Kevin B (RPS Coach) Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Might be a bit on the cool side, with a forecast a little too far off at the moment, but it would be nice to get the discussion going. So anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rylevine Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 QUOTE (Kevin B @ Jan 25 2010, 10:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Might be a bit on the cool side, with a forecast a little too far off at the moment, but it would be nice to get the discussion going. So anyone? I'm interested in Sunday, weather permitting. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin B (RPS Coach) Posted January 27, 2010 Author Share Posted January 27, 2010 I'm interested in Sunday, weather permitting. Bob If we can get three, it shall be:) Devereaux? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rylevine Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 QUOTE (Kevin B @ Jan 26 2010, 07:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>If we can get three, it shall be:) Devereaux? Devereaux is great. A lot of varied conditions around there. By the way, late last fall Blaine and I went around the neck and headed south to Tinkers. We turned back because of a singular repeating wavefront crossing from just north of Tinkers east into Marblehead neck. At the time, we decided that the eastward winds were just a little too strong to risk going outside of Tinkers. I think the wave pattern may be the same one we encountered last summer, and could be a recurring (low-tide?) condition there. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin B (RPS Coach) Posted January 29, 2010 Author Share Posted January 29, 2010 QUOTE (Kevin B @ Jan 25 2010, 11:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Might be a bit on the cool side, with a forecast a little too far off at the moment, but it would be nice to get the discussion going. So anyone? Argh, not takers yet. Bob, are you free Sunday? Looks a tad warmer on that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rylevine Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 QUOTE (Kevin B @ Jan 29 2010, 08:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Argh, not takers yet. Bob, are you free Sunday? Looks a tad warmer on that day. Kevin, Sunday is best for me. We can confirm or cancel tomorrow night. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Allen Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 K- Lorrie and I might be up for Sunday. Would depend on weather with the current forecast being borderline. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin B (RPS Coach) Posted January 30, 2010 Author Share Posted January 30, 2010 K- Lorrie and I might be up for Sunday. Would depend on weather with the current forecast being borderline. Phil Sounds good. I'll confirm with you guys and Bob tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traction Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 QUOTE (Kevin B @ Jan 29 2010, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Sounds good. I'll confirm with you guys and Bob tomorrow. \ May I tag along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin B (RPS Coach) Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 \ May I tag along? Updating folks via email/text. At the moment don't have a quorum yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rylevine Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 QUOTE (Kevin B @ Jan 30 2010, 08:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Updating folks via email/text. At the moment don't have a quorum yet... Kevin, I'm in. Will check late tonight and am for confirmation or cancellation. Thanks. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin B (RPS Coach) Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 Kevin, I'm in. Will check late tonight and am for confirmation or cancellation. Thanks. Bob We have 3, possibly 4, but would prefer a min. of 5 given the temps. Will post by 8am one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin B (RPS Coach) Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 QUOTE (Kevin B @ Jan 30 2010, 10:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>We have 3, possibly 4, but would prefer a min. of 5 given the temps. Will post by 8am one way or another. Arrgh, looks like we don't have the numbers to make it work today. Perhaps next weekend, although it's someone else's turn to coordinate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rylevine Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 QUOTE (Kevin B @ Jan 31 2010, 06:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Arrgh, looks like we don't have the numbers to make it work today. Perhaps next weekend, although it's someone else's turn to coordinate Kevin, Will try next weekend. I'll call the trip and coordinate. I agree with the 'rule of 5' (well, maybe 4 if sea is calm?). Will start trip topic tomorrow. Thank you. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gcosloy Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Since I'm not paddling my energy goes to idle speculation as to the rational for this 5 or more rule, or any other number for that matter. Each additional paddler may provide additional security if something goes wrong but conversely each additional paddler raises the potential of something going wrong to someone or someone else. It would be interesting if some of the applied mathematicians among us could work out a formula to predict the ideal size of a pod of paddlers given inputs for conditions, skill level, etc. with respect to safety. Its probably impossible but intriguing. Conventional wisdom says that one paddler may raise the danger level, but conversely so does forty. Anecdotal scenarios are also interesting. When Kevin first proposed five I imagined a situation where a paddler capsized and after being rescued lost consciousness. Two paddlers rafted up on either side to keep