Choosing the Best Carabiner for Connecting to a Rope on a Glacier Climb

(This post may contain affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links and make a purchase, I’ll receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows us to continue to make videos like this. Thank you for the support!)

I’ve been doing a bunch of videos, of late, on seemingly “small” considerations. As examples, I’ve done recent videos on three different ways to tie a rappel extension so that you can match your rappel extension to your rappelling context (anchor types, how many rappels, etc.); and on three different configurations for rappelling without a device, again customizing to context. One may ask the question, ‘does it really matter?’ Do small adjustments matter? Do I really need three different device-less rappel techniques, or can I just use one.

It’s a fair question.

And while we certainly could discuss scenarios on a case-by-case basis, I think there is a larger point to be made. When we choose to mitigate risk (as opposed to accepting, avoiding, or transferring risk), we need to think about two different “calculations” (using the term, loosely).

The first thing we need to calculate, or at least consider, is the reality that risk equals probability times consequence (R = P x C). So, if we are looking to reduce risk, we can take on low-probability but high consequence issues, or we can take on high-probability, but lower consequence issues (assuming we always deal with anything that is high-probability and high-consequence, of course). In other words, small things that seem to happen all the time can add up to serious consequences.

The second thing we need to consider is the “cost” (again, using the term loosely) of the mitigation strategy. Is it easy to address the issue or hard?

So, when I’m looking at something like choosing a rappel extension, it is a decision that is going to be with me for every rappel in that sequence: high probability. Is the consequence high? Probably knot. But if I can reduce the likelihood of making a mistake by - let’s say - having an anchor connection point that allows me to work at the anchor in relative comfort because my rappel extension has a leash that works keep me upright and manipulating other gear at a height between my waist and my chest, then the probabilistic sum of all those rappels and all those chances to make a mistake start to add up.

And if it costs me nothing more than a different knot in my rappel extension, then might as well do it, so long as I feel practiced and competent at setting up any of those system options: low cost.

Which takes me to the subject of this video. I certainly have my preferred method of clipping in on a glacier-travel rope team. It’s definitely the option I presented last in the video: using the Grivel Clepsydra S Twin Gate Carabiner. I like that option because it deals with the three different high-probability issues I call out i the video. Does that mean you have to use that same solution? Of course not. As I point out, there are other viable options.

I think the point I am trying to make is that many high-probability events are worth the few moments of consideration in order to match a system to circumstance. That, of course, assumes you have multiple systems at your disposal to deploy… which assumes a knowledge base and some practice. Take a look at the video for another in the set of “small considerations worthy of our time.”

The small things add up, and if we can tilt many small things to our advantage, then we end up having a large impact on our safety.