Do you have your rescue skills dialed? A survey

Hi, MP Trad Climbers,

I am doing some work on developing rescue skills among a large group of my friends. I put together an anonymous survey (linked below), and I decided after the fact to adapt it for a wider audience.

The survey presents a number of rescue scenarios that one might encounter multi-pitch climbing. I am really curious to see how many climbers here feel comfortable with these skills. Fill out this survey if you want. I will update this post with the survey results and some statistics in one month time or after 200 responses are collected - whichever comes first. 

Additionally, I am curious to see if anyone has any reactions to this survey. That could be thoughts on the scenarios presented, stories about your own self-rescue experiences, views on the preparedness of today's trad climbers, suggestions of scenarios that I did not include in the survey, thoughts on going out with climbers who have/do not have these skills dialed, odds of needing to use these skills, hiring guides, best ways to learn these, etc. 

Let me know your thoughts!

TO AVOID SPOILERS: Fill out the survey before reading through this thread - I imagine some people may want to talk about the scenarios contained in the survey.

Survey Link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScMxytpounHUwgg7XKwO6v28RGSvBy2kDsPsO48Ya-sgsyTTA/viewform?usp=header 

Friction hitches, load-releasable hitches (there are others beyond the MMO), and the off belay device (knife) are your friends! 

I think every rock climber / every person in the world should learn basic first aid skills, working on search and rescue i've seen a lot of accidents that could have been much less deadly if one person in the party had medical skills and carried a medical kit and had practice for when sh!t hit the fan. And yes i am 15 years old.

That was a fun exercise. It’s a good reminder to always carry a bit of emergency gear for prusiks, MMOs, anchor building mid-pitch, etc.

I'm a guide and wouldn't have these skills if I didn't have to learn them for my exams. 

MMOs and friction hitches (FH) are your bread and butter. Learning how to tie them well will benefit you greatly. 

I think the big challenge in a lot of these scenarios is knowing how to put the puzzle pieces together. For example, getting everything in the right position and order to transition to a counter balanced rap (scenario with the injured second) is way harder than people realize. Same goes with knowing you need to set that injured person up with a releasable tether. If you put them on a static sling then you're screwed, or at least made more work for yourself by having to rig a raise. The basics are pretty basic (literally just MMOs and FHs) but knowing how to combine them is hard. 

https://www.mountaineers.org/books/books/climbing-self-rescue-essential-skills-technical-tips-improvised-solutions

Ive got to shout out this amazing book Climbing Self-Rescue by Ian Nicholson. I attended the book release / workshop where he led us practicing some similar scenarios to the survey. Actually practicing the techniques in super important to know how they feel and being able to recall in a stressful scenario (saying that, Im probably due for a brush up).

#11 of the survey is a pretty wicked problem, that is the one im not confident about

I don’t think there’s much value in a self reporting survey when the answers are just “do you know this?” because you’re going to have people answering “yes” when they don’t actually have the skills. They might think they have the skills, but do they actually? And even if they know them from having practiced on the ground three years ago, will they recall them in a stressful real life situation?

It would be like asking “are you a good climber?” or “is your penis large?” What do you think people are gonna say?

As I got older, I decided I wanted to belay with a grigri even on multipitch routes, in case I had a heart attack or stroke while belaying someone. I didn't want to drop my leader to their death if I had a medical emergency. But I still prefer to do raps with a tuber style device so I always carry a gigajul for raps as well. And after having to ascend ropes a couple of times with cord and prussiks, which frankly is tedious, I started carrying a microascender on the back of my harness as well ( with two pre-prepped pieces of  5 mm cord). Having these tools handy gives you a ton of flexibility for self-help problems. But I also carry an inreach mini on me for serious medical emergencies and would not hesitate to use it.

 I also carry a small med kit in the bottom of my little multipitch pack. I’ve never had to use that mid route but have used it a couple of times on the ground. Actually put sterile saline and a clotting pack to good use once. Still had to get stitches at the er but didn’t bleed to death!

 And my partner and I were able to successfully self rescue from 4 pitches up when she broke her ankle, with the help of the party behind us adding their rope to the equation.  We could have managed with just us and one rope but we would have had to leave a lot of gear and it would have taken much longer to get from the base to the car.

This brings up the point that the scenarios in the survey ask the party to solve the issue alone. In many places, in many scenarios, yelling for help often recruits nearby climbers who are happy to pitch in. 

