|
Post by gregggagliardi on Oct 17, 2013 13:25:26 GMT -8
One of the most difficult and anxiety provoking parts of basic student training is crevasse rescue with the Z pulley system. I would hazard a guess that it is one of the most frequently (if not most frequently) failed skills that prevent basic students from going on basic glacier climbs or passing the basic course.
It is also a perishable skill that many students forget soon after they learn it. Indeed most intermediates need to practice it again to pass entrance into the intermediate climbing program. It is even not uncommon to find climb leaders who are rusty on this skill or nearly forgotten how to perform it.
What is the point of teaching a skill that is not learned well enough to rely upon in the field when it is truly required? It seems to me that we either ought to teach crevasse rescue to such an over-learned (automatic) level of proficiency, or not teach it at all to basic students.
Falls into crevasses, and especially long dangerous falls into crevasses, are fortunately quite rare. If climb leaders plan basic glacier climbs that adhere to our climbing code, basic students should never have to perform a crevasse rescue. Two three-person rope teams on a glacier, climbing within communication with one another, with a competent rope leader on each team insures that at least one skilled person will be available to organize and carry out a crevasse rescue. In this scenario basic students need only to be able to do the following:
1. Arrest the fall into the crevasse 2. Tie off the rope to an anchor 3. Contribute any needed rescue gear (pulleys, biners, prussiks, etc,) to the effort 4. Follow the site commander's (rescue leader's) orders
An advantage of "lowering" the bar on crevasse rescue for basic students is that:
1. It doesn't fool anyone into believing that students will be able to rescue a leader from a serious crevasse fall 2. It allows more basic students to get out climbing sooner, which is why they took the course in the first place. This promotes retention in the club. 2. It requires rope leaders and climb leaders to be uber proficient in crevasse rescue (perhaps we need a yearly or bi-yearly recertification process to insure skill possession)
|
|
|
Post by jimnelson on Oct 20, 2013 19:14:04 GMT -8
Great question Gregg. Certainly not is my opinion. How much, and what to teach are worth examining.
The way it is currently taught leaves out some important ideas. The focus is on establishing an anchor, and then building a 3:1 raising system without looking at the bigger picture. Some ideas we might be over looking include 1) checking on the victim(do they need emergency first aid?), 2) significance of crevasse lip, 3) single rope team vs multi rope teams.
What we currently teach is all good stuff (rope ascending, snow anchors, z pulley), and are a good start for climbing teams of multi rope team teams with an experienced leader/guide. Unfortunately I don't think we build on this in the Intermediate Course. Once you pass the Basic Crevasse Rescue test you are pretty much considered leader ready as far as your crevasse rescue knowledge.
I like your idea of teaching a simple drop loop system (2:1) rather that the z pulley (3:1) for the Basic Course. Understanding a 2:1 raising system is a great tool for building systems, and I like that it encourages some crevasse lip discussion and awareness.
Rope ascending (prussik), anchors, checking on victim and some understanding of importance of having a way to quickly reach a victim who may require emergency first aid, and a 2:1 drop loop raising system might be enough for basic; and then ideally Intermediate would add a crevasse rescue component to continue the training beyond basic.
I like the idea of lowering the bar at basic, as long as Intermediate added a CR component to build the knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by dougsanders on Oct 21, 2013 7:26:25 GMT -8
As a comparison, the Everett Basic Course introduces the 3:1 on their first weekend snow outing. They observe a demo and have a short practice. By 3:1 I mean the complete crevasse rescue system beginning with the arrest. They learn it as a 3-person rope team rescue system, independent of any other team, where one end of the of the team falls into a crevasse.
This is followed by a classroom lecture where the 3:1 is taught in detail.
At their 2nd snow weekend each student sets up and operates the 3:1 at a crevasse on the Easton Glacier. They also observe others setting up 3:1's. They participate in setting up a 2:1. On the second day they practice 3:1's while traveling on a snowfield roped up. By the end of that weekend, the students have a realistic feel for glacier/volcano climbing.
During their final exam each student must demonstrate a complete 3:1 while being timed.
Given this, I think each student is proficient before they begin their experience climbs. Am not aware of students failing to learn the 3:1 or failing to graduate because of 3:1 problems.
Each January the 3:1 is reviewed by those who will help instruct at the Basic Level.
My anecdotal recollection of crevasse SAR missions is that, in common, the victims don't have 3:1 experience or skills. For example, a non-Mountaineer party was practicing the 3:1 on Ruth Mountain last year when their anchors failed sending the entire party into a crevasse. Two needed to be evacuated by helicopter due to their injures.
