Williamson rescue

Jay Crew wrote:

I've never called for a rescue, and I don't travel with a panic button as my contingency plan

The advantage for the rest of us having some SOS device is that it is substantially easier to find a live subject. The search will happen, the "state" needs one of those death certificates. [edit add: The costs of recovery do not go away with death. I'm personally aware of more broken ankles in the boulder area of the gym than outside. Haven't seen any that were required or advised to walk to the hospital.]

Plan a: do the plan

Plan b: have another plan

Plan c: have an out plan

Plan d: when actual shit hits the fan, call. 

Jay Crew wrote:

I'm not saying the rescue wasn't wanted, warranted, and accepted. I'm just saying maybe having the beacon influences people to take more risk, 

You seriously believe that people take unnecessary risks solo in the backcountry just because they have a beacon that 1) may help rescuers find him or her, 2) assuming that he or she survives the accident?

Jay Crew wrote:

to me, her actions seem reckless. I wonder if she would have been so caviler to go solo, on the only day rain was forecast, without a rescue beacon?

Jay -- I align with most of the existing "c'mon man" comments on your comment, but I commend you (and everyone else on this thread so far) for refraining from one thing... invoking $$$. 

The comment section of SFGate's FB post linking to their article re the rescue holds a disgusting amount of "hope they send her the bill", "ah don't want muh tax dollas goin' to that dumb b****" type sentiments. Fuck that. My bad for thinking I'd find an exception to the rule, if you wanna lose faith in humanity, look at a comment section on social media :/ /s Glad we're not that divided as a community   

Fat Dad wrote:

You seriously believe that people take unnecessary risks solo in the backcountry just because they have a beacon that 1) may help rescuers find him or her, 2) assuming that he or she survives the accident?

Fat Dad -- AFAIK this is still a vigorous debate (the effect of technology/"panic buttons" on risk-taking). There's definitely a reality to what you're calling out. I once had a partner who expressed outright disdain towards inReach and similar devices. It made me uncomfortable. Then, once upon an epic in the Sierra, I fell, as LAPAR, on a rappel anchor failure that I emerged from with bruises but nary a scratch... with the only SOS-capable device whose battery hadn't died being my phone, whose passcode I hadn't shared with my partner (Face ID was not a thing then, or at least I hadn't installed the freshest iOS).

Fat Dad wrote:

You seriously believe that people take unnecessary risks solo in the backcountry just because they have a beacon that 1) may help rescuers find him or her, 2) assuming that he or she survives the accident?

While not technical climbing, and both solo and with others, there is a great deal of,at least anecdotal, evidence, that in the Northeast folks do indeed go into the mountains ( summer and winter) woefully unprepared but with cellphones or other emergency devices, assuming that if they get in trouble they can just call for help--help that they assume will rapidly appear. While the easy accessiblity, low altitudes, and benign appearance of these mountains have tempted many into trouble for years before the existence of such modern devices, the number of such incidents ( sadly too many with fatal results) has increased significantly in recent years, and in a great many of them said 'devices' have been carried by the victims.

Fat Dad wrote:

You seriously believe that people take unnecessary risks solo in the backcountry just because they have a beacon that 1) may help rescuers find him or her, 2) assuming that he or she survives the accident?

It is a fact. Even more so with groups of people. 

While I believe this is somewhat less prevalent in the technical climbing community, it is definitely present. Beyond any doubt. 

To paraphrase Thoreau, "In technology lies the preservation of the world ". 

Ellen S wrote:

Inyo SAR is unabashed about calling out people who were unprepared or made bad decisions. example

In this case, they said "Enormous bravery and fortitude was shown by this patient, and all involved were impressed by her ability to remain calm, collected, and alive."

I trust their judgement. 

She did well AFTER getting herself into a life-and -death situation. Going up into a storm was stupid, an error, and she failed. It was the ONLY day all week where weather was forecast. If it wasn't for the heroic efforts of others, she would be dead. Facts. 

Jay Crew wrote:

She did well AFTER getting herself into a life-and -death situation. Going up into a storm was stupid, an error, and she failed. It was the ONLY day all week where weather was forecast. If it wasn't for the heroic efforts of others, she would be dead. Facts. 