Tony Danza wrote:

They might think they have the skills, but do they actually?

Agreed. Self-report and confidence-competence mismatch will almost certainly come to bear. This survey might be a useful thought exercise/self-reflection tool, and could inspire good discussion here, but I doubt the sample will be of any real use for statistical analysis.

peterfogg wrote:

That was a fun exercise. It’s a good reminder to always carry a bit of emergency gear for prusiks, MMOs, anchor building mid-pitch, etc.

When multipitch climbing, I always carry a 20-25 ft 6mm "rescue cord" that never gets used except in advanced maneuvers. Almost always MMO/load transfers.

Adam Fleming wrote:

I'm a guide and wouldn't have these skills if I didn't have to learn them for my exams. 

MMOs and friction hitches (FH) are your bread and butter. Learning how to tie them well will benefit you greatly. 

I think the big challenge in a lot of these scenarios is knowing how to put the puzzle pieces together. For example, getting everything in the right position and order to transition to a counter balanced rap (scenario with the injured second) is way harder than people realize. Same goes with knowing you need to set that injured person up with a releasable tether. If you put them on a static sling then you're screwed, or at least made more work for yourself by having to rig a raise. The basics are pretty basic (literally just MMOs and FHs) but knowing how to combine them is hard. 

Indeed. As I have reflected on my skills, I have found that almost every advanced maneuver is a different application of a load transfer problem, usually one that can be solved with an MMO.

With this group that I am teaching, I am telling them to learn the MMO and we will practice three scenarios that cover 90% of this survey: 1) rescuing an unconscious follower (top-site belay > transition to counterbalance rappel > transition to new anchor with load releasable hitch > transition to tandem rappel); 2) rappelling past a knot (I like the MMO/autoblock combination using a cordelette off the belay loop - most texts now have replaced the autoblock with a klemheist, but I really like the autoblock); 3) passing a knot through a lower with an MMO.

I figure if you know these three scenarios, then you understand how to adapt the MMO in all sorts of applications. If you can use the MMO well, then you can solve just about every problem in this survey. The worst scenario (lead climber falls after 140 feet of climbing) is still primarily a load releasable problem to escape the belay, transition counterbalance and tandem rappels - the only additional skills that this problem requires compared to the unconscious second scenario described above is ascending/descending a taught rope using two prusiks.

Tony Danza wrote:

I don’t think there’s much value in a self reporting survey when the answers are just “do you know this?” because you’re going to have people answering “yes” when they don’t actually have the skills. They might think they have the skills, but do they actually? And even if they know them from having practiced on the ground three years ago, will they recall them in a stressful real life situation?

It would be like asking “are you a good climber?” or “is your penis large?” What do you think people are gonna say?

My survey is not measuring competence, it is measuring self-perception. There is still value in this as a proxy to actual competence. People know for a fact whether they have practiced a specific scenario or not. Whether, not having practiced it at all, their idea to solve that scenario is actually good or not is ambiguous. But when we are unable to measure a value directly (competence) proxies are always valid, helpful estimates - the survey writer just needs to be aware of the limitations.

I am aware of the limitations, so if I ran statistical analysis, I would never make claims about actual competence. I would only make claims about perception of competence. Regardless, I have forgotten to include demographic questions, so the statistical analysis will be quite limited and somewhat boring, anyway. :(

Mikey Barro wrote:

But when we are unable to measure a value directly (competence) proxies are always valid, helpful estimates - the survey writer just needs to be aware of the limitations.

I am aware of the limitations, so if I ran statistical analysis, I would never make claims about actual competence. I would only make claims about perception of competence. 

Glad to see you edited/added the last bit, as proxies are quite often significant co-founders to statistical validity. To say they are "always" valid and helpful is pretty bold. This is demonstrated regularly in self-report inventories of many kinds. A good example is diet/nutrition research, where self-report is inaccurate for myriad reasons and is a weak proxy at best. This is still an interesting survey and probably a useful self-inventory, but I'd be far more interested to see how this data would compare to the same set of folks executing a subsequent skills demo of the scenarios.

Wilderness first responder training is an important compliment to self rescue skills.  Having been in a couple rescue scenarios in remote locations, it really made a difference in dealing competently with injured partners while under duress.  I hope you get the training and never need it.

Mikey Barro wrote:

Indeed. As I have reflected on my skills, I have found that almost every advanced maneuver is a different application of a load transfer problem, usually one that can be solved with an MMO.

