Why Our Climbing Family Doesn't Typically Counterbalance Rappel (Abseil)

(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!)

Risk versus reward.

One could argue that all of climbing comes down to this equation that is simple to understand but impossible to calculate. As the macro level, the act of climbing, itself, can be balanced based on our fulfillment versus the risk of - well - dying. At the micro level, we can talk about techniques that add safety but at the costs of weight or money (for gear) or whatever.

In the case of a counterbalanced simul-rappel, we are talking about employing a technique that saves time but at the cost of needing two people to work in very close coordination or things can go very wrong… deadly wrong.

This video is simply about the “benefit” side of the equation, and the premise is simple: we don’t actually save that much time. If you don’t think we save any significant time, it becomes hard to justify any added risks that are inherent in the system, regardless how small.

But as I call out in the video, there is a “cost” side of the equation: how much risk is added? Of course, my basic argument is that “it doesn’t matter” as long as we believe there is any added risk (and pretty much everyone agrees that there is added risk) because the benefit of time saved is so small.

If we were to think about analyzing the risks, though, how would we go about it? Well, there’s the mechanical risks - the system; there are the human risks - using the system correctly (or not); and there are the environmental risks (could weather or darkness or anything else add risk?).

That’s a lot to consider, and so we come back to if the work doing that risk analysis is worth it. Part of the reason counterbalanced rappels are considered so dangerous is simply empirical: the incident rate of accidents when using this technique is simply higher. Do we know the cause? Well, it’s a blend of the risks I mentioned above, but we don’t know the weight each factor adds to the equation. But do we have to care if we know the end result is not acceptable (assuming it isn’t acceptable to us)?

Complex systems are confounding, and if we think of our time as a finite resource, then we can rightfully ask ourselves if any one particular system is worth the time to understand. In this case, it seems like we have outcomes that show the system is more dangerous than alternatives and we have (as I show in the video) evidence that the benefit is low. So, maybe it’s time to put this complication down and move on to other systems that might make better use of our time and consideration.