Absolutist Dogma

[wyandottecaver]

Clem,

(my real name is Todd)

First, I'm not saying that a carabiner plus knot is always better...I'm saying its easier than a knot alone, and possibly less error prone. Mostly.

Also, in TESTING the fewer variables the better, If you want to test the fall factors of a rope alone....why use a carabiner and potentially invalidate the whole test?

IMHO A knot plus carabiner IS simpler than a knot alone. I base this on 2 very un scientific observations. 1) People are lazy and default to whats easiest and most cavers default to biners. 2) I generally find tying a knot around something harder than tying a knot then clipping. With sufficient practice and a larger "library" of knots I was comfortable with then I'm sure I (and others) would get better. But in the here and now biners are easier for me and almost certainly safer for my patient.

I'm also basing this on the "pool" of likely people involved. So yes, if I had 30 NCRC knot gurus on a rescue (or Hamilton County ) then I could maybe see your argument. But the caver pool for many rescues seems to fall into 3 groups, a very few (or none) guys who are crackerjack rescue rangers, a few guys who have been through NCRC sometime in the last 10 years, and a lot of strong backs who can tie an overhand figure 8 and their shoes.

If we are just tying on to a mobile patient in a harness and hauling them straight up and out...sure the simplicity difference between the two drops a lot. If we have multiple pitches seperated by horizontal passages in a litter...knots alone could suck.

Climbers may understand *climbing* falls better. I'm not convinced that your average climber fall vs average (if such a thing exists) caver fall, or even belay are analogous. You seem to imply that because of the use of static rope in caving its more important to prevent equipment failure...I'd say equipment failure would be a bad thing either way

As for a tumbling fall on a carabiner of unknown orientation...yea that could be bad....so could a screwed up in-line knot....you makes your choices and takes your chances.

[Clem Akins]

Todd,

It seems to me that we're asymptotically approaching agreement here. Just bear with me a little bit more and we'll be close enough that it won't matter any more.

All I'm asking for in this thread is the validity of rule-based teaching. My point is that the rule of "prefer a knot over a carabiner clip-in when the orientation of the carabiner can't be guaranteed" seems to be one that you agree with, mostly. The circumstances where the rule warrants an exception (an inordinate number of litter-to-rope transfers, or a rescue team that can't tie the simplest knots) seem few and far between, to me.

In a rescue, even more than in testing, the fewer variables the better. A human life is at stake, and a difficult activity is taking place under strenuous circumstances. In order to function well under those conditions I employ the use of rule-base teaching and mnemonics. The cave/cliff rescue squad that I work with writes these down, but calls them "guidelines" to acknowledge that there are exceptions to any rule.

I spend most of my caving time with self-acknowledged "rope geeks" who wallow in knot esoterica, so perhaps I'm out of touch with the rank-and-file caver. The NSS News has published a few of my articles on rigging and knots, perhaps it's time for another one. The figure-8 knot is my favorite one, tied on the bight or via follow-through (same knot, tied different ways.)

Litter rigging is the most contentious, complicated, confusing and fast-changing of all the rigging disciplines. I'll grant you that it's much easier to just clip 'biners than to try to remember the details of Lipke's interlocking long-tailed bowlines versus Clem's silly rules versus whatever 3 other methods each of the riggers learned at their version of NCRC training, half-remembered.

It seems to me that in this most difficult situation the clarity of a few rules, the distilled essence of "why", is even more important than ever.

Cheers,

Clem

[Mudduck]

Something to think about from the "dogma" aspect is whether your dealing with an individual or a team. Of course most say a caving trip is always a team effort, I'm speaking from the rescue side of this(with NO qualification purely speculation) . It would seem to me that consistance would be extremely important with respect to following a set of rules. This allows the team to work as one without individual characteristics or preferences coming into play at a critical moment which to me goes way beyond just knots and carabiners. Right??