She climbed into a storm? Where are you getting this info? Now i’m curious what the forecast was for that day? From the links posted, looks like her mistake was getting off-route and falling.

Wishing the climber s speedy recovery.

On July 2 around 3:30 p.m, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services alerted the Inyo County Sheriff’s Office to an SOS activation from a Garmin InReach device....

She had lost her backpack ...

Can we discuss something more helpful? I'm impressed that she kept her InReach despite losing her backpack. On a long day out, what's the best way to carry the device? I'm not an adventurer like that young lady, so I don't own an InReach. This discussion might be relevant to those true adventurers. 

Last year when I did my solo thru hikes of TRT (1 week in June) and JMT (2 weeks in late August), C2 loaned his InReach to me. For the record, whenever I venture out, I don't plan to ever be stupid, to get off well groomed beaten path, to take a bad fall, to lose my footing in river crossings, to be rained/snowed/hailed on, or to be hit by rock or lightening! I'm with you, Jay Crew -- there is NO reason for me to travel with a "rescue beacon/panic button"! But C2 followed my track along and, via the satellite messaging, took joy in remotely steering my head this way or that way to make sure I get to admire some landmark peaks. (Sorry, that still did not convert me to a silly peakbagger.) On those hikes, I clipped the InReach on the back/outside of my backpack. 

Well, apparently, one can lose her backpack in a tumbling fall. I also hear that when one slides down a snow slope, even if it's an intentional glissade, anything not fully enclosed inside the pack can leave a long trail of yard sale. While I agree it's a good idea to keep the InReach on the body separate from the detachable backpack, I can't seem to find a good way without it getting annoying. Even putting it in a pant pocket feels like it'll cause chafing after 20+ miles of hiking and high stepping. Also, I don't know if my understanding of how the device works is correct-- I assume it works best to be openly exposed to the sky above, so that's another reason against pant pocket, or any pocket. Then, where do I attach it to? 

I'd think this photo of me walking out of Whitney Portal shows a pretty standard setup of most folks who venture out into the mountain. Now that I'm looking at it ... maybe an armband holder could work? ... If only someone made a dedicated armband holder for InReach! 

P.S. While the lady survived the mishap off Mt. Williamson, this JMT hiker did not (FB post / IG post). But it looks like he took a wrong turn.

On Wednesday, July 9, the Inyo County Sheriff’s Office was contacted by Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park concerning a missing hiker, Harris Levinson, who planned to hike the John Muir Trail from Whitney Portal to Yosemite National Park....
Aided by data from Mr. Levinson’s satellite messaging device, ground searchers located the body of Mr. Levinson at approximately 9,400 feet in the North Fork of Lone Pine Creek, apparently the victim of a fatal fall.

P.P.S. I'm really bad at humor.

First, l have nothing against the act of carrying a "garmin" by anybody. I recently spent 5 summers working in the back country of the Sierra, mostly along the JMT, and about half the work was specifically helping JMT hikers. And wow, what a education that was!!!

The JMT in my mind would be a very safe place to back country travel without a Garmin type device. Almost everyone else has one. The back country rangers are everywhere. A map and very modest map reading skills will keep all but the most insanely dense people from getting "lost".

I had a great time those summers. Mostly because of my work buddies. Danny, Tadpole, and GeeBee on this trip. 

I have no criticisms of the person rescued off Mt. Williamson. I wish them good luck and a speedy recovery. 

Jay Crew wrote:

She did well AFTER getting herself into a life-and -death situation. Going up into a storm was stupid, an error, and she failed. It was the ONLY day all week where weather was forecast. If it wasn't for the heroic efforts of others, she would be dead. Facts.

Juan Vargas wrote:

She climbed into a storm? Where are you getting this info? Now i’m curious what the forecast was for that day? From the links posted, looks like her mistake was getting off-route and falling.

Wishing the climber s speedy recovery.

I'm pretty sure Jay Crew is just trolling at this point. The storm later that day impacted the timing of the rescue operations - but nowhere does it say that it had any impact on her fall. Having a satellite device does not guarantee a quick rescue. 

