Young S 2014 Advancing Vertical Rescue in Australia

Advancing
Vertical Rescue in Australia

THE WINSTON CHURCHILL MEMORIAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA

Final Report by Scott Young
Senior Fire Fighter ACT Fire & Rescue, 2014 Churchill Fellow

THE David Balfour CHURCHILL FELLOWSHIP to
advance fire fighter safety by studying overseas
developments in the vertical rescue industry

I understand that the Churchill Trust may publish this Report, either in hard copy or on the internet or
both, and consent to such publication.

I indemnify the Churchill Trust against any loss, costs or damages it may suffer arising out of any claim or
proceedings made against the Trust in respect of or arising out of the publication of any Report submitted
to the Trust and which the Trust places on a website for access over the internet.

I also warrant that my Final Report is original and does not infringe the copyright of any person, or contain
anything which is, or the incorporation of which into the Final Report is, actionable for defamation, a
breach of any privacy law or obligation, breach of confidence, contempt of court, passing-‐off or
contravention of any other private right or of any law.

Signed Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 4
3. DISCLAIMER ....................................................................................................................... 5
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. 5
5. BACKGROUND TO RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 6

I WHAT IS VERTICAL RESCUE? .................................................................................................... 6
II STATUS OF VERTICAL RESCUE IN AUSTRALIA .......................................................................... 7
III WHY IS THIS RESEARCH NECESSARY? ........................................................................................ 8
IV RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................................................................. 9
6. OVERVIEW OF ORGANISATIONS VISITED ............................................................. 10

I TOKYO FIRE DEPARTMENT, JAPAN (“TFD”) ......................................................................... 10
II GRIMP DAY ROPE RESCUE COMPETITION, BELGIUM ............................................................. 11
III GREATER MANCHESTER FIRE BRIGADE ................................................................................. 13
IV LYON WORK & RESCUE TRAINING COMPANY, UK ................................................................ 14
V PARIS FIRE DEPARTMENT, FRANCE ........................................................................................ 15
VI CHAMONIX MOUNTAIN RESCUE (PGHM), FRANCE ............................................................... 16
VII PETZL HEADQUARTERS / EQUIPMENT FACTORY, FRANCE ................................................... 17
VIII NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT (NYFD), USA ..................................................................... 19
IX DESERT RESCUE RESEARCH (TOM PENDLEY), ARIZONA, USA ............................................ 20
X ROPES THAT RESCUE (REED THORNE), ARTIFICIAL HIGH DIRECTIONAL, ARIZONA, USA 21
XI RIGGING FOR RESCUE (MIKE GIBBS), ADVANCED SKILLS/SPECIALTY TECHNIQUES COURSE,
COLORADO ............................................................................................................................... 22
7. RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................................................................... 24

I RESEARCH FINDINGS -‐ TECHNIQUES ....................................................................................... 25
A. TWIN TENSION ROPE SYSTEMS (TTRS) (ALSO CALLED MIRRORED SYSTEMS) .................... 25
B. TWO ROPE OFFSET HIGHLINE OVER KOOTENAY HIGHLINE ........................................................ 32
C. REMOVING ALL CRITICAL POINTS FROM A RESCUE SYSTEM ........................................................ 34
D. REMOVE ALL ‘SELF EQUALIZING’ ANCHORS FROM CURRICULUM. .............................................. 34
E. PURCELL PRUSIK TIE IN ..................................................................................................................... 35
II RESEARCH FINDINGS -‐ EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 36
III RESEARCH FINDINGS -‐ TRAINING ............................................................................................ 39
A. IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................................... 39
B. RECOMMENDED COURSE STRUCTURE ............................................................................................. 40
IV RESEARCH FINDINGS -‐ INFORMATION SHARING .................................................................... 41
A. INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL RESCUE SYMPOSIUM (ITRS) ...................................................... 41
B. ROPE RESCUE COMPETITIONS ......................................................................................................... 41
C. ACCIDENT AND NEAR MISS RECORDING WEBSITE ...................................................................... 43
1

D. ROPE RESCUE BLOG – WWW.ROPERESCUE.NET ........................................................................... 44
8. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 45
9. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 45
10. DISSEMINATION OF FINDINGS .................................................................................. 47
11. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................. 47
12. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 48
13. APPENDIX 1: MIRRORED SYSTEMS WITH MPD (TTRS) ................................... 50
14. APPENDIX 2: CRITICISMS AND COUNTER CRITICISMS TO TTRS .................. 52
2

1. INTRODUCTION
Vertical rescue in its simplest form is a transportation challenge that requires moving a casualty
safely from point A to B out of a hazardous situation using rigging and ropes. In practical
application, it is much more complex and requires significant training and experience, due to the
ever present danger of gravity. This Fellowship aimed to advance capacity in vertical rescue to
help bring about safer and more efficient operations and training within Australia.
This aim was pursued with targeted and detailed interviews with leading international rescue
organisations including the Tokyo Fire Department, Chamonix police mountain rescue, and the
New York Fire Department. Individuals with renowned expertise and influence in this area were
also contacted to provide their insights and opinions. Among them are Mr Tom Pendley, Mr Reed
Thorne, Mr Mike Gibbs, and Mr Kirk Mauthner. Finally, I attended advanced level and highly
specialised vertical rescue courses with Rigging for Rescue, Ropes that Rescue, and Lyon Work
and Rescue. This report will detail the numerous lessons learnt and potential advancements for
the Australian vertical rescue industry.

Image 1 Offset Highline at Hanging Rock, Blue Mountains NSW (image courtesy of Ropes That Rescue
Australia)
3

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Scott Young | Senior Fire Fighter | ACT Fire & Rescue
Vertical Rescue Instructor
Mobile: +61 422 467 837
Email: scottyoung200@gmail.com
This Fellowship aimed to advance knowledge in the discipline of vertical rescue in Australia. By
bringing home ideas and best practice from around the world, it is hoped that vertical rescue
practice in Australia will be safer and more efficient for both rescuers and casualties.
I visited numerous organisations across Japan, UK, France and the USA, and participated in three
specialist courses in the UK and USA. The variations between organizations were vast, and
comparisons difficult. However by accessing the different ideas and sources of information, I was
able to identify a number of valuable findings.
The most significant technical finding was the shift towards twin tensioned rope techniques
(“TTRS”). Based on my 10 years experience as a vertical rescue operator and research conducted
during this Fellowship, I agree that TTRS is the future direction for vertical rescue, which will
only become more popular as equipment advances develop to complement this technique.
Other findings include the need to improve communication across the industry. This is crucial to
providing a modern, safe, consistent and professional vertical rescue capability Australia wide.
Conferences such as International Technical Rescue Symposium (ITRS), competitions such as
Grimp Day, and websites such as the Alpine Near Miss Survey (ANMS) are all good examples of
how information and ideas sharing could be improved in Australia.
There were many equipment discoveries and alternatives to existing tools and devices, and not all
were worthy of a change from what currently is in use. Some that were worthy of change
however include the CMC Multi Purpose Device (“MPD”), new Petzl ASAP 2, and Kask Super
Plasma Helmet combined with the Petzl Pixa 3 head torch.
Vertical rescue training needs significant resources, and is often mistakenly considered a one off
expense. If an organisation is legislated to provide a vertical rescue service to the community then
they must commit to regular training, with full refresher courses at least once every four years for
all operators to keep qualifications current, and work practices safe. The Greater Manchester Fire
Brigade training and skills maintenance structure would be a good template to consider. Four, one
week courses with a minimum twelve month break to help consolidate skills, would ensure skill
currency.
Disseminating these findings will be achieved through my role as a vertical rescue instructor and
by engaging rescue organisations and training providers around Australia. I aim to submit articles
to industry magazines, create a vertical rescue blog at www.roperescue.net, and actively assist
climbing, mountaineering, outdoor and adventure groups in training.
4

3. DISCLAIMER
This report aims to highlight the key learning outcomes of my interactions with some of the
industry leaders and high profile rescue organisations from around the world. It is not a critique
of specific techniques, equipment or organisations. Nor is it an instruction manual or a
comprehensive guide to what a good vertical rescue technicians’ course should include. What lies
herein is an outline of what I achieved on my Fellowship, the key learning outcomes from an
Australian perspective, and a discussion of the latest research developments, and future directions
of vertical rescue, that I discovered along the way.
As this Fellowship has a national objective I will focus on the developments and advancements
that have the broadest benefit for the most organisations and not detail the many finer nuances
that would apply in more discrete and unique circumstances. These finer details and
advancements do have benefits but are generally specific to certain situations and have much
more value in a course/learning environment with an instructor's input than a report such as this.
Any statements made regarding the practice of vertical rescue in Australia are based on my own
research with various organisations around the country and thus are generalised and made to the
best of my knowledge. They are offered simply by way of an introduction and as a general
reference point by which to contrast international practices. They are not to be relied on for
anything more than this background purpose.
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In these time-poor times, the generosity, responsiveness and hospitality that I was humbled to
receive around the world is testament to the spirit of service and collaboration that exists in rescue
organisations. Thank you is just the start of my appreciation for all the assistance, efforts and time
of the people mentioned below.
● The helpful and professional staff at the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, ACT and
National office - thank you for helping make this great opportunity a reality.
● Pat Jones (AFSM), Superintendent of ACT Fire and Rescue - your encouragement and
support were invaluable.
● Paul Swain (AFSM), (former Chief officer of ACT Fire and Rescue) and Mark Brown
(AFSM) (current Chief Officer of ACT Fire and Rescue) - this research would have been
possible without your vision and leadership
● ACT Government - thank you for the generous funding support of the David Balfour
Churchill Fellowship, as with the above mentioned this Fellowship was only possible
thanks to your support.
● John Streatfield, Len Batley and Reed Thorne - your assistance to me over the years and
5

expertise in this field are second to none. Never the sensei always the student.
To all the following people, a great thank you for all your time, wisdom and expertise: Mac
Hanson – MFB, Mick Worsley – NSWFR, Mr Geoffrey Williams – IETRI, Mr Kenji Ogura and
members of the Hyper Rescue Teams – TFD, Xavier Tournay - Grimp Day, Dave Swallow and
all the members of the GMFB instructor teams - Greater Manchester FB, Bill Batson - Lyon
Work and Rescue, Romain Kimmel and all the members of the Paris FD Grimper Teams - Paris
FB, Jean-Baptiste Estachy and members of the PGHM team - Chamonix PGHM, Chris Blakely –
Petzl, James W. Kiesling – NYFD, Stephen Katz – NYFD, Dave Raynor – NYFD, Tom Pendley
– DRR, Del Miller, Kirk Mauthner - Basecamp innovations, Mike Gibbs - Rigging for Rescue,
Rachael Allen and John Dill – YOSAR.
I also sincerely thank my wife Tanya and 10 month old son Edward, who accompanied me on my
Fellowship. Tanya your assistance in proofreading, editing, encouragement to apply for the
Fellowship and willingness to follow me with a young baby are fearless and commendable. I
could not have done this without your help and support. And to Eddy, the best travel baby I
know, with more stamps on your passport than most people, thanks for your patience through
endless airports and different beds, I hope your long sleeps return soon. I’m extremely grateful
also to my parents, Philip and Lynne Young who generously came to assist us during part of our
travels.
Finally this report is dedicated to the late Dave Balfour, his wife Celia and their kids, Allison,
Daniel and Francis. A great and humble fire fighter and colleague. Always committed to helping
others without fuss or need of praise. The initiative and generosity of your family in starting this
scholarship in your honour is testament to both yours and their generous character. Gone but not
forgotten.
5. BACKGROUND TO RESEARCH
i What is Vertical Rescue?
Vertical rescue, also known as rope rescue, is a broad term that includes all rescues requiring
ropes and rigging to overcome the hazard of a dangerous height. Commonly it involves lowering
a rescue worker to the casualty, securing the casualty, initiating casualty care, and then extricating
the casualty with further lowering or hauling up to safety.
Common examples include rock climbers injured halfway up a cliff, a crane worker who has
collapsed in the crane operator booth, a communications worker suspended from a
communications tower, a vertical access worker on the side of a building, a construction worker
in a lift shaft, or a farmer trapped in a silo. The variations on these different rescue situations are
infinite.
6