him upright while the other two provided a tow to a safe bail out. Then of course there is the rule of 7. Psychologists claim that the most tasks, numbers, people etc. that a single person can keep track of is seven plus or minus one. This might be a good rule to follow in establishing pod size when there is a lot of paddlers on the water. If I remember correctly that time I lost track of the group off Pavilion and they me, there were 10 of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rylevine Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Since I'm not paddling my energy goes to idle speculation as to the rational for this 5 or more rule, or any other number for that matter. Each additional paddler may provide additional security if something goes wrong but conversely each additional paddler raises the potential of something going wrong to someone or someone else. It would be interesting if some of the applied mathematicians among us could work out a formula to predict the ideal size of a pod of paddlers given inputs for conditions, skill level, etc. with respect to safety. Its probably impossible but intriguing. Conventional wisdom says that one paddler may raise the danger level, but conversely so does forty. Anecdotal scenarios are also interesting. When Kevin first proposed five I imagined a situation where a paddler capsized and after being rescued lost consciousness. Two paddlers rafted up on either side to keep him upright while the other two provided a tow to a safe bail out. Then of course there is the rule of 7. Psychologists claim that the most tasks, numbers, people etc. that a single person can keep track of is seven plus or minus one. This might be a good rule to follow in establishing pod size when there is a lot of paddlers on the water. If I remember correctly that time I lost track of the group off Pavilion and they me, there were 10 of us. Gene, Actually I haven't given it much thought, but my initial reaction relates to a situation of two paddlers getting tossed by the same wave. They have to get out of the cold water quickly, and with five there is a better chance of having more than one nearby rescuer. The fifth could chase down lost equipment or just stand by to assist. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEL Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Random thoughts. 1. Maybe this aspect of thread needs to be moved by the moderators. 2. You can make cogent arguments for any number from 1 to maybe 6. 3. The number of paddlers suggests a safety margin which in turn suggests for some activities the number should be larger than others. 4. Personally I am partial to the numbers 1, 2, 4, 3 in that order and anything above them is a mob in which I feel more likely to encounter problems of one kind or another. 5. I think it a bad idea to rely upon others for my safety. After all, the rescuee is the least important person and the first person to be sacrificed in any "situation". 6. I don't think the time of year has anything to do with the equation. Ed Lawson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gcosloy Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Gene, Actually I haven't given it much thought, but my initial reaction relates to a situation of two paddlers getting tossed by the same wave. They have to get out of the cold water quickly, and with five there is a better chance of having more than one nearby rescuer. The fifth could chase down lost equipment or just stand by to assist. Bob Bob-Your situation perhaps was actual. I think that happened this summer off Marblehead Neck. In any event it demonstrates the absurdity of my earlier suggestion. Independently random occurrences can be assigned a probability which if they happen together; the expressed probability is the product not the addition of the events. However in seakayaking, events are not purely random; given a big enough wave everyone in the vicinity may go for a swim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin B (RPS Coach) Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 Since I'm not paddling my energy goes to idle speculation as to the rational for this 5 or more rule, or any other number for that matter. Each additional paddler may provide additional security if something goes wrong but conversely each additional paddler raises the potential of something going wrong to someone or someone else. It would be interesting if some of the applied mathematicians among us could work out a formula to predict the ideal size of a pod of paddlers given inputs for conditions, skill level, etc. with respect to safety. Its probably impossible but intriguing. Conventional wisdom says that one paddler may raise the danger level, but conversely so does forty. Anecdotal scenarios are also interesting. When Kevin first proposed five I imagined a situation where a paddler capsized and after being rescued lost consciousness. Two paddlers rafted up on either side to keep him upright while the other two provided a tow to a safe bail out. Then of course there is the rule of 7. Psychologists claim that the most tasks, numbers, people etc. that a single person can keep track of is seven plus or minus one. This might be a good rule to follow in establishing pod size when there is a lot of paddlers on the water. If I remember correctly that time I lost track of the group off Pavilion and they me, there were 10 of us. For a minute I though this was going to be a discussion on what is means to be "rational" until I realize you meant rationale. (Just in case Sir Christopher doesn't stop in ) Simply put, it was preference, not a rule, and one that had nothing to do with safety. To quote Ed, "I think it a bad idea to rely upon others for my safety.". