Nylon Highway

NH 59 Page Page 1 of 1

#59

Contents

Overleaf

1. An Analysis Of Bowlines (PDF, 2.7Mb), by Mark Gommers Return to NH Issues Page 2. Rescue Knot Efficiency Revisited (PDF, 339Kb), by John McKently

3. Slow Pull Testing of Progress Capture Devices (PDF, 664Kb), by DJ Walker & Russell McCullar

4. Minutes of the 2014 VS General Meeting (PDF, 199Kb), by Ray Sira

5. Secretary's Report - 2014 (PDF, 31Kb), by Ray Sira

6. Treasurer's Report - 2014 (PDF, 61Kb), by Ray Sira

(Download free ACROBAT Reader ... to read PDF files)

Return to the Top of the Page

Page Last Updated on July 5, 2015

file:///D:/Data/INet/Vertical/nh/59/nh59.html 7/ 5/ 2015 Nylon Highway

Terry Mitchell ...... Chair ISSN 4207 Brant Drive Springdale, AR 72762 Year 2014 ISSUE #59 Miriam Cuddington ...... Vice-Chair 109 Beacon St. Moulton, AL 35650-1801

Raymond C. Sira ...... Secretary/Treasurer INFORMATION AND DISCLAIMER 5134 Prices Fork Rd. Christiansburg, VA 24073 The Nylon Highway is published by the Vertical Section of

the National Speleological Society on a regular basis Bill Boehle ...... At-Large pending sufficient material. Material is posted on the 1284 Lower Ferry Road Vertical Section’s web site soon after being received by the Ewing, NJ 08618-1408 Editor. A volume of all material is printed and distributed to

those not having access to the electronic version on an Mike Rusin ...... At-Large annual basis. 1301 McKeone Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45205 It is the intent of this publication to provide a vehicle for Tim White ...... Editor papers on vertical work. All submitted articles containing 2830 Olde Savannah Cove unsafe practices will be returned to the author. Opinions Suwanee, GA 30024 expressed herein are credited to the author and do not necessarily agree with those of the Editor, the Vertical Bruce Smith ...... Education Coordinator Section, its members or its Executive Committee. The 6313 Jan Lane Drive reader should understand that some material presented in Harrison, TN 37341-9419 the Nylon Highway may be of an experimental nature and is presented herein for peer review. The reader should Bill Cuddington ...... Vertical Contest Coordinator exercise good judgment and use common sense when 109 Beacon St. attempting new vertical techniques or using new Moulton, AL 35650-1801 equipment.

John Woods .... Vertical Techniques Workshop Coord. WARNING: The reader must acknowledge that caving, 5192 Huntswood Cir. climbing, mountaineering, rappelling, rescue work and other La Palma, CA 90623-1714 rope activities expressed in the Nylon Highway are inherently dangerous activities and serious injury or death Please send articles, art, exchange publications and other could result from use and/or misuse of techniques and material for publication in the Nylon Highway to: equipment described in this publication. Tim White 2830 Olde Savannah Cove All materials are copyrighted by the Vertical Section. Suwanee, GA 30024 Reprinted material must credit the original author and the e-mail: [email protected] source.

Please send payment for ads, subscriptions, renewals, requests for back issues, address changes and all correspondence that doesn’t have to do with anything you’ll ever want published to: Raymond C. Sira (540) 641-1412 5134 Prices Fork Rd. Christiansburg, VA 24073 e-mail: [email protected]

In short, if you’d like to submit something for possible publication, send it to the Editor. Otherwise, send it to the Secretary/Treasurer.

AN ANALYSIS OF BOWLINES

Foreword

The bowline has received extensive criticism within the climbing and rope rescue community – and some commentators have argued for its discontinuation. This paper deals in facts – and presents another side of the Bowline, one that is positive and constructive.

If a bowline was employed in a role where it could remain in equilibrium with a steady/unchanging application of load, it would function perfectly – and there would be no security issues (and this paper would probably never have been written).

However, in climbing and rescue applications, a bowline would be subjected to a dynamic environment with constantly changing (cycling) load and continuous movement. It is in this type of environment where a bowline can fail – and climbers and rope rescue technicians have long understood and tried to overcome this.

In life support applications of a mission critical nature, “ABoK #1047” (Figure 8 eye-knot) has wide support and is taught in virtually all entry-level roping courses. Its popularity is linked to the fact that it is easy to tie and relatively easy to learn (and remember) – and it is both secure and stable even under cyclic loading conditions.

However, the figure 8 eye-knot can be somewhat difficult to untie after high loading events – and it is this point that makes it unpopular amongst some climbers. It is also worth noting that in order to tie a figure 8 loop through a climbing harness or around a tree, a two stage process is required (that is, the figure 8 eye-knot is not Post Eye Tiable – ‘PET’).

The bowline has the property of being easy to untie – even after high loading events. This is why it remains the knot of choice for riggers and doggers (cranes/lifting/construction industry). The Bowline is also ‘PET’.

I originally embarked on a journey to find the ‘ideal’ knot that has the properties of a bowline (easy to untie after loading events and ‘PET’) and the security and stability of a figure 8 eye-knot (“ABoK # 1047”). This paper has evolved to much more than that – along with many new discoveries and expanding theory and analysis.

A paradox for some of the bowline creations is that in making the structure more secure, simplicity has been sacrificed. Recent efforts have tended to focus on finding ways to secure the tail or to enhance the nipping turn component. Not all of the knots perform equally well with stiffer ropes – and this needs to be carefully evaluated before entrusting a life to a particular knot.

No peer reviewed (reproducible) technical data is available for the properties of the various knots illustrated. Behaviour under static and dynamic loading and raw strength are generally poorly documented or of dubious origin.

It is the view of this author that strength is not the most important characteristic of a knot. Of greater importance are the properties of security and stability. Bowlines will generally fail at a point somewhere in the 70’s % points – which is more than adequate for climbing and rescue applications. Of greater interest to this author is testing the theory that the radius/curvature of the nipping turn plays an important role in the (eventual) rupture of the rope.

Page 1 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers

Since this paper was originally published in Jan 2009, several new secure and stable bowlines have been discovered – but not all have been extensively field tested.

Disclaimer:

This paper does not constitute advice. All of the knots illustrated in this paper are loosely tied and oriented to give the best possible photographic appearance. To the maximum extent permitted by law in your respective nation, the author and contributors to this paper will not be held responsible for any death, injury or loss arising from any use or reliance on the information published herein.

Mark Gommers July 2013

Page 2 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers CONTRIBUTORS:

I would like to personally thank the individuals who provided suggestions, comments, critique and support – without which, this paper would not exist.

Producing work such as the subject material of this paper is time consuming and difficult. What was surprising to me, was the lack of any coherent body of universally agreed theory on knots. On the particular subject of bowlines, there appeared to be much confusion, disinformation and inconsistencies.

I initially turned to the International Guild of Knot Tyers (IGKT) forum to spur interest in examining the theory of bowlines – posting the topic; ‘What defines a Bowline?’ That initial post sparked a surge of responses with at times heated debate. As of July 2013, there was something like 18,539 viewers of the post and some 299 written replies.

This paper was largely born out of that Bowline post, in an effort to gather together all the information into one coherent body of theory. I am certain that there is still much work to be done to refine the theory – and this paper is therefore a ‘living document’ that can be updated over time.

This paper is freely available in the public domain – as a contribution to our collective knowledge on knots.

I hope this will inspire others to write papers on other interesting knot structures. End-to- end joining knots such as the so-called ‘Zeppelin’ bend is just waiting for us to produce a paper.

…

My sincerest thanks go to the following individuals: Zeppelin / Rosendahl bend

Dan Lehman (USA) Scott Safier (USA Constant Xarax (Greece)

Mark Gommers 15 July 2013

Page 3 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers The Anatomy of a Bowline Standing part (‘SPart’)

Collar Note: The collar is a specific region of the bight. It is where the bight makes a U turn around the SPart.

Core (nub)

Nipping turn (a closed helical structure) This photo shows a Bight Bowline based on a right- hand helical nipping turn. C Note: A helix cannot be Crossing point described as rotating clockwise or counter- clockwise. Handedness (or chirality) is a property Entry region of of the helix, not of the SPart into the perspective. A right- nipping turn handed helix cannot be turned or flipped to look S like a left-handed one unless it is viewed in a mirror, and vice versa. Region of highest stress & strain

Eye-leg of the Tail side Tail Eye-leg of the Standing Part side

“ABoK #1010” (Ashley referred to this form as a ‘right hand’ bowline)

Connective ‘eye’

Page 4 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers Conventions used in this paper to illustrate knot structure

All knots can be identified by a universal number. This number is derived from Clifford Ashley’s masterwork – ‘The Ashley Book of Knots’ (abbreviated as ABoK). For example, the Bowline can be found at illustration number one thousand and ten. Therefore, the bowline is assigned the unique identifier number of “#1010”. As another example, the figure 8 eye-knot (F8 eye-knot) can be found at illustration number #1047.

This aspect clearly shows the nipping turn component a Bowline.

Many knot book authors only show the opposite side (ie most people would be familiar with the image at right).

DETAIL VIEW REGULAR VIEW

Note: Dan Lehman is a strong advocate of showing the ‘detail view’ of the Bowline. This aspect properly illustrates the action of the ‘Nipping Turn’ – which is a key component of all Bowlines. The author of this paper supports this view. This paper will show the detail view when it is important to examine technical detail and the structure of the knot. The ‘regular’ view will also be shown as this has been the convention used in the past and may aid readers in recognising some bowlines.

Denotes the knot is known Denotes that the knot is not practicable or Denotes the knot is known to to be secure and stable. is unlikely to see any real use such as in be TIB (tiable in the bight). Note: Strength is not an life support applications. important consideration. It may nevertheless still be an interesting structure for examination.

Page 5 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers Terminology

Traditionally, knots such as the Bowline (#1010) and F8 eye-knot (#1047) have been referred to as ‘loop’ knots. This paper refers to these types of structures as ‘eye-knots’. Rationale for this can be found with well-known items such as ‘eye-bolts’ and ‘eye- splices’. Most people can readily identify with these items.

A case in point is #1047 (F8 eye-knot). There are 2 classical ways of tying this knot: 1. Tie it in a 2 stage process – by first forming #524 then reweaving the tail back through this knot to form the final #1047 structure. 2. Tie it in-the-bight – that is, form a bight and then proceed to tie the knot as a doubled strand.

Note that both methods arrive at the same knot – which is in fact #1047. The names ‘F8 on- the-bight’ and ‘Re-threaded F8’ merely refer to the tying method, rather than the particular functional purpose of the knot. The purpose of the knot is to create a connective ‘eye’.

bight #524

#1047 #1047

Regardless of whether the knot is tied in the bight, or in a two stage process (rethreaded), the outcome is the same – “ABoK #1047”.

Connective Connective eye eye Connective eye

This structure is an ‘eye-knot’ Connective eye

Page 6 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers Terminology (continued)

Further explorations evolved by Dan Lehman and Constant Xarax include the concepts of ‘Post Eye Tiable’ (PET) and ‘Tiable in the bight’ (TIB). It is theorized that all bowlines are PET. In contrast, #1047 (F8 eye-knot) is not PET. Note that the reverse condition also applies – that is, when untying bowlines, no knot is left in the rope. For example, when untying #1047 from a harness, a knot will be left in the rope (#524). This knot must also be untied.

Tying Untying

ABoK #1010 completed

Bowline is Post Eye Tiable (PET) The Bowline can be tied in a one stage tying process – it is not necessary to form a knot first.

Must tie #524 remains… ABoK #524 this must also before be untied. creating the eye loop Tying Untying

ABoK #1047 completed

ABoK #1047 (F8 Eye-knot) Knot left in rope The F8 eye-knot is not PET. When untying #1047, the final Meaning, you must tie a knot #524 knot must also be untied. first – before forming the eye.

Page 7 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers Terminology (continued)

Some (but not all) bowlines are ‘Tiable in the Bight’ (TIB).

ABoK #1080 Bowline on-a-bight (double eye-knot)

#1047 – The F8 eye-knot can also be Tied in the Bight (TIB).

A TIB version of the ‘Eskimo’ bowline was discovered by IPatch Dec 2012 (posted on IGKT forum). Double eye knot.

Page 8 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers What exactly defines a knot as being a Bowline?

