Question:
From the April 2008 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
On a multi-pitch ice route, when would the lead climber place a directional ice screw for an upward pull?
Would you also explain why one piece as a directional may be is placed instead of two or three pieces like in an anchor scenario?
Also, is it ever appropriate or safe to tie a sling directly to an ice screw hanger in lieu of
clipping a carabiner in the ice screw hanger and attaching the sling to the carabiner? - Lisa Jensen (Boulder, CO)
Answer:
Dear Lisa,
Generally, ice screws are multi-directional in that if placed horizontally, they also hold for an upward pull in addition to the downward pull.
However, because the weight of the belaying climber is sufficient to hold an upward pull on the anchor,
it's rare that I protect anchors specifically for upward pulls. There are a few exceptions. For example,
when the weight difference of the lead climber and the belayer is substantial I might protect specifically for an upward pull.
Or, if there are features on the route that with an upward pull might force the belayer to loose control of the belay (brake) strand of the rope,
I might also design an anchor that protects an upward pull.
One reason that only one screw may be used for a multi-directional placement,
(if indeed it is placed at all) is that the upward force is generally smaller. This occurs because the belayer's body weight
is already in the system holding the screw down. However, there may be times when you are belaying a leader off the anchor
(and not off your harness) when a multi-screw placement would be more suitable that a single screw placement.
It is important to note that each ice climb has it's own objective hazards and
it's impossible to generalize about the extra effort needed to place more screws at anchors,
even if it increases the objective hazards.
Personally, I don't think I have ever placed an extra additional ice screw at an anchor solely
for the purpose of protecting for an upward fall -- since the ice screw is already somewhat multi-directional
and the risk of an strong upward pull can be reduced by other ways.
You also asked if it is appropriate to clip a sling into a screw hanger as opposed to using a biner.
Generally I would say no. The screw hanger is somewhat sharp and will reduce the strength of the sling.
Also, it is slower to set up and break down if you are not using a biner.
However, it is possible to clip a sling into a screw hanger -- I would only do that if I could justify it somehow.
For example, I might clip a sling if I was out of biners, or I was belaying off my harness and the load placed on the anchor was minimal.
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the April 2008 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
How do you climb efficiently with a large group? I'm headed up to the Tetons this summer for a week or so
of climbing with a few friends. We're planning on taking the Underhill Ridge route up the Grand (about 5.6) for one of our climbs.
If there are three of us, I plan on climbing like normal and just bring up the two seconds simultaneously at the belay.
If there are four of us, I would rather climb in separate teams of two, but don't know if we have enough gear.
Is there any way for the second team to climb using the pro the first team placed? Or is it possible to climb as a party of four? - Anthony Arena (Flagstaff, Arizona)
Answer:
Dear Anthony,
If climbing in a team of three, I would do as you suggest and bring the two seconds up at the same time.
If climbing with four people, you are right in that two teams of two are faster than one team of four.
However, the Underhill Route, like most other alpine rock routes, has lots of fourth class and low fifth class,
so not much of a rack is actually needed. However, each leader determines how much gear is needed -
we can only climb at the level that our abilities allow. In other words, some teams need very little gear,
and other teams need more, and both teams are correct.
If the two groups are sharing a rack, the rack must be larger.
Also, at some point, the entire group has to get back together and hand back the pro.
Only when the known cruxes are passed (say a wide crack) can the first team continue on, and not worry about the second team's rack.
One good thing about a fourth climber is that there is one extra person who can carry the rack.
I think the best way to approach this climb is to plan on each team of two being self-sufficient.
If the climb has certain gear requirements (like 3-4 pieces of large, large cams)
then they can be shared for that certain pitch, but otherwise, two teams of two with separate racks offers
more options for the climbers and can make for a faster ascent.
Certain pieces of protection, like Lowe tri-cams, are light (but fiddly) and can take the place of heavier cams.
Also, using natural features such as horns and solid blocks can speed up the transitions.
Generally, however, using established anchors (if they are fixed) and staying on route would do more to save time
than the weight of the rack. Another way to save time is to move together whenever possible and use natural features
and the terrain to your advantage and avoid full length pitches when the route is moderate and wandering.
Shortening the rope, with shoulder coils, with the judicious use of running pro (a somewhat advanced technique)
can also speed up a route much more than focusing only on weight.
If you do climb as one team of four (and have three ropes),
I would have the leader bring up two seconds right away, and then the first follower can put the leader on
belay again while the second follower can start to belay up the fourth climber.
It will take a bit of practice to make those transitions smooth.
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the November 2007 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
I have started to use cordellettes for building anchors and like that they are very versatile for a number of applications. I can't seem to find a length that
is just right though. What do you recommend as a length for a cordellette. Should I have a few that are different lengths? - Quinn Ager (Oakland, CA)
Answer:
Dear Quinn,
I use cordellettes myself, though not as much as I used to. Generally I'll carry one or two that are about 15 to 17 feet in length. Longer ones (such as the 20 footers that some people recommend) are too cumbersome for me, and I find that it takes too much fussing around while breaking them down from the anchor and re-racking them onto my harness.
Here is my rule of thumb: have the cordellette just long enough so that when you double it, and then double it again, it is the same length as a single shoulder-length sling. Those four strands should be just the same size as a shoulder sling, so that way it's easy to carry over your shoulder. Typically, I will carry mine lightly tied up with an overhand or figure eight and clip it onto my harness gear loop. By doubling and doubling again I end up with a strand that is about two feet long (4-5 strands) and I then tie it up loosely with the figure eight to keep it short and tidy on my harness.
Also, many times I will carry a double-length sling instead of a cordellette because it's much lighter and faster to use. The disadvantage of the double length sling is its shorter length, which makes it harder to connect widely spaced pro and which will form a powerpoint with shallow angles on my strands. But if my pro is close together, a sling is a much quicker and easier to use than a long cordellette.
