UKC

I did my SPA many years ago. At that time, to my particular trainers and assessors at least, a French prusik back up (for abseils) on the leg loop was considered acceptable. I find the method very quick and convenient, and continue to use it to back up my abseils, despite its (well-publicised) potential limitations - of which I'm very aware.

My query concerns giving advice to an SPA trainee about to take the assessment: have things now changed to the point that use of a leg loop Prusik is considered unacceptable? Could it conceivably lead to a deferral on an SPA assessment?

Thanks.

In reply to bpmclimb:
Why use a leg loop one when there's better options (assuming you have the kit)? I doubt that alone would lead to a deferral, but among other things, and especially if they couldn't explain the problem with it, maybe....

In reply to JayPee630:

Why is it a bad thing to do and what is a better way of doing it? Just curious!

In reply to JayPee630:

What are the better options you have in mind?. Prusik from belay loop with belay plate on a sling (typical Continental method)?, or carry a device such as a shunt (extra kit to cart around)?

IMO prusik on leg loop works well and is quick to set up but the length is fairly critical as cant have it going into the belay device. Cant comment on SPA suitability though

In reply to JayPee630:


Well, as I said, I find it very quick and convenient - more so than extending the device. I also find it gives a more comfortable abseil, with my hand more or less in the same position by my hip as it would be with no backup. I'm aware of its limitations in the same way as, say, using an anchor which is bomber but only in one general direction.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Used prusik on my assessment too, many , many moons ago and we were all asked to stop on the abseil and remove hands from the rope. In order to ensure the prusik could not reach the device during any rotation, we then had to rotate round to the left (assuming prusik on right) and touch the right heel with left hand. I sweated a bit, but the prusik did stop short of the plate.

My preference nowadays is to rig everything onto a 120cm sling and run this larksfooted onto the pick up points of your harness. Neat way to do it (plenty of advice on the Petzl website) and safer as you can get your control hand right round the back of yer arse when not having to grip the prusik.

Best to just phone a provider to ascertain if the prusic on leg loop is still acceptable.

In reply to bpmclimb:

I've done SPA training and assessment at PyB last year, and before that done lots of MIA 'Mock Student' days with them, and they generally teach having the abseil device on a cowstail AND the prussic on a leg loop.

In reply to Ghastlyrabbitfat:

The one thing I dislike about the extended belay plate approach is that it is difficult to prevent it from catching when passing overhangs. I don't really have proper leg loops on my mountain harness so it's the only method available to me most of the time.

In reply to davidbeynon:

Knew there would be a catch , no system is perfect.

I cannot remember if I have ever even tried the extended method.

The leg loop way quite acceptable to me, if you are aware of its limitations.

In reply to steveb2006:

Sling larksfooted on belay loop. Belay device/HMS on half way point of sling made with overhand knot. Then use the rest as a safety line with a krab until you're ready to descend. Then doesn't really matter whether the prussick goes on central loop or leg loop, although I find the central loop means it's easier to control with either hand if you need to swap hands during the descent.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Libby Peters says that either leg loop or belay loop is possible but the prusik cannot touch, or be entangled with the abseil device. They warn it's possible when using a belay loop for the prusik to rub against the sling the abseil device is on with alarming results. I've found it fairly easy to lift a leg high enough so the leg loop prusik hits the bottom of the abseil device, so would, for a course, be able to demonstrate both, know limitations and advantages of each, and use a prusik on belay loop with an extended abseil device and the extra bit clipped to the rope I'm pulling. Because I'd want to get full marks to offset other bad habits I'm sure I have.

And I've got a course coming up, so thanks for helping me geek up!

In reply to bpmclimb:

I'm an SPA provider.

A Prusik on the leg loop is absolutely acceptable.

I tend to teach extending the belay plate, with a Prusik on the belay loop, because it's more versatile, but always talk about other methods too.

On assessment I just need to see something that works and is safe.

In addition to that I absolutely want to see people backing up the Prusik if they are letting go to get a nut out etc., by wrapping around the leg or tying a knot.

In reply to jezb1:

Hooray! Someone else advocates wrapping the rope around the leg to lock off.

A lot of my climbing partners treat me as though I am mental for doing that when I need to stop during an abseil.

In reply to bpmclimb:

A potential bit of mischief that has occurred involves a prusik attached to an adjustable leg loop, the karabiner snags the buckle, draws it open allowing the prusik to bump the belay plate and fail.

In reply to bpmclimb:

I second what Jez's says.

