Why use a third hand?

ebmudder wrote: Knots in the end of the rope are an even better practice, and would likely have prevented this fatality, or any rappelling error where the rope ends are off the ground. Even backup prusiks have failure modes in panicked situations (see MP Post where the climber squeezed the backup preventing it from stopping the fall). But that's not a reason against using a backup.

in reality, you should be doing both (knot your ropes and use a back-up). Of the 5 accidents reported to AAC so far this year, 2 would have been prevented...

This is indeed a good topic and good stories. But do not let this/them create a closed mindset against folks who most of the time omit a third hand (and omit knotted ends).

If you keep climbing, you will eventually run into competent folk of that contrary preference.

Sure. Some will choose to not climb with such creatures ... which is also part of the bigger picture.

David S wrote:

My explanation could lead you to think that....let's just say I always extend my rappel device with a locker at the end of the extension for secure connection to the anchor.

The ground gave way when I removed my locker to the anchor.

I always autoblock first so I can test the autoblock, and then attach ATC so I can test the system before disconnecting myself from the anchor.

If you did this, how would you have been hanging just by your autoblock? You either unclipped from the anchor before setting up and checking your rappel device, or you were hanging by your rappel device backed up by your autoblock?

This is something I posted earlier. If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's the synopsis. While rappelling, a huge gust of wind blew me off the rock and upside down. Most important, I was wearing a helmet and secondly was using an autoblock backup so nothing bad happened. No helmet and I probably would have been knocked unconscious. No helmet and no autoblock, I would probably not be here to write this. 

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/108456449/rappel-with-prussic-backup-success-and-failure-stories

rob.calm

David Coley wrote: Hi,
awhile back someone posted on here asking whether anyone had ever been saved by their third hand when abseiling. They were not trying to argue against using one, just wanted to know.

If I remember correctly, and I probably don't. People found it hard to come up with a data point.

Well, now I have one.

I was climbing in Jordan last month when my partner, an experienced climber, slipped while abseiling. To avoid face-planting, she put her hand out in front of her face. This involved letting go of the rope. It was clearly an instinctive act, which no amount of skill or training could negate.

"Instinctual" in the context of having an autoblock and being used to counting on it to let go.  

When we learned to rappel in the good old days, the first thing we were told is, "let go of the brake hand and you're dead."  I don't know anyone who found it difficult to override "instinct" under those circumstances, and I know of and have experienced myself scores of slips, pendulum swings, and various other unexpected motions, all of which caused the old-school set to double down on their brake hand grip, not release it.

As for things collapsing under you while setting up the rappel, being tethered in seems like the appropriate solution.  And of course you're holding onto the brake strand when you unclip the tether, so for any collapse at that point you're already on rappel and so protected by the rappel ropes.

But I'm not arguing against third hand backups.  They're so ingrained in contemporary rappel technique at this point that it might well be dangerous for most climbers to abandon them.   But arguing for their saving effectiveness when their presence makes brake-strand release of little or no consequence is playing with loaded dice.

Rob.calm describes being blown upside down and saved by an autoblock.  That's great.  Be aware that in order for this to work, the device has to be on an extension.  Folks who put their device on the harness belay loop and the autoblock on a leg loop will find that, if inverted, the autoblock will collide with the device and not hold.

Em Cos wrote:

I beg to differ on that.... but I'm very glad she's ok!

Re. It was clearly an instinctive act, which no amount of skill or training could negate.

Em, why do you disagree?

She is a highly skilled climber, with thousands of routes and raps, yet still she let go this once. So the skill and training failed to negate the instinctive act.

David Coley wrote:

So the skill and training failed to negate the instinctive act.

... or skill with it and training actually enhanced the instinctive act? Richard G says it another way in his 4th block in his last post ... with alternative BITD in 2nd block.

I do not know about your specific circumstance. But the ‘enhances’ part does make general sense.

rgold wrote:

But I'm not arguing against third hand backups.  They're so ingrained in contemporary rappel technique at this point that it might well be dangerous for most climbers to abandon them.   But arguing for their saving effectiveness when their presence makes brake-strand release of little or no consequence is playing with loaded dice.

And I'm not arguing for them, just providing one data point.

David Coley wrote:

Re. It was clearly an instinctive act, which no amount of skill or training could negate.