Image 2 vertical rescue operation Image 3 vertical rescue operation
The dangers to rescue workers undertaking this type of rescue work are serious and unforgiving.
The rigging and equipment used are complex and require a high level of training and skill. Given
that most rescues have the significant added stress of time criticality, it is clear that this type of
rescue cannot be underestimated.
Vertical rescue skills are a subsection of general technical rescue. Other such sub-categories of
the technical rescue discipline include Swift Water Rescue, Trench Rescue, Confined Space
Rescue and Urban Search And Rescue. These various skills are often used in conjunction at a
rescue, as there are often multiple hazards and obstacles to overcome during the one rescue. For
example if a worker is trapped within a service tunnel that is deemed a confined space, once the
confined space rescue factors have been addressed, such as air quality monitoring and services
shut off, often the casualty will require being hauled out of a manhole using vertical rescue
techniques.
ii Status of Vertical Rescue in Australia

Vertical rescue in Australia has developed over a number of decades. Practice of this skill
however varies from organisation to organisation in techniques, equipment and skill level. Most
organisations generally have a high focus on safety standards, which is crucial, but speed and
efficiency of rescue times could be improved in comparison to many other countries. It is difficult
to evaluate vertical rescue as one discipline Australia wide, as the variations between rescue
organisations are large. I can only comment with broad generalisation, however these
generalisations are accurate to the organisations I have worked with and observed within
Australia.
Expertise in vertical rescue has been improved in Australia over the last 15 years due to the work
of a number of private training organisations like Ropes That Rescue Australia and alike. These
companies have greatly improved consistency across rescue organisations in Australia and have
helped bring a number of overseas improvements into practice here in Australia. In saying this
there is still significant room for improvement as most rescue organisations in Australia lag
7

behind the best international organisations by a number of years.
Advancements such as twin rope technique, Artificial High Directionals, focused floating anchors
and clean effective rigging, are some of many advancements that have been made over the last 15
years, with continual evolution of techniques and equipment to continue into the future.
iii Why is this research necessary?
Australia currently has limited means of acquiring the latest information and research results from
international industry leaders within this field. Quite often the only information on vertical rescue
that gets disseminated around Australia comes from a few select sources in America, and some
equipment manufactures who have an incentive to sell equipment. Very rarely does any
information come from non-English speaking countries. It was for this reason that I focused on
non-English speaking countries for the first half of this Fellowship.
Another factor limiting the flow of high quality information is that there is very little funding for
independent testing and research in this industry. Majority of the testing and research comes from
equipment manufacturers, reducing the independent nature of the research itself. The best
independent research comes from the top training companies that don’t have equipment
manufacturing affiliations such as Rigging for Rescue. RFR is generous with sharing this
valuable intellectual property but this is fairly unique.
The annual International Technical Rescue Symposium ITRS (http://itrsonline.org/) is the best
source of high quality and up to date research in this field. This symposium is run purely to share
the latest information and research from leading rescue organisation from around the world to
counter the problem of limited information flow. However Australia is very rarely represented at
ITRS and as a result we don’t easily benefit from such an important information sharing event.
The vertical rescue industry in Australia would see significant benefit in safety and efficiency by
regularly gaining a number of different international perspectives and the latest research findings
from the leading experts. It would also aid in having more consistency between rescue
organisation in Australia and cement a solid understanding of the future direction of the industry
leading to better decisions in training and equipment selection going forward.
I was motivated to conduct this research for the following potential benefits to the Australian
community:
● Improve safety and efficiency of training and operations of rescue agencies in Australia.
This will in turn increase capabilities, decrease risk to rescuers and casualties and
improve return on investment in equipment and training by rescue agencies.
● Upgrade outdoor education, climbing, caving and canyoning communities around
Australia to help prevent the need for rescues to occur.
● Increase awareness of safety issues in the industrial rope access industry in Australia to
improve their level of safety and training.
8

● Bring back a solid understanding of the future direction of the industry to help aid in
gaining better consistency between rescue organisations.
The differences and variations between organisations are large and regular evaluation to keep
techniques current are rare and not shared with other rescue organisations. There is no authority
on best practice in Australia and as a result each individual rescue organisation teaches content
they deem as ‘best practice’ with limited peer reviewed curriculum to compare too. There is very
little testing or research happening in Australia, and as a result our systems need to be more
standardised and in line with the current leaders in the industry internationally.
iv Research methods
My research consisted of interviews, observations of various operations and training procedures,

participation in vertical rescue drills, observing practical skills first hand as applied operationally,
reviewing organisation training manuals and documentation, and touring training facilities.
In the spirit of collegiality and collaboration, I am not directly quoting various sources but rather
synthesising and identifying recurring themes arising our of my interactions and observations.

9

6. OVERVIEW OF ORGANISATIONS VISITED
i Tokyo Fire Department, Japan (“TFD”)

Image 4 TFD demonstrations (private collection)
Background & relevance to research
The TFD is the largest fire and rescue brigade in the world. A section of the TFD is their Hyper
Rescue teams (Technical Rescue Teams) which were formed in 1996, the year after the Hanshin
Awaji Earthquake rocked the Kobe region, as a rapid response unit to major disasters across all
of Japan and technical rescue around Tokyo when not otherwise deployed. The teams
are responsible for rescue and medical emergency services. When deployed they are self-
sustainable and travel via their own helicopter. They are also deployable internationally when
requested as the International Rescue Team, Japanese Fire-Service (IRT-JF).
Each team consists of three units, each with 20 members and works a 24hr shift rotation. It is a
very competitive qualification within the TFD and has a selection process that is structured like
the SAS military selection process here in Australia. Only a select few are found competent after
a 40-day intensive training regime. As a result they are very well disciplined and well rehearsed,
with a very strong emphasis on speed, precision and a minimalist approach.
The Hyper Rescue teams are a highly impressive example of an elite rapid response rescue team.
They receive significant funding and resources from one of the world’s largest and well respected
fire departments. Given their reputation for excellence and the lack of information available
regarding their rescue techniques and equipment this organisation was an obvious choice for my
research.
Summary of visit
I spent a day observing many demonstrations of the skills and techniques they use. I also
interviewed their lead commander, officers, and technicians. I observed their training college and
acquired two manuals of techniques and equipment.
10

The Hyper Rescue Teams have quite different philosophies when it comes to vertical rescue.
They operate with a very high focus on speed and efficiency. It is hard to compare the systems
they use to ours, as there are such differences. While both achieve the same ultimate objective,
the Hyper Rescue Team’s extrication times are much faster along with their acceptable risk levels
being much higher.
Key lessons learnt during visit
• Their speed and rapid extrication times are second to none.

• It was a perfect example of minimalist and fast systems with a well drilled and rehearsed
team.
• A clear example of why ‘bigger is not better’ when it comes to building vertical rescue
systems.
• Their safety levels are low and risk levels high. Not a model to replicate in Australia.
• The benefits of having discipline and high levels of importance on training to improve speed
without reducing safety are aspects we should focus on in Australia.
We could certainly learn to be faster and more efficient without compromising safety, which is
only achieved through more consistent training in the style that we currently use. This is not a
new or profound discovery, however, it is reinforced clearly here.
ii Grimp Day Rope Rescue Competition, Belgium

Image 5 Grimp Day scenarios (private collection)
The Grimp Day Competition is a specific vertical rescue competition open to all rescue
organisations, held in Namur, a medieval town with a number of natural and structural features
useful for vertical rescue scenarios, in central Belgium. It is run by a couple of dedicated fire-
fighters in the Namur Fire Brigade who were inspired by their own national rope rescue
competitions within Belgium. Its first year included mostly teams from fire brigades around
Belgium. Now in its 10th year, it has expanded to be an international competition of 35 teams
from all over Europe, and even draws teams from as far as Hong Kong, Taiwan and Canada.
11

The main benefit of the event was the opportunity to see many different rescue teams in operation
and obtain a strong point of reference for comparison to the Australian context. Other significant
benefits included:
• Observing new and different techniques.
• Seeing new and different scenarios.
• Opportunity to speak in depth with many different rescue experts.
• Observing many different pieces of equipment in use in similar scenarios.
Summary of visit
I spent the full two days being an external examiner for the event, which involved observing and
assessing the teams as they completed the different scenarios.
• It is a rare occasion to see this level of technical rope rescue work happening in one place
with a large variation in skills and techniques.
• Such an event fosters lots of ideas sharing and learning from others.
• Many Australian teams would be very competitive on a technical and safety level but would
need to improve on speed.
• Almost all teams used Petzl ID’s (ID for “industrial descender) for friction devices and
belays.
• No MPD’s (MPD for “multi-purpose device”) or tandem prusik belays observed.
• Generally European teams prioritised a very light and fast approach triggering the debate
about twin rope technique versus single rope technique as twin rope technique was insisted
on by organizers for safety reasons.
• Being a competition, speed was still the main target in the scenarios, with the quality of the
system (e.g. clean, efficient, well designed systems) not being graded for points. This was not
the intention of the organisers, with the challenge of the scenarios, not speed, being the
intention and reiterated by the organisers.
• This type of competition would have a lot of benefit to all teams and the domestic vertical
rescue industry if one was run in Australia. As has been the case for road accident rescue
competition organised by the Australasian Road Rescue Organisation (ARRO).
12

iii Greater Manchester Fire Brigade

Image 6 Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Instructor course (private collection)
The Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service is one of the largest fire and rescue services in
the UK outside of London with over 2,100 members of staff and 41 fire stations. They cover an
area of approximately 500 square miles and a population of 2.5 million people. They have similar
rescue responsibilities as the ACT Fire and Rescue which is all technical rescue for their area of
responsibility.
They have many similarities to the way many fire brigade vertical rescue teams in Australia
operate as their heritage comes from the London Fire Brigade as does many of our fire brigades.
It was a perfect opportunity to get an in depth insight into a vertical rescue syllabus and training
of a leading rescue organization in a different country with different external influences.
Summary of visit
They have a similar attitude to vertical rescue and safety to most organisations in Australia,
however their techniques vary due to the equipment they use and the external training company
they use to train their instructors. They are a very competent set of vertical rescue instructors and
technicians, and have a very professional approach to vertical rescue.
I was lucky enough to participate in a three day instructors refresher course with them, run by the
independent training company Lyon Work and Rescue. We conducted many different drills that
included, mid cliff pick offs, ‘pike and pivot’ or ‘difficult edge’ transition, ‘English reeve’
highlines, and sloping highlines.
• Their instructor refresher schedule of every three years was impressive ensuring that
instructors’ skills were always current.
• They had good speed and teamwork.
• Good communication and detailed knowledge of all the techniques they use.
13

• The segmentation of their vertical rescue qualifications into 4 levels adds to the ease of skills
consolidation.
• Interesting to see the introduction of twin tensioned rope systems used for the last 5m of
lowers before touch down.
• Use of pre-made anchor cables by Lyon Works and Rescue.
• Limited use of Artificial High Directional.
• Use of CMC Ultra-Pro edge protection very effective, and safer than the more traditional
canvas sheets.
• Auto locking friction devices (Petzl ID’s) for both main and slack belay.
iv Lyon Work & Rescue Training Company, UK
A highly regarded training and equipment supply company based in Tebay at the base of the
Lakes District. It was started by two brothers interested in manufacturing caving equipment and
grew into a large equipment distribution company and the sole distributer of Petzl equipment in
the UK.
Summary of visit
● Good, current and practical techniques taught.