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leong Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Since I'm not paddling my energy goes to idle speculation as to the rational for this 5 or more rule, or any other number for that matter. Each additional paddler may provide additional security if something goes wrong but conversely each additional paddler raises the potential of something going wrong to someone or someone else. It would be interesting if some of the applied mathematicians among us could work out a formula to predict the ideal size of a pod of paddlers given inputs for conditions, skill level, etc. with respect to safety. Its probably impossible but intriguing. Conventional wisdom says that one paddler may raise the danger level, but conversely so does forty. Anecdotal scenarios are also interesting. When Kevin first proposed five I imagined a situation where a paddler capsized and after being rescued lost consciousness. Two paddlers rafted up on either side to keep him upright while the other two provided a tow to a safe bail out. Then of course there is the rule of 7. Psychologists claim that the most tasks, numbers, people etc. that a single person can keep track of is seven plus or minus one. This might be a good rule to follow in establishing pod size when there is a lot of paddlers on the water. If I remember correctly that time I lost track of the group off Pavilion and they me, there were 10 of us. Ed said “You can make cogent arguments for any number from 1 to maybe 6.†My (leong) personal opinion is it should be an odd number since even numbers sometimes lead to deadlock situations for group decisions. So the intersect of Ed’s and Leon’s pod size is 1, 3 and 5. Obviously, 1 is out of the question since numerous NSPN posts have argued about the dangers of solo paddling. So we’re left with 3 and 5. As a retired applied mathematician, I modeled the problem using Dempster-Shafer evidential reasoning, Bayesian probability arguments and exhaustive Monte-Carlo simulation. The 99% confidence interval for pod size was computed to be 4.5 to 5.5, inclusive. But, since pod size must be a positive integer, we are left with 5. So it is obvious that Kevin is correct: i.e. 5 is the correct pod size. P.S. It should be noted that the Monte-Carlo simulation also gave the trivial solution of 0, but what fun would that be? Q.E.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rylevine Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Random thoughts. 1. Maybe this aspect of thread needs to be moved by the moderators. 2. You can make cogent arguments for any number from 1 to maybe 6. 3. The number of paddlers suggests a safety margin which in turn suggests for some activities the number should be larger than others. 4. Personally I am partial to the numbers 1, 2, 4, 3 in that order and anything above them is a mob in which I feel more likely to encounter problems of one kind or another. 5. I think it a bad idea to rely upon others for my safety. After all, the rescuee is the least important person and the first person to be sacrificed in any "situation". 6. I don't think the time of year has anything to do with the equation. Ed Lawson I simply do not understand these points. There is a random aspect to the risk; and the safety margins decrease in cold water. Paddling alone, in the winter and far from shore would really be asking for trouble for many of the NSPN people that I paddle with. Define rely? We all work on self-rescue techniques and nobody is anticipating a "situation". Nevertheless, the fact is that having a functional nearby paddler is a tremendous advantage if you are in the water - especially cold water. Is that denied? Is it wise to depend on rolls or cowboy reentry, if that dependence can be easily avoided? Certainly these are first-line defenses, but you're not suggesting to deny yourself a backup plan involving other paddlers just to satisfy somebody's notion of a complete paddler? I'm not aware of anyone that has taken on excessive or unnecessary risks with the idea that other paddlers are around. As regards to Kevin's later post - what is the 'rule of 5' about if not safety? Our rescues have been very rare, in fact it has never happened while I've been on a trip. This is probably due to our caution in choosing paddling conditions and locations, and the basic skill set of those who go out. Having too many paddlers can be a problem, but I think we decided that could be solved by splitting into groups. In any case, that does not seem to be an issue in recent weeks. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rylevine Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 I simply do not understand these points. There is a random aspect to the risk; and the safety margins decrease in cold water. Paddling alone, in the winter and far from shore would really be asking for trouble for many of the NSPN people that I paddle with. Define rely? We all work on self-rescue techniques and nobody is anticipating a "situation". Nevertheless, the fact is that having a functional nearby paddler is a tremendous advantage if you are in the water - especially cold water. Is that denied? Is it wise to depend on rolls or cowboy reentry, if that dependence can be easily avoided? Certainly these are first-line defenses, but you're not suggesting to deny yourself a backup plan involving other paddlers just to satisfy somebody's notion of a complete paddler? I'm not aware of anyone that has taken on excessive or unnecessary risks with the idea that other paddlers are around. As regards to Kevin's later post - what is the 'rule of 5' about if not safety? Our rescues have been very rare, in fact it has never happened while I've been on a trip. This is probably due to our caution in choosing paddling conditions and locations, and the basic skill set of those who go out. Having too many paddlers can be a problem, but I think we decided that could be solved by splitting into groups. In any case, that does not seem to be an issue in recent weeks. Bob Slight typo: I meant cold-water time-sensitive rescues have never happened on one of my trips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts