Self rescue hauling

rging wrote:A couple of simple ways to reduce friction with what you would realistically have with you is a double length, thin as they make, dyneema sling. The other is one of those DMM revolver biners with the roller in it. Other than reducing friction, not loosing any gained progress from a good progress capture device like a tibloc instead of a prusic would be good.

Well I did test dyneema slings and they are in the graph at the top BUT mostly they are too short, you´d need one of those gigantic long ones and I´ve only seen them in Dyneema hybrid. Fairly sure I included the Revolver as well in the tests but thin cord or tape tends to run off the side of the roller under tension and things are no better than before. A good condition 12mm bar stock HMS is as good anyway under load.

You can lift more weight by locking the line to your harness (using a belay device or munter) and doing squats than you can by jumping up and pulling down. This also removes the extra friction of a redirect.

Maybe I don't understand the quantity of information from the OP (I am a climbing guide, not an engineer), but I do haul clients every now and then. Always over edges, with lots of friction, and only using standard techniques.

I most commonly use a 3:1 with a GriGri as my progress capture, a prussik as my tractor, and normal carabiners as my pulleys/redirects. I've never had any issues using this. If pulling up is too difficult for you, redirect your pull strand so you can pull downwards.

If your GriGri/plaquette/Garda hitch/autolocking munter is too much friction for you to overcome I suggest brushing up on haul systems without those progress captures. A standard plate device can be used as a prussik minding pulley quite easily.

Avi Katz wrote:Maybe I don't understand the quantity of information from the OP (I am a climbing guide, not an engineer), but I do haul clients every now and then.

Are these clients unconscious or severely injured and incapable of helping themselves? Are they hanging in space? If not, how steep is the pitch they are on?

I guided a bit while in grad school years ago. Every now and then I hauled a client up a few feet by just doing deep knee bends and ratcheting in the rope. Obviously, if there are situations in which you can haul someone up a bit without any kind of mechanical advantage, there will also be cases when you can manage it with one of the standard systems.

Self-rescue scenarios have to address what to do with an injured partner who may be hanging in space or on steep featureless rock and who may not be able to help. The situation may be compounded by severe weather and/or darkness. Folks need to have a good sense about how to spend their finite time and strength resources in a way that will be the most helpful, and if hauling seems unavoidable, they need techniques that are likely to succeed in a broad variety of unfavorable conditions. I think David has made an extremely valuable contribution.

Thanks Danny and Avi,

Any chance you could do a test of your methods (out of a tree?) with the anchors lowish, the casualty weighing more than you and hanging in free space? I'd really like a comparison.

Avi Katz wrote: If your GriGri/plaquette/Garda hitch/autolocking munter is too much friction for you to overcome I suggest brushing up on haul systems without those progress captures. A standard plate device can be used as a prussik minding pulley quite easily.

I find this works well with a 3:1 and enough space for a reasonable stroke length, but with many of the more complex systems in the books 5:1, 7:1, 9:1 and a cramped stance the distance the casualty is lifted is about the same as the slip back through the prusik as it re-sets, and I get nowhere.

Jim Titt wrote: Well I did test dyneema slings and they are in the graph at the top BUT mostly they are too short, you´d need one of those gigantic long ones and I´ve only seen them in Dyneema hybrid. Fairly sure I included the Revolver as well in the tests but thin cord or tape tends to run off the side of the roller under tension and things are no better than before. A good condition 12mm bar stock HMS is as good anyway under load.

Use the roller biner and the thin dyneema separately since you have multiple friction points. A double length dyneema sling clipped to a tether, and like someone else mentioned, doing squats makes it plenty long enough for a good pull. I had two women try to pull me up without this and they couldn't budge me then with it they easily pulled me up (albeit a short distance).

Marty C wrote:David, FYI - I have attached a page from the Ontario Rock Climbing Assoc. Safety Manaul (1990)which shows an approach that mirrors your experience: - use thinner cord - isolate(remove)Reverso from system to minimize friction/sticking One difference is that their system (which appears to be a variation of the Spanish Burton pulley system) has a theoretical mechanical advantage of 3:1 which is higher than your 2:1 Like the others who have posted, I agree trying to haul a 2nd. can be near impossible with all the gear/edge/other friction concerns.

Marty, I had a go with the system shown in the drawing this afternoon. 250 lb climber. Hanging stance. It didn't go well. I didn't feel much in the way of a mechanical advantage over the 2:1. The height gained each stroke was small and much lost due to stretch in the cord and the rope relaxing or at the reverso. Some of this might be because I was using very thin prusik, which might have been a bad idea with such a heavy climber.

I guess I need to try if off a ledge with a longer stroke distance.

