New to canyoneering. Questions about figure 8 block.

Hi,
I am still very new to canyoneering, having only done 3 canyons in Death Valley. I will be attending a level one course in the near future. Meanwhile, I am studying all I can, and practicing my knots, along with buying some gear. I'll be returning to the valley this winter, for a few months.
I had a really great mentor that let me do all the rigging while we were out. We did double rope and biener blocked setups. Now, I'm looking at figure 8 contingency rigging and wondering if I should use it, instead of a normal biener block. I like that you can be lowered if need be. Most of the anchors in DV are cairn anchors. So, a second person rapping off the same anchor, to help, would be really sketchy. Are there any downsides to just using a figure 8 instead of a normal biener block?
Of course I would never use any block that I hadn't tried in a completely safe environment first. Then practiced over and over.
Thanks,
Greg

I'm still new to canyoneering and am doing lots of learning as well. The only downsides I can think of for a figure 8 block compared to a carabiner block is:
1. It requires a more specific piece of gear compared to the more common place carabiner, and more gear overall if you're backing it up/closing the system.
2. It's slightly more complex to rig, and has more room for error in the rigging. Also harder to visually identify if it's correct, especially for someone not familiar with how to rig the anchor.
3. The person at the anchor needs to be familiar with how to safely lower someone with the system in order to see the benefit over a carabiner block.


In my humble and beginner opinion, I don't think 1 or 2 are noteworthy enough to be of major concern, but obviously need to be addressed in order to be safe and successful with the system. I do think 3 is significant if a competent leader is going down a canyon with only one other person who is a novice. But then again, that situation places a lot of weight on the leader, and the situation could go south very quickly if something were to happen to the leader. Overall, I think a single releasable system like the figure 8 block when rigged for contingency is generally a superior choice to a single static system like a carabiner block. But context is key, and having the knowledge and experience to implement different systems based on different situations is ideal.

As a slight tangent, I've recently realized the importance of having at least two people in the group competent enough to at least be solid anchor managers. Sometimes it's useful to have the most experienced person rappel first, and in that case, you want to make sure someone can manage the anchor safely and effectively when the most experienced person has already descended.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

Hopefully some of the many experts on this forum will stop by to help you. I'm not one of those experts but I do have a few strong opinions

In my opinion, there are only a few good reasons to use a contingency block:
1. Class C canyons where getting stuck on rope can quickly become deadly.
2. Rappels where the necessary rope length is unknown.
3. A professional guide leading inexperienced people through their first canyons.

If you are rappelling with people you feel need to be protected from themselves and decide to add a contingency, just in case, then you better be a professional guide.

I'm sure the problem is my lack of experience; but, I don't like the figure 8 contingency because every time I've seen someone use it, I've had to be the scared guy that refuses to rappel off it until it is properly locked off. Adding a twist and looping it around the small end is not very reassuring. I always poke a bight through the small hole and tie it off with a mule knot. But I much prefer not using it as it adds complexity and makes inspecting the anchor more difficult, especially for the inexperienced.

This is a really excellent point to bring up, and I don't think wanting to safely lock off an anchor should be classified as being "the scared guy". Something I think would be an awesome practice, and I'm stealing this a bit from the AIARE framework (avalanche safety training) is having conversations before the start of the trip, ideally even before being at the trailhead, about what level of risk each individual in the group is willing to take. While avalanche risk is categorically different in significant ways than risk in canyoneering, I still think having some conversations around systems or practices that the individuals in the group are or are not comfortable with is a great way to set the group up for safety and success.

For example, if we were in a group about to descend a canyon together and talking about comfort/risk, I might say, "I strongly prefer rigging anchors for contingency as a default practice to make rescue options much simpler if they are needed." You might respond, "That's fine, but I'm not comfortable with figure eight blocks unless they are locked off/closed properly." A great compromise here is the understanding that every time we rig the figure eight block for contingency, we are going to automatically default to locking it off properly until the LPAR is ready to rappel. That also implies that you aren't going to be the LPAR ever, and that we need to make sure whoever is the LPAR understands how to properly remove the lock off before descending such that the anchor is still retrievable. As a result, we are operating in a way that the group is safe and comfortable, and managing logistics that come out of those decisions in advance.

