Chris Gallagher FTO 2011
Appropriate rope rescue anchor selection for Macquarie Island 2011
A report by Chris Gallagher Field Equipment Officer Australian Antarctic Division March 2011
1
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011
Table of Contents Title Page..............................................................................................................................Page 1 Table of Contents .................................................................................................................Page 2 Introduction..........................................................................................................................Page 3 Test site descriptions and selections.....................................................................................Page 6 Methods...............................................................................................................................Page 6 Results .................................................................................................................................Page 8 Discussion ............................................................................................................................Page 19 Recommendations ...............................................................................................................Page 25 References ...........................................................................................................................Page 26 Equipment List .....................................................................................................................Page 27 Appendices and field data ....................................................................................................Page 29
2
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011
Introduction This report presents methods, discussion and recommendations in relation to selection of the appropriate rope rescue anchors and rigging systems needed for Macquarie Island. The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD)s current Search and Rescue (SAR) Standard operating procedures (SOP)s for Macquarie Island are based on sound but possibly outdated techniques in regards to the selection of anchors and rigging for rope rescue situations. Concerns about the strength of the anchors being currently used were highlighted in a report submitted to the AAD by Dr James Doube the current SAR leader of Macquarie Island 2011. This report listed a series of tests including load testing with an electronic load testing unit, which resulted in some load failures occurring prematurely to the security that the anchors were expected to provide. The report recommended a change to the existing tie back/back lash arrangement of 1:1:1 to using a 3:2:1 system, by clustering three pickets together as a front anchor point, then tying back to two pickets then tying back to one picket, this therefore helping to take greater bearing load on the front anchor point. The report also recommended a tie back anchor system was superior to a fan system and that counter balanced hauling should be carefully considered due to the extra load placed on the anchoring system. Further testing of anchors was required, so the AAD used three different testing locations, with initial trials undertaken in wet sand at 7 Mile Beach, followed by soil trials at the AAD headquarter in Kingston and finally trials undertaken during the Macquarie Island 2011 winter SAR team training at the Bruny Island Light House. From these trials several improvements to rigging became evident; it also revealed that the Waratah Maxy star picket with some basic modifications would be the obvious choice as a replacement anchor for the existing standard star pickets currently used on Macquarie Island.
Background During the 2001 Macquarie Island expedition the author introduced a star picket system that consisted of a standard star picket 1200mm long with a slight modification at the top of the picket to help reduced wear on the rigging rope (11mm Kermantle rope) and to help give an indication of the picket depth required (this being 900mm into the ground). This consisted of plastic electrical conduit that filled in between the fins of the pickets; to this a heat shrink cover was then applied to hold it together. These pickets were still part of the SAR system up until the latest trials by Dr James Doube in 2010, where they were tested to failure. The problem of safely transporting these pickets was addressed by modifying a standard backpack and inserting PVC tubing to hold pickets together and to keep them from damaging equipment particularly IRBs during response to an incident over water. The variation in ground material including soil structure and density on Macquarie Island is extreme. It ranges from very hard ground that is difficult to penetrate with a star picket, to very soft soil that will take the placement of a start picket by hand without the need of a sledge hammer. Due to this, the bearing resistance (ability of ground material to resist compression) becomes a very important factor in the selection of an anchor, as this stops forward movement within a rescue anchor system. When forward movement takes place the anchors break their seal and connection with the ground and can pull out completely. Many forms of anchor will simple not bend or break structurally, but may still pull through the ground very easily due to a lack of ability to distribute force to reduce compression and therefore the bearing capacity needed within the ground. The SARINZ (Search and Rescue Institute New Zealand) system of rope rescue is the current standard being used on Australian Antarctic continental stations including Macquarie Island. The SARINZ system requires a safety factor ratio of 10:1 meaning that for a live load of 200kgs, a rescue system
3
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 must have a minimum breaking strength of 20KN for any part of the system including anchors. Many factors, including slope angle, the condition of material that anchors are to be placed in and the anchor rigging methods, needs to be addressed when considering rope anchor system strength.
Macquarie Island SAR overview There are two forms of formal response for a SAR requiring rope rescue anchoring techniques, this being either in a first and or a second response action. An initial response could possibly take place prior to the first and second response sequence. Initial Response The role of initial responder who may be a member of the party that needs rescuing will most likely be advising Comms at Macquarie Island station of the situation, the terrain, the probable rescue scenarios and other logistical information. The initial responder may stay on site and provide medical assistance and SITREPS as needed. First response This would usually be undertaken by existing expeditioners in the field or at nearby huts. If there is a need for a technical rope access to a casualty the placement of anchors may be required. The anchor needs to support initially a single responder requiring a 10kN minimum breaking strength. This however could involve the loading of a casualty on to this system which would require the need of a 20kN minimum breaking strength. This increases as more weight or stretcher bearers are added. It should be noted that this season three SAR boxes will be strategically located at Hurd Pt jump down, Mt Eital apple hut and Teobunga apple hut. These boxes allow quick access to first response SAR equipment therefore increasing the response time greatly to a casualty. These boxes contain equipment to access and stabilise a casualty in the field, but do not contain a full component of SARINZ equipment. In the case of a full rope rescue system requirement, further equipment must be obtained from Hurd pt, Green Gorge or Station. Second response This would usually be undertaken with some support of a SAR team responding from Macquarie Island Station. This would usually require two independent anchoring systems one being for the main line and one being for a belay line. Both these systems needing a required 20kn minimum breaking strength or more.
Current rope rescue anchor options available at Macquarie Island are listed below: Duck Bills Duck Bills are small aluminium tubes that are connected by a long length of wire which is hammered into the ground with a long spike and then the wire is pulled back to set it into position. They are a light weight option and easily transportable, they do require a spike to place them in position and a sledge hammer to hammer in the spike. A series of Duck Bills can be used to build a rope rescue system in soft ground. Star Pickets A set of star pickets (Fencing pickets) are used in linear, back tied in a 1-1-1 system. This requires up to 6 star pickets, a sledge hammer and rigging rope to set up. This is the most common system in use on Macquarie Island and suits grassy slopes. This system has proven itself over many years and is still common place amongst many rescue organisations in Australia. This is the current system described in the draft AAD operations manual.
4
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 Rocks and natural bollards Natural anchor points including rock bollards can be used, however this can become problematic and requires a high level of experience to make decisions on soundness of rocks as most rocky outcrops on Macquarie Island are very weathered. Even though the rock quality is very low, in some cases, it may be possible to wrap very large rock outcrops with a long tape or rope sling. Obviously, this is only possible where the rock is strong enough and where there is no danger of stone fall on a patient. Rock climbing hardware General rock climbing hardware including metal pitons are available for placements in rock pockets and cracks. This again requires a high level of experience to make decisions on soundness of anchors. A number of different geographical settings can be encountered on Macquarie Island requiring different roping anchors and systems.
