Pavilion and the Elephant in the room!

[Gcosloy]

I've started a new topic because I'd like a reply from the paddlers who were out with me Saturday in Ipswich Bay. No one else needs to reply. I don't really want to hear anymore "Gene lost Gene" from the peanut gallery. I'm a little amused that in reading the posts, some of my fellow paddlers are "offended". I guess now I'm not alone. Let me tell you what bothers me: No one seems to want to discuss the elephant in the room: When we all launched from Pavilion I heard someone casually call out "Radios on 72 right!" When I radioed that I was taking a break from the group I said I would rejoin the group. What followed was a garbled response. Repeated attempts to clarify communication resulted in the same undecipherable response. I know from the several posts that someone knew I was trying to communicate with the group and heard me fine! Who was the paddler that received my transmissions? Did he or she notify any one else that I couldn't get responses from their radio? Why did this person not ask another paddler to use their radio or to try communicating with me? I asked that this be done several times! How many of you had radios? How many were on? If so who else heard my requests for location information and complaints that I couldn't understand responses? My radio seemed fine. I know that because I had very clear transmission both ways with the CG on 16 and 12. I must have called you guys on 72 a half dozen times before giving up and paddling toward what I thought was our put in. Even half way to Newburyport before calling the CG I called again requesting an escort or tow or both from you guys. Unless some or all step up and answer these questions nothing much more can be learned from this episode, other than "Gene lost Gene". On a personal note-I don't blame or hold anyone responsible for what they did or did not do that day. I do want answers to these questions however and while I'm not trying to put anyone on the spot I do think you have an obligation if not to me than to the larger paddling community to answer them. Come on guys and gal-Did you have a radio? Was it on? What did you hear? What did you do? Should be easy to answer!

[Larry2002]

I posted this on the other thread, not realizing it moved:

I had heard Gene on the radio saying he was planning to go into shore. I watch the surfing fanatics for a while then noticed Gene wasn't around any more. It was at that time that I and several others contacted Gene and he said he was nearing shore. I set off in search of Gene a short while after that. Unfortunately, my radio transmitions were garbled and although I could hear and understand Gene, he couldn’t understand me. I paddled over to the nearest beach (Crane?) and didn’t see him so I paddled over to Plum Island. As I approached the western point, I could have sworn I saw Gene leaving the eastern point. I tried to contact him, but no one was responding to the crap coming out of my radio (the radio is less than a year old, this really pi**es me off). It looked like he was headed back to the group so I landed on the western point and changed into a dry set of clothes. From what I can guess, Gene headed north.

Larry

[ayong]

I've started a new topic because I'd like a reply from the paddlers who were out with me Saturday in Ipswich Bay. No one else needs to reply. I don't really want to hear anymore "Gene lost Gene" from the peanut gallery. I'm a little amused that in reading the posts, some of my fellow paddlers are "offended". I guess now I'm not alone. Let me tell you what bothers me: No one seems to want to discuss the elephant in the room: When we all launched from Pavilion I heard someone casually call out "Radios on 72 right!" When I radioed that I was taking a break from the group I said I would rejoin the group. What followed was a garbled response. Repeated attempts to clarify communication resulted in the same undecipherable response. I know from the several posts that someone knew I was trying to communicate with the group and heard me fine! Who was the paddler that received my transmissions? Did he or she notify any one else that I couldn't get responses from their radio? Why did this person not ask another paddler to use their radio or to try communicating with me? I asked that this be done several times! How many of you had radios? How many were on? If so who else heard my requests for location information and complaints that I couldn't understand responses? My radio seemed fine. I know that because I had very clear transmission both ways with the CG on 16 and 12. I must have called you guys on 72 a half dozen times before giving up and paddling toward what I thought was our put in. Even half way to Newburyport before calling the CG I called again requesting an escort or tow or both from you guys. Unless some or all step up and answer these questions nothing much more can be learned from this episode, other than "Gene lost Gene". On a personal note-I don't blame or hold anyone responsible for what they did or did not do that day. I do want answers to these questions however and while I'm not trying to put anyone on the spot I do think you have an obligation if not to me than to the larger paddling community to answer them. Come on guys and gal-Did you have a radio? Was it on? What did you hear? What did you do? Should be easy to answer!