A precise definition has eluded some great knotting minds – evidence of this can be found on the IGKT forum website. From that website, and also from personal observations gleaned in experimentation and during the preparation of this research paper, I can conclude that all Bowlines exhibit the following characteristics:

1. That all Bowlines are easy to untie – even after heavy repeated loading events (eg as would be expected in a falling climber scenario); and

2. That all Bowlines can be tied in a one-stage tying process – a concept known as Post Eye Tiable (PET). For example, to tie “ABoK #1047” (Figure 8 eye-knot) into a climbers harness, a two stage tying process is required. Firstly, “ABoK #524” (Figure 8 knot) must be tied and then secondly, the final structure is formed by a process of re-threading (or reweaving) the tail back through the existing knot.

3. That all Bowlines fundamentally consist of a nipping turn component that grips and stabilises a bight component.

4. That all Bowlines have a connective eye, and this eye does not slip under load which enables the knot to be linked to objects such as carabiners, trees & climbing harnesses.

The following structures are the fundamental Bowlines based directly on the original “ABoK #1010” structure.

This is a fundamental (common) Bowline …and so is this! …and so is this! (“ABoK #1034½”) (“ABoK #1010” Right hand Bowline) Also referred to as a ‘left hand’ bowline

In the fundamental bowlines, the 2 legs of the bight component are parallel. Some of the more complex bowline structures published in this document do not have immediately recognisable bight components.

Page 9 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers The following knots are Bowline derivatives

Note that each leg of the bight SPart component enters the nipping loop from opposite directions – forming a crossed bight structure. (aka ‘Myrtle’ bowline) Crossing hitch Collar

Eye-leg of the SPart side

This is a Bowline based on a crossed This is an ‘anti’ Bowline (aka Eskimo) This is a Bowline with a nipping turn bight component (aka Myrtle) The collar is not formed around the SPart – based on a crossing hitch Note that the 2 legs of the bight it is offset 90 degrees and formed around The crossing hitch grips and stabilises the component are not lying parallel. The the eye-leg of the SPart. There are several bight. tail side leg of the bight enters the forms of the ‘Eskimo’ bowline – depending Note: There is a double-eye version of this nipping turn from the opposite on the orientation of the tail segment. knot apparently discovered by Mike Karash direction. (Mike described it as a ‘Karash double Note: The term ‘anti-bowline’ is a concept loop’). The so-called Karash double loop is theorized by Dan Lehman. It is in part TIB and also employs a nipping turn based derived from ‘anti-cyclone’ and ‘cyclone’ – on a crossing hitch. See page 12. with each being the opposite of the other.

Page 10 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers RING LOADING

The structure shown at bottom (properly known as “ABoK 1034½”) is sometimes referred to as the ‘Left hand Bowline’ or the ‘Cowboy Bowline’. Many authors wrongly condemn this version as being inferior to the original ‘Right hand Bowline’. In fact, it is resistant to a particular loading profile known as ‘ring-loading’. In contrast, the original ‘right hand Bowline’ is susceptible to ring loading and can fail. Test this for yourself… NOTE: Even though the ‘left-hand’ bowline is resistant to ring loading, it is still not considered to be a secure and stable form.

ABoK #1010 (When the tail is located inside the eye, it is referred to as a ‘right-hand’ bowline).

…pull ! …pull ! 

Ring loading

ABoK #1034½ When the tail is located outside the eye, it is referred to as a ‘left-hand’ bowline.

…pull !  …pull !

Ring loading

Page 11 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers The structure of a Bowline

Collar Nipping turn encircles and stabilises the bight. The nipping turn is a closed helix – which induces asymmetrical compression Bight of the bight. component + = Note: The collar is a specific region of Nipping turn component the bight – it is where the bight makes a U turn.

SPart

Bowline (R hand) Sheet bend – tails same side (connective eye knot) (end-to-end joining knot)

There is no tension at this position.

The core of a fundamental bowline shares some structural similarities with the sheet bend. Note however that what appears to be a nipping turn in the sheet bend in fact does not operate in the same way.

Bowline (L hand) (connective eye knot) Sheet bend – tails opposite sides (end-to-end joining knot)

There is no tension at this position.

Page 12 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers A comparison of some bowline structures – testing the theory: Compare the structures on the left to the Bowlines on the right. Do they satisfy the test to be a Bowline?

Bight is offset – the collar flows around Commentary: Nipping turn an eye-leg. The ‘Eskimo’ Bowline (or Inuit Bowline (R hand) bowline) is an anti bowline. It has the “ABoK # 1010” key nipping turn component. Note that the bight component lies perpendicular to the SPart (the collar goes around an eye-leg). It also has a ‘Eskimo’ Bowline connective eye and it remains easy to (Inuit bowline) Compare untie after heavy loading. However, ABoK # N/A to is the bight held and stabilised by an encircling nipping turn? Yes – although structurally different from the fundamental bowline, the knot functions in a similar way. The nipping turn clearly encircles, grips and stabilises the bight. The nipping turn almost takes the form of a crossing hitch – compare to Karash double loop).

Commentary: The ‘Karash double loop’ (named after discoverer Mike Karash) has a Bight bight component and a nipping turn component. It also has a connective eye. It remains easy to untie after Bowline on a Bight heavy loading. However, is the bight Karash double loop “ABoK # 1080” ABoK # N/A held and stabilised by an encircling nipping turn? Yes, by this definition, we can see that the bight component is encircled, Nipping turn Compare held and stabilised by the nipping to turn. The nipping turn has the form of a crossing hitch. Commentary: The ‘Carrick loop’ in fact has a key component of all bowlines - the nipping Nipping turn turn. It also has a connective eye which does not slip under load. It remains easy to untie after heavy loading. Clifford Ashley (author of the Ashley Book of

Bowline (R hand) Knots – ABoK) did not refer to this structure as a Bowline. However, this by Tail “ABoK # 1010” itself does not constitute evidence to the contrary.

Compare Is the bight held and stabilised by the to nipping turn? The nipping turn does encircle the bight, but at a point where the tail crosses the eye-leg. The core of the Crossed carrick loop is in fact based on a carrick Carrick loop bight bend (#1439). As with the Myrtle, the legs (bowline variant) of the bight component are not parallel – “ABoK # 1033” they are crossed in a similar form to the ‘Myrtle’. This structure is a bowline (based on #1439) variant. Note: Ashley did not characterise this knot as a bowline. Page 13 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers

SPart Commentary: The origin of the double collar crossed-bight bowline can be traced to ‘dfred’ (IGKT forum) creation of a Collar mid-line joining knot (April 2011). Crossed-bight Dfred’s structure employed a clove bowline hitch and a nipping loop offset at 90 (‘Myrtle’) degrees.

Xarax took matters a step further and Nipping turn evolved the concept from a joining knot to an eye-knot around Sep 2011 basing his creation on a constrictor.

Compare This structure contains a key element to of the bowline – the nipping turn. Collar However, the legs of the bight are not parallel. Each leg of the bight enters the nipping turn from opposite sides. A second collar is formed Double collar around the eye-leg of the SPart side – crossed bowline in effect creating a clove hitch. ABoK # N/A Several variations exist with this structure.

Clearly, this structure is not one of the fundamental bowlines – the bight component is not parallel; it is crossed.

Eye knot based on interlocked overhand knots.

No nipping turn = No Bowline! This structure is not a bowline – Nipping turn because it has no nipping turn. It is in fact an eye-knot based on inter-locked overhand knots.

Testing is required to verify if it jams. It is also not post eye Compare tiable (PET). to

Double collar crossed bight bowline ABoK # N/A

Page 14 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers A theoretical analysis of force acting on a Bowline structure

Let’s examine what happens as load is applied to a Bowline structure…

Force enters the core of the Bowline via the Standing part (‘SPart’). At the opposite end, each leg of the eye sustains 50% (half) of the force. The nipping turn is actuated by the SPart in combination with the eye-leg of the SPart. During initial uptake of strain, the greatest degree of rope movement within the core occurs with the SPart. This movement causes the nipping turn to grip and compress the bight. As load increases, compressive forces acting on the bight also increase. The radius of the nipping turn also plays a role – it is theorised that a smaller radius (sharp bends) induces higher stress and strain. Compression of the bight eventually reaches a critical stage – when the force required to further compress the bight exceeds the breaking load of the rope. At this point, rupture occurs. Rupture occurs at a region where the SPart exits from the nipping turn. Note: This paper has not pinpointed the precise location of the point of rupture – measurements are only indicative of the approximate position (ie region). High speed camera equipment and carefully placed cotton thread ‘markers’ would be required to pinpoint this position with greater accuracy. T0 at the collar location

Note: Tension is initially 0 at the collar. As force Standing Part increases, some of that force propagates to the collar – (‘SPart’) although the collar will never jam.

T1 In every pull test this author performed, 2 things were Capstan effect observed: The SPart acts as a ‘capstan’ at the 1. The collar draws down and folds over the nipping position marked ‘C’. Any slippage of turn; and the tail around the SPart will tend to 2. The tail pivots and is displaced upward – caused by be inhibited. This compliments the the upward motion of the SPart leg of the nipping turn. function of the nipping turn. The nipping turn plays a key role in these observations. Note that the nipping turn is not a perfect circle – it is a c closed helix (each leg of the nipping turn is offset by 1 rope diameter). The SPart leg of the nipping turn draws The nipping turn grips and up while the eye-leg side draws down causing compresses the bight. ‘asymmetric’ compression of the bight (like a scissor Compression continues effect). This has the net effect of inducing a kink in the until it reaches a critical bight. stage. The SPart also acts as a rigid post that the collar is braced against. As the core structure collapses the collar is levered down the SPart. It should be pointed out that Compression even after extreme loading, a bowline can easily be zone untied by simply manipulating the collar.

Region of highest stress & strain (this is the region where rupture occurs)

T0 Eye-leg of the Eye-leg of the Tail side Tail SPart side

T½ T½

Fixed anchor The nipping turn is in fact a closed helix structure.

Page 15 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers Bowline structure under load The following images provide an opportunity to study the interaction of the bight and nipping turn components under load.

Load Structure with At moderate load, Even at 1 metric ton, no load – 0kN the collar has the collar can still be begun to draw manipulated. down and fold over the nipping turn.

0kN Increasing load 10kN

Load Load

Post load examination:

SPart SPart

Nipping turn

The bight has been crushed by the nipping turn

Nipping turn

Eye-leg This region of the nipping turn has been stretched (similar to ‘necking’ in metal failure)

Page 16 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers

This form of the Bowline is Figure 1a Figure 1b insecure and vulnerable to ‘ring loading’. It is the least secure form of all the Bowlines. Bight Ashley referred to it as a ‘right hand bowline’.

Nipping turn

“ABoK #1010” (detail)  “ABoK #1010” (Regular)

This form of the Bowline is Figure 2a resistant to ring loading but is still not suitable for mission Figure 2b critical applications. Ashley referred to this form as a ‘Left Hand Bowline.’ Also referred to as a ‘Cowboy Bowline’. Nipping turn

Note position of tail is outside of the connective eye

“ABoK #1034.5” (detail) “ABoK #1034.5” (Regular)

Page 17 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers

Figure 3a Another variation suggested by Dan Figure 3b Lehman – this time a simple method of securing the tail from potential movement.

NOTE: Constant Xarax has pointed out that this structure is also TIB (tiable in the bight).

“ABoK #1010” “ABoK #1010” (Lehman lock) (Lehman lock) detail view Regular view

This simple method of locking Figure 4a the tail has long been known. A disadvantage of this method Figure 4b is the fact that the strangled double overhand knot occupies space within the eye Bight and hence can cause unwanted interference. It can also be Nipping turn difficult to estimate the length of free tail needed to tie the strangle.

Strangled double “ABoK #1010” (detail view) “ABoK #1010” (regular view) overhand knot

Page 18 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers

The so-called ‘Yosemite’ variation of the Bowline is an attempt to make the structure more secure. However, the structure is not as secure as is widely Figure 5a believed and may be compromised with Figure 5b the use of certain stiffer ropes. Also, care must be taken not to draw the tail up before setting the nipping turn or it may become displaced and compromise the knot. Nevertheless, it is widely used Bight in climbing applications.

[ ] History/first use data unknown – 2 rope diameters Nipping turn although the name suggests development and subsequent popularity encircled and originated in Yosemite valley USA. gripped by the nipping turn

Tail wraps around eye leg, then tucks through collar to finish. Bowline variant: Bowline variant: (Yosemite Bowline) (Yosemite Bowline) Detail view Regular view

SPart

Warning: Do not draw the tail up before properly tightening the nipping turn.