The following are the different terrain variations that may be encountered with rope rescue anchors. Feather bed This consists of a floating layer of peat, if this surface is broken though by an expeditioner it can be difficult to escape from. • Rope rescue response is not usually required. The use of throw bags and the placement of walking poles to spread weight is good practice. A Z drag may be required with the use of duck bills or rocks as anchor point, but is very unlikely. Grassy slopes This consists of soft soil and tussocks of grass. These slopes can occur in angles greater than 45° and in this instance they can become very unstable creating a risk of a possible land slide event. • Rope rescue response of star pick anchors placed in series and usually a lower to easier terrain. This can comprise of multi pitch lowering stations, requiring leapfrogging of rigging crews. Rocky cliff edges Contain several different rock materials. A lot of cliff edges are unstable and very broken. • Rope rescue response of star picket anchors placed in series or natural rock features for either a raise or lower situation. Snow and ice Lakes freeze in winter and snow can cover large parts of the Island. • Rope rescue response is of a throw bag with rope to casualty and placement of walking poles to spread weight. This situation is highly unlikely due to the fact the AAD personal are restricted to walking tracks and should not be off route. Snow levels are very shallow and do not need alpine specific snow anchors. Scree slopes Consisting of loose gravel of similar size. Many scree slopes are used as access routes to the coast and to particular huts on the Island. • Rope rescue response of star picket anchors placed in series or natural rock features for either a raise or lower situation. Extended pitch lowers would be preferable using long lines to limit the need for multiple anchor stations in unstable scree and knot passes.
5
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011
Test site selection and description Site one, sand test. Seven mile beach. Wet sand was selected as the first material to test anchors in. Wet sand was a good control material, as all anchors would be set in exactly the same conditions where strengths and weaknesses could be examined. An added bonus of this site was a soil horizon at around 600mm-700mm depth. This helped to put extra strain on anchors and determine failure points. It also highlighted the unpredictability of sub surface material strength and consistency. Site two, soil test. AAD Channel Hwy Kingston. Soil more closely mimics conditions found on Macquarie Island, but it must be noted that as previously mentioned, soil quality in relation to anchor bearing pressure varies greatly. A site was selected behind the AAD headquarters that presented good soil conditions. Pickets drove in solidly and consistently to 1 meter depth. Site three, soil test and full system check. Bruny Island light house. This location has many similar geological features to Macquarie Island and is an ideal site for rope rescue training, with a long slope of around 45 degrees being a perfect training ground for steep slope rescue techniques, including anchor placement, rigging and full system exercises.
Methods Assessment conditions A team of experienced FTOs including Tony Mckenny, Bill Baxter, Don Hudspeth and the author along with the several Police and SES SAR operators were engaged in the initial sand trials at 7 Mile Beach. This team was tasked with discussing each anchor and giving feed back to the author to collaborate into a spread sheet with the results. Each team member was aware that a grading would be given to each anchor and that this would help make an assessment of the overall best rope rescue anchor for Macquarie Island needs. Once the sand tests were completed, soils tests were undertaken and then finally more substantial tests took place on Bruny Island. Load testing Anchors were carefully placed in position and slowly loaded using a turfor hand winch. Connected to the winch was a load tester which indicated the peak load applied to the anchor. The testing of anchors in this way helps introduce the expected load that could be applied to anchors if part of a system should happen to fail. One example of this gradual increase in load could be a stretcher that is caught on an object eg rock and a Z drag raising system continues to take in rope. In this situation a load increase is usually felt by the hauling party and a slippage will usually accrue on the main line hauling prussic, helping to further indicate that there could be a problem with the system. This level of load increase would not usually create a situation where the 20kN breaking strength requirement of SARINZ would be effected. Shock loading An example of a shock load situation occurring in rope rescue might include a stretcher lower were a stretcher gets hooked or jammed on a rock and a communication break down between the stretcher bearer team and SAR leader located at the top of the slope takes place. In this situation the main line lower team and the belay team continue to lower the rope. (During a long lower, a rope will feed though a lowering device by itself due to the weight of the rope, hence sensitivity can be lost and
6
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 slack in the main and belay line takes place). If the belay line is not being monitored and the stretcher then brakes free and free falls back onto the main line, a shock load effect is possible. In this situation the breaking strain of around 20KNs or more will be required to stop a catastrophic failure. Shock loading failure can be caused due to other issues or parts of a system as well, for example failure in slings, knots, prussic or hardware. It should be noted that the tests carried out in this paper did not include a shock loading test component, but systems were loaded to a similar KN rating to what a shock load situation could create. The tests At the point in the ground were the anchors were placed, a crew member acted as a spotter and monitored the anchor movement, when the anchors started to move forward towards the winch, a call was made to stop applying more load. At this point a reading was taken from the load tester and recorded. This method helped to identify the bearing strength of the anchors. This was recorded as KN to movement. This point of KN movement in some cases resulted in a catastrophic, full, total, immediate failure meaning the anchor was completely removed from the surrounding sand, for example the snow pig anchor. In these cases the anchor was scraped from consideration from that point in. Testing parameters 8 different testing parameters were used to help gain an understanding of which anchor would perform the best at Macquarie Island. These parameters were added together to gain a score out of 50 points for each anchor. 1. Ease of use (5) It is important that the anchor is easy to use and handle. Each year a new SAR team has to learn and use this system and under rescue conditions, the easier the anchor is to place the better the result. 2. Anchor strength (15) This is a major consideration as this has to address the issue of compliance with 20kN safety margin that is required by SARINZ. The strength rating is an indication of bearing resistance to movement and also if the integrity of the anchor was effected during the movement. 3. Ease of placement (5) The mechanical means of driving the anchor or screwing the anchor into the ground. 4. Ease of extraction (5) How difficult it is to remove and or relocate the anchor. 5. Number of anchors needed for a safe system This is calculated by using the individual anchors KN rating and adding the number of anchors needed to reach approximately 20KN. 6 Ease of transport The likelihood of having difficulty transporting the anchors around the island by boat, helicopter or on foot. 7. Life span expected out of five The materials used to protect the anchor from the harsh Macquarie Island environment for example salt and water.
7
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 8. Multi use out of five Can the anchor take several uses before becoming defective? Anchor weight Anchor weight is a given result and is listed in the anchor details appendix 4. Some anchors needed a sledge hammer to be included for weight calculations and where applicable this was applied. Safety All anchors tested were tied back with an additional anchor to hold it,if failure occurred with the test anchor.
Safety line clipped to additional anchor to guard against failure in the test anchor
Results The following anchor results are explained including a score given for overall performance out of a total of 50 points. AARRK Score 29/50 AARRK (Anchor auger rope rescue kit) is currently in use with rescue organisations in the USA for rope rescue in soil. The system uses soil compression technology through an angled auger to help hold the anchor in position. AARRKs are easy to place and remove are reasonably light weight and a sledge hammer is not required. Issues arose regarding rigging and the placement of slings at the top end of the anchor as they were not easy to connect to.
