Absolutist Dogma

Discuss training events, techniques, equipment, safety and related issues. Click here to visit the National Cave Rescue Commission webpage.

Moderator: Tim White

Absolutist Dogma

Postby Clem Akins » Oct 24, 2010 4:13 pm

When is it appropriate to state something in very firm terms, using words such as "never" and "always", versus couching a position in softer language?

I'll argue that there is a place for such language, though it sounds absolutist and dogmatic. Further, I will illustrate my position with two very recent, very cogent examples that placed human lives needlessly in danger. Finally, I will admit that there is always room for debate, for exceptions to rules, and for further learning. Knowing when the right time is for which can be a challenge to us all.

When teaching the basic rules of rigging to, for example NCRC Level 1 students, it's a good idea to present material in the form of "rules." This makes it easier to remember what they need to know. One easy example is the "rule" about safety factors. If we state that rigging has to have a 7:1 safety factor, do we always need to qualify it with a lengthy discussion of when it might be appropriate to break that rule? Not in my classes. Another example is this "rule": we ALWAYS tie a stop knot in the ends of our rappel ropes. Perhaps there is an exception to this rule in the field, but in my classes I phrase it as an absolute rule--dogma, if you will. Teachers use this form of training very commonly, very effectively, almost universally. Later, in forums such as these, it might be a good time to debate exceptions to these rules, but I maintain that the use of very firm language is appropriate for certain situations, especially introductory learning.

It just happens that I was able to see two recent cases where a live patient was rigged into a litter using a carabiner (see the other Cavechat thread on this topic). I opined that "...there should be NO carabiner connections, ever, to the patient..." My point was that the proper knot will never be cross-loaded, gate-loaded, or of questionable strength, compared to a carabiner. There were supervisors present at each incident, and in one case a photographer documented the belay line attachment to the litter clearly cross-loaded, in an unsafe condition. In the other, the carabiner wasn't documented under a cross-load, but the possibility was clearly present and I discussed the matter with the riggers in the after-action briefing.

These cases illustrated a dangerous, life-threatening condition. They happened because the rigger was applying some kind of hypothetical, theoretical exception to an important rule, and did not understand the implications of his choices. Clearly, they failed to understand the principle behind knowing when it's appropriate to trust a carabiner to maintain its orientation. Had the principle been phrased as a rule, it would have been much clearer to the participants. The risks of violating the rule would have been highlighted, and perhaps the situation where lives were placed in danger could have been avoided.

I maintain that, in order to present a very clear position--especially to students in a training environment--it is appropriate to present basic information in the form of absolutist statements.

You can take my position as me being dogmatic if you wish. :tonguecheek:

There is always room for debate. Classroom, or field training learning situations present some room, but they are not the place for an endless debate. Here on Cavechat we'll find many examples of ad nauseum debate, and this is the place for such talk.

To summarize, my point is that there is a place for the use of "rules" in teaching. While we recognize that there may be exceptions to such rules, it is useful to phrase some principles in a dogmatic fashion. When a photograph illustrates a clear violation of a principle, I maintain that it is probably time to examine the circumstances that led to the violation, and to create a rule that will help people in the future to avoid such a situation.
User avatar
Clem Akins
Infrequent Poster
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Nov 18, 2006 8:13 am
  

Re: Absolutist Dogma

Postby or_caver » Dec 24, 2010 7:00 pm

Unfortunatly there are too many people "set" in their ways...too bad other rescue teams/squads couldn't put the safety of their teams in front of their ways which they learned back when they first learned what a carabiner was :roll:

I totally agree...
"Fun is as basic as any other need"
or_caver
Infrequent Poster
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 7:55 pm
  

Re: Absolutist Dogma

Postby Mudduck » Dec 24, 2010 7:24 pm

I think everyone doing ropework should be schooled on the structural dynamics of aluminum. Once properly educated on this issue one tends to respect carabiners from a whole new perspective. With the structural failures I tend to see in aircraft , I have learned to have an appreciation for all my equipment. I've seen failures resulting from intergranular corrosion with no external evidence that would have you spit shining anything made of 7075 t6 after every use.


