SRT teaching, descending - stop or simple?

nobrotson

Active member
Mark Wright said:
On the point of getting knocked out during a descent due to falling rocks, I am aware of many instances of this happening including the one in JH just the other year.

I think the real issue would come when someone makes a claim against, e.g. a University club, for supplying an inappropriate  device to a novice with no additional control measures, resulting in a fall. You will need to put forward a very good case to the judge to convince him/her that you did everything that was reasonably practicable to reduce the likelihood of such an accident.

An expert witness working on behalf of the prosecution will likely be very knowledgable about such things and I doubt anyone would be able to put forward a convincing argument that a Simple was the most appropriate device for a novice to be using on a single rope down a cave.

Which year was the JH incident? I remember a group of us discussing the legal aspect of equipment choice and maintenance with you at CHECC a few months back. What sort of SRT setup would you say would be the most acceptable from a legal perspective? Considering the fact that I don't think any caver I know uses an ID to cave, I'm guessing you think the stop since it conforms to a higher EN standard. But what about the FFS decision to endorse simples that others have referred to (I haven't researched this myself so I am not able to validate it)? Could they be brought in as expert witnesses to defend the simple in some way?

Or would you suggest using a back-up device such as a shunt? This doesn't seem practical, and you have just outlined the weaknesses of a shunt as well so...
 

Simon Wilson

New member
Thank you Mark.

A descender needs to work reliably under all caving conditions, when it's worn, full of mud and grit, it has to work on all different ropes with both light and very heavy loads and being used by a fatigued caver for several days without any maintenance on an expedition down a deep cave. Will the Rig or ID do it?

There are many risks in caving and we have to take everything into consideration and carefully weigh all the risks against each other. In certain circumstances I think that might stand up a valid argument in court. I would definitely use an autolocking descender if there was one which I thought was a better overall option than a Simple.
 

nobrotson

Active member
Simon Wilson said:
A descender needs to work reliably under all caving conditions, when it's worn, full of mud and grit, it has to work on all different ropes with both light and very heavy loads and being used by a fatigued caver for several days without any maintenance on an expedition down a deep cave. Will the Rig or ID do it?

good point. I am very reluctant to even consider the idea that a caving club could be sued in this way. It could destroy the sport. Its getting a bit off-topic but I'm curious about the measures a CIC has to take if they want to teach someone SRT in a cave. What is their idea of best practice? Do guides in far more dangerous sports, such as mountaineering, face similar risks surrounding equipment choice? In those sports, I can't see that a legal case would come down to choice of equipment in the case of an accident (eg in abseiling when mountaineering) very often at all. Could the same be said for caving? The only way to really avoid these legal problems is to take all the autonomy away from novices and belay them all the time while they do SRT: hardly a practical solution...
 

Ian Ball

Well-known member
Not that I am a CIC but if I were taking a novice who seemed uneasy about abseiling I would probably belay on a 2nd line. 
 

alastairgott

Well-known member
nobrotson said:
Which year was the JH incident?

#383 Sat 22nd October 2016
http://www.derbyshirecro.org.uk/call_outs.html

Using ascension gear, "...he was able to complete the climb..." even when he met TT just below the workshop he was bleeding.
Terrible shocker, but he wasn't on descending gear, so not really relevant on this thread.

Casualty is fine now and we (me and cas) keep having late night chats about it when needed.
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
nobrotson said:
..but I'm curious about the measures a CIC has to take if they want to teach someone SRT in a cave...

Far more likely that tuition in progression techniques is delivered and assessed on the surface before heading underground.
 

Alex

Well-known member
I have gotten used to a stop, and I therefor I only teach on a Stop, so that's my choice for that reason.

I am aware about the grip and plummet which is why I tell people to pretend the handle don't work (as it sometimes don't, on skinny ropes!) and always keep hold of the rope unless locked off.

For me once experienced the stop does surpass the simple due to verisility and easy to lock off by putting the rope under the handle then over the top. (which is not a full lock, I know!). Its also safer due to reasons people have mentioned such as getting knocked out. Like the other incident being hit by rocks does happen. It happened to me as well but was a glancing blow by a huge block my cows tails were still in too, so stop/simple would not have made a difference in this case. (plus I was still concious).
 

mikem

Well-known member
Mark Wright said:
An expert witness working on behalf of the prosecution will likely be very knowledgable about such things and I doubt anyone would be able to put forward a convincing argument that a Simple was the most appropriate device for a novice to be using on a single rope down a cave.

Mark
Comparing the number of incidents involving unconscious casualties versus clutch & plummets would probably do it - which is the greater risk for a novice in that cave?

