Motto: ” There are no accidents. ”
The Calgary Section Safety Committee operates within the Calgary Section of the Alpine Club of Canada, and is therefore committed in general to the principles of the ACC (ie., the ‘Main Club’ ), and it’s Safety Committee. It’s Objectives and Responsibilities are similar to those of the Safety Committee of the Alpine Club of Canada.
NOTE: SAFETY – RELATED ARTICLES FOLLOW DIRECTLY BELOW, WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PURPOSE, WORK, AND STRUCTURE OF THE SAFETY COMMITTEE AT THE END:
A review of our First Case was completed early in 2015 — Its result is the last of the following articles, with later cases, findings, or comments on other subjects listed in order above it — most recent first:
11. CAUTION using Commercial Utility Rope as Accessory Cord
8. How to Untie a Double Fisherman Joining Knot
7. An Easy Solution to Your Flat-Knot Concerns
6. Untieing a Knot
5. CAUTION Regarding Rappel Knots
4. CAUTION Regarding Keepers on Runners/Carabiners
3. Skis in Crevasse Rescue
2. CAUTION Bushwhacking re. Twigs and Branches
1. CAUTION Extending Tripled-Up Alpine Sling Runners
Case 11, January 27, 2017
CAUTION using Commercial Utility Rope as Accessory Cord for Climbing, eg., Prusiks and Rappel Slings:
Over the last couple of years I’ve noticed a new type of utility rope and cord has appeared in hardware stores, etc. that may look good to a climber but is dangerous. Practical climbers like myself who have often gone to RONA, Lowes, Wal-Mart, or Home Depot in the past to buy cheap leave-behind cord need to be aware of this in advance, so they don’t learn it by accident.
That kind of cord looks like regular UIAA-Approved kernmantle and comes in many attractive colors, but is instead a poor woven sheath over a bundle of something like paper towel — with very little strength. A 1/4″ or 6mm cord likely wouldn’t hold anything near 100pd or 45kg, a 5/16″ or 8mm cord might hold a bit more than 100pd … or maybe not.
In any case their strength is far below forces typically exerted in static use during climbing or descending, so such cords must be considered junk, and completely rejected for any practical use at all; I don’t even want it around home, as for bundling or tying down loads: I’ve had it pop while snugging down a load with a simple cord-through-loop pulley system.
Although standard instruction and advice in climbing is to use only UIAA-approved cords and ropes for all uses in climbing anyway — so why bring this up?:
some climbers will use industrial cords especially for rappel slings because of their low cost and so expendability, and their faith is well placed in the case of many commercial rope products, especially shiney twisted-strand ropes of nylon or polypropylene.
Conventional Twisted Synthetic Hardware Cord: Usually Very Strong, Tough, Reliable
These (at left) are usually extremely strong and reliable, but in general everyone is advised to inspect and select cord for climbing accessory use very carefully, and ideally test it in a safe application before using it for safety, if uncertain.
Case 10, November 27, 2016
How to Secure a Flat Rappel Rope Joining Knot, Using Only the Rope:
I prefer and strongly recommend the use of a metal base ring with flat knots as I described in Case 7 (below) but such a ring is an extra piece of equipment that’s easy to forget, miss, or lose. In case you don’t have one along when it comes time to rappel, but you still prefer to use a flat knot for joining two ropes, while remembering reports of flat knots rolling along the tails until the ropes came apart, here’s a suggestion for securing it — using only the rope:
The two tails often tilt in the direction of one rope or the other: make a half hitch in the rope in that direction and close to the knot, and pull the two tails through it. Snug up the half hitch against the flat knot, and carry on with your rappel, that’s all there is to it.
The joining knot is still nearly as ‘flat’ as without the half hitch, while the hitch curbs any tendency of the knot to invert under tension.
I tested this method with a Flat Figure 8 in old 9mm ropes up to 1700pd (=770kg or 7.6KN) when one rope broke at a tensioning shackle, but the half hitch and the joining knot remained intact without rolling or inverting. After tensioning, the half hitch was loose and easily untied, but the Fig. 8 flat knot was very tight, which isn’t surprising in view of the great force applied to it. But I still untied it by hand in a few minutes of effort.
