jesu, joy of man's desiring wrote:I have no idea who these "victims" are...but I wonder if this might have been some sorta elaborate scheme for lonely women to try to get dates with badass chopper pilots or "hunky" rescue personnel

That reminds me of a trip report that once made a splash here!

This is a great thread!!! Fairly entertaining, but I will keep to myself and see where this goes...

orbitor wrote:She is highly respected in the local hiking community for her strength, experience and the willingness to share information

Maybe that is why there are so many deaths and rescues on a peak like Mount Badly. The local hiking community has the wrong idols.

I've been following this thread awhile too. I have a question: Why was a helicopter sent up?

Usually, a helicopter can be used to put in rescuers and have them hike down (or up) to the subjects, but to actually hoist out the subjects if there was an alternative seems unnecessary. Not only is it very expensive, but it's also prone to creating new victims. In other words, helicopters should only be used in life-and-death situations where extraction needs to happen immediately (either grievously injured or extremely bad weather). Otherwise, simple belays, taglines or walk-outs would be used, especially if the subjects can walk.

I was a former member of the Central Arizona Mountain Rescue Team (Maricopa County Sheriff), and the debate of when to use a helicopter always came down to --- if there is absolutely no alternative, then it's okay. Otherwise, we'll walk out or even wheel them out. Here, I can only assume that there was some other issue not being emphasized that prompted the use of a helicopter.

We would use helicopters to get rescuers to a remote spot, but the LZ was always somewhere "safe", then we'd walk to wherever the subject was. Barring a horrible injury to the subject, we walked them out or placed them in a gurney with a wheel. If a helicopter was used to ferry the subjects, we'd walk them back to where the helicopter was sitting. Only in the extreme cases was a line used from beneath a flying helicopter. There are so many things that can go awry when doing that, so it must be done judiciously.

It seems that even in the conditions described, it would have been possible to send in a couple people via helicopter, they would then get to the subjects, and have most of a day to either secure them, or get them somewhere safe, but not necessarily hoist them out as a first option.

I am not judging what the SAR teams did there. I assume they made decisions based on their experience and factors. I am not going to judge these two women. I don't know all the details, but what I know, the use of the helicopter seems to beget reasonable questions.

Well, there's a nice landing spot on the top of Mt Harwood (depending on wind and clouds) but it would have taken these hikers another two hours to get there at their pace. The rest of the route is a slope of around 30 degrees (up to 45 in places) which, in combination with a scattering of trees, would not seem very practical for a landing.

They were somewhere around 8500' on/near the Register Ridge trail:
http://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=34.27722 ... z=16&b=mbt

(They said they reached a relatively flat saddle at 8200' (according to their GPS), then climbed another half hour. The map shows a saddle at 8300'. The sherriff's dept said the rescue was at 8500'.)

I really don't understand why they hit the panic button in the first place. (It's one thing to make unexpectedly slow progress in tough snow conditions. It's quite another to proceed upward for four hours when you believe that a downclimb is not possible, still another to give up at 12:30 PM, just a thousand feet below where the route gets easier.) But if you're going to rescue them, you have to convince them to walk down, or walk up, or you have to hoist them into the chopper.

There were at least two choppers in this story. First was a Sherrif's patrol chopper that spotted them. It sounds like he's the one who made the decision to call in Air Rescue with the hoist.

mrchad9 wrote:

orbitor wrote:She is highly respected in the local hiking community for her strength, experience and the willingness to share information

Maybe that is why there are so many deaths and rescues on a peak like Mount Badly. The local hiking community has the wrong idols.

Man saved on Mt Baldy finally re-united with his dog that he had to leave behind
http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20170 ... ave-behind

Interesting counterpoint on the limits of self-rescue. He was planning to butt-slide down San Antonio Falls?

Yury wrote:Does it mean that these ladies just did not know how to descend a slope with icy hard packed snow?

no, they knew how to do that, given the appropriate gear. unfortunately they made the mistake of leaving their helmets behind.

MAN'S BODY FOUND NEAR MOUNT BALDY AREA WHERE MISSING HIKER DISAPPEARED
http://abc7.com/1745299/

What a shit show this is. The crux to me is that these women can't seem to grasp that they made some stupid mistakes (especially given how 'experienced' they were). More, and slightly more alarming, is that they aren't taking any responsibility for their decisions --- especially how they affect other people.

Unfortunate, sad --- but all too common --- behavior.

And, yes, if you are going to post your adventures online, expect the full force of the internet to come your way. Can't get the attention without paying the price of fame.

^^^
I'm not going anywhere near that.

Steve

What about Ruth Mendenhal, Ellen Wilts, Barbara Lilley, Barbara Washburn, Catherine Freer, Jane Taylor, Lynn H., Catherine D. Wanda Rutkiewitz (SP?) just to name very few of the super competent women in the mountains?

You and I cannot even come up to their knees and if taken by them on a scrambling trip, they would (in their prime) most likely kill you and me in the first few minutes , that's how good they were.

I guarantee you, even my 65 year old wife would give you run for your money and she's just a weekender.

Let's not make (not so funny) statements about women just because some of them are totally incompetent. Don't we have plenty of incompetent men wandering in our hills?

Cheers bro, Alois.

asmrz wrote:Steve

What about Ruth Mendenhal, Ellen Wilts, Barbara Lilley, Barbara Washburn, Catherine Freer, Jane Taylor, Lynn H., Catherine D. Wanda Rutkiewitz (SP?) just to name very few of the super competent women in the mountains?

You and I cannot even come up to their knees and if taken by them on a scrambling trip, they would (in their prime) most likely kill you and me in the first few minutes , that's how good they were.

I guarantee you, even my 65 year old wife would give you run for your money and she's just a weekender.

Let's not make (not so funny) statements about women just because some of them are totally incompetent. Don't we have plenty of incompetent men wandering in our hills?

Cheers bro, Alois.

And that's why many men hated them (Wanda Rutkiewicz is one of the best examples in mountaineering community who outperformed many male climbers). It's a false perception of "place" belonging too, strength and competition. But it's long historical and cultural roots; even nowadays strongly preserved in some cultures (and countries, including the US so called friends). Don't be blind. The current perception of the Western world what's right and what's wrong is relatively new and yet many people, especially young, think it was always like that. Unfortunately, NOT! In many cases the battle for what we have now has been result of many lives lost.

So let him exercise the Free Speech Amendment and treat his anecdotes as an old joke spoken by a "dinosaur". They make me laugh. Not all software can be updated; that's why we switch to new applications.

Tolerance is the key. Without tolerance we would not be where we are now and still have a long way to travel through mountains and deserts.