survivor interview

[jonsprag1]

this is an interview of a man who was with a group of paddlers in BC on a day trip where two of the eight people on the trip died after going into the water in conditions.http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/bv/ondemand/video/FAULKNERkayak.wmv His account is riviting and instructive

[spider]

I couldn't quite get that link to work...

[jason]

I couldn't quite get that link to work...

The link is:

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/bv/ondemand/vi...ULKNERkayak.wmv

-Jason

[kate]

The link is:

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/bv/ondemand/vi...ULKNERkayak.wmv

-Jason

Link didn't work for me either, but here's the writeup and on the sidebar are links for a newscast video.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...ayak-death.html

Very sad. No lifejackets, no sprayskirts, no wetsuits. Eight foot seas and 80kph winds. Amazing that any of them survived.

Kate

[Kevin B (RPS Coach)]

Link didn't work for me either, but here's the writeup and on the sidebar are links for a newscast video.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...ayak-death.html

Very sad. No lifejackets, no sprayskirts, no wetsuits. Eight foot seas and 80kph winds. Amazing that any of them survived.

Kate

Yikes.

FYI, there is a correction on the article that states they were wearing pfds.

[EEL]

this is an interview of a man who was with a group of paddlers in BC on a day trip where two of the eight people on the trip died after going into the water in conditions.

Lots of things to ponder. Such as experience does not necessarily equal skills. People who adventure race where there are lots of built in safety margins in terms of support personnel may not appreciate the objective dangers they face, may not have the ability to make critical judgments, may not have the ability to deal with accidents and even if they do, they may not carry even minimal gear to be able to take care of themselves. Some folks just live to put it on the line and they routinely and knowingly take great risks; for them playing it safe just is not playing at all. Some people are rather quick to call themselves and companions world class athletes and even if they are, that does not mean they have a clue about the sports they pursue. I think it is totally up to everyone to select the level of risk they wish to take so long as they are willing to pay the piper. Like Derek saying he never dressed for immersion. You accept the risk and you play the cards as dealt. However, I had the feeling that guy had seen the piper paid enough ( he had that look in his eyes) and was starting to think that maybe he needed to learn to say "No" and ratchet down the level. Most folks I know who lived long enough doing high risk stuff reached the same point and backed off.

Ed Lawson

[Kevin B (RPS Coach)]

QUOTE(Kevin B @ Oct 12 2007, 03:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yikes.

FYI, there is a correction on the article that states they were wearing pfds.

Water looks to be around 55F. Here is some info on Howe Sound:

"When flat-calm, Howe Sound is an inviting place to paddle, but beware the outflow winds that build on summer days. The Sound is a channel for winds drawn out to the ocean from cooler inland regions. Kayakers will have an easier time of it than canoeists when the winds rise. It's worth heading offshore to enjoy the views of the Howe Sound Crest and Britannia ranges that are not revealed from land. "

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/OSAP/proj...owe_sound_e.htm

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=howe+sound,+...sa=N&tab=wl

[Gcosloy]

This was at the bottom of that report:

Corrections and Clarifications

* A survivor said the eight kayakers were wearing personal flotation devices. The original report said they were not wearing lifejackets. Oct. 9, 2007|3:30 p.m. ET

[spider]

I think he summed it up in the interview saying

" we were carried away by our own testosterone"

(I have know idea if what there ethnic backgrounds might be... nor am I interested)

[djlewis]

The link is:

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/bv/ondemand/vi...ULKNERkayak.wmv

-Jason

And here are some links to stories...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...tureracers.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...ayak-death.html

and a bunch more in google...

http://tinyurl.com/yveeba

--David.

[djlewis]

How often do we hear of sea kayaking deaths where the victims generally knew what they were doing and were equipped with pfd's, immersion clothes and other essential safety gear, and had real experience and training in sea kayaking? It seems there are always one or more crucial missing elements in kayaking deaths. In this case, it was clothing and probably skill/experience/training levels. (I'm leaving out initial judgment, because that seems to me to be a factor that's almost always present in close calls or actual tragedies. In a way, it's that kind of judgment error that all our gear and training is meant, in part, to compensate for.