Case 9, October 29, 2016
Dropped Gear: Is It Safe to Use?:
I just noticed a comment on this subject in the Main Club news, and a reference to “Rock and Ice” magazine, where it was expanded: “Is Dropped Gear Safe?” It seems to me that the consensus was that dropped equipment is likely safe – therefore you should not use it: WHAT?!
‘Years ago’ when I was most keen to learn all I could about climbing, I had a running debate on this, with a good friend — a good climber. ‘Al’ was fascinated by the well-documented ideas of strain-hardening/stiffening and micro-fractures in aluminum, and became almost paranoid about ANY impacts on his aluminum climbing hardware: for example, he would scream at anyone who innocently tossed his carabiners on the ground beside him while sorting gear after a climb, and would never use dropped equipment, even a carabiner dropped on rock from waist height. I suggested he was going overboard about it, that in fact dropped equipment is just fine unless it’s seriously notched by an impact, and I had no qualms about using equipment found below a climb.
However, Al segregated several items of dropped gear that he would not use: they included 5 carabiners that he kept in a jam can. I proposed that since they were useless anyway, we should abuse them seriously by ‘dropping’ them, and then have them tested. So we took them down to my basement and hurled each one as hard as we could into a concrete floor-corner — ten times, taking turns.
At that time, Kevin O’Connell was Director of Safety of the ACC. He did a lot of tension testing of various equipment as part of that position: when he came to visit the Calgary Section, Al and I approached him to test those carabiners, and that’s the last we heard of them for some time. But a few years later, I asked Kevin whether he ever tested them, and how that turned out. He paused and then said, “OH, THOSE carabiners? — no I never actually tested them, but I’ve been using them all along in the chain for testing everything else, and none of them ever broke!”
And that’s good enough for me: what constitutes ‘proof’? In a case like this, climbers all have their own opinions. O’Connell’s ‘results’ definitely had to impress my friend Al, but I expect he still wouldn’t use dropped equipment. I do.
Case 8, July 26, 2016
How to untie a Double Fisherman Bend Joining Knot:
The Double Fisherman Bend (a.k.a. DFB) has been called “The Gold Standard” for secure joining knots, specifically for tieing ropes together for rappelling. It has a long-established history of reliability in all conditions and can be used for safe joining of lines of any different diameters. However nowadays it’s often considered ‘old-fashioned’, hence not cool, not good. The usual reasons given for shunning it are that it’s not a “flat knot” and so may snag during rope retrieval, and that it’s difficult to untie.
The issue of ‘snaggability’ is a questionable concern and has been covered below, in Case 5; the issue of difficulty of untieing is solvable by just learning a good technique:
The ‘DFB’ often becomes hard to untie after rappelling because it tightens under load AND consists of two separate knots jammed snug against each other: that prevents access to one side of each double-overhand knot (DOH), which is a problem for untieing them, according to Case 6. below.
The SOLUTION is to first pull the two halves of the DFB apart: to allow for that, leave both tails of the DFB at least 30cm or one foot long when tieing the ropes together; then for untieing the knot, grip one tail in each hand braced on the outsides of your respective knees, and use the strength of your legs to pull the tails apart by squatting.
It’s good to separate the two double-overhands by about 20cm to 30cm — that gives you access to both ropes where they enter the knots:
Now pick either double overhand and push its rope-ends (viz. the tail and the main rope) into it, as described in Case 6. and shown below.
That double-overhand will readily untie, and then either that rope can be pulled out of the other double-overhand, and so loosen it, or the second double-overhand can be untied in the same way.
Pulling the Untied Green Rope end Out Through the Red DOH to Leave it Loose and Easy to Untie
NOTE: my experience is that much of the tightness of the DFB after rappelling is a result of the original tightness — when it was tied — so tieing it snug but not tight will make it easier to untie after rappelling. This is one knot where the “Tie it Tight” rule does not apply: one tester repeatedly tied the DFB badly in every possible way so that he could still barely call it a Fisherman’s Bend before testing, and in every case the knot still held, and the rope broke at its ultimate strength.
