/ NEW ARTICLE: VIDEO: How to rig an abseil
With the most up to date info possible it uses the stunning images of Mike Robertson, video clips from Get Out On Rock and diagrams from Rock Climbing – Essential Skills and Techniques.
Here professional mountain guide Libby Peter shows us how to rig an abseil.
Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=2642
> With the most up to date info possible it uses the stunning images of Mike Robertson, video clips from Get Out On Rock and diagrams from Rock Climbing – Essential Skills and Techniques.
> Here professional mountain guide Libby Peter shows us how to rig an abseil.
> Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=2642
Surely, in the checklist to make sure you are not an abseil disaster statistic: Tie knots in end(s) of rope(s)would be advisable too, unless the is a reason for this omission?
Some people prefer knots, others no. It's not a hard and fast rule, just understand the consequences of your decision.
Good article but whilst I only usually tie knots in the end of my ropes if I can't see where I'm going/visibility is bad, I think some mention of not abseiling off the end of the ropes might be useful.
Its mentioned in the video
Hmm. I thought that it was generally accepted that the prussik loop clipped to the legloop is not the best solution due to the possibility of it being pushed against the belay if flipped upside down (knocked unconcsious etc.) I'm surprised the "proper" method was not shown (belay device on an extender etc.) Having said that, the video describes nicely how a vast majority of climbers abseil (including me).
The crucial requirement especially for novice abseilers of having HIGH anchors is not mentioned. A minor but rather basic omission.
I would never advocate just tying the end of the rope into the anchor and dropping the rest. You should always endeavor just to drop enough rope but no more down, especially at sea cliffs. Neither the video nor diagrams make that clear or even mention it. A fundamental omission for an instructional article in my opinion.
A demo or picture of using rope protection would, as already mentioned, be useful.
There was no demo of backing up the prussik with turns around the thigh. This is really essential as it is not safe to swing around hands off just relying completely on a French prusik for safety as Libby seems to suggest. This is a really major omission.
A final omission is that there is no demonstration or discussion of the failure of the leg loop prussik in the event of the inversion of an abseiler or discussion of the alternative method of extending the belay device with a sling so as to avoid this failure mechanism.
All in all, some useful stuff but free online articles are never going to be completely comprehensive.
A bit thin if you asked me, this is a subject with so many variables that it´s really not possible to cover in this format.
As well as all the points above:-
Is there enough friction before you go over the edge for that 40m ab on a single 9mm?
Yet again the equalised multi-point anchor so the numpties are confused by single stakes etc.
And paid for printed articles even less so.
Great comments to go with this basic article and we will revisit this subject and link in to make it even more comprehensive.
It would be interesting to see if anything changes when using half ropes??
The book also only covers one rope.
Firstly - Check the rope reaches the bottom!!!
Secondly - Check the rope is usable
Thirdly - Get your partner to check everything
Forthly - Check it all again
If were going to publish articals like this clearly aimed at novices, and encouraging people to go any try these sorts of things then the descriptions must be right, and bomb proof.
I also don't like the idea of the anchors only showing two attchments. Clearly this is fine if it's a huge bit of chain around a steal piller at an indoor center, or a pair of freshly placed bolts, but if its outside in the real world, where your putting gear in the rock - we surly should be promoting safetly, and suggesting three being safer than two????
(Or am i just being old fashioned here????? )
James, I think you're just an old fashioned troll.
Another omission (one of the most important things of all) – that should have been mentioned under 'Rigging a retrievable abseil': the first person down must always check that the ropes can be pulled. Often there are problems with friction, the rope going into a crack, or round a spike etc. etc, which need to be sorted out before the last man comes down. Really page one stuff. Many accidents connected with abseils are the result of the rope/s jamming when the party tries to retrieve them. The worst scenario on a multi-abseil descent being when the rope jams when most of it has been pulled through.
Maybe, but his last (in fact, his only) recorded climbs are two V Diffs. This doesn't sit well against an article written by a well known internationally qualified mountain guide. Personally I question his assertion that three anchors should be used... why not four. Or five. Because two bomber (or even one...) anchors are enough.
The problem with 'definitive' articles Gordon, is that if you forget to tell people how to wipe their arses whilst abseiling, you're going to get pulled to pieces.
I've never used a prussik on a leg loop below the device, always from the belay loop to above the device, that way you're less likely to become inverted, also it's if the prussik becomes jammed for whatever reason a foot loop can be clipped to the prussik allowing the belay device to be moved up the rope enabling the jammed prussik to be unloaded(while still clipped to the harness) and unjammed.
I don't know if anyone else uses this method but it works well for me.
> Maybe, but his last (in fact, his only) recorded climbs are two V Diffs. This doesn't sit well against an article written by a well known internationally qualified mountain guide.
Jon, I thought you were being a little tongue in cheek when you called James an old fasioned troll, but then I see this? Why do people feel compelled to go looking up people's log books when they disagree with them and then, finding their 'opponent' is a beginner climber, use this information to rubbish their opinion on a public forum?
You might say that experience is relevant to a debate on rope techniques, but it's not really. If someone's right, then having little experience doesn't make them wrong.
Your point about 3 being an arbitrary number is a good point. Why make it pesonal by pointing to someone's inexperience and ability (if it had been two E2s I'm guessing you wouldn't have been so quick to point the finger)as a reason for disregarding their opinion?
Regarding the article, I think the format is great - the combination of text, pictures and video has the potential to explain things in a very comprehensive manner. But like many others I would have liked to have seen more detail. Obviously you can never cover everything, but I particularly would have liked to see some pictures like the ones of the prussik loops showing how to tie an alpine butterfly, which, although you can use an overhand knot, is a fairly central part of the abseil set-up. It's also fairly specific to this function and not something you're likely to encounter otherwise, unlike the italian hitch which is also brushed over.
My sentence that you quoted explains itself...
< Maybe, but his last (in fact, his only) recorded climbs are two V Diffs. This doesn't sit well against an article written by a well known internationally qualified mountain guide >
Why do you find it strange that 'people are compelled to look into people's logbooks'. It's perfectly normal to look at peoples profiles to see who you are replying to. If a relative novice starts criticising an article written by someone who holds the highest possible qualification there is, then frankly I'd question their ability to do so. The way to assess this can only be from their profile etc.
Personally I think writing a definitive article on how to do something, aimed at novices, is opening a can of worms. It has to be simple enough for a novice to grasp, yet complete enough to satisfy those who'll go through it with a magnifying glass looking for omissions. A thankless and impossible task. I refer you to my reply to Gordon, two posts above yours.
> Your point about 3 being an arbitrary number is a good point. Why make it pesonal by pointing to someone's inexperience and ability (if it had been two E2s I'm guessing you wouldn't have been so quick to point the finger)as a reason for disregarding their opinion?
Also if it was 2 E2's you would be assuming that there was a significant body of experiance before the log opened. Not many people lead E2 as one of there first few routes but with VDiffs that those climbs do represent all the experiance there is quite high.
Elsewhere on the site
The Epicentre Mega Winter Sale starts in store 9am Christmas Eve. We have a great selection of in store only deals from... Read more
The release of Peter Jackson's new film The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies on 12th December may not appear to link to... Read more
On Saturday 13th December Greg Boswell and Guy Robertson kicked off their Scottish winter season early by making the... Read more
This years ROCfest will be slightly different. We've decided to run a Climbing Festival, not just a competition! Over... Read more
F ounded in 1993, Mountain Hardwear are a pretty young mountaineering clothing and equipment manufacturer but are also one of... Read more