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the November 2007 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
Sometimes when I am rock climbing at the local crag I see things that I consider unsafe. I am often caught between wanting to say something to protect the
people from potential harm and not wanting to intrude on their experience. As a more experienced climber and guide, what sort of guidelines or factors do you consider when trying
to decide whether or not to speak up on safety issues? - Rob Jesper (Madison, WI)
Answer:
Dear Rob,
That is a great question and something that we as guides discuss and on which we never really come to a completely satisfying conclusion. We all have to act in a way that seems genuine and in line with our own ethics. I do think that, as a guide and experienced climber, I do have a responsibility to prevent accidents and increase safety if conditions allow. However, we also can't deny that some people do not want any advice regardless of whether it's valid or not.
So, what do I do? Well first I of all I don't think there are many guidelines that work for all of us - I can't recommend that someone suddenly assume a different persona at the cliffs just to act as an enforcer. We have to find a style that works for both parties. This is what I do in these situations: First, I casually say hello to the other party (to genuinely be friendly and to let them know that I am approachable). I do not try to assess or offer my opinion until I get a chance to first break the ice and see if their techniques (which may seem strange to me) are actually working for them. For example, specific climbing terms are generally agreed upon, but really what matters is the members of the climbing team effectively communicating with each other, regardless of the actual terms used. Anyway, I'll then somehow find a way to let them know that either I could offer some alternatives or that I have a great deal of experience with different solutions to some potential pitfalls with their technique. If they don't seem interested or receptive then I won't push the point and I'll let them continue. On the very rare cases where I think an accident is likely, then I'll state my opinion (in a very polite way) but ultimately they are, of course, free to do what they want. An exception is if their actions directly impact my own safety. In that case I will offer advice regardless if it's solicited or not.
Much of the difficulty of these discussion results because most climbing actions and techniques are very subjective in nature. What works for some teams does not work for others, and everyone has different levels of experience. And many techniques that may be considered "safer" often come at a cost - say, requiring more time or more gear. These techniques are often disagreed upon, even by guides and instructors. Hence, it's difficult to accurately predict if a certain technique will lead to some type of accident.
Ultimately, I think it's best to use a style that suits you and to really treat each situation in such a way that you can feel like you did the right thing. Certainly some guides and climbers are very quick to offer advice, others much less so, and I think that's fine. The main points to remember are to follow your conscience and to be kind in your delivery. Most of the time, people will be grateful for your comments.
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the March 2007 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
I want to get into backcountry skiing, and I wonder if you know the ultimate AT setup for skinning up and skiing down untouched slopes and, from time to time,
for skiing a day or two in groomed areas. I have heard about so many different brands and models, but some of the same names seem to be repeated, such as Garmont boots, the
Dynafit AT bindings, and the Black Diamond Havoc skis. Do you have an opinion on these models? Any tips on fit? Also, I don't know if stiff boots or soft boots are better.
Please advise me. Thanks! - Alton Kerner (Salem, Oregon)
Answer:
Dear Alton,
First of all, backcountry skiing with all the gear that I mention is great. The trick, of course, is trying to figure out what type of skiing you will be doing most. And I fully realize that until we actually use whatever gear we decide upon, it's hard to know what our habits will be.
For example, when you are doing lots of ski area skiing, weight is less of an issue, so wide skis, beefy bindings like the Fritschi AT (All Terrain) bindings, and supportive boots (such as the Garmont Endorphin) are the way to go. For skinning up backcountry slopes, a lighter system (narrower, shorter skis with Dynafit AT bindings) is the way to go.
Of course, no one piece of gear does everything perfectly. That being said, this is what I would do:
First, find the boots that fit you best. For me this means a very soft, comfortable boot because 90% of the time in the backcountry is skinning uphill (those downhill moments end all too quickly!). I have been a skier most of my life, so I'm willing to give up some of my equipment's downhill performance because I can attempt to compensate with technique. If I were more of a beginner or intermediate skier, then I might consider going with a boot that offered more downhill performance (that is, more support). Some of the lightest boots even have a very limited comfort range (you are lucky if you find them comfortable enough for all-day use). My ideal boot would be something that is comfortable, light, and fits the Dynafit binding system. Ideally, I would like to be able to walk and climb comfortably in the boots (including wearing crampons and performing French technique) but still be able to buckle them tight and have sufficient control for difficult descents. Though I haven't yet found such a boot, some of the newer AT boots are very light, while still being supportive, and have form-fitting liners that provide a great fit.
After finding a boot, I'd decide on bindings. The Dynafit bindings are the lightest available and are still plenty strong for ski area use. However, the disadvantages of these are that they offer a less consistent release mechanism, and they are are somewhat finicky when switching from the uphill to the downhill setting (as well as when putting them on and taking them off). They also require a specific boot that are Dynafit-compatable, such as the Garmont Mega Lites. Dynafit bindings cannot be used with non-Dynafit-compatible boots, which means that you and your friend can't switch skis for fun or, heaven forbid, for a rescue. Unfortunately, you can't wear a climbing boot with the Dynafit bindings like you can with some other bindings. Occasionally, I'll wear a climbing boot in my Silvretta or Fritschi AT bindings if I'm doing an approach to an ice climb on my skis. The Fritschi bindings are more convenient to get in and out of, have a more consistent release mechanism, and have a higher climbing bar. However, they are heavier. The Silvretta bindings are somewhat similar to the Fritschi bindings, except some of their models offer better compatibility with climbing boots (at the expense of consistent releasability).
