Watch the video that Vadder posted at the 1:42 mark they show using two ascenders to ascend a doubled rope.

After watching the video I was struck by how much physical effort those techniques required. For a 10 or 20 foot climb it wouldn't be too bad, but a hundred foot climb and beyond would be a REAL effort. I don't know double rope technique, so I don't know if there are more efficient climbing methods. Fortunately we use single rope technique for our mine exploring.

Abby Normal

Posted by Abby Normal After watching the video I was struck by how much physical effort those techniques required. For a 10 or 20 foot climb it wouldn't be too bad, but a hundred foot climb and beyond would be a REAL effort. I don't know double rope technique, so I don't know if there are more efficient climbing methods. Fortunately we use single rope technique for our mine exploring. Abby Normal

Agreed, it looks like a lot of exertion for little progress, even on a (modified) texas system with two handled ascenders I've got it so I can pretty much just "step" up the rope quite smoothly.

Posted by Abby Normal After watching the video I was struck by how much physical effort those techniques required. For a 10 or 20 foot climb it wouldn't be too bad, but a hundred foot climb and beyond would be a REAL effort. I don't know double rope technique, so I don't know if there are more efficient climbing methods. Fortunately we use single rope technique for our mine exploring. Abby Normal

DRT is mainly used by arborists, who usually do a series of short pitches. DRT makes things much easier for multipitch climbs where you can't safely get off rope between pitches. At the top of each pitch, you just throw the tail over the next branch and move over to that side of the rope.

Posted by DJ Craig DRT is mainly used by arborists, who usually do a series of short pitches. DRT makes things much easier for multipitch climbs where you can't safely get off rope between pitches. At the top of each pitch, you just throw the tail over the next branch and move over to that side of the rope.

Ahh, but if your able to throw the tail, aren't you off rope? - sure your gear may be connected, but if the rope isn't anchored to anything.............

I had some trouble reading this thread without wincing and trying not to bite my tongue.

I am an arborist.

I am also a climbing instructor.

I am also a vertical access technician.

Posted by DJ Craig Also, most methods of ascending double rope require special "arborists rope", which is much more abrasion resistant than normal climbing rope. And if you don't have the knowledge and gear to ascend on a particular system, then you shouldn't be rappelling it, at least not much further than 10-15 feet.

Arborist rope is actually rarely more "abrasion resistant" than normal rope. The biggest difference is that "arborist" rope is DYNAMIC and SRT rope is STATIC.

This still doesn't change the fact that you can use DRT techniques on static rope MORE EASILY than you can on dynamic rope. And basically on ANY climbing rope.

The only real purpose of double-rope technique (DRT) is for multi-pitch ascents, and it's almost exclusively used by arborists. Although a doubled over rope can be useful as a way of getting the rope back once you get down, but I would really only recommend this on a very short rappel; like AD said, less than 10-15 feet.

Again, not true. Canyoneering, mine exploring, and other folks also occasionally use DRT descents based on their need of the situation.
I have PERSONALLY used doubled rope descents on THOUSANDS of feet of descents.

I'm not saying that DRT is inherently dangerous; it can be done completely safely if you know what you're doing. But I would definitely encourage you not to mess with it until you're extremely comfortable with Single Rope Technique (SRT).

You should be familiar with the style of rope technique which fits YOUR personal needs. SRT, DRT, DDRT, whatever. All have been proven for different situations. All that matters is that YOU are comfortable with it, and that YOU know how to use it efficiently to do what you need to do.

EDIT: And I can't answer your last question about the ATC, because in my opinion, using ATCs for rappelling is just dangerous no matter what. It's made for belaying, not for rappelling. But that's open to debate... But if you ask me, you should use a rack.

I started off as a climbing instructor, then became a rescue-trained climbing instructor, then learned how to train people to be climbing instructors.

An ATC is a completely capable device for BOTH belaying AND rappelling on either single or double ropes.

This is my experience, PERSONALLY and as an instructor. You need to learn how to use these devices and systems safely for your own person needs. But there is absolutely no reason that you can't descend hundreds of feet of rope safely using an ATC as long as you do it properly, single rope, or double rope.




If you want to go from DRT on double rope descent, to ascent, you need to use a DRT ascent method. If for some reason you're intent on doing this, it isn't simple. PM me and i'll be happy to give you details on it.

Continuously think OUTSIDE THE BOX, and your rope skills will multiply exponentially. If you only think of what you or others are comfy with, you will limit yourself.

KEEP LEARNING ALL THAT YOU CAN!!!

Good to know, Therrin! I've never done any DRT or real arborist stuff myself, and my knowledge of it is limited.

I may have kinda lied. But SRT and DRT are common with arborists, using both static and dynamic rope. It really depends what system you're going for.

If you want to see more what kind of gear they use, check out the company I used to purchase all my arborist gear from, as well as still use to purchase a bit of my vertical access gear. I've dropped well over $8k at this place, so I don't mind plugging them.

www.sherrilltree.com

They even have some training tutorials for some different techniques, and instructional videos on how certain devices and things are properly used.