Interestingly, the Plum Island incident a year ago June was the closest call that I personally know of where all the positive elements were present, and is instructive in both directions. For one, they came reasonably close to dying (if I understand the story). If any one of -- working vhf; well-insulated dry suits; retain at least one boat (they did lose one) -- had been missing or failed, the story would have likely had a tragic ending.

On they other hand, they did end with a margin of safety adequate for survival -- though a far smaller margin than we are accustomed to -- through training, skill and equipment, and because of that -- and some luck -- they made it, despite their initial error to launch into the prevailing conditions.

So, the Plum Island tale is a case of both necessary and sufficient conditions for survival. Makes me glad we do what we do, and thankful that what we do seem to be the right things.

And the BC incident, tragic though it is, is especially poignant, once again, exactly because widely understood measures could have prevented the deaths, despite the errors in judgment.

--David.

[jonsprag1]

The most elequent part of the interview was at the end when he said next time he would be the chicken who refused to go----I've had the experience that most of us have had when paddling in a group when our own individual sense of judgement was overwhelmed by the groups sense of invunerabilty---it happens frequently in our sport and other outdoor activities. Through a combination of luck, skill and strength we have managed to live through it. When I'm faced with this kind of choice again, I hope I remember this interview.

[rick stoehrer]

for the folks off vancouver...it's easy enough to get caught up in what you're doing and plowing straight ahead full steam and hell bent. that's what i read...mind what YOU'RE doing. what is YOUR condition? where are YOU, how are YOU going to deal with a-b-c...

they died doing something they enjoyed...i should be so fortunate <at the wonderfully perserved age of 125 in 80+ years> to pass away while paddling and laughing right up to the point i say "oops" that last time.

live every minute of every day...you're running out of them...sounds like they did.

concerning "despite their initial error to launch into the prevailing conditions" re/plum island.

if any of us are to ever "learn" from anyone else's experiences we need to first hear of them, to LISTEN and maybe have a dialogue. if that's what you want, if you think that has some value, then we need to foster a community where folks are comfortable and safe enough within this forum to speak openly about their journeys and about ultimately what are deeply personal and sometimes profound experiences. if folks don't feel comfortable, you can bet that you won't see a lot of the less than shining moments posted for the armchair hutchinsons (derek, not suzie-q)

my feeling is that when we share our thoughts with folks that have come through such a crucible and walked away, we learn something of their experience...it still isn't our experience as we never know how we will react until that moment when literally there are <no sh^t> decisions that determine whether you live or you die...but if we're fortunate, we can hear of what those that came back did and it makes us wonder if we'd do those same things...would those things even work for us as individuals?

so while i agree that training is good, ultimately it is character that is revealed and it's that character that even allowed those men to do what was needed... they lived because they would. so when you say "...glad we do what we do, and thankful that what we do seem to be the right things", i would point out that in my opinion, SEEM(S) is the operative word - don't mistake what they DID, as being the same as what some PRACTICE. until someone has made the RIGHT "live/die decision", it's all just a game, isn't it? there isn't a consequence.

when it comes right down to it, do any of us blink?

[glil]

if any of us are to ever "learn" from anyone else's experiences we need to first hear of them, to LISTEN and maybe have a dialogue. if that's what you want, if you think that has some value, then we need to foster a community where folks are comfortable and safe enough within this forum to speak openly about their journeys and about ultimately what are deeply personal and sometimes profound experiences. if folks don't feel comfortable, you can bet that you won't see a lot of the less than shining moments posted for the armchair hutchinsons (derek, not suzie-q)

my feeling is that when we share our thoughts with folks that have come through such a crucible and walked away, we learn something of their experience...it still isn't our experience as we never know how we will react until that moment when literally there are <no sh^t> decisions that determine whether you live or you die...but if we're fortunate, we can hear of what those that came back did and it makes us wonder if we'd do those same things...would those things even work for us as individuals?

Very well said, Rick.

