CAM Model and making it WORK

[rick stoehrer]

Clearly, this needs to be reviewed.

Location to be determined...tentative date JUNE 27

Post interest so we can gauge how many folks need to coach/instruct.

[alcoons]

Clearly, this needs to be reviewed.

Location to be determined...tentative date JUNE 27

Post interest so we can gauge how many folks need to coach/instruct.

Rick.

I wonder if you meant to select the same day as the Solstice Paddles?

Al

[Suz]

Clearly, this needs to be reviewed.

Location to be determined...tentative date JUNE 27

Post interest so we can gauge how many folks need to coach/instruct.

June 27 is the Solstice Paddle Picnic. So, this needs to be discussed on line and perhaps no way to practice ahead of time in person prior to having a really large group of people on the water.

(Unfortunately with the change of date of the celebration of the Solstice, I will be working and not able to attend and I am really bummed.)

[rick stoehrer]

June 27 is the Solstice Paddle Picnic. So, this needs to be discussed on line and perhaps no way to practice ahead of time in person prior to having a really large group of people on the water.

(Unfortunately with the change of date of the celebration of the Solstice, I will be working and not able to attend and I am really bummed.)

2 suggestions...either we do it BEFORE the solstice paddle and then integrate (and this seems to be a disconnect at least in one case) theory into practice OR we change the date.

so if we don't want to do it before the solstice paddle...what about sunday the 21st? 28th? sooner would be better than later.

[ayong]

2 suggestions...either we do it BEFORE the solstice paddle and then integrate (and this seems to be a disconnect at least in one case) theory into practice OR we change the date.

so if we don't want to do it before the solstice paddle...what about sunday the 21st? 28th? sooner would be better than later.

Would it not be more fruitful to have the discussion on-line, so more people could add their views and give us more time to think over the questions posed? Clearly, NSPNers (usually) think a lot...

Tom

[rick stoehrer]

Would it not be more fruitful to have the discussion on-line, so more people could add their views and give us more time to think over the questions posed? Clearly, NSPNers (usually) think a lot...

Tom

problem seems to be lots of thinking and not too much doing....

beach briefing

who's in the group, what are the resources we have? who has what? what's the weather, what's the tide/current/sea state? where are we going, when do we expect to be there? are we all on board that this is a common goal, that we all have the same destination, goals in mind?

how big is the group, how are we going to manage the group so we don't lose track of anyone? do we have a radio frequency if we do become too far separated?

on the water

who is point? who is sweep? how far apart is the group? how many times have you taken a head count? do you know where everyone is? if someone is not in the group - why? where are they? who is with them? when are they coming back? is the group staying in present location awaiting them? if they aren't back in X minutes, when do you go find them or make contact with them on the radio? if you can't make radio contact, what do you do? did you talk about that before they left?

this past weekend is a shining example of the limitations of GEAR. radio's and this and that and the other freakin' thing...all of it isn't worth hang all without that hat rack on our shoulders - let's just use our collective heads. group, no one alone, have a plan in a nutshell seems like it woulda prevented the excitement.

cam doesn't say that anyONE is responsible...it says EVERYone is EQUALLY responsible on a trip...and as a group they required the cg and local authorities...all of whom we can be sure are reviewing the event in their own training and responses...and the limitations of GEAR over basic group and safety precautions.

so what i am suggesting is that we again meet and paddle and walk through all the ways that this sort of failure (little f - little excitement, everyone home safe and sound eventually) can keep from becoming a Failure (big F - someone DOESN'T come back)

mr crangle once put it more eloquently but the gist of it is that the only thing we need be sure of is that we all made it back to shore.

[tyson]

Lets see if I can quote and reference from the Trip Reports board:

and i disagree with some of what you said...not the least of which is how a head count wouldn't help and that the radio's didn't work...actually, sounds like they worked exactly how you should expect a hand held vhf no more than 2 feet or 5 and change if standing ought to work in an area with mutliple dunes and obstructions to block the line of site transmissions.