● Slight bias in training their clients with the equipment they supply.
● They have strong loyalty from their clients and a knowledgeable but informal teaching
style.
● Training almost exclusively in Petzl equipment, with creative uses of the Petzl ID, such
as within the highline system as a slipping clutch.
● Having an external training company to train instructors is very worthwhile to keep

techniques up to date and maintain a high level of safety.
● More focus on the ‘pike and pivot’/’difficult edge transition’ over using artificial high
directionals (“AHD”) which is an interesting difference to Australia and America where
AHD’s are used regularly. This was observed in most areas in Europe
14

v Paris Fire Department, France

Image 7 Paris Fire Brigade's "Grimper" team drills (private collection)
Paris Fire Brigade are the third largest fire brigade in the world behind Tokyo FD and New York
FD. There are only 18 elite rope rescue technicians in the whole brigade of over 3000 fire-
fighters. They are a paramilitary brigade with many direct crossovers to a military training and a
fast minimal approach. All fire-fighters must be fully trained soldiers and do regular military
service before becoming a fire-fighter.
They are an elite team of vertical rescue specialists that only focus on vertical rescue
operationally. Their level of training, and resources are high, leading to top level skills and
equipment. They perform approximately 165 vertical rescues per year on average, mostly
extricating people out of their apartments through windows as the stairwells of the old Parisian
buildings are too narrow.
Summary of visit
I spent three days working with the Paris Fire Brigade’s elite vertical rescue team. I took part in
three different drills with them and gained great insight to how they conduct vertical rescue in
Paris.
● Well drilled, fit and competent team.

● Strong military influence was obvious in the level of risk they were willing to take.
● Use of single rope technique and critical point carabineers acceptable.
● No external training influences.
● Quite a different approach to vertical rescue in Australia.
● Similar to the TFD hyper rescue teams in their focus on speed and willingness to accept
higher risks.
Key lessons learnt from visit
• They have a much greater focus on high speed with it being a priority.
• No external vertical rescue training or influence creating a limited view on the latest vertical
rescue research and techniques.
15

• Innovative use of a small artificial high directional on top of their vertical rescue truck.
• Regular use of an electric winch for all hauling due to having a small self-sufficient team.
Expensive and limited however and not necessary if you have a larger team.
• Good selection of Personal Protective Equipment.
• Good layout of rescue truck with practical and highly functional rope bags system and
equipment packs.
vi Chamonix Mountain Rescue (PGHM), France

Image 8 PGHM headquarters, landing zone and in the field (private collection)
Chamonix PGHM (Peleton de Gendarmerie de Haute Montagne) is the busiest and perhaps the
most highly skilled mountain rescue team in the world. The Chamonix branch is one of 15
PGHM units based in the mountainous regions of France. They conduct approximately 900
rescues per year just in the Mt Blanc Massif and an additional 600 rescues in the surrounding
area. Their training is quite possibly of the highest standard internationally also.
Summary of visit
I spent a day with the head officer of the division, covering their current techniques, new research
they were conducting in conjunction with Petzl, and the future direction of vertical rescue in the
mountain context. I was given a tour of the helicopter facility and the equipment they use.
By way of summary of my observations during this visit, I note as follows:

● 97% of these rescues are helicopter based.
● 36 rescuers, 4 helicopter crews and medics in the Chamonix PGHM.
● The skills their rescuers maintain include:
○ Mountain guide
○ Rope rescue
○ Crewman/winch operator
○ Nurse level medical training
○ Primary investigator
● Due to the weight restrictions of the helicopter based transport and the minimal team
members they need to be as minimal and lightweight as possible
16

● Because of the above point, they pride themselves on inventing new rope rescue
techniques and equipment with minimal weight and resources:
○ They use twin rope technique at every rope rescue and have devised a method of
using the two ends of one rope rigged with a Petal ID on one end and
a Petzl ASAP on the other rope to descend into a crevasse to rescue a casualty.
○ Fabricating a mini version of the Larkin frame for an artificial high directional
(AHD) for crevasse rescue
○ Helped design one of the first hand winches used for vertical rescue
• A clear example of the importance of twin ropes technique. As a helicopter based team,
weight is a critical issue, and yet they maintain twin rope technique, minimizing the ‘weight
and efficiency’ argument for single rope technique.
• Their high level of skill is directly related to the importance they put on training and skills
maintenance.
• Having a culture deeply rooted in the mountains leads to a strong mountain guide and
climbing influence on the style of rescue techniques used.
• Having a highly competitive intake into the PGHM, leads to passionate and highly motivated
technicians which raises standards and promotes a progressive organization with cutting edge
techniques.
vii Petzl Headquarters / Equipment Factory, France

Image 9 Petzl headquarters and village (private collection)
An innovative equipment manufacturing company that has a strong influence on the rescue
market (particularly in Europe). Their heritage started in caving and mountaineering leading to a
lightweight minimalist ethos today. Their professional/industrial (as compared to recreational)
arm of the business is their largest growth market and now 50% of their business after significant
growth over the last 10 years. The majority of the professional sales comes from the
rope access industry but they are also looking to focus more on the arborist and rescue industries
17

in the near future, promoting new skills and techniques based on their latest equipment.
As many techniques in vertical rescue are determined by the equipment used, major
manufacturers such as Petzl often innovate and pioneer new equipment, and thus techniques, to
improve safety and efficiency. As a major manufacturer and innovator in the vertical rescue
industry, Petzl have helped shape the modern discipline of vertical rescue. My visit focused on
how Petzl as a company see the future direction of vertical rescue in the future.
Summary of visit
Mr Chris Blakeley Petzl’s Network Development Manager was kind enough to spend the
majority of a day with me. With detailed discussions and a grand tour of the factory, testing
facilities and production line.
I observed the following during my time there:

● Significant focus on great design and high quality control, with the most high tech
production line and testing in the industry.
● An impressive research and testing division where they conduct rigorous scientific testing
by their own in house engineers.
● They have a training arm to the business that train external training companies with a
focus on Petzl equipment and techniques.
● Recent expansion into the America rescue industry has been successful. The lighter
weight nature of Petzl equipment compared to it’s American competition has prompted
Petzl to consider heavier weight equipment.
● This highlights the clear differences between Europe and America. With Europe being
much more focused on a minimalist approach coming from a mountaineering rescue
heritage versus the American stronger, safer techniques with a technical rescue, and
workplace safety heritage.
This tour helped clarify the future direction of vertical rescue from Petzl’s perspective, which is
one of expansion of their professional/industrial arm and more penetration into the American
market. This may result in Petzl equipment becoming more closely lined to products like CMC’s
MPD. There is a place for lighter weight rescue techniques, however I believe it is somewhere in
between the American heavier and complex systems and Europe’s higher lighter and higher risk
systems. A lot of this comes down to the skills and experience of the teams using these
techniques. The teams that have technicians that have to be very multi skilled and include vertical
rescue into a range of other rescue skills can not afford to be lightweight as it greatly reduces the
safety buffer.
18

viii New York Fire Department (NYFD), USA

Image 10 FDNY training facility at Randall's Island (private collection and Rescue 1 Truck
(unyquefiretrucks.com)
NYFD are the second largest fire department in the world with approximately 10,200 fire
fighters. They serve the 5 boroughs of New York City, which cover 8 million residences within a
320 squaremile (515 km square) radius. A rescue company within FDNY has one officer and five
fire fighters. They cover all technical rescues within New York.
NYFD are one of the highest profile brigades in the world. Their size and influence are
significant. They pride themselves on being ‘the best’, and work hard to maintain this. They have
extensive resources and training facilities and help pioneer new techniques and equipment with
manufacturers such as CMC rescue and Petzl.
Summary of visit
I rode along with the rescue commander who covered the whole of NYC. We toured their main
training facility at Randall's Island, stopped in at rescue stations, responded to jobs, and observed
some rescue demonstrations.
They train their technicians in vertical rescue with a similar philosophy to the ACT, being to
teach a range of different techniques to give the rescuers the skills to adapt to any situation at
hand, rather than teach a strict protocol that must be followed without deviation.
● The use of CMC MPD's and twin tensioned rope systems (TTRS) are in favour with most
technicians and instructors.
● They use Technora rope for personal escape systems and are trialling it for general rope
rescue work. It is incredibly strong, and heat resistant. It has very low elongation and could
revolutionise the thickness of rescue rope over the next 10 years.
19

● They train to a very high level for rigging. They run one week advanced rigging courses
where they do a lot of heavy load rigging with cables and winches, moving cars and concrete
slabs.
● They don't train with artificial high directional.
● They train for a whole week for tower climbing rescue.
● They receive some external training influence from Peak Rescue.
● Consistency of training is high.
● Progressive mindset for such a large organisation.
Overall they are a large but progressive brigade with sound rescue systems and equipment. The
consistency in training from course to course is good and the instructing facility and manuals are
excellent.
ix Desert Rescue Research (Tom Pendley), Arizona, USA
Tom Pendley, the founder of Desert Rescue Research (DRR) and the author of Essential
Technical Rescue Field Operations Guide is a fire chief with Pedora Fire service and has a wealth
of knowledge in vertical rescue. He is an active rope rescue researcher and regular contributor to
Fire Rescue magazine. He also attends and presents at ITRS (International technical rescue
symposium) each year, to share his latest findings and contributions in rescue.
Summary of visit
I spent a day interviewing him and workshopping many of the key and controversial topics within
the vertical rescue industry at the moment.
My meeting with him was very productive with a strong focus on the future direction of vertical
rescue and the latest research in vertical rescue. His views are balanced and considered. He is not
influenced by commercial gains from equipment companies or others so the freedom to find the
best practice is high. Having worked in both mountain rescue and fire department based rescue
the majority of his career he has a broad insight into all the subsets of vertical rescue.
● Twin tensioned rope systems (TTRS) - The most important advancement in vertical rescue in
recent years
● Regional rescue program for whole Arizona area = 200hr 5 week course
● Friction devices in 1980 did not pass the TTRS protocols leading to a preference for Single
main slack belay
● Slipping clutch of MPD a big bonus
20

