Is the bowline a dangerous knot?

[Festy]

"Know the bowline for what it is: An instrument of death," Rock and Ice's Duane Raleigh wrote in a blog post after the release of Accidents in North American Mountaineering in September 2012. "Almost every year someone dies because their bowline either came untied because the complicated knot was tied wrong, or because the bowline magically untied itself."

Being a knotting neophyte I was surprised to read this just today. If true, especially if it magically unties, should it not be completely verboten to be ever used in a climbing, caving or rescue procedure?

[roo]

"Know the bowline for what it is: An instrument of death," Rock and Ice's Duane Raleigh wrote in a blog post after the release of Accidents in North American Mountaineering in September 2012. "Almost every year someone dies because their bowline either came untied because the complicated knot was tied wrong, or because the bowline magically untied itself."

Being a knotting neophyte I was surprised to read this just today. If true, especially if it magically unties, should it not be completely verboten to be ever used in a climbing, caving or rescue procedure?

Magic is not involved.  There is always a reason a bowline comes undone.  It may be that the knot saw too much motion or flogging.  It may be that the legs were pulled in opposite directions (which is a known vulnerability for a bowline).  Sometimes the knot capsizes if the free end is snagged while one of the legs are restrained, depending on various conditions.  Many types of stiff or slick rope simply have trouble holding a bowline.

It doesn't take much testing to see these problems.  Some ropes types are more forgiving with a bowline, but I've never seen a modern reputable source suggest a simple bowline for the activities mentioned above.

[Dan_Lehman]

I was surprised to read this just today.

And where did you read this?
(I see that it can be found
 --oddly, with one but not another subset
   of the quotation put into Google(!?)--
in various places.  In UKclimbing, e.g., it comes in a thread
with 250 replies(!) --that is a lot of reading (and might in
number alone imply the nature of the assertion --contentious!).


--dl*
====

[roo]

And where did you read this?

Oooh.  I did find one article with this quote.  They were talking about someone who forgot to finish a unspecified type of a bowline.  They talk about a bowline and a double bowline as if they were the same thing.   

I would have like to seen an article where they talk about a knot failing for reasons other than forgetting to finish it.  Being specific on the actual knot being discussed would be good, too.   

[Festy]

I was surprised to read this just today.

And where did you read this?
(I see that it can be found
 --oddly, with one but not another subset
   of the quotation put into Google(!?)--
in various places.  In UKclimbing, e.g., it comes in a thread
with 250 replies(!) --that is a lot of reading (and might in
number alone imply the nature of the assertion --contentious!).


--dl*
====

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/Not-the-Knot.html?page=all

[Dan_Lehman]

I was surprised to read this just today.

And where did you read this?
====

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/Not-the-Knot.html?page=all

Did you also read the comments to the article?

"That was a complete hatchet job ..." comes to mind.

The short summary is that the venerable sailor's bowline
is vulnerable to loosening, and so some precaution should
be taken for ensuring that it doesn't come untied.
Among the precautions are tying off the tail with
a strangle knot (usually (mis-)called a "dbl.fish") --and
maybe better, a dbl. strangle to get a full wrapping turn--,
or further tucking the tail (e.g., the oft'-cited Yosemite bowline
or some complicating of the fundamental nipping structure
(e.g., using a clove hitch for a water bowline).

So there is some slight basis for article(s) but the authors
have hyped it irresponsibly, often leaping to wild conclusions.
(In the case of the Rothman death, we just don't know.)
Along the way, there are various stupid statements made:
"If he had tied a stopper knot, ... " --if he had tied (well,
this is speculative) the bowline, ... !  (I.e., it is only
speculation that the primary knot was tied and failed;
omitting to tie this of course is a problem, just as omitting
to tie a "stopper".)

And I continue to believe that the nearly universal graphic
images of the bowline show the wrong *face* of it
--they should be flipped around, to present the knot just
as the sheet bend is nearly as often presented!

Dwayne Raleigh was taken to task here:
www.rockandice.com/news/1909-bowline-blamed-for-death


--dl*
====

[X1]

No EBDB?   

See the compact, beautiful Lee s locked bowline, at ;
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4125.msg28209#msg28209

[X1]

   Frankly, I never understood the reason for those EBXX +/- X variations ! 
   Any Janus bowline ( of the many possible ones ) is an easier to tie, and a better knot, too ...
    The Spanish bowline is a beautiful, fine double loop, indeed. However, I do not think that it is very easy to be learned by somebody who had never tied a double loop in his life, so I prefer the "double loop for dummies"  , shown at the attached pictures.

[agent_smith]

I concur with Dan Lehman's words of wisdom here...

Any post that has climbing tie-in knots as the subject matter seem to receive a lot of attention - some of it bordering on hysteria.

Knots don't kill people - people kill people (this phrase also encompasses human error).

You dont need a licence to go rock climbing or mountaineering....but, you need a licence to drive a vehicle or to go parachuting, or to go scuba diving.

