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.
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.
)be prepared and all that other stuff and everything will be ok.
FYI, the actual carabiner topic Clem refers to is 
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 
.
Cavechat RSS Feed