Working with a gri-gri as opposed to a reverse makes life a bit easier as well. Way more friction with a reverse. Had to haul someone about 20 feet yesterday when they blew it at a roof and did not know how to prussik. with a 3:1 using a gri-gri on the anchor and a prussik and it worked really well. Might help they were a bit lighter than me and it was kind of the ideal situation but it worked quite well. I'm going to have to start messing around now in different scenarios being this was the first time I had to use this in an actual situation.

By far the most practical version of the 3:1 I've found is the drop loop system where a bight of the brake strand is dropped to the "victim" who clips it to his/her belay loop with a carabiner. In effect this carabiner becomes the "tractor" in the 3:1 (theoretical) system. When the leader pulls up on the brake strand, the victim simultaneously pulls down on the back side of the brake strand (after it bends around the carabiner on his/her belay loop), assisting the leader in the haul. With a Gri Gri as the progress capture, hauling even on steep terrain is significantly easier than with the standard 3:1. Admittedly this doesn't work with an incapacitated second, but in situations where your second can participate in his/her own rescue and there is sufficient rope on hand, it's by far the easiest 3:1 haul I've used. My apologies if this is difficult to visualize. It's very simple in execution.

A variation on this general theme (the "Canadian drop loop") in which a drop-loop 2:1 is stacked with a traditional 3:1 is common for crevasse rescue purposes, and I absolutely have hauled free hanging partners (who where role playing the part of an incapacitated victim) up out of slots. This can be accomplished relatively easily without pulleys, though obviously it's far easier with them.

As noted above, the biggest difference between crevasse rescue and typical rock climbing scenarios is of course the amount of real estate the rescuer has to work with. Unless s/he was dragged almost in to the crack on a glacier, much more space will typically be available to assemble a hauling system.

The bottom line is that gravity fed solutions to self-rescue problems are always the easiest, and often the only practical alternatives. Improvised hauls are short-distance affairs at best.

If your route has a roof or a traverse in it, try to make sure your partner knows how to prussik before leaving the ground.

Drop loop when you're able to use it is the way to go

Marty C wrote:David, FYI - I have attached a page from the Ontario Rock Climbing Assoc. Safety Manaul (1990)which shows an approach that mirrors your experience: - use thinner cord - isolate(remove)Reverso from system to minimize friction/sticking One difference is that their system (which appears to be a variation of the Spanish Burton pulley system) has a theoretical mechanical advantage of 3:1 which is higher than your 2:1

Marty, looking at the diagram I can see why I wasn't getting on well with the 3:1 version. Look how close the carabiner with the prusik on it and the middle right hand carabiner. If the distance separating these is X then they will come together after the casualty has been raised X/2. On a hanging belay (which I was using) X was small, hence I didn't really get anywhere.

Derek Doucet wrote: Improvised hauls are short-distance affairs at best.

With the systems in the books this is very true. The question I'm posing is whether the 2:1 from a hanging stance provides a system that works. The hanging stance bit is one of the keys as it removes the edge friction. Most of the time, I see it being done near the casualty after the hauler has rapped or prusiked down to give first aid and/or remove runners. Having hauled someone 30m using it, it seems to be better than anything in the books for this kind of rescue.

David,

Thanks for the update.

I appreciate your work/efforts on this matter.

Good luck with your further "tests" - I hope you (and I) never have to do this (haul a dead weight) in a real emergency.

Ok, I'm back from doing some more tests on the 3:1 pointed out by Marty above in the line drawing (I think I need to get a life.) I was a bit more careful setting it up this time and it was very smooth, but took a long time to raise the casualty (50kg of sand). I compared it to the 2:1 lifting the same weight. It was much easier to perform a stroke with the 3:1, so the extra mechanical advantage is maintained in real life, although to be honest with only 50kg to lift from a hanging stance the 2:1 is super easy.

The clever thing about this is that it adds some mechanical advantage over the 2:1, but without adding in any extra turning points, i.e. the cord still only runs over two carabiners. It has advantages and disadvantages over the 2:1. Advantage: it is is a 3:1 and therefore better if the casualty is heavier than the rescuer, or some edge friction is still present. Disadvantages: the distance you will raise the casualty is a LOT less than with the 2:1. This is not just because it is a 3:1, but because the travel distance is very small, as the upper carabiner descends to meet the rising prusik, giving a very small raise per stroke. A second issue is that, unlike the 2:1, the prusik does not reach the Reverso, and hence there will be a long length of unweighted rope between the Reverso and the prusik at the end of the stroke. This rope will stretch once it is reloaded. Because of these disadvantages, it probably makes sense to use the 2:1 if you can and only use the 3:1 if you have to, or you have a large ledge and a long cord so you can get a considerable stroke.