Ignorance is a wonderful thing - I mean, you can happily go and buy climbing equipment, read a few books (or read some confused posts on some climbing forum) and then go and try climbing/abseiling (rappelling for you Americans).

Death is lurking just around the corner.

So the Bowline...hmmm. Bowlines don't kill people. Is it the gun that kills people, or is it the trigger puller? One thing for sure, history seems to repeat itself. That is, we will never 100% eliminate risk from any sports that involve exposure to falls from height. You cant have a 100% risk-free climbing experience. Maybe indoor climbing on artificial surfaces using an automatic (non-human) belay system with triple-action auto-locking captive-eye connector to harness might come the closest to eliminating (but not completely) risk.

So back to the bowline - it has no conscience - it is not self-aware. It is created by a human using knowledge and skill. The original inventor/discoverer of the Bowline (ABoK #1010) probably did not intend it to be used for climbing applications. It was probably first used in nautical/sailing applications.

At some point in history, climbers must have decided to use it (the Bowline) for their purposes. In the 'good-old-days', there was no such thing as an indoor climbing gym for the masses - and climbing was a 'hard-man' sport which required a certain level of commitment and devotion. Arguably, climbers of yesteryear were a hardier breed and more committed to the sport (it wasn't just a fly-by-night new fad Y generation thing to try).

Have a look at some of the historic photos of Sir Edmund Hillary and also some books from Royal Robins - you'll see the bowline featured as a prominent tie-in knot. These guys knew that #1010 in its original form needed to be 'secured' in some fashion to prevent it from working itself loose.

Access to the sport of climbing and mountaineering is a lot easier these days - like I said, you can buy gear and off you go - its a free world. Ignorance is bliss. Many people get introduced to climbing via the indoor (artificial) gym - and then they might attempt a quick transition to the real thing outdoors. When I started climbing (ie me, Mark) - there was no such thing as an indoor artificial climbing gym. My apprenticeship was done by climbing as a 'second' (I belayed the 'lead' climber - and then followed and 'cleaned' the route). I did this over many many months of concentrated commitment. This apprenticeship really worked for me - I developed really solid skills.

The pendulum has swung with tie-in knots over the decades... it started with the Bowline in the early pioneering days - then it evolved to ABoK #1047 and then, as ropes became thinner and thinner and sport climbing ethics were introduced, the pendulum swung back again toward the Bowline (#1010). We all know that you need to modify #1010 in some way to render it secure and stable. Right now, there are as many opinions as there are climbers. Some swear by #1047, others swear by a secured form of #1010.

And knot strength absolutely has nothing to do with anything in climbing (its a myth - one for the myth busters). What matters most is security and stability.

And Dan Lehman will now be thinking - "stop driveling and get to the point"... my point is this: Bowlines don't kill people. Poor knowledge and skill (ie incompetence) does a much better job than the Bowline!

You can die just as quickly with a poorly/incorrectly tied #1047. Heck, you can die quickly in a number of ways.

The truth is that the climbing forums are full of ignorance, inaccuracies, poorly conceived conclusions, and hearsay.... "My instructor told me such and such, so it must be true..." Who told their instructor? And who told that instructors instructor?

If you want to use a Bowline (#1010), you had better get educated real fast and learn how to modify it so it becomes secure and stable. Fail to do this, and you stand a very good chance of going to heaven or hell.

Make your own evidence-based assessment - don't just take some unknown persons word for it. Your tie-in knot must be proven to work in all possible loading profiles associated with climbing and falling.

You also need to have 100% flawless memory retention of how to tie the knot - error free.

Dan, how did I go?


Mark

[Dan_Lehman]

Have a look at some of the historic photos of Sir Edmund Hillary and also some books from Royal Robins - you'll see the bowline featured as a prominent tie-in knot. These guys knew that #1010 in its original form needed to be 'secured' in some fashion to prevent it from working itself loose.

Although one must wonder ... , as RR in his book shows
the mere overhand back-up, and my annotation there
decries that as putting a dubious knot to be secure.
Still, if that was the state of the practice, did it really
work?  --perhaps better in the (stiff but) laid ropes of
the day, and not so well in kernmantle?  (Hillary wasn't
doing so much of the technical-climbing, vertical stuff, methinks.)

You can die just as quickly with a poorly/incorrectly tied #1047.

But do you?  If the usage splits say roughly 25/75% respectively
of bowline vs. fig.8 eyeknot,
and the accident occurrences come at the opposite proportion,
that is quite some indictment against the bowline !!
(Where even 40/60% of accidents would show a bias.)
Thus, it is important (a) to understand the facts, and
(b) advocate bowline back-up, and self-checking
("... give the knot a tug ...").

Make your own evidence-based assessment --don't just take some unknown persons word for it.

