When is Redundancy Ridiculous? 

Get Tom's Book hownot2.com/products/the-essential-technical-rescue-field-operations-guide Petzl Paws are finally on the shelf hownot2.com/products/paw-rigging-plate

to spell it out, the redundancy in rescue operations is not about increasing strength; it's about decreasing the harm a flaw or error can do. - or in other words, two points of contact is about having to have two failures before you drop the rescuer.

Thank you so much for bringing in rescue content. Urban rescue where lots of "big" and redundant equipment is just outside in the truck IS VERY DIFFERENT vs Mtn rescue where you have to haul it for miles and only have what you brought with you. Being able to be confident in the lighter stuff and maybe less equip approach is game changing. THANK YOU FOR THIS SERVICE YOU ARE PROVIDING!!!

Having been a member of our dept’s high angle rescue / USAR team, we always thought that the redundant systems were complicated, time consuming and unnecessary. I’m glad to see that we may very well be moving towards “less is more” in the rescue world.

I've been working in rope access for 15 years now. We use redaduncy everywhere because of human errors. When choosing your anchors you can make a mistake without knowing it. It's the same for climbing or caving, that's not because there's 22kn engraved on an anchor that you can rely on it at 100%. It's always possible that there are some invisible issues with the rock (cracks) or the glue (dust in the hole when gluing)

Personally I always wear two climbing harnesses in case one of them breaks.

I think most redundancy is to cover for human error. That monolithic tree really wasn't monolithic. You are not going to put 12KN on a cam. But did you really remove the sand from the wall before you placed it? That sling you just connected. Are you sure that it's even attached? or is it just holding on due to friction. People make mistakes. Redundancy allows people to get away with making mistakes.

I'm in love with the technical rescue daddy, so factual 🥴

Awesome video! Very helpful. It was interesting to find that 2 plates make the Carabiners weaker. I'm loving your collaborations with other professionals

Redundancy is critical with industrial rescue. Most rescue team members are plant employees, who typically do not get the necessary repetition to be proficient with rigging, knots, etc. CMC has done a great job engineering useful equipment that minimizes the likelihood of "operator error". Their video library has been a huge help understanding how to safely use their equipment. Great products!

Tom is a legend! Thanks for having him on the show. I've already sent this episode to all of the members of my technical Rescue team.

Thank you for doing more rescue and professional stuff. I also love that you’re making cmc gear available. Sick colab

Coming from technical rescue side, in general we would backup software but not hardware

I enjoy this so much! Amazing content, best wishes to you and your future projects! 🌻

Thanks for moving to the tech rescue world....looking forward to more discussions on how emergency personnel setup their systems and what safety factors we are accepting

I remember asking if you could do an episode of this back in October because IRATA/ICOP states using rig plates must use 2. Thanks for making this episode

Well done gents. Thanks for all you do for our community.

Thanks HowNOT2, helps a lot!

I’m a duel cert rope access tech IRATA/SPRAT. SPRAT says one rigging plate is enough. IRATA says you have to double them.

I was recently talking about this with some IRATA people, including an instructor. They use doubled plates because the IoC requires everything to be doubled, but mentioned they use a single plate for anything non IRATA. Richard Delaney, the one mentioned in the video, has an article where he describes why he's happy with a single plate too. Super bomber enough

I saw a comment on a heli rescue video where they admonished the guy for only using one bear paw. I was thinking it would be cool to seee you break test it and my god here it is.

Really appreciate the videos! Keep it up

Love the rescue stuff. Keep it up!

Really awesome you are carrying rescue gear! Good on You!