Gene

I heard a conversation between you and a garbled radio; you said you were on a beach. I couldn't make out which end of which beach you were on, but there was no indication of distress and I could not break in to the garbled transmissions--nor did I have any idea who's radio was involved, so I couldn't pursue the matter, nor see a need to. Then I heard you transmit that you were heading from the beach to the put-in, with no indication of distress, so I assumed you were on your own in benign conditions. I never heard any of your distress signals later when you tell us that you requested a tow and/or location information...nor did you hear any of my attempts to raise you from Pavilion beach. It is possible that by that time you were on the east side of plum island, with transmissions not getting to pavilion beach. When a group drove to the top of Little Neck to look for you, perhaps that would have been the time to attempt a transmission.

If you'd let any of us clearly know when you left the pod that you were heading off, it would have been easier to put your later transmissions in context; all we had was your statement that you were on a beach.

Sorry you had such a rough day. It could happen to anyone, I know that I get awfully bewildered out there sometimes...

Tom

[Rob Hazard]

Gene,

I had a radio with me but never turned it on. I did not hear that question "Radios on 72, right?" that you heard, and given that we were just playing in the mouth of the harbor, frankly, I didn't see any need for radios. Call it a classic "false sense of security" if you like. I simply did not perceive our surfing session as a situation calling for radios.

In hindsight, of course, I wish I'd had it turned on.

Rob

[hoppy09]

I also did not here radios on 72 my radio was on and on69 after I noticed you missing and was told you went to the beach and radioed you were there I realized I was on the wrong chanel and switched to 72 .

[dogfish]

1. FCC requires that if you have a Marine Radio and it is on you are

> required to monitor channel 16.

>

> 2. No radio is ever a required or recommended safety tool

>

> 3. No piece of radio direction finding equipment will ever find you

> unless they happen to be sitting really close by

>

> 4. take a navigation class paddling for 8 miles and not know where

> you are heading is just not a prudent thing to do.

>

> 5. If you were in distress why did you not utilize your visual

> distress signals? So people could find you.

>

> 6. where was your float plan. More importantly who did you call to

> update it?

>

> 7. if you weren't surfing with everyone else why did you do a beach

> landing in a dumping surf? Surely you know how to land in a no

> landing zone?

>

> 9. How are your risk assessment skills?

>

> 10. Please take a look at the information in this link.

> http://a013.uscgaux.info/OPPS_09.htm

>

>

> 11. Please also come to Endicott Park in Danvers Ma Saturday between

> 11 - 2 where you can discuss safety and radio equipment.

>

[bob budd]

Am I the only who doesn't see "take a navigation class paddling for 8 miles and not know where you are heading is just not a prudent thing to do.", etc. as contributing/germain to the discussion?

[Gillian]

Am I the only who doesn't see "take a navigation class paddling for 8 miles and not know where you are heading is just not a prudent thing to do.", etc. as contributing/germain to the discussion?

yeah, i agree, i'm not sure who dogfish is, he or she just signed on this morning. most likely a member of the coast guard aux. i do feel that all comments and suggestions from the coast guard are welcome on the message board, considering they work their butts off helping boaters in distress. However the issue that we're curretnly focusing on are the discrepancies between the group's thought that gene was leaving the paddle vs. gene thinking he was taking a break and coming right back, and the decisions that happened after that point. i agree that paddling for 8 miles not knowing where you're going is being sort of outside of the heart of conversation. i think everyone including gene, would say paddling for 8 miles in the wrong direction is not something anyone would wish for or hope to do - it happens when a paddler turns around and/or is in distress, which Gene has already expressly stated his own responsibility for.

[EEL]

1. FCC requires that if you have a Marine Radio and it is on you are

> required to monitor channel 16.

Technically this is correct and it is so easy to set radios to dual watch that even if group uses say 72 for comm there is no excuse for not following this requirement. However, I don't see that doing so would have made any difference in the situation under discussion.

> 2. No radio is ever a required or recommended safety tool

I believe a radio is a recommended device by the CG for reasons of safety, but on voluntary vessels it is not required.