OTOH, one can question each person's ability to do this.
It's better that some collective wisdom be heeded
--where "heeded" doesn't preclude further consideration.
(I had pretty good, I thought, reasoned assessment that
a #782 (? --converts to #1452 in capsizing) made a good
offset abseil-ropes joint, but that came a sudden rebuke
when in simple manual loading of such a knot shows that
it could capsize one side ahead of the other and just spill!!)

Your tie-in knot must be proven to work in all possible loading profiles associated with climbing and falling.

Hmmm, I'm losing the urge to see ring-loading as some
likely possibility for tie-in knots, where the eye is kept
small and thus close to everything --hard to conceive
of how it could be thus loaded.  (And there is a long
history of this being a non-issue here, yes?!)

You also need to have 100% flawless memory retention of how to tie the knot --error free.

Errr, hmmm, thinking of my own errors, which I recognize
in the process, I vote for a process that defends against
imperfection rather than one that bans it.  Might be
that the knot limits "errors" to variations that still
result in security, given all of the tucks, et cetera.


--dl*
====

[X1]

Knots don't kill people - people kill people (this phrase also encompasses human error).

   I beg to disagree ! 
   First things first : I do not like the reasoning, which can easily reach the lethal :
   Guns do not kill people - people kill people !
   So, lets hire "good" people with guns, to kill the "bad" people with guns...
   However,"good" people can easily become "bad" people - especially if they are addicted to kill people, good or bad - as all the bloody wars have taught us... and the dark chain goes to infinity.
   Nuclear arms do not kill people. People do. Most people are good. So, let most people develop nuclear arms ? ? ?
   Secondly :
   I have already hinted to the well-known tragic accident of Toni Kurz, who was killed by a knot, caught on his carabiner.
   Why was he not able to cut the knot off, or cut the very rope, and release himself, and be saved by the rescue climbers who were calling him to do this just a few meters away ? Because his hands were frozen, and he just couldn't use the knife...
   We can not control the elements. Stuff happens. Who killed Toni Kruz ? If it was not the knot, it was something that mountaineers do not wish to accept, or wish to deny : the mountain. There are human errors, that is true, but beyond them, there are always causes of accidents that humans are just not able to control, and will never be.
   
   

[X1]

X1
agent_smith was advocating responsibility, not massive arms distribution!
As for Mountains killing people, again not the point.

   Of course, I only tried to show that the dictum "knots do not kill people - people do" is not correct - in perhaps a very dumb way !   
   The "it was the Mountain that killed the mountaineer " was a means to show that we can not control 100% the circumstances of our life, or death, as much as we arrogantly use to believe... 
   Sorry for any misunderstandings caused by my post...

[X1]

   An obsession on having everyone reinvent the wheel.

   Do you really believe that all the "wheels" that could have been invented, are already invented ? That all the possible secure bowlines have already been tied, that they have already been tried, and that all we have to do now is to know where to find this information ? Well, I have news for you... They have been not ! And we can not find anything, simply because there are no beaten paths - paths are made by walking. It would be great if we had the Stone Tables of Knotting Testimony to read what knots we can tie, and what knots we should tie, in each and every situation, but I am afraid that the Moses who would have fetched them has not been born yet. 

   Aesthetics over practicality.
   Yes, Stopper Knots ruin the beauty of a knot...

   A knot that needs another knot to be secure, is not an ugly knot ! It is a bad knot ! It lacks something it could had incorporated within itself, if it was a secure knot, right in the first place.
   Do you suggest that ALL knots are secure, because they could be made secure by a Stopper tied on their tail ? Is this the cure of any knotting disease ? Perhaps a second Stopper after the first one would be better, so, why not just tie two, or even three Stoppers, the one after the other, to have a triply-safe knot ? The possible advantage I see with this solution is that, after some number, the many Stoppers would make the knot aesthetically fine, by the decorative power of the mere repetition ! 
   Stopper knots can also offer a false sense of security - and persuade people that they do not have to care about tying a better, more secure knot in the first place. Stopper knots can conceal the un-safety of a knot, or the ignorance or laziness of the knot tyer - this is not a matter of aesthetics, but of safety ! Sooner or later, a not-secure knot or an ignorant or lazy knot tyer would face the consequences of what is missed.
   If one knot can do everything that two knots can, it is not a matter of practicality to use two knots - quite the contrary ! Practicality means utilization of the tools and the materials which is really needed, within a reasonable margin of error, and nothing in excess. If you do not know a secure bowline that does not need a Stopper knot, you should better start searching for the Tables ! 

Double checking knots.
No such thing as 100% flawless memory.

  Checking knots ( "inspecting" knots ) is not only a matter of memory, from the part of the knot tyer. There are knots that can be easily inspected, because of their form, their simplicity and their symmetry, and others that can not. Memory will not serve, if you can not distinguish if a knot is tied correctly or not. A complex, ugly tugly, can easily be tied wrongly, but the knot tyer can not compare the final wrong result with the image of the correct knot in his memory, because both are looking like s..., and every s... looks like any other - more or less !