For skis, it's all a matter of priorities. For uphill performance, the short, narrow skis (under 90mm wide at the foot) are the fastest. Narrower skis are also easier to set an edge and make difficult traverses with. However, narrow skis are no fun to ski with, especially on backcountry slopes that may be deep, soft, and varied. Wide skis (over 90mm wide under-foot) float much better and are more forgiving with less-than-perfect technique.
I prefer a moderately wide ski that is fairly soft and easy to turn. I personally own the K2 Shuksan skis, which, at the time that I bought them, were considered medium-width (they are now considered narrow). K2 has recently redesigned the Shuksan model into a bit wider ski; they also offer the Mt. Baker, which is slightly wider and softer and better suited for soft and crud snow. The skis that you mentioned, the Black Diamond Havoc, as well as other skis by Black Diamond, are great all-around skis. I recommend doing your research and possibly trying a few pairs of demo skis, then going for what appeals most to you.
Happy turns,
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the January 2007 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
I am looking to get out in the backcountry more, and have noticed there is an option for a ski pole with an ice axe pick on the top, specifically, the Black Diamond Whippet. Is this a good item to have, or should I just carry an ice axe on my back and use it when necessary? What do you use?
Thanks! - Sarah Jorgenson (Bend, Oregon)
Answer:
Dear Sarah,
Great question. As you might imagine, a Whippet can come in handy on certain slopes. As you might also imagine, a Whippet is no substitute for a proper ice axe when the terrain necessitates a more serious tool.
A Whippet is a ski pole with an ice pick-like attachment that can be used to self-arrest on steep snow slopes. It does not offer the holding power (nor the strength or multi-function) of a designated ice axe, but it can be sufficient to hold a small slide and thus prevent a larger fall. A conventional ice axe, on the contrary, offers a larger pick and a stronger shaft, which increases the chance of self-arresting.
Let's talk about actual use of a Whippet and what situations you are likely to be in. Neither an ice axe nor a Whippet will help when falling on very steep hard slopes. Your best hope is to stop the slip before gaining momentum - that is, before it turns into an actual fall. In such a case, a Whippet is helpful because it's already in your hand and can be applied to the slopes quickly. An ice axe, on the other hand, is much more difficult to ski with and prevents you from using a pole in your hand, thereby putting you in a defensive ski position that in turn may make you more likely to fall.
I'll describe how I decide what piece of gear to use:
- If I'm climbing a big mountain for a ski descent, I'll usually have an ice axe with me - especially on a glaciated peak, but also on non-glaciated peaks that are likely to have some ice. Since I am already taking the ice axe with me in this scenario, I'll leave the Whippet behind (to save weight) and use regular ski poles. If the terrain gets very exposed and it seems likely I wouldn't be able to stop myself if I fell, I may pull out my axe (a rare occurrence, by the way). At this point, I wouldn't really be linking my turns, but instead just side-slipping down or traversing.
- If I'm going out on a moderate backcountry ski tour, or if it's winter and I know the snow will be deep, I won't bring an ice axe or a Whippet, just regular ski poles.
So, you may wonder, when would I take a Whippet? The answer is: only if I know what conditions to expect. If I've skied the mountain before, and there is a high likelihood of steep, hard snow that will get softer during the day (corn snow, for example), then I leave the ice axe behind and consider taking the Whippet. That way, in case the slopes are a little harder than I expected on the descent, I have a method for protecting myself from a major slip. I still may leave the Whippet, however, if I'm at the trailhead, can somehow get a sense of what the conditions are, and conclude that the snowpack will be softened up. If I do leave the Whippet behind, I'll plan on managing the risk of falling down steep snow slopes in other ways - by picking a different line or skiing the line more conservatively.
You should understand that the Whippet is of limited use and is a compromise. I think it's most useful for skiing steep, spring slopes on terrain where I know what to expect.And as much as I think I like having one when I pack my ski gear in the morning, I find that more often than not, it stays behind in the car. But on those days when weight isn't an issue, a Whippet (even in the bottom of my pack) can keep more of my options open.
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the September 2006 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
Recently I have run into more than a few anchors in sport routes that were solid, yet placed on ledges that made for a lot of rope drag when top roping. Needless to say, I always want to extend them. Is it appropriate to use a figure-8 on a bight at both ends of one inch webbing to extend the anchor? I have used two pieces of webbing with two opposed locking biners in the lower loops as the master point. I am hesitant to use water knots as they can slip, and require twice the length of webbing. What do you suggest?
Additionally, have you seen anybody using locking biners on the side of a quickdraw where the rope is placed?
Thanks! - Josh Cohen (Phoenix, AZ)
Answer:
Dear Josh,
I think it's fine to extend the anchors with figure-8s on a bight, although it can take a bit of fidgeting to get the length exactly right and keep the anchors equalized. Another way to do this is to use a cordelette (20-30 feet of 7 mil diameter cord) to extend the anchor. I tie the cordelette into a loop with a double fisherman's knot (with 4-6" tail), and then construct the cordelette into a pre or self-equalized extension using regular biners at the bolts (or individual pro). Then, working downward, I tie an overhand or figure eight knot in the cordelette to make a powerpoint, then clip two locking biners below the knot and run the top rope through them (making sure to lock them, of course).
Regarding your second question: I have seen - and actually use it myself occasionally - a locking biner on the rope-end of a quickdraw. I don't normally do this, but if it's a critical draw (say, the first one on the route with hard moves and a bad landing) and IÕm worried about becoming accidentally unclipped, I will take the extra precaution. The locking biner is harder to clip with the rope but it will put my mind at ease regarding the rope staying in the biner in case I fall. I may also do the same on a higher move - on a crux perhaps - but generally speaking, using a locking biner requires too much fussing with the clip and may backfire by requiring you to spend more time at the crux (and thus causing you to get pumped sooner).
