Mountain Project Logo

Backing up a rappel against a rope-cutting event or anchor failure

Mathias · · Loveland, CO · Joined Jun 2014 · Points: 306

Yeah, that's a lot of reading. I got through the OP, but not the OP's reply.

Here are my thoughts:

On a free hanging double rope rappel over a roof, I had one of my double ropes damaged by a lump protruding from the edge of the roof. I was rapping slowly (looking at a different route) and swinging side to side quite a lot, my partner then did the same. The sheath got heavily abraided and the core could just be seen through it. I chopped 8m off the rope after that, to remove the damaged section, just to be safe. What I could have done differently is quite simple: rap faster. Had I headed down with purpose, there would have been less swing and so much less, if any, abraision to the rope. Lesson learned. If I'm going down, I'm not going side to side or back and forth, so I'm not sawing the rope on an edge.

You could use the Petzel method; walk off when possible; or consider down-leading an adjacent and easier route.

dahigdon · · phoenix, Az · Joined Jan 2015 · Points: 220

Good God, I could have secured a masters degree in the time it took me to read all that shit...

You could always back up your rappel with an umbrella.. mary poppins made that shit look easy.

FrankPS · · Atascadero, CA · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 276
jktinst wrote:Apologies to those with attention span issues who were bothered by the length of my first post. This second one is even longer so, if you're in that situation, please ignore it and save up your concentration for when you are belaying. I have done multiraps (just not this climbing season, for a variety of reasons, and likely not again until next year). I've done them on gear, in the rain, approaching nightfall and the odd thunderstorm; as part of normal descents and in bailout situations. On a couple of bailouts, the conditions were OK for multipitch downclimbing and that's what we did instead of leaving lots of gear behind. Yes, Petzl recommends using a prusik back-up when lowering from a single bolt after failing to complete a pitch. The reasoning behind this, and behind using two bolts for rappel anchors, and any number of other redundancies commonly accepted in climbing practice (very low probability of failure but catastrophic consequences) is certainly similar to that of the self-arrest rappel back-up. Clusterf***? My initial reaction when I first thought of the self-arrest rappel back-up was also "too complex to be of much practical use". However, thinking a bit more about it, I realized that it really isn't all that complicated. First, lowering the first partner is an established way of avoiding tossing and tangling the rappel ropes. Regarding the pros, the idea is obviously not to recreate in reverse a full lead-climbing chain of pros, only to have just enough of them to stand a chance of surviving an unlikely but catastrophic failure. I'm thinking somewhere around 6 pros for a 60m rappel and that, only if the first partner can quickly find the obvious placements in the right places (no point in bunching them together). If not, he would just keep on getting lowered and look for options further down. If he doesn't find any, so be it (see the no-pro back-up description below). Setting and removing these pros would take a few extra minutes per rappel (3, 4 minutes max.?) and I can't argue with anyone who feels that there is no way they would consider spending this extra time under any circumstance. However, I really can't see how a few pros loosely clipped to a rap line make a clusterf*** or an accident waiting to happen (see the last section below for additional discussion of this point). In any case, implementing the self-arrest back-up would certainly not be an excuse not to do all you can to prevent a system failure in the first place (solid and redundant anchor, looking for and taking care of sharp edges along the way, etc.). I'd discussed this with a few people prior to posting. When climbing with one of my daughters, if I can spot likely pro placements from above, I would probably get her to lower me first so I could scope the rope path for sharp features, place the pros, and give her a fireman's belay. If I can't spot pro placements, I would probably reverse the approach and lower her first. If I were climbing with a partner who is set against placing pros, I'd try to reach a no-pro compromise: lower me first; I'll ensure that the next rappel station is a bombproof multidirectional anchor, ideally with a Jesus nut within easy reach, and clip the rope to this anchor, provided I can do it while leaving enough slack for rappelling. This would add next to no time to the rappel. If the ropes or top anchor got severed, there would be an outside chance that the partner might survive the fall, plus what's left of the ropes below the cut would not be lost, which means that I'd be able to rescue myself (and, hopefully, my partner as well). Of course, if the rappel stations have permanent multidirectional anchors and if there are some fixed pros along the rappel route, the self-arrest back-up approach will be quite fast and easy to implement. I found it pretty interesting that these two point were made one after the other: I don't remember ever reading about a rappel accident resulting from rope or anchor getting severed by rockfall but the various incidents of rockfall cuts that I do remember could just as easily have happened during a rappel when rope and anchor are kept under tension and will not yield to and get nudged out of the way by a falling rock. Regarding holding back another rappelling party, if I can afford the time, I'd be happy to let a faster team pass. I also already said that I would forgo the self-arrest back-ups if I was in a rush to get down (or use the no-pro approach). In