The crux of this for me is knowing the pros and cons of whichever system you use. And then making sure that you don't get into a situation, where you chosen system is the poor choice.

With all things SPA, if it's safe, then it's fine. I've never yet deferred or failed someone for being overly safe, but I have for deferred someone for taking too long to do something.

In reply to davidbeynon:


Just an idea, but have you tried extending, but extending not so far? i.e. just the length of a draw?

In reply to David Coley:
It's a bit of a balancing act really. Full length sling is clearly ridiculous. Getting the knot at around belly button level seems to be the shortest I can get away with if I have a short prusik. That's not too bad but I need to remember to get a hand up to push away before my feet disengage. The other option is to push away and drop but we all know how bad an idea that is with some anchors.

It's not a deal breaker but you need to consider it, and a direct connection to the belay loop is easier in that case.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Having the prusik on your leg loop is the best way IMO. There have been instances where the prusik failed when used on the belay loop because it touched the rope. Having your desender just over half way down a sling on an over hand then the end of the sling can be attached to your anchor while you check everything is in place then check again. Yes it is acceptable to wrap the rope around the waist and then your leg to lock off the rope. The idea of the prusik is to stop you hands free should anything happen. This is not the case until you final wrap the rope with the other method. So the Prusik is seen as safer and it progresses nicely onto multi pitch absails.

In reply to bpmclimb:

The important thing to remember is that most providers will be more than happy to see any display of competence and safe technique. As always, there are multiple methods - but as long as you're safe, it doesn't matter too much.

In reply to Mr Messy:
The leg wrap thing is to back up the Prusik should you be stopping on purpose, not a Prusik replacement, when getting a stuck nut out or perform a rescue for example.

There's pros and cons to every method, it's good to be aware of them (whether you're going for your SPA or climbing for fun).

In reply to bpmclimb:

Another SPA Provider echoing what Paul at work and Jezb1 have said.

In reply to bpmclimb:

I suggest any climber that thinks it is acceptable to clip their safety prussic (or other device of choice like a shunt) to their leg loop, heads out to their local crag, abseil down a rock face and then disengage the ATC (or whatever descending device they are using) and then extricate themselves from that predicament. Better yet simulate an alpine scenario and put a 15-20lb pack on your back and try the same exercise. If you don't want to waste your valuable crag time then next time you're in a traffic jam visualize a scenario of being half way down a multi-pitch descent, hanging all your weight off a leg loop... now imagine this as an accident where you're also unconscious.

The only place a prussic should be clipped to is the belay loop and to achieve that the descending device needs to be extended. The technique with a knotted 120cm sling is as good a technique as any.

The prussic clipped to a leg loop only works as long as you never actually have to rely on it - in which case why even bother? Get with the times and use an extended descender and attach your backup to the belay loop - end of story.

In reply to Wild Isle:

I was just about to wade in along very similar lines.

A leg-loop-clipped prusik will no doubt stop an unconscious abseiler from shooting off the end of the rope (assuming it doesn't touch the abseil device) but it's what happens next that's not so good. Rope creep through the abseil device means that sooner or later the person's weight is suspended by their leg loop. I've seen someone get into this scenario deliberately to see what happened and they were in some distress by the time the rest of us stopped laughing and got organised to go and extricate him. As Wild Isle suggests, go and try it. Better still, get your mate to try it while you watch.

Extending your belay device a sensible distance and clipping your prusik to the belay loop is a much better system if it actually has to do what it is there for.

In reply to bpmclimb:

People don't like to change their behaviour, even if there is good reason to do so. To make a decision to change is difficult and requires careful consideration; continuing with the previous course of action is very easy and very tempting if that particular decision has not in the past caused any problems.
Basically, you learned to use a prussic on a leg loop and were given good reasons for it at the time and have subsequently found it very effective so that is what you want to stick with. When people tell you about shortcomings of this approach and that another method is now considered correct and safer, you tend to reject this information and/or argue your way around it, e.g. "it's always worked for me", "I've never seen anyone come unstuck with it", "the new method has flaws too", etc. This is confirmation bias and it's an incredibly useful thing if you are a caveman living with 10 other cavemen trying to cooperate to survive but it is a bit of a shocker in our incredibly complex and fast-changing modern world.

Every time you read something or someone says to you or you that "you should do it this way instead", you must try very hard to keep an open mind and reach a logical conclusion with all the facts you are given rather than to rely on a gut feeling. It isn't easy.