Mike
 

Mark Wright

Active member
This ended up being a lot longer and a much later posting than I first thought, my apologies.

The JH accident was incident No. 383 in October 2016. See below.

http://www.derbyshirecro.org.uk/call_outs.html

I think it would depend on the nature of the accident as to whether a successful claim could be made against the 'Instructor' or 'Person in Charge'. If it could be shown that the accident wouldn't have happened, or would have been less damaging to the casualty if the novice had been using a Stop with an auto lock safety feature instead of a Simple, then I would think a claim could feasibly be successful.

The main problem with all this is that the only real way of finding out whether the measures implemented to reduce the associated risk were 'reasonably practicable' would be to supply Simples to novices, one of them has an accident and then they start legal proceedings and the court decides.

Soon after the introduction of the UK's Work at Height Regulations in 2005 somebody asked the HSE if they could provide an explanation of the term 'Reasonably Practicable' considering the term had been used over 100 times in the Regulation. This is what one senior HSE Inspector came up with:

Reasonably Practicable

Health & safety legislation often use the term reasonably practicable when suggesting working methods that will reduce or minimise the level of associated risk.

Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than physically possible. A computation must be made by the duty holder in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk, (whether money, time, trouble or additional risk!!), is placed on the other. If it can be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them, (the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice), the defendants discharge the onus on them.

In essence, when making sure a risk has been reduced, deciding what is reasonably practicable is about weighing the risk against the sacrifice needed to further reduce it.

The decision is weighted in favour of health and safety because the presumption is that the duty holder should implement the risk reduction measure.

To avoid having to make this sacrifice, the duty holder must be able to show that it would be grossly disproportionate to the benefits of risk reduction that would be achieved.

Thus, the process is not one of balancing the costs and benefits of measures, but rather of always adopting the safest measures, except where they are ruled out because they involve grossly disproportionate sacrifices.



In 2007 the outdoor pursuits industry did manage to get dispensation from having to use 2 ropes if the risk assessment process demonstrated that the use of a second rope could introduce an unacceptable additional level of risk and, so far as is reasonably practicable, suitable and appropriate measures had been taken to ensure safety.

I sat on a HSE committee with the chap who wrote the Work at Height Regulations and we discussed the 2007 amendment a few times. He made it very clear to me that the full force of the law would come down on whoever was in charge of safety if a single rope were to fail in a cave, resulting in a serious accident or worse whilst under professional instruction.

Whilst the FFS might have a different opinion, from my experience, the UK interprets EU law to a much higher standard, particularly with regards to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations and the Work at Height Regulations. It is probably more likely they would ask a longstanding member of the BCA's Training Committee to offer opinion. Any reputable organisation should always be fully up to date with any other relevant information from other similar organisations around the world and always consider any safety recommendations made by such organisations.

Coming at this from an industrial rope access position, the equipment selection risk assessment for a descender device that is to be used without an additional safety system and is suitable for complete novices, who may not necessarily have access to the most ideal above ground training apparatus and qualified instruction, has a very clear outcome.  Its the one with the auto lock safety feature. In my industry it would be a brave soul who endorsed using a Simple over a Stop for complete novices, just like it would be if they endorsed a Rig over an I'D.

It would be a good test case for the BCA Insurance policy though. They would be covering all the legal expenses for the prosecution, all the legal expenses for the defence and potentially covering the expert opinion on both sides.

Stops are a lot less expensive than all of the above and if you get proficient in their use, in all environments, you can clip a carabiner in the hole at the bottom and you've got yourself a Simple, simple. It's rare that you would need to replace the bottom bobbin and replacement top bobbins are less than ?10.

A lot of the Cave Rescue teams use Rigs so maybe they would be able to comment on them in a cave rescue environment. I use them for making up dedicated rescue kits as the safety features of an I'D, when rigged upside down, don't operate in the same way. I've always found loading a Rig to be more awkward than a Stop, with the rope often getting snagged on the side plate as you close it.

Both Rigs and I'D's have been tested in some of the harshest work environments and seem to put up with hammer pretty well, but, you can't do a visual examination of the workings of either device. Technically you can't see the inside of a Stop either, but there is only a spring that you can't see and if that fails you've got a Simple.

There are more complex moving parts inside Rigs and particularly I'D's. If however any of the internal moving parts are compromised both devices 'Fail to Safe' and you won't go anywhere. You might not be able to descend though  I've got an I'D with a control handle that spins round and round. The auto lock system still works OK though. The internal damage was caused by a trainee forcing the handle beyond its lock position and deforming the handle sufficient to allow the internal moving parts to come out of their correct positions.     

