SummitPost.org

mrchad9 wrote:

The Chief wrote:The CHP Helo responds just as does any emergency vehicle when summoned via a 911 call out. It is not nor should it be the HAC's responsibility to determine when, how or if they should respond to the call. We have already touched this issue.

Gary noted yesterday how the LACSSAR & SBCSSAR automatically respond to any mountain call with an air resource as does the CHP.

Again- you are only confirming that is the SOP which we all know.

And I am staying it is a bad one. It encourages this behavior. You did not address if you thought it was a good one or not, which is what I was asking. Neither did the others who replied.

I think a reasonable expectation would be to have someone assess the situation in some way. I've called 911 before, no helicopter showed up, only the police, fire, and ambulance because that's what was needed. If they aren't going to assess the situation you are telling me they will carry me down from Helen Lake if my knees are sore? Hell, that's pratically what they are doing.

The police, fire, and ambulance showed up? This could be considered to much. The thing is, when a call comes in, based on details given, all assets needed for that emergency role. A fire alarm at a school will have numerous fire trucks rolling until it is determined their not needed. No different on a mountain, only difference is information can be a lot harder to verify and determine what may be needed. So the call comes in for a man who has fallen on Mount Shasta and all assets needed for a major rescue are going to be dispatched. In my bomb world, when we would get a bomb call we would role with all equipment. This is because we didn't know what exactly would be needed. So we would bring everything. A car crash call will have numerous assests rolling to it as well until it can be verified their not needed. Little difficult to get an ambulance and police cars up Shasta. So air support will likely always be dispatched to assist.

mrchad9 wrote:I think a reasonable expectation would be to have someone assess the situation in some way.


I've called 911 before, no helicopter showed up, only the police, fire, and ambulance because that's what was needed.

What responded to your call is what the in place regional/local response protocol requires as is what responds when a SAR Unit calls for an Air Unit to assist them in getting one of their members up to the incident site ASAP in order to make an appropriate assessment of the actual situ on scene.

Come on, quit acting so....

Bombchaser wrote:It's all difficult to decide what to do.

Doing nothing is always an option.

redneck wrote:

Bombchaser wrote:It's all difficult to decide what to do.

Doing nothing is always an option.

Obviously nothing isn't working or we wouldn't be having this conversation. As long as this, "I can do whatever the I want" attitude continues then we will have this debate. Those people who want to do whatever they want will ultimately cause over regulation and and higher fees on this sport and themselves. Then they will really bitch and complain.

Bombchaser wrote:Nice to see someone else on here agrees Vitaliy M.

As an illustration of just how subjective these notions of "experience" or "negligence" are, Vitaliy was part of the only team that summited Rainier a week or so ago in avalanche conditions so treacherous that none of the guides would take their clients above Camp Muir.

I have no judgment on whether what Vitaliy did was foolhardy or not, I merely use his example to show that none of these black and white points you are making (and Vitaliy is agreeing with) are necessarily black and white.

Bombchaser wrote:

redneck wrote:

Bombchaser wrote:It's all difficult to decide what to do.

Doing nothing is always an option.

Obviously nothing isn't working or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Nothing is working just fine.* Both dangerous trauma cases and shivery grannies are being rescued in a timely manner. We are having this conversation because expressing moral outrage on the interwebs is more fun than sex, for some people.



* Until some of those choppers used on frivolous rescues start dropping out of the sky. Then there will be agonizing reappraisals.

Vitaliy M wrote:How can you label the conditions as bad if YOU were not there, rangers/guides were not there? Only the local forecast said the conditions are bad.

I'm just going by what the official appraisals were, as well as those of all the local people posting in the Pac NW forum. You will agree, there was near universal agreement the conditions for summiting Rainier when you did were very dangerous.

Personally, I'm not making any judgments at all. I think what you guys did was awesome. But if anything had happened to you up there, imagine the howls of outrage that you went up when all the experts knew it was stupid and foolhardy.

The call I made was for a car accident, so yes, police, fire, and ambulance needed. But they didn't send five fire trucks, or a helicopter for faster medical transport, because it wasn't needed based on the information available at the time. Just trying to make the point you don't have to send EVERYTHING.

So my question to folks here... again... is if you were the one developing the SOP and the call came in with the following limited information:

were unable to descend the peak in the Clear Creek Trail area on the mountain's eastern slopes. 'She reported the snow is slushy and they keep breaking through,' ... she was concerned her friend might develop hypothermia if they are unable to get off the mountain since Seale has circulation problems...The pair had food, water, climbing gear and emergency blankets with them.

would you think the SOP should necessitate extraction with a helicopter? And if it did, could you acknowledge that even if such activity were appropriate, that it might also encourage more foolhardy activity? Might a reasonable inclusion in the SOP be to monitor the climbers as long as they had cell contact and emergency supplies available to them? Hell I'm confused as to why they bothered bringing the blankets at this point!