We now just await tests from Jim (please, please, please) so we have some numbers rather than my word for it!

It is worth noting that:

1. The person hauling needs to be clipped to the anchors via a tether or via the rope in case the pull cord snaps. This is only an issue with very thin cord or a sharp edge.

2. Using thin 5mm prusik for the cord will give less friction, but it will stretch more. It will also be difficult to untie the knots after the haul (even if you use alpine butterflies). So, consider using a strand of 7mm cordelette at least when practicing.

The above analysis indicates the following as a potential hauling strategy that will work to raise a heavy casualty that cannot help. Comments welcomed (if anyone can be bothered to read the whole thing).

1. Use an assisted hoist if the injured climber can help.
2. If they can’t help and you think it might work, you are strong and they are light, and there are no intervening runners try a hip hoist or a normal 3 to 1.
3. Assuming you failed to move them, or because you know from having practiced that it would not have worked, then get ready for a very long process. Consider all other options.
4. Take most of your clothes off. You are about to get very hot.
5. Escape the system. If you plan to abseil or prusik all the way down to the casualty, and they have a Reverso-type device, don’t bother to waste time removing yours from the belay – just tie the Reverso off and rap using a Munter. You can then use their Reverso to create the 2:1 ratchet. If you are using the second method below, it is important you don’t remove the Reverso at this stage even if you plan to use it later.
6. Prusik (or abseil) down to the casualty, removing the runners. Apply first aid and create a chest harness to keep them upright.
7. Prusik back up.
8. Move the attachment point they are hanging from over the edge of the ledge if needed. In doing this you are trying to do two things: create a new powerpoint to mount the rescue from, and create an unweighted loop in the casualty’s rope that can be fed into the Reverso. The details will depend on whether the new powerpoint is just over the edge, much further down the pitch, formed on the rope by using a prusik, or from wires and cams, and a host of other details. If the casualty is weighting the rope the transfer to the new powerpoint will be the difficult bit, and will either be by (i) hoisting them momentarily upwards and onto the powerpoint, or (ii) by dropping them down onto it. We give an example of both, (i) will be the quickest, but might be difficult if the casualty is heavy.

(i). The method is based on the stirrup hoist used above to complete a drive by pickup. In this example it is assumed the aim is a transfer to a powerpoint formed by a prusik on the casualty’s rope, but the idea will work for other powerpoints. Start escaping the system and retrieving your Reverso if you don’t plan on using the casualty’s for the ratchet. Then prusik or abseil down to the location of the new powerpoint. Form the powerpoint using a prusik or Klemheist around the casualty’s rope. It must not slip, so use plenty of turns. Clip yourself into the powerpoint and hang. Build the 2:1 haul ratchet, including installing the Reverso, but rather than clipping your belay loop to the haul cord, form a loop in the cord at waist level. Now stand in the loop to raise them and create a loop in their rope. Feed this loop through your Reverso in guide mode. Lower them onto the Reverso by removing your foot. Clip the haul cord to your belay loop and haul away. When you need to get them off the Reverso and onto a new belay, clip them into the belay with a sling (a relieasable tail would be even better), form the foot loop again, stand in it to take the weight off the Reverso, and remove the rope from the Reverso.

(ii) This approach is based on releasing the Reverso the casualty is hanging by weighting a French prusik or PMMO while a new powerpoint is constructed over the edge and the Reverso is moved to it. Escape the system (but leave the Reverso in place) and run the spare end of the rope down the cliff, with an alpine butterfly or figure of eight on it some way over the edge (this will be the new powerpoint). Tie this rope off to the anchors leaving 1 to 2m of slack between the Reverso and the tie off (to allow the Reverso to be removed and moved). Place a PMMO on the casualty’s rope over the edge and below the new powerpoint and clipped back to the new powerpoint. Release and remove the Reverso from the old powerpoint, lowering the casualty onto the PMMO on the new powerpoint. Climb down over the edge and hang from the new powerpoint on a tether. Now place the Reverso (in guide mode) on the casualty’s rope (triple check you have threaded the rope the right way around) and clip it to the new powerpoint. Release the PMMO so the Reverso takes the casualty’s weight. Construct the 2:1 ratchet and start hauling.

Funny, I was just in a rescue/self rescue situation. And being the victim, I was wondering what I could have done if I was on top/bottom of the rappel.

I'd considered a 3:1 haul, but having done this at least one time to get a partner over a roof (or at least up to the roof), I knew it wasn't realistic if you have to clear a lip. This only reinforced that. back to the drawing board.

Nice useful post.

what do you mean it doesn't work if you have to clear a lip?