Dealing with damaged rope in a counterbalance rappel

Ken Noyce wrote:

Second was struggling to get up the pitch, repeatedly climbing and falling - rubbing the rope on some part of the rock.   In the last attempt, the second was incapacitated by a head injury.

Also, perhaps I was assuming this: a counterbalance rap is usually chosen when a second has started up a pitch but can't finish.  Otherwise, I would try to avoid such a counterbalance rappel. 

Ken Noyce wrote:

I don't understand how you got into this scenario to begin with, 

Maybe go read the "other thread" I linked to in my OP. But to summarize, the other thread was about you belaying your second up a pitch, and they are somehow incapacitated (maybe by falling rock) so you need to switch from belaying to counterbalance rappel down to them. But if your second was hit by falling rock, it's also very possible that rope above your second was damaged by the same falling rock, so you would tie a prussik to their rope during the counterbalance rappel and move it down with you, to protect yourself in case the rope does break. That's all nice and good, but this scenario is about what you will do if you actually find a section of severally damaged rope on your second's strand.

Bill Lawry wrote:

b.1) rap & lower as needed to some protection (good bolt or good gear placed while rapping/lower);

I don't think rappeling is an option: In this scenario, you already have a prussik attached to the second's rope that you're moving down with you, so you're protected above the damaged rope. Once you rappel past the damaged rope the prussik does you no good, and sliding it below the damaged rope may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back (what I was thinking but didn't get across clearly when I said "added weight" in my OP). So lowering as you suggested in your first post (by letting the prussik grab above the damaged rope) is the better option, it's an especially attractive option if you can see gear placement not too far below you.

But while you're lowering, your second is still dangling on a thread. So I think before you lower, you should attach a prussik below the damaged section, clip that to the top prussik with as little slack as possible to backup the damaged rope. When you get to step b.2, the same bottom prussik can be used to clip into protection. After that, I think your plan is good, you should be able to get slack in the damaged section by simply lower yourself more. In what situation do you need to ascend the other strand?

b.2) attach hitch below damage and secure that to protection; somewhat isolates my partner from the damage;

b.3) keep rapping to build up slack in damaged section - (edit to add: may need to tie off rap and ascend other strand above damage; a game of inches here); hopefully one has enough slack to knot it off; we're back from the abyss. I can re-enter my original sequence at step d.

Is that too risky?  Speed is of the essence.  Harness Hang Syndrome is real.

Bill Lawry wrote:

Second was struggling to get up the pitch, repeatedly climbing and falling - rubbing the rope on some part of the rock.   In the last attempt, the second was incapacitated by a head injury.

Also, perhaps I was assuming this: a counterbalance rap is usually chosen when a second has started up a pitch but can't finish.  Otherwise, I would try to avoid such a counterbalance rappel. 

Incapacitated by a head injury while TRing a pitch?  I guess it is possible due to rock fall, but given that they should be wearing a helmet, I think it's so unlikely for this to happen that I don't really see a point in thinking about it.  

IMO, a counterbalance rap wouldn't be chosen when the second has started up a pitch but can't finish, in this case, you would lower the partner back to the last anchor, then rap normally to the partner.  The only real time to chose a counterbalance rap is when trying to retreat quickly as a time saving measure by very experienced climbers.  If your partner is incapacitated then yes, a counterbalance rap may be necessary for self rescue.  In this case, a couple of friction hitches, one on each side of the damaged section would probably be the quickest way to get to your partner to  help him since he wouldn't be able to unweight the rope.

Ken Noyce wrote:

I guess it is possible due to rock fall, but given that they should be wearing a helmet, I think it's so unlikely for this to happen that I don't really see a point in thinking about it. 

That's a mighty good helmet you have!

aikibujin wrote:

Re: b.1) rap & lower as needed to some protection (good bolt or good gear placed while rapping/lower): I don't think rappeling is an option: In this scenario, you already have a prussik attached to the second's rope that you're moving down with you, so you're protected above the damaged rope. Once you rappel past the damaged rope the prussik does you no good, and sliding it below the damaged rope may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back (what I was thinking but didn't get across clearly when I said "added weight" in my OP). So lowering as you suggested in your first post (by letting the prussik grab above the damaged rope) is the better option, it's an especially attractive option if you can see gear placement not too far below you.

You may be forgetting the preceding step (a) which was to let the prusik tighten up while it is above the damaged part. Once that happens, my continuing to rap will also "lower" the damaged part.

Re: In what situation do you need to ascend the other strand?  Because of the reverse of a counterbalance rap. When going down, I need something attached to me that will pull down the other strand with my own weight.  When going back up, I need to be able to reduce the weight on my strand and increase the weight on the other strand.  One way to do that is to ascend the other strand.  And I might need to go back up to generate enough slack to tie the knot

Ken Noyce wrote:

I've heard this before, although not with the qualifier of "very experienced climbers".   And I've yet to hear any plausible explanation of choosing it over, say, lowering partner to last anchor point and then rap normally myself.

What does make sense to me would be a guide who gets caught while pushing the weather on a familiar route because he/she wants a happy paying client.  Or maybe the client simply can't get up the last pitch.  Money distorts things that way.

Bill Lawry wrote:

I've heard this before, although not with the qualifier of "very experienced climbers".   And I've yet to hear any plausible explanation of choosing it over, say, lowering partner to last anchor point and then rap normally myself.

Agreed, this would be my choice as well for most situations, the only situation I can think of where I would choose a simulrap would be descending off an arch or tower without anchors where a simulrap is necessary.  I have heard others advocate for the simulrap for speed, but like you, it seems to be a better idea to just lower the first and rap normally as the second since you have to feed the rope through the anchors anyway.