With respect to Dogma I'll simply say this even though I'm stirring up a HUGE nest of ones worst nightmare. Rules are imposed for anything we do for reasons of safety(or sportsmanship but that is immaterial here) I'm speaking in general and not exclusively towards rope work or caving. With adequate preparation there is never an excuse for breaking a rule. To me its as simple as that. Just like Patrick Swayze in Roadhouse, "expect the unexpected"(lame quote of the day winner :banana_yay: )be prepared and all that other stuff and everything will be ok.
I think I can...I think I can...I think I can
Mudduck
NSS Hall Of Fame Poster
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Jan 1, 2008 6:56 pm
Location: Columbus, MS
Name: Bill Reed
NSS #: 60046
Primary Grotto Affiliation: Currently a Lone caver
  

Re: Absolutist Dogma

Postby NZcaver » Dec 25, 2010 10:56 am

Oh great, more about evil carabiners... :doh: :laughing: FYI, the actual carabiner topic Clem refers to is here. This one is the spinoff dogma blog.

or_caver wrote:Unfortunatly there are too many people "set" in their ways...too bad other rescue teams/squads couldn't put the safety of their teams in front of their ways which they learned back when they first learned what a carabiner was.

Welcome to the forum. Not really sure what you're trying to say here? Rescuers using carabiners aren't putting the safety of their teams first? I suggest you contact your local mountain or urban rescue team there in Oregon and ask about that. I bet they use carabiners for their litter connections. I've worked with the Douglas County Sheriff MR team in Roseburg, and I wouldn't describe them as "set in their ways." They improvise when they need to, but their litters still have carabiners attached to them because they're safe and they work. Even alloy ones! :panic:

Mudduck wrote:I think everyone doing ropework should be schooled on the structural dynamics of aluminum. Once properly educated on this issue one tends to respect carabiners from a whole new perspective. With the structural failures I tend to see in aircraft , I have learned to have an appreciation for all my equipment. I've seen failures resulting from intergranular corrosion with no external evidence that would have you spit shining anything made of 7075 t6 after every use.

Interesting comment, Bill. Since I started hanging my life on carabiners back in the '80's, I've never heard a single failure resulting from corrosion deteriorating a carabiner without ANY external evidence. In fact, all evidence I have heard is to the contrary. My understanding is that corrosion in alloy carabiners occurs on the surface with exposure to air and the elements (exfoliation corrosion), and carabiners simply do not fail from the inside out due to intergranular corrosion without any obvious signs. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. It seems most corrosion issues with alloy carabiners are caused by salt, acids, and contact with dissimilar metals for extended periods of time, and storing them away without being clean and dry. Normal commonsense stuff which should be clearly visible during normal inspection. See Aging Carabiners and Corrosion in Climbing Carabiners.

With adequate preparation there is never an excuse for breaking a rule. To me its as simple as that.

Then where did the old cliché "rules are made to be broken" come from? :wink: But more to the point, who makes the rules? The people who develop the standards and write the manuals, or the occasional well-intentioned person who goes against the grain by saying carabiners should never be used for litter connections? :shrug:
User avatar
NZcaver
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 6367
Joined: Sep 7, 2005 2:05 am
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Name: Jansen
NSS #: 50665RL
  

Re: Absolutist Dogma

Postby Mudduck » Dec 25, 2010 12:19 pm

NZcaver wrote:Then where did the old cliché "rules are made to be broken" come from? But more to the point, who makes the rules? The people who develop the standards and write the manuals, or the occasional well-intentioned person who goes against the grain by saying carabiners should never be used for litter connections?


He who lives till tomorrow makes the rules :big grin:

NZcaver wrote:My understanding is that corrosion in alloy carabiners occurs on the surface with exposure to air and the elements (exfoliation corrosion), and carabiners simply do not fail from the inside out due to intergranular corrosion without any obvious signs. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. It seems most corrosion issues with alloy carabiners are caused by salt, acids, and contact with dissimilar metals for extended periods of time, and storing them away without being clean and dry. Normal commonsense stuff which should be clearly visible during normal inspection.


All true, keyword being most. While I personally have'nt experienced anything like i mentioned with my vertical equipment, I still tend to be on the anal side in not overloading(side loading, twisting etc) as this can cause stress fractures(detectable by eddy current and occationally dye penatrant) allowing in the elements you mentioned. Best i remember the term is Environmentally induced intergranular corrosion. This type of damage would greatly reduce load bearing capability(especially in a fall) What tends to happen with aircraft is obvious. Stress fractures combined with an enclosed but not sealed area, water intrusion and progression from there. I supposed what fuels my fears with this is the way I've seen others treat their vertical gear. I've seen people plenty of times pull it out with 6 months of mud on it which if stress fractures existed would create an environment for mayhem. I do agree I'm probably far to diligent because you are correct that once started this sort of corrosion does start it tends to progress rapidly into a readily visible form(discoloration, swelling and so forth). Along with this most people tend not to abuse their life giving gear but there are those few. Of course I'm also commenting on carabiner misuse which already signifigantly reduces capacity. of course as you also mentioned this part is way :off topic: .