● Skill evaluation - randomly implemented to technicians while on shift:

● Pick off
● Packaging
● Anchoring
● Mechanical Advantage
● Belay set up and run
● Muscle memory exercises - fundamental skills repeated often
● Training should be - first clean then fast
● Tandem prusiks for belay potentially phasing out.
● Having a rescue outrigger attached to the litter possibly phasing out.
x Ropes that Rescue (Reed Thorne), Artificial High Directional, Arizona, USA

Image 11 RTR AHD Course, Prescott (private collection)
Ropes That Rescue (RTR) are a well known and well respected rope rescue company in the USA.
The owner Reed Thorne has been active in the rope rescue industry for over 30 years and has
helped develop aspects of many techniques and equipment that are used widely all around the
world. RTR have a practical approach to rescue with a strong focus on artificial high directional
and clean efficient rigging.
RTR have had a large influence on the techniques in Australia over the last 15 years. With the
Australia branch having significant influence on most vertical rescue organisations in this
country. It was obvious to do an advanced course with the developer and curator of a lot of the
content we use in the ACT.
Summary of visit
I participated in a seven day Artificial High Directional course with Reed Thorne. The course was
held in Prescott, a small 'wild west' town 2.5 hours north of Phoenix.
21

It was a productive seven days in different and varied locations. One of the most interesting was
an old abandoned hotel where we were able to set up the Vortex in a number of interesting set ups
maximising the use of using internal structures and creating anchors inside a building which was
something I had never been able to do.
● Using the vortex legs jammed between doorways and between the floor and a corner of a
room.
● CMC ratchet style hobble straps for vortex feet, very quick and useful.
● Double sheet bend/blitz anchors are very useful.
● The raise or lower a rescue package in stairwells using the ‘whirlybird’ system.
● Twin Tensioned Rope System was used with 2 MPD's and was clear and easy to rig/use.
xi Rigging for Rescue (Mike Gibbs), Advanced skills/specialty techniques

course, Colorado

Image 12 RFR speciality techniques course, Ouray (private collection)
Rigging for Rescue (RFR) has been running rescue courses since the early 1980s and has been a
leader in developing techniques and training at the top level for over 30 years. It has a high focus
on testing and research, which is rare and an extremely valuable contribution to the international
vertical rescue industry. They were some of the first training companies to introduce critical
thinking into evaluating systems for vertical rescue.
RFR was started by Arnor Larson, sold to Kirk Mauthner, and now owned by Mike Gibbs, these
three are some of the most well known and respected rescue instructors of the modern era. RFR
are known for having a safe but minimal approach, and mountain rescue focus however the skills
and information they teach are still very relevant for all vertical rescue organisations.
22

Summary of visit
I participated in the RFR specialty techniques training seminar pitched at an instructor level. It
was a five day seminar (45hrs) that covers the principles of system analysis, and critical thinking
as applied to vertical rescue.
Topics covered:
● Safety Factors
● Rescue Safety Systems (mirrored systems versus tandem prusik in combination with a
Scarab descent control device, see image above)
● Anchor points and Systems (rock climbing protection, vegetation, rock mass,
EARNESTR acronym, vehicle anchors)
● Command and control
● Scene size up
● System design and planning
● Rope elongation properties and considerations
● Belay system management for long lowers
● Basic rope work physics and Vectors
● Vertical litter orientation with two outriggers
● Parallel Plaquet system
● Guiding lines
● Highlines with different types of reeving
Key benefits and observations of visit
• Looking at research on all the current friction devices on the market.

• Pros and cons of TTRS (twin tension rope systems) discussed in detail
• Looking at the underlying thinking of many rope rescue techniques
• Vertical versus horizontal stokes litter rigging
• Minimal pick off techniques
• Anchor physics
• Interesting data on ‘self equalizing’ anchors
• Very recent research on human error factors with MPD’s
• Sharp edge drop testing for Single Main, Separate Belay (SMSB) versus TTRS
• The true importance of edge protection data
• I also took part in drop testing for tandem prusik belay technique for a research project
involving a new type of prusik knot and material – the ‘VT’ prusik using Technora material.
23

7. RESEARCH FINDINGS
After engaging with the above organizations and people I have gained many new concepts and
ideas, however the majority of these findings were small nuances to already existing systems.
They were worthy improvements to find, but dependent on the current systems and equipment
used by that organisation specifically. As mentioned above, this report is not intended to outline
each and every discovery I learnt during this Fellowship, but to focus on the broader and high
impact advancements and future directions that have the most benefit on a national scale. Gibbs
said it well when he wrote; ‘There are lighter systems and heavier systems, simpler and more
complex systems, ones that incorporate specific devices and others that involve improvisation.
There is no right answer as to which system is the “best” because the nature of the choices
involved is too dependent on specific elements of a team’s mission profile.’ (Gibbs : Reflections
from the edge, ITRS 2015)
I believe in the benefit of keeping techniques and equipment as current, safe and efficient as they
can possibly be. I am a strong believer in moving with the times and welcoming new
improvements as they arise. However introducing change that does not add equal or more benefit
than the investment required to change it is not an acceptable change. Change for change’s sake is
a fool’s errand. Continually introducing new techniques and equipment based on the latest trends,
without significant gain to the existing systems, is inefficient and dangerous because of the tightly
coupled and complex nature of rope rescue systems. An important question to ask when
considering a system change or modification is what new risks will be introduced by solving the
current problem.
The difficulty and cost of introducing new equipment and techniques into a well established
rescue organization are usually high, and it is only worth introducing new techniques and
equipment after rigorous analysis, testing and consensus from workplace experts and industry
leaders.
In saying this, I have specifically chosen the findings in this report to reflect change that is worthy
of investment. Although some may still be controversial in some respects, I believe these
controversies are finer discussion points on specific equipment characteristics and do not
compromise their underlying concepts and benefits. They should be considered, discussed further,
researched and trialled for implementation as appropriate.
The findings from my research and the recommendations that follow fall into four categories: i)
techniques, ii) equipment iii) training and iv) information sharing.
24

i Research Findings - Techniques
There were a range of different techniques I learnt on this Fellowship. Almost every rescue
organisation has new or different techniques compared to all others. Not all have clear advantage
over others and my evaluations were made in the context of the ACT Fire & Rescue curriculum. I
have focused mainly on the Twin Tension Rope System (“TTRS”) as I believe this has the most
potential positive benefit in terms of safety.
The discoveries in the realm of techniques that will be discussed in this section are as follows:
a. Twin Tension Rope System (TTRS) in preference over Single Main Separate Belay (SMSB)
b. Offset highline in preference Traditional high tension Kootenay highline
c. Removing all critical points from a rescue system
d. Removing all ‘self equalising’ anchors
e. Purcell prusik tie in for casualty in a litter
a. Twin Tension Rope Systems (TTRS) (also called Mirrored Systems)
The most significant new discovery I leant on this Fellowship was the Twin Tensioned Rope
Systems (“TTRS”) also known as a ‘mirrored system’. It provides the greatest benefit in safety,
simplicity and efficiency, with the least amount of modification to generally existing practices.
TTRS has gained a lot of interest in the USA and Canada in recent years with many rescue
organizations adopting it over the more widely used ‘single main separate belay’ (SMSB)
method. From what I have seen, I believe this will be the future direction of vertical rescue for
most organizations, just as the twin rope technique became the preferred method over the single
rope technique 15-20 years ago.
What is TTRS?
A good definition of a TTRS is ‘a rope rescue system in which each rope serves simultaneously
as a lowering/raising line as well as a competent back-up to the other line’ (Mauthner ITRS
2014).
TTRS is not a new concept; it has been considered for twin rope rescue systems for well over 30
years. They come in many different forms but all aim to have both ropes under tension during the
operation. A mirrored system is a sub category of TTRS where both systems are identical in set
up. TTRS’s have not been very popular in the past due to the added complexity of setup and
function over the much more popular ‘single main, separate belay’ (SMSB) method until
recently. SMSB is also known as ‘main line with tandem prusik belay’, the most common method
used in Australia to date. With the development of the CMC Multi Purpose Device (MPD) some
years ago, it has allowed a significant simplification in the setup and functioning of TTRS’s thus
making the benefits of TTRS much more easily attainable. The subsequent testing, presenting and
instructing of the benefits of TTRS by the well respected designer, engineer and instructor Kirk
Mauthner of Basecamp Innovations has also greatly helped in promoting the benefits of TTRS.
25

Image 13 Typical SMSB lowering set up (DRR Technical Field Manual)

Image 14 CMC MPD 13mm rope version (www. cmcrescue.com)
In a TTRS, each rope is rigged to lower approximately 50% of the load but must be capable of
catching 100% of the load should one line fail. In order to get a understanding of how this system
works, there are some video demonstrations on the internet from Desert Rope Rescue (for system
basics, go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=194&v=QJC3quN8g88)
By way of some examples, below are images of various TTRS system setups.

Image 15 Example of a TTRS using a rack and tandem prusik (www.roninrescue.com)
26

Image 16 Example of TTRS using twin Petzl IDs (www.rescueresponse.com)