Case 7, July 16, 2016
An Easy Solution to Your Flat-Knot Concerns:
Put a Ring on It. Lately much has been made of the potential for some flat knots to roll or invert or capsize under load, sometimes repeatedly and consuming the tails until they come apart, obviously often with deadly results. Such incidents are rare and the indicated common causes are sloppy knots, mixed rope sizes, short tails, and bad weather or environment: snow, water, or mud which make the ropes slippery. However the unavoidable feature of all flat knots that can only aggravate a tendency to come apart under load is the opposite loading of a common opening in the knot by the two ropes. That prevents the knot from tightening and actually works to spread it on one side.
This common adverse feature of flat knots can be completely defeated by the use of a small metal ring at the base of the knot — a 1.5-in link from a transport chain is ideal for this purpose — middle ring shown above: size of the opening is about 1.25″ X 0.5″ — they can be obtained by sawing through alternate links in a chain, but are otherwise indestructible, and can be used repeatedly. The smaller link at left would work better for smaller ropes; the quick link at right may work with larger ropes but doesn’t restrict the spreading effect as well.
The two tails are first fed through the ring and then the knot is tied in the tails beyond the ring.
The ring prevents the ropes from spreading the knot; it may be round or oval or other shapes but must be small enough to prevent any part of a knot from pulling through it, and strong enough to support at least 2 times the body weight of a person. (This recommendation is discretionary but should be fair: in fact, during rappelling, the ring will normally need to withstand a maximum of only about half of the rappeller’s weight.)
A standard 1.5in or 3.8cm rappel ring is not suitable — too large; it can slip over the knot.
Tension tests with these ring keepers are currently being done to verify their effectiveness, but so far the results are stunning: an EDK, a flat Fig. 8, and a flat Double Overhand were all tested to more than a ton of tension without rolling or capsizing, and of course the ring remained intact.
Case 6, July 10, 2016
Untieing a Knot:
This should not be a complex topic, so we haven’t done a long search or research on it. But knots are such an important part of our systems and equipment that surely climbers should also be good at untieing them. Still we see some surprising things during attempts to undo rappel knots (for example), even among experienced climbers. Cursing usually doesn’t work.
(In rare cases, tools may be needed, but we prefer to avoid the use of tools and so the possibility of damage to the ropes.)
1. Typically, a knot tightens because of the opposing actions of two rope strands: each one braces the knot against the other one so that the knot tightens around both strands, though that’s not as much the case for a flat knot, which is partly kept from tightening by the rope tension acting in opposite directions on an opening in the knot.
2. For untieing any knot, the general rule is to try to reverse the action that tightened it, viz., push both strands in to the knot at the same time and so against each other.
3. For a ‘Flat’ Knot, the two “strands” mentioned above are not in general the main ropes but rather two PAIRS of strands on opposite sides of the knot: hence two strands or two pairs of strands should be pushed into the knot and so against each other from opposite sides.
4. The above action may be awkward if the knot is asymmetric, as the knot will try to escape to one side as you do that: however in that case the knot must be held in position by bracing it against a solid object: your knee, the ground, or a tree or rock, etc., as you push the strands into the knot.
5. Often you can enhance your efforts to push the rope strands into the knot by using repeated brief and hard pushes (pulsating) instead of a steady force. Several pushes may be needed before you notice the knot loosening, so persist until you do, and even then continue for a bit, and often the knot will become quite loose and then easily opened up by pulling the tails out of it.
6. Some knots need other techniques for untieing them, so pay attention when you see such a special case, and spend a moment to try to understand why it’s different and come up with a solution on the spot. That may save you a lot of time, especially when you encounter the same or similar situations in the future.
7. Flat Knots tend to be easier to untie than inline knots are, simply because they are kept from tightening by the ropes where they enter the knot. However the rope tension acts to try to turn such a knot inside out by pulling the far side of the knot through the active opening, which has actually been shown to happen in some cases: not a good thing.
Case 5, June 28, 2016
CAUTION Regarding Rappel Knots:
Subject 1 — Joining Knots for Rappel Ropes: Rappels have contributed a large portion of the record of accidents through the history of climbing, and a significant portion of rappel failures have involved the accidental separation of ropes at connecting knots.