fact, in that situation and in the presence of another rappelling party also in a rush to get down, I hope that we would collaborate on installing and sharing the rappel ropes to get everyone down faster. I think that in a self-arrest situation, it would be much harder than in a simple rappelling loss-of-control situation to keep doggedly holding the third hand and prevent it from doing its job (despite knowing that you shouldn't) because it will be jerked 180deg when your weight gets caught by the highest pro. This is very different from normal rappelling. I agree that, when rappelling, if you somehow lose control (while keeping hold) of the brake strands (for example by using only one brake hand positioned right over the third-hand autoblocking hitch), forcing yourself to release that hand to let the hitch do its job is completely counterinstinctive. I'm also far from convinced that this would be a good reflex to try and acquire. If you retain some hold on the brake strands, you're better off trying to regain proper control of them by grabbing them with the other hand below the first, rather than relinquishing control altogether, hoping that the third-hand will catch. It happens that this option is also quite compatible with a self-arrest situation. In both cases, it's going to be very obvious which are the loaded strands and which are the brake strands. Instead of thinking to let go of a third-hand, one could just focus on grabbing the brake strands with both hands asap. In what circumstances might there be a problem? Trying to imagine in what circumstances having a few pros clipped to the rappel rope could be a significant problem, all I could come up with is the following scenario. - The first partner gets lowered and installs the pros not suspecting that anything is about to go wrong with the second partner (if he was, he definitely shouldn’t clip pros and may want to rethink whether the rappel should be done and how). - The second partner completes the installation of the rappel but suddenly becomes completely incapacitated. - In these circumstances (with a partner having become incapacitated, possibly not knowing for sure whether he’s securely tied-in but knowing that a solidly anchored rope is available to ascend to him), the first partner decides that he needs to pull down the rope to carry on rappelling on his own. If the second partner is still up at the previous anchor but unable to rappel or to communicate, I would expect that the first partner would reascend to him to provide assistance instead of getting out of Dodge (and the pros do not impede this ascension). I won't get into the different unlikely scenarios I played with that might result in the first partner genuinely needing to pull down the ropes (and their knot) through the pros. The least unlikely one was if the second partner got himself untethered as he was trying to get on rappel and fell off the wall, coming to a stop well-below the first partner (either on the ground or on something large enough to have stopped a fall of well-over a full rope length: large ledge, tree, etc.). In this case, while it might seem pretty hopeless to rappel to his position, there is no doubt that that would have to be the first partner's top priority. I ran some tests to see what would happen if one tried to pull the rappel rope through clipped pros. Preliminary tests at home with and EDK tied on my double 8.6mm Béal Cobras indicated that, in this situation, there is one rappel set-up that pulls through the QDs fairly easily and another that doesn't. Looking at the two ropes coming out of an EDK, you can see that one comes out from near the center of the knot, while the other comes out close to the outside edge. If the rappel is rigged to pull on that outside rope, the knot will catch on biners and get stuck pretty badly. If rigged to pull on the center rope, the knot will roll and pull through the biners fairly easily. Next in the testing, I clipped the 2 ropes tied with the EDK through 5 Petzl Spirit bent gate QDs on a lead route at my gym, with the knot located between the top QD and the next one down (ie with the top QD acting as the rappel anchor) and configured to pull on the center rope. I was able to pull the knot through the lower 4 biners without problem. Further testing outdoors would be useful but it seems, at least for double ropes of 8.6mm or less, that ensuring that the rappel ropes can be pulled through the self-arrest back-up pros means simply rigging them so they must be pulled on the center rope. I suppose that a rope-and-tagline system might not behave in quite the same way and would need to be tested. Of course, if some other circumstance results in the ropes getting stuck while pulling, having them clipped into pros would prevent or render more difficult some of the usual methods of dislodging them (flicking, moving back and forth and sideways) but we're talking about a small subset (rope getting stuck on pulling) of a very rare situation (having to pull the rope through the pros instead of simply removing them). Anyway, if someone can come up with circumstances that could spell trouble specifically for the self-arrest back-up approach, I would really like to hear about it. Certainly, if a storm rolls in fast and completely unexpectedly while you are rappelling, you may rue the few minutes you spent backing up the previous rappels but then, you might as well also rue the time you spent sleeping that morning instead of starting the climb earlier, walking instead of running on the approach, taking photos, removing your shoes while belaying, etc.
I'm only going to read that if I get paid overtime. And I don't work.
Greg D · · Here · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 883

Ya'll need to take up ping pong, especially the guy that needed to learn from experience that swinging back and forth abrades a rope! Really?

