified entity. Hypothetically, if you were hanging over a 100' drop on a rope and an evil person pulls out a knife to cut your rope, would you rather be on two separate ropes or feel that a single rope is sufficiently redundant? Consider: how many accidents/deaths have there been because of rope failure - which is more common; the rope simply breaking or the rope being cut over an edge?

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. "...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."

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

No where does this mystery typer type the words "A single rope is redundant." No where. So, no AMGA source confirming anything here. 

Keep trying!

Andrew Ricewrote:

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

Best line in this thread. Better yet: why are you using a sliding X at all? 

I was kinda hoping there'd be some nice, tidy conclusion to this difference in understanding but that doesn't seem to be happening. I completely agree with most comments that have been made since my last comment besides Marc's contention with my comment and the guy saying because the guide didn't explicitly write out his agreement with me he must not agree with me. 

@Marc: on my first post I was agreeing with what I had been told from these guides. Tbh I still partially agree as two super skinny ropes used in a twin configuration are not more redundant than a single rope that has a similar amount of core and sheath. However, overall, y'all have convinced me that a single rope is not redundant. I felt that I adequately addressed my change in view but apparently I had not, so sorry for not communicating better about y'all helping me change my viewpoint on that. 

Lastly, I genuinely very much appreciate the sincere conversation we've had here. Y'all are rad and I appreciate you. This place sucks sometimes and really rocks sometimes, and I think the quality of discourse in this thread despite me and everyone else not understanding each other at a fundamental level has been surprisingly respectful and high quality. Y'all are good people and I genuinely really appreciate y'all. 

I'm gonna bugger off now and let the thread return to its original intent. Cheers, y'all. 

Ricky Harlinewrote:

 Tbh I still partially agree as two super skinny ropes used in a twin configuration are not more redundant than a single rope that has a similar amount of core and sheath. 

I'm gonna bugger off now and let the thread return to its original intent. Cheers, y'all. 

Ricky, not piling on here but, rather, trying to shed some light. There's a difference between redundancy and reliability. Let's step away from climbing ropes since it's such an emotional topic for all of us and use general aviation airplane engines as our case study:

A twin engine airplane like a Cessna 310 is REDUNDANT. It has two engines and if one fails, you still have one operating, though it considerably changes the flying dynamics of the plane. It also, wrap your head around this, has TWICE the likely engine failure rate as a similar plane with one engine. But the consequences of engine failure are lessened somewhat by having two. The odds of two engines failing seem remote but there are still situations where that could happen, such as contaminated fuel. 

Now, on the other hand, you could have a single engine turboprop like a Pilatus, which is known as one of the most reliable small aircraft in the world. It is NOT redundant. It only has one engine and if that one fails, you don't have any other. But, here's the twist, that ONE engine is much more reliable than the engines on the Cessna. So while it's not redundant, like that plane, it's much more RELIABLE.

This is sort of the same as the "two skinny ropes vs one big rope" case you cite. The two skinnies are redundant. The 10mm, heavy sheath workhorse rope isn't. But which choice is more reliable? Depends on the situation, really. 

Honestly I have not read all this in detail (thank god) but I suspect the confusion on Ricky's part is between redundancy and factor of safety. They are very different but could be confused by the uninitiated. 

Redundancy refers to two parallel systems implemented such that total failure of one does not result in failure of the entirety. A single rope, a single carabiner, a single belay/rappel device etc. do not constitute redundancy. If you understand electrical systems which can be designed in series or parallel you should see the same applies here. 

Factor of safety refers to a system being constructed to withstand multiples of the anticipated or design load. Climbing ropes all have a factor of safety built in so they will not fail under expected loading conditions. Your guide probably confused the two in trying to allay any trepidation on your part. 

This should all be intuitive and the issue here is likely just in using the appropriate terminology. Understand that climbing uses many safety systems that are not redundant but due to their high factor of safety they are entirely satisfactory. 

Cheers