Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rigging the Petzl ID'L for raise and lower

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AFD020
    replied
    Originally posted by EricUlner View Post
    It's actually a dreadful disease that can be contagious- Redundatitus.
    Like the double Stokes basket rule?? Have to package the patient in two stokes baskets in case one fails.

    I'm of course kidding but when people start overkilling things I have to bring it up!

    Leave a comment:


  • EricUlner
    replied
    jdc- thanks for your message to me. I replied to your email thru the firehouse message gizmo, but I'm not sure if it actually went thru. So feel free to email me anytime. [email protected]
    take care...

    Leave a comment:


  • jdcalamia
    replied
    GT, the ID did actually mind the prussics in our particular evolutions.

    Another question that I have...has any one found any issue with "crowding" at the exit to the brakehand side of the device when utilizing a munter for large loads? Going by the instructions with the device it seems by adding the munter to the same point that the ID is clipped to cause things to be come unmanageable and cluttered. We've remedied this by adding a shorter separate piece of webbing to the original anchor and placing the munter closer to the anchor. Seems to clean things up and make for a more manageable system. Anyone see any issues with this or had the same problem?

    Leave a comment:


  • GTRider245
    replied
    I agree, no need to back up the i'D like this. I like the idea of raising/lowering with an i'D as well as using one for your belay. This way you can use either line to raise/lower in the event that the other fails without changing or adding equipment. If you come to the point where both i'Ds fail, well then it was just your time to go.

    While I am thinking about it, when raising with the system you described with the tandem prussiks, did the i'D mind them or did you have to do it manually? I only ask because we have never had a reason to try it.

    Leave a comment:


  • jdcalamia
    replied
    Thank you for the in sight, it's much appreciated. I think I was just being redundant in my statement.
    Last edited by jdcalamia; 04-13-2011, 06:00 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • EricUlner
    replied
    Originally posted by jdcalamia View Post
    I guess what I was trying to ask was if anyone knew of or experienced any type of failure where the cam would unlock or just fail to grab and cause a free fall type situation that could be resolved with a TTRP set-up in place. I understand that the cam is supposed to lock up, it might just be me over-thinking things or not fully understanding the device. I tend to get caught up in our use of double redundancies. Sorry if my initial presentation was confusing. Thanks for the responses so far.
    So I think I've now understand what you we're trying to say, and I fully agree with DCFDRescue2 in that your belay is what is already covering you for an ID failure.

    Anyway, can you expand on what is "use of double redundancies"? Do you really mean having redundancy twice? Or was your statement redundant? Just trying to understand. Do you have examples?

    I'm wondering if you're subscribing to a paradigm such as what Progressive Mike is showing in his online videos. He rigs extra rope to the same bombproof anchor point to "back up" the rope he has already rigged there. Not picking on Mike, but since he's got the videos on the web, it's a great example to point out for you. Many people get caught in the web of redundancy. It's actually a dreadful disease that can be contagious- Redundatitus. Before you know it, you'll have 3 ropes for the main and 10 pieces of webbing in the anchor, because heck, it's stronger that way...
    And hey if 10 pieces of webbing are strong, wouldn't 11 be a little stronger? And so it goes. At some point, you'll to need to buy a shoe horn for the gear cache in order to stuff all that cord or webbing into your carabiner because more is stronger. And of course, one of the side effects of Redundatitus is blindness- blindness to the fact that stuffing all that cord or webbing into a carabiner can cut its strength in half due to improper loading- and blindness to the fact that, wait a minute- we've already got a backup. Oh yeah, it's the belay. At some point, one needs to figure out just how strong does this stuff need to be? And besides that, all that extra cordage thrown in to a system makes it a task to safety inspect it. Would nearly have to take the thing apart to see what line is going where and what's going on. Clean rigging is important.

    Some tongue-in-cheek food for thought.