Figure 6a Figure 6b

Nipping turn



The ‘Yosemite’ bowline can easily be miss-tied. If the tail is drawn up before the SPart has been tightened (hence also tightening the nipping turn), the tail can be displaced to the extent that the entire bowline structure is compromised.

Page 19 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers An interesting variation of the Yosemite bowline.

Alan Lee submitted this variation of the Yosemite bowline to the IGKT forum.

The name ‘Lee’s locked Bowline’ has been used in recognition of his Figure 7a Figure 7b submission.

[ ] At the time this paper was written, this author (Mark Gommers) has trialed Note the 3 rope this bowline on a challenge ropes diameters inside the course activity. The knot retained its Nipping turn nipping turn. This dressing and was easy to untie after full increases the radius day use with approximately 60 1 3 of the nipping turn – participants (the rope was EN1891 low 2 so that the curvature stretch – not stiff, good hand). is not as tight.

Lee’s Yosemite Lee’s Yosemite variant variant Detail view Regular view

Page 20 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers

Figure 8a Figure 8b

Opportunity to submit an image Opportunity to submit an image

A simple lock devised by Scott Figure 9a Safier (USA) from the IGKT forum website. Scott suggested that this Figure 9b knot be included in this paper – it was also submitted to the IGKT forum.

Scott has conducted personal field testing of this knot (climbing) and claims that it is secure and stable. Note the 3 rope diameters inside the This is indeed quite a simple nipping turn. This Nipping turn technique – and it also places 3 rope increases the radius diameters inside the nipping turn. of the nipping turn – The author of this paper would like so that the curvature to see further field testing and is not as tight. theoretical analysis of this structure.

“ABoK #1010” “ABoK #1010” Scott’s simple lock Scott’s simple lock Bowline Bowline (Detail view) (Regular view)

Page 21 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers In this interesting version of the SPart Bowline 2 nipping turns (in the form of a clove hitch) encircle and grip the bight. These nipping turns could be regarded as ‘the nipping Figure 10a turn of the SPart’ and the ‘nipping Figure 10b turn of the eye-leg’ in a sort of primary and secondary effect. Under load, the 2 nipping turns tend Nipping turn to separate.

Note: Ashley did not specifically name this knot – he wrote; …if a Note the bowline is to be towed through the clove hitch water, a second half-hitch may be structure added (to lessen its tendency to jam). This has led to the knot being given the name water bowline.

Water Bowline Water Bowline ABoK #1012 ABoK #1012 [Detail view] [Regular view]

Figure 10c

Note the separated nipping turns

This is how the ‘Water’ bowline is presented in Ashley Book of Knots (#1012)

Page 22 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers

In this variation, the clove hitch structure has been tied in reverse (compare to figure 13). Figure 11a The clove hitch structure may be Figure 11b prone to jamming (testing required to confirm). Nipping turn [ ] History/first use data unknown.

Reversed Water Reversed Water Bowline Bowline?

[Detail view] [Regular view]

Page 23 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers

Figure 12a Figure 12b

Opportunity to submit an image Opportunity to submit an image

Figure 13a In this variation, a constrictor hitch (ABoK #1249) is used Figure 13b instead of the clove hitch.

[ ] History: The first known description of the Constrictor Nipping turn hitch occurs in Tom Bowling's 1866 work, The Book of Knots where it was called the “Gunner's Constrictor knot”. hitch

Awaiting image

Constrictor Constrictor Bowline Bowline

[Regular view] [Detail view]

Page 24 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers

Figure 14a Clifford Ashley reported that this Figure 14b form “…holds the bowline together in such a way as to lessen the danger of it capsizing, Double which is liable to occur when a nipping turns single bowline is carelessly increase the drawn up.” overall surface area acting to grip and stabilise the bight.

“ABoK #1013” (detail) “ABoK #1013” (regular)

Figure 15a Figure 15b

Opportunity to submit an image Opportunity to submit an image

Page 25 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers

Figure 16a Figure 16b A clever improvement of “ABoK #1013” devised by Dan Lehman. 3 rope diameters Discovery date circa 2002. increase the radius of the

Double 2 nipping turns. Nipping turns Binding loop 1 3

Double nipping turns

End Bound Double End Bound Double Bowline (EBDB). Bowline (EBDB). [Detail view] [Regular view]

Page 26 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers EBSB Bowline variant

This variation is an End Bound Single Bowline (EBSB), and combines elements of the original EBDB with a Yosemite finish. Figure 17a Figure 17b Compare this form to the standard ‘Yosemite Bowline’ - see figure 5 & 6 at p17.

History: Mark Gommers suggested this form as an Tail securely alternative to Dan Lehman’s held by collar Collar EBDB (fig 26) in Jan 2009. No and binding other published info exists. This loop. form of the Bowline is well suited as a tie-in knot for climbing applications. It is starting to gain in popularity as knowledge of its Nipping turn existence grows. Nipping turn 2 3

Binding loop 3 rope diameters 1 increase the radius of the nipping turn.

EBSB - Bowline  EBSB - Bowline [Detail view] [Regular view]

Test data: Tested by Mark Gommers

Cord batch coding: A050AS0100 Lot #R6-092507KT (purchased 02 Jan 2009). Test method: Static load test using 5 Ton dynafor tension load cell. Slow pull using hand operated winch, peak load recorded at failure. Knots were cinched tight by hand strength – same degree of effort used to cinch all 3 knot specimens.

EBSB Cord Cord Certification Manufacturer End fixing Test date Minimum Peak % strength diameter material anchor pin Breaking load at relative to diameters Strength failure MBS (Sterling) Test 1 5.0mm Nylon EN 564 Sterling USA 10.0mm 14 Jan 2009 5.2 kN 3.84 kN 73% Test 2 5.0mm Nylon EN 564 Sterling USA 10.0mm 14 Jan 2009 5.2 kN 4.02 kN 77% Test 3 5.0mm Nylon EN 564 Sterling USA 10.0mm 14 Jan 2009 5.2 kN 3.96 kN 76%

Page 27 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers

Figure 18a Collar Figure 18b

The version of the Bowline is attributed to Heinz Prohaska and has two collars. Prohaska referred to it as a ‘Double Bight Bowline’. It also has 3 rope diameters which are encircled and gripped by the 3 loop. Dan Lehman refers to 1 this form as a ‘Janus 2 Bowline’.

3 rope diameters encircled and Collar gripped by the nipping loop.

Double Bight Bowline Double Bight Bowline (Janus bowline) (Janus bowline) [Detail view] [Regular view]

Figure 19a Figure 19b This variation of the ‘Janus’ was suggested by Dan Lehman. It also has 3 rope diameters which are encircled and gripped by the loop. The structures resistance to ring loading is not fully explored.

Cowboy Janus Cowboy Janus variant variant [Detail view] [Regular view]

Page 28 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers

Figure 20a A girth hitched Bowline. It Figure 20b begins from a girth hitch /larks head. Compare its structure to the water bowline at figure 13.

The girth hitch is also the base structure for tying mirrored Bowlines (see fig 35 & 36).

Girthed hitched Girthed hitched bowline bowline [Detail view] [Regular view]

Figure 21a A mirrored Bowline. It Figure 21b begins from a girth hitch /larks head. There are 2 collars – similar in concept to the Janus variant.

The structure has 3 rope diameters inside each nipping loop.

Mirrored bowline Mirrored bowline [Detail view]  [Regular view]

Page 29 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers A double collar crossed-bight bowline.

The legs of the bight are not Figure 22a parallel, they enter the nipping Figure 22b turn from opposite sites (‘Myrtle’).

Based on dfred’s (IGKT Collar forum) earlier work on mid- line joining knots in 2011 and then expanded upon by Xarax. The structure contains a nipping turn – which is a key Nipping turn element of all bowlines.

Collar

Double collar Double collar crossed bight crossed bight [Detail view] [Regular view]

Figure 23a Scotts woven collar Bowline. Figure 23b

Scott Safier (USA) discovered this interesting lock for the bowline 02 Feb 2013. Collar The collar structure must be set and dressed for the lock to have maximum effect. This is an interesting structure because effort has been directed at securing the tail before it has been fed through the nipping turn. The weave appears to Nipping turn inhibit tail slippage pre-nipping turn. Note: The weave can also be tied so that the tail ends up on the outside of the eye.

Field testing is needed.

Scott’s woven Scott’s woven collar bowline collar bowline [Detail view] [Regular view]

Page 30 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers

Figure 24a Figure 24b

ABoK #1080 Bowline on- ABoK #1080 Bowline on- a-bight (double eye-knot). a-bight (double eye-knot). (Regular view) (Detail view)

Figure 25a Figure 25b

Eskimo bowline on-a- Eskimo bowline on-a- bight (double eye-knot). bight (double eye-knot). Detail view Regular view ABoK N/A ABoK N/A

Page 31 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers

Figure 26a Figure 26b

Awaiting images of Tweedledee bowlines from Constant Xarax

Page 32 of 32 Bowline Analysis DRAFT Version 2.1c 30 July 2013 (for comment) Prepared by Mark Gommers Rescue Knot Efficiency Revisited

By John McKently

From the 2014 International Technical Rescue Symposium (ITRS) John McKently has been the Director of the CMC Rescue School since 1995 and is a long time ITRS attendee and presenter. In addition to his teaching duties, his practical rescue experience comes from 40 years as a member of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Montrose Search and Rescue Team.

OCCUPATION / AGENCIES

1. Senior Instructor: California State Fire Training • Confined Space Technician 2. Instructor: California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) • Search Management and Winter Search Management 3. Instructor: US Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) 4. Member: Montrose (CA) Search and Rescue Team, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department 5. Member: California State Fire Training • Rope Rescue Technician Curriculum Development Working Group • Confined Space Technician Working Group

Rescue Knot Efficiency Revisited

In 1987 personnel from CMC Rescue performed tests on a variety of knots commonly used in rescue systems to determine their efficiency. The purpose of testing was as preparation for the First Edition of the CMC Rope Rescue Manual and for presentations at various industry events. Prior to this time there had been similar testing on climbing knots, but the rope used was three-strand laid rope (Goldline) and there were no details of the testing conditions or methods used, so the results were not considered repeatable or of unknown value to rescuers using low stretch ropes.

Our testing was done at Wellington Puritan, a large rope manufacturer in Georgia, but no details were given about their test machine. There wasn’t any Cordage Institute #1801 standard for test methodology at the time, though the report does state that Federal Test 191A Method 6016 was used. In the cases where there was a loop created by the knot, it was attached to the test apparatus with a ½” steel carabiner which had an MBS ±15,000 lbf, well above that of the sample rope or the test knot.

Tests were performed on 18 knots in rope and eight in webbing. Some were the same knot but purposely tied incorrectly. For example: a bowline with the tail on both the inside and outside of the loop. Five samples were tested of each knot and the point of break was noted. Most tests show breaking at the jaws of the test machine or in the knot. Our experience with the 2014 tests was that in most cases the rope broke at the first turn where it entered or exited the knot.

1987 Tests ½” Rhino Rescue Rope (100% Nylon)

Double Fisherman 21% strength loss equals 79% Efficiency

Figure 8 Bend 19% 81%

Figure 8 Loop 20% 80%

Double Figure 8 Loop 18% 82%

Bowline 33% 67%

1” Tubular Webbing (100% Nylon)

Water Knot 36% 64%

Overhand Loop 35% 65%

These and similar test results are referred to or copied directly in On Rope (Smith and Padgett), Confined Space and Structural Rope Rescue (Roop, Wright and Vines), and many other state and local fire training manuals. From a quick glance at those test results, many of us determined that you could expect about a 20% strength loss. In the “Figure 8 family of knots,” and those were much stronger than the more traditional Bowline, with the added advantage of the Figure 8’s being an inherently safe knots.

In High Angle Rescue Techniques 3rd Edition (Hudson and Vines) four samples each were tested with the following results:

Bowline in 7/16” 74% Bowline in ½” 73%

Figure 8 78% Figure 8 80%

In this case no information was given as to the test methodology, environmental conditions or rope used for the test. While the results are not exactly the same, they are close enough to show a pattern confirming our earlier work. In that manual they also include the following caveat, ”Test results may vary, depending on a number of factors such as the design of the rope, the manufacturer and the test conditions.“ Truer words were never written and that statement is applicable to all of the tests described in this report.

