Re: [Paddlewise] Unofficial account of Andrew's accident

Thanks Peter for following up so steadfastly with details of Andrew's 
incident, and for identifying factual information while clearly indicating 
where any speculation occurred while also keeping the topic free from 
exaggeration.

The dehydration question was worth considering as something to rule out. 
Hydration and nutrition are always something to review when determining what 
went wrong during voyage of longer duration. This didn't sound like an issue 
with Andrew, other than the need to retrieve supplies in an unorthodox 
manner.

> Distress Call question
>
> Doug's point to keep repeating the distress call is well made and I would
> advocate that kayakers break the Mayday vs. Pan rule and call Mayday from
> the start of a distress call for a life threatening situation. This could
> be a point of debate. My navy friends have said call Pan first then 
> Mayday.
> Whatever the distress call I'd repeat it at the start of every response to
> the coastguard if possible. What do others think?

You didn't get much response on this question. The urgency in the Mayday vs. 
Pan guidelines is one easily answerable for an aircraft pilot: You are 
having an engine problem with one of your two engines, you Pan for priority 
consideration. If your aircraft just lost rudder control and altitude is 
rapidly dwindling, Mayday is an obvious, urgent response to the situation. 
Vessels at sea suffer a slower fate, usually, though some do sink awfully 
fast after some causative effect. A Pan Pan will be responded to and often 
you will be redirected to 22Alpha to continue the conversation ("I ran out 
of gas."), leaving the finite resource of 16 open for other emergencies, I 
believe. Depends who responds to you given how remote your location.

When my two friends and I called in a rescue off the Storm Islands a few 
years back, we should have done a Pan Pan. I was very upset that we went 
Mayday. We were in some significant distress: one paddler was in a declining 
hypothermia regime, the other paddler's kayak had split seams and was taking 
on water, increasing his heat loss and frustration with our ability to make 
landfall. Other than that, we were unable to make that progress toward land 
given the strong net ebb, but weren't in immediate danger in my mind. The 
situation was deteriorating, but not exponentially. In the end, the triple 
Mayday eventually solicited the certain help we eventually would have needed 
no matter what. Night was approaching, and time was of the essence. What was 
said, how it was communicated, what protocols were or were not followed 
didn't matter much. The CG were glad we called as early as we did. The fine 
for a false Mayday is less than for using foul language over VHF channels I 
believe, and we did lots of swearing trying to get the CG to understand our 
situation (turns out the CG kept repeating their questions so as to verify 
our position and determine immediate threats to life).

I'd say Andrew's Mayday was appropriate. A self-rescue in difficult seas, 
perhaps one undergoing multiple failure, surly rates as genuinely urgent. 
Get out as much information as you can in that first broadcast, speaking 
clearly, with force, and keep it succinct especially if in deep swell 
shadows. Keep repeating if able. Identify the number in your party. While 
many of us seem to have been demoted from citizen to taxpayer in modern 
democracies, utilizing the state's rescue resource doesn't seem 
disrespectful. Yes, you will probably suffer an ignoble fate media wise, but 
you live to fight another day. I imagine if Andrew had achieved a successful 
outside rescue, discussion in the paddling community would have been, to say 
the least, interesting. I wish the latter had come to pass as the only 
negative consequence to the crossing attempt.

> Questions
>
> Matt's description of how easy it is to separate from the boat rings in my
> ears. Bearing in mind that one doesn't impose requirements on anybody but
> in terms of trying to maximise safety when paddling alone at sea what do
> paddlewisers think of the following: -
>
> Distress Call question
>
> Doug's point to keep repeating the distress call is well made and I would
> advocate that kayakers break the Mayday vs Pan rule and call Mayday from
> the start of a distress call for a life threatening situation. This could
> be a point of debate. My navy friends have said call Pan first then 
> Mayday.
> Whatever the distress call I'd repeat it at the start of every response to
> the coastguard if possible. What do others think?

Yeah, if you are out in relatively begnin seas and having problems with your 
paddlefloat rescue after a wet exit (broke your paddle re-entering, now need 
to deploy your spare for another attempt), a Pan Pan might be in order. Out 
off the end of a wild headland, chances for self rescue doubtful, then sure, 
A mayday may be in order -- assuming this is your final backup plan. There 
are paddler's who accept their outcome free from reliance on the state.