You use strong language here and I feel it is appropriate that you explain it. You've put some effort into the radios, but I've not seen any explanation for your comments about head count.

this past weekend is a shining example of the limitations of GEAR.

I hope that as newbie to the group, I'm not overstepping my bounds here, but I believe that this hits the core of the problem.

Gear fails. Even when it doesn't fail, it often doesn't perform. I have done crossings that would have been very risky if my GPS failed due to visibility, winds and currents. However, the plan was a fail-safe exit that I can perform with a map and compass if the GPS did fail.

Here, "gear" was used after the fact to communicate that a member of the group was separating. Because the gear performed poorly, that communication was poor. Had there been a one-on-one discussion that verified what intentions where, including pointing fingers at destinations, it is likely that the navigation error would have been caught before it was started. Additionally, the communication should have gone much further than "I'm going over there to get a bite to eat". It needs to be a full "float plan" that ends in search and rescue of the person separating doesn't return when expected. ...which requires knowing when to expect them.

Since aviation was mentioned, the best analogy from aviation is flight on instruments and interaction with air traffic control (ATC). In this case, ATC is responsible for keeping an eye on the flight and either knowing that it ended safely or calling out the troops when that point the plan is reached. All Instrument Flight Plans (and ATC clearances) are complete to a terminating condition. If communications are lost, it is demanded that the pilot stick to the plan filed with ATC and notify of his safe arrival. The only exception is an emergency. This is not possible if a terminating condition for the plan is not defined.

If weather/visibility/rules permit, a pilot is permitted to end his "contract" with ATC. This is a clear communication and confirmation then results in ATC no longer being responsible for looking out for your safety. You are on your own and if you don't show up, it is assumed that you just changed plans.

I would like to kindly suggest that the group was far to enamored with their radios. It seemed that radios were used for constant updates instead of having a plan. This problem is compounded by the poor communications over the radios, so any plans that are discussed are not well communicated or reviewed.

Had the trip to shore been well communicated and reviewed, we would have known when to look and where to look. Additionally, this mis-orienteering would have been caught.

I hope my comments are useful. Constructive review enhances safety and I do look forward to future trips with this group.

Cheers!

Ty

[rick stoehrer]

Lets see if I can quote and reference from the Trip Reports board:

You use strong language here and I feel it is appropriate that you explain it. You've put some effort into the radios, but I've not seen any explanation for your comments about head count.

I hope that as newbie to the group, I'm not overstepping my bounds here, but I believe that this hits the core of the problem.

Cheers!

Ty

the radio's worked within reason for a hand held vhf with a max of 5 watts held at anywhere between 2 and 5 feet given that there are all kinds of obstructions in the area.

as for headcount, it works. count the heads. if it's the same # you had when you left, good. if not, then someone is missing. why would you assume that the solo paddler admitting to not feeling 100% is okay if you can't see them? why isn't there a shepherd, a plan...something in place BEFORE that person leaves to ensure that the person is okay? with the aid of a chart that BOTH are looking at BEFORE that person leaves, the conversation goes something like "ok...we're here, you're going here...and you're coming back when? and using frequency... and if we can't reach you, we'll come find you if we haven't heard from you by? and you stay put and wait on us" sort of thing.

rarely do you split the group on the water if you're "leading" and never without a solid plan in place. there was no plan - there was only a piece of kit that revealed it's limitations.

i feel that's a critique and suggestion and not strong language.