I like your idea for a safety and best practices briefing before each outing. Just reminding everyone to look out for each other would probably save a few lives.

You bring up an interesting point. "I strongly prefer rigging anchors for contingency as a default practice to make rescue options much simpler if they are needed." The problem is that lowering someone is not always the best way to rescue them. Each situation is different and you shouldn't have in your mind that the contingency is going to solve every problem.

I would argue that being able to quickly convert your 'biner block to a lower or to a raise, as needed, is a much more powerful way to provide safety for your group.

The emphasized opinion I stated was just an example to illustrate the value of communicating ahead of time, not necessarily something I believe to be true. I absolutely agree with your statement that lowering a victim is not always the best way to rescue them. But to go down the fun rabbit hole since its presenting itself...

An anchor rigged for contingency gives you the option to lower without having to convert the anchor. It does not impose lowering as the only means of rescue. Using a figure 8 block as an example anchor rigged for contingency, if I were to have an emergency situation, I can decide to lower easily/quickly, haul the line back up (no different than a biner block in the hauling case), or set up a secondary fixed line for a direct rescue assuming I have the rope necessary available to me. Converting a weighted biner block to a releasable system requires having the knowledge and equipment to transition the weight of the victim off of the block and onto something else in order to rig the anchor for lowering. That's precious time, as well as increasing the risk and complexity of the rescue systems at hand, compared to the anchor being rigged for contingency in the first place.

Again, I do not think that canyoneers need to rig every single anchor for contingency every single time. As with everything, we should evaluate the full context of the situation and make an informed decision. But if you tell me we for sure are going to have to rescue someone on this next rappel, but I don't know any details beyond that, you can bet I'm rigging my anchor for contingency to make it easier and give myself more options. Certainly a contrived example. Just want to highlight the importance of giving yourself options.

That being said, I'm now posting opinions that are batting categorically above my experience level, so I fully welcome someone to come tell me why I'm full of bologna. The discussion can be a wonderful learning tool.

edit: forgot a word

A lot of it is a matter of personal taste. If you want to rig contingencies on short, dry rappels, and can do so competently, then please do. If you want to do biner blocks on a long rappel in a healthy waterfall, then please... do not lead canyons with long rappels in healthy waterfalls.

A lot of us old farts do not use contingency anchors in non-flowing canyons. Once in a while, this could go very wrong...

Tom

p.s. It is up to you.

So...
I'm thinking at this point I will learn how to tie a figure 8 contingency block. I will be able to tie it correctly every time, and practice it regularly. Then we'll see if the team I'm out with wants to go with it. If not, I've still got a biener block that I am totally competent tying. None of the canyons, in my near future, have any water in them.

My goal is to have enough tools (that I know 100%) to be an effective team member. But, I don't need "fancy" just for the sake of being fancy.
Thanks for all your help.
Greg

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment stated about. For dry canyons with relatively short and straightforward drops and competent teams, I'm probably just going to go with a biner block as well. But hair, clothing, or skin can get caught in a rappel device to even the best of us, or miscalculating the amount of rope needed for a rappel. Being able to solve those problems in an easier and more straightforward way is definitely a win, even if competent folks decide it's not necessary for them each time. I think it's similar in many ways to deciding to add a third-hand backup. Is it good practice? Sure. Do I do it every time? Nah. Will I choose to do it in certain circumstances? Absolutely.

Great question and discussion. Thanks for asking it!

"I think it's similar in many ways to deciding to add a third-hand backup. Is it good practice? Sure."

Are you sure about that?

My experience is that I can't trust an inexperienced person with a "third-hand backup". Without lots of experience, the rappel backup is in my opinion a dangerous distraction and causes more problems than it solves. If I'm with someone that thinks they need a backup, they better be able to show me they are experienced in its use.

Rappel backups and contingency blocks are advanced techniques. They have a purpose and are good it certain situations but they are not techniques that solve problems for the inexperienced. For many people adding a backup and a contingency makes them feel good inside but without practicing them in safe situations they are nothing but theater.

That's where I get somewhat confused. Contingency/releasable anchors are taught during the ACA level 1 (core) course. It's on their checklist for successfully completing the most basic course offered. I admit, freely, that I don't have much experience. But, if ACA says it's appropriate to teach in their core course, I wouldn't think it's too advanced.
Greg

Like I said earlier, "I have a few strong opinions".