On Rainier, I wouldn't put too much into what those guides say, I've met a few of them. Their job is to take money from their clients and short-rope them up and down that mountain. If the conditions interfere with that process I'm sure they're still happy to collect, but I do get your point, clearly most unguided felt the same way, and this part is definitely true:

redneck wrote:But if anything had happened to you up there, imagine the howls of outrage that you went up when all the experts knew it was stupid and foolhardy.

By the standards expressed by others in this discussion, not sure Vitaliy himself as expressed, he was likely in pay for your own SAR territory.

If those two want to come on here and defend themselves, they are welcome to do so and correct the discussion, as PW did. Until then, we can only go by the information we have.

And just press the enter key every now and then, that'll help a little in a long post, especially have I've had a couple.

Wow, little late to catch up on this thread tonight , but like an endless sweet summer night, this thread keeps going and going. . .

Vitaliy M wrote:We knew about the warnings, did our own research, and accepted the amount of risk present.

Ah, but there is the crux of the entire discussion. There are those in this thread who argue that since the risk is being socialized (in the form of expensive and dangerous air evacs if anything goes wrong), society (ie, the people holding this position, primarily) has the right and the obligation to make and enforce that decision for you.

The people espousing this position might be horrified to see it put into these terms ("socializing risk," yikes!), but that is what they are advocating with all their talk of certifications and permissions and what-not.

redneck wrote:

Vitaliy M wrote:We knew about the warnings, did our own research, and accepted the amount of risk present.

Ah, but there is the crux of the entire discussion. There are those in this thread who argue that since the risk is being socialized (in the form of expensive and dangerous air evacs if anything goes wrong), society (ie, the people holding this position, primarily) has the right and the obligation to make and enforce that decision for you.

The people espousing this position might be horrified to see it put into these terms ("socializing risk," yikes!), but that is what they are advocating with all their talk of certifications and permissions and what-not.

Socialized my ass.

It's the attitude of expecting someone to come save their ass when shit hits the fan.

Shit doesn't hit the fan in an Indoor Gym nor in a "Club" setting. Many of the folks that are involved in these recent "frivolous" rescues, come from this "controlled environment" background. I can guarantee ya that those that are taking the stance that these folks are, that of being experienced and adequately equipped prior to going out and getting on the hill, surely came from the background of learning this game in the actual environment and not attempting to transfer a very limited one which is learned in the confine space of a gym or club and applying it to the real deal based on that limited experience thinking that it will work as it does back in the controlled environment.

The ability to work through situ's and challenges that one faces in the real world of climbing, can not be simulated in the gym or the local park. Yet many of these folks truly believe that they can be. Case in point, I ran into a group of young folks last Fall headed up to the EB of Whitney. I was coming down with my two clients as I knew the weather was quickly changing for the worse as I had noted the forecast three days prior before heading up. I asked the group if they were ready for potentially winter like weather. Their response was, "bad weather?" Then they all looked at one another and they weren't smiling either. This wasn't the first time nor the second time that I had encountered such a group last season heading up the NF of LPC to get on the EB.

This aspect of the modern climbing game is truly the basis of why this is occurring with such intensity.

The Chief wrote:Socialized my ass.

Agreed -- this has nothing to do with socialization and everything to do with taking responsibility for yourself, climbing partners, other climbers, and SARs.

Those who want to venture into the mountains and not be judged by anyone seem to forget they are subject to judgment in everything else they do. Run a red light and cause an accident -- you get judged for your stupidity whether you like it or not. Wear tennis shoes on an ice field -- same deal, no free pass for stupidity just because you are in the hills.

Pretty simple.

The Chief wrote:Socialized my ass.

Then we agree it's not an important general problem.

redneck wrote:

The Chief wrote:Socialized my ass.

Then we agree it's not an important general problem.

NO!

It is a "general problem".

And the problem is a prevailing urban society which demands this sense of entitlement.

Mother Nature knows no such thing.

Those who go out into the world of Mother Nature need to learn to leave that urban sense of entitlement back at the trailhead. And they best be prepared to face any challenges that may come their way, good, bad or indifferent and not go in there with this expectation of calling in the calvary when some Indians/Bears start showing their faces.

They best be "Armed for Bear".