8
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011
AARRK
Placing an AARRK anchor in sand
Star picket standard Score 22/50 The general rule of thumb for standard star picket strength is 300kgs. A single picket was tested and resulted in 4KNs to movement. From this point a fan of two pickets resulted in 6.90KNs and then three resulted in 8.70KNs. These tests resulted in pickets twisting and bending, rendering them unusable for further use.
Standard star picket used in sand tests, note deformation
Star picket Maxy Score 34/50 In solid soil a single Waratah Maxy picket held to 9.9KN before movement. No tension failure was present at this load level. A standard picket rated to 3.5KN and was bent by tension. This indicates that the Maxy is approximately three times as strong in tension and also just less the three times as strong in bearing pressure. It also means that a Maxy picket could be rated at just less that 10KN for a single load anchor meaning that in theory it would pass the SARINZ 10:1 safety requirement for a single person load as long as the person was less than 90kgs in weight. Although to satisfy the 2 point philosophy of SARINZ this anchor would only be suitable as a single point anchor if rescuer footing was adequate as the second point of security.
9
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 The placement of two Maxys with a limited floating focal point resulted in 18KN winch limit, this indicated that it would have probably taken a 20KN load and passed the SARINZ 10:1 ratio for a 200kg load. These anchors were also not effected by tension on inspection after removal. Waratah the manufacturer of Maxy pickets claims a strength factor as high as four times the strength of standard star pickets. Standard star picket quality varies depending on the manufacturer as some star pickets are made of low grade mild steel that bend under a simple compression test of standing in the middle of the picket while one end is elevated by a timber block, some pickets bent to the ground without any effort on the part of the author. Maxys are particularly strong in tension and compression are very ridged, they did not bend under these test conditions. A further example of this is demonstrated when a Maxy picket is hit by a sledge hammer after placement on its side to help break the seal of the soil and help with extraction. These blows radiate down the whole length of the picket, where as a standard picket bends at the top and the vibrations do not make their way down the length of the picket.
2 x Maxys loaded to 18KNs
Bent Maxy showing soil horizon
V stake (snow pig) Score 24/50 The V stake or snow pig is the current alpine snow stake of choice by AAD and SARINZ. The wire trace centrally located to the picket provides positive forward pull along the whole length of the picket making for excellent bearing pressure.
AAD V stake
Catastrophic failure of a V stake in sand
10
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 Screw Anchor Score 24/50 This would generally be regarded as too heavy for transport on Macquarie Island, but was tested mainly due to the bearing properties associated with it. It held without movement to winch limit in sand. There was considerable trouble placing and extracting the anchor. One of the Marquee anchors was used to twist it in and out. Therefore it was not tested any further.
Screw anchor
Screw anchor in sand ready to load
Duck Bills Score -/50 Duck Bills are currently part of the existing rope rescue anchoring system at Macquarie Island. They are light weight and relatively easy to place in the right environment. In an industrial setting, this is achieved with mechanical assistance, which includes the ability to load test each placement. On Macquarie Island Duck Bills are placed in line with the direction of load with a long spike and hammered in, the cable is then manually pulled back up towards the surface and the Duck Bill turns 90 degrees, creating bearing resistance. The author has used them several times as an anchoring system for lowers and raises during SAR exercises. On test day Duck Bills were placed in sand but hit a soil horizon and rebounded along the top of this horizon, when under load they failed before any KN record could be taken. There are some issues with Duck Bills these being: • Uncertainty in soil stability can create a false sense of security when placing Duck Bills; this makes it difficult to gain an appreciation of their soundness, how they will act under load and their ability to create bearing pressure. • They are very difficult to remove after placement. This usually involves digging down to the anchor which can take a large amount of time, effort and does create disturbance to the surrounding ground. In many instances they are cut off at ground level and the cable is left in place. • It can be difficult to tell if Duck Bills have been engaged properly and locked off at 90 degrees. It is impossible to physically see this, and requires a level of skill to feel the resistance lock off at surface level. • After 3 duck bills are placed in position they are equalized with a small rigging line with a fixed focal point. When loading Duck Bills in this way all three individual anchors must act in exactly the same way with the same bearing resistance and movement, otherwise load will be transferred to individual sling legs. This is described in detail later in the results section of this paper, under limited floating focal points.
11
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 Further testing is needed to help determine how Duck Bills will react when under load, especially shock load; hence it is not recommended at this time. Terra firma Score 32/50 Terra firma is a 4x4 vehicle recovery anchor system that it is rated at 5000kgs breaking strain. The total weight of this system is 15kgs and therefore it is not a particularly suitable anchor to carry by foot easily around Macquarie Island. However the kit can be broken down into smaller parts to distribute the load amongst a rescue team if needed. Initial thoughts for this anchor were that it can be located in the field at the top of particular drop downs on Macquarie Island and just be assembled in situ and used. The Terra Firma was the easiest and simplest anchor system to use that was tested, this being because there is no rope rigging required and picket angles are preset by guiding cleats as they are driven into the ground.
The Terra Firma
Terra Firma under load, notice forward movement
Marquee pegs Score 24/50 Marquee pegs present a peg or post very similar to what is used in many rescue organizations including Australian SES. The arrangement is usually in a tie back or back lashed arrangement. This was tested along with a cross placement similar to use in loading guy lines on large Marquee tents. The author has used a similar post for anchoring in hard soil for rescue, but due to its round shape, its bearing capacity is limited to harder soils types.
Marquee peg
Bent Marquee peg
12
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 Aluminum round and square posts profiles Round Score 28/50 Square Score -/50
Round and aluminium pickets
Soil trapped between the fins of the round picket made it very difficult to extract
The round profile aluminium posts tested were purchased from a glazing company with a star shaped centre and a smooth outer skin. To this a top plate was welded into position. This anchor preformed well at 5.95kn to movement, it is very easy to rig with no sharp edges. The main problem with this anchor being that it was particularly difficult to pull out of the ground, due to the slots between the wings, see picture below. This post was then discarded and no further tests took place. The square profile aluminium post was too large in shape to drive effectively into the ground. The top section of the post started to collapse under the weight of the sledge hammer. This post was then discarded and no further tests took place.
Square profile aluminum post notice the collapsed head section
13
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 Bearing plate Score 37/50 A bearing plate made out of aluminium checker plate was folded at right angles with a hole drilled into the fold to take a star picket. This plate was driven down the front of the picket after it was placed in the ground. The plate was then locked in position with a pin to stop any upward movement under load. In this format a single Maxy picket held to 7.95kn to movement. This added approx 1kn extra hold (Bearing resistance) from a standard picket without the bearing plate. The shape of the plate came into question, this being that is needs to be longer. Hence further prototypes have been manufactured and have been sent to Macquarie Island for testing.
Bearing plate prototype 1
Bearing plate prototype 2 back view
Bearing plate under load. Note the stress cone/ sand distribution in front of the plate.