Em, why do you disagree?

She is a highly skilled climber, with thousands of routes and raps, yet still she let go this once. So the skill and training failed to negate the instinctive act.

If she had let go while belaying would you be talking her up? Would she have let go without the third hand? 

rgold wrote:

"Instinctual" in the context of having an autoblock and being used to counting on it to let go.  

When we learned to rappel in the good old days, the first thing we were told is, "let go of the brake hand and you're dead."  I don't know anyone who found it difficult to override "instinct" under those circumstances, and I know of and have experienced myself scores of slips, pendulum swings, and various other unexpected motions, all of which caused the old-school set to double down on their brake hand grip, not release it.

As for things collapsing under you while setting up the rappel, being tethered in seems like the appropriate solution.  And of course you're holding onto the brake strand when you unclip the tether, so for any collapse at that point you're already on rappel and so protected by the rappel ropes.

But I'm not arguing against third hand backups.  They're so ingrained in contemporary rappel technique at this point that it might well be dangerous for most climbers to abandon them.   But arguing for their saving effectiveness when their presence makes brake-strand release of little or no consequence is playing with loaded dice.

It almost sounds as though you're arguing that they're really less safe but for the fact that they're in such common use. In other words, starting from a level playing field, it would be better to adopt the old-school mindset than to adopt a practice of using a third hand 100% of the time. 

If that's your view, I'd love to hear more. It's an honest question: although I started climbing in the '90s, my experience has been similar to yours in terms of learning and applying rappel techniques (I would add that I generally tie stopper knots, find that I typically use larger diameter ropes that most people I know, and when using a skinnier rope I typically use two carabiners). More recently, since a third hand really seems to have become a "best practice" I've tried to force myself to use one more often but I've been inconsistent with it and find that I really don't like doing it for some reason which is probably just as simple as that I'm really used to doing something else.

ETA: I'm wondering if one of the reasons I've been slow to warm up to them is that it interferes, to however small a degree, with the "death grip" on the rope that was beaten into me when I learned to climb and rappel. 

Stiles wrote: Why wouldnt you use a rappel backup? 

Time and convenience. There are tradeoffs to most of the choices we make. Another reason why I like the MegJul, no need to rig a backup.

David Coley wrote:

And I'm not arguing for them, just providing one data point.

I'm not arguing for or against them either, but I am saying that your "data" is compromised.

The third hand creates an environment and mindset in which it is perfectly ok to let go of the brake strand, and then saves someone when they do this.

Charles Vernon wrote:

It almost sounds as though you're arguing that they're really less safe but for the fact that they're in such common use. In other words, starting from a level playing field, it would be better to adopt the old-school mindset than to adopt a practice of using a third hand 100% of the time.  

I think anything that backs up the rappeller is, in principle, a good idea.  My view, often stated, is that the rap backup is prudent for the first person down, but after that a fireman's belay is preferable for everyone else.

I do think, from what I see at the crag, that third-hand usage has substantially increased rappel complacency, but don't know how to throw out the bath water without the baby.

Bill Lawry wrote: This is indeed a good topic and good stories. But do not let this/them create a closed mindset against folks who most of the time omit a third hand (and omit knotted ends).

If you keep climbing, you will eventually run into competent folk of that contrary preference.

Sure. Some will choose to not climb with such creatures ... which is also part of the bigger picture.

Good observation Bill. 

Anybody got any “I almost died when my prussic got stuck and it wouldn’t release” or a good BEGINNER form question... “the wind blew my rope end knot 100 feet over and now it’s stuck solid and I can’t rap sideways- what to do now?” 
LoL 

I could be wrong but it looks like a lot of people have mentioned they put their auto-block on top of there ATC for rappelling. I always extend my ATC with a double length runner with an overhand knot in the middle and prussik below.
This keeps my device out where I can see it, I use the far end of my double length runner as my teather into the anchor.
I’ll then have a prussik below my device attatched to my belay loop. I have no problems weighting and testing the system from this set up and when I am comfortable to start my rappel I can just Unclip from the anchor and clip the end of my rappel extension back into my belay loop.
With my prussik below my ATC on my belay loop it is always out of my ATC but always in my break hand.  If I slip and let go of the rope (which I’ve done) it will catch and even if the rope runs through it a bit it will get caught in my ATC and stop me from falling.
This is always my personal anchor and rappel set up. It works well as an anchor on multi-pitch climbs bring up your second for rope stacking. (If you choose not to use your climbing rope in the anchor)
Catastrophe knots are always nice too when testing systems, along with knotted rope ends like others said previously.