Naturally climbers would like to find an ideal joining knot, viz. one that will never come apart accidentally, while also satisfying some other requirements that include adequate strength, freedom from troublesome jamming during rope retrieval after rappels, and ease of untieing.
Adequate strength refers to the well-established fact that every knot weakens a rope by generating pressure concentrations at bends and constrictions. Uniform ropes invariably break at knots or anchor rings when tested, and each kind of knot has been shown to cause a consistent narrow range of strength reduction — generally from 30 to 50%. However for the purpose of rappelling, considering that the typical body-weight loads are insignificant by comparison with the full strength of climbing ropes, the weakening effect of joining knots can generally be ignored.
Ease of untieing is a convenience, but may also be related to a tendency for a knot to open or come apart accidentally as well. In any case every knot can be untied, and every climber is advised to consider and practise various methods to make that easier.
As for the tendency of joining knots to jam during rope retrieval, at cracks, trees, edges, etc., a lot has been made of the villainy of certain of the most reliable knots — possibly far too much. That has led to the invention and adoption of a whole class of special-purpose joining knots that allegedly don’t get stuck as easily, mainly so-called “flat knots” that protrude on only one side of the line of the rope, leaving the joined ropes to run smoothly over the terrain by sliding on the side opposite the projecting knot, where the terrain-contact sides of the ropes are straight in line, without any projecting parts that could snag on a terrain obstacle: eg., a lip, edge, or root.
The worst kind of snag happens when the rope pulls the knot into a crack that narrows until the knot is too big to go all the way through it, and so gets stuck: in that situation, flat knots get stuck just as readily and badly as inline knots.
A Flat Knot is actually an end knot tied in both ropes as one, or a combination of end knots, so as to act as a joining knot. These have been discussed, tested, and used for at least 15 years. The disturbing feature of flat knots immediately noticed with dismay by every knot fancier is that because the ropes run into the knot together, when they are separated and pulled in opposite directions as during rappelling, they obviously apply a spreading force to the knot.
Some Basic Flat Knots
The “European Death Knot” or EDK: The simplest possible of the flat knots is the Single-Overhand: The ends of both ropes are held together and tied as one in a single overhand knot — specifically the tails are brought around in a circle to cross the standing part of both ropes ONCE and then fed through the loop thus formed. This is sometimes incorrectly called a Double-Overhand because of the two ropes, but in the case of knots, “single” and “double” refer instead to the number of turns of the rope . The EDK is a Single Overhand knot because it consists of a single turn of the ropes with the (twin) tail pulled through it. This knot has become very popular and has been shown to be reliable when well tied and in dry conditions, so the “death knot” designation likely sprang from a natural perception that this knot may be too simple to be trustworthy — but that may be a valid concern. In fact, when tested, the knot rotates and rolls toward the ends of the ropes, though usually only under high loads. However, at least one report tells of the tails sliding dangerously in to the knot during a rappel in winter conditions, and accidents, including deaths, have been blamed on it.
OM: I have personally used this knot several times and ‘felt good’ about it in favorable conditions, but also consider it suspect for slippery conditions: wet, snow, ice, mud — because of its minimal internal contact area (and so . . . friction) in comparison with all other knots.
Many climbers have adopted the use of backup knots with flat knots, but one author correctly points out that a backup knot contradicts the original purpose of flat knots, which is to maintain a low profile for minimal tendency to snag during retrieval.
Note: in the picture above, the backup knot is shown ‘away from’ the EDK for clarity, whereas in practice, it may otherwise be tied snug against the main knot, whether EDK or Fig. 8 or other flat knot.
However, the spread arrangement shown first above would be instructive in use, as it will reveal any slippage or rolling of the main knot.
The Figure-8 Flat Knot:
This knot is simply a figure-8 tied in the ends of both ropes as one. When snugged up and all ends pulled tight, it displays a reassuring locking structure — see second picture, below, where the tails act as a lock pin, keeping one loop from pulling through another loop — but a number of accidents have implicated it: when loaded, it can invert repeatedly, potentially off the rope ends. However, tests show that the loads needed for that to happen are very high when the knot is tied well and dry.