[tyson]

the radio's worked within reason for a hand held vhf with a max of 5 watts held at anywhere between 2 and 5 feet given that there are all kinds of obstructions in the area.

as for headcount, it works. count the heads. if it's the same # you had when you left, good. if not, then someone is missing. why would you assume that the solo paddler admitting to not feeling 100% is okay if you can't see them? why isn't there a shepherd, a plan...something in place BEFORE that person leaves to ensure that the person is okay? with the aid of a chart that BOTH are looking at BEFORE that person leaves, the conversation goes something like "ok...we're here, you're going here...and you're coming back when? and using frequency... and if we can't reach you, we'll come find you if we haven't heard from you by? and you stay put and wait on us" sort of thing.

rarely do you split the group on the water if you're "leading" and never without a solid plan in place. there was no plan - there was only a piece of kit that revealed it's limitations.

i feel that's a critique and suggestion and not strong language.

...and an excellent critique and suggestion it is! :-)

Planning and communication failed. Radios did what radios do.

I think that the conflict about head count comments is that head count actually succeeded in this case. We did figure out that someone had left the group. Unfortunately, they left without communicating and reviewing a plan and poor radio communications were accepted instead.

Cheers!

Ty

[rick stoehrer]

...and an excellent critique and suggestion it is! :-)

Planning and communication failed. Radios did what radios do.

I think that the conflict about head count comments is that head count actually succeeded in this case. We did figure out that someone had left the group. Unfortunately, they left without communicating and reviewing a plan and poor radio communications were accepted instead.

Cheers!

Ty

okay, i see your point. so the group understood that someone was missing but since there was no coordination / plan, then things got discombobulated (a technical term) and gene is left sorta swinging in the wind.

so i guess the thing this highlights is HOW you try to maintain group control? beach briefing - have a plan...on water coordination with head counts and then if one comes up short...now what? that's the part didn't work out too well from the sounds of things...the now what?

in a group last year down in ct we were teaching...fella says he can't hang in the current...so telling the other folks leading first what i was going to do and what was going on i brought him to shore 100 yards away and tell him, sit here, do not get back in your boat and we'll comm on channel 69....when you're ready to come out, hail me and i'll come to you and we'll paddle out together. once i was back on the water, i verified he could hear me on the radio...he could. he was never out of my sight. later he called, i came, we went back out.

so there was a plan that involved the radio BUT had the radio failed, the plan woulda still worked....i knew WHERE he was cause i brought him...he was TOLD DO NOT LEAVE the beach...i could SEE him and we could COMMUNICATE on the radio over the unobstructed hundred yeards.....and i was still uncomfortable with him that far away...and that plan still mighta failed.

gene...glad you had an exciting day and made it to shore safely...don't get too upset that your name keeps coming up...it's only to highlight what we could all (me too) do better.

[Gcosloy]

gene...glad you had an exciting day and made it to shore safely...don't get too upset that your name keeps coming up...it's only to highlight what we could all (me too) do better.

Rick-Well I think we at least had a practical demo of the limits of radios. This is not the first time that this has happened on the water. As far as being a bit self-conscious over this-yes I am a little but I can handle it if some serious discussion occurs and helps improve our CAM trips in the future.

[rossjb1]

Heres what happened from my perspective, it was known that Gene had headed back to shore. When we arrived back at the put-in (approximately 3:30?) Tom noticed that his car was still parked next to his. From that point on we were determined to wait until his return (thanks Deb). We scanned the water while others drove up the hill for a better view but there was still no sign of him. A returning kayaker as well as a tri-yaking couple had not seen him either. We received info from Ipswich police that a kayaker was being assisted on the beach. We waited a short while longer, wrote a note with mine and Tom’s numbers on it, placed it on his car, then headed out for ice cream just outside of town. Rob and I returned to Ipswich, checked in with the police who informed us that the Kayaker being assisted was OK. Rob and I then headed back to the put in to see if we could assist Gene upon his return (helping with boat etc.). Still no sign of him. We waited but finally decided there was really nothing more we could do at that point. I returned to the police station to make sure that we were talking about the same kayaker. They referred me to the CG. I called the CG at 6:00 and got confirmation that it was indeed Gene and the he was OK. I offered my assistance to drive him and his boat back to the put-in but they informed me that his wife was picking him up. I drove into Newburyport on my way home and passed by the CG station. (I naively thought that I could “pop†in to see if he was OK, of course the place was fenced off with lots of imposing fences and no trespassing signs).