**EDIT**

Even the normal "rock climbing" industry has been using ATC's or plates for decades for both rappels and belaying. Until the last several years, racks were usually found in rescue loadouts, except possibly for long descents.

Lately, a couple different companies have come out with several new design modifications for racks. Before that they were just too bulky and heavy to carry for all-around use.

I definitely overstated the ATC thing, and I might be unfairly biased partly because not too long ago I personally witnessed a somewhat traumatic climbing accident which could have perhaps been at least somewhat mitigated by using a rack instead of an ATC (although the ATC was by no means the initial cause).

My three main issues with ATCs, and this based purely on my own experiences, are:

They don't provide wide enough variability of friction, or precise control of friction. Because of this, they can't be used at all for long drops, and their behavior can be unpredictable on wet or dirty rope. And in the event of even a fraction of a second of freefall, or partial freefall, your chances of recovering enough friction to stop is pretty much zero.

All the lock-offs I've ever seen are confusing and slow, and it's easy to lose friction while tying or untying it.

It's impossible to put it on or take it off the rope without opening the carabiner which it's connected to. This is problematic for changeovers. Of course you can add in an extra carabiner, but then the ATC ends up facing in the wrong direction.

Also, I have been told before that Black Diamond specifically says in the instructions NOT to use the ATC for rappelling, only belaying. But I just now tried to find that myself, and I could not. So I'm confused about that one now. Maybe this is something that has changed? Or maybe I was just told wrong...

I'll refer you to this page, by petzl.

http://www.petzl.c...evices-0/reverso-3

Their newest "atc" type device. Companies are STILL making them, and they're still selling like crazy, all over the place; because they're lightweight and they work just fine.
Petzl (and other companies) openly state it as a "belay/rappel" device, because it has been serving in BOTH of those functions, like I said, for DECADES.

I'm not saying I disagree with your points, more-so your premise.

I understand about the bad experience you saw; but blaming the device is like getting in an accident in a car and then swearing off cars for trucks, instead of blaming the driver for losing control. Maybe on one road a car would be better, or on another a truck would be better, but on MOST roads you could drive EITHER vehicle. (there's a shitload of comparison material here, I'll leave it to your imagination)

People HAVE made life-threatening mistakes with racks too.

I'm not even saying an ATC is "better" than a rack, or vice versa. I'm saying that their use depends on the needs and skill level of the user. There are some situations where I'd prefer an ATC, and some where I'd prefer a rack (and this is assuming that I wasn't using my RIG for either).

But back to my original point further up this thread, and in others... You shouldn't blame a device unless it's defective somehow. Lay blame squarely on the person who used it wrong, so they can learn from their mistakes.

Someone who is tired or feeling clumsy or not thinking straight for any reason can drop any piece of gear, even a rack. If that is you someday, and the person with you has a spare atc, you should know how to use it as efficiently as any other device.

Modern ATC's are configured so you can use them one way or another to give more or less friction.

You can just as easily lose yourself on any non-self-braking device during a free-fall event.

Soft-locks and hard-locks can be fairly simple, but like anything else, takes practice. Just because a rack is "easier" to lock off, doesn't mean that learning to properly lock off an ATC quickly is a skill to toss out.


There are pro's and con's in everything man. No one makes a rack that's less weight or smaller than an ATC. To a lot of people, that makes the biggest difference in the world.

Refusing to learn how to use a device in the most efficient manner till its use is second-nature doesn't make it a poor device; it's just what you decide to do with your time.

I dont like ATC's because I fell 20ft onto rocks after untying one and having the tail slip out of my fingers. It was entirely my fault and I wont place full blame on the device, but I know that simply would not have happened with a STOP or I'D. I'd safely performed the maneuver dozens of times without accident, but it's easy to get complacent with a manual device, especially when your mind is on other things like taking photos or instructing other people on their technique. The only reason I was on the ATC was because I'd insisted my beginner friend use the STOP.

I'm not going to throw away my ATC, but it's definitely earned a spot as my last-resort descender, to be used only when the STOP, I'D or rack are out of commission.

Posted by terapr0 I dont like ATC's because I fell 20ft onto rocks after untying one and having the tail slip out of my fingers. It was entirely my fault and I wont place full blame on the device, but I know that simply would not have happened with a STOP or I'D. I'd safely performed the maneuver dozens of times without accident, but it's easy to get complacent with a manual device, especially when your mind is on other things like taking photos or instructing other people on their technique. The only reason I was on the ATC was because I'd insisted my beginner friend use the STOP. I'm not going to throw away my ATC, but it's definitely earned a spot as my last-resort descender, to be used only when the STOP, I'D or rack are out of commission.

The I'D was found to fail after getting a small paint-chip (or other debris) caught in it.

If you're going to admit it was entirely your fault, you shouldn't place ANY blame on the device. Especially an ATC, it's a completely inert object with no moving parts. No cam's to wear out, no springs to become sprung or stuck.
I love the hell out of my RIG, but I do REALIZE what it's potentials for failure are, and make the effort to not allow those to happen as much as possible.