Dogma good, dead bad(there back on topic)
I think I can...I think I can...I think I can
Mudduck
NSS Hall Of Fame Poster
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Jan 1, 2008 6:56 pm
Location: Columbus, MS
Name: Bill Reed
NSS #: 60046
Primary Grotto Affiliation: Currently a Lone caver
  

Re: Absolutist Dogma

Postby sherppa » Dec 25, 2010 6:05 pm

NZcaver wrote: ... and contact with dissimilar metals for extended periods of time, and storing them away without being clean and dry...


Galvanic corrosion?
User avatar
sherppa
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Jun 6, 2007 6:08 pm
Location: Mexico
  

Re: Absolutist Dogma

Postby NZcaver » Dec 25, 2010 7:23 pm

Mudduck wrote:He who lives till tomorrow makes the rules :big grin:

Depends if it's by skill or by luck. Usually it's the "Monday morning quarterbacks" who make the rules. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. :big grin:

I supposed what fuels my fears with this is the way I've seen others treat their vertical gear. I've seen people plenty of times pull it out with 6 months of mud on it which if stress fractures existed would create an environment for mayhem.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Some people just don't get how why they should clean their gear, inspect it, and store it properly. :roll:

Dogma good, dead bad

Yes, acting safely is good dogma. But if somebody thinks their particular method is the best and only "safe" way despite other widely accepted methods... good for them, but don't expect the rest of us to automatically jump on board. :shrug:

sherppa wrote:Galvanic corrosion?

Yes.
User avatar
NZcaver
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 6367
Joined: Sep 7, 2005 2:05 am
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Name: Jansen
NSS #: 50665RL
  

Re: Absolutist Dogma

Postby chac » Dec 26, 2010 1:52 am

NZ wrote:... In fact, all evidence I have heard is to the contrary. My understanding is that corrosion in alloy carabiners occurs on the surface with exposure to air and the elements (exfoliation corrosion), and carabiners simply do not fail from the inside out due to intergranular corrosion without any obvious signs. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. It seems most corrosion issues with alloy carabiners are caused by salt, acids, and contact with dissimilar metals for extended periods of time, and storing them away without being clean and dry.


I'd certainly agree with Jansen. I bought a bunch of the Chouinard/Salewa biners in the early 70's - they were guaranteed to get you to the top of any peak in Patagonia or Peru, so they had to be the best. :roll: Half of the lot were exposed to sea-salt spray on the Isle of Anglesey over a month's period. Even with a good washing each evening at the B&B, surface corrosion on the carabiners became quite noticeable. The corrosive process could not be stopped, I ended up retiring a lot of them within a year or two. I made this "keep or retire" decision on their overall appearance; many just did not look like happy carabiners.

We still have the same corrosion problems in the dry and wet coastal caves in Quintana Roo. Chloride levels are quite high in the freshwater aquifer. The sea-salt atmospheric aerosol also plagues aluminum (and vehicle) surfaces near the coast. I like pits, but not on my carabiners or vehicle.

Jim
Jim Coke
User avatar
chac
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sep 5, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Near Quintana Roo
NSS #: 26442
  

Re: Absolutist Dogma

Postby wyandottecaver » Dec 27, 2010 5:59 pm

Clem,

rules are fine. They serve as easy reminders of the WHY. When you forget to teach the why and just teach (or practice)the rules, therein lies a slippery slope. Your carabiner example is poor IMHO.

Yes, carabiners present some risks. However, you can't just look at risks but probabilities. The probability of a carabiner attachment causing a failure compared to knots say. As you say, a PROPERLY tied knot of the CORRECT type is generally safer than a carabiner alone. However, you assume the knot will be properly tied. You assume the correct knot will be used. You assume the extra time required for soft attachment use wont impact the situation. We all know what happens when you assume. I would argue that in the real world, the risk of a failure is actually higher if you say all soft connections all the time in all circumstances. The odds of someone screwing up (no pun) multiple carabiner attachments vs multiple soft attachments...especially factoring in cold, haste, excitement, low skill level etc. is probably lower.