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the September 2006 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
What is a good length for a cordelette in an alpine rack?
Also, is there a good place to have trip plans validated or an online place or guidebook series that includes them? Being a new climber, I would like to be double checked for the first few plans I make.
Thanks, - Jeff Langton (Woodinville, WA)
Answer:
Dear Jeff,
I personally like cordelettes for alpine racks to be 12-15 feet long, which is about 3-5 feet shorter than the typical cordelette found on most rock racks. One way to determine a good length is to coil the loop in half - and then half again - so that the four individual loops are all the same length. The coiled loops together should be the same length as a single shoulder-length sling and should fit over one should in the same manner. This also makes for a quick and easy way to carry the cordelette. Another great way is to take those four strands and tie them into an overhand knot, then clip the tidy bundle onto your harness.
As with anything, there are both advantages and disadvantages to shorter and longer cordelettes. A longer cordelette will give you more range for tying together anchor points that are far apart and will also offer more opportunities to sling larger objects. Disadvantages to carrying a longer cordelette mostly have to do with ease of use and, of course, weight. A long cordelette will be cumbersome for building anchors in close quarters, and it will also get in the way more when stored on your harness.
Your question about trip planning brings up a very interesting point and touches on subject matter in which there is a lot of gray area. There are no resources or on-line services available for verifying the accuracy or validity of a trip plan or climbing strategy. I would also add that if you happen across such a thing, be wary of the advice that you receive there and always consider feedback on such to be just that, advice from an uncheckable source. Never trust anyone or any source of information blindly. Even after years of experience and countless days in the mountains, experienced climbers can still make incorrect assumptions, judgment errors, and miscalculations on things like distance, the amount of food and water needed, what length of rope to carry, and many other such decisions.
Getting better at trip planning and strategy can only happen by accumulating personal experience. Your strategy most likely will vary from that of others because it will be based on your personal fitness, skill, and comfort level, and also on your past experiences on similar objectives.
There are certainly ways to jumpstart or rapidly accelerate this learning curve and process. Participating in our Alpine Mountaineering and Technical Leadership program is one such way.
The best way to validate and evaluate your trip plans is to review them after your climb and to see how well your planning compares with your actual times, distances, rations, landmarks, and so on. Over time you will get a better sense of how accurate your ability to estimate these things is, and you will also get a feel for your preferred strategy for undertaking your chosen objectives.
Any verbal or published (guidebook) information that you get - including number of days, camping locations, and the like - should always be taken with a grain of salt. Very little is objective in the art of describing difficulty and estimating time in the mountains. There are so many variables that even the very best authors seldom get every detail right, and most have at least a few serious errors somewhere in their text. My personal rule is to never trust one source of information for trip planning. For most mountain ranges there are a number of resources available to aid in the trip planning process. I compare numerous guidebook descriptions with what is available on the internet and then use what I know and have heard over the years to formulate a personal strategy for my chosen objective. Again, the key to improving your skills in this area is to do two things after each trip: 1) compare what you actually encountered to what you had planned for, and 2) evaluate your planning methodology.
We are always available at AAI to give advice and feedback on such things and would be happy to talk with you about any plans that might fall within our area of expertise. Take our feedback on the same basis that we advise you take it from others. We wish you good luck with your adventures to come!
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the July 2006 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
How do I know where the crevasses are on glaciers? - Laura Henderson (Pasadena, CA)
Answer:
Dear Laura,
There's no way to know where crevasses are with certainty unless you are able to visit that glacier in mid to late season when most of the snow melts and reveals the bare ice underneath. Then you will see patterns typical for that glacier, but remember, the precise configuration of slots changes every year because of the movement of the glacier down the mountain. Depending on the altitude of the peak and regional temperatures, late season visibility may just apply to glaciers lower on the mountain. On many big peaks (or moderately high peaks with deep snowpacks), the snows never melt fully away high on the mountain - that's key to the glaciers being able to maintain themselves. On a typical late July day in the Alps or Cascades, a glacier at low altitude will look "late season" and a glacier at high altitude will look "early season."
You can make these generalizations about crevasee locations: 1) In areas where slopes lose their steepness, the glacier is likely to slow in its movement down the mountain, and therefore crevasses are likely to diminish in size and number; and 2) in areas where slopes steepen, the glacier is likely to accelerate in its descent and present more and larger crevasses.
In the early to mid-dry season (early to mid-summer is what we call it in most mountain ranges), you can't detect all crevasse patterns because of snow cover, so there are two essential components to a safe approach:
- Use proper glacier travel technique to minimize the harm done if you do end up punching part way into or falling all the way into a crevasse.
- Travel at a time when snow bridges are at their best: seasonally, this means that making your ascents early in the climbing season is better than later (because crevasses are filled in or their snow bridges are at maximum size and strength), and on a day-to day basis, this means climbing during the coldest period of the 24-hour clock. Climbers often get up at midnight and complete the climb - and the descent - by noon in order to cross snow bridges while the snow is still well frozen in place. Keep in mind, the ultimate value of this is relative to the temperatures on the mountain; if you are climbing in a hot spell and there are no freezing temperatures at night, you will still get better conditions by climbing early, but you won't get the degree of bridge strengthening that you would get from freezing night-time temperatures).
You didn't ask about them, but other primary hazards in glacial terrain are ice and serac fall, avalanches, and climber falls on steep slopes. I'll just address the first of these here.
To avoid ice and serac fall (which is more a function of glacier movement and gravity than daily temperature fluctuations), it's best to travel quickly through areas of vulnerability and avoid the time of exposure to the danger. Try to know what's above your slope. The use of a topo map will reveal steep slopes (as well as those less hazardous, large compression zones) and can help you choose the safest line to take. When it is necessary to traverse under an icefall (as opposed to going around it, which is preferable) move fast, fast, fast.