[Stridergdm]

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.
Clem

And when I was taught to rock climb I was taught a knot was preferable but often with groups of beginners when top-ropping to use a carabiner. Why? Because with the frequency of getting on and off rope, a beginner was more likely to screw up the knot than the carabiner. So much for "never"

And as for:

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?

I think the reasoning is "context". (as you yourself later basically admit).

[wyandottecaver]

Clem,

Actually I don't neecessarily agree. "use a knot over a biner" as a rule is bad IMHO. (as is rule based teaching) Teach that there are risks to crossloading a biner...yes. But then let the situation and personnel determine what gets used. I actually think its *generally* better to teach the use of a biner because many rescues (at least around here) are "quickies" often performed by the caving party themselves (or who found the spelunkers) or maybe some hasty cell phoned summoned local support. All those guys can do an overhand 8 and (usually) screw a gate shut. After that its the luck of the draw.

Now, If your teaching to a dedicated rescue squad or a highly organized team that practices and maintains proficiencies and will be able to do multiple knots forwards, backwards, and in their sleep fine. 90% of cavers aren't those people.

[Bill Putnam]

Wyandottecaver is Todd Webb, NSS 51447RL, of Charlestown IN.

We expect to see his name on the ballot for the NSS Director Election this year.

[Bill Putnam]

Some people's dogma just can't resist chasing karma.
Cesar Milan can help you with that.
http://www.cesarsway.com/dogwhisperer

[graveleye]

maybe just a good sturdy leash?

[NZcaver]

...or a shock collar.

[Sierra Echo]

...or a shock collar.

I like it!

[Clem Akins]

Ok Todd,

After giving it some thought and searching for your meaning, I have to confess that I don't quite understand what you mean. As a student of teaching as well as of rigging, I'm eager to find a better way to get through to people than through the use of rules. What kind of teaching would better serve to pass along the message to you?

Bill & Jansen have presented one alternative that's certainly tempting. It works well in circumstances where I cannot articulate a rule or guiding concept, such as training a dog. When the dog violates some boundary, it gets the until it returns to the desired behavior. It won't take the dog long to internalize it's own rule with a shock collar. Though it may be optimistic of me, I teach rigging with the assumption that my students do have the ability to internalize a concept when it's presented as a rule, and that this method saves us all the many increments of painful learning that it might otherwise take.

Let me set the stage with another example. I'll go first, and summarize my rule-based teaching method. Then, if you please, help me to see a different and better way that this material could be presented.

Here we go:

The "critical angle" is important in rigging. Though you'll see it in many applications, one simple and common one is when tying a rope to two bolts. (show knot) With a very small angle, each bolt shares the load, and "feels" 50% of your weight. As this angle grows past 90 degrees (show tighter knot) the forces that each bolt feels increase dramatically! At 90 degrees each bolt (show 90* knot and hand) holds 70% of your weight. At 120 degrees, (show knot) EACH bolt feels a load equal to your weight. At about 170* each anchor bolt sees SIX TIMES the load, and the forces keep climbing beyond that. (show knot) In order to keep these anchor forces manageable, I like to keep my critical angles to 90* or less. You can easily gauge this "90* Rule" in the field by using your hand. (show and explain) I might violate this rule due to other concerns, but if I do I have to understand what the forces will be and provide rigging that will handle them. (show bigger bolts, thicker rope, and examples of other concerns.)

Viola! In one short paragraph I've introduced a concept, illustrated its use, and provided a quick and easily understood rule to help riggers in the field. I also touched on when and how to "violate" the rule. During rope rigging classes, I see students judging their rigging with the "hand rule" all the time. They seem to find it an effective way to know if their rigging will multiply the forces, or divide them. I hardly ever have to get out the shock collars any more.

Please, show me a better, non-rule-based way of teaching that concept.