Todd R · · Vansion, CO / WY · Joined May 2014 · Points: 40

Most rappelling accidents occur neither from rope-cutting nor catastrophic anchor failure.
You're trying to fix a problem that's for all intents and purposes non-existent.
Maybe focus on fixing your head-problems, that seems to be the real issue here. Or, as many have already pointed out, it doesn't seem you're really cut out for climbing. +1 for underwater hockey!

Em Cos · · Boulder, CO · Joined Apr 2010 · Points: 5

"Anyway, if someone can come up with circumstances that could spell trouble specifically for the self-arrest back-up approach, I would really like to hear about it."

It seems like several people have expressed concerns about this method, and it doesn't seem like you would really like to hear about it.

I would suggest that, rather than spend a lot of time testing whether you'll be able to pull the rope through the gear in the extremely unlikely scenario you described, that you test the primary function of your system. If you can figure out a safe way to do it, set it up and try actually catching yourself in a sudden fall by releasing your brake hand (counter to all your instincts), finding the other strands as you and they are flying through the air, grabbing them and applying the brake, all in the very brief time you have during the fall. If you can't reliably do that, which I strongly suspect you can't, this whole method is pointless. If you can, then you still have to weigh the cost/benefit of this cumbersome system to prevent what is an extremely unlikely event.

It seems to me you came here asking for feedback you don't really want, you're set on this idea. If that's what makes you happy, great. I think you'll have trouble finding a climbing partner who thinks this is at all a reasonable idea, but hey - if you do, you'll know you're truly climbing soul mates.

Mathias · · Loveland, CO · Joined Jun 2014 · Points: 306
Greg D wrote:Ya'll need to take up ping pong, especially the guy that needed to learn from experience that swinging back and forth abrades a rope! Really?
I guess I was just unlucky to not be born with this in the forefront of my mind like you were, Greg. Good job blowing it out of proportion. I hadn't considered that a swing cause from rapping slowly on a free-hanging rappel would have cause so much damage. It's not like anyone ever said "Hey, rapping slowly on a free-hanging rappel could cause you to swing and tear the hell out of your rope." Watching it happen to someone else makes it obvious, but at the time it wasn't. Perhaps I'm totally alone in the climbing world in not knowing that ahead of time. But just on the off chance someone else might learn from my mistake, I wanted to share it.
Suburban Roadside · · Abovetraffic on Hudson · Joined Apr 2014 · Points: 2,419
Mathias wrote: I guess I was just unlucky to not be born with this in the forefront of my mind . . . . . I hadn't considered that a swing cause from "Hey, rapping slowly on a free-hanging rappel could cause you to swing and tear the hell out of your rope." Watching it . . . .makes it obvious, but . . . .Perhaps I'm totally alone in the climbing world in not knowing that ahead of time. But just on the off chance someone else might learn from my mistake, I wanted to share it.
Yup, totally alone on that one.

Just one opinion here,climbing takes more common sense than you demonstrate having.

The process called physical work like bending a paper clip back and forth, generating heat and causing failure at the bend ?

Or one of the more famous incidences of death on a climb,
when a a climber was jumaring and the rope shredded, sending Jon Harlin ( sp) to his death ?
Someone help out - was it the Eiger? 1970?
Any way unless you use metal cable, soft gear can and does abrade over edges ect.j
jktinst · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2012 · Points: 55
BigFeet wrote: I'm assuming that the idea is, that your partner (...) would place and clip pro to one line only (the one they are being lowered on) ...
No. Lowering on both ropes and clipping both ropes.