The redundancy in occupational settings and the hugely different safety standard in general is to account for user error. When you're a recreational climber, you can decide to just not do it if you're not felling 100%, if you've got a bad gut feeling, whatever. In an occupational setting, that is often not as viable of an option as it should be. Maybe you're an arena/event rigger walking on the beams at the end of your fifth 12 hour day in a row. Maybe you're a rescue technician who was woken up by the notification in the middle of the night and now needs to rescue someone, mere minutes after being ripped out of your sleep. Maybe you're a rope access technician maintaining a building, and even though you're tired and just not feeling that good, you power through because it's your job. In all of these four situations, the likelihood of user error is dramatically increased. You'd be surprised by how much tiredness can impede on your brain's ability to get even the simplest things right, and that is a big problem when your safety depends on whether you tied a knot correctly or incorrectly. Another reason for the high safety standard is that it dictates what a boss can demand of a worker. If a recreational climber finds that something is unsafe, they can just not do it and that's it. If an occupational climber finds something is unsafe, there needs to be some sort of technical standard that determines what is and isn't safe so that it can be determined whether the climber is justified in refusing to do the work or not. And logically, this technical standard needs to have a high safety level so that workers can't be forced to take unnecessary risks. The third reason for the high safety standard is to account for unrelated health problems you could be having while in your harness. If you're climbing recreationally and you have a heart attack while doing so, it's your responsibility and your problem. In the occupational setting, the employer is responsible for the safety of the employees, so if they have a heart attack while harnessed, the employer has to make sure they can be rescued and receive the necessary medical care. It's about making sure that a bad time doesn't become even worse when you're harnessed. I'm saying harnessed because this is especially visible in the standards for fall protection: in my country at least, a railing needs to have a 10cm footboard, a pipe at 50cm and a pipe at 100cm (or 110cm depending on the height) to be considered safe. So if the railing protecting you doesn't have the pipe at 50cm or the footboard, you need to be harnessed, even though in normal situations, the railing still protects you from falling. But if you stumble and fall for some reason, like because of a sudden aneurysm or whatever, you can fall because then, the railing really needs all of those three components to keep you safe, so that is why you need to be harnessed in that situation.

With redundant systems, you've always gotta weigh the value of redundancy versus just having twice as big a system. This is why for example we do not use redundant wing spars in an airliner but we do use redundant control connections.

I've been hoping for more rescue content.

fantastic video

For a while now, redundancy is more about eliminating human error than it is mitigating equipment failure. If you are in a rope rescue scenario then you should be using equipment that is more than strong enough. Thats said, there is no reason for multiple plates. If a human doesn't have to operate it (open, lock, or tie), then you probably don't need two.

Pretty sure it was Kirk Mauthner of Basecamp Innovations, not Richard Delaney, who developed and advocated for the dual capability two tensioned rope system. He presented at ITRS on the topic in 2014 and 2016.

this was awsome!!!

ISO 9001 Compliance doesn't actually mean anywhere near as much as you'd believe, it entirely comes down to the company they contract to produce it. THAT SAID, it's a single part, tollerances mean basically nothing (With a exception of thickness but I can't imagine they'd try and get away with anything so undersized that it would compromise the strength.) so yea, ISO 9001 compliance means they have to buy traceable materials and that's enough in this case.

I wear two harnesses when climbing. It is the only safe way

I'm an IRATA technician since 2004.Things changed a lot and that is mostly to prevent human error. Also they change after analysing accidents and incidents and find out what went wrong. If it was human error,change the method the task is performed, it if was the gear,improve it or remove it from use.

The best part about redundancy is that it forces the person who sets it up to look at the system twice.

Aluminium has fatigue. And it progresses unlimitedly until it breaks. Unlike steel that always keeps some strength after fatigue. So steel is quiet unique construction material in this regard.

Not a climber, never will be, I've been enjoying your videos. I have ADD (I think) or at the bare minimum am too lazy to pay attention usually, but I've been able to enjoy this content all the way through even on long ass videos. You are providing great information for anybody who wants to at least learn what is important to think about, especially considering the consequences for not knowing what you don't know could mean that your rack of nuts gets damaged and stuff. The historical stuff will be precious one day, interview more of the old dogs while you can!

Great testing. The 2nd set up is how I rig but have been told by IRATA that I must back up the plate!! IRATA need to get a grip.