Without more details (forecast, observed weather on the day, whether she was traveling up or down at the time of the fall, pace, turn-around times, etc) I have no constructive commentary. (Unlike the all-knowing Jay Crew) 

Alan Rubin wrote:

While not technical climbing, and both solo and with others, there is a great deal of,at least anecdotal, evidence, that in the Northeast folks do indeed go into the mountains ( summer and winter) woefully unprepared but with cellphones or other emergency devices, assuming that if they get in trouble they can just call for help--help that they assume will rapidly appear. While the easy accessiblity, low altitudes, and benign appearance of these mountains have tempted many into trouble for years before the existence of such modern devices, the number of such incidents ( sadly too many with fatal results) has increased significantly in recent years, and in a great many of them said 'devices' have been carried by the victims.

I've been a cyclist for a long time, and there's been a long-standing argument that wearing helmets disproportionately increases risk tolerance. There is a less often made (in my personal observation of the debate) that a person wearing a helmet is likely to (in general) be a safety conscious person. I hadn't looked at any literature in years until reading this thread, but this 2019 review sums up what I remember ( sciencedirect.com/science/a…)--there is not really much evidential support in this context.

You can argue that a satellite beacon for climbing/hiking/etc is a different context, which is fair, but it is still by no means obvious that it meaningfully increases risk tolerance. The people going out assuming that they can easily call for help may still have gone out if that option was not available to them. Without effective means of calling for help in the past, undoubtedly many sketchy but ultimately non-fatal events probably got uncounted. Going back to my cycling roots, it's notable if you crash and receive medical care at a race, but it doesn't really get counted as a race incident if you crash and then drive yourself (or your friend drives you) to the ER or urgent care. So is the uptick real and if so, is the the existence of a satellite communicator causal or are they simply seen as a thing that real hikers/mountaineers/etc have, so everyone has them these days? There might be an effect, but I think all you can really say at this point is that the proliferation of tools that enable you to actually call for help has resulted in more calls for help.

Zach LaBry wrote:

I've been a cyclist for a long time, and there's been a long-standing argument that wearing helmets disproportionately increases risk tolerance. There is a less often made (in my personal observation of the debate) that a person wearing a helmet is likely to (in general) be a safety conscious person. I hadn't looked at any literature in years until reading this thread, but this 2019 review sums up what I remember ( sciencedirect.com/science/a…)--there is not really much evidential support in this context.

You can argue that a satellite beacon for climbing/hiking/etc is a different context, which is fair, but it is still by no means obvious that it meaningfully increases risk tolerance. The people going out assuming that they can easily call for help may still have gone out if that option was not available to them. Without effective means of calling for help in the past, undoubtedly many sketchy but ultimately non-fatal events probably got uncounted. Going back to my cycling roots, it's notable if you crash and receive medical care at a race, but it doesn't really get counted as a race incident if you crash and then drive yourself (or your friend drives you) to the ER or urgent care. So is the uptick real and if so, is the the existence of a satellite communicator causal or are they simply seen as a thing that real hikers/mountaineers/etc have, so everyone has them these days? There might be an effect, but I think all you can really say at this point is that the proliferation of tools that enable you to actually call for help has resulted in more calls for help.

I agree that correlation isn't 'proof', but still can provide worthwhile information.

Also, as for other counter-factual 'exercises', it is impossible to determine what would have occurred in any given situation, if the circumstances had been different--so, yes, maybe some would have gotten into trouble even if they weren't carrying those communication devices, but others might not have started out.

However, while I can't put my hands on the sources right now, I do recall reading accident reports where survivors acknowledged that they put too much reliance on their devices in lieu of other preparations and other reports that strongly suggested that some who didn't survive made similar choices. I'm not saying that the availability of such devices was the 'cause' of any of these incidents, but think it is a mistake to dismiss them as a possible contributory factor.