Bearing plate prototype 2 side view
14
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011
Three different thicknesses for testing at Macquarie Island
Claw anchor Score 28/50 The Claw anchor is based on a military ground anchor plate kit used for vehicle recovery and rope rescue. For the purpose of the testing, the Claw anchor was manufactured at the AAD workshop from aluminium. The concept of this anchor is to use pins in a sideways placement to anchor into the ground material. Considering the weight of the claw and its unconventional shape it performed well. The fount section of the anchor tended to pull into the ground, therefore pulling the back section out, due to this it was decided not to continue to test it.
Claw anchor movement under load
Claw anchor
Sledge hammer A Metalist, 8 pound (3.3kg) heavy duty fibreglass handled, drop forged head, sledge hammer was used with a rubber handle protector underneath the head, for the tests. This sledge hammer has the head set in the factory and will be less effected by water than a timber handle, which can loosen the head and make it non operable. It was decided that this version of sledge hammer, should be used and recommended for future use on Macquarie Island. Alternative sledge hammers were considered, in particular soft blow hammers. Several models made of tuff plastic with a lead shot filled head were considerably lighter than the 8 pound standard sledge hammer. The structural integrity was questionable and with the risk of breakage being such a key factor, they weren’t seen as a viable option. Single piece aluminium hammers were also considered but not tested.
15
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 Picket removal Two methods were trailed. These being the use of a small star picket remover which was supplied with the Terra Firma anchor system and a 4 person lift using a climbing harnesses, carabineers, a small tape sling wrapped around the picket and the bending of legs to lift. (Separate slings should be dedicated to this task and not included as part of the rigging system). Both of these methods worked well, the star picket remover needed a bearing plate to stop the foot driving into the ground. The harness lifting technique is a lighter option. (The star picket remover weighs around 2.2kgs).
Picket removal using climbing harnesses and leg lift
Terra Firma, picket remover
Rigging options for pickets Clove hitch vs W3P2 SARINZ specifies a clove hitch crossed at the back of the star picket to choke the rope rigging sling, both of the sling tails then run down to the focal point and are tied off with a figure of 8 to create a fixed focal point. This is a sound technique for fixed focal but for a limited floating focal point, it does not allow for movement along the rope sling legs. In a failure of an outside leg in a 3-point anchor system, sideways movement occurs and due to the clove hitch choke around the picket, it can tend to twist the pickets, which can break the seal and affect the ability of the picket to hold its position. It also affects the integrity of the rigging lines as they do not equalise after movement so load is only applied to one tail of the rope sling instead of both. A W3P2 over comes these problems. A clove hitch can be used with either a tube tape or a rope and in some of the tests undertaken by Dr James Doube rope damage did occur due to the fins cutting into the rope. Other issues can rise from using standard kermantle rope for rigging. Standard kermantle used by AAD is nylon based and when wet can lose up to 30% of its strength and it will also stretch. In a tie back rigging arrangement, stretch within the system places more load onto the front anchor, hence it may move prematurely forward before the pickets behind take up load. Polyester based ropes do not suffer from loss of strength when wet, so this would be the preferred option if rigging by rope. The author also recommends pre tensioning with a jigger between anchors to help reduce stretch in rigging. Wrap three pull two A W3P2 (Wrap three pull two) hitch holds by chocking the anchor, meaning if there is a forward anchor movement the hitch is less likely to slide off than with a simple figure 8 knot. Due to it being wrapped 3 times around the picket it divides the load weight into a 3rd. This effect also applies to the tape knot meaning it is under less load. By clipping a carabineer to a W3P2 the rigging sling can float and move to a position of best fit, especially in a limited floating focal point.
16
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011
W3P2 note knot sitting at rear between back fins
Limit floating focal point vs fixed focal point Rigging In most rope rigging situations consideration is given to ERNEST (Equalised, Redundant, No extension, Solid and Timely) or SERENE (Secure Equalised, Redundant, Not extension). These 2 acronyms are common in climbing instruction and make for best practice in most rigging situations. This system would include a fixed focal point, meaning an isolated overhand or figure of eight knot at the focal point, to allow for no extension to take place. They are however mainly used in a rock climbing context and not necessary ideal for steep ground anchor systems. Anchor failure in rock usually happens instantly and explosively, producing total failure of an individual placement (eg hex); hence a no extension construction element is essential to eliminate shock load onto the other anchors. Unfortunately a fixed focal point in ERNEST or SERENE, can become dangerous if three anchors are placed and one of the two outside anchors fails, as this usually produces sideways movement and load transfers to the single middle anchor point, reducing anchor strength by a third. The AAD Maxy pickets tested by the author had a slow forward movement under load and did not produce a catastrophic instant failure, this means that in the event of a forward movement of one of the pickets, load is slowly applied to the other picket as it is taken up by the limited loop created by the 2 tape knots above the focal point. Limited floating focal point A LFFP (limited floating focal point) was used and is recommended for rigging of the new AAD Maxy pickets. LFFP rigging comprises of an 8 meter length of Edelrid tube tape (15KN) and turning it into a 4m sling tied off with a tape knot and long tails. A Vee-shape is formed with 2 tape knots tied 100mm back from the focal point (tip of the Vee) on both sides, this creating a limited loop. Both legs of the Vee are clipped to 2 AAD Maxy pickets with a W3P2 on each picket. Pickets are placed 15 degrees back from perpendicular to the slope and spaced at 1500mm apart. They are placed 1000mm into the ground, the large front fin faces directly towards the focal point. At the focal point both slings are crossed over to produce an X, these are clipped into with a carabiner. This creates a focal point of 60 degrees back to the anchors. Hence if a 200kg load is applied to the anchors, the vector force load on the legs is 1.2kns which transfers to each picket, meaning that if you add the SARINZ safety factor of 1:10 ie 20kn for a 200kg load, it becomes a requirement that the anchors must hold a load of 12kns on each anchor. Therefore the equalised combined load would need to take 24kns. The AAD Maxy pickets that were tested reached 18kns without movement in good soil; this was the limit of the winch with two people swinging the winch arm. It would be expected that the 6 extra KNs that were needed to be applied to reach 24KNs would possibly start to move the anchors forward, but would not cause a failure in the anchor system.