For example, I used to use a double-fishermans for abseils and I argued my point on UKC against the alpine death knot for quite a long time, rationalising away the reasons against the fishermans ardently. I was suffering from confirmation bias; I now use the death knot (although I tie 2 rather than just one) but it took me a long time to admit it was superior.

The bottom line for the prussic location is that it is safer when placed on the belay loop with the belay plate extended and any awkwardness is using this new setup should not take long to overcome.

In reply to henwardian:

I agree completely with your points about confirmation bias, but you seem to be suggesting this is a case where there is a clear and unarguable advantage, as in your switching to the EDK. In reality, when considering prusiks, there are disadvantages too, and we much each decide what's most important to us before choosing which system to use in any or all occasions. I fully understand that leg-loop prusiks need more care to be used safely and, in rarely occurring situations, may have objective safety disadvantages.

I sometimes will not use a prusik at all, maybe for speed or convenience, just like sometimes I might not bother placing gear on easier ground if I judge it ok to do so. If I do use a prusik I will have one on a dedicated small krab with me at all times. It's extremely light and it pretty much never gets used for anything else. So when I'm tired or cold, I can go through the motions of abbing without thinking about what kit I might have on me to extend the plate. Of course, I could choose to always carry a dedicated extension sling, but the point is that I don't need to, and if I don't need to carry extra gear I prefer not to. By the same reasoning, I don't usually carry a prusik at all when single-pitch sport climbing. It's my choice and I wouldn't expect all other climbers to have the same priorities.

Confirmation bias is very real and we each should be alert to making decisions simply through inertia. But equally we should each be prepared to make decisions based on careful reasoning. In my case, enjoying climbing as uncluttered as possible, and being able to set up appropriately safe abseils as quickly and reliably as possible, trumps extra safety potential in what I see as extremely unlikely circumstances where my chosen system will have shortcomings.

Note also that I think the leg loop prusiks most people use are far too long. Mine is as short as I can get away with, to give sufficient turns around the rope and clip, with hardly any excess at all. The potential for interfering with the belay plate in that case is really very small.

In reply to henwardian:


Your post would have been fine if you confined yourself to a general case; i.e a discussion of psychological traps which a hypothetical climber could fall into . Unfortunately, you have made various erroneous assumptions about my history, mind-state and motivations, and leapt to some overly-hasty conclusions based on those assumptions. You go on to make up some quotes which I might have said; then, to cap it all, you come up with the above piece of advice. Exercising the open mind of which you speak, perhaps you yourself can see how patronising it is.

In reply to john arran:



That's pretty much where I am with prussic backups too, in much of my personal climbing. There are situations in which I'd back up to the harness loop though. There are other variations I use too; for example, double backup and/or double ropes when route cleaning (often shunt above and prussic below). Despite insinuations to the contrary, I do try to keep an open mind and stay prepared to review my safety procedures.

However, my OP was specifically to find out to what extent leg-loop prussics are currently discouraged by SPA providers: I've had some very useful replies, for which thanks.

In reply to Wild Isle:

Because it's wrapped on the dead rope it doesn't ever carry your whole weight, it carries only the small amount of force your hand would need to put onto the dead rope to lock the belay device off. That's precisely why the issue of it getting caught in the device exists.

If you mean the "rope creep" issue outlined above, this should not occur if it's set up properly.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Yep - agree completly with this - Ive spent a fair time hanging on abseil with a prusik on leg loop to sort a rope tangle or get stuck gear out - not had a problem. Also agree with John Arren - prusik loop should be as short as possible - I put 4 turns around the abb rope (using 4mm chord I think ) and just enough to clip back into a crab. Still the extended system also makes sense on a multi pitch descent

In reply to bpmclimb:


Ok, your exact quote was " despite its (well-publicised) potential limitations - of which I'm very aware.", which I assumed meant that you had read about and were aware of the disadvantages/dangers of the leg-loop approach. You specifically said that you still use this approach so you must have reasoned your way round these disadvantages/dangers. What part of this is erroneous?

Yes, fair point. It was late and I could have made more effort to word this in a less confrontational way.

I think I already covered the fact that I don't have an open mind with my abseil knot example though

In reply to bpmclimb:

No idea on the SPA side but I changed to the "Petzl Method" (extended device and prussic on belay loop) from the leg loop prussic method I was originally taught just because, having tried it, it made abesiling infinitely easier. It just seem to put me in a lot comfier position, I like the clip in option at the end of the extender, and the prussic seem to be in a nicer place to prevent it from getting in the way of my hand.

I'm even considering getting a dynaconnexion/petzl adjust....