> 3. No piece of radio direction finding equipment will ever find you

> unless they happen to be sitting really close by

The legacy CG distress system had no functional direction finding ability, but the new System 21 or whatever it is now called does. My understanding is the new system is operational in the CG district covering the area in question and can determine location from VHF transmissions. Of course DSC is much better. Regardless, they do not need to be on top of you using new system.

>

> 5. If you were in distress why did you not utilize your visual

> distress signals? So people could find you.

Correct me if I am wrong, but my assumption has been that visual distress signals such as flares and mirrors should be used only when a search has been commenced and you see those looking for you. Especially if you are carrying only three or four flares. I suppose if you are really in the deep dodo and no comm possible, then firing them off in the hope someone will see them is appropriate. Likely as useful as putting your head between....and kissing goodbye most of the time.

If you mean firing of red flares to signal a group, would that have been an appropriate or even legal act? I ask since I simply do not know if there are requirements for the level of distress to warrant firing off a flare. In other words, can flares be used when the appropriate radio call would be Pan and not Mayday as was the case here?

Ed Lawson

[tyson]

I had no radio. I didn't have flares either. I carry those when I leave shore for significant open water crossings and we had no plans to do so. I regard those tools as only a backup to deep water skills and risk mitigation.

My version of what happened is a head count was done by someone who had not heard Gene headed to a beach. Someone else reported that they had been in contact with him and that he was headed to a beach. Since I knew no one and everyone else knew everyone except me and everyone seemed to think that Gene was fine, I didn't worry. When we returned to Pavilion I caught on to the fact that Gene had earlier reported (somehow) that he was returning to Pavilion but his car was still there. We scanned the water. We (not me) drove south and and checked the river, we (not me) drove north and checked the sound, we asked everyone going in an out of the beach if they had seen anyone fitting Gene's description. There where boaters of all types all over the place. If Gene had been in the water, either he had already been found or he was somewhere that we never would have found him. We contacted authorities and found that they where somehow assisting a paddler fitting Gene's description.

On a day with flat water where we didn't go anywhere (launch point in sight), the clearing up to the "big house" on the hill clearly visible (an unambiguous land mark), what more where we supposed to do when an experienced paddler who is reported to know the area well heads off to a nearby beach in flat conditions without clearly communicating a complete plan first?

This was my first NSPN trip. Do they all result in this much conversation after? :-)

[jeffcasey]

This was my first NSPN trip. Do they all result in this much conversation after? :-)

No. We get about one event every 2-3 years that provokes controversy. You hit the jackpot.

[bob budd]

By now, Jeff has had at least two beers...

[rick stoehrer]

I had no radio. I didn't have flares either. I carry those when I leave shore for significant open water crossings and we had no plans to do so. I regard those tools as only a backup to deep water skills and risk mitigation.

My version of what happened is a head count was done by someone who had not heard Gene headed to a beach. Someone else reported that they had been in contact with him and that he was headed to a beach. Since I knew no one and everyone else knew everyone except me and everyone seemed to think that Gene was fine, I didn't worry. When we returned to Pavilion I caught on to the fact that Gene had earlier reported (somehow) that he was returning to Pavilion but his car was still there. We scanned the water. We (not me) drove south and and checked the river, we (not me) drove north and checked the sound, we asked everyone going in an out of the beach if they had seen anyone fitting Gene's description. There where boaters of all types all over the place. If Gene had been in the water, either he had already been found or he was somewhere that we never would have found him. We contacted authorities and found that they where somehow assisting a paddler fitting Gene's description.

On a day with flat water where we didn't go anywhere (launch point in sight), the clearing up to the "big house" on the hill clearly visible (an unambiguous land mark), what more where we supposed to do when an experienced paddler who is reported to know the area well heads off to a nearby beach in flat conditions without clearly communicating a complete plan first?

This was my first NSPN trip. Do they all result in this much conversation after? :-)

peanut gallery here...

every few years there's a cantankerous, nuclear event...suit up with the rad detector and wade on in...

as to the question on how far you need to accompany a paddler....if you can SEE them the entire way, if you KNOW where they're going and that they have the experience to get there in the conditions....and then you can SEE THEM GO there...should you or shouldn't you becomes a question on the day....probably....maybe. if it's a guided, led or paid trip then my feeling is positively, absolutely, no exception...THEN you have a duty of care. CAM groups are fuzzier....the idea is you slave yourslef to the group and the group slaves itself to you....you have a responsibility TO one another and not FOR one another - it's a shared experience.