The true Double-Overhand Flat Knot: I have still found no reference to this knot in online forums and other publications, but have used it myself and feel that it’s reliable.
I mention it mainly because its name appears often, but is always used for some other knot: both rope ends are tied as one, into a double-overhand end knot — specifically, the tails cross the standing part TWICE before being pulled through the four loops so formed.
As with all flat knots, it must be tied carefully with parallel strands, tails at least a foot or 30cm long, and all 4 strands pulled tight individually.
A ‘New’ Flat Knot strongly resembling a Double Fisherman: It’s actually stacked individual double overhand end knots tied in two ropes as a flat joining knot and can be usefully called a Half-Reversed Double Fisherman Flat Knot or HRDF:
Instead of overlapping the two rope ends as for tieing a Double Fisherman, lay them together as for most flat knots, and tie a double overhand around one of them with the other, leaving more than a foot of tail in the knotted rope; then tie the other (straight) end around that tail in another double overhand knot, again leaving about a foot of tail in the second knotted rope. The result is identical to a Double Fisherman except that in this case both tails come out of one end of the combination, and both ‘standing parts’ (= main ropes) come out of the other end:
This knot has allegedly been tested and showed no tendency to roll, invert, or capsize. If so, it could be a candidate for the ideal rope-joining knot award.
Other Flat Joining Knots are possible, and all have or appear to have the unsettling appearance of being pulled apart by the ropes, as these do. At least some flat knots show disturbing behaviors when loaded, and have been implicated in a number of rappelling accidents and deaths. And all for the stated purpose of providing for trouble-free rope retrieval — some commenters even suggest that the importance of trouble-free retrieval is on a par with the importance of the secureness of the joining knot.
However, as at least one author (involved in S.A.R. and testing) unequivocally points out, getting down safe is critically important, whereas a stuck rappel knot is never life-threatening, and that furthermore he has not seen an epidemic of ‘stuck-rope’ incidents in any case.
(Incidentally he also calls the Double-Fisherman Bend (inline) the gold standard for security in joining knots, even though it’s widely criticized for getting stuck easily during retrieval, and for being difficult to untie.)
SUMMARY re. Joining Knots: Every climber will decide for himself on factors like the importance of smooth rope retrieval and the relative value in that regard, of flat knots vs. standard/inline bends, but some safety recommendations can be made for all joining knots:
1. Every knot should be neat: side-by-side strands running parallel rather than twisted, no protruding loops. Neatness is important for identifying a knot and verifying that it’s tied right.
2. Adequate tails should be left protruding from every joining knot — what is adequate?: some people recommend 18 inches or 45 cm, some even say they should be a metre long; we suggest a minimum of one foot, or 30 cm.
3. Every joining knot for rappelling should be made snug by pulling every strand tight individually against at least one strand emanating from the other side of the knot — not a companion strand.
4. If concerned about insecurity of a knot because of slippery conditions due to water, snow, ice, or mud, certainly use a backup knot or knots, but then consider the increased ‘snaggability’ of such an arrangement.
5. We recommend using the Double Fisherman Bend (inline) for slippery conditions, significantly different rope sizes (ie., 2 mm or more), and any other time when in doubt.
Case 4, Dec. 20, 2015
CAUTION Regarding Keepers on Slings/Carabiners:
A number of accidents have been reported in the last couple of years involving the incorrect assembly or use of quickdraws or other slings with rubber keepers, and the same could apply as well to home-made keepers. Keepers are of course intended and suitable only to hold a sling or a quickdraw snug on a carabiner, but in these cases the keepers were put in positions of holding typical climbing loads of body weight or greater, and failed with disastrous results.
Here are two links to articles relating what happened in some such cases:
Unbelievable as it may seem that anyone could think a quickdraw would hold any load if assembled the way that most of Tito Traversa’s draws were, that’s what caused him to fall to his death.