It seems that the incident could have been avoided had Gene been accompanied back to shore with at least 1-2 other people. But I do now have questions about the groups responsibility to a paddler who decides to head back or to leave the group. Perhaps this is where the person heading back as well as his/her fellow paddlers need to take responsibility. “I need to head back and would like someone to accompany†or “I will accompany you until a point when I can visually see you safely landing at the beach or put inâ€.

I would also like to point out that the CAM system needs some tweeking but to some extent it did work. We noticed a fellow paddler who stated he would be returning to shore had not returned. After that we waited and then proceeded to make every effort to find him (visually searching and calling on the radio) and then alerted authorities of the situation. We followed through until we were certain that he was safe.

I am keeping abreast of these postings so that I will know how to avoid this type of situation again either as a "trip initiator" or one who simply joins an already posted trip.

Ross

Gene, this could have happened to anyone of us at some point in our paddling careers. Its good that it is helping us to work out the kinks of the CAM system.

[rick stoehrer]

Heres what happened from my perspective, it was known that Gene had headed back to shore. When we arrived back at the put-in (approximately 3:30?) Tom noticed that his car was still parked next to his. From that point on we were determined to wait until his return (thanks Deb). We scanned the water while others drove up the hill for a better view but there was still no sign of him. A returning kayaker as well as a tri-yaking couple had not seen him either. We received info from Ipswich police that a kayaker was being assisted on the beach. We waited a short while longer, wrote a note with mine and Tom’s numbers on it, placed it on his car, then headed out for ice cream just outside of town. Rob and I returned to Ipswich, checked in with the police who informed us that the Kayaker being assisted was OK. Rob and I then headed back to the put in to see if we could assist Gene upon his return (helping with boat etc.). Still no sign of him. We waited but finally decided there was really nothing more we could do at that point. I returned to the police station to make sure that we were talking about the same kayaker. They referred me to the CG. I called the CG at 6:00 and got confirmation that it was indeed Gene and the he was OK. I offered my assistance to drive him and his boat back to the put-in but they informed me that his wife was picking him up. I drove into Newburyport on my way home and passed by the CG station. (I naively thought that I could “pop†in to see if he was OK, of course the place was fenced off with lots of imposing fences and no trespassing signs).

It seems that the incident could have been avoided had Gene been accompanied back to shore with at least 1-2 other people. But I do now have questions about the groups responsibility to a paddler who decides to head back or to leave the group. Perhaps this is where the person heading back as well as his/her fellow paddlers need to take responsibility. “I need to head back and would like someone to accompany†or “I will accompany you until a point when I can visually see you safely landing at the beach or put inâ€.

I would also like to point out that the CAM system needs some tweeking but to some extent it did work. We noticed a fellow paddler who stated he would be returning to shore had not returned. After that we waited and then proceeded to make every effort to find him (visually searching and calling on the radio) and then alerted authorities of the situation. We followed through until we were certain that he was safe.

I am keeping abreast of these postings so that I will know how to avoid this type of situation again either as a "trip initiator" or one who simply joins an already posted trip.

Ross

Gene, this could have happened to anyone of us at some point in our paddling careers. Its good that it is helping us to work out the kinks of the CAM system.

no one is bashing you as the trip initiator or anyone else...simply asking what has been revealed and further question if your idea of cam worked to it's fullest extent....it seems like you guys ran circles trying to determine his safety AFTER the fact but took inadequate precaution to avoid the situation in the first place. no one is saying you didn't do everything you could to find him once you saw his car on the beach....you acted reasonably and took laudable measures at that point.

what i'd ask is that since you were there...what would you or anyone there have done differently in hindsight? so do that next time.