17
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 LFFP provides true equal loading on to both of the pickets at the same time. It also allows for sideways movement of the rope while retaining full equal loading. This has many advantages when rigging on steep slopes as anchors can be placed well back in a safe zone and forward reconnaissance can take place by the edge attendant while he is safely attached to the anchors. After this initial reconnaissance the edge attendant can align the rope position to suit the terrain below. It can also mean that a change in the rope direction on a lower for example to get around a rock can be achieved while equally loading anchors, whereas with a fixed focal point, correct equalisation would not occur. Fixed focal point Fixed focal point rigging was tested and the data found that under a load hauling situation there was always some small movement (vibration) experienced in a fixed focal point due to pulleys and the direction of pull of the leading haul rope on a raise, this movement in turn, travels along the individual rigging line and onto the pickets. This means that load travels up the slings unevenly, similar in some ways to an ABS break system of a motor vehicle, all this taking place within the space of a few seconds. Although equalised it don’t provide the true equal sharing of load that a LFFP provides. Further problems may occur with a fixed focal point if forward movement does occur within the pickets unevenly, in this event the load will transfer onto one picket as load is relaxed from the other. Meaning the anchor system is halved for a 2 picket system as it is transferred to a single anchor point. This does not occur with LFFP as continual load is applied evenly, even if one picket moves at a different rate to the other one. As previously mentioned, once a picket comes into vertical alignment, it will more than likely fail and load will transfer to the other picket, as occurs in a fixed focal system. LFFP benefits In a redirection or counter weight raise across a slope, the benefits of LFFP are also worth noting. Resultant force requires a relocation of anchors to align with the directional forces of both the load and the hauling line. As hauling takes place, some movement occurs due to hand over hand techniques or unevenness in walking stability. This is taken up by the LFFP. If there is a necessity to reset a haul on a redirection, load comes back onto a ratchet prussic, meaning that the resultant force changes back to alignment with the load only. This requires movement (float) within the focal point to take place, hence the benefit of the floating loop.
Limited floating focus under load
Limited floating focus with a 4 meter 15KN Edelrid sling
18
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 Adding further strength to the new system. Further pickets can be added to the system by placing a picket and attaching to the focal point with a jigger, this helping to transfer tension onto the new anchor and to take tension off the existing anchors.
Discussion AAD Maxy pickets Behaviour Most anchors were fixed at a top position with either tube tap or rope, load was then increase. In most cases this pull from the top of the anchor creates a hinge movement, meaning that the top half of the anchor applies bearing pressure forward towards the load where as the bottomed half of the anchor created bearing pressure backward away from the load force. As the top of the anchor moves forward and the bottom of the anchor moves backwards, a loss of friction to the anchor material occurs; this then leads a loss of bearing pressure which can result lead to an upward movement, which can cause the anchor to totally pull out of the ground. For many of the anchors the peak point load of ‘Kilo Newton at’ movement resulted in no failure in the anchor integrity at all. Simply a forward movement occurred, in most cases this is a slow movement of the anchors. This in turn indicates that the load limit had been reached. For star pickets there was always a slow forward movement and this meant that a picket placed at 10/15 degrees back from perpendicular to the existing ground, moved forward to about 5 degrees (around 25mm gap behind the top of the picket), sometimes the anchor moved to vertical alignment leaving around a 50mm gap. With the uncertainty of bearing materials (soils) on Macquarie Island, this slow movement indicator is very useful tool as it shows the need to provide extra strength to a system before failure occurs. Hence if a rescuer is dedicated to observing and notices any small movement (a few mms) a call of all systems stop by the SAR leader can be made early and another anchor should be added to the system. AAD Maxy picket full system test Testing carried out on Bruny Island with a full rescue system included loading on to two Maxy pickets, showed the following results: Two stretcher bearers and one patient along with the stretcher weight itself, indicated a load of approximately 310kgs, converting this to force = 3.1KN. To this a slope vector of 0.7 was multiplied due to a slope of approximately 45 degrees, this resulted in 2.17KN load to the anchors. A change of direction of around 60 degrees was added to create a counter balance raise, so a directional factor of 1.7 needs to be multiplied, this then became 3.7KN directional force on the anchors. To this the 1:10 SARINZ safety factor is calculated, this being 3.7KN times 10 = a 37KN requirement in anchor strength. Due to the unknown soil density of the location it is not possible to predict if the anchors would hold this load. Due to the raise being a counter weight raise with no mechanical advantage, it can be calculated that 3.7KN directional force on the anchors should be doubled meaning the actual live load on the anchors was at least 7.4KN. No anchor movement was spotted during the test. The result of the trials determined that the Waratah Maxy picket would be the most appropriate anchor selection for Macquarie Island. Prototype 1 Made in the AAD workshop. This is based on the UK ‘Lion’ brand picket which includes a cross T handle to assist with removal and rigging. This was colour coded to show red paint up to 1000mm from the bottom. This helped indicate that once the red paint disappeared, the picket was 1000mm underground therefore in position. There was some concern raised over the handle and its usage in
19
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 a rigging context and also the fact that the pickets could not be bundled closely together for transport. Therefore prototype 2 was manufactured. Prototype 2 This was the accepted AAD picket implemented down to Macquarie Island on V5 2011. Made in the AAD workshop, the pickets were cut down to 1100mm in length and a steel plate was welded on top of the picket. The plate serves to stop the W3P2 from sliding off the top of the picket, protecting a person from injury if they fell onto it and also assists with holding tape in position when extracting the picket. Red paint was applied to the top 100mm to help clearly identify it when placed in the ground. It also serves to indicate the correct depth of placement, this being 1000mm into the ground Placement of pickets To be placed 15 degrees back for perpendicular to the slope. 1500mm apart, 1000mm into the ground, leaving 100mm above the ground to rig to.
AAD SAR Picket (Maxy) 1100mm
Prototype 1. Note handle and colour coding
Soil horizon The wet sand tests identify the effects of solid horizon on anchors. Several of the most suitable anchors in bearing testing still failed in tension at soil horizon level. Of particular note was the Duck Bills as they bottomed out on placement at the horizon level and did not penetrate it, this is partly due to the angle used to drive them into place this being 45 degrees. It did highlight the issues associated with not knowing the quality of the material structure being used and the fact that soils have several horizons which effect bearing pressure. 25mm webbing tape vs 11mm kermantle rope for rigging In a rigging context 25mm webbing tube tape distributes its weight more evenly over the anchor than rope, meaning it is less likely to be damaged by the fins of the star picket, than with rope. During the soil testing day at the AAD, 6 individual tests were undertaken with loads ranging from 3.5kns to 18kns. The same W3P2s and limited floating focal tape sling were used for all of these tests and they didn’t show any sign of notable damage. Tube tape has less stretch than rope, so will produce less chance of movement between anchors, particularly in a tie back situation.
20
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 Picket placement technique and tie backs The existing picket placement techniques on Macquarie Island consist of three pickets placed in a tieback arrangement in a 1:1:1 configuration at 15 degrees back from perpendicular to the slope. Tie backs mimic full length ground placement, they save time and effort in placing the picket full length and can be ideal in hard ground where floating boulders may stop further depth placement being achieved. (Pickets still need to be about 2 thirds underground to be safe) This 1:1:1 configuration is tied back between pickets at 45 degrees using a cluster of rope lashing with 11mm static Kermantle rope. The base of front picket is wrapped with a small sling and clipped with a carabiner ready for rope deployment. There are several issues associated with this technique: •
Sideways loading on the picket system. In the event of a sideways load due to a change in direction during rope deployment, meaning the front picket could be in a position where it can take the total load in its single form without the tieback security taking effect. This may result in failure especially in a shock load situation.