I recommend that if it’s necessary to use keepers on your runners but you have any doubt whether the result is safe, just visualize it without the keeper, and the answer should be obvious. In Tito’s case, the nylon sling is completely separate from one carabiner; in the following pictures, the sling loop is in the carabiner but with both strands coming out on the same side — ie., not connected to the carabiner at all.
Case 3, Dec. 18, 2015
CONSIDER The complication caused by Skis on the Victim in a Crevasse Rescue:
An experienced member and leader has raised a question of how a crevasse rescue situation could be different if the victim has skis on, vs. no skis. Few people have much experience with any kind of crevasse rescues and so little direct knowledge to draw on, so we expect to start with sensible speculation on various situations, and ask members with any knowledge or insight to contact the Safety Committee at firstname.lastname@example.org to contribute to the discussion.
However for the present time we can make some comments about typical crevasse incidents:
1. A pack can only be a hindrance to the victim and his rescuers, so if possible, it should be removed and extracted first, while at all times the victim must be kept as secure as possible by a rope. Some glacier tourers keep a carabiner (and/or a sling) on the haul loop of the pack for convenience in case of such an emergency).
2. The victim’s skis may also be a hindrance, though usually less so than his pack, but depending on the type of extraction being used. At the same time, skis are usually of absolutely no use to the victim during his rescue, so if possible they should also be removed carefully and taken up safe to the surface.
3. Referring to 1. and 2. above, a crevasse victim is typically wedged with his pack or at least so encumbered by it as to make safe removal of his skis impractical, whereas once the pack is removed, he may be quite able to dispense with his skis in preparation for his own extraction.
Case 2, Dec. 10, 2015
CAUTION: Regarding Twigs and Branches While Bushwhacking:
INCIDENT: On Dec. 6 while a group of Section climbers were returning at dusk through brush and deadfall after a day of climbing in the YaHa Tinda area, one person pushed past a branch, which then snapped back and hit a following companion in the face. It caused a small but deep puncture in her upper cheek and just below her eye, with considerable bleeding. With good care the wound healed well, but obviously the injury could have been a lot more serious if the eye had been hit instead.
Bushwhacking to, from, and during climbs is a common situation for most climbers in this area, so we can only emphasize that you should be alert to hazards and take precautions while moving through brush and forest:
1. While being followed, you should control branches that could snap back at anyone following you.
2. If following someone in the bush, keep your distance from them and also be alert to what they’re doing, in case they move poles or branches, or cause flying pieces that could hit you or get in your way.
3. Even a person ahead or traveling alone faces a hazard from protruding branches and twigs, especially at face-level, as the face is usually not protected by clothing. The front person is at risk too.
4. Dim light should be a cause for extra care, when hazards are harder to notice.
Just some things to keep in mind ….
Case 1, May 31, 2015
CAUTIONExtending Tripled-Up Alpine Sling Runners
This concerns a very popular device that has been known for likely at least 30 years – YOU know it and most likely use it, but do you know ALL about it? It results from a popular quick method of shortening long slings for convenient racking as well as for use as a quickdraw. This is now in use by most climbers, but has an associated safety issue that may still be widely unknown.
The method of shortening starts with typically an ‘alpine-length’ loop sling, extended and with 2 carabiners clipped on, one at each end.
Such a sling is often called “shoulder-length” as it’s a loop with a perimeter of about 1.5meters, that can conveniently be carried slung over the climber’s head and one arm from the far shoulder.
The method consists of passing one carabiner through the other — generally the ‘bottom’ crab through the ‘top’ one — then pulling the first one down level with the twin loop now hanging from the top one, and clipping it on to both of those loops.
This convenient technique quickly creates a runner of one-third the length of the original (extended) sling, and so I refer to it descriptively as a “tripled-up alpine sling runner” in the absence of a common term.
This is a convenient length for racking or clipping on to harness gear-loops, similar to quickdraws, but has the advantage over sport-climbing quickdraws, of being extendable to either the full alpine length or half of it for any of the various purposes that come up in climbing.
BUT a HAZARD occurs when extending such a runner by unclipping a loop of the sling from either carabiner in order to lengthen it, for example to straighten the line of the rope on a climb, or for use as a tie-in at a belay station, especially when it’s inconvenient for the climber to check the resulting extension.