NOW, IF that paddler said to someone in the group that they didn't want to participate, didn't want to be there and that they were going to leave alone AGAINST the advice of experienced judgement offered and then paddled miles and miles away...THEN, you have no more to do with it than any other boater that happens to be in the general vicinity...which is to say, nothing.

THEN, that guy would just be some jackass that got themselves into trouble.

[EEL]

peanut gallery here...

...THEN, you have no more to do with it than any other boater that happens to be in the general vicinity...which is to say, nothing.

Correct, but.....

there is a recognized provision of international maritime law that every vessel has the obligation and right to come to the assistance of another vessel in distress. The obligation and right arises only when the assisting vessel had a reasonable basis for knowing the distress situation existed. Leaving aside whether it was intended to or does apply to the event under discussion, something to consider since under maritime law each of us is the master of a vessel with the same rights and obligations, generally speaking, as say a large commercial ship's captain. And of course, no vessel is obligated to put itself or others at risk to assist another in distress. Which is also why the person to be rescued is often said to be at the bottom of the priority list.

Ed Lawson

[rick stoehrer]

Correct, but.....

there is a recognized provision of international maritime law that every vessel has the obligation and right to come to the assistance of another vessel in distress. The obligation and right arises only when the assisting vessel had a reasonable basis for knowing the distress situation existed. Leaving aside whether it was intended to or does apply to the event under discussion, something to consider since under maritime law each of us is the master of a vessel with the same rights and obligations, generally speaking, as say a large commercial ship's captain. And of course, no vessel is obligated to put itself or others at risk to assist another in distress. Which is also why the person to be rescued is often said to be at the bottom of the priority list.

Ed Lawson

IF a paddler were to leave the group and it's collective efforts, then i don't see how or why there would be a reasonable expectation of distress - especially if that took place on a crystal clear day, no sea state and within sight of the launch.

once a paddler decides to leave the CAM group on a separate journey (we're not talking about hitting the beach for lunch and then rejoining the group or anything like that.....a truly alternate voyage) then he is on his own.

and IF there is no obligation to have your radio ON and just to monitor 16 if you happen to have it on and then IF the remaining group is all clearly within sight of one another and can just talk to one another or signal, then the group might not even have radio's out, let alone on. then that solo paddler who chose to leave the groups voyage has no sure fire way to contact them again. then that paddler is like everyone elese and should just get on 16 if there is an on water emergency.

seems like anyways...

[Gillian]

"IF a paddler were to leave the group and it's collective efforts, then i don't see how or why there would be a reasonable expectation of distress - especially if that took place on a crystal clear day, no sea state and within sight of the launch."

Rick

"When I radioed that I was taking a break from the group I said I would rejoin the group."

Gene

Hey I gotta quick question, has this ever been resolved? It seems like some folks said Gene said he was going to go off and paddle by himself and leave the group, but in all of Gene's posts he says he was taking a snack break on the sandbar. I'm just wondering which is which? Did somebody or everybody misunderstand his intentions to go have a granola bar and come right back? Just curious as I'm trying to figure out what the heck I would have done in this scenario . . .

P.S. Rick I know in your quote you were just answering Ed and not implying that Gene went off on his own, your quote just reminded me that I was hoping for clarity on this . . .

[EEL]

seems like anyways...

Rick:

I agree. I did not mean to imply that in the incident being discussed there was or should have been any reasonable understanding of a distress situation. I was just discussing the issue of a vessel's obligation to assist.

Ed Lawson

[tyson]

By now, Jeff has had at least two beers...

I just found the context of that reply:

use of message board:

write your message. go get a beer. if you still want to post it after the beer is gone, go ahead and do it, otherwise delete.

:-) Love it!

...and it happens that I was just thinking about the things I'd like to chat about that would go so much better if we where sitting face to face over a good beer. It seems that its easier to offend where it wasn't intended or to offend where you would have kept things objective and constructive in a face to face context.

Since VHF seems to be a popular topic, I'll add two more cents. When I do carry my VHF, it is turned off except to check weather each morning or from time to time. I have no use for a VHF with dead batteries on a 5 day island hopping trip. ...yes I bring spares, but not 5 days worth!