Thus, there is a reason dogma is not generally considered optimal. Because when you teach "the way" then your solutions are limited
I'm not scared of the dark, it's the things IN the dark that make me nervous. :)
User avatar
wyandottecaver
NSS Hall Of Fame Poster
 
Posts: 2902
Joined: Aug 24, 2007 8:44 pm
Location: Indiana
  

Re: Absolutist Dogma

Postby Clem Akins » Dec 27, 2010 8:37 pm

Wyandotte,

Thanks for your comment. I heartily agree that the meat of the matter lies in the "why", and that any serious student will spend most of his time in that arena. Though I didn't introduce the "why" in my initial post, it's a strong pillar of my teaching. I like to use the "3 Why's", and encourage students to discuss each issue to that depth, asking "why" in the manner of a child who wants to know the underlying reasons, and who hates to hear a "because I said so" answer.

That said, I still defend using rules, and teaching rules--especially to beginner students. Perhaps it's just the way my brain works, but I like to have a set of rules to go by. One rule that comes to mind is "always wash and inspect your gear after caving." I feel that inspires confidence in my equipment. ("Why level 1.) It gives me a chance to learn of, say, any defects in the metal. ("Why" level 2.) That way I feel better about using it for life support. ("Why #3.) But the "take home" message is simple: wash and inspect your gear after caving. I like to phrase it in the form of a rule.

I am mystified by some of the caving community's reaction to my rule about preferring a knot to clipping a carabiner if you can't predict its orientation during loading. After a lot of thought I have decided that it must come from a difference in backgrounds. I learned about caving and rock climbing simultaneously, back in the 70's, and so I was imprinted with rules from both disciplines. It was impressed upon me as a climber to NEVER clip in to a climbing rope, but to tie in using a knot.
There is a mental image I have from my favorite book on climbing, Michael Loughman's "Learning to Rock Climb." (I can't post it here for some reason, Google says the "add image" link is broken.) It shows a neatly knotted rope end dangling in empty space, with a few flies circling where the formerly clipped-in climber recently was. This was a nearly iron-clad rule, as the results of breaking it were easy to see in the American Alpine Journal's pile of bodies who violated it. This rule continues in climbing today, buttressed with ample reasoning why. Jansen doesn't accept the relevance of my example, and insists that climber's experiences don't mean anything in caving, especially in cave rescue, where there is a pronounced lack of deaths due to carabiner rigging failures. I'm glad that cave rescuers are doing such a good job that their belay systems are seldom required, and glad that the odds are with them even when the belay catches a load on a carabiner. Even so, for me and for all of those I teach and am responsible for, my rule is to use a knot in preference to a carabiner if I can't predict with surety the orientation of the carabiner under load.

I surely respect that there is a host of riggers in the world who don't operate under that rule, and that's their prerogative. I may choose to violate it myself, if my analysis of the "why's" leads me to re-evaluate the relative safety of each of these methods. If I did, I would be worried the entire time about the orientation and potential for failure of the carabiner, and I would dedicate an explicit effort to ensure that it came under load properly, along the long axis. I would much prefer to tie a knot and know with a lot more confidence that it would hold under any orientation in a dynamic falling event such as a main line failure.

Respectfully, I stand behind my use of the teaching tool of The Rules. The "why's" are, as you say, the important part. I teach them with every rule I propose, in class. Forums like this one are a good place to debate them.

Cheers,

Clem
User avatar
Clem Akins
Infrequent Poster
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Nov 18, 2006 8:13 am
  

Re: Absolutist Dogma

Postby Scott McCrea » Dec 27, 2010 9:34 pm

A story about monkeys and how (and why) some vertical 'rules' begin...

"Start with a cage containing five monkeys. In the cage, hang a banana on a string and put a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result: all the monkeys are sprayed with cold water.

Pretty soon, when any monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it. Now, turn off the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.

Again, replace a third original monkey with a new one. The new one makes it to the stairs and is attacked as well.

Two of the four monkeys that beat him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs, or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing the fourth and fifth original monkeys, all the monkeys which have been sprayed with cold water have been replaced. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs. Why not? Because that’s the way it’s always been around here."
Scott McCrea
SWAYGO
User avatar
Scott McCrea
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Sep 5, 2005 3:07 pm
Location: Asheville, NC USA
NSS #: 40839RL
Primary Grotto Affiliation: Flittermouse Grotto
  

Re: Absolutist Dogma

Postby Bill Putnam » Dec 27, 2010 9:42 pm

Sometimes I attach the rope to the patient with a knot, sometimes with a biner, and sometimes with a screw link. Which is best? As we find in many areas of life, the answer is, "It depends."

It's important to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each method in order to be able to choose the most effective and appropriate method for a particular situation. One can't always take time for a full discussion of all the pros and cons in an introductory class, but I always try to hit the high points of each method and contrast them at least briefly, so that students know that there are alternatives and that each alternative has its strengths and limitations, and its best application in specific circumstances.

