Radium Release Hitch

[Scott McCrea]

Is it worth it to have a pre-rigged Radium Release Hitch in your rescue stash? As I put my jigger together, I'm wondering if I should put a RRH in too. They are easy enough to make on the fly, but perhaps in the heat of battle, it would be nice to have it done already.

Is 10m the standard length of 8mm cord for the RRH?

[Stridergdm]

Given the number of mistakes the IQ's made during our check-off on the Radium Release Hitch (don't worry, none deadly I would think having one pre-tied might not be a bad idea. That said, like anything else, if you practice enough, it would become second nature and you'd probably do fine "in the heat of the battle".

And yes, 10m is the right length.

[Ralph E. Powers]

Is this the same as an LRH (Load Releasing Hitch)?? Could you post a photo or diagram of it?

[Scott McCrea]

A Radium Release Hitch is a LRH. There are lots different LRH's. RRH is what NCRC teaches.

I tried to find something to link to on my original post, but didn't find much about it. But, here's a picture and here's where I found it. (Scroll down)

[Ralph E. Powers]

A Radium Release Hitch is a LRH. There are lots different LRH's. RRH is what NCRC teaches.

I tried to find something to link to on my original post, but didn't find much about it. But, here's a picture and here's where I found it. (Scroll down)

Ok, a rose by any other name.

[ron_miller]

Why would you want both?

With a jigger, you can effect a controlled release of any loaded component of your system. Plus, the jigger is bi-directional (can haul or lower), whereas the RRH (or any LRH, for that matter) only operates in the lowering direction.

[NZcaver]

Why would you want both?

With a jigger, you can effect a controlled release of any loaded component of your system. Plus, the jigger is bi-directional (can haul or lower), whereas the RRH (or any LRH, for that matter) only operates in the lowering direction.

Good point, Ron. I wonder - in the world of raising and lowering systems, how often does a rescue belay actually sustain a load and the LRH need to be released? I don't see why a pre-rigged jigger couldn't take the place of a dedicated single-purpose LRH. Just drop it in the haul kit, ready to attach when needed.

[ron_miller]

I don't see why a pre-rigged jigger couldn't take the place of a dedicated single-purpose LRH. Just drop it in the haul kit, ready to attach when needed.

"This is the weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or random as a [Radium Release Hitch]; an elegant weapon for a more civilized age." (paraphrased from Obi-Wan, 0 BBY (1977))

Now, all you need to do is convince the powers that be at NCRC to begin teaching the jigger right in Level 1.

Yoda: No more training do you require. Already know you, that which you need.
[NZCaver]: Then I am a Jedi.
Yoda: No. Not yet. One thing remains. Vader. You must confront Vader. Then, only then, a Jedi will you be. And confront him you will. (4ABY (1983)).

I leave it to you to make an appropriate substitution for "Vader". May the Force be with you.

[NZcaver]

Now, all you need to do is convince the powers that be at NCRC to begin teaching the jigger right in Level 1.

"Always in motion is the future."

I leave it to you to make an appropriate substitution for "Vader".

"When 900 years you reach, look as good, you will not."

[Stridergdm]

I don't see why a pre-rigged jigger couldn't take the place of a dedicated single-purpose LRH. Just drop it in the haul kit, ready to attach when needed.

"This is the weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or random as a [Radium Release Hitch]; an elegant weapon for a more civilized age." (paraphrased from Obi-Wan, 0 BBY (1977))

Now, all you need to do is convince the powers that be at NCRC to begin teaching the jigger right in Level 1.

Note I'm NOT speaking officially in my role as a member of the Education Committee here (though I will probably point this thread out to fellow members.)

Personally, I suspect that some are coming to this problem as gear-heads. Yes, if you're going to prepare something in gear bag, then perhaps a jigger is worth it. But consider the expense of a jigger vs. the a RLRH. Now multiple that times the number of belays you might have in a rescue. That can get expensive and complicated.

There's also the question of "is it worth it".

As someone above pointed out, how often do you really think you'll need to use your LRH? Hopefully "never". And even then, once you have, there's really very need to haul again on it. (I.e. if you do have to let it out a foot or two in order to release a load, you shouldn't need to do it again, so little need to haul on it.)

Personally I don't think there's much of a gain here compared to the cost in the addition of more equipment and what I suspect is actually a higher skill level required to make effective use of the equipment.

Now speaking as a member of the Education Committee, introducing jiggers (and the use of 4:1 and 5:1) would require a restructuring of the curriculum. While it's not always obvious, there's a lot of thought that goes into the order and layout of the curriculum. If you two really do want to change the curriculum, write up a proposal and list the benefits and drawbacks and get it to us before our November meeting.

Thanks

[ron_miller]

But consider the expense of a jigger vs. the a RLRH. Now multiple that times the number of belays you might have in a rescue. That can get expensive and complicated.

With the SMC JRB double pulley on the market at $29 list, you can now build yourself a jigger for about $100 - less than the cost of a rescue rack. Because the jigger doesn't have to be rigged into the system, you don't absolutely need multiples - if you had to, you could just keep moving it ahead of the patient (assuming you only have one patient, of course). Also, I don't see the RRH and jigger as necessarily mutually exclusive; you could have RRHs in the belays, but it would still be quite handy to have a jigger in the general vicinity.

There's also the question of "is it worth it".

As someone above pointed out, how often do you really think you'll need to use your LRH? Hopefully "never". And even then, once you have, there's really very need to haul again on it. (I.e. if you do have to let it out a foot or two in order to release a load, you shouldn't need to do it again, so little need to haul on it.)