The basics of contingency anchors and rappel backups is taught in the ACA level 1 course. I'm not an education expert but don't think it is appropriate to do so. If I'm teaching a person to rappel down a canyon, I want them to think of nothing but connecting the rope to the anchor, holding the brake strand, and providing their partners with a fireman's belay.

I agree that the mechanics of building a contingency anchor or adding a rappel backup are, on the surface, simple. I'm just trying to convince you that these simple techniques can and do cause problems when they are applied without understanding all the variables that might cause a failure during a particular situation. I'm not saying don't use these techniques; I'm trying to say that they should not be used heedlessly and should not be thought of as basic skills.

The ACA curriculum is focused on flowing-water-canyon techniques, and therefore, contingency anchors are at Level 1. For dry canyons, it is not an essential technique, but something people should know, perhaps. The mindset in Europe (etc.) is very different than the "cowboy" mindset in the USA. Surprisingly, seeing someone do a technique once, or seeing it on Youtube, does not make people experts in a particular technique. USA beginners sometimes think it does... The USA excels at the Dunning-Kruger effect! We're Number ONE!!!

While Contingency Rigging is an important part of the whole Modern Canyoneering Single Rope Technique, and the rest of the system flows from Contingency Rigging, actually rigging contingency on every rappel is not required to utilize many aspects of the SRT system.

Tom

Absolutely. I have seen "experienced climbers" rig a third hand backup in the field on numerous occasions, and what they rigged absolutely would not work in the slightest... Rock Climbing "Best Practice" has become overly complicated in the last 10 years, to the point where many practices are now "essential", and applied without the understanding required to make them actually work. In which case, they are just theater. "third hand" included.

Your rappelling safety is better enhanced by:
A. learning your rappel device / rope system and adjusting your friction in a conservative and appropriate manner;
B. Concentrating on your primary function (sliding down the rope under control), rather than adding dubious "safety widgets";
C. Providing bottom belays as a matter of course, rather than taking pictures or video of the accident that could have been prevented.

Tom

This. Nowadays it seems like everyone is going to the third hand option and it can be a false sense of security and actually makes things less safe due to that. Not saying they don't have a use but it's not the be-all end-all to save your butt on a bad rappel.

I'm all for making contextual decisions. The whole, "Third hand is best practice" thing is really just using an example of what seems to be commonly exposed as "best practice" but as pointed out above, is not so clear cut. That being said, I'm curious when a third hand would be "safety theater" assuming it is correctly rigged. (Yes, some people rig it where it gets sucked into their device and doesn't do a damn thing. That's not safety theater. That's misrigging a system, that at least in this case, won't immediately cause your death.) My thought process is that, especially in dry canyons, the most likely way someone is going to get hurt on rappel is losing control of their brake strand, whether due to rockfall striking them, skin getting pinched in their device, rappelling too quickly and burning their hands (gloves of course are the right solution here), getting stung by a bee, or a whole host of other possibilities. Third hand brings any of these situations from a likely grave outcome to a much higher chance of survival. That doesn't seem like safety theater to me. But again, I'll restate that I can count on my third hand how many times I've used a third hand on a rappel in the last 10 years. ;P

A recent example of near-tragic Safety Theater:

http://canyoncollective.com/threads/wolfe-county-sar-rappelling-accident-july-4-2019.25939/

Classic "No True Scotsman"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Even rigged 'correctly' it is unreliable. Even controlling all the variables, it is prone to failure. Do you want the airbags in your car to go off during '85% of collisions'? Ropes have stiff sections and soft section. Ropes have dry sections and wet sections. Sometimes people let go in emergencies, sometimes they cling tightly. Even expertly rigged it is unreliable. We call that safety theater. The effort put into the safety theater is better expended elsewhere.

T

I would say that it is impossible for anyone to know if it is rigged correctly. There are too many variables and those variables change with each situation.

Also, even assuming it is perfectly rigged for the current conditions, it is bad form to think that you have a backup during a rappel. No one, especially the inexperienced, should be thinking that they are safe because they have a "third-hand". They should rely only on proper rappelling technique and not be distracted by the autoblock under their brake hand.