During the process of revising the CMC Rope Rescue Manual in 2008 we thought it would be interesting to revisit the tests, and if possible repeat them to see how the results compared. For those tests we used CMC Lifeline, a 100% nylon product, which is similar in construction to the Wellington Puritan Rhino except that it is manufactured by New England Rope. The list of knots tested was reduced, but the other significant difference was the test machine. For the first time the force measuring was done by an electronic load cell and not a mechanical dynamometer so the readings were more precise.

As time went on 100% polyester rope was introduced. Polyester has a higher chemical resistance than nylon, but the main reason for its acceptance by the technical rescue community is that it has less elongation than nylon. Another property of polyester is that it is has less surface friction or is “slipperier” than nylon sheathed ropes. We wondered if that characteristic would allow the rope fibers within the knot to better adjust to the compression and tensioning that occurs during loading and maybe even be more efficient.

For consistency we tested the same knots used during our 2008 testing. We followed the Cordage Institute standard test method but there were some differences. The person tying the knots was different than the earlier tests. The test machine was different. Even with the longer pull distance(60” vs. 48”) we had to pretension the samples beyond hand- tight for the series of tests using Rescue Lifeline. We assume that was done during the earlier tests but the notes did not indicate that. The testing was also done on a vertical axis where the previous testing was done horizontally. We do not think that would have a bearing on the results, but it should be noted. In the case of the loop knots- Alpine Butterfly, Figure 8 on a Bight, Double Figure 8 Loop and Inline Figure 8, there was no load in the loop during the end-to-end tests. We wanted to do that, and plan to do so in the future, but logistically it became very complicated and was compounded by the constant need to adjust the load as the sample elongates during the testing. CMC Tests:

3/2008 ½” CMC Rescue Lifeline (100% Nylon)

9/2014 ½” Static Pro (100% Polyester)

CMC Lifeline CMC Static-Pro Lifeline kN Lbf Efficiency kN Lbf Efficiency Control A 42.7949 9620 40.8792 9190 Control B 46.97152 10,559 (10 samples) Average 44.8832 10,090

Alpine Butterfly End to End 29.5851 6651 66% 24.1894 5438 60% Loop to End 34.342 7720 77% 24.7944 5574 61%

Bowline 30.4932 6855 75% 23.3621 5252 58%

Figure 8 Loop End to End* 33.0147 7422 74% 22.1877 4988 54% Loop to End 33.5487 7542 77% 28.4108 6387 70%

Double Loop Figure 8 32.8681 7389 75% 27.0363 6078 66%

Figure 8 Bend 25.47428 5727 57% 27.0363 6078 66%

Double Fisherman 35.5987 8003 79% 32.8234 7379 80%

Inline figure 8 End to End 23.0918 5191 51% 19.6834 4425 49% Loop to End 32.7848 7370 73% 25.5639 5747 63%

Scaffold Knot 36.5106 8208 81% 28.0149 6298 69% *Tests conducted 10/15/13 on samples from the same spools of rope as other tests

Values in BOLD type are as originally recorded. The other values are calculated from those.

Same samples as above submerged in Goleta, CA tap water for 1 hour

CMC Rescue Lifeline (3/2008) CMC Static Pro (9/2014) kN lbf % Efficiency kN lbf % Efficiency Control 44.0107 9894 98 42.7608 9613 105

Bowline 28.1261 6623 67 23.7268 5334 58

Figure 8 Loop 37.9789 8538 91 27.7213 6232 68

Comparison of selected knot efficiency

Knot Rhino Rescue-1987 Nylon Lifeline-2008 Polyester Lifeline-2014 Bowline 67% 75% 58% Butterfly 77% 61% Figure 8 on a Bight 80% 77% 70% Double Loop Figure 8 82% 75% 66% Figure 8 Bend 81% 57% 66% Double Fisherman 79% 79% 80% In line Figure 8 73% 63% Scaffold Knot 81% 69%

These tests provide an estimate of what you can expect. There are numerous variables that can affect the efficiency of the knot.

John McKently CMC Rescue ITRS 2014

Slow Pull Testing of Progress Capture Devices

By DJ Walker & Russell McCullar

From the 2014 International Technical Rescue Symposium (ITRS) Abstract: For years, rope rescuers and students have calculated the safety margin of systems by comparing the greatest expected load and the weakest engineered component of a rope system. This ratio is often referred to as a Static System Safety Factor (SSSF). It allows for a safety margin or buffer to account for unidentified forces caused by friction and other “noise” within a system. The breaking strengths used to calculate the SSSF are often published by equipment manufactures and even stamped on products that are tested by third parties. The problem is that devices used in haul systems, acting as Progress Capture Devices or Ratchet Cams, do not have consistent published rates of failure. The purpose of this research is to identify the failure strengths and conditions of common PCDs and publish the information using conservative 3-sigma values in a format of SSSF ratios.

This allows rescuers and students to more readily perform field calculations of the SSSF of their haul systems and choose the most appropriate devices for a given application. The following research questions were answered using empirical testing and observation. A. What is the 3-Sigma MBS of a single Prusik, double Prusik, Rescuescender,Grip, Munter Hitch, I'D, and MPD when used on 12.5mm PMI EZ-Bend? B. What is the 3-Sigma MBS of a single Prusik, double Prusik, Rescuescender,Grip, Munter Hitch, I'D, and MPD when used on 11mm PMI EZ-Bend? C. What constitutes a failure of a PCD? D. What constitutes a loss of confidence of a PCD?

Bios: This will be a joint presentation by Russell MuCullar and DJ Walker.

DJ Walker: DJ is currently a Lieutenant in the Austin Texas Fire Department (AFD), serving as the Special Operations Training Officer. His responsibilities include the development and management of the Special Operations Training program for the 140 member AFD Special Operations Team. DJ is the Chair and founding member of a technical rescue committee called Regional Standardization of Equipment and Training (ReSET) who created and delivers a technical rescue training program that serves agencies in Central Texas. DJ is a member of Texas Task Force One, serving the State of Texas as a Helicopter Search and Rescue Technician (HSART), deploying with Texas Military Forces Blackhawk helicopters in time of disaster. He has been the South Central Regional Coordinator for the National Cave Rescue Commission (NCRC) since 2004 and facilitates cave rescue training and provides cave rescue resources in five states. DJ served as the Technical Rescue Track Leader for five consecutive NASAR conferences in the mid 2000’s. When not working, DJ enjoys caving, climbing, hiking and doing anything outdoors. He has been a student of Technical Rescue since 1998 and regularly teaches rescue for a number of organizations. This will be his 12th ITRS to attend.

James Russell McCullar II: Mr. McCullar is a Senior Instructor with the Mississippi State Fire Academy. His responsibilities include the management of NFPA 1006 Rescue Programs. Russell is a Rescue Specialist and Technical Search Specialist with FEMA Tennessee Task Force 1. His firefighting and rescue career began with the Lafayette County Fire Department in Oxford, MS, as a volunteer firefighter, where he ascended to the rank of Station Captain. As a career firefighter with the Batesville Fire Department, he rose to the rank of Station Lieutenant before his departure in 2010. In 2009, he earned his Master’s Degree in Homeland Security at the University of Mississippi where he also received a Bachelor of Business Administration in Management in 2005. Over a fourteen-year career, he maintains certificate training in excess of 3000 hours and over 2000 hours of instruction in technical rescue. Mr. McCullar spends his time instructing other rescuers around the state of Mississippi and the country. He resides in Brandon, Mississippi with his wife, Sydney.

Slow Pull Testing of Progress Capture Devices 2014 International Technical Rescue Symposium DJ Walker & Russell McCullar

Rescue technicians strive to evaluate the integrity and behavior of their system components, and give consideration to those characteristics as they relate to safety. One of the more common analyses done of a rescue system is a Static System Safety Factor (SSSF) analysis. This SSSF is essentially the ratio of system or component strength compared to anticipated force. The SSSF becomes difficult to assess when the strength of a component, or the interaction of that component within the system, is unknown. Most of the engineered equipment and software common in rope rescue have a published and labeled Minimum Breaking Strengths (MBS) provided by the manufacturer and often validated by Underwriters Laboratories.

The problem is that devices used in haul systems, acting as Progress Capture Devices (PCDs) or ratchets, do not have consistent published rates of failure. There is no widely proliferated information outlining how these PCDs interact with the host rope at the point of failure. As a consequence of this information-gap, field practitioners cannot accurately calculate the SSSF in their systems. The researchers feel this likely leads to an over-estimation of system integrity and SSSFs. The purpose of this research is to identify the failure strengths and conditions of common PCDs and publish the information detailing high, low, and average rates of failure as well as the conditions in which this occurs.

The results of this research will allow rescuers and students to more readily perform field calculations of the SSSF of their haul systems and choose the most appropriate devices for a given application. The following research questions are the goal of this project. They will be explored using empirical testing and observation.

1. What is the strength of a single Prusik, tandem Prusik, Rescucender, Grip, Munter Hitch, I'D, and MPD when used on both new and old 12.5mm PMI EZ-Bend Kernmantle Rope? 2. What is the strength of a single Prusik, tandem Prusik, Rescucender, Grip, Munter Hitch, I'D, Basic, and MPD when used on both new and old 11mm PMI EZ-Bend Kernmantle Rope? 3. What constitutes a failure of a PCD? 4. What constitutes a loss of confidence of a PCD?

Background

SSSF It is important that “Safety Factor,” in the context of rescue and this research is clearly defined. There are two types of Safety Factors relevant to Technical Rescue:

1. Component to Force Ratio- the ratio between the MBS of a component compared to the force applied to it. 2. Static System Safety Factor (SSSF)- the Component to Force Ratio of the weakest link in the whole system.

Technicians must be capable of assessing forces applied to components. They must also be familiar with the Minimum Breaking Strength (MBS) of devices in the manner of which they are being used. There are a lot of myths about Safety Factors. The most prevalent of these incorrectly states that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) requires a 15:1 safety factor. NFPA has not published a minimum “Safety Factor” in their technical rescue standards. It is up to teams, or Authorities Having Jurisdictions (AHJs) to decide how they implement Safety Factors into their programs or Standard Operating Guidelines.

Central to determining a Safety Factor is identifying the MBS of a component. Without this, half of the ratio does not exist. For some devices MBS is simple to define. Take a carabiner for example: apply force to it until it fails; do this with several samples; perform some statistical mathematics, and you have a fairly reliable MBS. For other devices defining MBS is not so easy. In some cases it just may not be possible. How can rescuers quantify the Safety Factor of these devices in their intended application?

The PCD Progress Capture Devices (PCDs) are used to “capture the progress” made while operating a hauling system. They are often used to support the load so that a mechanical advantage system can be reset. In this application, the PCD sees an initial application of force as the load is transferred, from the haul team, onto the PCD. Once the load is fully supported by the PCD it holds the load static until the system operator(s) take further action. There are many devices that can be used as a PCD. For the purposes of our study we focused on the following:

Munter Hitch Petzl Basic Single Prusik (8mm) Petzl I’D Tandem Prusik (8mm) PMI/SMC Grip Petzl Rescucender CMC MPD (Multi-Purpose Device) It is important to note that the PCDs are loaded in a controlled fashion. It is not the intent of this study to examine similar devices in a dynamic setting or a belay configuration. The results of this study should not be applied to belays.

Literature Review The following sources of information and literature were evaluated and considered in the context of the research: Manual of U.S. Cave Rescue Techniques 3rd Ed., Engineering Practical Rope Rescue Systems, High Angle Rescue Techniques 3rd Ed., Technical Rescuer: Rope Levels 1 & 2, On Rope, CMC Rope Rescue Manual 3rd Ed., Is Slow-Pull Testing of Equipment Realistic?, 1-in. Webbing Anchor Tests (2000), NASAR Fundamentals of Search and Rescue, User documents for various pieces of hardware. Consulting with Engineers & Trainers at PMI, CMC Recue, and Petzl.