In this ‘tripled-up sling runner’, each carabiner holds 3 loops of the sling, and they seem generally identical to a casual view: but in fact they are all unique, and one loop of the three on each carabiner is a ‘deadly’ loop, as it’s the ‘original’ loop which was on the carabiner before the sling was shortened, and if unclipped, it results in the sling pulling through both crabs and disconnecting completely from the one unclipped.
Another loop is ‘safe’, as its two strands go to the other carabiner from opposite sides, and so collapse on to that crab in a tight loop if dropped; and the third loop on each carabiner may be either ‘safe’ or ‘deadly’, depending on exactly how the sling was originally shortened.
A recent accident in Colorado (Wayne Crill, Aug. 9, 2014 in Eldorado Canyon) resulted in a serious-injury groundfall after two of the climber’s highest runners disconnected from the carabiners on the rope when he fell. The circumstances and the victim’s acquaintances suggest strongly that tripled-up alpine slings had been incorrectly extended without checking, in a section of difficult climbing just before the climber fell. The coincidence of that happening with two pieces in sequence is remarkable, but could indicate a meticulous technician who used a consistent technique, but got it wrong. It’s possible that he knew which loop to unclip so that the carabiner came away clean from the sling, in order to make it easier and neater to reclip at the length he wanted, except that in this case his attention was distracted from that final step, by his precarious position: he unclipped the deadly loop but did not reclip the sling.
We bring this up to alert or remind climbers of this danger, since it would be awkward and completely impractical to analyze the loops on every (or ANY) such runner during lengthening while climbing.
I addressed this concern in the November 2008 issue of the Chinook, which can be accessed through this site and includes some sketches. At that time I advised against using the ‘tripling-up’ method of shortening alpine-length slings, but that method has become so popular that we now offer 2 alternative suggestions for safe extension of tripled-up alpine sling runners as well as the option of using the continuous-loop configuration of shortening:
1. Verify every sling immediately upon extending it, if possible, OR
2. If it’s not possible, always UNCLIP TWO of the three loops from one carabiner — never only one loop; ie., always LEAVE only ONE LOOP clipped on to the carabiner, as any one loop is secure by definition. That results in a full and safe extension of the sling, which may then be ‘doubled up’ easily instead, if you like; OR
3. Use the classic continuous triple-loop method of shortening alpine slings, instead of the pull-through-and-clip-the-hanging-loops method. In that configuration the shortened sling comprises 3 coils in a continuous helix, with both carabiners clipped through all of them in parallel, and either one or two coils may be unclipped from either carabiner without creating a dangerous condition of the runner.
The CALGARY SECTION SAFETY COMMITTEE
Purpose: “To Promote Safety in Alpinism with particular attention to matters of special or additional interest to the Calgary Section and the Calgary mountaineering community.”
The Calgary Section Safety Committee reports to the Board of Directors of the Calgary Section and may act either or both at the request of the Board or independently in cases of no specific request.
Work: The work of the Calgary Section Safety Committee includes:
1. to receive reports and information regarding accidents or dangerous incidents, and potentially dangerous practices and equipment, involving Section members and also non-members, and
2. to discuss and analyze each case, and
3. to make recommendations to promote safe mountaineering by preventing future related or similar dangerous practices and incidents, and the use (if any) of such equipment. Its recommendations may be given in the form of a report or advice to the Board, or notices in the Section communications media, including the website, or other forms as the Committee considers appropriate in each case.
4. Other activities may be undertaken by the Safety Committee as part of its work. A wide range of means may be considered and used by the Committee in order to fulfil its Purpose: experimentation and testing may be appropriate in some cases.
5. The Safety Committee will cooperate with the Board of the Calgary Section and all its Committees as much as possible, especially Training and Leadership, Skiing, and Climbing, which are most likely to have interests in its work and communications.
Structure: The current (2016 – 2017) Safety Committee consists of Orvel Miskiw (Chairman), Casey Blais, Paul Dormaar, Julie Morter, and David Roe; with ‘interested contributors’ being Robbie Chmelyk, Chris Girard, Tyler Kirkland, and Tobias Link.