"single Hitch Belay Escape"
|
Bill Kirby wrote: Hey guys sorry to get off topic but I see two good climbers here I can ask a question to. I never get a straight answer to this either. Ok, I practice self rescue regularly with my wife. We go over belay escapes. We go over lowering to a ledge or not. I just tie an overhand knot while she ties a munter mule. We get out completely using a sling a prussik and locker. We practice jugging up to the injured climber, we practice building an anchor and rescue rapping to the ground. The thing is in these mock situations the injured climber is hanging from a redundant anchor. What the hell happens when I go get someone hanging from a single piece? How do I know that will hold me and my partner? What can I do to make things safer?First of all, bravo for getting out and practicing the self rescue techniques. The short answer to your question is that all options are going to involve a bit of risk assessment. Who is your partner? Does he/she tend to run out pitches on marginal placements? Can you see the top piece(s)? Do you have a second rope? It is a very dynamic situation with a lot to think about in the moment. Ideally the leader is conscious and can build an anchor in place. They could then fix the rope for you to jug. You can also ascend to the half way point, build an anchor, and lower them to you. Obviously there is a lot more than can be quarterbacked from the internet. Have you and your wife taken a multi-pitch self rescue course with a qualified guide? I also second the recommendation to get the 2nd edition Self Rescue book. To the comments mentioning too many people practicing only rescuing a second. Even in a leader rescue, what techniques will you use once you arrive and assess your partner? |
|
Bill ... |
|
With all this talk of self rescue, perhaps it is worth suggesting that if you have a truly incapacitated leader hanging in a place that makes it impossible to lower them back to the belay ledge, then if at all possible get their weight off the rope by lowering them to anything that will support them (this is job one---you can't leave them hanging for any amount of time without the dangers of harness hang/suspension trauma syndrome). Then call for help, because all the self-rescue ascending scenarios depend on the solidity of gear the belayer can't determine, and getting both of you killed isn't any kind of rescue. |
|
bearbreeder wrote:As to trad anchors out of reach ... Its a biatch and if we were really smart we would simply put an alpine butterfly right before our tie in whenever we set up those type of anchorsI'm trying to make this a popular choice. To help this process I've given it a name - the direct isolation loop (or DIL) belay. I use it a lot. A DIL belay (from multipitchclimbing.com) Spread the word! |
|
Ha! I've been promoting this for more than ten years now. Old shot originally posted on rc.com: But I'm just a nobody on the internet. Perhaps the weight of expert opinion---plus an official name---from Coley and Kirkpatrick will help this to gain more acceptance. It is a sensible solution... I tied the powerpoint loop close to the harness because the picture was done before the popularity of direct belays with guide plates skyrocketed. Nowadays one might want that powerpoint further away so the plate is high enough to be comfortable to manage. I almost never use the depicted redirection point; that was just added to suggest possibilities. The comment about clipping the "free strand" back to the "power point" for self-rescue refers to using that strand, possibly extended away from the power point, as the eventual load strand connected to the fallen climber's rope with a munter mule. However, it seems to me that one would almost always use the power point itself, since it is conveniently located near the belayer. Of course many less efficient methods with more restricted applicability can be found on the web. One measure of "less efficient" in my view is any time the rigger has to leave some estimated amount of slack for something that will be tied later. For example, here is such a less efficient method from the same expert who gave us the process that started this thread. climbinglife.com/instructio… . His approach uses more rope than the DIL and doesn't adapt well to the belayer being away from the anchor. Moreover, the extra rope used for setting up the second's belay is bound into the system and cannot be recovered without reconstructing the anchor when the second arrives at the ledge and takes over to lead the next pitch. Heres one from an instructor that runs double strands of rope from each anchor point to the belayera far more costly method then the DIL system in terms of rope useage. It doesnt provide a powerpoint for a guide plate, and will be far harder to escape from in an emergency youtube.com/watch?v=bAQRIbQ… This one, from a climber, ends up looking rather like the DIL but adds complication and inefficiency to the process, essentially by missing the most effective clipping order. The slack estimation at the beginning is especiailly limiting in terms of remote belayer positioning. youtube.com/watch?v=HQukLqi… I mention these at least partially to emphasize that even though the DIL has been around for at least ten years, it is clearly far from obvious, or else we wouldn't have all these less efficient and less versatile strategies around. |
|
rgold wrote:...I mention these at least partially to emphasize that even though the DIL has been around for at least ten years...Nice job. I like "DIL®" better than "Bazillianchor®" ;) |
|
Are you sure that Scottish video wasn't titled "How to turn your 70 into a 60"? |
|
rgold wrote:Ha! I've been promoting this for more than ten years now. Old shot originally posted on rc.com: But I'm just a nobody on the internet. Perhaps the weight of expert opinion---plus an official name---from Coley and Kirkpatrick will help this to gain more acceptance. It is a sensible solution... I tied the powerpoint loop close to the harness because the picture was done before the popularity of direct belays with guide plates skyrocketed. Nowadays one might want that powerpoint further away so the plate is high enough to be comfortable to manage. I almost never use the depicted redirection point; that was just added to suggest possibilities. The comment about clipping the "free strand" back to the "power point" for self-rescue refers to using that strand, possibly extended away from the power point, as the eventual load strand connected to the fallen climber's rope with a munter mule. However, it seems to me that one would almost always use the power point itself, since it is conveniently located near the belayer. Of course many less efficient methods with more restricted applicability can be found on the web. One measure of "less efficient" in my view is any time the rigger has to leave some estimated amount of slack for something that will be tied later. For example, here is such a less efficient method from the same expert who gave us the process that started this thread. climbinglife.com/instructio… . His approach uses more rope than the DIL and doesn't adapt well to the belayer being away from the