Procedures & Experimental Design All tests were conducted using a SKV Model TTL-10 horizontal test bed with 25,000 pound capacity at the PMI factory in LaFayette Georgia. The machine is in a large warehouse and conditions were a fairly consistent 72 degrees and 72% humidity. Each PCD was connected to the static end of the testing device with a SMC Light Steel Carabiner. Each rope section was 15 feet in length and was connected to a bollard on the end of a hydraulic ram. The ram had two speeds; the normal speed has a continuous pull rate of 6 inches per minute. The second speed, we called “Fast Forward”, increased the rate of pull to 59 inches per minute. As each test began the “fast forward” was pressed until 1 Kilo-newton (kN) of force was exerted on the PCD, this was to simulate the initial loading of a PCD when the haul team is transitioning the load onto the PCD. A minimum of five samples of each combination of rope type and PCD type were tested. For a few combinations the sample size was increased due to unexpected anomalies or wide standard deviations. Each pull was continued until failure occurred, or five minutes elapsed time passed. During the tests, the following information was obtained: (a.) peak force value upon failure, (b.) graphic representation of the escalation and reduction of forces for each test, (c.) real- time observation of each test, (d.) video documentation of relevant tests and findings, (e.) photographs of remarkable observations, (f.) samples retained of each test combination or result.

Two examples of the test set-up can be seen below:

The Rope and Prusiks There are so many variations of rope construction both between different manufacturers and with different models from any one manufacturer. The researchers who initiated this study most commonly use PMI EZ-Bend rope. In the interest of focusing efforts and resources, the tests were performed on PMI EZ-Bend rope. Diameters tested were 11mm and 12.5mm rope. Both new rope and old rope was used. The new rope was cut directly off a spool that never left the PMI factory. The “old rope” came from three different training caches and was considered “in service” up until the day it was used for testing. The 11mm rope was about 10 years old and saw service about 15 days per year. The older 12.5mm rope was 7 years old and saw service about 50 days per year. The second “old” 12.5mm rope was manufactured in 2011, in service for 1 year, and saw 24 days of use.

In addition to the “standard construction ropes” we also included 11mm Extreme Pro rope in the testing. Extreme Pro is a new rope made by PMI. It is an all Polyester rope with a bonded core and sheath using what PMI calls “Unicore” technology. Only “new rope” was used for the Extreme Pro test series.

The cordage used for Prusiks also consisted of new and old, all manufactured by PMI. The new accessory cord was cut directly off a spool that never left the PMI factory. The “old Prusiks” came from the same respective training caches as the rope and varied in age from 2004-2010.

Failure vs System Operation Limit As the tests were conducted, a distinct behavior pattern was observed. Some rope/PCD combinations would behave in a way that was considered a “Failure” while others reached what the researchers deemed the “System Operation Limit”.

Failure- an outcome that would have allowed the load to release and fall to the ground, or those outcomes that severely damaged the rope or PCD to the point that there was a loss of confidence in the ability for the PCD/rope to support the load. The most common type of loss of confidence was desheathing the rope, exposing the core.

System Operation Limit- an outcome where the rope or PCD did not cause a release of the load but the combination achieved a force where it would not perform the intended job (Progress Capture). Most commonly this was when the rope continuously slipped through the PCD and would not hold the load or cause a loss of confidence in the system’s ability to support the load.

Limitations of Research Time and budgetary constraints prohibited all possible PCD and rope combinations from being tested. Relevant devices that could be tested might include ratcheting pulleys, Gibbs Ascenders, and other cam- actuated PCDs. These results may not necessarily be extrapolated to ropes with a differing number of sheath carriers or handling characteristics. The sample sizes were limited to 5 tests per combination in an initial attempt to gain 3-sigma values. Three-sigma reporting was later considered to be a poor fit for the scope of the study. As with all research, however, larger sample sizes would likely yield even more accurate averages and reduce standard deviations. Another limitation encountered was the variability of the loading of PCDs while the machine was in “fast forward.” The intent was to load each device to 1 kN, but was limited by the researchers’ and operators reaction time. Due to time constraints, an adjustment to the experimental design was made in the test lab. For time-saving purposes, devices clearly exhibiting what came to be known as a System Operation Limit (SOL) were given an arbitrary five minutes of testing once the rope began travelling through the device. This typically resulted in 30” of travel, but it cannot be absolutely concluded what may have occurred if pulled indefinitely. The Munter Hitch may have tested more favorably in a working position, rather than tied-off. This may not reflect true field values. The test machine cage and experimental design did not allow researchers to explore this avenue. Perhaps utilizing a hand or mechanical grip may have resulted in a potential SOL behavior.

Results

The pages that follow are the raw data and notes from 5 days of testing from June 30-July 3, 2014 and follow-up testing on August 15, 2014. Following the data are observations and some recommended action items the rescue community should consider based on empirical observations, discussions and deliberations, and statistical analysis as a result of the research and testing. Single Prusik

8mm Single Prusik New Rope,11mm Peak KN Peak Lbf Comments 11mm #1 14.69 3302.31 Prusik broke in the strand under the bridge 11mm #2 13.74 3088.75 Desheathed the rope, Several incremental slips prior to failure, large slip just under 9kN, big slips @ 13 kN 11mm #3 13.88 3120.22 Desheathed the rope, Several incremental slips prior to failure, large slip just under ?, big slips @ ? kN 11mm #4 13.85 3113.48 Prusik broke at the hitch, under the bridge, but further into the wraps 11mm #5 14.47 3252.86 Prusik broke in the strand under the bridge Average 14.13 3175.52 StandDev 0.425 95.51

8mm Single Prusik (Old) Old Rope, 11mm- (Rope was put in service around 2004. Prusiks vary in age 2004-2008) very little slip(3-4"), desheathed the rope at 12.47kN (a short slip bonds and bights, followed by sheath strip 12.47 2803.26 11mm #1 at a slightly lower value) very little slip(3-4"), desheathed the rope at 12.08kN(slipped two times, second bonds and bights, followed 12.08 2715.58 11mm #2 by sheath strip at a slightly lower value) 11mm #3 11.61 2609.93 Slipped for several inches (6"-8"), then bit down and desheathed the rope at 11.61kN 11mm #4 9.41 2115.37 very little slip(2-3"), Prusik broke at the bridge at 9.41kN 11mm #5 8.12 1825.38 very little slip(2-3"), Prusik broke at the bridge at 8.12kN (prusik-2005) 11mm #6 11.35 2551.48 very little slip(2-3"), Prusik broke at the bridge at 11.35kN 11mm #7 10.67 2398.62 very little slip(2-3"), Prusik broke at the Carabiner bight at 10.67kN 11mm #8 10.88 2445.82 very little slip(2-3"), Slip at 10.2, then grabbed fast, Prusik broke at the Carabiner bight at 10.88kN 11mm #9 12.84 2886.43 Very little slip (2-3"), Slipped at 12.84, then bit down and desheathed the rope at 10.2kN 11mm #10 9.42 2117.62 very little slip(2-3"), Prusik broke at the Carabiner bight at 9.42kN Average 10.89 2446.95 StandDev 1.510 339.42

8mm Single Prusik New Rope, 12.5mm 12.5mm #1 13.87 3117.98 Prusik broke in the strand under the bridge 12.5mm #2 16.59 3729.43 Prusik broke in the strand under the bridge 12.5mm #3 14.72 3309.06 Prusik broke in the strand under the bridge 12.5mm #4 14.12 3174.18 Prusik broke in the strand under the bridge 12.5mm #5 14.82 3331.54 Prusik broke in the strand under the bridge Average 14.82 3332.44 StandDev 1.065 239.37

8mm Single Prusik (Old) Old Rope, 12.5mm- (Rope was put in service around 2007. Prusiks vary in age 2006-2013) 12.5mm #1 13.35 3001.08 very little slip (mainly as prusik tightened down), Prusik broke at the carabiner bight at 13.35kN 12.5mm #2 14.09 3167.43 very little slip (mainly as prusik tightened down), Prusik broke at the carabiner bight at 14.09kN 12.5mm #3 8.94 2009.71 very little slip (mainly as prusik tightened down), Prusik broke at the bridge at 8.94kN (prusik 2007) 12.5mm #4 8.34 1874.83 very little slip (mainly as prusik tightend down), Prusik broke at the carabiner bight at 8.34kN 12.5mm #5 11.19 2515.51 Slipped 3.5", prusik broke ar the carabiner bight at 11.19kN (prusik 2006) Average 11.18 2513.71 StandDev 2.562 575.99

Single Prusik New Rope, 11mm ExPro 11mm ExPro #1 10.73 2412.10 Desheathed the rope at 10.73. Rope desheathed 4.5" from starting point 11mm ExPro #2 9.7 2180.56 Continuiously "skipped" down the rope, would build to 9.5-9.7 and "skip". 21" of slip from the starting point 11mm ExPro #3 10.95 2461.56 Desheathed the rope at 10.95. Rope desheathed 3.5" from starting point 11mm ExPro #4 10.2 2292.96 Continuious smooth slide between 6-7kN for five minutes. Peaked at 10.2 kN, then began slip for 21" 11mm ExPro #5 11.49 2582.95 Detheathed the rope at about 8kN, peak force was 11.49, 4.25" from the starting point Average 10.61 2386.03 StandDev 0.689 154.95

XX XXXX Grey cells represent a "Fail" XX XXXX White cells represent "System Operation Limit" XX XXXX Bold text represent an abnormal result Tandem Prusiks

8mm Tandem Prusik (New) New Rope, 11mm Peak KN Peak Lbf Comments 11mm #1 25.88 5817.82 desheathed rope in front of short prusik at 25.88 kN- 6.5" of slip from starting point (long prusik) 11mm #2 23.47 5276.06 desheathed rope in front of short prusik at 23.47 kN- 7.5" of slip from starting point (long prusik) 11mm #3 23.89 5370.47 desheathed rope in front of short prusik at 23.89 kN- continued to pull, desheathed in front of long prusik at 20.5ish 11mm #4 24.18 5435.66 Short prusik broke at 24.18 under the bridge, continued the pull, long prusik broke at 14.72 11mm #5 23.86 5363.73 Short prusik broke at 23.86 under the bridge, continued the pull, Long prusik desheathed the rope at 12.88 Average 24.26 5452.75 StandDev 0.942 211.83 11mm Anom1 26.290 Machine started pulling at a much faster rate unexpectedly. Pulled fast with desheathing in front of short prusik at 26.29

8mm Tandem Prusik (Old) Old Rope, 11mm- (Rope was put in service around 2004. Prusiks vary in age 2004-2008) 11mm #1 18.43 4143.06 Some slipping (3.5"), Large slip around 18 kN, then Short prusik desheathed the rope at 18.43kN 11mm #2 15.87 3567.58 13-14" of slippage, then bit down and desheathed the rope at 15.87kN 11mm #3 19.65 4417.32 Some slipping (3.5"), Large slip at 19.65 kN, reducing loading, then Short prusik bit down and desheathed the rope at 15.8kN 10-12" of slippage of slip, 16.34 kN Short prusik broke at the bridge, Continued pull, long prusik slipped an additional 2-3" and then 16.35 3675.48 11mm #4 desheathed the rope at about 10kN 11mm #5 15.85 3563.08 12-13" of slippage, short prusik desheathed the rope at 15.85kN Average 17.23 3873.30 StandDev 1.719 386.51

8mm Tandem Prusik (New) New Rope, 12.5mm 12.5mm #1 26.02 5849.30 desheathed rope in front of long prusik at 26.02 12.5mm #2 27.75 6238.20 desheathed rope in front of long prusik at 27.75 12.5mm #3 25.14 5651.47 Short Prusik Broke at 25.14 under the bridge; continued pull and long prusik broke at an unknown value 12.5mm #4 27.66 6217.97 Both prusiks broke at the same time under the bridges (4.5" of slippage from start to stopping point in front of the long prusik 12.5mm #5 28.32 6366.34 Short Prusik Broke at 28.32 under the bridge; continued pull and long prusik desheathed the rope at 14.24 Average 26.978 6064.65 StandDev 1.338 300.72

8mm Tandem Prusik (Old) Old Rope, 12.5mm- (Rope was put in service around 2007. Prusiks vary in age 2006-2013) 12.5mm #1 24.96 5611.01 3-4" of slippage, desheathed the rope in front of long prusik at 24.96kN 12.5mm #2 18.45 4147.56 2-3" of slip, short prusik broke at the bridge 18.45kN, continued pull, long prusik broke at the bridge 12.8kN 12.5mm #3 16.67 3747.42 3-4" of slip, short prusik broke at the carabiner 16.67kN, continued pull, long prusik broke at bridge 8.59kN 12.5mm #4 21.4 4810.72 4-5" of slippage, desheathed the rope in front of the long prusik at 21.4kN 12.5mm #5 19.21 4318.41 5.5" of slippage, short prusik broke at carabiner 19.21kN, continued pull, long prusik broke at bridge 11.5kN 12.5mm#6 16.35 3675.48 2-3" of slip, short prusik broke at the bridge 16.35kN, continued pull, long prusik broke at the carabiner bight 10.2kN 12.5mm#7 17.69 3976.71 Short Prusik broke @ 17.69 kN, then long slipped and bites down and broke @ 14.1, Slipped 3" 12.5mm#8 24.8 5575.04 Short Prusik broke @ 24.80 kN, then long slipped and bites down and desheathed @ 15.9, Slipped 4-6" Average 19.941 4482.79 StandDev 3.430 771.03