Personally, I believe everyone engaging in vertical caving should be schooled in the fluid dynamics of whiskey. Besides, my Karma ran over my dogma a long time ago. Your karma may vary.

Have a reasonably safe, non-dogmatic, conservation-minded, politically correct, aesthetically pleasing, morally upright, and spiritually rewarding holiday!

BP
Bill Putnam, NSS 21117 RL/FE
Chairman and Chief Troublemaker
The Revolutionary Hodag Party - Thinking outside the cave.

The jackal can roar,
pretending to be a lion.
The lion is not fooled.
User avatar
Bill Putnam
NSS Hall Of Fame Poster
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sep 5, 2005 5:23 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
NSS #: 21117
Primary Grotto Affiliation: Revolutionary Hodag Party
  

Re: Absolutist Dogma

Postby wyandottecaver » Dec 27, 2010 10:01 pm

Clem,

I think there are a few reasons why the "caver" mentality differs from the "climber" mentality regarding biners.

First, it is routine and accepted that a climber will fall...sometimes a lot. Sometimes with high fall factors and almost always onto dynamic rope. Non-locking biners and off-angle rope loading also seem more prevelant. Most climbers are dealing with *a* rope attachment that they don't remove.

In caving it is routine and accepted that falls are rare. In rescue they are exceedingly rare. Fall factors, especially in rescue are generally low. non-locking carabiners and dynamic rope are rare and off-angle rope loading is avoided, particularly in rescue. Most cavers and all rescues will have multiple attachment points that they may individually attach and remove several times.

Thus both the chances of a carabiner failure and the consequences are different between caving and climbing.

Finally, KISS a locking biner is simpler than a knot. Over time and across skill levels....that means its probably safer....at least in caving.....most of the time :big grin:
I'm not scared of the dark, it's the things IN the dark that make me nervous. :)
User avatar
wyandottecaver
NSS Hall Of Fame Poster
 
Posts: 2902
Joined: Aug 24, 2007 8:44 pm
Location: Indiana
  

Re: Absolutist Dogma

Postby sherppa » Dec 28, 2010 12:57 am

Scott McCrea wrote:A story about monkeys and how (and why) some vertical 'rules' begin...
After replacing the fourth and fifth original monkeys, all the monkeys which have been sprayed with cold water have been replaced. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs. Why not? Because that’s the way it’s always been around here."

This is a good example of how paradigms borns :-)
User avatar
sherppa
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Jun 6, 2007 6:08 pm
Location: Mexico
  

Re: Absolutist Dogma

Postby Clem Akins » Dec 28, 2010 4:26 am

Wyandotte (who are you, anyway?),

So you're suggesting that, in accordance with the KISS rule, a knot plus a carabiner is better than just a knot? How can this be? :shrug:

I agree that falls are much rarer in cave rescue than in climbing. Who better to turn to then, than a climber, if we want to understand falls? Specifically, if we are talking about taking a fall on an un-loaded rope, on a carabiner whose orientation cannot be guaranteed. (As in the original photo of the belay, where the orientation of the carabiner was proven to be less than ideal.)

In the world of cave rescue, the use of static or iso-static ropes brings up additional complications that, to my knowledge, are not well understood. There is good research (Weber, from ITRS 2001 and Koflach, from ITRS 2000) that suggests that fall factors are not comparable across these rope types. (Interesting to note that Weber used Figure-8 follow through knots, and not carabiners, to attach his ropes for the drop test. Keeping it simpler, I'd guess...)

My feeling that the environment of cave rescue, given the poor energy-absorbing properties of static rescue rope, is one where it is even more important to eliminate sources of equipment failure. This is most especially true of the belay system, which (according to the way we rig it here on the Chattanooga/Hamilton County squad) only sees a load in the event that something goes horribly, horribly wrong. During such times, I would be ashamed to say that my patient had fallen because I had clipped a 'biner rather than taken an extra second or two to tie a more secure knot. Arguments such as "don't worry, falls are rare so you probably won't have to use this belay anyway" hold no appeal for me.

For these reasons, and others (see the original thread), I remain firm in my conviction that it's a good rule to prefer a knot alone to a knot & carabiner combination in circumstances where one cannot be sure of the orientation of the carabiner, such as during a tumbling fall.

Respectfully,

Clem
User avatar
Clem Akins
Infrequent Poster
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Nov 18, 2006 8:13 am
  

Next

Return to Cave Rescue Techniques Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users