•
Front picket failure due to lack of surface (ground) level tie back. In the current picket tie back configuration the front picket hinges from the top point tie back location. Under load at surface level the picket can pull forward with only the soil bearing pressure stopping forward movement. However with an additional tieback at surface level this can be avoided.
•
Lack of pre-loading between pickets. If pickets are rigged with kermantle rope and not pretensioned, forward movement will take place on the front picket before load is transferred to the remaining pickets. This can mean that the front picket can be out of alignment and close to a vertical axis and be in danger of pulling out under heavy load. However this can be avoided by using low stretch rigging cord/tape and pre tensioning using a jigger.
•
Rear picket lift out. As the front picket moves forward the rigging tie back attached to the bottom of the rear picket has the effect of pulling the rear picket up and out. This creates upward lift on the pickets, where as if they are loaded at ground level and the force is at right angles (along the existing ground) there is less likelihood of a picket failure. This can be overcome by using a pre tensioned jigger to tie back at ground level.
•
Placement arrangements on steep slopes. In some situations multiple anchor points may be required at different locations down a slope; on a lower (particularly if a 50 meter length of rope is used). When slopes become greater than 50/60 degrees the placement of tiebacks is possible, but requires particular attention to picket spacing/lashing and can be difficult to place and tie off.
•
Weight transport issues. To overcome the sideways load issues associated with this system, in 2001 the author used 2 x 1:1:1 picket tiebacks and equalised them to a focal point. This provided a secure system that would compensate for sideways movement. This however required 6 pickets to establish a secure system. In a full cliff rescue situation 2 independent systems may be required; utilising up to 12 pickets may be needed. As each standard picket weights approximately 2.4kgs this could weigh up to 28.8.kgs for the pickets alone. If you compare this to the Maxy pickets and the use of 2 pickets per system, there would be up to 4 pickets at 4kgs, the total picket weight being 16kgs, this is a transport weight saving of 12.8kgs when compared to standard pickets. Rigging gear weight would need to be added to the calculations to work out accurate transport weights.
21
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011
Tie back pre-tensioned with 2 x jiggers tested on the soil test day at the AAD
Roping considerations The SARINZ rigging system for lowering provides sound procedures for passing knots through a system. However the use of a single anchor system at a high flat and safe location and the running of continual length of rope though the same focal point to minimize knot passing should be used if possible. For example a lower from the Hurd point drop down would comprise normally of 6-8 rope lengths. If a longer rope of 400 meters was used this would be minimized to one anchor arrangement at the top of the slope instead of multiple anchor placements and knot passes. A SAR box including a 400 meter rope was sent to Macquarie Island on V5 2011 and will be placed at Hurd point at the first opportunity. Situations can be simplified in a raise situation also by using longer lengths of rope, therefore minimizing the need to do rope passes. SARINZ techniques for knot passing on a raise comprise of using an extension sling of approx 600/700mm, to place the prussic minding pulling in front of a tied off and loaded lowering devise e.g. a break bar. This means on multiple knot passes on raise, the system can become complex as the prussic minding pulley moves closer to the cliff edge and further away from the focal point, after each knot pass. The author along with his fellow FTO colleges believe that this SARINZ technique should be looked at and possibly modified, by introducing a jigger or similar to keep the prussic minding pulley closer to the focal point. The SARINZ system In 2007 the AAD accepted the SARINZ Manual as there standard for SAR teams and the training that they require. The AAD provided input into the SARINZ Manual development and its techniques but primarily the manual was written for the JANSAR (Joint Search and Rescue Team) who are a full time professional SAR team responsible solely for SAR while at Mcmurdo or Scott base. The AAD SAR team response is undertaken by a part time SAR team with limited training and knowledge. This means that a very steep learning curve is needed by scientists and tradespersons who may not naturally have a background in SAR. Due to this, some techniques and systems that SARINZ presents are complex and are not easily retained during the training time frame provided by the AAD. More time should be allocated within the AAD training schedule in the lead up to Antarctic deployment to properly train SAR teams. This particularly applies to Macquarie Island as at present there is no FTO contracted to train personal while on the Island. A draft steep ground rescue manual was produced this year by Tony Mackenny with input from Bill Baxter and the author and is based on a draft provided by SARINZ a couple of years ago. The Manual reflected in part an evolution of the rescue processes away from the techniques employed on the continental stations to a more specific Macquarie Island focus.
22
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 Technical rescue is a complex process involving a variety of different skills and techniques. The purpose of the Manual is three fold. It provides: • An easy to use reference document for Station Leaders to refer to in the event of a SAR • A manual for individual reference and SAR team training • A reference on equipment use, storage and replacement The Manual was well received and demonstrated the vital importance of having a comprehensive reference and training document for use on Station, particularly were there is no FTO to run training etc. However, as new techniques and equipment have been introduced, including the integration of the “Decision Tree”, the existing draft is incomplete. To meet the needs of expeditioners on the island it would need to be reviewed, re-edited and produced to a higher professional standard. Furno Washington 71S The Furno Washington stretcher or Furno, stretcher is the most commonly used stretcher for field rescue situations within the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP). It provides good protection for the casualty and can be handled very easily by the rescue party. The split basket stretcher (model 71S) is a split basket stretcher that breaks into two pieces and is then folded in half, with one section cradled inside the other. A carrying frame or a backpack can then be used by one person to carry the stretch to an incident. Connecting the stretcher requires the placement of three steel pins through an aluminium tubing frame. These three pins are a vital component of the stretchers strength. In a steep ground rescue context the stretcher is rigged across the front aluminium tube frame at the head of the stretcher using clove hitches, were the tape is then clipped at a knot with the rescue line. In this vertical alignment, considerable load is directly placed on the stretcher pins. To help distribute the load around the whole stretcher frame, tube tape can be wrapped along the sides and down to the foot of the stretcher where it is tied off in the same arrangement as the head, with the tape tails tied in to a tape knot.
71S Furno with tape wrap to back up locking pins
Pulley and prussic malfunctions due to grass/tussock In some circumstances pulleys may be blocked by grass or tussock. The incidences of this can be reduced by using a mat/carpet square, or in the case of moving pulleys, by appointing a ‘lifter’ who lifts the pulley above the ground using an extension sling.
23
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 Change of direction effects on pickets If a change of direction is used in a rope rescue raise, the resultant force on the anchors changes, this meaning that the anchor loading direction changes. To achieve this change in direction of anchor load, an extra picket can be placed as pictured below to line up the angle of load correctly.
Change of direction, with extra picket. Note position of original anchor, not under load.