Trying to trade off your own complacency with a quick-fix more-complicated mechanical device is kinda a mental move in the wrong direction.

Just my opinion. Not trying to be an ass at all here, it's a very serious topic.


I may have posted this on here before, I don't recall; but here's an example.

In the arborist industry, someone always falls out of a tree cuz they don't remember to screw their screwlocker shut. So someone in OSHA (who doesn't climb trees) decided they'd FIX the problem by making the use of auto-locking biners mandatory. (instead of increasing training standards and practices)

Long story short, autolocking biners and tree sap don't mix well.

The lack-of-screwing the biner shut wasn't the biner's fault. It's the operator error. Switching to a "automatic" device (more complex, more parts) didn't "fix" the problem. It made people ignore even more that they should constantly be paying attention to their biner's while working at-height.

The first time someone fell out of a tree from an autolocker stuck with tree sap, they didn't have a "quick fix" for it; so it's unfortunately still the standard, and people still don't check them, and still fall out of trees.


LESS rigid training practices are rarely the answer.

If you're comfy with what you use that's awesome, totally. That's the way it should be. But if you make a mistake with THAT, at what point do you stop switching to different devices and just assume full responsibility?

I always assume full responsibility for my actions, I just now prefer a cam based auto-locking device when I know I'll be stopping mid rappel. On a straight drop on slippery rope like New England KMIII I might still use the ATC for it's added friction over a STOP, but only if I'm not tying off. I know how to use both devices, but I prefer the construction and function of the STOP better.

I also dont like how ATC's eat carabiners at a dangerous and entirely unpredictable rate (especially aluminum carabiners). Every time you use the thing it's wearing away a thin layer of aluminum - grinding it from your carabiner and embedding it into your rope. The smooth steel cams of a STOP/I'D/Gri-Gri or steel bars of a rack (I dont use aluminum bars) are much harder, and wear at a MUCH slower rate and are typically of a much larger diameter than your average carabiner spline. How many times can you do this before it leads to a catastrophic failure of your carabiner? how many feet can you descend until it becomes a danger? to what degree does a dirty of worn rope affect the level of wear? how about the weight of the user? These are pretty impossible to answer. Despite my rescue training, rope work is 100% a hobby for me. Its something I do for fun, and totally isnt worth taking unnecessary or poorly defined risks for. I use proper equipment with proper techniques and make every reasonable attempt to mitigate the risks for myself and those around me. If that means switching to an auto-locking device then so be it...for me the rush is still the same. Of course any mechanical device can fail, but I inspect my equipment after every use, and as an engineer, am very confident in the design of the STOP / I'D mechanisms. I'm more confident in their design and manufacture than I am of my own hands, which have failed me before, and will again. I've thrown out carabiners because they had a groove worn into them from multiple descents with an ATC. They might still have been good, but maybe they weakened to the point of being unsafe. Gear that consumes vital pieces of PPE as part of it's operation is no good, at least in my opinion.

Just my $0.02 though. Opinions may vary, and I'll probably still use my ATC every now and again :p

I'd just switch to a steel biner the first time I noticed that without calling my ATC a carabiner-devouring-savage. Problem solved.


MOST of your other questions have answers. Metric craptons of tests have been done on worn gear over the years. Some pretty amazing results.

There are even programs you can use to catalogue your gear and track their replacement times and measure wear rates on consumables.

Rope is said to lose about 2% of its rated T.S. per year, even if it's just sitting on a shelf. You factor that with the reduction of strength in the type of knots you tie in it, and see what your remaining ratio is for the safety buffer you want. That's part of the reason quite a bit of equipment is designed with safety buffers built in (or beyond your WLL), so you're not always functioning right at the limits.

One of my good buddies uses an ATS for canyoneering. If I remember correctly he mentioned that he regularly wears them down then replaces them as needed. The stuff isn't designed to last FOREVER. Some of it gets "used up" till it needs to be replaced.

Same goes with the body of the older crolls. Now they're using stainless over the common wear points to combat that, and that's awesome.

Helmets are every 10 years I believe.



The (professional?) caving community is NOT a fan of the use of auto-camming descenders for regular use on rope and/or for underground use. I've been butting heads with a few of them on a caving forum over that for a couple months.
They're convinced that the devices are dangerous because of the piles of statistical info that when someone panics they're far more likely to pull harder on the handle than to let go of it.
(incidentally, the I'D is the only device that has a safety feature built in that overcomes this. If you can afford it and want to lug one around. And should I mention here that that safety has been found to fail under certain conditions as well...?)

Even most of the professional vertical access folks (like On Rope) who work with the turbine industry use doubled ropes. (two separate ropes) with their primary ascent/descent device(s) on one, and a fall-arrest-type backup on the other, just incase anything untoward should happen.

And actually, that system has proven to be one of the safest around because of its inherent back-up. Most of us just don't want to deal with lugging two 400ft ropes around like they do.