In reply to Neil Williams:


He (she?) is saying but what if it is? For example if somehow your abseil device failed, not sure I can see how it would, but weird things happen. Then you would be hanging from one leg loop, or plummeting to your death I suppose!

I've mainly been using a mega jul in recent years and have found the auto-blocking abseil mode on that works very well at least on the the various ropes I've tried it with. If I'm trying to get some gear out I might still do a quick knot below, but it has never slipped and locks off in a way that feels very much life abbing on a grigri but of course you can use it on double ropes.

In reply to TobyA:


But if we start worrying about things which are vanishingly unlikely, we'd never leave the ground.

For me, prusik on a leg loop and belay device on my belay loop, unextended. Why? That's how I started, and having reassessed recently I came to the conclusion that I'd rather not faff about with extra gear. Much like Mr. Arran, I have two prusik loops on a dedicated krab at the back of my harness, and I always know they're there. When it comes to abbing off I don't have to find more kit or improvise with what I have to make a working system.

In reply to TobyA:


Seems a bit odd to base reasoning on avoiding a situation that to my knowledge has never occurred in the 50 or so years and countless millions of occasions that people have been using belay devices for abseiling. There's not even so much as a hypothetical failure mechanism. People simply don't use prusiks to guard against device failure, they use them to guard against human error in holding the rope, and in that role they can and do work extremely well both below and above the device.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Horses for courses IMO. I use the extended method with prussik into belay loop whenever possible and almost certainly on multiple abseils. It's just far more convenient but for a single abseil and if I did not have a long enough sling with me I would clip into the leg loop. I wouldn't carry the sling just for this purpose. One of the recent trends I dislike is this attempt to create a set of rules. I often run into climbers who know the rules but have lost the nous to improvise. Older climbers were always great improvisers and it's a skill that's being lost.

Al

In reply to john arran:

Todd Skinner belay loop fail scenario is the only one I could think of except for a story in the early 90s of someone's fig of 8 twisting open a krab (not locked presumably) and them falling off the rope. I think it might have happened at Malham, it was in one of the early climbing mags I bought - but yes, seems very unlikely.

I've never done prusiks on leg loops because I've always had in my head that legs loops aren't designed for that. I never had any training for climbing though, so never had an instructor tell me that was how to do it!

In reply to TobyA:


Good examples. The second presumably would have been saved by either method but far more comfortably with a belay loop prusik; the first would only have had any chance of salvation with a leg-loop prusik!

In reply to henwardian:


I wouldn't say "reasoned my way around", that makes it sound like an irrational process masquerading as reason. You seem rather locked into your 100% black-and-white, belay loop = good, leg loop = bad view, and it appears that, in order to maintain that notion, you have to assume that anyone preferring the leg loop method (for at least some abseil scenarios) must be suffering from some form of cognitive dissonance.

In reply to TobyA:

If we don't trust our abseil device (belay device) for abbing, we shouldn't be trusting it for belaying either where it's going to take much greater loads from lead falls without any backup at all. So if you think that's going to happen, get a new one!

Or if you're doing a very long ab where you think it may overheat, get a fig 8 descender or similar better designed to dissipate heat.

In any case a shock load onto a prussik has a fairly high chance of breaking it.

In reply to TobyA:

That one was more of an "inspect your gear properly and bin when it is knackered" story than any suggestion of backing it up. If your belay loop can't be trusted for an ab, it definitely can't be trusted to belay the leader (I recall in that story comments were made that he was using an old, worn harness). Bin it and get a new one, don't come up with esoteric[1] backup systems.

[1] I know extending the device isn't esoteric, but hopefully that doesn't detract from the point

In reply to TobyA:


Moving away from the main point of the discussion a bit here, but the fig of 8 can break out of even a correctly locked krab if you're not fairly careful with it:
http://theuiaa.org/documents/safety/Karabiner_Breakings_when_using_a_Figure...

In reply to GridNorth:


Couldn't agree more. Personally, I'm happy with my current mix of methods (usually short prussic on leg loop, but then I'm mostly climbing single pitch with uncomplicated abseils these days). My OP was motivated by wanting to give Clare some reliable information about abseils for her imminent SPA assessment.

In reply to TobyA:

When I got my mega jul the first thing I did was take it on a solo one dat Cuillin Ridge traverse... but the end of the abseils my thumb was more knackered than my legs! Mind you, I'm a bit larger than you I suspect.

In reply to bpmclimb:

I wonder what they would say about using a more esoteric device like the mega jul with a self locking mechanism? From what Jez and Al were saying above, it seemed that as long as you knew different options and pros and cons, it was all good.