Cheers,

Clem

[hunter]

A few random thoughts:

Rule based teaching is well established. A classic example is math/science education where you learn through a series of rules which are sometimes backed up with "proofs". The higher the level of education the more proofs are involved. Rules save time but once you get to a certain level you have to understand the background. This is of course a bit more absolute than cave safety (assuming you believe in the scientific principal). Another good example is driving. Society has built and enforced rules due to long experience with dead bodies. A teenager may not totally grasp why he can't do something but he knows there is a rule against it.

I'm not about to stick my hand into the rescue-litter-carabiner discussion but I agree with Clem that rules are useful in teaching beginners and have used them teaching beginning climbers. Probably my favorite is the "don't take your hand off the belay line" rule. To me this is a bit more absolute since I have seen three people dropped as a result of breaking this rule (two with gri-gris). What rules are valid is a can of worms but the use of them can save time while still allowing a high level of safety. There are any number of great caving rules which are somewhat harder to dispute than carabiner attachment (double check, don't break formations, have a surface watch, don't eat the bats, etc...).

I wasn't going to mention it but since the biner/climber thing came up in this thread to... For liability reasons some climbing gyms require the use of an auto-locking non-crossloading carabiner which is pre-attached to the rope for use when top roping. They have found this keeps people from coming detached due to an incorrectly tied knot. I have also seen people use biners when attaching to the middle of the rope for top roping or following (usually two opposed locking biners). This is somewhat due to lack of familiarity with knots for attaching directly to the middle of your harness in the middle of a rope. Although not the primary one in climbing there is also a secondary reason for not using a biner when a knot will do. When you fall and the rope snaps tight a biner can have a high velocity impact with your groin (or can get pinned between you and the rock).

[wyandottecaver]

ahhh Clem,

Now I think we approach convergence. To me "rule based teaching" would be:

"Use critical angles of 90 degrees or less". Thats the rule. Now we move on to "don't use polish manufactured climbing rope purchased in Mexico".....
The "rule" is used as a quick way to impart a guideline without having to explain why and thus is easy to remember, but also does not provide the detailed background needed to adapt to conditions when the "rule" may be sub optimal.

Whereas my "why" approach would be : As your angle increases so do the forces on the anchor (give examples you used) Thus wider angles increase the risk of failure unless you either lower potential loads, use more robust equipment, use narrower angles or otherwise mitigate this effect. Thus narrower angles are generally preferred. Reasons for using wider angles might include: (give examples).

You seem to be essentially combining the why and the rule. Thats O.K., but it seems to reinforce the "rule" rather than the "why". People may then fixate on 90 degrees. My response would be why 90 degrees? The answer is a "rule" needs a definition. But in reality we should maybe be saying (and really are) as narrow as practical...but 100 or 120 degrees may well be fine in any given case.

So, I don't really have a big issue with your "lesson" as presented, but think it does focus people on a number rather than a concept.

[chh]

Some thoughts,
-Damn MONKEYS!
-Beginners and litter connections in the vertical environment don't belong together in the real world.
-With a GOOD belay carabiner connections can be relatively certain and you can always double up O+O.
-If you went to the cache to get the litter, you should also have a steel locker or two. If the litter will be disconnected frequently (maybe even more than once) use the steel lockers and be done with it. The person in the litter will appreciate every second you save I'm sure.

I have no rescue experience. I do have plenty of rigging experience with loads ranging from a little more than I can pick up to around 8,ooo pounds in both dynamic and static scenarios, even the occassional highline. Obviously, you can be a little more cavalier with non live loads however I'm usually still operating at, above or below these loads after I've rigged them so I'm very much thinking about possible failure modes. There are a lot of things I'd like to be in this life and a grease spot isn't one of them I use steel biners and shackles all the time and have even cross loaded a steel biner between a pulley and sling on a falling load between 4-500 pounds (around the average rescue load+/-). It held and didn't even bend the autolocking sleeve.
I'm not saying that you don't have valid points though Clem. Rules provide a framework in which to learn and narrow down information keeping the learning curve gentle instead of coming to an abrubt halt. Everyone starts with rules and graduates to breaking them IMO.