Thanks for all the useful comments. To clarify, I've attached a picture of what I'm doing.

Basically, I've got two clove hitches for the legs with two overhands to create independent redundancy for the master point. The 6mm cord is doubled.

Does this look safe to the experienced folks in the crowd? (I know the angle is wide in the picture... it's just for demonstration.)

[image]http://swatyy.webs.com/photo.jpg[/image]

Thanks!

The AMGA operates in a foreign country

So what I'm going to do is get some 10.5mm static, and the setup will be a figure eight on one leg and clove hitch on the other for easy adjustment. I'm still going to keep the two overhand loops for master-point redundancy, as it makes me feel both happy and safer.

When you link two ropes together, like I described above, could you link a figure eight on one rope with clove hitch on the second second rope? Or would you put a 'biner in between to prevent rope friction/pinching?

I'm still going to keep the two overhand loops for master-point redundancy, as it makes me feel both happy and safer.

And feeling safer is not the same as being safer. That double-eye master point is likely to triple load your biners. It adds nothing to the security of the anchor, particularly with 11mm static line.

tri-axis loading is not a concern here at all.

OK Josh but you don't have to do that.

The AMGA operates in a foreign country, with its own unique geography, climate, and culture. The community they serve have their peculiar notions about how gear and methods are invented and evolve, and about the role of education and culture.

On the other hand, the ACMG (Association of Canadian Mountain Guides) is responsible for how Guides are trained, not how climbers handle their gear.

I disagree.


The two double eyes have vectors about 60° apart and the one on the left is exerting its force very close to the gate hinge rather than the spine, which is what the carabiner is designed for.

If the carabiner should flip around with the wide end toward the anchor eyes, the triple-loading would be increased.

Give me a break, Pedro. We're talking about an extra figure 8. Do you have that little faith in humanity that you think that will complicate things too much.

Like I said in my original post, the chances of a PP hanging over the edge cutting is very slim, but adding that extra figure 8 is simple and does not complicate things in the least.

Remember, the AMGA is all about making things as safe as possible to eliminate as much risk as they can. It's all about institutional climbing. It makes sense for them to have a standard of care. In our recreational climbing, we can make our own decision, cut corners, do whatever we want to do and still know that we can keep ourselves relatively safe.

Josh

Rescueman, static available only in 11 and 13? Huh? I myself have hung off static ropes from 8 to 13 with cores and sheaths of varying construction. I know you've had training in rescue and probably know a lot I don't, but dude, step outside your box once an a while.

I disagree.

[image]http://swatyy.webs.com/photo.jpg[/image]

The two double eyes have vectors about 60° apart and the one on the left is exerting its force very close to the gate hinge rather than the spine, which is what the carabiner is designed for.

If the carabiner should flip around with the wide end toward the anchor eyes, the triple-loading would be increased.

Yeah, and a top-rope situation would still never generate enough force to make this even remotely a concern.

I think you missed my point as well, but it seems to me that we are arguing about something that neither one of thinks is a big deal.

Josh

Using equipment outside the parameters of the manufacturer's design, and specifically in violation of written warnings that accompany such hardware, should always be a reason for concern.

Biners are stamped with a minor axis strength number, and this particular example would not exceed the parameters of that design.

But I totally agree with you in that I wouldn't rig it this way, because its just uselessly silly.

Biners are stamped with a minor axis strength number, and this particular example would not exceed the parameters of that design.

Actually it's you who live in a foreign country and have a funny accent. The earth revolves around the US of A, don't ya know?

an unsupervised anchor "should" have 2 opposed biners

... the setup wont kill you on TR

Tri-axial loading is very different from minor axis loading (which is typically about 7 kN or a third of major axis strength).

3-way loading of a 'biner is the inverse equivalent of the American Death Triangle. For this reason, no 'biner is stamped with a rated strength for 3-way loading, which is specifically forbidden (and not by lawyers, as surfstar cynically and stupidly asserts, but by design engineers).