Gay

[JohnHuth]

ultimately it is character that is revealed and it's that character that even allowed those men to do what was needed... they lived because they would. so when you say "...glad we do what we do, and thankful that what we do seem to be the right things", i would point out that in my opinion, SEEM(S) is the operative word - don't mistake what they DID, as being the same as what some PRACTICE. until someone has made the RIGHT "live/die decision", it's all just a game, isn't it? there isn't a consequence.

when it comes right down to it, do any of us blink?

I'm not totally sure what you mean by this, Rick. It sounds interesting, but I'm not quite sure.

When I read about the accident, my gut reaction was to feel what they must've felt. I've been mildly hypothermic at times, through my own stupidity. I can't imagine ending up in that state where you go through hell of uncontrollable shakes, and then, all of a sudden, feel like it's OK to let go and die. It scares the daylights out of me.

I didn't even get to the "oh, I'm careful...and they didn't have wetsuits, tsk, tsk" stage, but quickly recalled the times I got in over my head and Neptune was kind.

Then, finally, in reading the posts, we always end up with a search for meaning. There's a great narrative I'm reading, by Knud Rassumssen, who traveled in the 1920's, documenting the last untouched Eskimo culture (I know, we're supposed to say "Inuit" now, but he used that term). These people were always on the edge of starvation or death from hypothermia. If they got too old, they'd just hang themselves.

Knud was listening to a story by one of the eskimo hunters, which was an allegory of hardship - in the form of a drama between a fox and a wolf, but he (Knud, the westerner) couldn't figure out the meaning of the story. Here's a quote from his book:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This seemed an odd sort of ending, and I said as much. "what is it supposed to mean exactly?" I asked.

"h'm, well," answered Netsit, "we don't really trouble ourselves so much about the meaning of a story, as long as it is amusing. It is only the white men who must always have reasons and meanings in everything. And that is why our elders always say we should treat white men as children who always want their own way. If they don't get it, they make no end of a fuss."

I left it at that.

[rick stoehrer]

...When I read about the accident, my gut reaction was to feel what they must've felt. I've been mildly hypothermic at times, through my own stupidity. I can't imagine ending up in that state where you go through hell of uncontrollable shakes, and then, all of a sudden, feel like it's OK to let go and die. It scares the daylights out of me....

i think that you and i are talking in the same string but of separate incidents....you of howes and i am referring to plum island awhile back.

in regards to PI, to quote a local radio guy "you're making my point" when you say "it scares the daylights out of me."

imho, during the plum island incident, the 2 gentlemen kept fear/panic under control when faced with an honest to goodness "we'd better make the right decisions here" juncture. yes, they did fall back on training and through that training, experience and luck, had gear that aided their efforts BUT the first thing they apparently did was NOT freeze up in a panic, "scared silly." they dealt with fear (and they may or may not have been feeling any at the time given that they were quite occupied) in NOT wasting time <much/any> with fear/panic; in not freezing up in a moment, they fell back to training and experience. they did not blink; they acted.

make more sense?

and i was hesitant to post this explanaition given that i really like that eskimo story....but then felt bad cause you asked a question...so there you go!

[djlewis]

...they dealt with fear (and they may or may not have been feeling any at the time given that they were quite occupied) in NOT wasting time <much/any> with fear/panic; in not freezing up in a moment, they fell back to training and experience. they did not blink; they acted.

In fact, I'd guess (and for our sake, hope) that the very training and experience was a crucial factor that enabled them to overcome the potential debilitating effects of fear. "Gee, we've been here before, even if it was only training or scenarios practice." IOW, we train and practice not only to gain skills, but also to become familiar with what it feels like to be in trouble, just in case...

--David.

[JohnHuth]

Rick -

OK, *now* it makes sense. I guess I wasn't following the thread closely enough to realize that you were talking about the Plum Island incident. So, now it all hangs together thematically for me - thanks for the clarification.

You raise an interesting point, that I've heard before. Maybe this is old news, but I thought I'd mention it. There's a book, titled "Deep Survival" by Laurence Gonzales. (spelling may be off on the name). He analyzes the psychological characteristics of people in survival situations - the characteristics of people who don't make it, and those who survive. There are some great examples in there, including the famous Siula Grande accident involving Joe Simpson (Touching the Void).