Using the sledge hammer The risk associated with a sledge hammer head failure due to miss hitting should be considered. If a miss hit occurs and the handle hits the picket head plate just below the sledge hammer head of a timber handled sledgehammer the head can break completely off. Should this occur the hammer head can be very hard to re fix in the field and it is highly likely that the anchors cannot be set, therefore the system cannot be used. This means that the sledge hammer is arguably the most important item in the whole rescue system. Careful, slow planned hits are required to place the pickets. Blows should be placed flat to the top plate of the anchor and towards the rear, as the hit will be distributed between the 2 backward fins. If placing the pickets on flat ground the first blows can be difficult due to the height needed to hit them in, this being 1100mm and also the lack of stability can cause the picket to float, due to not being able to be held still. The SAR team member holding the picket should kneel directly opposite to the sledge hammer user. This puts them out of range of the swing of the sledge hammer. If the picket is held in the middle 600mm from the ground, it is very unlikely that the picket holder will be harmed. They should have a helmet on, safety goggles and gloves. An alternative to physically holding the picket is to use 3 x SAR members with 3 x small lengths of rope and to pull the picket at 12, 4 and 8 O’clock at the same time, meaning that it is well braced and out of range of sledgehammer swing. Anchor material quality determination The proper placement of pickets can assist with determining the material quality for which they are to be placed. With each blow of the sledge hammer, the picket should slide into the ground evenly and with a constant downward slide for every consecutive blow. If the sledge hammer blows become uneven or if there is a sudden depth per blow increase, it can indicate a weakness in the material structure. Should this be the case, consideration should be given to relocating the picket to a more suitable location or the implementing of the bearing plate.
24
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011
Damage around top of handle
8 pound sledge hammer with handle protector
The future There are no international standards associated with soil anchors due to the uncertainty of the quality associated with the material that the anchors are driven into. If there were no limits to engineering boundaries or funding considerations, the ultimate anchor for soil applications would probably be made out of a titanium steel compound to provide extreme strength to weight ratio. It would be about 1100mms long and with approx 150mm wide fins at the top, it would then taper down to about 50mm at the bottom and then onto a point, this would allow for easy penetration and removal. It would be made in a T shape profile and have built in wings similar to the prototype B bearing plates to suit Macquarie Island conditions. This forming a better bearing capacity than the star profile of star pickets. This follows the profile to some extent of the ‘ground anchor tee stake manufactured by Lyon Equipment in the UK’ minus the wings. In the time frame provided for research prior to the training of the Macquarie Island wintering SAR team where the new SAR stakes were to be introduced, the UK tee stakes were not trialled, however could be considered in the future for use on Macquarie Island. In situ testing at Macquarie Island should be undertaken to bed down the recommendations of this report. Particularly the bearing plates as these will become a vital addition to have with the anchor kit in softer ground.
Recommendations Recommendation 1: Waratah ‘Maxy’ pickets with a welded flat head (70mmX 30mm). These were 3 times as strong as the old star pickets, easier to place and remove. As only two per belay/main line anchor are required in most circumstance, there is small variation in weight. The top 100mm should be painted red for visibility. Recommendation 2: Two anchor/ BIG VEE systems are used Recommendation 3: The hammer used to place pickets should be equipped with a handle guard. Recommendation 4: Safety glasses be used when placing pickets Recommendation 5: Removal of pickets can be made by knotting two tape slings round the head of the picket, attaching to harnesses and lifted by up to 4 people, using their leg muscles, so avoiding back damage. Any picket damaged or bent should be RTA. Recommendation 6 After testing, the simplest and strongest attachment was an approx. 1m Wrap 3 / pull 2 tape slings, with the knot behind the picket.
25
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 Recommendation 7 An anchor system with a limited floating focus similar to fig 8-35 on P. 171 of the Sarinz Manual should be used. This will allow for equalization of the anchors with a limited extension in the event of an anchor failure. It will also maintain equalization whilst allowing for the changing direction of force, typical of steep ground rescue. Recommendation 8: This technique should be included in the Manual, and a 4m length of tape sling included in the Rescue Kits. Recommendation 9 One member of the rescue team is designated the ‘anchor/spotter person’ and charged with watching for any deformation or movement of anchors so as to provide adequate warning before anchor system failure occurs. This may be part of another role if numbers are short. •
Edge person. This role is necessary if the Team leader can’t see down to the slope or where there are communication issues. It may involve the person moving a relatively long distance down a slope. The present length of line in the kits is too short.
Recommendation 10: The rope in edge kits should be lengthened to 30m, with the edge person descending on a prussic to a suitable position. Recommendation 11: The Manual is amended to include a clarification of roles suited to the conditions on Macquarie Island. Recommendation 12: The Furno 71S stretcher be rigger with tube tape along the frame to back up the central locking pins. Recommendation 13: Caches of heavy gear are made at designated points on the plateau above the existing huts (Hurd and Green Point) and at other points in between (Tiobungo and Eitel). These would include at a minimum ropes, pickets and a hammer. In addition, first (or initial) responder gear would be cached as well, including access rope, pickets, hammer, tent or large bivvy, cooking gear, and PPE. All caches should be entered in on maps, recorded on GPS and marked with reflector tape. Recommendation 14: At least two carpet squares or similar be included in each mainline kit. Recommendation 15: All helmets should have reflecting tape so they can be seen in torch light. Recommendation 16: Carabiners used should be standardised to pear shaped screw gates for all general and personal use, and b) pear shaped triple-locks for all rescue attachments. Recommendation 17: The Station Leader is provided with a complete copy of the SARINZ Manual and a copy of the draft Manual before departure to Macquarie this year. Recommendation 18: Application for funding a short project be made immediately to provide a Manual for the trialling on the Island in the second half of the 2011/12 season. The project should: • • •
Review the material available in the two drafts, using an expert panel to identify what is missing etc Re-write the new edits for the Manual and identify what diagrams are required Liaise with SARINZ on copyright and production
26
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 Recommendation 19: Review and update SOPs, operations manual and field manual to reflect current practices. Consideration should be given to further SAR planning as identified in appendix 1.
References SARINZ search and rescue training manual www.SARINZ.com Personal correspondence: Bill Baxter AAD, Tony Mckenny AAD, Don Hudspeth AAD and Mike Woolridge AAD.
Equipment List Rope AAD Edelrid super static SP 11mm static. 31kn, 23kn with fig 8 knot, elongation 4.2%. Tape AAD Edelrid x tube 25mm 15kn. It should be noted that SARINZ requirement of ‘around 18KN’ is the minimum breaking strain. Cord AAD Edelrid ‘Powerlock’ expert 6mm strength 9.8kn AAD Edelrid ‘Reepschnur’ 7mm strength 13.4kn Carabiners Kong HMS classic screw gate <>22kn It should be noted that the AAD Kong SAR Carabiners (22kn) are below the recommended rating by SARINZ of 24kn minimum breaking strength. It should also be noted that Kong multi use carabiners takes a dressed tube tape more uniformly than the current Kong Classic carabiner.