Image 17 Example of TTRS using CMC MPDs (www.desertrescue.com)
27

Image 18 Example of TTRS in conjunction with a high directional (www.desertrescue.com)
Historical Background - which system is best for sharp edges?
One of the main perceived benefits of a SMSB system over TTRS is the assumption that an un-
tensioned rope is not cut as easily on a sharp edge, therefore having an un-tensioned belay line
makes it safer to sharp edge hazard. This assumption was made many years ago when twin rope
techniques were being introduced but was never tested rigorously. It is a logical rational and
holds true if you only look at how a single rope will cut when under static tension. However this
assumption is not the case in the practical application of arresting a fall using a SMSB system.
At ITRS 2014, in Kirk Mauthner’s presentation “Moving Beyond 10:1 SSSF”, he showed the
results of a small sample drop test he conducted comparing equal tensioned ropes (simulating
TTRS) vs unequal tensioned ropes (simulating SMSB) over a sharp edge (See this link for the
drop test mentioned above; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-43yf8SDs4M). He found that
when both ropes share the load equally as is the case in TTRS, they are less likely to sever than
two ropes that don’t share the load upon impact, as with SMSB.
When both ropes share the load over a sharp edge they distribute the force across twice the
amount of rope at the critical point of peak force. They are damaged but don’t sever. When each
line is at different tensions (SMSB) at point of peak force, there is a higher chance that the first
line will sever (as it is trying to arrest 100% of the load), which then shock loads the second rope
(belay line) over the sharp edge causing it to sever as well, creating a catastrophic severing of
both ropes.
Mike Gibbs of Rigging for Rescue ran his own drop test in 2015 with another small sample size
test and similar conditions to Mauthner with some minor changes. The main changes were
replacing the sharpened metal edge Mauthner used with a sharp rock edge, and comparing the
differences padding the sharp edge makes. His results did neither confirm nor deny Mauthners’
results, however it did confirm that TTRS does not increase the sharp edge hazard, as was
28

originally thought. More importantly Gibbs found that the type of edge protection and amount of
padding at the edge made a significant difference. His conclusion was more focused on the results
of padding the sharp edge. “A performance difference may exist (between TTRS and SMSB),
but it involves margins; requiring a specific edge quality, padding quality, and velocity
combination to identify those margins.” (Gibbs: Reflections from the edge, ITRS 2015)
Both of these studies were only preliminary testing with a small sample size, and this topic
requires more in depth research, however the initial thoughts are that there is no advantage to the
SMSB for sharp edge hazard minimisation, removing one of the perceived main benefits of
having an un-tensioned belay line.
Benefits of TTRS
There are a number of benefits of using TTRS, especially when compared to a SMSB system.
The benefits that I am aware of are listed briefly below and a more detailed analysis of the most
significant benefit, reducing fall distance, will follow thereafter.
List of benefits of TTRS:
i. Significant reduction in fall distance for the rescue package should there be an issue with
the either line which greatly reduces the chance of significant injury to both rescuer and
casualty.
ii. Peak forces reduced during a dynamic event (such as line failure) as the lines are already
under tension significantly reducing rope elongation and rope slack in the system.
iii. Forces reduced on all systems in normal operation as both systems share the forces.
iv. System still functional after a dynamic event when using two MPD’s. With SMSB’s,
tandem prusiks fuse to the belay rope in a dynamic event, making that system unusable,
delaying a rapid extraction of the rescue package.
v. Smoother operation in both lower and raise. Jerky lowering and hauling averaged out
over two rope systems.
vi. Simplified system with one techniques for both ropes. This results in less training and
skill maintenance.
vii. Potentially lower chance of both ropes being cut on a sharp edge in a dynamic event.1
viii. Reduces rock fall potential, no slack rope running and flicking along the ground and over
the edge.
ix. Reduces belayer complacency, as there is more system feedback to belayer from active
rope.
x. Safer, quicker, simpler transition from lower to raise or vice versa when using the MPD.
xi. More efficient hauling with smaller haul teams sharing the haul over two ropes
xii. Easier to shift tension in the ropes for knot bypass or any other reason to shift the weight

29

off a rope temporarily.

xiii. Communication between stations is improved as they have to work together to share the
load by lowering at similar rates, increasing rescuer focus and reducing belayer
complacency (belay rope moving in or out without an event, action or need).
xiv. A relatively small modification in techniques which dovetails well into the current
systems, for a large benefit in safety and efficiency.
Main benefit: Reduction in fall distance
The most important benefit of TTRS over SMSB is the reduction in fall distance for the rescuer
and casualty (rescue package) should one rope system fail. This is a long recognised pitfall of the
SMSB system as the belay line competence is compromised with rope elongation and potential
for excessive slack in the system. This is magnified by the amount of rope in service as the rescue
package gets lowered out more and more. This fall distance is a significant safety issue to the
rescue package, with a high potential for serious injury to both the rescuer and casualty.
The dangerous consequences of large falls are obvious; the rescue package could hit objects
during the fall, and or invert, and or land on a ledge or the ground. The dangers are significantly
worse if the rescuer ends up underneath the litter upon impact, which has been known to cause
rescuer deaths through internal bleeding of a broken pelvis in what would be considered a
survivable fall without this added hazard.
Other hazards of large falls are all related to the significant increase in peak forces through the
rope systems due to large fall distances. There is a higher potential for rope systems to fail at the
anchor or over a sharp edge, as each component in the system is subjected to significantly higher
forces.
For an illustration of fall distance comparison between TTRS and SMSB go to “How far will you
fall” by DRR rescue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smRb_X9Sr3s.
Criticisms of TTRS and their counter-arguments
As with most changes to an already established paradigm like SMSB, TTRS has been under
necessary scrutiny since its reintroduction by Mauthner at ITRS 2011 (Mirrored Rope Rescue
Systems, ITRS 2011). Sceptical analysis promotes a necessary and healthy debate that is crucial
when considering a change in techniques for vertical rescue.
I have included a detailed list of criticism and counter-arguments in Appendix 2 for a more
detailed analysis of this important discussion.
In summary, the majority of these criticisms at this point in time are more focused on the MPD
rather than the fundamentals of TTRS. This is an important point to differentiate. The advantage
30

of sharing the load between the two ropes is clear and should be the future direction of rope
rescue. Currently the MPD can achieve TTRS acceptably for some and not others. With future
developments in friction device technology, TTRS will become even more appropriate.
As TTRS is almost exclusively done with an MPD at this point in time, it is a valid point that the
reaction time delay/human error element of the MPD is a concern. Appendix 1 of this report
provides further details regarding the criticisms of the MPD. The results of Gibbs’s study
(Reflections from the edge; ITRS 2015) that showed a potential ground fall highlighted this.
However this potential for error is not exclusive to TTRS using MPD’s. Every device has it’s
own ‘Achilles heal’, and most come down to human error, the question is which has the highest
risk. In my experience the TTRS using twin MPD’s, in full friction mode, with appropriate
training, and the ropes running through a high directional, has a marked safety and efficiency
benefit to the SMSB system. It does not significantly increase the risk. I think it is superior to
SMSB and therefore recommend that it be adopted in this configuration as part of our current
techniques in Australia.
Summary
For clarity, I have included a summary table of the points discussed above.
Considerations TTRS SMSB

Fall distances reduced Y N
Peak forces reduced at a dynamic event Y N
System still functional after a dynamic event (Tandem prusik fuse to the belay
Y N
rope when used in a dynamic event)
Smoother operation in both lower and raise
Y N
(Jerky moment averaged out over two rope systems)
Simplified system, one techniques for both ropes Y N
Potentially a lower chance of both ropes being cut on a sharp edge in a
Y* N
dynamic event
Reduces rock fall potential Y N
Reduces belayer complacency Y N
More control at edge transition with AHD Y* N
Easier to shift tension in the ropes for knot bypass or to move the ropes away
Y N
from a sharp edge or crack
Versatile across all rescue disciplines that may use ropes e.g. USAR, Trench,
Y* Y
Confined Space, Swift Water,
Can be used for all uses in rope rescue, e.g. with a ‘bolt on’/’piggy back’ haul
N Y
system, a haul safe in a tripod, highline reeving.
Human error a concern (but mostly to do with the friction device used rather
Y Y
than the concept of TTRS)
Safer, quicker, simpler transition from lower to raise or vice versa (more to do
Y N
with the friction device used rather than the concept of TTRS)
31

* = Still under contention
b. Two rope offset highline over Kootenay highline
Highlines are the most dangerous vertical rescue system with the least amount of practical
application. They are time consuming and resource intensive, requiring a high level of skill,
knowledge and expertise to run safely.
The main benefit of Kootenay highlines is that they act as a good training tool for constructing
and operating a complex rigging problem. Plus there are some rare applications where a
Kootenay highline is the best system to use such as bridging a running river to rescue someone
from a mid point in the river, or for lowering a rescuer into an old mine shaft where all edges
pose a large rock fall hazard, or transporting many casualties across a void. However these
scenarios are very rare and the danger for an accident even in training is high.

Image 19 Kootenay Highline -‐ Taiwan Team, Grimp Day 2015 (private collection)
32

Image 20 Kootenay Highline (DRR technical rescue field guide)
A good alternative to Kootenay highlines are two rope offset highlines. These are not new by any
means and have been taught in Australia and around the world for many years, however they are
often overlooked in the Australian context, with Kootenay highlines taking precedence.
An offset highline is where the rescue package is maneuvered in space between two high points,
with two ropes attached and controlled at each side (see Image 21 below). They are still complex,
time and resource intensive, and have their own dangers however they are safer, faster and
simpler to use when compared to the tensioned highline systems.

Image 21 Two Rope Offset Highline (ACTF&R Vertical Rescue Manual)
When asked, Reed Thorne of Ropes That Rescue thought the future direction of vertical rescue
was heading towards, among other points, phasing out Kootenay highlines in favour of offset
highlines. A valid point, and one we should consider in Australia
33

c. Removing all critical points from a rescue system
Constructing vertical rescue systems that have two fully independent ropes, anchors, attachment
points and operators is crucial for all systems where possible. This removes the chance of
everything in the system relying on one single piece of equipment (critical point) that if failed
would create a catastrophic failure of both lines.
This is not a new point, but one that was reinforced strongly to me on this Fellowship with many
examples of critical points being used without the expertise or understanding of the systems to
warrant this risk. One particular example where the critical point carabiner shook open and was
deformed out of shape. A near miss without a doubt. This level of risk was unnecessary for the
available gear and resources on site.
Needless to say, there is very rarely a time where any rescue organisation in Australia should
need to use a system of single rope or any critical points even in remote and lightweight
scenarios. If the PGHM in Chamonix, the lightest, fastest, helicopter based teams in the world,
where every gram counts, use double ropes and no critical points, then everyone can, and should.
d. Remove all ‘self equalizing’ anchors from curriculum.
Anchor selection and construction is a crucial part of any vertical rescue system. In the past, ‘self
equalising’ anchors were used to share the load evenly between a multi point anchor should the
load shift while during operation. This is an old and obsolete technique. Testing from Gibbs ;
Rigging for Rescue (Tying it all Together: Considerations for equalizing multi-point anchor
systems, ITRS 2012), has shown that ‘self equalising’ anchors don’t equalise as expected while
under load, especially when the load shifts. The downside is that it introduces a potential shock
load component to the other anchor points should one anchor point fail, increasing the possibility
of the whole anchor to fail. It is clear that all multi point anchors should be ‘focused’ and pre
tensioned if possible.
A great acronym for anchor selection and construction from Rigging for Rescue is;
“EARNEST’R- RESCUE ANCHOR ACRONYM”
E - Equalized– Anchor systems should be constructed so that each anchor

point carries an equal amount of the load.
A- Angle/Alignment
R - Redundant– Anchor systems should consist of multiple components in

case one or morecomponents fail.
NE - No Extension– Anchors should be built so that if one or more of the

components fail the remaining components won't be shock loaded
34

S - Strong (or Solid)– Select anchor points that are capable of holding the
load.
T - Timely– Anchor systems should be as timely as possible without giving

up any of the other qualities.
R – Rigid– When possible, slack is removed from the anchor system through
pre- tensioning.
(Ref: 2014 National Parks Service America Technical Rescue Handbook 11th
Ed)
Note that the most significant change for the Australian context is the ‘No Extensions’
component. This removes all ‘self equalising anchors’ which is a welcome change to our current
techniques and a big improvement in safety.
e. Purcell prusik tie in