. Mobes wrote:

If she had let go while belaying would you be talking her up? Would she have let go without the third hand? 

Similarly, did Peter Terbush not have this human instinct when he kept his partner on belay even to the point of death at Glacier Point Apron? This seems similar to the Gri-Gri phenomenon. So called auto-locking devices save climbers when their belayers fail to brake their devices, but for the most part it seems to be that those who are accustomed to a Gri-Gri are the ones who aren't properly employing their brake hand.

rgold wrote:

The third hand creates an environment and mindset in which it is perfectly ok to let go of the brake strand, and then saves someone when they do this.

Other than the well-known failure mode of a third-hand on the leg loop in an inverted fall, is there any scenario in which the third-hand will not grab the rope when let go if it’s set up correctly, on the belay loop with the belay device extended?

aikibujin wrote: Other than the well-known failure mode of a third-hand on the leg loop in an inverted fall, is there any scenario in which the third-hand will not grab the rope when let go if it’s set up on the belay loop with the belay device extended?

I don't think so---in principle.  But I have noticed some autoblocks tied so loosely that I wonder if they would engage at all (I couldn't say whether the folks I saw had tested their installation before launch time).

aikibujin wrote: 
Other than the well-known failure mode of a third-hand on the leg loop in an inverted fall, is there any scenario in which the third-hand will not grab the rope when let go if it’s set up on the belay loop with the belay device extended?

Buff Johnson wrote: I ve seen one rig setup with a cow-tailed device & hitch below that ended up not as ideal as anticipated. I wouldn't call it a failure, but it sanfu'd the person and stuck them in the rigging. The device was an 8 and wasn't offering enough friction as to his weight. So the hitch grabbed and he was basically stuck as he couldn't get above the cow-tail to release the hitch, and obviously couldn't just slide the hitch normally. If he tried the foot wrap to unweight, the 8 wouldn't let him get the hitch loosened up. Something like a chinese finger trap, which nobody anticipated as even something that might be a problem. Had it been a typical autoblock, it wouldn't have worked as the hitch was taking all the load and not sharing it with the device. Granted he wouldn't have gotten stuck, but then why even go with a third-hand if it won't work anyway. So, in a sense a failure, but not a disaster or near miss. Probably the most notorious 'failure' is what happened to Jim Ratz, and is written up in an ANAM. I can't recall the year. It's usually not that the system itself caused the problem, but that someone facilitated the rigging not work properly. I cow-tail with my third-hand below; I prefer a guide and a prussic and have not had any rigging problems. So, I guess a quiet success in this respect.

Second quote is from an old thread. There is also the possibility of not making enough wraps.

rgold wrote:

I don't think so---in principle.  But I have noticed some autoblocks tied so loosely that I wonder if they would engage at all (I couldn't say whether the folks I saw had tested their installation before launch time).

Then maybe the focus should be on making sure everyone is setting up the third hand correctly, which include making sure it’s wrapped tight enough to grab the rope. If people aren’t developing the habit of using a third hand, then they’re more likely set it up incorrectly when they needed it, or just skipped it completely. The failure copied by Ryan Pfleger above is less a failure of the third hand, but more of an incorrect set up. Maybe it would be much less likely if the person has practiced and used his set up countless times before?

Fireman’s belay from below is good, and I know you’ve made the argument that it is easier to lower an unconscious rappeller with a fireman’s belay and facilitate rescue. But in a scenario where falling object knocks the rappelling climber unconscious, the same falling object can take out the fireman’s belay as well, and then what? I think we need to look at the consequences of each scenario. An unconscious rappeller stuck on the rope is not ideal, and may die from suspension trauma if we don’t get to them fast enough, but there is still a fighting chance. An unconscious rappeller with nothing and no one to stop their fall is most likely going to die, unless the fall is stopped by some fortuitous factors (short fall onto stopper knots, big ledge, etc). I can’t think of anything else that can give them a fighting chance.