I agree with Dave Rose about your left hand sometimes hurting when using a Stop on big pitches. I remember getting cramp in my left hand by the time I got to the bottom of the 1,000' pitch in the San Agustin a few years ago. I am told the pain is significantly less if you go caving a bit more often, though I can't say so myself.

Mark
 

mikem

Well-known member
When using simples with beginners the only sensible way you can protect them is to hold onto the tail of their rope or use a lifeline - the former being easy to do in most indoor training situations, although maintaining your attention can be difficult in a crowded hall.

Maybe getting novices to abseil outside on a figure 8 or Italian hitch whilst using a lifeline is the way to go, before introducing the stop (rather than the additional expense of a simple). Figure of 8 has advantage that locking off can be done in a similar way to the stop, whilst Italian hitch is more like using a breaking krab (both twist the rope, so aren't ideal with rebelays).

The previously mentioned incidents of holding the wrong rope just prove that a stop should always be locked off, even when you think you're safe, if you have to release the lock you can't be holding the wrong bit!

Interesting website for the gear freaks (lever boxes seem to be the only other self-locking option, but they tend to be expensive & don't like mud):
http://storrick.cnc.net/VerticalDevicesPage/RappelDevices.shtml

Almost 10 years ago he had 1300+ devices at NSS conference, over half of them were different descenders...
http://storrick.cnc.net/VerticalDevicesPage/Glance2009.html

Other self-locking options are usually more expensive than the stop & have different problems that may make them less suitable:
https://www.cmcpro.com/c/descenders/

Mike
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
Re: reasonably practicable.

If you have a novice in your group under your wing and are descending a number of pitches it would be easily and reasonably practicable to rig a safety line with one of the "spare" ropes (one of the as-yet unused ones, as it would be required later on during the trip by which time the novice may have achieved enough) combined with one of the team's descenders.

Similarly if there is a pitch early on (e.g. at cave entrance) then carrying an additional rope purely for safety lining would entail no significant hardship as sherpa'ing it would not be an onerous task.

Class L rope packs down very compact so using that as a dedicated safety line is also a practicable option.
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
The previously mentioned incidents of holding the wrong rope just prove that a stop should always be locked off, even when you think you're safe, if you have to release the lock you can't be holding the wrong bit!

It is a training commonplace to instill as a standard practice a short "trial" abseil while at the pitch head (while safety connectors are still attached to belay) specifically to ensure everything is A1 before commencing the descent proper. By so doing it establishes the correct rope is being held.

IIRC there were two incidents of expedition cavers having unexpectedly rapid descents on the same pitch by doing the same thing as mentioned by MikeM above in a narrow confined shaft where they couldn't ascertain what rope they were holding: extending the Stop on their short safety connector would have made things easier to operate and observe in such an instance, which also forms an element of descender training.
 

mikem

Well-known member
I had seen that, but not looked at the info - everyone should have a trained boa constrictor!

Good videos on use of Petzl ID & CT Sparrow 200 - neither should be used on small diameter or swollen (muddy?) ropes - the 200R is the rescue version:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCama6uUA4dobm-Zho25XAbQ

The Camp Druid looks interesting, like a GriGri with an anti-panic lock (but again limited rope diameter & I really dislike the GriGri for abseiling. The Pro doesn't have the anti-panic):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SktHvQPbjHA

Of course there is the GriGri Plus:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/reviews/climbing_hardware/sneak_preview_-_petzl_grigri+-9160

The CMC 3D isn't auto-lock & looks like it wouldn't like mud, the Escape Artist has to be pre-threaded on the rope (they also produce the MPD):
https://www.youtube.com/user/CMCRescue/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=1

Mike
 

Mike Hopley

New member
Whilst the FFS might have a different opinion, from my experience, the UK interprets EU law to a much higher standard, particularly with regards to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations and the Work at Height Regulations.

It's always interesting and useful to have a knowledgeable perspective from the IRA world.

However, we must distinguish between Industrial Rope Access and Caving. They are not the same things, and they will not be treated the same in a court of law.

You have a bunch of portentous phrases there in Serious Capital Letters, but notice the one word they all have in common: work. Caving is (generally) a sport or hobby, not work. Different standards and expectations will apply.

It's similar to legal liability when rendering first-aid. In a court of law, you will be judged according to both the context (e.g. casualty was in a hospital / casualty was in a cave) and your level of training (you are a doctor / you are a first-aider / you have no training at all).

