Lowering full 70m on one rope

Gunkiemike wrote: We'll be able to agree on the AMGA Way as soon as we can all agree on what's "safe". In addition to the typical lowering of the climber in a bottom-managed TR setting, I often lower people using a Munter on a high anchor. Or using a plain ole ATC on my harness redirected through a high point. Current AMGA practice deems 2 of these 3 not safe. I, and countless others, have been doing that for decades. Not to suggest an accident can't possibly happen, but is the AMGA definition of safe "lightning, rockfall, and meteorite proof"?

Not quite sure where you're getting that "current AMGA practice" thing from...a Munter off the anchor? Usually fine, I've seen it done on courses and exams, no problem from examiners or instructors. Redirected lower while belaying off your waist? In the right situation, also fine. There might be a more elegant way and a way that doesn't double forces on the anchor...but if the anchor is bomber, well...OK.

And your first sentence is revealing--"We'll be able to agree on the AMGA Way..."

Didn't we just cover this? There is no "AMGA Way." As long as it's safe, efficient, doesn't put the person into an uncomfortable spot...it's probably going to be fine.

There is no AMGA way...it's a familiar theme that some people wish were true---maybe to badmouth it, I don't know---but there just isn't an AMGA way...

Guy Keesee wrote: This topic is way off the rails now so I ask this Question. Kevin The AMGA. You get certified by them... you then purchase your insurance through them? Are they the only game in town?

Hey Guy--No, we don't purchase insurance through the AMGA. They don't offer it. You can, however, purchase insurance with the Certified Guides Cooperative, which is a coop owned and operated by AMGA-certified guides. Separate non-profit organization, though.

There are a couple of other associations that train and certify guides in the US--John Tierney runs one back east. The AMGA is the US representative to the IFMGA (or UIAGM if you're going Euro), which is the international association of mountain guiding associations.

RC

coppolillo wrote: Not quite sure where you're getting that "current AMGA practice" thing from...a Munter off the anchor? Usually fine, I've seen it done on courses and exams, no problem from examiners or instructors.

I've been told differently. As mentioned above, there seems to be some variation among AMGA examiners.

coppolillo wrote: Didn't we just cover this? There is no "AMGA Way." As long as it's safe, efficient, doesn't put the person into an uncomfortable spot...it's probably going to be fine.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree - there is no "AMGA way", but to say "whatever is safe is fine" misses the point and skirts the underlying issue, as we will never agree what is "safe". Leaving pass/fail exam decisions up to the discretion of the examiner, when there are known variances across the organization, is IMO unacceptable. I don't propose to have an answer. But I worry that the outcome of my next re-cert, should I employ practices that have served me well for 40+ years, may depend on the random assignment of the examiner. Again, unacceptable.

Marty C wrote:Re:A backup for lowering/AMGA practice The answer is that you and Kevin are both correct. In the AMGA SPI curriculum they do not teach/allow using an ATC in guide mode for either belaying at the top or lowering; they teach only the Munter or GRiGri type device. So yes, backup the lower when using the Munter; OK to not back up the GriGri (only redirect). The next level of AMGA certification (Rock instructor/rock guide) teaches and uses the ATC Guide Mode. So if lowering when using a Guide Mode device, then back up the lower.

But who cares? I see people speak to "the AMGA way" all the time as if the AMGA carries some special authority or weight that makes their advice more valuable than that of another experienced and competent climber. The AMGA is an organization built around guiding clients who typically have experience in climbing ranging from none to intermediate. Their industry is also built around building an experience that is fun and learning for the client. As such, their techniques reflect that type of modality, which is not the same modality employed by two competent climbers out doing a moderate on the weekend. The AMGA also has to build a standard that can be taught equivalently at all classes so that Bob in NY is tested to the same standard as Katie in CA. As such, the techniques employed by the AMGA and their staff are not necessarily always going to be the de facto "best" option for ever scenario. There are times where "the AMGA way" is not the going to be the best way for your particular situation.

Guy Keesee wrote: This topic is way off the rails now so I ask this Question. Kevin The AMGA. You get certified by them... you then purchase your insurance through them? Are they the only game in town?

Same as coppolillo said. Amga covers the very and your institution covers the insurance. No idea about private guiding as I've only done it in institutional settings

It's worth mentioning that there's always a difference between what is acceptable in an institutional setting versus an individual personal setting between two competent climbers.

Institutions aren't only interested in what keeps the client "safe" but also with what actions will prevent a compentenr lawyer from claiming that any sort of action could have been employed in an otherwise safe setting to prevent the myriad of unpreventable issues that may have caused injury to a client. "It's safe enough for 99% of situations" is not going to hold up against a good trial lawyer.

Individuals can do whatever they want as long as they get home safe to their partners (my partner being much more frightening in a situation where I have to explain my injuries than any lawyer)

20 kN wrote: But who cares? I see people speak to "the AMGA way" all the time as if the AMGA carries some special authority or weight that makes their advice more valuable than that of another experienced and competent climber. The AMGA is an organization built around guiding clients who typically have experience in climbing ranging from none to intermediate. Their industry is also built around building an experience that is fun and learning for the client. As such, their techniques reflect that type of modality, which is not the same modality employed by two competent climbers out doing a moderate on the weekend. The AMGA also has to build a standard that can be taught equivalently at all classes so that Bob in NY is tested to the same standard as Katie in CA. As such, the techniques employed by the AMGA and their staff are not necessarily always going to be the de facto "best" option for ever scenario. There are times where "the AMGA way" is not the going to be the best way for your particular situation.

I'm with you in terms of drawing a distinction between guiding and climbing with friends/partners...but equating "the AMGA" with "another experienced and competent climber" is a stretch. A few decades of professional mountain guides--with input from Swiss, Canadian, Kiwi, and other guides--working in the field day-in and day-out, having their methods vetted by the international community seems a bit higher standard than an experienced and competent climber. It's not like guiding techniques magically appear out of the air and somebody says, "Rad, let's incorporate that"...

So yes, there's definitely a different process and system when climbing with friends, but I think in most cases certified guides are using techniques that have been pretty well tested, thought out, and vetted...for example, the AMGA has a "technical committee" that discusses different techniques and equipment, which communicates with the same bodies with other nations' guiding organizations...by the time a certified guide is teaching something, it's probably been argued over, tested, tried, and used in the field thousands of times....