To summarize and simplify, the two most common hazards of glacier travel are crossing crevasses and traversing under icefalls. Cross crevasses when the snow is at its firmest, and minimize the time under icefalls by moving very quickly.
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the July 2006 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
My team and I are traveling to Rainier to climb the Dissappointment Cleaver route and have a question about roped glacier travel.
Our plan is to have the roped leader and end person tied into the rope (9mm, 60 meter) with a figure eight and the kiwi coil tie-off around their chests. The middle partner tied in via a butterfly knot on a locked biner with a chest harness and prusiks attached to the rope going to the lead climber and end climber. We all have seat prusiks and a texas prusik system attached to our harness and rope.
Should the middle person have a different set up on the rope to be safe and efficient?
Should a three person rope team travel with the rope fully extended? Is the above our most efficient way to travel safely and quickly on the glaciated terrain of Mt. Rainier?
Thanks for your time and response! - Lisa (somewhere in cyberspace)
Answer:
Dear Lisa,
I'm glad to hear of your trip to Rainier. Good luck with your climb.
Having the two climbers tied in with figure 8's with the excess coils around the chests (with either a kiwi coil or a mountaineers coil) is a fine idea. Ideally, the length between the climbers is very close but not so close that two people will fall into the same crevasse. The exact distance varies by the climb and current conditions, but normally it's around 30-40 feet. With a team of 3 climbers that will require the use of 60- 80 feet of rope plus 10-15 feet taken up by knots. Therefore, if using a 50-meter rope (165 feet) you will have an excess of 80-85 feet. With your 60-meter rope, you'll have more.
You may also consider using a mountaineers' coil - instead of a kiwi coil - to tie off the excess rope. The disadvantage of a kiwi coil is that it places some of the pull onto your chest and upper body. I think a slightly better tie place is using your waist harness only and attaching the rope there with a hard knot (a figure 8 is fine). The excess coils can then be tied off with a mountaineers coil that are independent of your waist tie-in knot. The other slight disadvantage of the kiwi coil is that in order to lengthen the distance between climbers during a crevasse rescue situation you must undo your tie-in knot and allow excess slack in the system. However there are ways around this, and it just requires some hands-on practice to see some of the small limitations of a kiwi coil versus a mountaineers coil and to develop a system that works for your team.
Generally, I will put both prussiks (if I'm using two) on the same strand of rope - and not split the prussiks between the two end climbers. Both methods have minor pros and cons.
I rarely if ever use a chest harness for the same reasons I mentioned regarding the kiwi coil versus the mountaineers coil. I dislike a chest harness that creates a higher pulling place on my harness when I tie in. I find a high tie in spot on my body makes it harder to self arrest another team member. However, there maybe a few limited circumstances that warrant a chest harness (I improvise one on some expeditions when I have huge loads and snowy conditions). On typical summit days when climbing with a small pack (say, 30lbs or less), I prefer to not have a chest harness on.
A three-person rope team should travel somewhat close together, rather than having the rope fully extended. Full extension (having the climbers 50-60 feet apart) makes communication difficult and tends to allow or foster excess slack in the rope. A better solution is having, as you suggested, both or even one of the climbers carrying excess coils. Another great way of carrying excess coils is placing them in your pack.
A rough rule of thumb suggests that inexperienced teams should have a little more distance between climbers (to give them more time to self arrest) even though that may slow down the efficiency when traveling on the glacier. More experienced teams which are good at holding falls may want to travel closer together in order to move faster.
Have a great climb.
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the May 2006 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
I have a question regarding standard for the tie-in knot: Is it acceptable to simply leave a 6" tail, or is a backup knot (grapevine bend)
necessary? - Greg German
Answer:
Dear Greg,
Thanks for your question.
It is acceptable to have a 6" tail without a backup knot. In fact, I prefer a 4" tail (leaving more rope available for the leader) and it keeps the tie-in system cleaner and less bulky.
What I do insist upon is that the tie in knot (generally a figure-eight follow through) is tied perfectly - that is, with no twists and all four strands pulled independently and tightened carefully.
A backup knot isn't necessarily a bad thing, in fact I suggest to my clients that they add a back-up knot if they aren't used to always tying the figure-eight perfectly. After all, a poorly tied figure-eight knot (with a short tail and not tightened up) is much worse than having a sloppily tied tie-in knot with an extra long tail). Therefore, for some novices I suggest a back up so that it allows for some error. However, the best is a perfectly constructed tie-in knot, pre-tightened and with a minimal tail.
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the May 2006 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
I have always thought that improperly clipping the rope thru pro (e.g., a rope passing around carabiner) could unclip the rope in the event of a fall.
Although this intuitively looks like an obvious threat, I have heard that in practice it has never really happened. Do you have any data to support either argument?
If this is a real threat, it seems that spinning the biner "upside-down" after clipping the rope would greatly decrease the possibility of the rope opening, or back
clipping, the gate of the biner. Any thoughts?
Answer:
Dear Climber,
Improperly clipping the rope through pro (often called back clipping) is a real and potential problem. No, I don't have data that confirms this happening, but keep in mind that after a fall it's usually impossible to recreate the exact chain of events.
I suppose that back clipping (the rope from the belayer runs out from the wall and into the carabiner, as opposed to the normal, and preferred style of the rope running close to the wall, through the biner and out and up towards the leader) will often still hold a fall. I also suppose that there have been many times when small mistakes are made with no repercussions either because the forces at work weren't great enough to do damage to the system or simply because the leader did not fall.
Accidents are more likely to occur when a series of small mistakes add up. For example: maybe the leader back clips, then a hold breaks off, then the biner gate gets loaded a little bit differently, and the belayer is using a Gri-Gri, making for a less dynamic belay - the combination of all those occurrences could result in a broken gate.