BigFeet wrote: ... If there is lack of communication visually, audibly, or other how are you to determine the pro was placed, if you stop them in the correct place, etc? (...) Some rappels, following your idea, may call for you to search, stop, small traverse, and reach possibly more than once...
Rappel routes are usually pretty much straight down so communications between the first partner being lowered and the second belaying him would usually be pretty good. If wind or other conditions will make verbal exchanges difficult, the partners could agree on a couple of clear and simple arm movements or positions. Hopefully, the first partner would be able to spot likely placements coming up from below, call or signal "easy" and "stop" and avoid overshooting good placements but the deal is, if he overshoots, he keeps going down. I anticipate being the first partner more often than not but, if I am the second partner, I don't need to know that my buddy did not manage to sew the best possible line of pros. Whatever he managed to do will be good enough and better than nothing. Also, as I indicated, significant traversing right and left to reach placements would defeat the purpose by introducing more risk (in addition to taking more time). Situations where the rappel line is not straight down are also likely going to be situations when lowering the first partner is not going to be a good option (eg.: if the rappel route goes over several successive bulges). In this situation, the first partner could place the pros on rappel.

BigFeet wrote: ...In this scenario when you are rappelling all pro will be cleaned from below the belay device. I would think this could become a p.i.t.a. ...
When attaching the bottom of the rope to the next anchor, the first partner must leave enough slack to avoid interfering with the second partner's rappelling. With the proposed rappelling set-up of extended ATC and third hand secured to the belay loop, this also means that the pros can be removed at or just above hip level.

BigFeet wrote: ...In the case of a fall it may be very difficult, as you did mention, to knowingly relax your grip and then reapply.(...) If there is a failure at the anchor and you are caught by the next pro is your hand going to be ripped from the lines anyway...
This was all addressed in the first post and again in complementary explanations in the second. I really don't think that the falling rappeller managing to keep hold of the third hand through its 180deg flip (even though he shouldn't), and actively but unwittingly preventing it from cinching in a self-arrest situation is nearly as much of an issue as you and Em Cos seem to think. Of course, this is all theory, both on your part and mine. Unfortunately, I don't think that there is any way to realistically test it.

Em Cos wrote:...I would suggest that (...) you test the primary function of your system. If you can figure out a safe way to do it, set it up and try actually catching yourself in a sudden fall by releasing your brake hand (counter to all your instincts)...
Good one about setting up a test where I would catch myself in a "sudden" fall. First, I wouldn't be willing to risk leaving my double ropes glazed and caked with melted third-hand material. So if I did a test, it would be with a not-too-ridiculously high fall with very little chance of hitting anything on the way down, with a back-up knot but without a third hand. In these conditions, I have no doubt that, having my left hand already positioned above the ATC, thumb down on the (pretend) rappel loaded strands and my right below the ATC on the (pretend) rappel brake strands prior to purposely jumping off, I would have any problem whatsoever in immediately letting go of the fall-arrest loaded strands before they even started their 180deg flip and arresting my fall with both hands on the fall-arrest brake strands. But this would be so far from a real surprise long fall on a slack-anchored rope as to be meaningless.

If Petzl ran tests before recommending using a prusik back-up when lowering off a single bolt, I'm pretty sure that it would have been deadweight drop tests in which there wasn't a climber's hand anywhere near the prusik. Such a test could just as well be taken as validation for the self-arrest rappel back-up technique since both techniques involve a lead fall caught primarily by an autoblocking hitch on the falling climber's loaded rope. If in a real fall situation using the Petzl-recommended technique, the climber clenched the prusik he was in the process of sliding down the rope and prevented it from catching (or if he did release it but it didn't catch), that'd be really unfortunate. Would that invalidate the technique, as far as you are concerned? The Petzl people simply did their best by recommending the only back-up that could be reasonably put in place by most climbers with commonly-available gear and at reasonable time cost. I, for one, am glad that they did not write off the technique just because it was obvious from the start that it was not 100% foolproof.

BigFeet wrote: ...Keep working on that new wheel though, for you may have a break through someday and MP will be taking about the jktinst method. Kudos to you for working on a situation that you are thinking about. This is a good thing.
That got a chuckle.
Boy, if I was in it for the accolades, I sure would be barking up the wrong tree posting here on MP. In fact, the ridicule I am being subjected to was entirely expected. It's just that if I come up with something that I feel is useful information or provides added safety at a reasonable time cost, I don't feel right not sharing it with the community. It's also a way to find out if there might be a problem with the technique that I could not see at first.
Suburban Roadside · · Abovetraffic on Hudson · Joined Apr 2014 · Points: 2,419

I'm not going to quote thing you but plenty of real falls have taken place with and with out
Back ups. The thing you fail to respect is that climbing is risky & dangerous
There is no. Way to take all the risk of death or severe injury out of climbing!