I also fly. I learned to fly in an aircraft with no radio or even any electrical system beyond the magneto ignition and the thermocouple to drive the oil temperature guage. We would fly in small groups, often in formation. We'd plan before take off. We would pull up close enough to each other to talk. Yes! While flying!

I've found that the folks who are accustomed to flying without radios are very good at keeping their eye open and aware of their surroundings. With that skill they are able to see and avoid the people who are talking on their radios all the time and forgot to pay attention to what they are actually doing. Those that forgot to pay attention didn't realize that the position report they just gave was wrong.

Cheers!

Ty

[rylevine]

peanut gallery here...

NOW, IF that paddler said to someone in the group that they didn't want to participate, didn't want to be there and that they were going to leave alone AGAINST the advice of experienced judgement offered and then paddled miles and miles away...THEN, you have no more to do with it than any other boater that happens to be in the general vicinity...which is to say, nothing.

THEN, that guy would just be some jackass that got themselves into trouble.

Not that it is relevant in Gene's case: but what about diminished capacity, such as known to occur due to hypothermia but could also be caused by extreme exhaustion or some other condition? You may not be aware of the paddler's condition, and the entire sea kayaking enterprise is very intense. That is why we paddle as a group. As a group, we should give members the benefit of the doubt and arrange for their safe return even if it costs someone a few hours of paddling. There is always next weekend.

Bob

[rossjb1]

"write your message. go get a beer. if you still want to post it after the beer is gone, go ahead and do it, otherwise delete." YES.... Jeff I remember reading this post and have been thinking about it, great advice. Tyson thank you for researching and finding it. This should be the golden rule for all of us. If beer isn't your pleasure then have some milk and cookies. Just step away from the computer for a little while.

Ross

[Hal Boudreau]

After viewing all the responses and thinking of my own experiences, being a newbie, (3rd season of paddling, it takes a while before you can assume your a paddler (( 5yrs of on the water experience and pool sessions in between)) and even after that your still subject to things that can go wrong for you, as an individual, given your own limitations and experiences. You can not be prepared for all situations. You can not expect your group to be prepared for all situations. Even in calm conditions the ocean is dangerous, unforgiving, and foriegn to us in our view of the landscape at times...

I'm with Rick.....

IF that paddler said to someone in the group that they didn't want to participate, didn't want to be there and that they were going to leave alone AGAINST the advice of experienced judgement offered and then paddled miles and miles away...THEN, you have no more to do with it than any other boater that happens to be in the general vicinity...which is to say, nothing.

If I leave the group, than I should be responsable for my own safety. It shouldnt have to be AGAINST the advice of any judgement. I made the call, period......

[bob budd]

>1. FCC requires that if you have a Marine Radio and it is on you are

> required to monitor channel 16.

Like many regulations/laws this is not practical and/or actionable under many circumstances. See messages in this and other threads this regarding operation, range, many radios only do one channel, etc. If it was standard practice to fine, etc. carriers of non-compliant radios it would serve to reduce their usage and be counterproductive as regards safety.

> 2. No radio is ever a required or recommended safety tool

Agree not required, good to recommend though. Know how to use it and its limitations. It may fail you when you plan to use so know what your alternative are, etc.

> 3. No piece of radio direction finding equipment will ever find you

> unless they happen to be sitting really close by

While there may be no piece of radio equipment that is practical for a kayaker (small human-powered craft) to carry there are many pieces of radio equipment that effectively do the same thing. If you have a GPS unit and a cell phone and/or radio, you can get a ~10-15 feet and communicate your position to someone, obviously only if you can use the cell phone/radio. Devices such as SPOT beacon report position through satellites and allow someone to find you if they know where to look for your message, SPOT operates via URL and also sends e-mails.

> 4. take a navigation class paddling for 8 miles and not know where

> you are heading is just not a prudent thing to do.

Carefully reading the thread the paddler was starting from a different point than they thought. Perhaps they should have looked at the land features to figure this out but, especially where he was, there wasn't much to see in this regard. Local knowledge is probably the most significant information that he apparently lacked, provided there were enough clues from his vantage point to determine where he was. Still, he did employ some navigation skills to eventually determine where he was.

