Back up your ascenders

[Laz]

I think this is relevant to the discussion:

 

"The advantages of rope access and similar work systems do not derive from the equipment

employed alone. The motive force for the system is provided by the operative. The worker and

his/her equipment combine to form a machine. This machine only functions as well as the sum

of its parts. The ropes and devices are essentially passive, the dynamic element is provided by

the worker’s strength and skills. The worker is required to have the intelligence, as well as the

strength, to work in this way. It follows that this method of working requires rigorous training,

practice and assessment before the equipment investigated can be used effectively and safely."

 

HSE contract research report CRR 364/2001.

 

It is clear from the photos, that the climber took pride in having the latest and greatest equipment - including a safety knife and first aid kit (that looks to have been the main reason the spikes were deflected from the spine). Yet the way in which the system was put together was inappropriate.

 

I see this often in industry, not unusually at instructor/assessor/competitor/supervisor/employer level.

 

Probably because those roles can easily be achieved without the requirement to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the fundamentals involved in planning safe climbing and rigging systems.

 

After all, this technique is clearly shown in the GTGCP. The question should be 'Why', when the risks were known? Who is responsible? Can we trust the integrity of the next guide?

 

[Bundle 2]

Exactly.

.The technique is not 'Double Rope Technique' (DRT) as stated. It is still a single line, but doubled.

 

DdRT.....

Cant see the point of your query . Its contextual enough I think.

[Tom Dunlap]

Like many accidents, the climber will climb again. I'm so glad to hear this.

 

Like many accidents, there were many individual actions that combined in the right [wrong???] way which lead to injury.

 

When I look at accidents/near misses I try to find the one or two things that could have been changed to eliminate the accident.

 

Without knowing more about the fall than what is written I can see what I would do. If DdRT is going to be used without a second attachment point STOP USING KONGS and use a Rescuecender. The RC won't allow the rope to pop out of the shell. This is the ONE thing that I would change to get rid of the fall risk. Take a look at the picture. This is how I used two Microcenders in an SRT system. Substitute Rescuecenders for a better system. An even better configuration of this system would have the webbing tether attached directly to the harness using a second carabiner.

 

This same accident has been reported for years. Why do people still insist on using those ascenders?

 

There is lots of talk about backup attachments. I'd rather look at this in a different way. If a practice requires a backup then it is saying that the two pieces are really one and should never be used alone. Belt and braces thinking. In some circumstances this is sure a great concept.

 

A different concept is two attachment points. Redundancy has merit and is an accepted practice in risk management. Conceptually these are two different things though.

 

This climber was never taught, or ignored, the system's limitation of making sure that ONLY vertical movement be attempted. Clipping the top holes on the ascenders is problematic but not too difficult. Using a hitch pin of some sort has merit.

 

If I was given a second change I'd reconfigure the whole ascent system and have climbers use a Frog Walker/Tree Frog ascent system. Adding a chest ascender is redundancy not backup. Both the handled or upper ascender and chest ascender work independently.

 

On harnesses that don't adapt real well to chest ascenders I've seen climbers use Microcenders on their bridge just like the lower ascender in my former setup. Another possibility is to use a friction hitch on the bridge with a slack tender. In a pinch this could be used for a descent. There are huge friction issues when descending SRT on a hitch though.

 

Using the upper ascenders to push up a 'backup' hitch is not a great solution. Since both attachments are so close to each other all it would take is one rogue twig, branch or bump and both attachments could fail. Again, a different, and better IMO is so easy. Separate the two attachments.

 

Tom

[NickJC]

We have been using Kong ascenders which my line came out of some time back and I fell only 5 ft, thank fully. I questioned Fujikura about their application and they got out the Lyon use guide to show me. We were using them correctly. Earlier this year one of my climbers got them out and his line nearly popped out, he noticed 20 ft up and luckily side stropped him self to a limb just in time. We will never use them again - not recommended........

[Amelanchier]

I drilled a hole through mine to cram a 'R' clip behind the cams. For me it was a trade off between safe use and structural integrity. They sit at the bottom of the bag these days anyway...

 

 

Not that I'm recommending people drill holes in their gear

[Trav013]

They sit at the bottom of the bag these days anyway...

 

 

Mine too, any one want to buy them???

[Laz]

We have been using Kong ascenders which my line came out of some time back and I fell only 5 ft, thank fully. I questioned Fujikura about their application and they got out the Lyon use guide to show me. We were using them correctly. Earlier this year one of my climbers got them out and his line nearly popped out, he noticed 20 ft up and luckily side stropped him self to a limb just in time. We will never use them again - not recommended........

 

In the Kong instructions, reference is made to a drawing of both ends of the rope secured to the trunk. Obviously, enough slack needs to be left in the line to footlock. This would mean a big runout and stop if a cam comes off. But that is what they recommend. Depending on the type of rope used, fall arrest forces could apply. A little krab in the hole under the cams is recommended to retain the rope also. Though I have seen this not to be effective.

 

They don't recommend prusiks as back-up, or anything else.

 

A properly applied Frog system is a safer alternative from my risk assessment.

 

But I appreciate not many understand how to run such a system safely. Training is available though.

[vduben]

my stomach turned when i saw that harness!!! i would of thought metal railings would of cut a man in half even with a harness on from 50ft!!!!

im glad hes back climbing!

[Mesterh]

Nasty accident that! Thank god he's still alive.

 

Prussik loop and a properly tied bowline (with a figure of eight of course ) has got to be the safest system to use, simple, cheap and takes alot of abuse.

The more silly gadgets people have the more chance there is of either faliure or wrongfull use imo.

I allways hate working above metal spiked fences:thumbdown: Allthough I would have thought that a 50foot drop on to that would have broken his back!