‘Boot lacing’ or seat belt straps to secure a casualty to the stokes litter without a secure
attachment through a harness or similar is not safe. Boot lacing when conducting a mid point pick
off is not practical either. A much faster and safer way is described below. Again, this is not a
new technique but one that could be used more widely around Australia.
Three Purcell Prusiks can be quickly employed to secure a subject wearing a harness from
movement along the long axis of a litter (Figure 236). The initial foundation for this secure tie-in
employs two Purcell Prusiks run through the subject’s harness belay loop form. These are
inversely secured from one another to the litter in order to restrain subject movement toward the
head or foot ends of the litter. The Purcells are easily adjusted once in place to tension the
attachments. A third Purcell is used to provide support to the feet.
Alternate Webbing Method: Webbing runners can be employed in place of the Purcell Prusiks.
Separate webbing runners are girth hitched at their mid-points to the harness belay loop. One
runner is rigged toward the head and the other down toward the feet. Secure one end of each
runner to an outside litter rail after cinching it tight with tension. A Clove Hitch or Round Turn
with Half Hitches works well for this application. Use a Trucker’s Hitch to tension and secure the
other end of each runner around a litter rail on the opposite side of the litter.
These patient tie-in procedures must be finished off with several lateral cross-ties to provide a
complete and secure system. The numerous lateral cross-ties must suitably anchor the patient to
prevent lateral movement or ejection.
35

Image 22 Patient packaging with Purcell Prusiks (2014 National Parks Service America Technical
Rescue Handbook 11th Edition)

ii Research Findings - Equipment
Equipment selection is always a challenge for each organization, especially where funding is
scarce. There were many new or different equipment discoveries and alternatives to pre existing
tools and devices, and not all were worthy of a change for the benefit offered. Some that were
well worthy of change however include the CMC Multi Purpose Device (MPD), new Petzl
ASAP, and the Kask Super Plasma Helmet combined with the Petzl Pixa 3 head torch.
Despite the vast differences between organizations, there was a strong preference by most to use
auto lock friction devices, namely the CMC Multi Purpose Device (“MPD”) or Petzl Industrial
Descender (“ID”) for lowering and hauling. Many also prefered the Petzl ASAP (“ASAP”) in
conjunction with the ID the as a personal belay system for rescuer rope mobility and tower
rescue.

Image 23 Petzl ID (industrial descender). Petzl ASAP Safety Back Up (petzl.com), CMC MPD
(cmcrescue.com)
36

Image 24 Example of descending using the Petzl ID and ASAP in unison (petzl.com)
It is worth noting that I found a general consensus that no friction device currently on the market
is fool proof, 100% safe, or void of issues. The MPD and ID have their own share of complexities
and possibilities for human error, but they are far superior to the alternatives that offer no auto-
lock mechanism.
Below is a list of disadvantages to using a non-auto locking friction device such as an SRT
Firetail.
● Lack of an auto stop break, a safety flaw compared to other friction devices.
● Difficulty to increase friction mid lower, e.g. for a mid point pick off that doubles the
rescue load without unweighting the rope.
● Cumbersome and dangerous to rig for a rappel, mid rope, when changing from ascending
to descending.
● Necessitates the need for a ‘hot change over’ when the lowering system is switched to a
raise without unweighting the rope.
● Difficult to take in slack or pay out rope at the set up and lowering phase at edge
transition.
● Difficult to take in slack and set for a reset when a ‘bolt on 5:1’ haul system is used on
the main line.
These safety issues are significantly reduced or removed with the use of the MPD and ID. Other
benefits in addition to solving the above safety concerns include:
● Simple to rig and use.
● MPD is more efficient for the lowering and hauling systems with an inbuilt pulley.
● Gives more options to evolve with future rope rescue developments such as the TTRS
37

● Will act as a slipping clutch. It release tension in the system by allowing the rope to slip
in small increments at between 11Kn and 15Kn (Gibbs RFR specialty techniques course
2015) to prevent the rope or system being overloading without damaging the rope.
● The MPD is purpose built for high forces seen in rescue use and is much easier to use at
these forces.
● It dovetails easily into our existing systems as a direct replacement for the Firetail belay
device without having to change any other aspects of our current systems, minimizing the
level of training needed to introduce it.
I recommend the MPD and ID for different purposes as neither are designed or intended to do all
tasks effectively.
The MPD is far superior to the ID as a primary lowering and hauling friction device and a fully
capable belay device. The efficient one-way pulley robust design and smooth action make for a
very useful device. It shines as a stand-alone belay device as well, with the non-rope damaging
progress capture mechanism and efficient hauling in of slack make it the best on the market for
this purpose. It is also useful in tensioning highlines, both horizontal and sloping highlines,
adding the added safety of the slipping clutch.
The Petzl ID/ASAP combination is ideal for personal mobility and tower rescue as the MPD is
not designed for these uses. The Petzl ID/ASAP combination is a safe, versatile and well-
designed system that safe and efficient and minimises human error.
The table below summarises key points for other equipment recommendations.
Equipment Name Purpose Standout features
Rock Exotica Artificial High Directional Versatile, light, affordable,

Arizona Vortex Makes edge transition much safer and smoother.
DRR Field guides Quick reference guide for Clear, concise, affordable, very useful and
in the field necessary resource for all technicians
Kask super plasma Rescue Helmet Light, breathable, durable, comfortable. Best
helmet on the market for vertical rescue
Petzl Pixa 3 Headtorch Durable, bright, glove friendly, water resistant
Rock Exotica small portable 4:1 MA Very versatile, strong, and extremely useful.
Aztek Elite Kit system
CMC Ultra-pro Plastic flexible edge Essential for safety on a sharp edge. Far superior
edge protection protectors to canvas
38

iii Research Findings - Training

a. Important considerations
Training and instructing vertical rescue is a crucial part of the safety, efficiency and competence
of any vertical rescue team. Its importance far outweighs any decision about equipment or
technique selection. However it is often the most expensive component of maintaining a vertical
rescue team and as a result is the first component to incur cost cuts. Regular skills refresher
courses are also rare despite their clear benefit. By far the greatest gains to be made in vertical
rescue in Australia today are through more frequent and structured training.
The best performing, most professional and competent teams I observed on this Fellowship, were
the most well trained and well practiced. The speed and precision of the Hyper Rescue teams in
the Tokyo Fire Department are a testament to what could be achieved with a high level of training
and repetition.
The benefit of independent vertical rescue training companies in Australia such as Ropes That
Rescue Australia are also large. The high incentive to keep their techniques current and
curriculum high quality are obvious for business success. Rope that Rescue Australia have the
added benefit of teaching the same curriculum to many rescue organisation in Australia, adding a
certain level of standardisation.
It is important to remember that training companies with an affiliation to an equipment

manufacturer and/or an incentive to sell equipment reduces the independence of their content.
An example I know well is the ACTF&R’s training schedule. ACTF&R run a 13-day course to
train basic Level 1 (V1) operators up to rescue technicians Level 2 operators, (V2). Historically,
there has been consistent feedback from instructors and participants that the V2 course needs a
better time structure. More specifically, it needs (i) more time and (ii) be split into two sections.
V2 participants report being overloaded with information and need more practical time during the
course to learn new practical skills.
A preferred course structure was observed at the Greater Manchester Fire Brigade, were they split
their vertical rescue qualification up into four sections. Splitting the equivalent ACTF&R V2
qualification into two separate qualifications with a mandatory twelve months in between to
consolidate skills would be sufficient
I believe twelve months is possibly too long to break a course up without having to add a separate
qualification, as is the case in the Greater Manchester FB example. For ACTF&R’s purpose I
suggest splitting the V2 course into two sections but only have a two month intermission to
consolidate skills and a set list of timed drills and assessments that participants must complete
under the supervision of an instructor, on shift, during that break.
39

b. Recommended course structure

First part (duration 1.5 weeks) covering the fundamentals
● Anchors – all types
● Main and belay operation and/or TTRS
● Belay drop test catch by operators
● Rigging physics - forces and vectors
● Mechanical advantage systems
● Team lowering and hauling systems
● Rope mobility
● Casualty care/outrigger drills
● Safety officer
● Edge controller
● Use of existing HD’s e.g. trees and parts of industrial structures
● Bronto/aerial ladder drills
● SRT tripod
● Introduction to Arizona Vortex under direction
● Tag lines and guiding lines
2 month “intermission” (consolidation phase)

● Set drills to be ticked off a set list
● Drills done under supervision of instructor, on shift, for training consistency
● Skill consolidation tasks with time limits of:
i. Set up and run a belay system inc anchor set up (5 mins)
ii. Set up and run a mainline inc anchor set up (5 mins)
iii. Set up a range of anchors (with time limits)
iv. Rig a stokes litter in all different configurations (with time limits)
v. Safe working loads assessments
vi. Set up and run lowering and hauling systems in a number of different
configurations (with time limits)
Second part (duration 1.5 weeks) covering intermediate skills

● Assessment of fundamentals first day back
● Rescue system design considerations
● Artificial High Directionals in depth – Arizona Vortex
● Highlines and offsets
● IC - supervisor roles and considerations
i. Thinking 2-3 steps ahead
ii. In depth scene size up
iii. Briefing crews
iv. Dealing with a time critical casualty
● Instructors reduce their input on system design and direction.
● Assessment phase (last 3 days)
● Set complex drills with time limits
40

Other recommendations in the area of training courses include:

• Set frequency of refresher skills courses for V2 technicians at least every four years
• Set yearly assessment tasks for all V2’s to keep skills current
• Create a set of vertical drills to practice on shift, for example:
◦ Give set time limits and locations
◦ Incorporate confined space and other common considerations
◦ Drills within training towers rooms or structures
• Instructor's requirements:
◦ Minimum of two courses from an external training company including an
Intermediate instructor course and an artificial high directional course.
The importance of regular training and skills refreshing is by far the area of greatest potential
improvement in Australia today. Vertical rescue as a skill has considerable theory, skills and
understandings required to be proficient and all of these are perishable, eroding over time without
regular practice. Because vertical rescues are generally a rare occurrence for most organisations it
becomes a skill often overlooked for other skills training, however due to the always constant
risks at a vertical rescue job, this skill should not be neglected.
iv Research Findings - Information Sharing
a. International Technical Rescue Symposium (ITRS)
ITRS is an annual symposium of industry leaders, pioneering researchers and experts in technical
rescue to share the latest research results and state of the art technical rescue information. They
include rescuers representing mountain, cave, fire, industrial, swift-water and confined space skill
sets, who gather and discuss ways to improve safety and performance.
It is a highly respected event that results in invaluable information sharing and key learning
outcomes. Australia is typically under represented at ITRS and should focus on sending more of
our own experts and researchers. This would have multiple benefits including disseminating the
findings around all rescue organisations in Australia which would not only directly improve
Australia’s capabilities but also prompt our own experts to get involved in testing and research.
b. Rope Rescue Competitions
Rescue competitions provide an excellent opportunity to hone skills, focus and motivate, learn
from the latest research and give a point of reference for comparisons.
The Grimp Day competition in Belgium was a clear example of the benefits these competitions
bring to the organisations that compete in them. This is also highlighted in other rescue
41