With this group that I am teaching, I am telling them to learn the MMO and we will practice three scenarios that cover 90% of this survey: 1) rescuing an unconscious follower (top-site belay > transition to counterbalance rappel > transition to new anchor with load releasable hitch > transition to tandem rappel); 2) rappelling past a knot (I like the MMO/autoblock combination using a cordelette off the belay loop - most texts now have replaced the autoblock with a klemheist, but I really like the autoblock); 3) passing a knot through a lower with an MMO.

I figure if you know these three scenarios, then you understand how to adapt the MMO in all sorts of applications. If you can use the MMO well, then you can solve just about every problem in this survey. The worst scenario (lead climber falls after 140 feet of climbing) is still primarily a load releasable problem to escape the belay, transition counterbalance and tandem rappels - the only additional skills that this problem requires compared to the unconscious second scenario described above is ascending/descending a taught rope using two prusiks.

Why the preference for the autoblock? 

I'm teaching an SPI this weekend and I'm trying to get folks to apply the right FH for the application. Sometimes they use an autoblock when ascending only to have it slip, other times they use a prusik when lowering only to have it be challenging to tend and leading to a jerky lower. I think there's utility in using more or less holding power for certain applications, but I'm curious your thoughts. 

How is scenario 11 solved?

Emma Axelson wrote:

How is scenario 11 solved?

If there is a ledge below the leader and enough rope to lower them to it, it's a reasonable first step (depending on whether they regain consciousness relatively quickly--if not, chances of survival are slim). Beyond that:

1. Call 911. Put them on speaker phone as needed.

2. Shout for help if other parties are nearby.

3. Counterbalanced ascent to the leader's top piece. You're cleaning as you go and will ideally be able to reinforce the single top piece with additional pro to create a viable anchor.

4. You're now above the leader at an anchor. If there's a way to descend from below the roof, counterbalanced descent to the leader.

5. Pick off leader. Render first aid as soon as feasible. Continue descent to lower rappel station/anchor you build for rappelling. 

6. Secure everyone to anchor.

7. Pull rope. Tandem rappel. Repeat until on the ground.

8. Hope other people are around or SAR has arrived. Otherwise, it's gonna be a long, slow, tiring time to get your partner to the trailhead.

If there's no viable way to descend beyond the roof at step 4...

5. Haul leader until near roof. 

6. Rappel to leader and help them clear the roof. Render first aid as soon as feasible.

7. Depending on how you solved step 6, ascend or stay with leader, but either way, continue hauling until you're both at the anchor/top piece.

8. Descend via alternate route with tandem rappel.

9. Once again, hope there's someone to help you at head to trailhead.

In scenario 11, you cut the rope. Thats why it’s called “self-rescue.” If they can’t help, it’s their problem 😂.

I thought the scenarios were well thought out. I understand that most of us have a bias to believe we have more skills than we do. I feel fortunate that I’ve already worked out several of these scenarios successfully in real life.

Having been involved in several rescues over the years, and then in my own rather catastrophic accident, I cannot stress enough to people how important planning for a prolonged extrication is when you are training rescue skills.

You’ve got the rope skills to get an injured person down, cool. If you have no medical skills, you now get to watch them bleed out in front of you (I can tell you that this is one of the most traumatic things a human can experience and the survivors guilt is heavy.) 

You got them down, and your medical skills are good and now you’ve stabilized them, did you do enough planning for the area you are in to know what your local resources are for help (SAR, EMS, Hospital options, medevac?) I can say first hand that when I was injured, I knew there was a local SAR team but actually had no idea if they were capable enough to help. I knew where the closest hospital was, but didn’t know where the nearest trauma center was. I knew what the medevac options were but was also confident that they weren’t coming to help. It was a real time lesson that some of my route planning wasn’t adequate and it was scary to realize it inside of a major accident. 

I also went through the AMGA rock program many years ago and the rescue skills I learned were excellent.  Everything was done off the ground with a live load and like someone said above the systems are basic but in a real life situation inches matter.  Getting tolerances right requires practice and a lot of the mistakes you can make aren't obvious until you load the system and then it's hard to reverse.  It is very important to practice with real weight to know if you can actually do it in real life.  Aid climbers are often pretty solid at this stuff since a haul bag is basically  the weight of an unconscious climber. 