"Redundancy" is a lot less specific in climbing, and for consideration: One rope is actually made of hundreds of nylon filaments; it is internally redundant, to the degree that ends up being pretty foolproof in normal usage. Protection on leads is redundant, as long as one remaining piece keeps the person off the ground/landing. One 22kN locking biner is usually considered as bombproof as his master plates, for normal climbing use, but in practice even clipping any secondary line to another anchor point feels a wee bit safer - and Todd Skinner and Paul Piana's famous near-catastrophe at the top of the Salathe Wall was averted by one last piece, as I recall, while the rest of their system was sheared off by the massive boulder.

Great video!! What I’m most curious about is when using plates in highline/ rope swing rigging is there any cause for concern with fatigue of the aluminum? Obviously super strong on one single pull but what happens after it’s been cyclically loaded?

Great video! At 5:50 you mention that Richard Delaney proved the benefits of twin tensioned systems. I believe that was Kirk Mauthner, not Delaney. Here is Kirk's original video that shook the rescue community, and was the first real proof that "dedicated main, dedicated backup" was built on a false assumption. In his ICAR talk he says he was trying to show the benefits of an untensioned belay, but his experiment to his surprise showed the opposite. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--43yf8SDs4M.html

Lovre your content, have you thought about doing a test on Cobra buckles?

Worked in manufacturing hard goods at Conterra for a short bit. Good people right up the road from you in Bellingham. Rick would probably be psyched to sync up with you.

If I did my maths correctly, two of those gold plates could be used to lift a British Strykr IFV at 19tons They are so impressively strong!!

During the testing: "Oh, THAT is not the same shape!" heh

Cool. Like that guy

Super good enough! 👌

If it's pretty easy, and doesn't make people screw up because they get confused, go for it. For me, the redundancy because a sling might be cut by rockfall... is interesting. I've tracked down the one documented case, and have other... thoughts.

Wish I lived near that area and could geek out on that job opening. Since not, will support by buying through your online store when I need gear. Once thing that wasn't discussed (unless I missed it) as the fail tests continued, is the wear stresses of each attempt, weakening the parts closer to, or even below, their original 2-1 or 5-1 safety factor thresholds. Not so...? Just a point to remember in the field as your gear gets put into successive service.

Hey Ryan! Is the rescue book also available digitally?

Very interesting

If you are going to use two rigging plates, you should use two different plates, not two of the same. You aren't doubling them to make it stronger. You are doubling them in case they are faulty and don't get close to their rating or fail in some other way. If you have two of the same, especially from the same batch, they could both be faulty. Perhaps the supply of metal they had that day was faulty. Or the annealing machine was set to the wrong temperature. Or one of the plates is actually a cheap knock-off. Having two of the same doesn't provide much extra protection.

The problem is anomalies in the manufacturing process, it's russian roulette, and for lighterweight items, fatigue.

When you go climbing whether it be a rock face or felling a tree, sure you have the rigging you need but if the situation surprises you and you don't have the RIGHT gear it's always an option to go home or back to the shop and come back with what you need. Or pick a different route to climb today. Or talk with the homeowner and explain you want to safely give them the best service with zero risk to their property. In rescue the victim picks when and where they need to be rescued. Going home without them isn't on the menu.

Those blocks are great for arborists and as a FF, yes we want redundancy. It is too much when the time it takes does not improve your survival chances.

4 lata czekałem na ten test 😂

How are soft shackles so OP? 😆 Genuinely looks like some random thing someone made from hardware store materials, which I guess isn't far off, but it still amazes me.

Have you done any picket testing before for rope anchors in the past? There's alot of variations of setups and angled picket use vs straight.