disciplines such as road accident rescue with the success of the Australasian Road Rescue
Organization (ARRO).
The training, preparation, competing, observing, and structured learning from workshops clearly
improve an organization’s capabilities and highlight areas of improvement if needed. It removes
the chance of stagnation within organizations skills they teach and prompts critical analysis of
techniques.
It provides a large variety in scenarios to attempt such as the scenarios seen at the Grimp day
2015:
● Casualty pick off a cliff
● Large animal rescue
● Slacklining casualty rescue
● High line rescue
● Arborist / paragliding in tree rescue
● Lead climb rescue
● Steep slope evacuation rescue
● Multiple edge transition in a single lower rescue
It is a good way to keep rope rescue in the forefront of multi skilled teams minds and initiate
regular training, develop new techniques and share ideas.
There are inherent risks in running a competition like this such as:
• Unlike many other training scenarios, vertical rescue scenarios are just as dangerous
when training as operational jobs, so under competition conditions this leads to a high
level of risk.
• There are variations of safety standards between different organizations, and so it is hard
to enforce a generic safety standard. While twin ropes with independent anchors was
clearly enforced as the minimum safety standard, safety supervisors have a broad
discretion regarding knots, forces and the other myriad of factors which make up the
safety of a system. This discretion must be exercised carefully to ensure a high level of
safety for the participants.
• It is hard to source the large number of sufficiently qualified safety supervisors, (ideally
vertical rescue instructors), to oversee the safety of each team at each scenario.
The benefit of a thought provoking workshop and seminar was run on the first night of Grimp
Day, addressing the rise in popularity of ‘Slackline’ walking (new version of tight rope walking
across a high chasm) and the rescue implications. This workshop/seminar part of the event was
one of the highlights and, as is the case with the ARRO competition, a whole day could be added
to the event which includes such workshops on new research and techniques in the field of
vertical rescue.
The main benefit of the event was the opportunity to see so many different rescue teams in
42

operation. It is a rare occasion to see this level of technical rope rescue work happening in one
place with a large variation in skills, and techniques. Plus it is a great place to share new ideas
and learn from others. I believe Australia would benefit greatly from a rope rescue competition.
c. Accident and Near Miss Recording Website
Another way vertical rescue could benefit in Australia is through better reporting and sharing of
accidents, and near misses both operationally and in training. Often this information is not
broadly publicised and the lessons learnt get lost as a result.
A good example of how this could be initiated in the Australian rescue community is to simulate
or become active users of the ‘Alpine Near Miss Survey’ (ANMS) which was brought to my
attention at my visit to Petzl as part of the Petzl foundation initiative:
‘The ANMS study focused on incidents that go unreported, but

nevertheless share the same causes and circumstances of
incidents that cause injury. Studies show that near-misses
outnumber accidents by 10 to 1, which provides a much larger
pool of incidents to study.’2
This could be easily expanded to include accidents as well as near misses.
Examples on the ANMS website include:

• Climber nearly rappelling off the end of rope.
• A crew performing a mountain rescue experiences a mainline failure, but the backup
holds.
• A cascade of ice and rock hurtles down a couloir, just missing a group of climbers.
The value in analysing these incidents and near misses are large. It is very clear to see the benefits
this would bring to the vertical rescue industry if utilized by all. These systems are already in use
in the aviation industry and many others, with great success, the key is that everyone needs to
embrace it and actively report their incidence and near misses.
Such a reporting system should have the following attributes:

1. Reporting is anonymous or confidential or both
2. Incidents are reported to an agency that is wholly separate and distinct from any agency
that may govern or regulate the workplace or activity
3. Reports are rapidly published giving timely feedback to reporters
4. Reporting is easy and quick3

2
Available at https://www.facebook.com/The-Alpine-Near-Miss-Survey-135792509901160/
3
Available at: http://itrsonline.org/PapersFolder/2013/Jackson2013_ITRSPaper.pdf
43

In summary, for very minimal cost and time, such an initiative in our Australian context could
improve our rescue capability.
d. Rope Rescue Blog – www.roperescue.net
The internet is by far the most popular place rescuers go to research new and different techniques
in vertical rescue. Currently there are no specific sites dedicated to publicising rope rescue
advancements and points of interest, especially in the Australian context. The vertical rescue
community would benefit significantly from a blog of this nature that has no commercial or other
bias. As this does not exist, I aim to start one at www.roperescue.net. I aim to highlight the latest
trends, discuss significant research, give gear reviews, provide interviews with industry leaders
and address common issues that arise on the topic of vertical/rope rescue.

44

8. CONCLUSION
Considering the extensive nature of my itinerary, and numerous lessons learnt from some of the
most expert and competent rescuers in the world, this Fellowship has been an opportunity of a
lifetime. This report is only a very brief summary of the content and insights I’ve gained and
details only a select few main points.
Twin tensioned rope techniques are the way forward for vertical rescue, and will only become
more popular with new equipment advances to aid this. The MPD does have some room for
improvement, however it’s the best friction device for TTRS on the market to date. With CMC
and Petzl both working on new and improved versions of the MPD it will be interesting to see
how the current MPD compares.
Better communication between organisations and the top thinkers in the industry are crucial to
having a modern, safe, consistent and professional vertical rescue capability Australia wide and
needs to be embraced by all. Conferences such as ITRS, competitions such as Grimp Day, and
websites such as the Alpine Near Miss Survey are all good examples of how information and
ideas sharing could be improved on in Australia.
Equipment selection is always a challenge for each organization, especially given the ever present
funding pressures. Which is why making the right choice upfront is even more important. I
encourage all organisations to buy the best they can afford in equipment and Personal Protective
Equipment, and look to the most pro-active larger brigades for advice on choice. The old adage of
buying cheap equals buying twice applies strongly here, not only in equipment depreciation but
more importantly in safety and efficiency for rescuers and casualties alike.
Training also needs significantly more resources, and should not be considered a one off expense.
Vertical rescue skills are very practically based and left unutilized, deteriorate very quickly. It is a
skill set that needs repeated practice and challenge testing, especially in the first 5 years of
acquiring the skill. If you commit to providing a vertical rescue service to the community then
you must commit to regular training, with full refresher courses at least once every 4 years for all
operators to keep qualifications of rescuers current.
Through my work with ACT Fire and Rescue, collaboration with Len Battley’s organisation
Ropes that Rescue Australia and involvement with mountaineering and climbing associations, I
hope to utilize the knowledge I have acquired on this Fellowship as productively as I can to
further improve the safety and efficiency of vertical rescue across Australia.
9. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Below is a summary of all recommendations that I have compiled from this Fellowship in order
of potential significance to safety and efficiency outcomes.
45

Techniques:
● Twin Tension Rope System (TTRS) in preference over Single Main, Separate Belay
(SMSB)
● Two Rope offset highline in preference over Kootenay highline
● Removing all ‘critical points’ from a rescue system where possible. No single points of
attachment anywhere in the system, including single rope technique, where practical.
● Removing all ‘self equalising’ anchors from rescue systems
● Better attachment methods for a casualty in a stokes litter
Equipment:
● CMC MPD
● ID/ASAP combination
● Arizona Vortex
● DRR Field Guides
● Kask Super Plasma helmets
● Petzl Pixa 3 - head torch
● AZTEC Kits
● Appropriate sharp edge protection
Training:
● Set three day minimum for a basic operator course/qualification
● Set three week minimum for specialty technicians course/qualification with a 2 month
break in the middle to help consolidate skills
● Set a four year frequency of ‘refresh and update’ skills courses for basic operator and
specialty technicians
● Set yearly assessable tasks for all vertical rescue technicians to keep skills current
● Create a set of vertical rescue drills to practice regularly
○ Give set time limits and locations
○ Incorporate confined space considerations
● Instructor's requirements;
○ Minimum of two instructor level courses from external training company
including an intermediate instructor course and an artificial high directional
course
○ Training formally refreshed every four years
Information Sharing:
● Professional annual conferences like the International Technical Rescue Symposium
● Rope rescue competitions
● Accident and near miss reporting website
● Rope Rescue blog – www.roperescue.net
46

10. DISSEMINATION OF FINDINGS
Dissemination of this report and its findings will be achieved in a number of ways:
• The Australian Winston Churchill Trust Website.
• Directly to the ACTF&R Vertical Rescue instructor group and management.
• Directly to the instructors of high profile private training companies such as Ropes that
Rescue Australia, Total Heights Safety, Revolution Training, Rope Rest Lab, The
Rigging Academy, etc.
• Presenting this report to the training and technical rescue sections of all the major vertical
rescue organisations such as; Fire departments in all states, Police rescue in all states,
Ambulance rescue in all states and volunteer technical rescue organisations in all states
such as SES and VRA etc.
• By correspondence to the various international organisations who assisted me in my
project and have requested a copy of this report.
• Doing presentations to community groups that would benefit from these findings such as
rock climbing, canyoning and outdoor adventure clubs.
• Correspondence and training assistance to university outdoor clubs.
• Rope Rescue Blog – www.roperescue.net
• Writing industry magazine articles.
11. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
To implement these findings would require some minor training and a small budget outlay to
purchase some equipment. One of the most appealing aspects of the TTRS is the high safety and
operational benefits for a fairly minimal change in current techniques. Essentially it is tweaking
and simplifying the current systems most organisations already used.
I encourage the workplace experts and instructors within organisations to trial these findings,
review the research, and seriously consider implementing these recommendations if not already
in place. I fully understand the hurdles of implementing change and do not recommend
implementing change unless the benefit is justified. Understanding the difference between a fad
and a significant paradigm shift with lasting benefit is crucial. I believe the above findings are
more than worthy of the change needed to implement them and will add significant benefit to the
organisations that choose to adopt them.
I aim to implement these recommendations through my instructing position within ACTF&R

with the consensus of all other instructors and management. I will also aim to trial these
techniques with all other organisations I am associated with as listed in the dissemination section
above.
***
47

12. REFERENCES
Australian Capital Territory Fire And Rescue. Vertical Rescue Manual. Version 2.4. 2009.
ACTF&R training department, Hume, ACT
Attaway, S., Weber, C. “Analysis of Rope Impact Force Equations Predicting Rope Impact
Forces, ITRS 2002, Fort Collins, CO.
Basecamp Innovations Ltd. (2015). Rope Rescue Systems Testing - Main/Belay (Back-Up)
Failures. [Online Video]. 06 March. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-
43yf8SDs4M. [Accessed: 10 December 2015].
Commonwealth of Australia. AUSTRALIAN EMERGENCY MANUALS SERIES, Manual 40,

Vertical Rescue. 2nd ed. 2001 : Emergency Management Australia.
DRR Rescue. (2014). How Far Will You Fall. [Online Video]. 03 July. Available
from:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smRb_X9Sr3s.. [Accessed: 10 December 2015].
DRR Rescue. (2014). Two Tension System Overview. [Online Video]. 03 July. Available
from:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJC3quN8g88. [Accessed: 10 December 2015].
DRR Rescue . 2015. [ONLINE] at: http://www.desertrescue.com/. [Accessed 10 December

2015].
Fire Department New York. Special Operations; High Angle Rescue Manual. 2014. Special
Operations Command - Technical Rescue School. New York, NY
Gibbs, M. “Mirrored Systems - Reflections from the Edge”, ITRS 2015, Portland, OR.
Gibbs, M. “Tying it all Together - Considerations for equalizing multi-point anchor systems”,
ITRS 2012, Seattle, WA.
Larson, A, “The Kootenay Highline System, Rigging for Rescue, Notes, 1997. Ouray, CO.
Mauthner, K, “Mirrored Rope Rescue Systems” Parks Canada - Terrestrial Commission, IKAR,
2011- Åre Sweden
Phillips, K, U.S. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TECHNICAL RESCUE HANDBOOK. 11th ed.
2014., U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
Petzl - Professional. 2015.[ONLINE] Available at: http://www.petzl.com/en/Professional?l=INT.