    So yes, familiarity and knowledge of the gear is certainly important.
    Last edited by EricUlner; 04-14-2011, 01:45 AM. Reason: clarity

    Leave a comment:


  • DCFDRescue2
    replied
    Yeah, you're definitely building in redundancies that are not necessary. Just remember to add a redirect biner at the anchor for a two person load. This will also help the rope catch the safety cam if somebody loads the i'D backwards.

    Leave a comment:


  • jdcalamia
    replied
    DC, on the load line in front of the ID, sorry no pictures. We use a belay line, either TTRP or 540 usually. Like I said this is most likely me just not understanding/trusting the limitations/full functions of the ID (it's relatively new to us, we're going from a RPM set-up to this) or just simply over thinking the rigging process and trying to build in unneeded redundancies. But that's why I threw it out here...

    Leave a comment:


  • DCFDRescue2
    replied
    Are you talking about having the TTRP's on the load line in front of the load line?

    Leave a comment:


  • jdcalamia
    replied
    I guess what I was trying to ask was if anyone knew of or experienced any type of failure where the cam would unlock or just fail to grab and cause a free fall type situation that could be resolved with a TTRP set-up in place. I understand that the cam is supposed to lock up, it might just be me over-thinking things or not fully understanding the device. I tend to get caught up in our use of double redundancies. Sorry if my initial presentation was confusing. Thanks for the responses so far.

    Leave a comment:


  • DCFDRescue2
    replied
    Originally posted by jdcalamia View Post
    Need some opinions...we've been playing around with the ID'L lately at work. Basic raise/lower evolutions. Rigging it straight to the anchor point by itself and with an LRH/tandem prussic set-up between the ID and the anchor (like a RPM set-up for raise/lower switching without the rack obviously). Seems a little redundant and cumbersome to me, but I can make arguments for both set-ups. The ID seems simple enough that the chances of device failure are minimal so no real need for a LRH or prussics. But on the other hand, you never know what may happen, and the LRH and prussics provide for a nice back up and way out. Anyone have any thoughts on this???
    Do you have a picture? I'm completely lost as to why you would rig the i'D with anything between it and the anchor, particularly an LRH. Why not just release the load with the handle on the i'D? As for device failure, are you using SRT? If not, then your belay line should cover you in the very unlikely event of a device failure.

    Leave a comment:


  • stickboy42
    replied
    that's what we use, ID'L w/o LRH. As Lyman says, have a some sort of jigger/ma standing by for the occasional need to raise then lower/deal with odd situation. Here's a post regarding using the aztek in this way with some discussion of the ID as well...

    http://www.firehouse.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112398

    -m

    Leave a comment:


  • ADSNWFLD
    replied
    The ID is a great tool, I would stick with the illustrations that came with the device. It can be used in a number of scenarios. Check the Petzl website for all of the used and configurations

    Leave a comment:


  • FiremanLyman
    replied
    Originally posted by jdcalamia View Post
    Need some opinions...we've been playing around with the ID'L lately at work. Basic raise/lower evolutions. Rigging it straight to the anchor point by itself and with an LRH/tandem prussic set-up between the ID and the anchor (like a RPM set-up for raise/lower switching without the rack obviously). Seems a little redundant and cumbersome to me, but I can make arguments for both set-ups. The ID seems simple enough that the chances of device failure are minimal so no real need for a LRH or prussics. But on the other hand, you never know what may happen, and the LRH and prussics provide for a nice back up and way out. Anyone have any thoughts on this???
    I would forgo the LRH with the Petzel ID. The Petzel is nice that way, it is not going to bind up, and in a pinch you can use it as part of a 3:1 z-rig and haul up on it. I could see having a radium release or a mini 4:1 (jigger) standing by incase of a knot passing, but no need to have the radium release in between the anchor and the Petzel as in a TTRP.

    What are some arguments for it?

    Leave a comment:


  • EricUlner
    replied
    ...........Huh?

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X