Has anyone climbed with two lines and that’s saved there bacon

[Newtons]

So two rope climbing now has been out for a while. I personally only climb with two ropes on big trees, 20 meters plus. 
my question is has anyone actually climbed with two ropes and cut through one or had one of there anchors fail ?? 

[jose]

the silence is deafening

[John Shutler]

10 hours ago, Newtons said:

So two rope climbing now has been out for a while. I personally only climb with two ropes on big trees, 20 meters plus. 
my question is has anyone actually climbed with two ropes and cut through one or had one of there anchors fail ?? 

im not sure even if someone had cut through their second they would announce it on the internet

[5thelement]

I’ve not heard of any yet, but people would be reluctant to admit they cut through a rope on an Internet forum surely?

I have heard of many incidences where climbers where injured falling from height when another rope would have prevented it though.

Hence we are now in this position.

[carlos]

the recent recall on a failed dmm swivel made me wonder about the merit in a second mainline!! 

[Bolt]

I don’t know about cutting through your ropes (as others have hinted - that’s not exactly something that you may want to disclose due to professional pride) but IME the consequence of the recent ‘revision’ to climbing practice is probably going to affect anchor selection.

 

I have had precious few anchor points fail on one system…. and only one that failed completely (climbing on a squirrel damaged beech whilst scrabbling on LV line clearance).

 

I started using two anchors systematically on SSE work back in 2015.  SSE managers were very fierce about it.

 

What I found was that if you have to have two anchors, after a while, one is your main anchor and carefully selected, whilst the other is a bit more pushing-the-envelope-ish…. and as such, is far more likely to fail or rip out (the mindset is that it doesn’t really matter if it does as you are still protected by your main).

 

The result of this is that it conditions the climber to ‘normalise’ the use of crappy anchors.

 

The conclusion over time is that as you are used to it, both anchors may be pretty crap.

[AHPP]

1 hour ago, carlos said:

the recent recall on a failed dmm swivel made me wonder about the merit in a second mainline!! 

 

There is some seriously dodgy gear around at the moment. I've always been suspicious of swivels and now have more foundation than ever to be. The Petzl Eject is just a ridiculous deathtrap, the only piece of gear I can think of that I wouldn't allow someone in my care to use. And I'm currently in the process of finding the cretin in Germany who put the on/off switch on the 220T so that it can be programmed out and he be flogged.

[AHPP]

23 minutes ago, Bolt said:

 

What I found was that if you have to have two anchors, after a while, one is your main anchor and carefully selected, whilst the other is a bit more pushing-the-envelope-ish…. and as such, is far more likely to fail or rip out (the mindset is that it doesn’t really matter if it does as you are still protected by your main).

 

The result of this is that it conditions the climber to ‘normalise’ the use of crappy anchors.

 

The conclusion over time is that as you are used to it, both anchors may be pretty crap.

 

I'm undecided on this. I always make my main anchor bomber and then give myself a lot more latitude on any subsequent ones. I certainly don't compromise on the main one if I'm already planning a second one but then I do force myself to be very present and deliberate building the main to avoid exactly the sort of thing you describe. There will be people like me but also aware there will be people who aren't. Lower or lowest common denominator planning is a different issue.

[Bolt]

2 minutes ago, AHPP said:

 

I'm undecided on this. I always make my main anchor bomber and then give myself a lot more latitude on any subsequent ones. I certainly don't compromise on the main one if I'm already planning a second one but then I do force myself to be very present and deliberate building the main to avoid exactly the sort of thing you describe. There will be people like me but also aware there will be people who aren't. Lower or lowest common denominator planning is a different issue.

As with all ‘slippage’ though, it’s happens slowly and over time.

 

To coin a book title on the subject, you ‘drift into failure’.

 

Drift into Failure: From Hunting Broken Components to Understanding Complex Systems by Sidney Dekker

WWW.GOODREADS.COM

---

Drift into Failure book. Read 32 reviews from the world's largest community for readers. What does...

 

 

[Bolt]

Just now, Bolt said:

 

 

To coin a book title on the subject, you ‘drift into failure’

 

Whereupon you plummet.