[Accessed 10 December 2015].
Rhodes, P. A Practitioner’s Study: About Rope Rescue Rigging. 2013
Ronin Safety and Rescue. OHS Training, Rescue Standby, Consulting. 2015. [ONLINE]
Available at:http://www.roninrescue.com/. [Accessed 10 December 2015].
48

Setnicka, T., J., Wilderness Search and Rescue, Appalachian Mountain Club, February 1981.
Soulé, B., Lefèvre, B., Boutroy, E., Reynier, V., Roux, F., Corneloup, J. Accidentology of
mountain sports - Situation review & diagnosis. 2014. Petzl Foundation. Crolls, France
Thornee, R., The Art Of Clean Rigging; A Practical Guide To Rigging for Rescue. 2014. Ropes
That Rescue. Sedona, AR.
Walker, D., McCullar, R., “Slow Pull Testing of Progress Capture Devices” ITRS 2014, Denver,
CO.
49

13. APPENDIX 1: MIRRORED SYSTEMS WITH MPD (TTRS)

The information in this appendix is taken from the 2014 National Parks Service America
Technical Rescue Handbook 11th Ed.
“Mirrored rope systems are defined as those where each rope is concurrently rigged and operated
as both a competent rescue descent control system as well as a back-up to the other rope system.
In other words, both rope systems are a mirrored capacity of the other; they do not necessarily
need to “look” identical. Operationally, once the patient and attendant are over the side and in the
correct descent path, typically 10m (33ft) below the edge, the belay is converted from hand tight
to shared tension between the main line and belay line. If either rope system fails in a mirrored
system, there is less rope stretch and reduced arresting distance. This mirrored system procedure
will help reduce an inadvertently slack belay line as well as rope-induced rockfall, which is
prevented when the belay line is tensioned and held away from terrain.
A mirrored system is two lowering systems in lieu of one dedicated lowering system and a
dedicated belay. Each rope is supporting approximately half the load. If either system were to fail,
the shock force to the other device could result in an increased descent rate. In mirrored systems,
each rope system is a “back-up” to the other and therefore there really aren’t dedicated main and
belay lines anymore. According to Kirk Mauthner, “many countries are abandoning this notion of
dedicated main and belay and are just calling the ropes by their respective color and then each
rope is either managed as a descent control, a back-up (hand-tight) or as a second descent control
line.”
Therefore, it is crucial with the MPD that the running end of both lines be held back toward the
anchor in an S-shaped bend, as previously described. Ideally, if possible, each rope would already
be clipped into the secondary friction post but not necessarily bent around it. Pre-clipping the
rope into the secondary friction post provides the highest level of friction to that device should
something inadvertently happen to the opposite rope system and therefore be more able to easily
handle the sudden increase in tension on the remaining line. At all times, operators of shared
tension systems using mirrored rope systems must have the understanding and mindset that they
are the back-up to the other rope should something happen to it, and therefore they must operate
the device as such.
In the event of a sudden change in speed or tension on the rope running through the MPD, the
belayer must immediately let go of the Release Handle, while maintaining a firm grip on the
running end of the rope, to ensure the auto-locking function.
BELAYING WITH THE MPD- LOWERING
Operating the MPD as a belay device, as with the main line function, involves an assistant to help
the operator in managing the rope. In order to create hand-tight tension on the belay line, firmly
grip the load end with a gloved hand and apply friction, so that there is no slack between the load
and your hand (Figure 94). The opposite hand introduces rope into the opposite side of the MPD,
which acts to unseat the rope from the sheave. This action will reduce rope drag and prevent the
MPD from inadvertently locking up. This is a superior technique over shuffling rope into and out
of the MPD, which creates a start-stop motion with the rope and results in frequent lockups.
BELAYING WITH THE MPD- RAISING
50

During a raising evolution the rope canbe pulled hand over hand through theMPD. If the distance
of the raise andrope in service is greater thanapproximately 30m (100 ft), it isrecommended that
the belay line beconverted to a 3:1 pulley system toassist with raising of the load.Efficiency is
gained with the belaysharing the load during a raise since alower mechanical advantage can
beemployed on the main line. Additionallythis action takes the stretch out of theline and reduces
rope-induced rockfall.The final edge transition isaccomplished without mechanicaladvantage
employed on the belay line,which is managed with hand tight tension and rope is pulled hand
over hand through the MPD.
MPD EMPLOYED AS A PULLEY
The MPD can be used both as a pulley and as a ratchet or progress capture device (Figure 95).
The one-way pulley inside the MPD applies friction during descent and serves as a high
efficiency pulley while raising the load. After lowering, simply attach a Prusik and a travelling to
the line and a simple 3:1 pulley system is created. The MPD also has a becket attachment hole
that permits attachment of a change of direction pulley for increased mechanical advantage.
Figure 93- Belaying with MPD
Figure 94- MPD employed in 3:1 simple pulley system.”
51

14. APPENDIX 2: CRITICISMS AND COUNTER CRITICISMS TO TTRS
The current criticisms of TTRS are as follows:
• When using the twin MPD mirrored system it compromises the ‘auto stop’ feature of the
MPD when lowering. “Currently, no single device provides both ‘descent control’ and fail
safe ‘auto-stop’ at the same time. They are incompatible qualities of any friction device on
the market to date” (Gibbs 2015).
• The human reaction time (delay) in releasing the MPD handle to arrest a fall can allow
the rope to run before it stops increasing fall distance and mitigating the benefits of using
TTRS.
• Testing by Gibbs (IKRA 2015) has shown there is a chance that the operator will not
register the change in load if one rope fails, and continue to let the MPD run, allowing the
rescue package to run to the ground.
• It creates a choppy/jerky edge transition if the operators are not well practiced, and in the
absence of an AHD (artificial high directional).
• Requires increased communication and teamwork between both rope operators for reason
above
• Purely a commercially motivated incentive by Mauthner (MPD designer/engineer) and
CMC (manufacture) with the intent to sell more CMC MPD’s.
• Both ropes need to be inline if using an AHD making anchor selection or change of
direction for both lines important, complicating the overall setup
• Not easily transferred to other rescue disciplines that incorporate VR such as confined
space rescue, trench rescue and swift water rescue.
Counter criticisms;
● The human reaction time of releasing the MPD handle is one of many examples of the
dangers of human error in VR. It is by far the most dangerous anomaly and can’t be
avoided with our current technologies. All VR systems are prone to this and TTRS is just
as at risk as any other system. It is more a criticism of the MPD than the fundamentals of
TTRS itself.
o The Petzl ID is also used in a mirrored TTRS set up, however this device shares
the same issues as the above point. Plus there is evidence to show that ID’s can
sever ropes when used to catch a large dynamic fall, making it unacceptable as a
belay device.
● The claim about the commercial gain of selling MPD’s is a fair assumption but the
benefits and test results make this a mute point.
● The anchor selection challenge is one that rope rescuers encounter every day despite the
system they use and already have the skills to achieve this easily.
● The unsmooth edge transition is countered by operator competence and not exclusive to
TTRS. A jerky feed at edge transition is also common in SMSB. TTRS has been found to
smooth the lowering and hauling out as the other line absorbs the jerks.
52

o This is made redundant by using an AHD, which should be considered for all
edge transitions unless impossible due to the remoteness of the rescue or due to
time constraints.
● The increase in communication between operators is not a criticism if it engages and
focuses the operators to work in unison.
● I have not been able to think of a scenario where TTRS is not easily transferable to other
rescue disciplines that use VR for lowering and hauling, however I have not done a
thorough analysis on this as it requires practical testing.
53

Young S 2014 Advancing Vertical Rescue in Australia

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Young S 2014 Advancing Vertical Rescue in Australia

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Advancing

Vertical Rescue in Australia

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 4

5. BACKGROUND TO RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 6

6. OVERVIEW OF ORGANISATIONS VISITED ............................................................. 10

7. RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................................................................... 24

D. ROPE RESCUE BLOG – WWW.ROPERESCUE.NET ........................................................................... 44

8. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 45

9. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 45

10. DISSEMINATION OF FINDINGS .................................................................................. 47

11. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................. 47

12. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 48

i What is Vertical Rescue?

ii Status of Vertical Rescue in Australia

behind the best international organisations by a number of years.

iii Why is this research necessary?

My research consisted of interviews, observations of various operations and training procedures,

6. OVERVIEW OF ORGANISATIONS VISITED

i Tokyo Fire Department, Japan (“TFD”)

Background & relevance to research

Key lessons learnt during visit

• Their speed and rapid extrication times are second to none.

ii Grimp Day Rope Rescue Competition, Belgium

Background & relevance to research

Key lessons learnt during visit

iii Greater Manchester Fire Brigade

Background & relevance to research

Key lessons learnt during visit

iv Lyon Work & Rescue Training Company, UK

Background & relevance to research

● Good, current and practical techniques taught.

Key lessons learnt during visit

● Having an external training company to train instructors is very worthwhile to keep

v Paris Fire Department, France

Background & relevance to research

● Well drilled, fit and competent team.

Key lessons learnt from visit

vi Chamonix Mountain Rescue (PGHM), France

Background & relevance to research

By way of summary of my observations during this visit, I note as follows:

Key lessons learnt from visit

vii Petzl Headquarters / Equipment Factory, France

Background & relevance to research

I observed the following during my time there:

Key lessons learnt from visit

viii New York Fire Department (NYFD), USA

Background & relevance to research

Key lessons learnt from visit

ix Desert Rescue Research (Tom Pendley), Arizona, USA

Background & relevance to research

Key lessons learnt from visit

● Skill evaluation - randomly implemented to technicians while on shift:

Background & relevance to research

Key lessons learnt from visit

xi Rigging for Rescue (Mike Gibbs), Advanced skills/specialty techniques

Background & relevance to research

Key benefits and observations of visit

• Looking at research on all the current friction devices on the market.

i Research Findings - Techniques

a. Twin Tension Rope Systems (TTRS) (also called Mirrored Systems)

Historical Background - which system is best for sharp edges?

List of benefits of TTRS:

off a rope temporarily.

E - Equalized– Anchor systems should be constructed so that each anchor

R - Redundant– Anchor systems should consist of multiple components in

NE - No Extension– Anchors should be built so that if one or more of the

T - Timely– Anchor systems should be as timely as possible without giving