The typical characteristics of people who survive are that they tend to "open up" to what's happening around them. Their perceptions are heightened. Even in times of total crisis, they somehow have a huge awareness that the adrenaline gives them. The flip side of the coin is a "shut-down" mode, where actions are random, the they tend to shut off themselves from their surroundings. I found it interesting how the psychological characteristics went in almost diametrically opposite directions - opening up perceptions versus shutting them down.

"Deep Survival" is actually a great read, unto itself.

Best,

John H.

[rick stoehrer]

not sure what the diff is between "fast reply" and "add reply"?

anyways -

john - that sounds like an interesting read - thanks for the suggestion. reading fastnet force 10 right now about a sailboat race held under some extreme conditions and it too is very good.

david - i would argue that you don't train to a feeling...you train to the scenario - out of yor boat, have to do a tow, etc., and those are held mostly under "safe" and controlled conditions and no one is in mortal peril. which is not to say some haven't felt that way, but i'd guess not.

we train to a scenario and just because someone is able to perform 1-2-3 in a controlled learning opportunity does not mean that they will do those same things while under extreme duress and without a safety net as exists in scenario training.

train, train, train but in a real life/death situation, it is not being locked up and consumed by fear that first lets you even fall back on that training. it helps, it might get you through...but first you gotta process to it.

what's that first line of the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy? don't panic, or something like that?

[Bill Gwynn]

not sure what the diff is between "fast reply" and "add reply"?

http://www.nspn.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=3741

[EEL]

train, train, train but in a real life/death situation, it is not being locked up and consumed by fear that first lets you even fall back on that training. it helps, it might get you through...but first you gotta process to it.

Not surprisingly, the military has done studies on this. Basically, training is good, realistic training which closely approximates real situations is better. However, it is almost impossible to ascertain how people will perform under the stress of actual combat even among well trained persons.

I suspect other members who have the experiences will agree that while both live fire exercises and being under fire are both stressful; the pucker factor of the former is not even remotely close to that of the latter.

As to training preventing disasters, I remember an IDF officer saying how he did everything exactly right and everything was done according to their training, but he still lost every tank in his squadron in five minutes. Better trained than untrained, but you can always get the chop.

Ed Lawson

[Gcosloy]

not sure what the diff is between "fast reply" and "add reply"?

anyways -

john - that sounds like an interesting read - thanks for the suggestion. reading fastnet force 10 right now about a sailboat race held under some extreme conditions and it too is very good.

david - i would argue that you don't train to a feeling...you train to the scenario - out of yor boat, have to do a tow, etc., and those are held mostly under "safe" and controlled conditions and no one is in mortal peril. which is not to say some haven't felt that way, but i'd guess not.

we train to a scenario and just because someone is able to perform 1-2-3 in a controlled learning opportunity does not mean that they will do those same things while under extreme duress and without a safety net as exists in scenario training.

train, train, train but in a real life/death situation, it is not being locked up and consumed by fear that first lets you even fall back on that training. it helps, it might get you through...but first you gotta process to it.

what's that first line of the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy? don't panic, or something like that?

I was tempted to write something similar to David's post but then I got to thinking that training to a scenario involves more than the cognitive portion of the brain. If you do enough of it, the lizard brain or brain stem takes over and triggers body memory or what some call muscle memory. One way to avoid fear taking over is to operate on auto pilot, which is the point of some training. The eskimo roll is a good example of this. Paddlers who do it well are no longer processing the several counter intuitive steps it takes to do it successfully.

[jonsprag1]

training is good, keeping your head and not panicking is also good but in the end the ocean is stronger than all of us combined. The best training we can have is that which developes the sense of judgement as to whether you go or not---but that also takes strength of character, particularly in a group situation where many want to go. And I'll be the first to admit, its a very fine line between being timid and being smart. If we never challenge ourselves, our sport becomes very dull and we might as well be playing golf. If we continually push ourselves beyond safe limits into life threatening situations we will wish we had taken up golf.

[PeterB]

This article on "risk homeostasis" is, I believe, worth reading and has some measure of relevance to the discussion here.

http://www.wavelengthmagazine.com/2006/am06hom.php

[jonsprag1]

Link doesn't work---would like to read article however.