Zach LaBry wrote:

I've been a cyclist for a long time, and there's been a long-standing argument that wearing helmets disproportionately increases risk tolerance. There is a less often made (in my personal observation of the debate) that a person wearing a helmet is likely to (in general) be a safety conscious person. I hadn't looked at any literature in years until reading this thread, but this 2019 review sums up what I remember ( sciencedirect.com/science/a…)--there is not really much evidential support in this context.

You can argue that a satellite beacon for climbing/hiking/etc is a different context, which is fair, but it is still by no means obvious that it meaningfully increases risk tolerance. The people going out assuming that they can easily call for help may still have gone out if that option was not available to them. 

Maybe a very tiny percentage would still go. Up thread a bit I posted about the 5 summers I recently spent in the High Sierra,  mostly along the John Muir Trail. I had a lot of interaction, in a variety of ways, with many hikers. A significant percentage of them wouldn't be there at all without the whole package of electronically provided information, starting with what gear and food to take. Their phone and Garmin tells them everything. They consistently pass up great campsites just because the app doesn't tell them it's a good place. In short, the digital information takes the place of a human guide. It is also amazing how many of these people are not enjoying their experience. Sometimes far from it.

Occasionally I encountered parties of young people shunning all electronic devices, carrying maps and compass. Those people almost universally were having a great time. There brains were fully engaged in their trip.

Without effective means of calling for help in the past, undoubtedly many sketchy but ultimately non-fatal events probably got uncounted.

Most of those people figured out how to take care of themselves. Imagine that!?!

 but I think all you can really say at this point is that the proliferation of tools that enable you to actually call for help has resulted in more calls for help.

No sh!t.

I am not saying the electronic information age is all bad. More people get to experience the backcountry (the JMT isn't really wilderness). Even those who don't have a particularly good time, get to live a great experience, for a few weeks. 

Fat Dad wrote:

You seriously believe that people take unnecessary risks solo in the backcountry just because they have a beacon that 1) may help rescuers find him or her, 2) assuming that he or she survives the accident?

Take the word solo out of the above statement, because the answer for solo and otherwise is yes. Many parties do take more risks because of the electronic safety net AND information highway. Most of those people don't do this knowingly. They don't know any different. There is a shift in the way people's brains work. The evidence for this is all over MP and other forums, YouTube, ad nauseam. 

Terry E wrote:

The West Chute is a specific feature of the West Face, that is third class to the summit. I climbed this more than a decade ago and followed the Secor description that I’m inserting below, to differentiate this line from the many chutes on the face.

Secor’s book is amazing but he’s not always right. I think that “class 3”  chute is actually class 4. And, it’s frequently wet which makes it even more sketch.

As I recall the climb, he's not right about the "summit plateau," either. It's a huge bench overlooking the Owens Valley, but you still have to scramble over, and around, some boulders and gain another hundred feet or so to reach the summit.

I think it's pretty reasonable to wonder how many are willing to go on solo adventures because of Garmins and Phones etc.

The question is does it matter? In fact, I'd argue it's mostly a very good thing.

Unless the individual is CLEARLY taking unnecessary risk way over their head or illegally I say more power to them for getting off the couch while they still can.

People break ankles crossing the damn street no matter how young and fit they are, sometimes it's just bad luck.

As others have posted, are they supposed to self-rescue and crawl from the Walmart parking lot to the ED?

I guarantee you those helicopter pilots love to do something meaningful like save a life and the SAR volunteers love to make a difference too and **volunteered for it**. I promise they are stoked to be part of a very cool and worthy rescue.

I do not advocate for gumbies to get in over their heads (they deserve criticism for their hubris). For the prepared, anything can still happen like snakes, ankles and hearts going bad and I can think of no better excuse to burn aviation fuel than saving lives of those out there getting it done (or anyone for that matter, life is precious). Those pilots love the challenge or they wouldn't be in that line of work. BITD YOSAR only got paid during rescues and though no one enjoys body recovery it paid the way for residence in the park. They need the work. I can think of worse ways to spend my taxes.

I am also very critical of BASE jumpers doing stupid shit. I've been the first responder on that scene.