Tandem Prusik (New) New Rope, 11mm Ex Pro 11mm ExPro #1 10.4 2337.92 Short prusik elongated and bumped against the long prusik, both continuously slipped down the rope at about 6.1 kN for five minutes 11mm ExPro #2 10.1 2270.48 Short prusik elongated and bumped against the long prusik, both continuously slipped down the rope at about 6.1 kN for five minutes 11mm ExPro #3 10.2 2292.96 Short prusik elongated and bumped against the long prusik, both continuously slipped down the rope at about 5.9-6.1 kN for five minutes 11mm ExPro #4 14.28 3210.14 Desheathed rope in front of Short prusik at 14.28kN 11mm ExPro #5 11.28 2535.74 Short prusik elongated and bumped against the long prusik, both continuously slipped down the rope at about 6.5-7 kN for five minutes Average 11.25 2529.45 StandDev 1.756 394.67

XX XXXX Grey cells represent a "Fail" XX XXXX White cells represent "System Operation Limit" XX XXXX Bold text represent an abnormal result

Petzl Rescucender

Rescucender New Rope, 11mm Peak KN Peak Lbf Comments 11mm #1 4.57 1027.34 Continuous slip, very smooth, Some sheath bunching 11mm #2 3.91 878.97 Continuous slip, very smooth, Some sheath bunching 11mm #3 4.08 917.18 Continuous slip, very smooth, Some sheath bunching 11mm #4 3.46 777.81 Continuous slip, very smooth, Some sheath bunching 11mm #5 3.42 768.82 Continuous slip, very smooth, Some sheath bunching Average 3.888 874.02 StandDev 0.476 106.91

Rescucender Old Rope, 11mm- (Rope was put in service around 2004) 11mm #1 3.12 701.38 Continuous slip, very smooth, Some sheath bunching 11mm #2 3.30 741.84 Continuous slip, very smooth, Some sheath bunching 11mm #3 4.07 914.94 Continuous slip, very smooth, Some sheath bunching 11mm #4 4.85 1090.28 Continuous slip, very smooth, Some sheath bunching 11mm #5 3.01 676.65 Continuous slip, very smooth, Some sheath bunching Average 3.670 825.02 StandDev 0.779 175.12

Rescucender New Rope, 12.5mm 12.5mm #1 11.48 2580.70 As the sheath bunched, cam "skipped" several times 12.5mm #2 12.38 2783.02 Continuous slip, very smooth, Some sheath bunching, some "skips" after bunching 12.5mm #3 10.68 2400.86 Continuous slip, very smooth, Some sheath bunching, some "skips" after bunching 12.5mm #4 11.89 2672.87 Continuous slip, very smooth, Some sheath bunching, some "skips" after bunching 12.5mm #5 11.26 2531.25 Continuous slip, very smooth, Some sheath bunching, some "skips" after bunching Average 11.54 2593.74 StandDev 0.64 144.37

Rescucender Old Rope, 12.5mm- (Rope was put in service around 2007) 12.5mm #1 11.95 2686.36 Desheathed the rope 12.5mm #2 9.92 2230.02 Desheath the rope at 9.92, Continued pull until total failure 10.89 12.5mm #3 11.00 2472.80 Desheath the rope 12.5mm #4 9.79 2200.79 Desheath the rope 12.5mm #5 10.21 2295.21 Desheath the rope Average 10.574 2377.04 StandDev 0.901 202.62

Rescucender ExPro New Rope, 11mm 11mm ExPro #1 4.69 1054.31 Peaked at 4.69 and continuously slipped at about 4.3 for five minutes 11mm ExPro #2 4.73 1063.30 Started slipping at 2kN, continuously slipped at about 4.3 for five minutes 11mm ExPro #3 4.19 941.91 Peaked at 4.19 and continuously slipped at about 4 for five minute 11mm ExPro #4 4.08 917.18 Peaked at 4.08 and continuously slipped at about 4 for five minute 11mm ExPro #5 4.19 941.91 Peaked at 4.08 and continuously slipped at about 4 for five minute Average 4.38 983.72 StandDev 0.309 69.35

XX XXXX Grey cells represent a "Fail" XX XXXX White cells represent "System Operation Limit" XX XXXX Bold text represent an abnormal result SMC Grip

PMI/SMC Grip New Rope, 11mm Peak KN Peak Lbf Comments 11mm #1 8.03 1805.14 little to no slip then desheathes rope at 8.03kN 11mm #2 8.99 2020.95 little to no slip then desheathes rope at 8.99kN 11mm #3 9.07 2038.94 little to no slip then desheathes rope at 9.07kN 11mm #4 7.67 1724.22 little to no slip then desheathes rope at 7.67kN 11mm #5 7.06 1587.09 little to no slip then desheathes rope at 7.06kN Average 8.16 1835.27 StandDev 0.864 194.16

PMI/SMC Grip New Rope, 12.5mm 12.5mm #1 9.89 2223.27 little to no slip then desheathes rope at 9.89kN; bent the Grip axle (exposed to 5 pulls) 12.5mm #2 9.81 2205.29 little to no slip then desheathes rope at 9.81kN; 12.5mm #3 10.33 2322.18 little to no slip then desheathes rope at 10.33kN; 12.5mm #4 11.21 2520.01 little to no slip then desheathes rope at 11.21kN; 12.5mm #5 10.91 2452.57 little to no slip then desheathes rope at 10.91kN; Average 10.43 2344.66 StandDev 0.617 138.79

PMI/SMC Grip New Rope, 11mm ExPro 11mm ExPro #1 6.72 1510.66 little to no slip then desheathes rope at 6.72kN little to no slip then desheathes rope at 7.3kN, continued pull, stayed steady about 3kN 7.3 1641.04 11mm ExPro #2 bunching the sheath up behind the Grip 11mm ExPro #3 7.4 1663.52 little to no slip then desheathes rope at 7.4kN 11mm ExPro #4 7.82 1757.94 little to no slip then desheathes rope at 7.82kN 11mm ExPro #5 6.88 1546.62 little to no slip then desheathes rope at 6.88kN Average 7.22 1623.96 StandDev 0.437 98.27

Note: 2 of the 3 grips axel pins bent.

XX XXXX Grey cells represent a "Fail" XX XXXX White cells represent "System Operation Limit" XX XXXX Bold text represent an abnormal result

Munter Hitch (Tied-off with a half hitch followed by an overhand)

Munter Hitch New Rope, 11mm Peak KN Peak Lbf Comments 11mm #1 17.78 3996.94 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff 11mm #2 17.28 3884.54 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff 11mm #3 16.06 3610.29 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff Major "Slip" through the hitch 15.72kN (likely the core breaking ), then final break 15.72 3533.86 11mm #4 at about 6kN (likely the sheath breaking) 11mm #5 17.12 3848.58 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff Average 16.79 3774.84 StandDev 0.867 194.91

Munter Hitch Old Rope, 11mm- (Rope was put in service around 2004) 11mm #1 12.44 2796.51 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff 11mm #2 13.26 2980.85 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff 11mm #3 13.29 2987.59 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff 11mm #4 12.59 2830.23 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff 11mm #5 14.41 3239.37 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff Average 13.20 2966.91 StandDev 0.779 175.05

Munter Hitch New Rope, 12.5mm 12.5mm #1 21.44 4819.71 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff 12.5mm #2 22.5 5058.00 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff 12.5mm #3 21.97 4938.86 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff 12.5mm #4 25.53 5739.14 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff 12.5mm #5 22.75 5114.20 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff Average 22.838 5133.98 StandDev 1.587 356.80

Munter Hitch Old Rope, 12.5mm- (Rope was put in service around 2007) 12.5mm #1 14.26 3205.65 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff Major "Slip" through the hitch 14.5kN (likely the core breaking ), then final break at 14.53 3266.34 12.5mm #2 about 5.5kN (likely the sheath breaking) 12.5mm #3 15.42 3466.42 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff 12.5mm #4 16.19 3639.51 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff 12.5mm #5 14.39 3234.87 Rope Broke where the loaded strand ran through the half hitch of the tieoff Average 14.958 3362.56 StandDev 0.825 185.52

XX XXXX Grey cells represent a "Fail" XX XXXX White cells represent "System Operation Limit" XX XXXX Bold text represent an abnormal result

CMC MPD

MPD New Rope, 11mm Peak KN Peak Lbf Comments 11mm #1 4.15 932.92 continuous slippage at about 4kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping 11mm #2 4.45 1000.36 continuous slippage at about 4.25kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping 11mm #3 4.1 921.68 continuous slippage at about 3.9kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping (28" travel) 11mm #4 4.53 1018.34 continuous slippage at about 4.25kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping (30" travel) 11mm #5 4.33 973.38 continuous slippage at about 4kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping Average 4.31 969.34 StandDev 0.186 41.77 11mm #6A 4.61 1036.33 Parking break is set. Continuous slippage at about 4.2kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping

MPD Old Rope, 11mm- (Rope was put in service around 2004) 11mm #1 7.16 1609.57 continuous slippage (w/ some "skipping") at about 6.7kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping 11mm #2 7.24 1627.55 continuous slippage at about 6.25-7.2kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping 11mm #3 7.52 1690.50 continuous slippage at about 6.25-7.2kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping 11mm #4 7.9 1775.92 continuous slippage at about 7-7.9kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping continuous slippage (w/ some "skipping") at about 7.6-7.9kN, then quit "skipping" and slipped about 6.5-7.4kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond 7.99 1796.15 11mm #5 the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping Average 7.56 1699.94 StandDev 0.376 84.45 11mm #6A 7.55 1697.24 Parking break is set. continuous slippage at about 6-7kNkN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping

MPD New Rope, 12.5mm 12.5mm #1 9.4 2113.12 continuous slippage at about 8.5-8.75kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping (minor fuzzing) 12.5mm #2 8.67 1949.02 continuous slippage at about 8-8.4kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping (minor fuzzing) (30") 12.5mm #3 8.64 1942.27 continuous slippage at about 7.9-8.25kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping (minor fuzzing) 12.5mm #4 8.37 1881.58 continuous slippage at about 7.9-8.25kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping (minor fuzzing) (30.5") 12.5mm #5 8.44 1897.31 continuous slippage at about 7.7-8.5kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping (minor fuzzing) Average 8.704 1956.66 StandDev 0.410 92.07

MPD Old Rope, 12.5mm- (test 1-10 rope was put in service around 2007; test 11-12 rope was in service 1 year) 12.5mm #1 10.65 2394.12 continuous slippage at about 8.5-10.25kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. Some "skipping" 12.5mm #2 9.74 2189.55 continuous slippage at about 9-9.6kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. Some "skipping" 12.5mm #3 11.47 2578.46 continuous slippage at about 10-11.25kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. Some "skipping" 12.5mm #4 10.98 2468.30 continuous slippage at about 9.5-10.25kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. Some "skipping" 12.5mm #5 13.28 2985.34 Slipped for short distance (Approx. 12"), Desheathed the rope were the rope is "pinched" in the cam. 12.5mm #6 16.24 3650.75 Slipped for short distance (Approx. 12"), Desheathed the rope were the rope is "pinched" in the cam. 12.5mm #7 13.78 3097.74 continuous slippage at about 9.5-10.25kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. Some "skipping" 12.5mm #8 13.5 3034.80 Slipped for short distance (Approx. 8"), Desheathed the rope were the rope is "pinched" in the cam. 12.5mm #9 11.09 2493.03 continuous slippage at about 10-10.5kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. Some "skipping" On application of force it bit down and caused some moderate sheath damage(core shot) and then began to slip. Continuous slippage at about 9- 12.5mm #10 10.95 2461.56 10.25kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. Some "skipping" 12.5mm #11 *** 8.73 1962.504 continuous slippage at about 7.9-8.8kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. No Skipping

12.5mm #12 *** 8.31 1868.088 continuous slippage at about 7.5-8kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. No Skipping (30" slip) continuous slippage at about 8-8.75kN. Small "pop" and then the slipping started. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good 8.83 1984.984 12.5mm #13 *** shape after slipping. No Skipping (34" Slip)

12.5mm #14 *** 7.66 1721.968 continuous slippage at about 7-7.6kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. No Skipping (30" slip)

12.5mm #15 *** 8.40 1888.32 continuous slippage at about 8-8.4kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. No Skipping Average 10.907 2451.97 StandDev 2.442 548.88 *** Denotes that this is a different rope from previous tests. This rope was in service for 1 year.

