thehungrytroglobite
Well-known member
Unfortunately courses like this are often inaccessible to students because of the cost but perhaps this is something that CHECC could look into
Simpson Chains
- Thread starter Ian Ball
- Start date
Standard Unit of Tom
Active member
No, as a south wales caver/club don't maybe pay as much attention as I should to northern stuff cause I'm not there all that often... which is why I think it should maybe be done through checc, cause also even if I know about CNCC training doesn't mean I can feasibly make it
Steve Clark
Well-known member
I appreciate it can be difficult for students (and many other folks), but it was only £25.
2:1 CIC instructor ratio on our course. Morning spent in Storrs Quarry and an afternoon trip down Heron Pot.
It could easily be replicated by competent cavers in their own clubs.
Steve Clark
Well-known member
This may be obvious, but you can partially solve this by having your mate at the bottom of the pitch hold the pull-down rope off to one side and the abseiler clip a cowstail into it. If it's freehanging, this stops the abseiler spinning round and round twisting the rope and you can also use it as a bit of a tyrolean to guide them out of the waterfall and pool at the bottom of the pitch.
You then each have one end of the rope in your hand with no twists.
HeathJ
New member
I'm aware this is wandering off topic, but I do think cavers could benefit massively from looking at canyoning pull-through techniques. Certainly the more technical rope length setting stuff is somewhat irrelevant, but the more standard methods may offer perspective and inspiration for solving problems like the previously mentioned situation of certain knots being too small to block a ring.
This is a great free resource, supported by videos
hownot2.com
As for linking pre-existing bolts with a chain, I've experienced a lot of chain linked anchors in canyons in Europe and have always found them more conducive to both safe rigging and reliable rope retrieval, than unlinked anchors.
This is a great free resource, supported by videos
Canyon Rope Systems
hownot2.com
As for linking pre-existing bolts with a chain, I've experienced a lot of chain linked anchors in canyons in Europe and have always found them more conducive to both safe rigging and reliable rope retrieval, than unlinked anchors.
I thought there were only 2 points under consideration for chains, it's just that one of them requires two lengths, whilst the other only needs one...
I'm pretty sure that the tat is left because they have had a bad experience there, or heard of one, that they wish to avoid emulating.
I'm pretty sure that the tat is left because they have had a bad experience there, or heard of one, that they wish to avoid emulating.
thehungrytroglobite
Well-known member
Oh that's a really good deal then. I expected it to be a lot more than £25
Are you talking about CNCC workshops? They are open to everyone!
Thanks for sharing this document, which I assume is a current part of the BCA CIC training, and therefore a part of the training to CNCC workshops??
The document is very clear that for CICs it is preferable to equalise anchors to one pull-through master point. With this document in the background, I can see how CICs have very little choice but to recommend equalised pull-through anchors. This certainly puts into context the positions of - for example - Ian Patrick CIC as recommend-er of the equalised chains, and of Pete Knight CIC, who he consulted.
It also makes the CNCC's position unenviable. We are a self-governed body with no requirement to follow the BCA CIC requirements, but we subsidise (pay for) CIC-delivered training organised by a CIC officer. How do we resolve that? And if we choose to not install the fixed equipment, CICs are encouraged to leave equipment behind.
Do non-CICs in the Dales leave themselves exposed if not teaching or leading trips this way. And by extension, why single out these pitches and hangs. What of the other pitches of Simspon, Swinsto and Turbary. But what also of Pool Sink, or Lancs>Wretched, or Lost Johns. Food for thought.
NB 1) I am not involved in the CIC system so if anyone cares to correct these statements post please do
2) this is not a post about 'commercial' money-making cavers. This is about how the national instructor scheme relates to the decisions of the CNCC. As far as I know, anyone can be a CIC and does not need to be a commercial caver.
Last edited:
Sports climbers and canyoneers do far more pull throughs than cavers and it is widely recognised as best practice in both disciplines.
These pitches are singled out because ropes are regularly left on them, either purposely as rigging, or accidentally by failing to pull down.
These pitches are singled out because ropes are regularly left on them, either purposely as rigging, or accidentally by failing to pull down.
Steve Clark
Well-known member
(I am not a cave instructor of any kind)
My experience of the CNCC pull through workshop was a very practical discussion, demo and practice of how to safely do pull through as a group of recreational, moderately experienced cavers.
We were made aware of the document’s existence, but we weren’t being taught how to lead novices in caves etc.
it was over two years ago and emphasis may have changed, but I came away with the concept that resin bolts in the dales, checked for load direction, damage, rotation and anything wrong with the rock are 9/10 full strength anchors. Use of two for the very unlikely redundancy of one were to fail.
The linking of anchors was more for getting the pitch rope in the right place and a smooth pull.
We also covered some ‘real world’ stuff like pull down from a scaffold bar and the fact that some short pitches effectively only have one useable bolt for a pull through. It’s recreational caving at the end of the day. Solo climbing down old, shored shafts is a totally different risk profile to using two unequalised 30kN bolts. Or one bolt down a 4m pitch. Most cavers would be happy to do any of this every week.
My experience of the CNCC pull through workshop was a very practical discussion, demo and practice of how to safely do pull through as a group of recreational, moderately experienced cavers.
We were made aware of the document’s existence, but we weren’t being taught how to lead novices in caves etc.
it was over two years ago and emphasis may have changed, but I came away with the concept that resin bolts in the dales, checked for load direction, damage, rotation and anything wrong with the rock are 9/10 full strength anchors. Use of two for the very unlikely redundancy of one were to fail.
The linking of anchors was more for getting the pitch rope in the right place and a smooth pull.
