|
Post by jimnelson on Mar 21, 2013 14:21:09 GMT -8
What is a good distance between climbers when roping up for glacier travel?
Reasons/situations for farther spacing?
Reasons/situations for closer spacing?
|
|
|
Post by gregggagliardi on Mar 22, 2013 9:41:35 GMT -8
Good topic.
Close spacing (45-50 feet apart on a 50-60m rope) 1. Improved vocal communication in poor weather especially 2. Efficiency of movement when the route meanders or zig zags 3. Easier to maintain steady pace and avoid rope slack or tugging on slower climbers 4. Preserves extra rope for crevasse rescue, especially two person teams 5. Easier to travel across non-snow sections of a route
Full spacing (no coils; 3-4 climbers on 50-60m rope) 1. Better for navigating around really large (long) crevasses on major glaciers 2. Better for setting-up belays on steeper routes 3. Fewer wands needed to mark the route in poor weather 4. Perhaps a bit more advance notice (time) to stop a fall 5. Softer falls (less impact on pro) over longer sections of rope
|
|
|
Post by jimnelson on Mar 23, 2013 12:30:07 GMT -8
I put some numbers to your spacing suggestions and added 40m rope and 5 climbers. This is without carrying coils (extra rope), with climbers tied to each end of the rope, and not carrying extra rope.
40m Rope, 3 climbers = 65' distance between climbers. 50m Rope, 3 climbers = 75' 60m Rope, 3 climbers = 95'
40m Rope, 4 climbers = 42' 50m Rope, 4 climbers = 50' 60m Rope, 4 climbers = 65'
40m Rope, 5 climbers = 30' 50m Rope, 5 climbers = 40' 60m Rope, 5 climbers = 45'
Great start on the reasons list Gregg. I would like to add “easier to maintain minimum slack between climbers” to reasons for shorter spacing. Similar to your #3.
For reduced visibility (white out conditions) I'm having a hard time deciding short or far spacing? Harder to navigate away from crevasses without visibility.
I am not suggesting any lengths here, only showing how the spacing works out when the end climbers are not carrying extra rope.
Note: I would only do this (tie into the end of the rope without carrying extra rope) if I was part of a multi rope team group. If I was a single rope team (or wanted to be more self sufficient from other teams) I would rope up with the end climbers carrying enough rope plus a little more to reach the next person on the rope. This extra rope is useful to reach an injured climber inside a crevasse should they require emergency first aid, setting up a raising system, and also for dealing with a rope that has cut into the snow at the crevasse edge.
|
|
|
Post by nickhunt on Mar 26, 2013 10:01:44 GMT -8
This is a great question Jim, and thanks for getting the list started Gregg! I'm usually an advocate for shorter spacing when the terrain permits and all of Gregg's items in the "pro close-spacing" list are dead-on in my opinion. The ones that really stick out to me are improved communication and ease of maintaining slack / steady pace. Just to put my bias in to context, I am usually roped up to 2-4 people who have no or very little experience in technical/glaciated terrain, so communication/coaching is critical for me.
I do want to push back on some of the full-spacing points, however.
2) Better for setting up belays on steeper routes
This is also true; having the longer interval would allow the leader to run ahead, build an anchor, then belay the follower(s). However, this same thing could be done with the leader with kiwi-coils and a shorter interval. While travelling on the less steep/technical terrain, the intervals could be kept shorter to maximize communication, and when a technical/steep pitch arrives, the leader can drop the coils and be belayed by the second as they climb the pitch, build an anchor, and belay the others. After the pitch, the leader would re-wrap the coils and continue as before.
4/5) More time to stop a fall; softer falls
I don't like this argument mostly because I do not trust the clients I usually climb with to be able to execute a good self-arrest. With longer intervals, proper slack is much more difficult to maintain. With longer intervals, I usually see folks with massive amounts of slack on the ground, or carried loosely in a hand. This means if that person tosses down slope, they are going to get some serious speed before the team can effect an arrest. The additional speed will make it harder to stop the fall. With a shorter interval, coaching may prevent a fall in the first place, but if one does occur, there won't be much slack to allow much speed to creep in, potentially making the arrest easier for the team. You do need to be quicker, though.
|
|
|
Post by gregggagliardi on Mar 26, 2013 10:49:21 GMT -8
I think that we are now grappling with some of the most difficult judgement calls when traveling roped up on glaciers. There is no one solution to cover all exigencies. We have only rough guidelines but these serve a purpose; they encourage careful thought about what to do and when. Jim's conundrum about short versus long spacing when traveling in poor weather is a good example. I suspect that there is no single recommendation that can be made. Indeed, the decision may hinge on other factors. Is the team carrying on to the summit, on the way down or bailing? How were and how many wands were placed? Were they marked with GPS way points? Was the team closely spaced or more widely spaced when the wands were placed? Was it even possible to get a reliable GPS signal? What about the experience and condition of the team? Also, is there more than one team on the glacier? Is it a popular route with well known hazards and a well beaten footpath?
As Nick points out, one advantage of carrying coils is the ability to adaptively regulate the spacing between climbers; short when it needs to be, longer when this a better way to travel. And of course this can and often does change over the course of a route.
Jim's question about spacing during poor weather would make a great discussion topic for climb leadership seminars and also a thoughtful question for readers of Freedom 9 to consider.
|
|
|
Post by jimnelson on Mar 26, 2013 13:23:57 GMT -8
Nick, what is your interpretation of shorter spacing?
Gregg suggested 45'-50' being short spacing, but for me 45'-50' is fairly far spacing.
|
|
|
Post by nickhunt on Mar 26, 2013 13:29:04 GMT -8
Hey Jim, I agree. When I say shorter spacing, I'm usually referring to 25-30' between climbers.
|
|
|
Post by jasonmartin on May 19, 2013 7:05:01 GMT -8
My thought is that spacing should be determined by the glacier that you are traveling on. In Alaska, I'm far more likely to use the entire rope with no coils because the crevasses are so big. I don't want two people on the same snow bridge. However, in the Cascades, I tend to have shorter distances between individuals and coils...
On the subject of coils, there are two ways that one might elect to carry them, Kiwi style or mountaineers style. If people do elect to carry coils Kiwi style and have a member of their team suffer a crevasse fall the individual should be very careful when it comes to taking the coils out for the rescue. This is especially important if there is no hard knot between the coils and a friction hitch that will be used for a ratchet. The fear being that if the hitch slips while an individual is undoing the coils, he could get strangled...
|
|