Excellent video series. I like a lot of the more nuanced details on edge prep and other "what ifs..." that are typically left out! Thanks for making this comprehensive resource available. Is there a video covering the scenario when the middle person on a rope team falls in?
On the Drop C system, one could use a lot less rope by dropping a loop of rope down to the victim with a mini traxion and a locking biner attached (assuming they don't already have one on their harness). The rope would go from the anchor, to the victim who clips the binder/traxion combo to their gear loop then back up to the rescuers, forming a simple "U". Also with the victim being attached to a pulley (mini traxion) they can aid in their own rescue by pulling on the anchor side of the "U", making the rescue much easier than 2:1. Just a thought, I'm no teacher, just a student trying to understand it all.
Typically, you only do a drop C if your partner in the crevasse is incapacitated. If they're able to help haul themselves out, the first option is self ascending.
@@chamonix4658 They don't. You have to rappel into the crevasse to set this up for them. It's basically the worst case scenario in 2 person glacier travel, luckily it should never happen if you're travelling properly with minimal slack in the rope.
It depends on where you're going (size of crevasses) as that dictates rope spacing, and then each person should have twice that spacing (or a bit more) in rope in coils around their shoulder or in their packs to enable a proper drop-loop haul. For the cascades where crevasses are pretty big, ~15m spacing between climbers is recommended to give you lots of time to arrest if your partner falls in, so that equates to a 70m rope (gives you 14m spacing exactly but realistically a bit less after knots). This is a bit unrealistic tho, most people aren't using a 70m rope for parties of 2 (although I have, since big bulky brake knots for soft snow eat up a lot of rope). There's a different way to rig this, however, which uses less rope but requires the climber outside the crevasse to untie completely and drop their end of the rope to the climber and then set up the hauling system with what's leftover (might require some creativity and use of cordalette). In this case you put a few arm lengths LESS than 1/3 the rope between yourselves and a few arm lengths MORE than 1/3 in coils on each climber. This way, for a 15m spacing you can use a 50m or 60m rope. Doesn't leave you a lot of rope for a rescue tho.
Hey, great informative vid! But why use the figure 8 on a bight as the midway masterpoint on a linear anchor system? Did anyone notice how badly split that knot was? Why not an alpine butterfly?
Figure 8's are fine, they don't roll. Even with the cross loading they're more than strong enough for this. Alpine butterfly is perfectly fine as well, but its not a knot that everyone can tie by heart
Figure 8 on a bight can roll when the 2 strands are pulled in opposite directions, and does so at lower force than an overhand on a bight. I would also use an alpine butterfly there, but if that's too complicated an overhand is perfectly fine and I think better than the figure 8 in this context. The microtrax loading the bight loop keeps the knot a bit more stable but still it looks a bit weird with the 8 here.
The rope with load and knots leading to the person in the crevasse and the pulley system rope are the same rope, but different ends. So the end for the pulley system does not have knots. And the end with knots gets relieved of any weight by the pulley system. So you can pull the end with knots with just one hand and without any resistance out of the "tunnel" it digged itself. Its not holding load at this time.
This is obviously a very effective way to haul someone out of a crevasse, but it requires a LOT of extra rope -- perhaps 80 feet or more. It's typical for guides to carry extra rope, but as Jeff mentions in one of his other videos, if you're traveling with climbers of similar skill, the people on either end could carry extra rope. However, unless you're using a very long rope, you'd probably not have enough set up this system. An alternative would be to use a 3:1 Z-drag or a 5:1 which uses less rope. Just something to think about.
First the 1:2 C-pulley: when you pull 1 meter of rope, the victim rises 0,5 meters. To pull that 1 meter, you have 1:3 Z-pulley. With Z-pulley you need to pull 3 meters of rope to get progress of 1 meter. So you have pulled 3 meters, the Prussik of the Z-pulley has moved 1 meter and the victim has moved 0,5 meter. This gives you 1:6.
This would only be true if the 2 systems were seperates, here you can use a simple methld of counting the number of strands going from the ancher to the load an you will see that it is only a 4/1. At least that is what I think.
Alot of friction with this haul system . Its better you connect the efficiency pulley close to the rope that you pull - that make you lose less efficiency while you make tha hauling system
why didn't he just use the original line that runs down to the climber? Instead of making another loop and lowering it down to the climber? ive now watched a few different conflicting ways to do this.
You never never ever tie in the rope directly when on glacier! In case you need to leave the line you must be able to leave it quickly so always use a carabiner to connect your harness and the rope. (Only on glacier obviously not during sport climbing)