Now a general comment about these Simple vs. Stop debates:

I would like to see less arguing about the device, and more emphasis on proper and safe training. I hope we can all agree that proper control with the rope is the core skill, regardless of the device. But how often have you seen complete beginners abseiling over a bridge, or from the top of a hall? What happens if they get it wrong? They hurt themselves. This is not theoretical: I know of at least one case where it happened; the person was seriously injured and (big surprise) never came back.

Some people "get it" first time, but others don't. I think the very first abseils should be thoroughly protected. That means either a belay (for a longer abseil), or a very short abseil off a platform (max ~1--2 metres), preferably onto a crash mat.

These first abseils should either be on a Simple, or a Stop with the handle disengaged. That is the only way to be sure they "get it" and are not relying on the handle of the Stop (which is an extremely common issue). They must of course use a braking krab, and it's much easier to learn this from the beginning than trying to fix it later.

Personally I much prefer starting with very short abseils. Once they can control the abseil with the rope, we look at locking off and unlocking, making sure that it's done in a controlled manner (without letting go the rope or having a bunch of slack "jump out" when they unlock).

After this, I will teach them how to use the Stop correctly (unless it's clear they will be using a Simple when they go caving). This is a progression from the Simple. We are still near the ground.

We then move on to prusiking and changeovers, again max. ~2 metres off the ground. By the time they get any higher, they already have a complete set of skills. Staying close to the ground also builds confidence.

At this early stage, there should always be a simple way to get them off the rope, by bringing something along for them to stand on (maybe the same thing they stand on to start their abseil).

 

nobrotson

Active member
Mike Hopley said:
Now a general comment about these Simple vs. Stop debates:

I would like to see less arguing about the device, and more emphasis on proper and safe training.

but that is a different debate. We are discussing whether one device is better than another for teaching SRT to a novice, not whether one way of teaching is better. That is a completely separate debate.
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
Of interest, perhaps:

 

Attachments

  • 14409473_1450922071601328_4775656883498815786_o.jpg
    14409473_1450922071601328_4775656883498815786_o.jpg
    300.7 KB · Views: 153

Mark Wright

Active member
Mike Hopley said:
However, we must distinguish between Industrial Rope Access and Caving. They are not the same things, and they will not be treated the same in a court of law.

You have a bunch of portentous phrases there in Serious Capital Letters, but notice the one word they all have in common: work. Caving is (generally) a sport or hobby, not work. Different standards and expectations will apply.

It's similar to legal liability when rendering first-aid. In a court of law, you will be judged according to both the context (e.g. casualty was in a hospital / casualty was in a cave) and your level of training (you are a doctor / you are a first-aider / you have no training at all).

Whilst it may be the case that in a court situation a recreational caving accident could be treated very differently to a work related accident, if a novice student caver makes a financial contribution towards a caving trip, equipment hire and instruction (qualified or otherwise), would that be treated as recreation or work?

I don't profess to know the answer to that and I doubt anyone on here really knows either, but, I would have thought, when the BCA Insurers are faced with a potential ?5M claim, ?10M next year, they would be looking at any legislation and/or expert opinion they can find to help reduce their potential payouts.

Mark





 

Hammy

Member
Interesting discussion.

I think that the SRT teacher should look at the device which the novice owns or that they recommend the novice to purchase and then focus the training on the safe use of that device.

Additional protection needs to be provided at introductory level by one of several means - initial training on the ground or off a table or chair, very short pitches, different ropes for different ?slickness?, tailing the rope, additional safety backup rope, close supervision, repetition of technique, pitch head procedures, observation to identify lack of novice understanding. Only reducing or removing that protection after confirmation that the novice is operating safely with their device.

I have been through my equipment rack and have eight different different devices which could be used for abseiling - HMS Karabiner (Italian Hitch), Belay Plate, Figure of Eight Descender, Petzl Pirana, Petzl Simple, Petzl Stop, Petzl Rig and Petzl I?D. They all have advantages and disadvantages. I would only recommend a novice to purchase a Stop or a Rig as these provide protection against unforeseen circumstances unless additional protection equipment is used (Shunt or French Prussik). They can also be used as improvised ascenders or as part of a hauling system.

The Rig is in far less common use in the underground environment but is a much better device than the Stop for various reasons, and has only minor disadvantages (cost (?9 more expensive), weight (68g heavier)and bulk). It may not be as resistant to serious mud as a Stop, but I have no evidence of that.
 

Hammy

Member
I should add another point about the Rig regarding rope diameters. The current version is rated for 10.5mm to 11.5mm which is a bit limiting.

However there is I believe a new version due soon ( I have seen one but not used it) which has a wider acceptable diameter range.
 
Top