A W3P2 properly dressed with tube tape on a Kong multi use D shaped carabiner ‘silver’ and a Kong Classic pear shaped carabiner ‘red’ with an undressed W2P2
27
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 Rappel racks For lowering the use of Petzel rack in the SARINZ system was discontinued, due to the 18kn load limit and J frame. The use of SRTE DR6 Rappel rack was introduced largely due to its bar strength of 3000kgs and the U shape body profile. Most rappel racks are meant to sit in a vertical position, instead of sitting horizontally flat on top of a cliff face, in this situation a horizontal load can tend to move the rack frame onto its edge. This can mean that the unloaded bars float out of the frame and hang free. For a long lower eg, Hurd PT, consideration should be given to a whale tail or gold tail as they have no moving parts, have better heat dispersion and generally operate better on a horizontal plane. Load Tester GML Load System V43 manufactured by GML Electronics Pty Ltd, NSW. Star picket remover Terra Firma Sledge hammer Medallist fibreglass with handle protector Winch Magnum Turfor Toyota Hilux This was used for the sand anchors and the main anchor point for winching. The tow bar assembly was removed and the winch wire eyelet was placed inside the square housing of the towbar assembly and the locking pin was re-fitted to secure the eyelet. The front of the vehicle was anchor using 2 x star pickets as it was being dragged forward through the sand for the first part of the anchor testing.
Pickets providing resistance to stop the vehicle being dragged backwards
N.B For the soil anchor testing a large, secure, live and healthy tree with a trunk diameter of <2 meters was used as the anchor point to secure the winch
28
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011
Magnum turfor hand winch
Load tester
Appendices and Field Data Appendix 1 Further Macquarie Island SAR considerations • Consider implementing a site specific SAR operational and training manual for Macquarie Island. • Implement a mapping system that identifies appropriate locations for rope rescue anchoring on Macquarie Island. • Consider the reduction of rope diameter to 9mm. There are many roping brands that have rescue specific semi static ropes in 9mm that have a breaking strain of over 20kn. The weight differences between a 11mm rope at 200 meters is approximately 16kgs vs 9mm at 200 meter is approximately 10kgs, meaning a weight saving of about 6kgs for pack hauling. • Create maps, plans and systems for SAR response for Macquarie Island. SAR Management strategy poster Create an A0 roll out poster format map using GIS. This is a quick reference guide that lists contact details, decision points, anchor points, SAR escape routes, landing sites, hut locations, calculators to plane time frames, comms channels, contingency plans. This can be used as a desk top planning tool for both on station and at the Kingston operations centre. A conference call with both parties referring to the same map will improve response times to the incident. Use this strategy as test case for implementation to all Antarctic stations. SAR Map Macro Using existing Macquarie Island mapping data, create an A3 field incident response map. This would have situational dependant trigger points identified through GIS to indicate actions to be taken by expeditioners in the field, for example: Expeditioner injured near Midas Tarn→ Map identifies medivac to Overland Track → map indicates head South to Green Gorge. SAR exercises SAR exercises concentrating on long lowers on drop downs around the island should be undertaken. In particular at Hurd Pt as this is one of the most complex lowers on the Island.
29
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011 Appendix 2
Macquarie Island Rope Anchor Testing Data Anchor combinations in Sand Seven Mile Beach 16th Febuary 2011 Anchor SARINZ fan Standard star picket x 3 SARINZ fan Standard star picket x 2 Marquee pegs x 2 SARINZ fan Maxy Star picket x 2
KN to movement 8.70kn 6.90kn 6.00kn 13.60kn
Macquarie Island Rope Anchor Testing Data Anchor combinations in Soil AAD 23 Febuary 2011 Anchor KN to movement SARINZ fan Maxy Star picket x 2 18.00kn winch limit Maxy Star picket fin forward x 1 9.90kn Single standard star picket x1 3.50kn SARINZ fan standard star picket x 2 6.35kn SARINZ 1 x tie back, 2 x Maxy star picket 13.60kn SARINZ 2 x tie back x 2 Maxy star picket 16.00kn
30
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011
Macquarie Island Rope Anchors Testing Data Single anchor test results Sand Seven Mile Beach 16th Febuary 2011
re
co ls f5 ta to ou To e f5 us ti to ul ou M e nc 5 ta of sis ut re o n d e 5 si o ct of pe rro ut ex Co to an po sp e em ns st Lif tra y s of fe 5 se sa of a Ea t r fo ou n ed 5 io ed ct of a ne tr ut o rs ex t 5 ho of en e nc f1 s o em :A Ea ac ut o No pl th f5 of ng to se e tr ou Ea s e or us ch of An se Ea
/5 0
Anchor type AARRK Star pick standard Star pick Maxy fin backward Star pick Maxy fin forward V stake Snow pig Screw Anchor single Duck Bill # Terra firma Marquee peg Alum round post Bearing plate 1 x Maxy Claw anchor
4 4 4 4 2 1
3 4 7 7 3 11 #
4 4 4 4 3
3 3 3 3 2 1 #
8 3 6 8 6
3 3 3 3 3 1 #
4 3 3 3 4
# 3 3 1 4 3
3 3 3 3 5 1
6 6 2 2 6 2 # 2 6 3 2 2
5 2 5 5 2 2 #
1 2 3 4 3
4 2 5 5 5 4 #
4 4 5 5 3
4 1 4 4 2 3 #
4 3 5 5 4
29 22 34 34 24 24 #
4 2 1 4 2
31
32 24 28 37 28
Chris Gallagher FTO 2011
Macquarie Island Rope Anchors Testing Data Anchor details :A No h pt De
rs ho nc
n
er sp Kg
i or ch an of
to
h gt ei
em st sy fe sa ra nd fo Sa ed n ed ti ne en em or ov ch M an
KN
W
nd ou gr
st Co
-
-
Anchor type AARRK Star pick standard Star pick Maxy fin backward Star pick Maxy fin forward V stake Snow pig Screw Anchor single Duck Bill Terra firma Marquee peg Alum round post Bearing plate 1 x Maxy Claw anchor Alum square picket Duck bill driver AARRK socket driver Star Picket remover Sledge hammer 8 pound
6kgs ea 2.4kgs ea 4.0kg ea 4.0kg ea 0.5kgs ea 4.4kgs ea 1.00kg ea 15kgs kit 3.3 kgs ea 1.6kgs ea 2.0kgs ea 4.2kgs ea 1.8kgs ea 4.2kgs ea 4.0kgs ea 2.2kgs ea 3.7kgs ea
3.65 4 6.7 7 3.5 10.7 #
6 6 2 2 6 2 #
8.5 3.1 5.95 7.95 5.7 # # # # #
2 6 3 2 2 # # # # #
$150 ea $20.00 ea $30.00ea $30.00 ea $120.00 ea $30.50 ea Free $500 kit $17.80 ea $30.00 ea Free Free Free Free $200.00 ea Free Free
500mm 900mm 900mm 900mm 600mm 1360mm 1500mm 600mm 900mm 1250mm 300mm 900mm 1200mm 1750mm 500mm 600mm #
32