@Jay I'd say establish facts before being so judgmental. It reflects more on you having an axe to grind than this accident victim clearly being negligent given the information we have. If you've never been rescued I'd say you just haven't been badly injured yet. Pretty sure with your Tibia sticking out of your boot there would be no atheist in your foxhole. We'd all pray for the calvary rescue at that point.

I know husbands whose wives would not allow them to go backcountry hiking/backpacking unless they have satellite equipped device (e.g. the new iPhone). I also know a guy who invoked SOS from his iPhone reporting "missing person" while on JMT simply because his buddy did not catch up to him after he waited for nearly an hour. (I shook my head hearing that.) Thankfully, the dispatcher knew better not to send a team out to search for "missing person", but did get ahold of a ranger in the field nearby, who connected with him. Turned out the buddy was just tired and slow. So, I agree that the availability of those devices enboldened more people to go into backcountry and has increased the rate of calls for help just because it's easy to do.

Another factor that might have sent more people to the backcountry could also be the perpetuation of social media. It's hard for anyone to admit to it externally or even internally, but the satisfaction of posting something rad on FB, IG, TikTok, YouTube, Strava, etc. for others to see could be the reason for some people to pursue objectives that push their limit, which means they operate with a slim margin of error. Dean Rosau brought this up in the very recent interview on The Climbing Majority podcast. The two-part interview made an excellent listen, though heavy at times. I strongly recommend.

I just ordered his book: The Shortest Straw, Search and Rescue in the High Sierra . Thought it's very relevant to this thread and might interest anyone who had a lot to say on the subject. I normally don't seek out accident reports, but I want to show my appreciation for what he's done and has shared.

I know this is primarily an American forum, but one need only to look across the pond to see how the availability of SAR affects people's risk tolerance in the alpine. Anybody who has ever climbed in the Alps knows that professional rescue is always just a phone call away, and the PGHM will have you up and off a climb in hours, if not minutes. And not surprisingly, this leads to way more rescues, not only because there is less stigma in calling one, but because SAR is so efficient and effective. It also leads to way more abuse.

In comparison, SAR here in the states is underfunded and undertrained, and most backcountry recreaters, far from overusing SAR, probably (and rightly) assume rescue is a long way off and far from a sure thing. InReaches will of course be abused by a certain minuscule percentage of users, who might otherwise have not gone into the backcountry at all or been more conservative in their plans. But for the vast majority of users, they are a useful tool that provides a welcome insurance policy against the bad stuff that can happen to even experienced recreaters through no fault of their own, as was seemingly the case in this rescue. Hope she makes a full recovery.

Mei pronounced as May wrote:

 Dean Rosau brought this up in the very recent interview on The Climbing Majority podcast. The two-part interview made an excellent listen, though heavy at times. I strongly recommend.

I just ordered his book: The Shortest Straw, Search and Rescue in the High Sierra . Thought it's very relevant to this thread and might interest anyone who had a lot to say on the subject. I normally don't seek out accident reports, but I want to show my appreciation for what he's done and has shared.

I read it quite a long time ago - it’s an interesting read for those of us who love the Sierra.  Dean is a good person.

Interesting idea that these devices might increase someone’s chances of doing “riskier” things because they are carrying one. That would never have occurred to me.  I’ve been carrying one for ten years and the thought of its existence in my pack never crosses my mind when I make a plan for what to do. There are two major reasons I carry one: to communicate with my husband in places without cell signal and to locate my body should something freakishly rare happen.

We initially got the inreach just before my husband’s first trip to Nepal. I liked getting the text message from the inreach “starting day”, “at guesthouse” etc. Not every location has cell signal and wifi.  And I could track where he was. On my end, I like having it turned on for solo hikes in my “backyard” on Mt. Baldy. No cell signal for most of that. If I were to be snatched by one of our local lions and dragged off the trail, it would be fairly simple to locate my body without mobilizing 100 searchers for weeks.

Dean touches on this in his book  - a number of us followed along on Supertopo during his extensive search over several summers for a solo hiker who disappeared out of Mammoth Lake.  Hundreds of others were involved in the initial search. I’m not sure his body was ever found. Sure would have been so much simpler if he had been carrying a turned on device that a family member could track.