In reply to TobyA:
I'd like to think that folk can use whatever method they chose as long as they can understand the reasons for using that method. The worst phrase I hear when I ask why they do it that particular way is "because that's what I was taught". To me, all that shows is a dissappointing lack of understanding of the principles. I can't think of any Instructor (MIA/MIC/GUIDE) I know who instruct with absolute rules that must never be broken.

Prusik above the belay device, prusik below the belay device, prusik clipped to leg loop, prusic clipped to abseil loop with an extended belay plate, plate extended with a dyneema sling or nylon sling or dynamic sling, plate extended with a custom built lanyard (Beal Dynaconnection, Petzl Dual Connect Adjust). All have their pros and cons and all have situations where they can be used as well as situations where there may be a better option..

In reply to john arran:


not true if the extender sling was threaded through the 2 parts of the harness it would have worked fine (assuming that didnt wear through - another topic)

im a horses for courses type of person

In reply to lithos:

Just realised that is what I do, I don't larks foot the belay loop I larks foot the tie in loops and once or twice I recall just passing a loop round the tie in loops and not larks footing. I don't like larks footing slings unless absolutely necessary.

Al

In reply to all: It's proving a fairly interesting discussion after all.

There are loads of situations in rock climbing where there are multiple options...

Sometimes they are both equally valid and the difference is clearly fairly trivial (e.g. clipping karabiners inwards or outwards on your harness, having crabs facing the same way or opposite on quickdraws) in other situations the differences are more substantial.

In many situations the standard "UK" way of doing something is objectively not the best way, but it's good enough and has the advantage of simplicity and being easy to remember. As such, there is no incentive or reason to change the status quo. For example, tying off an Italian hitch with half hitches is simpler than the US method of using a Mule knot and overhand but not really as neat and efficient. Equally, using a figure of eight hitch on the bight to attach to out of reach anchors without a karabiner is objectively a poor option compared to other knots like a buntline hitch on the bight, but it's worked absolutely fine for decades.

In a similar vein, in some situations UK instructors specifically choose to teach the simplest possible method. ML ropework now uses overhand knots where possible. For rigging, overhand knots and fig-of-8s are often used instead of alpine butterflies and bowlines.

Finally, there are situations where there are definite advantages and disadvantages to multiple different options. Abseil knots, prusik positions, rethreading sport lower-offs, tie-in knots, belay device choice and many, many others situations fall into this category. It is also completely obvious that many people's opinion on these sorts of issues is NOT objective. Sometimes it's due to ignorance, but it's more likely that confirmation bias plays a part, plus the fact that people are always surprisingly irrational.

Basically, in lots of debates the facts end up being pretty much irrelevant and like in any other vaguely contentious issue, strongly reasoned and forcefully put arguments are often counterproductive. Nobody likes being told that they are wrong, even when they might well be. As such, if something is reasonably workable there's not much to be gained from arguing over marginal differences. The SPA providers who've commented, all know this, hence the pragmatic approach.

However that doesn't detract from the fact that we could all do with being a bit more self-aware and reflective both as climbers and more generally. Is what we are doing actually the best option, or just what we have always done? Are we guilty of overestimating the advantages of our choices? Are we reacting emotionally rather than rationally to either implicit or explicit criticism?

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

That post got a 'Like' from me.

In reply to TobyA:

If its safe, appropriate to the desired goals and reasonably timely then its ok. However if it makes use of a particular specialist bit of kit I'll often want to examine a candidates ability to undertake common tasks with more commonly available climbing kit just for the day when they use someone else's kit or forget/drop their wonder toy.

In reply to Wild Isle:
The BMC - surely the font of all climbing knowledge - has a BMC TV video called How to belay and abseil, it uses a knot fastened to the leg loop, end of story?

In reply to baron:


No. I've been climbing for so long that I have absolute faith in my own judgement on these matters. That's not to say I'm unwilling to learn as that is exactly what I have been doing for over 50 years. It's called experience, not learning by rote

Al

In reply to baron:

The same BMC that does a "getting it right" belaying poster that has the plate the wrong way round? Not dangerous, but certainly cack handed.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Which sort of goes to the point of this thread - there's more than one way to do many things and as long as it's not dangerous it's usually a matter of personal preference.
For most single pitch abseils I don't use a Prussik at all and am yet to be convinced of the need for one, especially at SPA venues.
But I wouldn't expect an SPA assessor to pass me either.