Spinning the biner upside down might help. Personally, if I'm climbing on a critical piece of protection, I'll either clip an additional draw or put in another piece of gear so that I have redundancy in my system.
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the March 2006 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
I have read that using an occasional tibloc or gibbs ascender on anchors while simul-climbing will keep the load from a falling second from pulling off the leader.
This solution may be more of a problem than the one it was attempting to solve as these devices are not recommended to hold a fall. Please share any experience or ideas on how a
prussik or other friction knot may be used in this scenario. - Greg Rossell (Durango, CO)
Answer:
Dear Greg,
Yes, a tibloc (or similar) will prevent the second climber from pulling the leader off. The disadvantage is the stress they put on the rope (they can shear the sheath off the rope or worse). However, this is preferable to pulling the leader off their lead. So, in this sense it can be acceptable if the alternative to a damaged rope is a protected leader. Realistically, when this type of protection is used, falls rarely happen and the use of the tibloc is more of a "psychological pro" that, perhaps in limited certain situations, is sufficient. More common is using running protection with no load limiters and allowing backwards movement, which would still keep the climbing team attached to the mountain in case of a fall (but, bear in mind, the leader may get pulled off their stance). The other disadvantage of the tiblocs is the extra friction created when the leader is climbing - it's ok for one or two devices to be attached but with more than that, the drag becomes too great.
Prussiks are considered too unreliable to tighten on their own and take too long to attach to the rope - by the time the leader places three, four, or say, six prussiks to each ice screw, or other piece of protection, and attaches them to the lead rope, the climbers might as well climb one at a time and do normal belay techniques. The whole idea of simul-climbing is to save time, so using many of these devices, especially prussik hitches, ends up not saving any time at all. Realistically, if the terrain can be simul-climbed, then generally the climbers accept the chance of a fall. Otherwise they will climb using normal belay tactics.
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the March 2006 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
I am looking at ropes for alpine glacier and couloir routes in the western mountain ranges and have had discussions on rope diameter, strength, weight,
and length issues, not to mention brand quality and durability. I have heard of systems using a 30 meter dynamic rope with the lead and tail packing a 20 meter static or
dynamic rope for rescue for a group of three or more. With this argument I have heard many climbers are moving away from the standard 50 meter rope. As for diameter, I
have heard thoughts ranging from using 7.5 mm ropes to 9.5 mm ropes for average glacier and alpine travel. Personally, I would like to go with as small of a diameter as
possible but hold on to length and be secure in a rope's ability to hold a fall. What has worked best in your experience? Thanks for your time and
response. - Brian Boggs (Boise, ID)
Answer:
Dear Brian,
I frequently use 30 meter ropes - or even shorter - for some glaciated routes in the North Cascades. If I am planning to move together with my partners on the route (glacier travel mode, simul-climbing, or running belays), and if I think there will be little chance of doing any rappelling, then a 30 meter rope works great. I still like it to be a singe rope - and they now come in diameters as small as 9 mm. Many climbers use a "half rope" (typically 8-8.8 mm) in this application, but there are some disadvantages to the narrow diameter, particularly in rescue and hauling situations and if a leader fall is a possibility.
If I am doing a couloir and am belaying, or plan on doing some rappelling, then a 50 to 60 meter length works best.
Rarely, if ever, do I pack a 30 meter rope with a 20 meter static rope. I find myself either packing a 50 meter 5 mm static rope to go with my single 9 mm lead rope (for double length rappels) or just a 50 meter 5 mm static rope for routes that are not too technical but offer me the possibility of retreating off something if necessary. There are some concerns to be aware of when rappelling on ropes of different diameters and single ropes of less than 8 mm in thickness. Do not use these techniques without thoroughly reading up on these issues.
With a team of three on a standard, glaciated, non-technical route, I'll still take a 30 meter dynamic rope. It may even be a half rope - that is, around an 8 mm diameter, not suitable for leading but certainly strong enough for glacier travel. If there is significant rock on the route, then I'll use a single rope. The thinking here is that a team of three will prevent any significant crevasse fall and eliminate the need for additional rope to use in a rescue scenario.
Nearly any rope, static or dynamic, is acceptable for holding a fall in glacier travel. A dynamic rope will lessen the impact on the person holding a crevasse fall, which is very important and outweigh the disadvantages of some rope elongation when setting up a hauling system.
Good luck and have fun Brian!
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the January 2006 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
I am wondering about snow caves verses a good four-season tent; is one a better shelter than the other? Also, I'm looking for three additional recommendations
from you. If you took me into a gear store and I needed the following three items to survive and enjoy a high mountain climbing excursion, what would I come out with? 1) the
best winter mountaineering boots; 2) the best 4-season tent; 3) the best below zero sleeping bag. - Thomas Bourgeois (Trego, MT)
Answer:
Dear Thomas,
First of all, a tent is more versatile than a snow cave since you need sufficient snow pack (depth of snow and the right consistency) to build a snow cave. In contrast, a tent can be pitched most anywhere. The biggest disadvantage is the weight of the tent since a snow cave is built "on location" and isn't carried. A snow cave can be warm and quite comfortable but it does require a few hours of work, and the builder gets wet during the construction.
As for your questions on cold weather gear, I will start by saying that the quickest way to find our recommendations on specific pieces of gear is to check the Guides Choice test results. This link lets you know what gear AAI guides have found to be the best in each category after undergoing extensive testing.
That being said, the best winter mountaineering boots are whatever fits you the best. Some of the top brands and models are the Koflach Artis Expe, the Scarpa Vega, and the Lowa Civetta. They all are plastic boots with inner linings. Size them to fit with your preferred sock combination, and remember that all of the liners will pack out and become slightly bigger with use. So when you purchase them, they should be adequately roomy and comfortable but not so roomy that they allow your foot to slide around.