> 5. If you were in distress why did you not utilize your visual

> distress signals? So people could find you.

It seems likely that if noone was able to reach him on VHF when he was in distress it was also likely that noone was able to see them. They were either busy surfing or on their way back to the put-in.

> 6. where was your float plan. More importantly who did you call to

> update it?

Not sure if CAM=float plan. CAM experts please advise. He left the group planning to return so I don't see a reason to modify the plan at that point. Once on the beach and unable to make radio contact, etc. I'm not sure how he would have updated the float plan, if he had one.

> 7. if you weren't surfing with everyone else why did you do a beach

> landing in a dumping surf? Surely you know how to land in a no

> landing zone?

The beach landing in dumping surf was long after separation from the group and in the paddler was in a somewhat desparate state. Heading for land wasn't necessarily the worst choice at the time. There were humans on the beach, etc.

[Gcosloy]

I had no radio. I didn't have flares either. I carry those when I leave shore for significant open water crossings and we had no plans to do so. I regard those tools as only a backup to deep water skills and risk mitigation.

My version of what happened is a head count was done by someone who had not heard Gene headed to a beach. Someone else reported that they had been in contact with him and that he was headed to a beach. Since I knew no one and everyone else knew everyone except me and everyone seemed to think that Gene was fine, I didn't worry. When we returned to Pavilion I caught on to the fact that Gene had earlier reported (somehow) that he was returning to Pavilion but his car was still there. We scanned the water. We (not me) drove south and and checked the river, we (not me) drove north and checked the sound, we asked everyone going in an out of the beach if they had seen anyone fitting Gene's description. There where boaters of all types all over the place. If Gene had been in the water, either he had already been found or he was somewhere that we never would have found him. We contacted authorities and found that they where somehow assisting a paddler fitting Gene's description.

On a day with flat water where we didn't go anywhere (launch point in sight), the clearing up to the "big house" on the hill clearly visible (an unambiguous land mark), what more where we supposed to do when an experienced paddler who is reported to know the area well heads off to a nearby beach in flat conditions without clearly communicating a complete plan first?

This was my first NSPN trip. Do they all result in this much conversation after? :-)

It somewhat distresses me that my original questions have not yet been answered which could clear this matter up completely. Many have been quoting chapter and verse on responsibility and judgment which is all fine. However, my questions had to do with who knew what and when. If everyone was under the mistaken impression that I had left the group with no plan to return, then no foul, obviously there can be no more responsibility. I contend that I had provided enough information so that at least one or more paddlers should have done something to clear up the radio communication problems. If everyone else had no radios or radios were all off, then again no foul. I simply know that if I had clear transmission from another paddler who could not copy my reply I would have done something about it then and there. After all there were 10 others some presumably with working radios. Other than having no answer to this I have no other gripe with what else was done or not done. If this question goes unresolved no one will learn anything more from this incident.

[Larry2002]

... However, my questions had to do with who knew what and when. ...If this question goes unresolved no one will learn anything more from this incident.

Gene, I think I answered your original question and the one thing I learned and would like addressed is a better radio check. Setting channels and saying “check 1, 2, 3†on the beach isn’t enough. I would suggest that after everyone is in their boat and have paddled for a while to get some separation, a check of everyone with radios be made. I would also suggest that some guidelines on radio use be made. For example, should we adopt a common channel with provisions for an alternate if there is heavy traffic?

Larry

[Gillian]

Larry I think what Gene means, is did the group understand or not that he was just taking a snack break? Nothing to do with the radios. When Gene headed off to the beach, in his mind, the group was under the impression that he was taking a quick break on the beach and would re-join them. This is the same question I asked 4 posts ago - what did the group think? Did everyone in the group look at Gene and say okay Gene has clearly stated he's leaving the group and therefore, correctly, the responsibility ends there. What I keep wondering is how there could have been such off communiciation if this is the case? Meaning Gene thinks he's taking a snack break and the group thinks he's leaving for good? How's that possible? Is that what happened? Based on the lack of communication from a lot of folks in the group on this thread I'm guessing that this total difference of opinion between what the group thought and what Gene thought when they seperated is the case. That I find surprising but I agree with Gene that unfortunately the root cause of what happened is in that moment when he departed, with him and the group under totally different impressions.