MPD New Rope, 11mm 11mm ExPro #1 6.24 1402.75 continuous slippage at about 6kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. 11mm ExPro #2 6.82 1533.14 continuous slippage at about 6.5-6.25kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. 11mm ExPro #3 6.24 1402.75 continuous slippage at about 6-5.8kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. 11mm ExPro #4 6.42 1443.22 continuous slippage at about 6.25kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. 11mm ExPro #5 6.07 1364.54 continuous slippage at about 6-5.8kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Rope still in good shape after slipping. Average 6.36 1429.28 StandDev 0.286 64.38 Note: Tensioned end of rope exiting the device takes on flat shape at cam (inside), then V or (triangle) when running through deep pulley sheave upon exiting

XX XXXX Grey cells represent a "Fail" XX XXXX White cells represent "System Operation Limit" XX XXXX Bold text represent an abnormal result Petzl I’D

Petzl ID New Rope, 11mm Peak KN Peak Lbf Comments 11mm #1 4.63 1040.82 Continuous slipping around 4-4.2kN. Some bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Rope still in fair shape after slipping. (30") 11mm #2 4.47 1004.86 Continuous slipping around 3.8-4.2kN. Some bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Rope still in fair shape after slipping. 11mm #3 4.86 1092.53 Continuous slipping around 4.25-4.75kN. Some bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Rope still in fair shape after slipping. 11mm #4 4.65 1045.32 Continuous slipping around 4-4.25kN. Some bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Rope still in fair shape after slipping. 11mm #5 4.78 1074.54 Continuous slipping around 4.25-4.75kN. Some bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Rope still in fair shape after slipping. Average 4.68 1051.61 StandDev 0.150 33.70

Petzl ID Old Rope, 11mm- (Rope was put in service around 2004) 11mm #1 7.16 1609.57 Continuous slipping around 6-7kN. Some bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Rope still in fair shape after slipping. 11mm #2 6.66 1497.17 Continuous slipping around 5-6.5kN. Some bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Rope still in fair shape after slipping. 11mm #3 8.00 1798.40 Continuous slipping around 6-7kN. Some bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Rope still in fair shape after slipping. 11mm #4 6.34 1425.23 Continuous slipping around 5.8-6.1kN. Some bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Rope still in fair shape after slipping. 11mm #5 7.35 1652.28 Continuous slipping around 6.2-7kN. Some bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Rope still in fair shape after slipping. Average 7.10 1596.53 StandDev 0.642 144.26

Petzl ID New Rope, 12.5mm Continuous slipping around 5-5.25kN. Bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Rope still in fair shape after slipping. (31" of slip) No noticeable rope 5.6 1258.88 12.5mm #1 treatment in device Continuous slipping around 5-5.25kN. Bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Rope still in fair shape after slipping. No noticeable rope treatment in 5.82 1308.34 12.5mm #2 device Continuous slipping around 5.5-5.75kN. Bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Rope still in fair shape after slipping. No noticeable rope treatment in 5.64 1267.87 12.5mm #3 device Continuous slipping around 5-5.75kN. Bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Rope still in fair shape after slipping. No noticeable rope treatment in 5.79 1301.59 12.5mm #4 device Continuous slipping around 5-5.75kN. Bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Rope still in fair shape after slipping. No noticeable rope treatment in 5.72 1285.86 12.5mm #5 device Average 5.714 1284.51 StandDev 0.094 21.18

Petzl ID Old Rope, 12.5mm 12.5mm #1 8.11 1823.13 Desheathed the rope at 8.11kN where the rope is pinched by the cam. Little to no slipping 12.5mm #2 6.88 1546.62 Desheathed the rope at 6.88kN where the rope is pinched by the cam. Little to no slipping Desheathed the rope at 6.7kN where the rope is pinched by the cam. Little to no slipping. Continued pulling, and it continued to pop core bundles. Saw an 6.70 1506.16 12.5mm #3 additional peak of 8.05kN 12.5mm #4 8.01 1800.65 Desheathed the rope at 8.01kN where the rope is pinched by the cam. There was 4-6" inches of slip prior to biting down. 12.5mm #5 6.29 1413.99 Desheathed the rope at 6.29kN where the rope is pinched by the cam. There was 4-6" inches of slip prior to biting down. continuous slippage at about 5.2-6kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Moderate amount of sheath picks after pull (coming from "V" of new 5.95 1337.56 12.5mm #6 *** cam). No Skipping continuous slippage at about 5.5-6kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Moderate amount of sheath picks after pull (coming from "V" of new 6.25 1405 12.5mm #7 *** cam). No Skipping continuous slippage at about 4.8-5.4kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Moderate amount of sheath picks after pull (coming from "V" of new 5.47 1229.656 12.5mm #8 *** cam). No Skipping continuous slippage at about 5-5.6kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Moderate amount of sheath picks after pull (coming from "V" of new 5.71 1283.608 12.5mm #9 *** cam). No Skipping continuous slippage at about 5-5.2kN. Some bunching of the rope beyond the device. Moderate amount of sheath picks after pull (coming from "V" of new 5.64 1267.872 12.5mm #10 *** cam). No Skipping Average 7.198 1618.11 StandDev 0.816 183.48 *** Denotes that this is a different rope from previous tests. This rope was in service for 1 year.

Petzl ID New Rope, 11mm ExPro There was an initial peak that significantly damaged part of the sheath where the cam pinches the rope, then it continuously slipped 6-6.25kN with no further 11mm ExPro #1 7.15 1607.32 damage. Some bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device 11mm ExPro #2 7.38 1659.02 Continuous slipping around 6kN. Some bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Some "lumps" in the rope where it traveled through the device. On the application of force the device bit down and significantly damaged the sheath where the cam pinches the rope, then continuously slipped 6-6.5kN with 7.04 1582.59 11mm ExPro #3 no further damage. On application of force the device bit down and damaged the sheath. Device then allowed rope to slide through (12-14") until 3 min into the slipping it bit down 7.73 1737.70 11mm ExPro #4 and desheathed the rope where the cam pinches the rope. Continuous slipping around 6kN. Some bunching of the rope sheath beyond the device. Some "lumps" in the rope where it traveled through the device. 7.17 1611.82 11mm ExPro #5 Noticeable glue on sheathe and device Average 7.29 1639.69 StandDev 0.273 61.37 Note: Appears to be small specks of glue on the rope sheath and in the device after test.

XX XXXX Grey cells represent a "Fail" XX XXXX White cells represent "System Operation Limit" XX XXXX Bold text represent an abnormal result

Petzl Basic

Petzl Basic New Rope, 11mm Peak KN Peak Lbf Comments 11mm #1 5.67 1274.62 Desheathed the rope at 5.67kN 11mm #2 5.35 1202.68 Desheathed the rope at 5.35kN 11mm #3 5.66 1272.37 Desheathed the rope at 5.66kN 11mm #4 5.85 1315.08 Desheathed the rope at 5.85kN 11mm #5 5.45 1225.16 Desheathed the rope at 5.45kN Average 5.60 1257.98 StandDev 0.197 44.38

Petzl Basic Old Rope, 11mm- (Rope was put in service around 2004) 11mm #1 5.66 1272.37 Desheathed the rope at 5.66kN 11mm #2 5.97 1342.06 Desheathed the rope at 5.97kN 11mm #3 5.52 1240.90 Desheathed the rope at 5.52kN 11mm #4 5.26 1182.45 Desheathed the rope at 5.26kN 11mm #5 5.68 1276.86 Desheathed the rope at 5.68kN Average 5.62 1262.93 StandDev 0.258 58.11

Note: Same device for all above tests. After last test, device was still usable but cam was binding slightly.

Petzl Basic New Rope, 11mm 11mm ExPro #1 5.37 1207.18 Basic broke at 5.37kN. Rope has little to no sheath damage. (This was the 11th test with this device). 11mm ExPro #2 6.16 1384.77 Desheathed rope @6.16kN (Device 2) 11mm ExPro #3 5.98 1344.30 Basic broke at 5.98kN. Rope has little to no sheath damage. (Device 2, 2nd pull). 11mm ExPro #4 6.43 1445.46 Desheathed the rope at 6.43kN (Device 3). 11mm ExPro #5 6.19 1391.51 Desheathed the rope at 6.19kN. (Device 4). 11mm ExPro #6 6.26 1407.25 Desheathed the rope at 6.26kN. (Device 6). Desheathed the rope at 5.81kN. (Device 6). Continued pull until Rope sheath bunched and jammed in 11mm ExPro #7 5.81 1306.09 the device. Basic Broke at 9.10kN after 5.5 feet of slipping 11mm ExPro #8 5.61 1261.13 Basic broke at 5.61kN. Rope has little to no sheath damage. (Device 4, 2nd pull. 11mm ExPro #9 5.6 1258.88 Basic broke at 5.37kN. Rope has little to no sheath damage. (Device 3, 2nd pull). 11mm ExPro #10 5.25 1180.20 Basic broke at 5.37kN. Rope has little to no sheath damage. (Device 5, 2nd pull). Average 5.87 1318.68 StandDev 0.400 90.00

XX XXXX Grey cells represent a "Fail" XX XXXX White cells represent "System Operation Limit" XX XXXX Bold text represent an abnormal result Observations/Points of Consideration

No Perfect PCD Observed 1. There was not a single device that in some combination did not cause a failure. Though it is clear that some have a propensity to fail whereas others have a propensity to reach a System Operation Limit.

Devices that typically reached a System Operation Limit: Petzl Rescucender (except 7 year old 12.5mm well used rope) Petzl ID (except 7 year old 12.5mm well used rope) CMC MPD (except 7 year old 12.5mm well used rope)

Devices that typically Failed or caused a loss of confidence: Single Prusik Tandem Prusik SMC/PMI Grip Petzl Basic Munter (tied off w/ half-hitch and overhand finish- acted similar to a knot)

There are clear advantages to a PCD that reach a System Operation Limit and do not have a tendency to fail. These devices will just not operate as intended when subjected to higher forces. On the other hand those PCDs that fail include PCDs that have served the rescue community well for years. Suspending their use is not recommended, but instead realizing their expected behaviors and either choosing to accept them or not. 2. Tandem Prusiks have a considerable higher holding capacity over singe Prusiks. Some text books and studies cite single triple-wrap Prusik’s holding power ranging from 7.0-9.5 kN and Tandems from 7.5-10.5 kN. This research indicates to the contrary. Our study did not substantiate claims of little difference between singles and tandems. 3. Older Ropes and Prusiks trended toward much lower strengths. Additionally, the 7 year old 12.5mm rope that had been well used had a tendency to fail in those devices that typically otherwise would have reached a System Operation Limit. 4. Researchers early-on, and later a consulting statistician, noted an unusual trend of PCDs performing more safely and reliably on an 11mm host rope. These observations were not only confined to one- size-fits-all devices, but to Prusiks and devices engineered specifically for certain size host rope. 5. The bonded core and sheath of the Extreme Pro did not necessarily prevent desheathing of the rope. PCDs that typically caused desheathing on EZ-Bend rope also caused desheathing of the Extreme Pro in at least some of the tests. 6. The Extreme Pro rope behaved considerably different from the EZ-Bend rope. It is unclear if this is an artifact of the bonded core and sheath or that the rope is made of Polyester and not Nylon like the other ropes tested. The different behavior patterns were especially true with the Prusik tests: Two of the five single Prusiks did slip continuously on Extreme Pro (as opposed to the norm of failing with EZ-Bend). The other three desheathed the rope (as opposed to the more normal breaking of the prusik). Tandem Prusiks on Extreme Pro had considerable lower SOL or Fail values, almost equivalent to single Prusiks. Four of the five tandem Prusiks on Extreme Pro did slip continuously with one desheathing the rope. All Prusik SOL or Fail values on Extreme Pro were markedly lower than the tests on EZ- Bend. Conclusions and Recommendations

1. This research strongly indicates that Prusiks cannot be predictably or reliably counted upon to slip and re-grab- thus acting as “clutch.” In some test sets, samples may have behaved as such, while other samples gave little warning before failing. Instructors and users relying on Prusiks to “clutch or force limit” should use extreme caution and consider suspending the use of this theory. Slipping Prusiks appear to be an indicator of impending failure more so than a “clutch or force limiter”. 2. When using PCDs that have a tendency to fail, it is recommended that users employ a Safety Factor of 5:1 or greater. It may be prudent to engineer other parts of the system to a higher Safety Factor, but for most applications the PCD may be allowed to have a lower Safety Factor due to the nature of its tasking -being that it is temporarily supporting a static load. 3. For those PCDs that have a tendency to reach a System Operation Limit, it is recommended that the System Operation Limit be at least 1.5 to 2 times the anticipated static load. This will account for some dynamic loading and other factors that could cause small increases in force. 4. Older Prusiks had a notably lower breaking strength than new prusiks. It is recommended that Prusiks be changed out regularly depending on use patterns. Annual or Bi-annual replacement cycles are recommended if the Prusiks see more than just a few days of service per year. 5. One of the most significant lessons of the research was in the degradation of nylon software. The oldest 12.5mm rope in our testing was 7 years old and saw significant service every year. This rope did not perform well in many PCDs. We followed up and performed tests on a more moderately used rope with only 1 year of service and found that it performed much better. It is essential that organizations implement proactive gear management systems and protocols. It is recommended that ropes seeing significant service be replaced on shorter service intervals. It quite possibly may be that a good starting point is five years for ropes that see significant use.