The best choice of a 4-season tent is dependant on a number of factors. Mountain Hardware tents are well made (specifically, the Trango 2, 3, and 4), though are slightly heavier than other brands. Black Diamond makes some great single wall tents that are very light, but they aren't as durable over the long term. I like the Hilleberg tents, although they aren't freestanding (hence they are harder to set up and to move around once pitched), but they are light in weight and waterproof. Sierra Designs also makes some good, light 4-season tents.
I like the Feathered Friends, Western Mountaineering, and Marmot sleeping bags. Choose a rating that seems appropriate for the expected low temperatures. I prefer down bags over synthetic because of their comfort range, compressibility, and durability.
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the January 2006 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
Is there a technique for rope-soloing that offers a reasonable margin for safety, or is rope-soloing strictly for suicidal idiots?
I've noticed there are soloist belay devices on the market. Do they work with any degree of reliability and are there any such devices that would be appropriate for
alpine conditions? - James Carr (Menlo Park, CA)
Answer:
Dear James,
Thanks for your question on rope-soloing and the opportunity to provide some feedback on a facet of climbing that contains some confusion, misconceptions, and poorly understood practices. It's quite common for both new and experienced climbers to explore and dabble in rope-soloing. However, it quickly becomes more like aid climbing, which requires a whole new set of skills quite different from the normal physical and mental aspects of traditional climbs with partners and their belay systems. Solo climbers must incorporate these new aid skills in addition to their broader, general knowledge of rope systems and protection techniques.
First and foremost, it should be noted that most equipment manufacturers do not list rope-soloing in the "intended" use sections of their user manuals and guidelines. The ones that do (manufacturers of solo-belay devices) caution strongly against certain things and publish elaborate guidelines for the proper use of those devices. In each case, the manufacturer says that proper climbing, protection, and anchor building experience and knowledge is absolutely vital before considering using their products. It's impossible for a company to list all the improper ways of using a device and, conversely, to list all the necessary precautions needed, since each venue has it's own unique hazards that need to be assessed.
Those cautions having been stated, there are a number of solo climbing/rope-soloing devices on the market. Wren Industries manufacturers the "silent partner," "soloist," and the "solo aid" devices. They all have specific uses and design intentions. Some of these devices require a chest harness, some are only for top-roping, some have more rope drag than others, etc. It is not uncommon to see people use a Petzl GriGri as a solo belay device, and it should be noted that this use is outside of Petzl's guidelines and is not recommended because of the device's potential for failure in such applications. One of the limitations in using a Petzl GriGri is that they may not hold in an upside down fall, and it's difficult to rig a chest harness that prevents that. For more information on the makes, models, user manuals, and warnings you can visit www.wrenindustries.com. Also, Petzl publishes extensive guidelines for equipment use and illustrates scenarios very well in their on-line and published literature.
I think the biggest danger in using these devices is not having any redundancy in the system. In climbing, it's really important not to have your life dependant on one piece of gear. I think gear, per se, rarely fails when used properly, but that we often make some sort of human error and don't allow for the unexpected. So the best system has back ups (as all of the manufacturers suggest, by the way) - and takes into account possible user error. I think soloing has the potential to be made safe only if the climber has a thorough understanding of what the hazards are and has a system that can counter those hazards.
In terms of alpine climbing, do you mean top-roping ice climbs? Or protecting a few moves on a multi-pitch climb? Or lead climbing a single pitch? Without knowing more it's difficult to say what the best system is.
It also depends on what level of climber you are. For example, a GriGri can be used to solo a top-roped climb, but the rope has to be pulled through it manually, requiring one or two free hands. Jumars feed the rope better but will damage the rope in a more severe fall. Prusik knots are non-mechanical and very light but slip easily and cannot withstand the heat from friction when slipping.
Generally, alpine climbs cover much more moderate terrain and it's impractical to protect each and every move. The best defense for alpine climbs is perfecting climbing techniques so that a fall doesn't happen in the first place.
If you are wondering what the best solo belay device is, I would suggest visiting a number of online forums and calling numerous climbers, shops, and other sources and see what the general consensus is for the type of climbing you plan on doing.
- Michael Powers
Question:
Our family did a one-day guided hike onto the Coleman Glacier this summer with AAI. It was great.
My question: We live in New York and hike year round in the Catskills and Adirondacks (mostly day hikes). Even in the winter, the trails are essentially non-technical,
but often require snowshoes and/or crampons. Some of the mountains are have no trails and require map and compass. Temperatures can get down to well below zero F at night, and some
of the hikes last all day. I want to carry the proper gear in the event of an unexpected emergency bivouac. I am also interested in traveling as light as possible without sacrificing
safety. I purchased a 3 oz mylar emergency space bag and an incredibly light (1 lb, 5 oz) down bag by Western Mountaineering rated to 35 degrees F. I also own their incredibly light
down sweater. We all carry a small piece of Ensolite pad to sit on. Does this sound like adequate protection for an emergency (space bag outside for wind and water protection, down
bag inside)? If I go with a bag that is rated to a lower temperature, the weight starts to add up quickly. We also carry fleece, Primaloft down jackets, Schoeller pants (with base
layer underneath) and shell jacket and pants (Marmot Precip), all of which can be worn in the bag in the event of an emergency. Your opinion is greatly
appreciated. - Ira Orenstein (New Rochelle, NY)
Answer:
Hello Ira,
I appreciate the need to carry items for safety yet still travel light enough so that I can move quickly. Each trip is unique and I don't have any items that "I always carry" since even carrying an extra pound or two can make me lose my balance and result in some kind of unforeseen accident.