> Tether when alone at sea question
>
> What do people think about alway wearing a tether when paddling alone at
> sea and what kind of tether. I take Doug's point and two of the most 
> experienced
> paddlers in our club also say that it should be optional. But after 
> Andrew's
> accident I'm not so sure that its wise for it to be taken off? And how to
> set up a permanent tether that isn't also a hazard?

Tethers? Why do we question tethers? Short of running a trailing line behing 
your boat that you might have a final chance of grabbing onto before your 
vessel blows out of sight or sails on for good leaving you adrift, tethers 
play a vital role for many deep water sailors. So the question is are 
tethers worthwile for paddlers in kayaks. Because there will always be an 
entaglement issue (which can rob precious moments of dexterity in an 
emergency during crucial momnets spent untangling, or even death from a 
fatal entanglement), tethers will always be an optional choice made 
individually. Most well trained/practiced paddlers are able to keep contact 
with their kayak post incident, even in rough seas. There are diminishing 
returns the longer you are in the water and the rougher it gets or the 
frequency of larger wave sets are considered. Which leads me to suspect 
Andrew was perhaps in a state of heightened fatigued or loosing strenght 
rapidy to eventually or suddenly loose contact with the kayak. If for some 
reason Andrew was undergoing failure at multiple attemps at re-entry, a 
teather would have allowed continued contact with the kayak, perhaps 
allowing insigation of the EPIRB. This is all specualtion of course. I use 
tethers as a back up to backups. I've been tagled up in one in cold water, 
and know the frustrations of using them. Chris Duff seems to have the most 
well-thought out person-to-boat tether. How well a tether would work with 
Andrew's need to move outside his vessel from time to time, or even put on 
more gear obviating the easy use of a teather, I don't know. Gets back to my 
other post about the inherent limitaions of typical kayaks for long 
crossings.


> EPIRB when alone at sea question
>
> If trying to optimise safety would you always wear an EPIRB tethered to 
> the
> PFD?

I'm looking for a marine-use EPIRB for myself. Finding an affordable unit in 
a truly compact size for easy PFD inclusion has proven difficult at this 
time. I think if I ever attempted something like Andrew did, I'd carry a 
small backup raft with an EPIRB attached.  I gave Andrew a 60/40 chance of 
making his crossing when it was originally alertened to us here on 
Paddlewise. I thought he'd need outside rescue for that 40% - I didn't 
really think he would expire like he did so close to his objective.

I wanted to do a dangerous crossing a few years ago with a friend, after 
giving up the idea of going solo. He is a very competent paddler - both then 
and now. He said he would do it, but only with a chase boat (we would have 
needed a deep-water Zodiac). The cost would have been exorbitant, but 
especially it would have diluted the purity, challenge, and style of the 
trip completely (paddling with assistance avaliable close at hand). The trip 
never happened.

There are a number of things Andrew could have done to mitigate the risks 
further. He made his choices and had to live (and die) with those same 
choices. He should have understood the ultimate consequences and possible 
need for outside rescue. In the end, he suffered far more than he thought he 
would have to, I believe. He did indeed call for assistance we believe.

His modus operandi was what it was. In my own thinking, Andrew was not 
succesful. The crossing failed. That he almost made it doesn't count, though 
it may encourage others to tweek their approach and gear and re-attempt the 
crossing. And his attempt did redefine the possibilities, while 
demonstrating Andrew's drive to achive the seemingly impossible. That he 
called for outside assistance, is unfortunate, but understandable. No; in my 
mind Andrew's success was the way he was able to remain cohesive and 
positive, keep free from the undertow of panic, remain resolute and 
unconfused and organized through hours and hours of suffering as evidenced 
so far from the record. That differentiates the real success of Andrew's 
crossing attrempt, in as much as who and what he was as a man.

Man's falability and frailty on the ocean has never been in question .

Doug Lloyd (hoping I'm not using up too much bandwidth lately)
Victoria BC
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************