anchor. Moreover, the extra rope used for setting up the second's belay is bound into the system and cannot be recovered without reconstructing the anchor when the second arrives at the ledge and takes over to lead the next pitch. Heres one from an instructor that runs double strands of rope from each anchor point to the belayera far more costly method then the DIL system in terms of rope useage. It doesnt provide a powerpoint for a guide plate, and will be far harder to escape from in an emergency This one, from a climber, ends up looking rather like the DIL but adds complication and inefficiency to the process, essentially by missing the most effective clipping order. The slack estimation at the beginning is especiailly limiting in terms of remote belayer positioning. I mention these at least partially to emphasize that even though the DIL has been around for at least ten years, it is clearly far from obvious, or else we wouldn't have all these less efficient and less versatile strategies around.oh no ... the rope anchor wars !!! any rope anchor with the semblance of a masterpoint you can escape with more easily than one without regardless youll have to rebuild some sort of anchor with a sling anyways if you want to go into a counterbalance rappel off "equalized" pieces if folks are seriously concerned about the ease of belay escape, they should simply use a "normal" cord or sling anchor ... and belay in autoblock and if they are truly worried about how much rope it takes out for the next rope stretcher pitch, they should also use a cord or sling anchor as long as you are constantly practicing getting out of whatever system you use with the minimal amount of gear you have ... thats what matters ... and if one is REALLY concerned about the importance of belay escapes, we should all be practicing it right now even in the garage rather than arguing about it on da intrawebz =P there are many way to skin a cat, as long as it taste good in the end |
|
Jon Miller on the WS wrote:It is about having a broad range of skills and keeping it together when it counts. And to keep going and improvising when it goes south. It's harder than you think. JonYou did awesome. Nothing was really going to change that outcome. And absolutely, a buddy rescue is much more difficult than discussed in a textbook format. |
|
bearbreeder, |
|
Great weekend of rock rescue practice in BoCan with an enthusiastic and competent crew of climbers. Practiced a variety of rescue and rescue avoidance skills including: Anchoring, Belaying, Rope Ascending, Raising Systems, Tandem Rappelling, Counter-Balance Rappelling, Leader Rescue, Load Transfers, and more! |
|
Jon Miller on the WS wrote: Eli's article and method has a place in the quiver. It is a simple way to just get the belayer out of the system. Unfortunately self rescue is a complicated, situational scenario that doesn't lend itself to a tech tip in a magazine.It looks like Jon is one of the few on this forum who understood the point of this tech tip. And RGold, it is clear that you are a total ass. Good luck with that! |
|
Eli Helmuth wrote: It looks like Jon is one of the few on this forum who understood the point of this tech tip. And RGold, it is clear that you are a total ass. Good luck with that!Eli, despite your reputation, you are way off base here. Rich is consistently one of the best technical climbing resources on the internet. His posts are consistently well thought out, logical, and based on experience and current research. Rarely do I see him post anything that could be considered emotional, something you could clearly stand to learn. |
|
csproul wrote: Eli, despite your reputation, you are way off base here. Rich is consistently one of the best technical climbing resources on the internet. His posts are consistently well thought out, logical, and based on experience and current research. Rarely do I see him post anything that could be considered emotional, something you could clearly stand to learn.I wouldn't assess a disagreement on "I like him and his posts, generally." I would look at the issue at hand and try to see if it makes sense or explain why it doesn't. This shouldn't be an Internet popularity contest. RGold posts good, well-reasoned information and Eli is a way competent climber and guide. |
|
FrankPS wrote: I wouldn't assess a disagreement on "I like him and his posts, generally." I would look at the issue at hand and try to see if it makes sense or explain why it doesn't. This shouldn't be an Internet popularity contest. RGold posts good, well-reasoned information and Eli is a way competent climber and guide.Not that I've read the entire year-old thread, but I'd be shocked if Rich posted anything that was not well reasoned and thought out, and I doubt very seriously that he's posted anything worthy of him being called an ass. I don't defend Rich out of "popularity" but rather a well established record of providing logical, useful information and arguments generally free of trolling, name calling, or any other of the typical online nonsense. If he's said something that offends Eli, I'd bet most anything he's explained his position. I'm well aware of who EH is and his reputation as a guide, but he's not helping his professional reputation here. |
|
csproul wrote: I don't defend Rich out of "popularity" but rather a well established record of providing logical, useful information and arguments generally free of trolling, name calling, or any other of the typical online nonsense.Well, this comment seems to belie what you just said. Seems pretty disparaging to me: rgold wrote:Yup. The piece is one of the dumbest things I've seen recently. The premise seems to be, here's how to get out of one pickle into another just as bad, maybe worse, by virtue of not having the skill set required for bare minimal competence. I can't imagine what the author and publisher were thinking.I just hate to see this discussion disintegrate the way it has. In the immortal words of Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?" :) |
|
For what it is worth (which isn't much), I'm sorry for the intemperate nature of my wording in my original post. I could have made all the same points, which I continue to believe are valid, and left the "dumbest" comment out of it. Perhaps if I had just offered the rational considerations, Eli would have replied with a thoughtful justification rather making his only response Eli Helmuth wrote: And RGold, it is clear that you are a total ass.But I started it and got back what I put out. I've said in various places that the main thing I've learned from the internet is what kind of person I don't want to be, and in this case I fell short. |
|
FrankPS wrote: Well, this comment seems to belie what you just said. Seems pretty disparaging to me: I just hate to see this discussion disintegrate the way it has. In the immortal words of Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?" :)Like I said, I didn't (re) read the entire year long thread so I hadn't seen that. Pretty uncharacteristic of Rgold. But even with the very mild insult, he pretty adequately explained why he thought it was "dumb". Good for you, RG, to recognize that you could have done better. |