It was my wife who said she couldn’t haul me. Thanks Ryan for the refresher video. Heading up the kautz this weekend.

Thanks for posting and getting word out on this! I've been teaching this as an option for 25+ years although I never had a formal name for it. I like the "drop-strand 3:1" name mentioned by Govanification which is a good description of what it is. I always found it strange that when we talk about a 3:1 system, people just assume we're talking about using the rope the person fell in on and thus think the drop loop is better. I've found in practice that two people can consistently haul a persons out even just using carabiners for pulleys, but having real pulleys is definitely better! For a single person rescue, high quality bearing pulleys are well worth the investment and be ready to convert or just go to a 5:1 "crevasse" method (by inserting a sling or cordelette "inside" the 3:1). As you mention, this system has the advantages of using a lot less rope -- I typically go with 50m -- and is a little less complicated than a drop loop that would likely need to be converted to a 6:1.

Thanks for sharing that video Ryan. I was on that course where the video was shot. I got me the book , the freedom of the hills to read up and keep learning. Greetings from Arizona!

This is the default way of teaching this in Slovenia. With knots, which allow you to do the hauling from any of the knots, if desired to be closer to the fallen person.

Ryan!! Missing u out a lot!!!

action at 7:43

Wow dude I went through the same thought process about 2 years ago and have failed to find much/any discussion of this method in books or online. I have started calling it a "drop-strand 3:1", similar to the "drop-loop 2:1" (C-pulley), but have you heard a better name? Thanks for putting this out, it's literally the first I've seen anybody talk about it, but I felt similar that it must exist out there. I thought of this method when doing a 2-person rope team with a large spacing (~15m) plus brake knots for WA routes with big crevasses, and typically using a 60m rope. To have enough rope for a drop-loop C-pulley system, you'd need about twice the distance between climbers on either end but that requires you to be pretty close together (~10m, as the large brake knots eat up a surprising amount) but that's kinda close for my taste in a party of 2. I'm a volunteer instructor in a local mountaineering club and the default we teach is a drop-loop C-pulley, but the club climbs always have a minimum of 2 rope teams of 3 people so the idea is more people can help haul. But in personal climbs it's often just a single rope team of 2-4 and so my default method is this same one you show, with the option to add a 2:1 on top of it if necessary. You've probably seen it, but there is a sweet method called the "5:1 crevasse" that uses a fixed-length sling (120-240cm) or a cordalette added to a 3:1 to make a compound system that uses the absolute minimum amount of rope possible, it's pretty slick. This guy shows a schematic of that system in this video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eX-LuquBecasZNI.html

@ryantilley9063

11 ай бұрын

Thanks man, ya I still haven't heard to much about this method of crevasse rescue from any thing other than word of mouth. I do believe now the name that most people use for it is the new strand direct haul, but that name is through word of mouth rather than me finding it in a text book, but that's what I've started calling it. That 5:1 system with the slings and cords is something that you may see more in a rock rescue scenario because you have so much less room to work with, but it could still be very useful to know if you have to do crevasse rescue really close to the lip.

heyo, one of the things I find missing in your pros and cons discussion is that the drop loop (or drop C) requires the rescuer to rappel/lower down to an unconscious victim and then ascend the rope again. And that would still be a con with your improved 3-1 system. The classical 3-1 has this as a pro (that you don't have to lower down to an unconscious victim), which greatly increases the simplicity and teachability of the classical 3-1 system. I've personally struggled with what is best to teach. Obviously if someone already has other skills in climbing etc, teaching rappelling and rope ascension is probably trivial to add for this extreme case. However, I feel like a lot of people who just want to backcountry ski on glaciated terrain are coming in to rope systems pretty green. And so even with the lip issues of a classical 3-1 it still seems the simpler and best choice for new learners. Curious your thoughts on this.

@Govanification

11 ай бұрын

I'm not Ryan but I'll chime in. If you consider that while backcountry skiing, you are typically unroped while skiing downhill so if somebody in your team falls in a crevasse then you absolutely need to drop a fresh strand/loop down to them. So teaching this way as the default is actually more consistent than if you teach hauling on the line already tied to a person, as half the time that won't be possible. Also, I have moved to generally using brake knots in teams of 3 (as well as teams of 2), especially if there is a significant weight difference (there often is), so dropping a new line will likely be necessary anyway.

@johngo6283

11 ай бұрын

If your victim is unconscious, that definitely complicates the entire process. However, probably your first step is to rappel in and try to check vital signs or maybe rig chest harness, so they stay upright. If you’re doing that, you can probably also clip the end of the rope to them. Fortunately, the vast majority of the crevasse rescues do not involve an unconscious victim, so that is a big help.

Bro it’s time to shave that beard

@mr.wallace1074

2 жыл бұрын

Oh no! It's cold up here.

@JohanMood

2 жыл бұрын

Nooo leg it grow!