You should walk off if you're so scared of a catastrophe.

The chances that real bad shit happens is very true;
things fail.

Why do you like climbing?
Now that I have been snarky,
You can get a handle on your fear by jumping off things, as many climbers have. Taking the same fall over and over, snapping wires, and falling 70 feet is not recommended but 10 to 30 foot whippers are not unusual when climbing at the higher standards & grades.

Em Cos · · Boulder, CO · Joined Apr 2010 · Points: 5
jktinst wrote: In these conditions, I have no doubt that, having my left hand already positioned above the ATC, thumb down on the (pretend) rappel loaded strands and my right below the ATC on the (pretend) rappel brake strands prior to purposely jumping off, I would have any problem whatsoever in immediately letting go of the fall-arrest loaded strands before they even started their 180deg flip and arresting my fall with both hands on the fall-arrest brake strands.
So, you're saying you would be able to catch your fall because while your right hand is on the brake strand during your rappel, your left hand would be already positioned above the ATC. Since you can never know when a rope-cutting or anchor-failure event may happen, you would be maintaining this position during the entire rappel so you will be ready to catch yourself. So, how will you clean the gear?

jktinst wrote:It's also a way to find out if there might be a problem with the technique that I could not see at first.
I honestly can't figure out if this is all a big joke or if you are actually advocating this technique; either way, you're obviously very committed to it. Joke or technique, it's your life. If it makes you happy, have at it.
Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
jktinst wrote:It's also a way to find out if there might be a problem with the technique that I could not see at first.
Yes, the problem is that it's a major time consuming overly complicated clusterfuck that depends on non-intuitive grabbing of the correct rope. If you were in front of me on a series of rappels - and assuming you could actually find a partner willing to put up with this nonsense - I just might be forced to beat you senseless if you were unwilling to let my party pass.

As at least one other person mentioned, if you're that paranoid about the various dangers of climbing that are unavoidably part of the game, especially unlikely outlier events, maybe climbing isn't for you.
Muscrat · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2011 · Points: 3,625

Simul-rap. That way, you don't die alone, and your grieving mother can blame the other guy.

JPVallone · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2004 · Points: 195

Has anyone seen my back pack?

Muscrat · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2011 · Points: 3,625
JPVallone wrote:Has anyone seen my back pack?
The purple one?
M Mobley · · Bar Harbor, ME · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 911
Muscrat wrote:Simul-rap. That way, you don't die alone, and your grieving mother can blame the other guy.
Good idea.

I suggest rapping on 2 sets of doubles through a rescue 8 with double prussiks
Mathias · · Loveland, CO · Joined Jun 2014 · Points: 306
Michael Schneider wrote: Yup, totally alone on that one. Just one opinion here,climbing takes more common sense than you demonstrate having. The process called physical work like bending a paper clip back and forth, generating heat and causing failure at the bend ?
If you bend a paper clip back and forth the HEAT causes it to break?! So if you bend it repeatedly in ice water it won't happen? Or maybe not as fast? Do you know what metalurgy is? I'm guess not. More heat means the metal is more ductile and therefore less likely to break because the molecules have more energy, are moving more relative to each other, have more space between them, and so are less rigidly fixed to their positions within the structure. This allows the paper clip to be flexed more without causing a tear to the metal. The hotter it is, the more you can bend it without breaking it. So before you go throwing your "one opinion" out there, perhaps you want to consider how knowledgeable you really are. Or maybe stick to your area of expertise, where you can ridicule others less experienced than yourself for not considering every single variable, and pretend like you've never made a mistake. Yep, that seems like your best bet.
jktinst · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2012 · Points: 55

Up to now I've been ignoring the "scaredy cat taunts" but it just struck me that there might be some information value in answering them so, to reiterate something I've touched on above but haven't made completely clear: the attraction of this technique for me is mainly in making my seconds somewhat safer than me when multipitch rappelling just as they are typically somewhat safer than me when multipitch trad climbing. Since my seconds over the past few year have often been one or two of my daughters, that counts for something in my book. Other than that, yes, thank you, we're well aware that climbing carries risks that cannot all be eliminated and no, we're not about to stop climbing, despite all the helpful suggestions from solicitous MPers.