If the Basic Course crevasse rescue training is simplified, keep in mind:
The rope lead could be in front route finding, and thus, most likely to be the one who falls into a crevasse. If the Basic experience climbers do not know crevasse extrication then there may only be one person, the other rope lead, to organize, set-up and execute the 3:1. This could only begin after this rope lead had anchored and secured, or somehow 'safed' the second team and set up a belay. Only then could that rope lead set-up the 3:1. This is a lot for one person to organize and pull off.
With the other outdoor organizations, Boealps, WAC, etc. teaching 3:1 at the Basic Level, our Basic graduates would not be meeting the local standard and would not be qualified to be on non-Mountaineer glacier climbs.
I am not sure how long The Mountaineers have been successfully teaching the 3:1 but it goes back many decades.
The 3:1 is the underpinning of small party rescue raising systems. When mastered as a Basic climber it is a much smaller step to learn other raising systems than to have to learn all of it from scratch. For example, 9:1 and 5:1 are straightforward variants of the 3:1.
|
|
|
Post by gregggagliardi on Oct 21, 2013 10:24:54 GMT -8
The real test is what a student can do in the field when called upon to do it. Most basic students pass crevasse rescue and at least for a short while they can demonstrate the skill under fairly ideal conditions. Most are not even tested with a real crevasse. If they have to use it in the field it will likely be under far less than ideal conditions. The rope will entrench in the lip, the weather will be lousy, the team will be tired, they will be anxious if not down right terrified, no one on the team will have practiced crevasse rescue for months or years.
If we took a random sample of basic students who passed crevasse rescue in 2012 how many could pass today, without advance notice that they were going to be tested?
There are a limited number of ways to assure safety on a glacier. Requiring everyone to have mastered crevasse rescue is an unrealistic ideal. While most of us would only attempt a technical glacier climb with other experienced climbers, that standard is unrealistically high for basic students. Indeed, the only way that they are going to acquire real proficiency and safety in climbing glaciers is to get out there and do it. For quite some time they are going to be relatively inexperienced, junior members of climbing teams. That's why we take them on relatively easy glaciers in multiple rope teams led by more experienced climbers, organized by an experienced climb leader.
By all means let's continue demonstrating and teaching crevasse rescue to basic students. But lets not assume that they can perform it in the field, and lets not keep an otherwise eager, hard working student off glacier climbs because they failed crevasse rescue at a field trip due to repeatedly making minor mistakes in a complex procedure. There are other glacier travel skills that are more important for them to have mastered before going on glacier climbs. (see original post).
On the other hand it is critical that rope leaders and climb leaders have mastered crevasse rescue. This means more than the ability to perform the current 2:1 and 3:1 procedures that we teach. They need to be able to creatively problem solve their way to handling crevasse rescue problems using less than ideal gear under less than ideal situations. In another related post (Canadian Drop Loop) guide Jason Martin made the point that the way that crevasse rescue is usually taught is by rote learning of a procedure. This may be a reasonable starting point but its not enough to be able to solve the many sorts of problems that we may encounter on a glacier climb. This is best taught using problem scenarios.
In thinking about how we teach and how we climb I find myself parsing responsibilities into rope "follower skills" and "leader skills". Follower skills are those skills necessary to safely follow a rope leader. Leader skills are all those additional skills necessary to safely lead a follower. In my opinion crevasse rescue is a more a leader skill than a follower skill; ditto rescuing a rock leader. We need to be guided by a careful consideration of what skills we can realistically expect from a basic follower and make sure that they have this minimal skill set wired. We also need to make sure that we climb in multiple rope teams to assure that there will always be at least one person who can safely handle a problem situation.
|
|
|
Post by jimnelson on Oct 22, 2013 9:59:41 GMT -8
It looks like Everett spends a lot more time on crevasse rescue than Seattle. They teach and test it on a glacier, while Seattle does not.
In Seattle you may get as much CR time as Everett, but my guess is that is a pretty rare occurrence. Passing the test as per the video at Magnusson is the minimum requirement I think. Also keep in mind, nothing additional at Intermediate. Speaking for myself, our sig struggles to teach everything; rock, snow, and glacier skills.
I wonder if two basic courses could work? Basic Mountaineering GLACIER, and Basic Mountaineering, ROCK. or another type of modular system as Gregg has suggested.
|
|