1. #1
    Forum Member
    jdcalamia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Broomall, PA
    Posts
    106

    Default Rigging the Petzl ID'L for raise and lower

    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???
    John D. Calamia, BS, NREMTP, FP-C
    Firefighter/Flight Paramedic
    Broomall, PA

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Southern Illinois
    Posts
    132

    Default

    ...........Huh?

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    FiremanLyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    948

    Default

    Quote 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?
    ~Drew
    Firefighter/EMT/Technical Rescue
    USAR TF Rescue Specialist

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Wheaton IL
    Posts
    1,765

    Default

    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

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    stickboy42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    89

    Default

    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 (Aztek as LRH)

    -m
    My opinions posted here are my own and not representative of my employer or my IAFF local.

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    235

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    jdcalamia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Broomall, PA
    Posts
    106

    Default

    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.
    John D. Calamia, BS, NREMTP, FP-C
    Firefighter/Flight Paramedic
    Broomall, PA

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    235

    Default

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

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    jdcalamia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Broomall, PA
    Posts
    106

    Default

    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...
    John D. Calamia, BS, NREMTP, FP-C
    Firefighter/Flight Paramedic
    Broomall, PA

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    235

    Default

    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.

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Southern Illinois
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote 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 at 01:45 AM. Reason: clarity

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    jdcalamia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Broomall, PA
    Posts
    106

    Default

    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 at 06:00 PM.
    John D. Calamia, BS, NREMTP, FP-C
    Firefighter/Flight Paramedic
    Broomall, PA

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    GTRider245's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Augusta,GA
    Posts
    3,060

    Default

    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.
    Career Firefighter
    Volunteer Captain

    -Professional in Either Role-

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    I don't mind fire rolling over my head. I just don't like it rolling UNDER my a**.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    jdcalamia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Broomall, PA
    Posts
    106

    Default

    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?
    John D. Calamia, BS, NREMTP, FP-C
    Firefighter/Flight Paramedic
    Broomall, PA

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Southern Illinois
    Posts
    132

    Default

    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. eric@ropesthatrescue.com
    take care...

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Quote 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!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register