Derek DeBruin wrote:

Glad to see you edited/added the last bit, as proxies are quite often significant co-founders to statistical validity. To say they are "always" valid and helpful is pretty bold. This is demonstrated regularly in self-report inventories of many kinds. A good example is diet/nutrition research, where self-report is inaccurate for myriad reasons and is a weak proxy at best. This is still an interesting survey and probably a useful self-inventory, but I'd be far more interested to see how this data would compare to the same set of folks executing a subsequent skills demo of the scenarios.

Yes. I agree here. I do not mean to claim that proxies are always valid helpful estimates because they always accurately capture the intended variable - they do not. I think they are valid and helpful - as long as researchers acknowledge their limitations in the analysis - because in cases like this the only alternative is to have no survey at all. An honest, flawed survey is better than no survey is better than a dishonest, flawed survey.

My plan here after enough data is collected is to publish the following:

A) Summary results
B) A document with my proposed solutions + some comments that stuck out in the survey
C) An updated survey that includes the same original scenarios, asks returning respondents to indicate what their original answer was/asks first time respondents to answer these questions for the first time before reviewing the proposed solutions, and then asks a second question for each scenario asking respondents to compare their original solution to the proposed solution to see if they missed anything important, and asks demography questions at the end of the survey.


If enough people are interested in filling out the updated survey, I think the comparison between pre-solution answers and post-solution answers may be an even better proxy for actual competence. Adding demography questions will be fun.

Adam Fleming wrote:

Why the preference for the autoblock? 

I'm teaching an SPI this weekend and I'm trying to get folks to apply the right FH for the application. Sometimes they use an autoblock when ascending only to have it slip, other times they use a prusik when lowering only to have it be challenging to tend and leading to a jerky lower. I think there's utility in using more or less holding power for certain applications, but I'm curious your thoughts. 

I'm glad you asked. I have been wanting to have this conversation with a professional for a while. The last time I brought it up was with my SPI provider 6+ years ago, and he looked at me like I was speaking a foreign langauge. He was open to the idea, but just never seemed to have encountered it.

I also have to caveat, I appreciate and agree with your emphasis on the right knot for the righ application, and I think we are aligned on the other applications you mention.

For rappelling past a knot, I am using the method that is presented in David Fasulo's "Self Rescue" - photos provided.

I prefer the autoblock for a single, simple reason. If, when loading my repositioned rappel device below the knot, I happen to lower myself out of reach of the friction hitch, I can still remove the autoblock simply by removing one leg of the autoblock from the carabiner on my harness and pulling on the opposite leg. Typically pulling on the leg that corresponds to the lower wraps on the autoblock is most efficient.

Disassembling the klemhesit requires having hands directly on the hitch, so if you rappel too far, it is an issue, albeit solvable. Even if you don't rappel too far, it can be awkward to reach high and manipulate it.

Lowering myself so that the friction hitch is still in reach is certainly a skill-issue that can be solved with better practice. But it is nice not to have to worry so much about it, especially when tired on a mountain in poor conditions. Also, if you are going to prioritize keeping the friction hitch in reach when executing this maneuver, it makes transitioning on to an extended rappel much harder - I think texts show transitioning onto a non-extended rappel for this very reason.

The later book by Molly Loomis and Andy Tyson shows the exact same technique that Fasulo demonstrates, but they use the Prussik (Kelmhesit would not make a difference compared to a Prussik). I have no idea what the latest book by Ian Nicholson shows. I can only assume that the community has decided that a Klemheist/Prussik is more reliable than an autoblock for taking the full load of your body.

I think I prefer prioritizing the time efficiency of the autoblock to the security of the Klemheist/Prussik. I can more easily/quickly add additional wraps to an autoblock than I can construct a step-up for Klemhesit/Prussik that is out of reach. Even when both are executed at their best, I think the autoblock is more efficient.

David Fasulo "Self Rescue"

Note: Notice that the Autoblock/MMO combination uses two legs off the carabiner on the belay loop. The autoblock can be dissassembled even when out of reach by removing the MMO leg and pulling on the opposite leg. Also notice that the graphic shows transitioning onto an extended rappel - easier to do when you don't have to worry about your friction hitch being out of reach.

Andy Tyson and Molly Loomis "Climbing Self Rescue"

Note: the PMMO (Prussik MMO) is tied on a single leg (with two strands), and must be disassembled by manipulating the hitch directly. Also, this book does not have a graphic detailing whether the rappel device being lowered onto is extended or not, and the text description does not mention an extension. My personal experience is that transitioning onto an extended rappel makes it harder to keep the hitch in reach.