However, I will weigh in with my opinion about what might be reasonable things to carry. I think a light wind layer is very important - either the space blanket or a tarp made of Silcoat nylon, a denier ripstop nylon impregnated with silicone. This seems to be the lightest fabric that I'm aware of. I would think that a large down parka could take the place of a sleeping bag and be more versatile. I also think a shovel (instead of a sleeping bag) will be much lighter and allow you to construct a shelter if necessary. To heat the shelter a few candles and matches are essential. Mind you, taking a sleeping bag gives some warmth, but it significantly increases the weight of your pack. It also requires more time to travel through the snow and make a bivouac more likely. Rarely, if ever, do I carry a sleeping bag, unless I plan on spending the night. Even on climbs that take all day, I'll not carry a sleeping bag but will have an emergency tarp and some way to get out of the elements.
I also think Schoeller pants and jackets are fairly heavy for the amount of protection they give (mind you, I do use them and love them) however I don't think they are the most efficient insulating layers given their weight. I think down or Primaloft is more efficient. Also, a headlamp allows you to keep moving on mildly technical terrain although I'm sure you are well aware of this even if it's not mentioned.
- Michael Powers
Question:
From the February 2011 edition of AAI's E-newsletter
I'm planning on a climbing trip to Alaska this spring, and I'm worried about slowing my partners down, either because I'm not as fit as they
are or because I take too long dealing with my gear each morning and while climbing. I have some time for training, but with my busy schedule - family, work,
and other obligations - I want to be sure that the training I do makes me the best prepared I can be. Any recommendations for me to make the most of my training
time and also on how to be efficient during climbs? - Larry Stephenson, Chicago
Answer:
Dear Larry,
Everyone's situation is different with regard to how best to prepare, and of course, each climb and expedition has its own requirements.
But I can share a few ideas that help me, whether it's getting ready for a three-day rock trip to Red Rock, a month-long trip to the Alps, or a three-week alpine guides test.
Most alpine climbs (including Alaska where you are heading, but this applies to alpine rock too) are more endurance-based and less characterized by difficult technical moves.
So it's most important in your training to get some long endurance days in. There's no doubt in my mind that it's more important to hike uphill for 4-6 hours, with boots and a
pack, than it is to top-rope technical moves that are only 100 feet or work on climbs that take 10-20 minutes per pitch.
On climbs like Denali (West Buttress) or the Matterhorn (Hornli Ridge) the hardest individual moves are limited to a maximum technical challenge of 45-degree ice (Denali) or
5.6 rock (Hornli) but those moves must be made over and over again. They don't have to be made fast, but they must be made non-stop without searching
or slowing down to look for the best foot or hand
placement.
For me, going out at least once a week for big days of training (at least 5 hours or more) is more helpful than doing shorter, more intense intervals
(of course, mixing some power intervals in with those long days is a great idea). On my shorter days of training (say, 1-2 hours in a indoor rock gym),
I'll still achieve an endurance aspect by going up and down a route fairly rapidly (usually one that's easy for me) then - without stopping on the ground -
traverse to a nearby route and climb that. I keep doing climbs in quick succession until I reach the point of failure (falling).
Keeping in mind your comment about not wanting to slow other members of your party down, another specific skill I work on is transitions - say from snow to ice, or
rock to snow, or trail to talus slope, or skinning up to skiing down. Getting started with an activity (like in the morning) and making transitions from one aspect
of climbing to another are times in which a lot of people waste a lot of time. One way I practice being efficient in these circumstances when I have a little outing
planned is to pack quickly at home, drive to a trailhead, start the activity as soon as I arrive there, and make it a point to minimize the time spent on each of those
transitions as well as those on the climb itself.
I do take longer breaks whenever I feel I need them, but I only take them when "I want to," and never because I need to "manage the transition."
In other words, I try to get really quick and efficient at going from one activity to another and learn to make adjustments on the fly - like changing a clothing
layer or getting a drink or putting crampons on. I want to avoid having to spend 5 or 10 minutes whenever I am making a transition.
When rock climbing on a training day, I might make it a point to drive to the crag, head quickly to the base of my climb, unload the pack, rack up,
and get on a lead as quickly as possible. I'll try not to spend much time looking through the guide book or having a drink or doing any of a million other
things that I could do but which can wait or be skipped. I will try to get on the route as soon as possible just to improve my transition times. Certainly I
don't always do this, but it's an excellent exercise for me to use when I am in "training mode" for the day.
These are just two training ideas, and they won't necessarily be the most important ones for everyone.
Certainly there are hundreds of good training tips, but thinking about your concerns, these two come to mind as possibly being the most effective.
The first one (having long training days) seems to be most helpful to me, but it requires time and significant physical effort. The second tip (improving transition times)
doesn't require much physical effort and is more about thinking ahead and committing to efficiencies during your daily activities so that on the actual climb, those skills
and the mental set that goes with them will already be in place. If you can make high efficiency your personal standard, you'll probably never hold up your partners again.
- Michael Powers
CAUTION: Mountain travel of any kind carries significant risks to the participants, and travel on rock, snow, and ice carries inherent dangers that can lead to injury or death. Every situation is unique and calls for use of different techniques. The choice of techniques must be made in the context and location where they will be applied, and that choice requires a subjective assessment by the person on the scene. Therefore, AAI assumes no responsibility or liability for your use of the suggestions offered in this article or by guides and staff. AAI offers tips to assist climbers to expand their skills, but makes no assertion regarding the appropriateness of choosing a particular technique in any given circumstance. You must make your own assessments and decisions, and you assume all risks in applying these techniques, whether those risks are from subjective or objective dangers.
© 2011 American Alpine Institute, Ltd. All Rights Reserved