The great thing about the jigger is its versatility in solving problems. The RRH is a one-trick pony; the jigger is a jack-of-all-trades.

Personally I don't think there's much of a gain here compared to the cost in the addition of more equipment and what I suspect is actually a higher skill level required to make effective use of the equipment.

Higher skill level? If it's taught in Level 1 as a pre-built system (you don't ask Level 1 students to build a rack!), and you don't try to get into all of its potential uses and nuances, I would argue that the jigger is quite intuitive to operate, and face it - if they can handle the concepts of a simple 2:1 and 3:1 system, they can understand the basics of the jigger. Plus, the beauty of the jigger's reversibility is that it can keep someone with a lower skill level out of trouble. If someone didn't fully think through the consequences of using a jigger and got themselves into a pickle, they can very likely undo whatever they did. With the RRH, it's a one-way ticket - if the load release has unintended consequences, you need another tool to undo it. If the person who tied the RRH put the Munter on so that the free end is away from the gate (not terribly unlikely if months or years have elapsed since they last tied one) and the Munter locks while unloading, you're kind of screwed - better hope someone nearby has a pre-rigged jigger!

Now speaking as a member of the Education Committee, introducing jiggers (and the use of 4:1 and 5:1) would require a restructuring of the curriculum. While it's not always obvious, there's a lot of thought that goes into the order and layout of the curriculum. If you two really do want to change the curriculum, write up a proposal and list the benefits and drawbacks and get it to us before our November meeting.

Hey there, it's way more fun to sit here and criticize than to actually get involved in NCRC curriculum development! "The Dark side of the Force is strong . . . "

[Stridergdm]

(note I've edited some here for length)

With the SMC JRB double pulley on the market at $29 list, you can now build yourself a jigger for about $100 - less than the cost of a rescue rack. Because the jigger doesn't have to be rigged into the system, you don't absolutely need multiples - if you had to, you could just keep moving it ahead of the patient (assuming you only have one patient, of course). Also, I don't see the RRH and jigger as necessarily mutually exclusive; you could have RRHs in the belays, but it would still be quite handy to have a jigger in the general vicinity.

I can build a jigger for $100 or 2-3 RLRH for about the same price. And yes, you could keep moving it, but keep in mind, that once we get the patient moving, we don't want to have to slow down to rerig stuff. Not only can that slow things down, but you increase the risk of making a mistake if you're trying to move to fast.

And I agree, I don't see them as mutually exclusive, I was simply addressing the suggestion of replacing RLRH with jiggers.

Personally I don't think there's much of a gain here compared to the cost in the addition of more equipment and what I suspect is actually a higher skill level required to make effective use of the equipment.

Higher skill level? If it's taught in Level 1 as a pre-built system (you don't ask Level 1 students to build a rack!), and you don't try to get into all of its potential uses and nuances, I would argue that the jigger is quite intuitive to operate, and face it - if they can handle the concepts of a simple 2:1 and 3:1 system, they can understand the basics of the jigger. Plus, the beauty of the jigger's reversibility is that it can keep someone with a lower skill level out of trouble. If someone didn't fully think through the consequences of using a jigger and got themselves into a pickle, they can very likely undo whatever they did. With the RRH, it's a one-way ticket - if the load release has unintended consequences, you need another tool to undo it. If the person who tied the RRH put the Munter on so that the free end is away from the gate (not terribly unlikely if months or years have elapsed since they last tied one) and the Munter locks while unloading, you're kind of screwed - better hope someone nearby has a pre-rigged jigger!

I think that w/o teaching them how to build one, you lose a lot of the effectiveness of it. And currently 4:1/5:1 are Level 2 concepts. Yeah, it's not that much more than a 2:1, but there are nuances (double-sheeve pulleys vs. two pulleys, etc.)

As for needing another tool for the RLRH, you have that, your haul system or your lowering system. I will grant that the example you give could be certainly be a problem in a lowering system.

Now speaking as a member of the Education Committee, introducing jiggers (and the use of 4:1 and 5:1) would require a restructuring of the curriculum. While it's not always obvious, there's a lot of thought that goes into the order and layout of the curriculum. If you two really do want to change the curriculum, write up a proposal and list the benefits and drawbacks and get it to us before our November meeting.

Hey there, it's way more fun to sit here and criticize than to actually get involved in NCRC curriculum development! "The Dark side of the Force is strong . . . "

Oh sure.. "Mr. President, if I may speak freely, the Russkie talks big, but frankly, we think he's short of know how."

One last thought, I do think some of the points you and our Kiwi friend make can possibly apply even more so to the small party rescue curriculum. And I think we're looking for help on that.

[NZcaver]

One last thought, I do think some of the points you and our Kiwi friend make can possibly apply even more so to the small party rescue curriculum. And I think we're looking for help on that.

You're looking for help on that... while some of us are just out there doing it (teaching it).

I'll think I'll leave the formal jigger recommendations to my other learned collegue. I have enough curriculum matters to continue working on right now. A couple of days ago I actually pulled apart the LRH in my go-bag, and threw the cord in my (non-caving) backpack in case of backcountry emergencies. It's OK, my go-bag still has my regular jigger in there.

Of course we could always do away with the LRH *and* the T3WP in favor of a releasable, mechanical, automatic belay like the 540 or I'D (or GriGri for single person loads). I know, I know... that would mean more equipment expense, and tougher to standardize for teaching. Why is nothing ever easy?

[ek]

How well does the I'D withstand mud?

[Tim White]

How well does the I'D withstand mud?

Not well at all! nor does the 540. Both great devices, but not for cave rescue.