[rossjb1]

No, I didn't take it as bashing at all, just staying involved in the discussion to avoid future incidents such as this. Wanted to clarify what happened and detailing the steps that we took afterward especially since I posted the trip. Of course this is a learning experience for all of us.

Ross

[Gillian]

I just wanted to make a point here. There seems to be a lot of focus on Gene deciding to leave the group which led to the group moving on without checking he was with them. Now I wasn't there, but I do know I've paddled with Gene a number of times, as have most folks in NSPN, and never once have seen him leave the group. The impression I got was that he decided to take a snack break on the beach. Whether or not that was understood, or perhaps even incorrect, consider what may cause a person to take a break or leave the group:

a) fear of conditions

nervousness

c) diabetic shock - i'm not kidding, have you ever seen someone who's insulin just dropped? they're confused, not making much sense, start acting strangly etc. etc.

So if Gene "left the group" which everyone has stated was not advised by the paddlers on the water, the first thought may have been that either he's frightend of the conditions, he's in over his head, or something may be wrong with him physically. However it seems that none of these scenarios occured to the group.

None of these above mentioned things may be what happened, but had someone I've known (and you all know Gene) who tends not to paddle alone and usually goes on group trips, decided all of a sudden to "leave the group" I would be more worried about something perhaps being wrong, and less inclined to let that person go off on their own.

Just my 2 cents, after re-reading some of this.

[Suz]

I just wanted to make a point here. There seems to be a lot of focus on Gene deciding to leave the group which led to the group moving on without checking he was with them. Now I wasn't there, but I do know I've paddled with Gene a number of times, as have most folks in NSPN, and never once have seen him leave the group. The impression I got was that he decided to take a snack break on the beach. Whether or not that was understood, or perhaps even incorrect, consider what may cause a person to take a break or leave the group:

a) fear of conditions

nervousness

c) diabetic shock - i'm not kidding, have you ever seen someone who's insulin just dropped? they're confused, not making much sense, start acting strangly etc. etc.

So if Gene "left the group" which everyone has stated was not advised by the paddlers on the water, the first thought may have been that either he's frightend of the conditions, he's in over his head, or something may be wrong with him physically. However it seems that none of these scenarios occured to the group.

None of these above mentioned things may be what happened, but had someone I've known (and you all know Gene) who tends not to paddle alone and usually goes on group trips, decided all of a sudden to "leave the group" I would be more worried about something perhaps being wrong, and less inclined to let that person go off on their own.

Just my 2 cents, after re-reading some of this.

Good thoughts here.

Suz

[bob budd]

Gene elected to go to shore for a bite. He admits it was an error in (his) judgement to go off on his own. It does not constitute "leaving the group" and things fell apart when he could no longer communicate with the group.

Consider the incident Rick described following someone to their safe place of rest, etc. An individual is within their rights to do as they please, however, there are times when they are not capable of making sound decisions. It is difficult to accurately assess someones condition and there are no indications that anyone was negligent in this regard. This is a reminder to pay closer attention to someone who wants to go off alone, i.e. convince them to raft up for their snack, go with them, etc. Perhaps an equally important "duty assignment" to point, sweep, etc. would be "designated driver" to take care of this sort of thing.

Another thing I often forget to do is to survey the put-in area and the area I am paddling for landmarks for return. Especially when in a big group, its easy to get caught up in the enthusiasm and forget some essential procedures. Taking a moment or two acclimate to your surrounds can increase your understanding of where you are and improve your safety margin.

[alcoons]

An individual is within their rights to do as they please, however, there are times when they are not capable of making sound decisions.

There is a more common problem I have experienced under the CAM model (which I think overall has worked well for me). It has to do with helping someone who is tired or not comfortable with the group goals of a trip when we are part way through the trip.