Ken Noyce wrote:

Agreed, this would be my choice as well for most situations, the only situation I can think of where I would choose a simulrap would be descending off an arch or tower without anchors where a simulrap is necessary.  I have heard others advocate for the simulrap for speed, but like you, it seems to be a better idea to just lower the first and rap normally as the second since you have to feed the rope through the anchors anyway.

Who said anything about a simul rap? The discussion is about a counter-balanced rap, which, if you accept the premise that your second is somehow incapacitated, is an entirely plausible first step in a multi-rap descent self rescue.   

Derek Doucet wrote:

Who said anything about a simul rap? The discussion is about a counter-balanced rap, which, if you accept the premise that your second is somehow incapacitated, is an entirely plausible first step in a multi-rap descent self rescue.   

Well, if you read the thread, you'll see that Bill and I have been discussing it a bit since a simulrap is one type of counterbalance rap that you can do, and the OP didn't make it clear that he was only interested in a counter-balance rap in the case of an incapacitated second until quite a ways into the thread.

Ken Noyce wrote:

Well, if you read the thread, you'll see that Bill and I have been discussing it a bit since a simulrap is one type of counterbalance rap that you can do, and the OP didn't make it clear that he was only interested in a counter-balance rap in the case of an incapacitated second until quite a ways into the thread.

Apologies. I didn't intend to sound snarky, though in rereading, I can see that I might have come across that way. I was basing my comment on the original counter-balanced rap thread from which this one seems to have arisen. With that said, I have read the thread and I think there's some semantic confusion involved. I see the term "counter-balanced rap" being used to refer to at least two distinctly different systems above. 

Bill Lawry wrote:

You may be forgetting the preceding step (a) which was to let the prusik tighten up while it is above the damaged part. Once that happens, my continuing to rap will also "lower" the damaged part.

I agree. I read your last post by itself.

When going back up, I need to be able to reduce the weight on my strand and increase the weight on the other strand.  One way to do that is to ascend the other strand.  And I might need to go back up to generate enough slack to tie the knot

I still don't understand why you need to go up at all. If you lowered yourself to a bolt/gear placement, clipped the prussik below the damaged rope to this bolt/piece(s) to protect your second, you can also clip yourself into the same piece and just keep feeding rope out on your belay device (and maybe pull down on second's rope above the damaged section) to get all the slack in the world for you to tie a knot.

Ken Noyce wrote:

Well, in my original post and the first sentence I said the second is unable to move. I thought that implied the second is incapacitated, but I guess not.

aikibujin wrote:

Well, in my original post and the first sentence I said the second is unable to move. I thought that implied the second is incapacitated, but I guess not.

When I read that I took it as meaning that the second was unable to make further upward progress (as in the route was too hard for them), but that's probably due to the fact that I didn't read the other thread, sorry for the confusion.

For the record, I have been talking counterbalance rap and not simul rap.

Got a little confused myself in a different area as was pointed out upstream: when I mentioned possibly needing to ascend the other strand, I lapsed into my prior mind set which was that the second had gotten anchored and I wanted to ascend in order to remove the first prusik from it. Probably / maybe do not need to do that when that temporary anchor point is up by me.

Bill Lawry wrote:

I've heard this before, although not with the qualifier of "very experienced climbers".   And I've yet to hear any plausible explanation of choosing it over, say, lowering partner to last anchor point and then rap normally myself.

In this case, the type of counterbalance rap that we are discussing is obviously a simulrap, just wanted to point this out.

It could be named a simul-rap. Sure.

But the mechanics are actually very different. Not sure there is an advantage to calling the two the same thing - quite the opposite.

Mathias wrote:

I see running the draw from one (top) to the other (bottom) and back as a way to avoid putting any downward pressure below the damage. I was thinking of it as a 2:1 ratio pulling upward. Also, creating the tension seems preferable to allowing it to happen as the rope breaks.

Sounds like this is a good way to protect the damaged section of rope, if it's weighted. I'd add you really probably want to try to simulate a trucker's hitch: http://www.animatedknots.com/truckers/#ScrollPoint So down, through the lower prussik, back up through the upper prussik, (the creates a sort of 2:1 pully system) and then tie it off like the hitch (securing the free end with a biner). That would let you weight and secure the prussiks, and try to unweight the damages rope.

When you come to the point where you are able to counter balance rappel with the injured second to the next belay/rappel station, create an anchor or use an existing bolt anchor, and you can un-weight the rope, pull it, remove the two prusik reinforcement, and then isolate the damaged section of the rope with an alpine butterfly... 

Do you cut the potentially large loop of isolated damaged rope? 

We're assuming this is not a unicore rope, and that you have more rappels to make to get to the bottom. My thought was it would lessen the chance for the isolated loop to catch on anything when you pull the rope after the rappel.

Ken Noyce wrote:

In this case, the type of counterbalance rap that we are discussing is obviously a simulrap, just wanted to point this out.

I've never heard of anyone else calling simul-rap as counterbalance rap. 

You can argue that in both simul-rap and counterbalance rap, you're rappelling on a single strand of rope with a counterweight on the other side. But most of us use the term "counterbalance rap" to refer to rappelling with a stationary counterweight (your partner), and "simul-rap" to refer to two climbers rappelling well, simultaneously. The reason we name things is to avoid confusion. Think of the figure eight follow through, it's essentially the same knot as a figure eight on a bight. We call it two different names to clarify the way it's tied. Similarly, simul-rap and counterbalance rap are called different names to clarify what your counterweight is doing (rappelling, or nothing).