Recommendations for Future Research

1. Expand testing to include ratcheting pulleys, Gibb Ascenders, and other common devices. 2. Expand and duplicate testing on similarly sized ropes with higher carrier sheaths from different manufacturers. 3. Look more deeply into software use, degradation of nylon, and product life-cycle of rope, accessory cord, and webbing. This should especially be done with high-volume training organizations. 4. Examine the behavior of PCDs on ropes made with different material (e.g. polyester).

2014 Vertical Section Business Meeting July 16, 2014 Choral Room, Lee High School, Huntsville, AL

1. Call to Order: VS Chairman Terry Mitchell called the meeting to order at 10:06 am. There were 26 members in attendance.

2. Approval of minutes from last year’s meeting, Aug 7, 2013; Approved as published.

3. Officer Reports.

A. Chairman's Report: Terry Mitchell said there were errors in the Convention Program concerning times for the week's vertical events, and that schedule changes had been published in the Daily Bulletin.

B. Treasurer’s Report: Ray Sira reported the VS has three bank accounts with a total balance right now of $11,588.51. He discussed several items of income and expense during the past year. Treasurer's Report copies will be available soon.

C. Secretary’s Report: Ray said we have approximately 300 registered members.

D. Editor’s Report: Tim White said there are few technical articles in the “Que”, that will be sent to Gary Bush for upload to the Nylon Highway in the following weeks. Tim said he is also the online editor of the Cave Chat forum, titled "On Rope", and in both jobs he is continuously monitoring for safety protocols.

4. Committee Reports.

A. Climbing Contest Coordinator: Bill Cuddington; Bill expressed thanks for rope donations from PMI, climbers, and for the gym facilities. He does not yet have the exact number of climbing participants Monday & Tuesday, but will send that information later via email. The approximate number ranges between 50-60, and 6 or 7 records were broken. The Awards Ceremony will be Friday Noon in Room 150. Prizes will have to be claimed in person. If you cannot come please remember to have someone come pick it up for you. Miriam Cuddington said she needs to order new award certificates.

B. Rebelay Workshop: Gary Bush said there were not a significant number of participants Tuesday, and the majority of time was spent “redialing” equipment. A good time was had by all. C. Vertical Techniques Workshop: Interim Workshop Coordinator John Woods was not present, but he sent word that Instructors and other Helpers should meet at 10am Thursday in the Gym, with the participants arriving at 11am.

D. Education Coordinator: Bruce Smith said he has been working on improvements to the Basic and Intermediate vertical course. He said he has not received a significant amount of feedback, or participation. He feels there is not a lot of involvement or acceptance of the vertical section teaching skills, rules, and or regulations, and that grottos are modifying our courses. He said we may need to leave pushing of adherence to these published techniques to the NSS leadership. Several suggestions were offered to Bruce from the membership:  Idea from Bill (??): Perhaps have a vertical training session during conventions for grotto educators to ensure they are qualified.  Suggestion from Tim White: May need to do this on a more regional level because not all NSS members participate in the NSS conventions.  Suggestion from audience member: Agreeing that actual NSS convention may not be the best location for education training for instructors, and would be more successful on a more regional scale.

E. Awards Committee Chairman: Bruce Smith presented service awards to former Secretary-Treasurer Bill Boehle for his service 2004-2013, and to Jenny Clark, widow of former Vertical Techniques Workshop Coordinator Terry Clark, for Terry's service in that position 2000- 2013. Chairman Terry Mitchell announced that the VS had donated a brick at the new NSS Headquarters building in memory of Terry Clark, and he presented Jenny with the letter and certificate from the NSS acknowledging that donation. It will be brick number 251.

F. Bylaws Committee: Terry Mitchell reported that the Bylaws Committee (he and Bill Boehle) had prepared an amendment to Bylaw 4.(E) Vacancies, to address the inadequacies that had come to light upon the untimely death of Terry Clark last October. The proposed amendment provides detailed procedures for filling Officer and other EC vacancies that may occur during the year between section meetings without having to wait until the next annual election. This bylaw amendment was approved by the Executive Committee July 13, 2014.

G. Symbolic Items: Bill Boehle reported that he restocked in late 2013 and had to raise most of the retail prices. The big selling items are T-shirts and sweatshirts. The pins he ordered in 2013 were a significant expense but the return should eventually equalize regarding profit margin. Sweatshirts are on sale for S and M sizes.

H. Web Page: Gary Bush reported that the VS web page is up to date now. However, more pictures are always needed and welcome. The price changes for symbolic items will be listed on the Web page and be kept as up to date as possible.

I. Out Reach Committee: Jon Schow was not present, so Terry Mitchell read Jon's emailed report: "Currently there are 266 people who have liked the vertical section Facebook page. I'd like to start sharing interesting stories about vertical trips, learning, teaching, and so forth." Terry added that his personal opinion is that “Public outreach is going but it is not going fast.” He suggested publications on the webpage, in the Nylon Highway, and the NSS news.

5. Old Business: NONE.

6. New Business: A. Volunteer needed to be the new Vertical Techniques Workshop Coordinator. Peter Hertl suggested Terry Zornes, a "top flight vertical guy," or Kurt Waldron, who is interested but wants more information about the job. Terry Mitchell and Peter agreed to talk to Kurt later this afternoon. NOTE: Later that day Terry and Peter did talk to Kurt Waldron about the position and Kurt agreed to accept it. B. Transportation and Storage of the Vertical Workshop equipment. Jenny Clark had brought the equipment to Huntsville this year, but in the absence of a new Workshop Coordinator, we aren't sure what to do with it following the workshop on Thursday. Tim White comments: Terry Clark always transported the equipment, but now we need to figure out how we are going to coordinate the equipment transportation in the future. Suggestions From the Crowd: Store the equipment at the NSS headquarters and have it transferred up. Chairmen Terry Mitchell suggested that we wait and see who will be the next Vertical Techniques Workshop Coordinator, and if we do not have one by the end of the week, the issue will be addressed by the executive committee on Friday. NOTE: On Friday July 18, Kurt Waldron assumed custody of the equipment and took it home with him. Jane Mitchell said we need to reimburse Jenny Clark for equipment transportation. It was pointed out that we have been doing this for the past few years, and the issue was referred to the Secretary-Treasurer. C. A suggestion from the crowd was made to increase the participant fee for the Vertical Techniques Workshop: Former Treasurer Bill Boehle said that there would not be a significant need for a price increase right now.

7. Elections: A. Secretary-Treasurer (1-year term): Ray Sira was nominated for another term. There were no other nominations. A motion was made and carried to suspend the rules, and Ray Sira was elected by unanimous consent. B. Two “At-Large” Executive Committee Members (2-year terms): Terry Mitchell and Mike Rusin were nominated for the two positions. Peter Hertl was nominated but declined. The rules were again suspended, then Mike and Terry were re-elected by Unanimous Consent.

8. The Business Meeting was Adjourned at 11:24am. The Chairman asked everyone to reconvene in 10 minutes for the Vertical Session.

The Vertical Session began at 11:35, 7/16/2014, in the Choral Room

1. Opening Remarks. Chairman Terry Mitchell reported that during the break the elected members of the Executive Committee, consisting of himself, Mike Rusin, Bill Boehle, Miriam Cuddington, and Ray Sira, had met briefly to elect the coming year's Chairman, Vice Chairman, and the Appointed Positions on the EC. These are all 1-year terms of office. Terry said that he has been re-elected to another term as Chairman, and Miriam Cuddington has been re-elected as Vice Chairman. Bill Cuddington was re-appointed as Contest Coordinator, Bruce Smith was re-appointed as Education Coordinator, and Tim White was re- appointed as Editor. The position of Vertical Techniques Workshop Coordinator was still temporarily vacant. NOTE: A very short VSEC meeting was conducted Friday, July 18, 2014, to formally appoint Kurt Waldron as the Vertical Techniques Workshop Coordinator.

2. The Vertical Session was chaired by Bill Cuddington:

A. Bruce Smith - Demonstration of the OR1 Goliath seat harness and how to shorten the waist band beyond its apparent limit. Bruce said this adjustment is little understood.

B. Bill Cuddington- Discussions on heat training and preventing over-heating during rope ascending.

C. John McCrary - John is the owner of PANGAEA Vertical Caving Systems in Vinemont, AL; email [email protected]. John demonstrated an improved Double Bungee Ropewalking System that he has developed from a specialized racing system. It is tuned for efficient rope racing and he claims it is a better system for vertical caving as well. Among other refinements, the system includes a hydration bladder in a small Camelback pouch attached to the back of the chest harness.

3. The Vertical Session Adjourned at 12:01pm.

Minutes respectfully submitted by Ray Sira, Vertical Section Secretary-Treasurer June 16, 2015

NSS Vertical Section

Secretary's Report

December 2014

By Raymond Sira

Number of Members as of 2014...... 264

Number of Subscribers as of 2014...... 16

Number of Expired Memberships 2013...... 105

Number of Memberships due to Expire 2014...... 93

Number of Annual Volumes Paid for 2014…...... 3

Number of Complementary Subscriptions...... 2

Member Members Subscribers Annual Exp Date Volume Comps 2 2013 102 3 1 2014 85 8 3 2015 33 2 2 2016 15 0 1 2017 24 2 0 2018 51 1 0 2019 56 3 0 NSS VERTICAL SECTION TREASURER”S REPORT (through 7/9/2014)

By Ray Sira

INCOME: Nylon Highway Annual Volume Sales $40.00 Vertical Training Course Sales $0.00 2013 Convention Workshop Registration $550.00 Symbolic Item Sales $460.00 Nylon Highway Back Issue Sales $14.00 Shipping Postage Charges $7.11 Donations $0.00 Bank Interest (Ally) July 2013 – May 2014 $115.60

TOTAL INCOME: $1,186.71

Expenses: Shipping Costs $2.99 NSS – website hosting fees (2012 & 2013) $24.00 2012 Vertical Workshop Transportation Expense Subsidy (Terry Clark) $199.00 2013 Climbing Contest Prizes $117.50 Vertical Workshop & Rebelay Course Supplies/Expenses $0.00 Nylon Highway Annual Volume Production & Mailing Costs $1.82 Symbolic Items Restocking (T-Shirts, Sweats, etc. ) $1,168.50 Symbolic Items Restocking (VS Pins) $568.65 Symbolic Items Restocking (VWS Instructor T-Shirts) $0.00 VS Recognition Awards $87.40 Climbing Contest Record Boards (2012 update) $32.10 Printing/Photocopying – Climbing Contest $0.00 Photocopying/Supplies for 2013 NSS Convention Administration $28.87 Petty Cash for postage $0.00 Training/Education Costs $0.00

TOTAL EXPENSES: $2,248.83

ACCOUNT BALLANCES: TD Bank (NJ) (Bill's account as of 6/30/2014) $1,839.37 Well Fargo (Ray's account as of 7/9/2014) $2,040.00 ALLY Demand Notes (est. as of 6/15/2014 $7,709.14

TOTAL: $11,588.51