Okay Ryan I ordered one. I love buying stuff from your site, but since I don’t have a redundant bank account, I just can’t buy all the stuff I love, lol. So, please feel free to throw in some more stickers or a spare Z2R if you have one laying around. Thanks…

I imagine that the PAW M brakes at twice the MBS because the MBS maybe it's calculated using just one "carabiner" in each side of the plate. but the test that they did here it's more realistic, because you don't use a rigging plate to use just one hole. an interesting test would be having just one point in one side and 2 or more in the other side of the plate

There are two ways to get redundancy: Put in two, or overbuild. Climbing mostly uses the latter.

that petzl master is verry impresive

Im still impressed that the HN2 soft shackle can hold 96kn!!

Question, the way the basket hitched dyneema is connected in the video, could you do that for rock climbing anchors using locking carabiners on each end? To me, it looked redundant and way stronger than using 1 dyneema sling with a BFK or overhand and since dyneema tends to slip when broken (past videos show the knot coming undone in away) it seems safer than hoping a knot holds when broken. I understand we are talking about forces that most likely wont ever happen, just curious if this is a "safer" solution than one dyneema.

that petzl plate is insane lol.

Safty or rescue equipment has a minimum safety factor of 2 engineered into the ratings. This is why your test failure is about double the rating.

I love CMC!

I thought for a minute that you were using brass knuckles as climbing gear...

I used to be a rigger. Anything that is designed to hold a human, the working load capacity is half of the breaking strength

Could we not lower the breaking strength of that plate if we somehow manage to hinge and bend it? Not a straight pull but some kind of rock formation that will bend the plate.

Is the guide available in Europe? If not physically maybe there is an ebook/pdf version of it available for purchase

Need to have a digital caliper on hand to know if the plate has deformed

Would love to see you check out the Sick Sequence bouldering pad. I don't believe it's a safe idea as air follows fluid dynamics it and is highly compressible I believe the danger of bottoming out the mat especially if you don't fall flat/well distributed bodyweight is really high.

Very good video. Thank you

Simple question - what is the alloy these plates are made of? 7075 or similar, or something new?

Plates are good!

96?!? That's insane!!! Could tow a trailer with that thing. My god

I would go with a plate with a hole for each anchor point. Since if the perimeter of the hole fails, only 1 hole fails, not the whole master point. Making the plate inherently redundant. Ie, the example at 2:10 isn't actually redundant since if the hole on the rigging plate fails at the anchor side, then it won't be securely attached to any anchor. This is a single point of failure. Even if a rigging plate in good condition can handle forces far beyond what is needed for the application, that still isn't redundant but rather an acceptance of marginal risk. Some might argue that a single rigging plate can't be redundant, this is a bit of a myth that one supposedly needs two separate components to achieve redundancy. It is however a good rule of thumb. Redundancy is only about handling one (or more) failures of individual aspects making up a larger system without the larger system itself failing. If the larger system has any choke-point where a singular failure makes the system collapse, then the system itself isn't technically redundant, if one wants to be super pedantic... But in practice, reaching actual redundancy in any system is more theoretical debate than anything. In reality one will have to brush some of these choke-points away as acceptable risk if it is infeasible and/or needlessly complex to make that aspect redundant. The lack of redundancy showcased at 2:10 is fairly trivially amended by using a differently designed rigging plate with two separate holes for the anchor points. Preferably separated a bit such that a brake in one doesn't meaningfully compromise the other. This amendment isn't infeasible nor needlessly complex, making this single point of failure fairly unacceptable if one desires redundancy. However, with two separate anchor holes one will have uneven tension on the ropes if an anchor point fails, since the rigging plate will rotate. But the main operator is able to equalize the tension on these ropes again in fairly short order, nor does it matter that one ropes is a few inches longer than the other. I rather much accept this than a free fall, any day of the week. In the end. Super good enough is however still a good way to look at it. Like I won't say that the rigging plate is garbage. But in a redundant system, one would prefer the bar for introducing acceptable risk to be higher when the solution to the single failure point is as simple as this.

Can you, (or have you?), pull test(ed) rigging plates and carabiners that have been arc striked by a welder?

