Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: Aztek as LRH

  1. #21
    Forum Member stickboy42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    89

    Default

    With any belay you must always use Radium hitch tied with 33ft of 8mm static prusik cord tied around G rated steel carabiners with the munter nearest the gate and the tail daisy chained into equal 1-1/2" loops with a figure 8 on a bight in the end :-)


  2. #22
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    N. Ridgeville, Ohio
    Posts
    811

    Default

    We use the BC hitch. Ours are tied with 20-30' (long story about the variations) 10mm cord. Using one XL and one large carbiner. Very easy to tie and very easy to use. We use the same cords are our body cords for edge protection and assorted other uses.
    Jason Brooks
    IAFF Local 2388
    IACOJ

  3. #23
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Mike
    "Build it and we will come"
    While I loved reading the discussions over whether a LRH is needed in a TPB belay system, what I really want to see is the Aztec system tested as part of a TPB system replacing the BC or Radium hitch. Testing without the TPB will mean nothing to me as I can tell by looking at the ratings of its individual components that it is strong enough, what I need to know is will it perform to the specs of the BCDTM as part of the TPB system.
    I believe Arnor, John, and thorn did test the TP belay without a LRH way back when the BC hitch was developed and had some failures. I cannot remember the details, nor do I have the original test report. I can say this, no disrespect, but if you do not know though testing if it will work, don't ask me to trust it my rescue belay systems. So if you build that tower let me know. Thanks
    George

  4. #24
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Yes, indeed!

  5. #25
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Southern Illinois
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Just noticed this...

    Quote Originally Posted by stickboy42 View Post
    Eric, thanks for the comments. ... Is it true that the only point of the LRH is to provide a release mechanism?
    It is to me. But otherwise, I suppose it would depend on which releasable system, the application it's being used for, who rigged it, and what's in their head at the time.

    [/QUOTE]yesterday I was also talking with a guy about this and he mentioned that a possible benefit to the Radium is that it'd be a release only device where as a SOF would require a lift to release the prusik. I'm seeing that if the aztek is muled off as it should be then the prusik would most likely not set and the mule hitch would take the load and then the aztek could released w/o a raise. Is this what you've seen Eric?
    Just a little rambling, thanks guys...
    Mike[/QUOTE]

    The lift in order to release the capture Prusik is so minimal, that it's a peripheral issue for me. Anyway, if your premise is that the belayer allowed the TPB to lock up, my first choice of fix will be to vector the main.

    If your capture Prusik is snuggly rigged as it should be, it should capture the rope, especially if you've jetted it out into hold position prior to dogging off the line. If you left a bunch of slack in the capture Prusik, the tightening/cinching of the dog-off is going to allow some rope movement to where the snug capture Prusik with slack behind it will likely capture the rope movement. But this is going to depend on the length of the capture Prusik. Sterling's factory sewn ones are nice and short, as you'll see with the AZTEK Elite. If you've an AZTEK Pro and you've tied your own, therein will lie a variable.
    In short though, just because you've dogged off the SoF's doesn't mean the capture Prusik won't hold.

  6. #26
    Moderator ProgressiveRescue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Mike,
    I love the idea of using a Aztek to replace a LRH, I think it simplifies the operation. I also like using an I'D As a belay which also eliminates the need for a LHR. With todays equipment technology it's not hard to replace the LRH with something more efficient.
    Just My Thoughts...
    Mike Donahue
    "Training Prepares You...For Moments That Define You

  7. #27
    Forum Member rescuedylan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    73

    Default

    I ask this only because I have never tried it. Has anyone here put a continues load onto the I'd (like one you can find on a highline) and then try to slowly release it with the I'd like you would a LRH? What have you found with its control? does it jump? or is it smooth?

  8. #28
    Forum Member stickboy42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    89

    Default

    i have put the maximum load on an I'D L that it is recommended to have on it, 272kg and it is fine (aka smooth and easy to control) IF you have the alternate rigging employed (ie the extra turn around a carabiner or a munter on that same biner). RD, not sure what you meant by highline forces (trackline, reeve, tags?) but the I'D L is only rated at 22kN and wouldn't want to see trackline forces anywhere near it and comfortably maintain your desired SSF.

    I'D as a belay has come up before as a discussion and does get interesting, here's a recent discussion i saw awhile back (about 1/2 way into the discussion does the I'D stuff come into play):

    http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...58&topic=11725
    My opinions posted here are my own and not representative of my employer or my IAFF local.

  9. #29
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stickboy42 View Post
    i have put the maximum load on an I'D L that it is recommended to have on it, 272kg and it is fine (aka smooth and easy to control) IF you have the alternate rigging employed (ie the extra turn around a carabiner or a munter on that same biner). RD, not sure what you meant by highline forces (trackline, reeve, tags?) but the I'D L is only rated at 22kN and wouldn't want to see trackline forces anywhere near it and comfortably maintain your desired SSF.

    I'D as a belay has come up before as a discussion and does get interesting, here's a recent discussion i saw awhile back (about 1/2 way into the discussion does the I'D stuff come into play):

    http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...58&topic=11725
    I wouldn't be so quick to remove the I'D from Trackline/Highline discussions. There is definitely some merit to not using it for rescue loads, but there are plenty of places it can be utilized to save time, equipment, and manpower. Two quick applications that come to mind are 1)ferrying equipment and gear across a span & 2) tensioned line across water for swiftwater applications.

    In each of these cases, you can reduce the # of prussiks and pullys and quickly tension the line using an id with only 1 man. It is simple and fast, especially important in swiftwater applications. Also keep in mind that even though the I'D has a "breaking strength" of 22 KN, it functions as a load limiter. When the load hits the 4/5 KN mark, the rope will slip through the device, thus lessing the load at the anchor.

  10. #30
    Forum Member stickboy42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    89

    Default

    i wouldn't say quick to remove the I'd from the highline, just not impart trackline forces upon it (40kn with SSF factored - so about 4-5 kn depending on nylon/htp rope preference and anchor system).

    i guess the 4/5 kN slipping clutch is a new thing to me and haven't ever seen that mentioned before, is that a consistent behavior you have seen with the I'D at those loads? even at 4/5 kN as a slipping clutch that only gives 4/5:1 for a SSF which is a bit low for our typical system design. Am I reading the post correctly in that you are proposing to use the I'D as part of the tensioning system of the trackline?
    My opinions posted here are my own and not representative of my employer or my IAFF local.

  11. #31
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stickboy42 View Post
    i wouldn't say quick to remove the I'd from the highline, just not impart trackline forces upon it (40kn with SSF factored - so about 4-5 kn depending on nylon/htp rope preference and anchor system).

    i guess the 4/5 kN slipping clutch is a new thing to me and haven't ever seen that mentioned before, is that a consistent behavior you have seen with the I'D at those loads? even at 4/5 kN as a slipping clutch that only gives 4/5:1 for a SSF which is a bit low for our typical system design. Am I reading the post correctly in that you are proposing to use the I'D as part of the tensioning system of the trackline?
    yep, that's my thought, only in certain instances though. I'll have to double check on the slippage force with Petzl... speaking of tensioning systems, what's everybody's method for tensioning, and do you usually use a double trackline?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. LRH Load Releasing Hitches(Rope or Web)
    By shrek85tsvfd in forum Specialized Rescue
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-19-2006, 06:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts