Good to see this has evolved into a thoughtful discussion. Now that I'm back above ground I can finally make time to address a few points.
Clem has brought up a number of valid concerns. However in practical use I still don't see an overwhelming need for an outright ban on carabiners for use as litter connections. Even for level 1 NCRC students. Andy, Marc and Andrew have each brought up some excellent points, and there's no need for me to repeat them. I do have a few extra points to make, but first I'd like to give a personal account of the situation shown in the photo.
Andy made a comment earlier about vigilance. He was correct in that I was closely observing the situation, as I simultaneously shot photos of it. As soon as I spotted the carabiner, I quickly assessed the
entire situation known to me and determined - despite the disoriented carabiner - that the patient was in no immediate danger. Rather than stop the haul, I immediately alerted the rigging task force (who were a couple of body lengths above the patient in the photo) and had them keep tension (but not haul) on the belay line. As I recall, I instructed the person closest to the edge to correct the carabiner orientation as soon as possible. Once safely at the top of the drop, the patient (Jeff Burns) was briefly checked and then transferred to a horizontal guide line before being assisted along a rather slick and narrow muddy path back towards the entrance.
If people really feel strongly about the whole carabiner/litter issue (as Clem and Ron obviously do), I suggest spelling out your concerns as clearly and concisely as possible and making a submission directly to the NCRC. If you ask, I'd be happy to provide photos. The National Coordinator is Anmar Mirza, and the National Training Coordinator is Steve Hudson. Contact details can be found at
http://www.ncrc.info Ultimately curriculum decisions come from a majority vote of the Board of Regional Coordinators, a couple of whom have already posted replies in this topic.
Now Clem, please clarify this for me. Are you recommending interlacing the main and belay lines with the litter bridle (3 interlaced bights) for vertical litter orientation, and with the spider (effectively 4 or 6 interlaced bights, depending on rigging configuration) for horizontal litter orientation? And when using a SKED, I assume this means interlacing with the bight by the head end for vertical orientation, and with the loops on the two horizontal lift straps for horizontal orientation? Even though the
SKED manual shows that big locking steel carabiner as the key connection point. Or perhaps that's just Skedco dogma? Which reminds me...
Clem Akins wrote:I'll be happy to discuss this further, as I'm not one who merely stands behind a dogmatic position. Further, I'll do it here under my own name, and not a clever alias.
With your lengthy contributions to this discussion, I can now see that you don't merely stand behind a dogmatic position. This is good! OK then, my "absolutist dogma" terminology may have been a little misdirected. But given your initial statement about carabiners (outside of this forum), I don't think my comments were an entirely inaccurate assessment. Or... perhaps it is you who is really the pragmatist, and the carabiner-devotees who have the dogma problem??
As for using "your own name and not a clever alias" - I assume that veiled insinuation was directed at me, but I'm not sure why. Many of our forum members have a user name which is different to their legal name, including people like Andy and Marc. It's OK - it doesn't mean we have evil alter-egos or anything. If you look under my avatar, you'll see my name, NSS number, location etc clearly listed. It's hidden about as well as the sideways carabiner in that photo.
I realize you're not on the forum too often, but most of the regulars around here know who I am. Plus Ron made sure he spelled out lots of identifying information about me in his initial post, which seems a little redundant and frankly rather childish. Perhaps that was what you meant?
Also, regarding copyright and use of photos (previously mentioned by Ron and Andy), another forum member has started a different topic about this. When time permits, I will reply to that topic rather than confusing this one. And now back to our regular topic.
This is Petzl stating that
this particular carabiner is not safe in a cross-loaded configuration. Whereas
this is Petzl stating another model of aluminum carabiner is usable (to 15kN) when loaded directly onto the gate. Yes, I realize the Omni is a whole different design than what we generally use with litters. My point is while most of us realize a carabiner loaded on the gate is a bad/undesirable thing, not all manufacturers declare all their carabiners as unacceptable failure risks in that configuration. Many state the major and minor axis MBS specs, and leave the application decisions to the user.
A recurring theme here is the old adage - "is it safe, does it work?" I would argue that although the system works (both in general and specifically the case shown in the photo), technically it was and NEVER WILL BE "safe." But guess what? Tying in directly without the use of carabiners is not safe either. Getting on rope is not safe. Even with a belay. Neither is going caving, or driving around town, or walking down the street. Safe is a relative term, not a yes/no option. It's about acceptable and unacceptable risks, real and imagined, seen and unseen. If "safe" in this context means an acceptable degree of risk (and it generally does), then can carabiner litter connections be considered safe? I think they can, but obviously that's a matter for debate.
Good stuff. Carry on.