Was the force on the plate rated for only connecting a single point on each side? So connecting 2 points either side is effectively 2 x 45kn ~ 90kn ?

@hownot2 - ongoing debate on redundancy in anchors. People travel to Spain and see single fixed biner sport anchors (ie 2 bolts connecting chain terminating in a single nonlocking steel biner). Sometimes these are captive biners, sometimes not. They then think it's a-ok to do this back in N America. Would be good to test what scenarios can create failure in this this single biner anchor system. In my mind it only cost a few $ more to add a second biner to your open anchor system - just in case something like a big swing out (ie cleaning) can introduce failure. I mean - what could possibly wrong lowering off a single biner right? :) Lastly - some redundant systems also have problems - like the recent mussy hook incident where the climber died. I did a route in Nevada recently that had opposing mussys side by side - and the rope pinched between the hooks to a point we could not pull. Checking online - many people had issues with the same route (Mesquiter in Lime Kiln). Would be great to have a video on anchors that seem good but are problematic for less obvious reasons.

Please test T rated rescue gears from Petzl, CMC.

Strangely enough, twin engine general aviation aircraft weren’t safer than singles. Adding complexity isn’t necessarily better. Sometimes it just adds failure points

Its an endless and often ridiculous debate. You can lift people with a single crane. It has one rope. One winch. One boom. You get the idea. Over the weekend i snapped several ropes under normal load, due to age. A number of knotted dyneema lines amd blew out a couple of incorrectly threaded blocks. I watched a neighbouring crew start to hoist someone up a mast with backup line over a wire rope and a number of edges. Also not maintaining a maximum static fall for the backup. And i did intervene to point out their more critical hazards. Most folk.just don't know and then assume that two of everything makes it safe. As for the T.A.. they should know, but just assume that two of everything makes it safe and absolves them of any liability either way. Who remembers when you were allowed to tie your own knots ?

Can you order an E-book? Or do you ship to Poland?

If you can Lift 2 Hummers before breaking... I would say it is good enough for lifting people 😅

Tom looks familiar, I think he may have taught his class in Little Rock. #LRFD

never understood why they dont use WLL, working load limit, which always have a factor 2 or 3 safety margin , like anything else for rigging

wow 96kn!

Looks kind of weak if you are used to industrial cranes. The standard is totally different there. If something is rated for lets say 10 tons, you can lift 10 ton all day every day for years and still be good. The actual breaking point is several times higher than the working load to allow for many things to go wrong before you have an accident. For example, my 4 ton overhead crane has 4 9mm steel cables which each would break at a minimum of 5.2 ton so actual failure would occur at like 21 tons. Everything is overbuilt. So if this was for an industrial job, this plate rated for 4 tons would be made out of like 20mm thick steel and would weigh like 5 kg.

I love space sci-fi and there's an astrophysics term for when you're travelling at stupidly fast speeds..... like close to or farster than the speed of light.... and something goes wrong with your ship ---- spaghettification...... emagine your feet moving faster then your head and you should understand the term 😂 I bring this up as I'm pretty sure that spaghettification would be your reality if you suddenly find yourself in a position where you just put 96kn through you and your system!!! 😅

Outside of trad placements and bolts-of-unknown-origin, i see reduncancy more about the humans setting it up. 1/1,000 times a human will make a mistake, so redunancy makes failure 1/1,000,000

If it takes 15 min to set up your confine space rescue the person is likely already dead. Confine space should always be pre planned and pre rigged. I've always found rigging plates for dual descenders to be a waste of time and head height and you can generally get better results without them.

I mean 60kn ain’t crazy, rescuers are typically 200 American pounds or more plus a second person plus a belayer

Why not use a Snatch Block??

In the cost cutting shareholder profit 21st century you still trust that everything is manufactured correctly?

So in other words it is Super Good Enough

Totally not a knuckle duster.

😊😊😊

Redundancy is subjective, it should be applicable to the scenario. Sometimes, a "bomber" system can restrict rescue for no reason but to feel extra safe