|
Post by Tony Tsuboi on Oct 1, 2013 14:30:19 GMT -8
The Basic course teaches ETO and escaping the belay, but to my knowledge, all branches end it there. That leaves the question, then what? I’m not sure about the other branches, but Everett ends this sequence with the fallen leader hanging on a loaded Mariner knot tied back to the anchor. Myself, I’m not crazy about this. I’ve seen a few instructors (who haven’t advanced to the Intermediate program and didn’t know any better) go on to demo climbing back into the system.
I think we could solve this problem by finishing the sequence and transitioning the load back to the rope tied off to the anchor with the Munter Mule. This would allow the second to lower the fallen leader, assuming there’s enough rope. Whatever the case, the climbing rope tied off with the Munter Mule better ending to what we currently teach in the Basic course.
|
|
|
Post by gregggagliardi on Oct 2, 2013 10:04:15 GMT -8
I wholeheartedly agree. Escaping the belay is only the beginning of a rescue and it is often not the preferred first step; the preferred first step is lowering the leader, if it is safe and if less than half the rope is out.
Once the leader is tied off the rescue clock begins ticking, and ticking very loudly if the leader is hanging unconscious, or nearly so, in their harness.
We do not teach basic climbers to take the rescue further than tying off the leader. For that reason leaders need to adopt the old climbing adage that "the leader must not fall". If we cannot live up to that adage then we need to teach basics what to do after they tie off the leader. Freedom 9 needs to present the whole scenario from belay escape to leader tie off to decision making about subsequent rescue alternatives. A decision tree or flow chart would be a good way to do this.
Rescue, like safety, is an implicit part of every technique taught in climbing. Both need to be integrated with technical procedures throughout Freedom 9, not relegated just to individual chapters.
|
|
|
Post by jimnelson on Oct 12, 2013 13:35:53 GMT -8
For 5th class rock climbing especially multi-pitch alpine rock climbing, I think it's good to learn a good belay escape method. The Basic Alpine Course also includes snow travel, glacier travel, and more. I feel like we are tying to teach too much in the basic course. By tying to include so much, are we doing a poor job learning important fundamentals?
Before tackling multi-pitch rock climbing, I feel like we should spend more time on belay. Belaying a second and top-rope belays, and then belaying a leader. Improving movement, comfort level, rope handling, etc. before attempting 5th class rock climbing.
Not including multi-pitch alpine rock climbing in the basic course would allow more time for snow travel, glacier travel, belays, rappel, movement, terrain, hazards, etc.
|
|
|
Post by gregggagliardi on Oct 14, 2013 9:34:48 GMT -8
Jim: I think the good points that you made are more reasons to teach climbing skills in a modular format. I have been proposing this at Tacoma for a couple of years now: Rock module: basic (follower/top roper skills, Intermediated (rope lead, multi-pitch skills), trip leader (advanced rock skills) Glacier module: basic (rope team member skills), intermediate (rope lead skills), trip leader skills (advanced glacier skills) Ice module: basic (follower/top roper skills), intermediate (leading on ice), advanced (leading hard ice, mixed routes, longer multi-pitch ice/mixed routes) Some modules follow a natural progression, e.g., Rock: gym climbing (belaying and movement skills, learning to lead, learning to belay a leader), sport climbing (transition to real rock, easy pro placement and cleaning, easy anchor building and cleaning, rappelling), crag/trad (complex anchor building, complex pro placement, route finding, safety [rockfall, rescue, weather], go-no go decision making, etc.), special techniques [aid]. Although we don't train our students (or instructors) to become guides, the programatic training/certification structure of the AMGA is well thought out and worth emulating with some adaption specific to the Mountaineers. See flowchart below: klingmountainguides.com/kmg-blog/?attachment_id=685
|
|
|
Post by dougsanders on Oct 15, 2013 7:09:43 GMT -8
Is there evidence to support teaching Escaping the Belay (ETB) at all at the Basic level?
The F8 Alpine Rescue chapter committee included 4 members from mountain rescue teams who represented decades of experience, at least 3 who taught small party rescue. Collectively, we could not recall a single instance where a Basic Climber had needed to ETO/ETB a hanging climber.
If someone could find examples where history or experience justifies ETB, at the Basic level, these would be invaluable to any discussion on expanding ETB training.
With an injured hanging climber, the preferred action, which is intuitive and suffices for virtually all falls, is to lower the climber to where they are no longer hanging. On basic climbs, with generally shorter/less steep pitches and the longer ropes of today, it would be unusual to have a pitch where this could not be done.
It is also worth pointing out that something else is very much amiss for a rope-lead to fall on a Basic climb. (If one ever did have to transfer the load back to a tensioned device, the prusik can be cut with a knife; there is no shock loading but rather some stretch which is dampened by edge/pro system friction.)
There is a far greater return on time/training spent on PREVENTING accidents than time spent after the accident -rescue, understanding weather for example.
Therefore, I believe the Basic Climbing Course needs to keep Escaping the Belay (ETB) as simple as possible using the least amount of teaching/learning time. This should help prolong retention time; keeping in mind most Basic students do not continue to advanced courses and are unlikely to remain proficient in tension release hitches, including the munter-mule.
I think Seattle (and Boealps) have it right. ETB is a prusik back to anchor, no tension release hitch.
The change I would suggest would be for the prusik (or prusik/sling) to be attached to a Figure 8 knot formed on the slack side of the belayer's clove hitch to the anchor power point. The current practice, in Everett anyway, ties the prusik/sling through the anchor's power point, which requires the belayer to be within arm's reach of the power point, sometimes wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by gregggagliardi on Oct 15, 2013 8:13:12 GMT -8
Great points. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...Better not to teach the belay escape, or if teaching it, then teach it completely in the context of real rescue.
Basic students require only a minimum of technical skills to get out climbing, which is what they want to do. No point in teaching anything they won't actually be able to do when the time calls for it. Better to make sure that they are climbing with experienced climbers who know what to do.
The same point may apply to crevasse rescue also. How many basic students have had to perform on a glacier climb an unassisted crevasse rescue using a Z-pulley system. How many could perform it if they really had to? I expect them to be able to arrest a fall, but I don't expect them to be able to pull me out of crevasse or to rescue me from a serious leader fall. I expect my more experienced teammates to perform those kinds of technical rescues.
Perhaps it would be better to require higher levels of training for rope leaders and to adhere even more strictly to climbing with multiple rope teams and, most importantly, keeping rope teams within easy communication on rock climbs and glacier climbs.
|
|