Em Cos · · Boulder, CO · Joined Apr 2010 · Points: 5
jktinst wrote:the attraction of this technique for me is mainly in making my seconds somewhat safer than me when multipitch rappelling just as they are typically somewhat safer than me when multipitch trad climbing.\
Your goal is admirable.
What you may want to consider, is that rappelling accidents are almost always caused by human error, almost never by catastrophic anchor failure and even more rarely by rope cutting. You can mitigate those two risks a great deal by choosing well-established rappel routes, ensuring your anchor is redundant and bomber, even if it means leaving extra gear behind, and ensuring the rope does not run over any sharp edges or padding them if it does.

Your system introduces a lot of complexity and additional variables into the system, creating many MORE opportunities for human error than standard rappelling.

If you want to keep your partners safer, your best approach would be to eliminate as many possibilities for human error as you can. Pre-rig both partners rappel devices, so you can double or triple check each other before rappelling. Use an autoblock back-up to give your brake hand some redundancy. Saddle-bag the ropes as you descend to avoid stuck or wind-blown ropes. Rappel first to sort out any tangles and find the next belay station. Then you can give a fireman's belay to your partner.

I do not believe your system is effective against potential anchor failure. I do not believe you could catch yourself in an unexpected fall under the circumstances you describe. But even if it did provide 100% foolproof safety against anchor failure, I would still argue that your system is LESS safe than standard rappelling technique. In an attempt to mitigate the risk of an extremely low probability event, you are introducing a lot of complexity and variables to a system, creating far more opportunities for human error, a far more common cause of rappelling accidents.

As I said before, it is an interesting thing to think about, and fun to try to come up with creative solutions for the "what if" of anchor failure. But if your goal is increased safety for your partners, I think you're on the wrong track.
Suburban Roadside · · Abovetraffic on Hudson · Joined Apr 2014 · Points: 2,419
Mathass wrote: If you bend a paper clip back and forth the HEAT causes it to break?! So if you bend it repeatedly in ice water it won't happen? Or maybe not as fast? Do you know what metalurgy is? I'm guess not. More heat means the metal is more ductile and therefore less likely to break because the molecules have more energy, are moving more relative to each other, have more space between them, and so are less rigidly fixed to their positions within the structure. This allows the paper clip to be flexed more without causing a tear to the metal. The hotter it is, the more you can bend it without breaking it. So before you go throwing your "one opinion" out there, perhaps you want to consider how knowledgeable you really are. Or maybe stick to your area of expertise, where you can ridicule others less experienced than yourself for not considering every single variable, and pretend like you've never made a mistake. Yep, that seems like your best bet.

Do you know what metalurgy is? NO I was not talking about bending paper clips, it was an example of 'work'. thank you for illuminating that fact I also have no idea what it has do with the topic That aside I'm always game to spar with people who are good teachers and can explain things in a way that I and so many others can understand.

Only because I was using the paper clip as an example of the physical process
called 'work'. . . ..and heat was a well recognized by product of bending back and forth . . . but now I am not sure of that or much of anything else either.
So as you have so warmly reminded me to stick to your area of expertise , too, where I can ridicule others less experienced than me or you for not considering every single variable, and pretend like we never made a mistake? No I have made many. The most recent, I'd say, was just when I hit Submit. Yep, that seems like my best bet.
If it is within your expertise to explain so simply the nature of how that process works, and in so doing, proving yourself superior to me in every way.
I accept that. It is not my wheel house, nor did I claim that it was.
What I do bring to the table is me . a person concerned for the state of the climbing,
an imperfect, old school, climber - who has never dropped any one.
I have been on the edge of some things no one else has ever climbed
I still try to climb as often as i can
I have Mopped up and preformed dangerous rescues and been climbing hard since 1973. before that I was taken bouldering, at the seriously stupid age of 5.(in the 60s) I was as much in the dark about what little one can do when the shit hits the wall as any one else starting out and never had the benefit of the internet to ask every question that I could think of .

well that out of my craw, I think it is a very useful and interesting discussion.
If the only choice is to use the rope to retreat, and one or more of the climbing party is , or feels the need, lower the person. then they can hold the rope and try to provide a fire-mans back-up as the other or others get lowered, or rappel.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Backing up a rappel against a rope-cutting eve…"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.