We also covered some ‘real world’ stuff like pull down from a scaffold bar and the fact that some short pitches effectively only have one useable bolt for a pull through. It’s recreational caving at the end of the day. Solo climbing down old, shored shafts is a totally different risk profile to using two unequalised 30kN bolts. Or one bolt down a 4m pitch. Most cavers would be happy to do any of this every week.
I would hope that CICs would reuse their previous rigging or remove and replace, so unlikely to be responsible for proliferation, anyway I don't believe many are running those sorts of trips (there isn't a huge demand). Diggers leave far more stuff that is likely to affect the cave itself
As recreational cavers we can do stuff pretty much as we please, whilst those leading "novices", whether "professional" or not, have a whole different level of duty of care (making decisions for yourself Vs making them for others)
As recreational cavers we can do stuff pretty much as we please, whilst those leading "novices", whether "professional" or not, have a whole different level of duty of care (making decisions for yourself Vs making them for others)
The guidance suggests safe ways to do a pull through, which is what I'd expect from BCA. It includes using bolts with just maillons, as well as Y hangs, and then (as I read it) suggests that if anything is left behind, it should be metal not rope. If caves are going to be used for pull throughs, something is going to be left behind.
What to do 🤷♂️.
I assume I’m not obliged to have to get drawn into loooong internet “debates” and answer every single question / accusation. That kind of thing can become all consuming and exhausting.
However, not responding can be taken as capitulating and or disrespectful. Take it from me, I agree with some things and disagree with others 😂
As the installer who willingly took on the project (and initially requested it), be assured my intentions are and always will be to achieve what a majority of people would consider “A good job and fit for purpose”
As some comments on the thread now appear to have put CNCC training in some sort of firing line, could I please just make it clear that the CNCC training provision is in NO WAY connected to the BCA qualifications training provision.
The QMC deal with “instructed” caving , whereas the CNCC training deals ONLY with recreational cavers and the training is designed and appropriate for that. You do not need to be a CIC to be a CNCC trainer.
I suggest emailing QMC (CHAIR.QMC@BRITISH-CAVING.ORG.UK) is probably the best action to highlight any concerns/ issues regarding their documents.
For the record none of the CNCC trainers would ever advocate leaving anything behind in a cave except in exceptional circumstances.
Regards
Ian
I assume I’m not obliged to have to get drawn into loooong internet “debates” and answer every single question / accusation. That kind of thing can become all consuming and exhausting.
However, not responding can be taken as capitulating and or disrespectful. Take it from me, I agree with some things and disagree with others 😂
As the installer who willingly took on the project (and initially requested it), be assured my intentions are and always will be to achieve what a majority of people would consider “A good job and fit for purpose”
As some comments on the thread now appear to have put CNCC training in some sort of firing line, could I please just make it clear that the CNCC training provision is in NO WAY connected to the BCA qualifications training provision.
The QMC deal with “instructed” caving , whereas the CNCC training deals ONLY with recreational cavers and the training is designed and appropriate for that. You do not need to be a CIC to be a CNCC trainer.
I suggest emailing QMC (CHAIR.QMC@BRITISH-CAVING.ORG.UK) is probably the best action to highlight any concerns/ issues regarding their documents.
For the record none of the CNCC trainers would ever advocate leaving anything behind in a cave except in exceptional circumstances.
Regards
Ian
Whilst I am used to seeing chainsets in a climbing scenario, I do wonder whether they are best practice in all locations as you state. Is this is gospel truth, or just something people are saying because they are used to seeing them?
The BMC states in its guidance for bolters
"Resin belay anchors – a pair of resin anchors each with an enlarged eye. Simple, affordable and with the lowest visual impact". Chains and rings are given as an option where wear is a problem (which for us seems not to be a problem) or the belay point needs moving.
Bolt Products (supplier of BCA-approved resin bonded anchors) suggests that chainsets are usually superfluous when modern resin bonded anchors suffice. They recommend two separate bolts in most cases. They do not recommend rings specifically.
"Chain Sets... Historically chain sets were a way to join two relatively weak bolts with plate hangers and at the same time provide a smooth ring for abseiling and lowering-off. In most cases modern glue-in bolts have rendered them superfluous. The money spent is generally better invested in providing two good quality lower-offs. They will be stronger, cheaper, more reliable and less intrusive."
I understand these people have problems with these pitches. But repeat my point above that the solution of chains and ring is not shown to be the only, or best solution for these locations. It is not demonstrated that they will reliably prevent stuck or abandoned ropes. I feel people are taking at face value that this particular solution is the only or best solution.
As a counter point, two bolts on above the other is thought to cause fewer rope twists. The rope runs through one bolt without twisting, and a second bolt is placed below as redundancy. This doesn't require any additional equipment, CNCC committee approval, record keeping, manufacturing cost, user inspection etc.
Also the flake flake part way down Slit Pot was known to catch ropes as early as 1997 when Selected Caves was published - they put a specific warning about it. It is not clear that chains at the pitch head will prevent ropes catching on the flake.
Thank you for posting.
Someone submitted an agenda item for discussion, and it is being discussed by the community here in advance of the meeting. I hope everyone feels that is a positive thing.
I understand that you are the recommend-er but not the proposer. Nevertheless you submitted comments in the thread above in an open forum for people so inclined to discuss, and it is reasonable for people to discuss what you posted.
I do not take this to mean you are obliged in any way to read and answer all these points as they appear on the forum. But I hope that the discussion feeds into the CNCC decision making process and that issues raised are resolved at the CNCC to the satisfaction of the community.
Last edited:
MarkS
Moderator
I'm pretty neutral on all this, but I do think an important question is whether "Slit Pot [...] being notorious for stuck ropes" (as the CNCC document says) is down to the anchoring or down to it being (presumably) the most visited large pull-through pitch in the country. The apparent absence of issues pulling down ropes on any other pitches is perhaps an indication that it is the latter?