-----

Example from last year: We added a lighthouse to a trip that had not been part of the trip route. Things were fine on the way back and we stopped for a break. The group wanted to continue on to the original last waypoint before heading for home. This added a considerable distance to the straight-to-the-take-out route. I knew I could make it but also thought it was a lot further than the group realized. More importantly, I felt that one of the group members was very tired and it would be inappropriate for that member to go to the waypoint. However, that member did not want to hold the group back and was not vocal about his condition.

Main Point: I found that someone has to ask a direct question rather than a general one. What I mean is not only asking:

"How do you guys feel about going to the waypoint and then back. It is a long way?"

but also saying to the the apparently tired member, "How do you feel about doubling the distance back to 6 more miles?"

The paddler responded to this direct question by saying he was tired and wanted to go direct. We could have split the group (it was large) but we all went direct, got caught against some unexpected flow and were very very happy to have gone direct.

-----

Another very common example. Paddle out to the mouth of Marblehead Harbor with a 2+/3-. Planning on going out in Salem Sound. Conditions are a bigger than expected, but not out of hand. The general questions is:

"Where do we want to go? Out past Childrens' to Baker? What do you think?"

You hear lots of "YUPS". However, you notice the new paddlers did not respond.

The direct question is:

"Anyone uncomfortable with the conditions we can see out in the Bay?" Then a valuable conversation happens about the sensible choice. Usually paddlers are comforted and go and it is great, but we have also decided to change the route and head for the Willows since we have a much more protected route with bail-out options.

------

So while everyone is responsible for themselves, I think the vocal, decision focusers (yup...made up that term) need to ask direct questions. It is not true that everyone knows themselves well or will be vocal about their fears, particularly at the lower levels when you still do not have enough experience to evaluate what is happening.

[subaruguru]

There is a more common problem I have experienced under the CAM model (which I think overall has worked well for me). It has to do with helping someone who is tired or not comfortable with the group goals of a trip when we are part way through the trip.

-----

Example from last year: We added a lighthouse to a trip that had not been part of the trip route. Things were fine on the way back and we stopped for a break. The group wanted to continue on to the original last waypoint before heading for home. This added a considerable distance to the straight-to-the-take-out route. I knew I could make it but also thought it was a lot further than the group realized. More importantly, I felt that one of the group members was very tired and it would be inappropriate for that member to go to the waypoint. However, that member did not want to hold the group back and was not vocal about his condition.

Main Point: I found that someone has to ask a direct question rather than a general one. What I mean is not only asking:

"How do you guys feel about going to the waypoint and then back. It is a long way?"

but also saying to the the apparently tired member, "How do you feel about doubling the distance back to 6 more miles?"

The paddler responded to this direct question by saying he was tired and wanted to go direct. We could have split the group (it was large) but we all went direct, got caught against some unexpected flow and were very very happy to have gone direct.

-----

Another very common example. Paddle out to the mouth of Marblehead Harbor with a 2+/3-. Planning on going out in Salem Sound. Conditions are a bigger than expected, but not out of hand. The general questions is:

"Where do we want to go? Out past Childrens' to Baker? What do you think?"

You hear lots of "YUPS". However, you notice the new paddlers did not respond.

The direct question is:

"Anyone uncomfortable with the conditions we can see out in the Bay?" Then a valuable conversation happens about the sensible choice. Usually paddlers are comforted and go and it is great, but we have also decided to change the route and head for the Willows since we have a much more protected route with bail-out options.

------

So while everyone is responsible for themselves, I think the vocal, decision focusers (yup...made up that term) need to ask direct questions. It is not true that everyone knows themselves well or will be vocal about their fears, particularly at the lower levels when you still do not have enough experience to evaluate what is happening.

Al,

Thanks for your extremely fine point!

I take note too of Scott and Rick's comments re the requirement to accompany a group-leaver back to shore, and wonder if it's overkill to have TWO paddlers ferrying, so that no-one is alone on the return trip to the main group as well?

This is my reasoning for having even "escort" groups be composed of a minimum of three paddlers.

Your take?

Ern