Boat capsized? Advice changes on what to do <http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/229808> thestar.com (06-27- 07) Is this our best advice? Chuck Sutherland *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
I would assume we are interested in the conditional probability of survival, given that the individual swam. We would also be interested in the conditional probability of survival, given the individual stayed with the boat. Unfortunately, this source turns these conditional probabilities around, and gives for example: P(swim | survival)=.60 and P(stay | survival)=.30. This is not very helpful, and does not provide sufficient imformation to employ Bayes Rules to compute P(survival | swim) and P(survival | stay). Brad Crain Quoting skimmer <skimmer_at_enter.net>: > Boat capsized? Advice changes on what to do > <http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/229808> thestar.com (06-27- > 07) > Is this our best advice? > > Chuck Sutherland *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Bradford R. Crain wrote: > I would assume we are interested in the conditional probability of > survival, given that the individual swam. We would also be interested in > the conditional probability of survival, given the individual stayed > with the boat. Unfortunately, this source turns these conditional > probabilities around, and gives for example: P(swim | survival)=.60 and > P(stay | survival)=.30. This is not very helpful, and does not provide > sufficient information to employ Bayes Rules to compute P(survival | > swim) and P(survival | stay). In terms a dumb chemist might understand, I think this means we don't know what proportion of bodies found dead swam, and which proportion, instead, held onto the hull until they passed out and could not hold on any longer. The advice to consider swimming is moot where I paddle; 800 - 1000 meters is more than I can swim, most likely, and much of the time I am farther than that away from shore, anyhow. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On 11/8/07, Dave Kruger <kdruger_at_pacifier.com> wrote: > > > In terms a dumb chemist might understand, I think this means we don't know > what proportion of bodies found dead swam, and which proportion, instead, > held onto the hull until they passed out and could not hold on any longer. Nor does it quantify who might have drowned because they were incapacitated in other ways (drunk, for instance). A rather large proportion of people who fall out of boats have been drinking. But I think that there is some value in a study that tells us that a person might be better off making a judgement about whether to swim or stay based on the water temperature, the distance to shore, and their ability to swim (with or without a pfd). As opposed to sticking with a hard and fast rule. Someone observed here that there are swimmers who habitually spend an hour or more in water that experts tell us will have us dead in 30 to 40 minutes. It might be that the experts really don't know much about this after all. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Bayes Theorem says for example: P(survive|swim)=P(swim|survive)P(survive)/Denominator, where Denominator=P(swim|survive)P(survive)+P(swim|not survive)P(not survive). The only one of these quantities given is P(swim|survive)=.60. So we seem to have insufficient info. Conversely, I took Freshman chemistry, and can't even remember the chemical symbols from the periodic table. BRC Quoting Dave Kruger <kdruger_at_pacifier.com>: > Bradford R. Crain wrote: >> I would assume we are interested in the conditional probability of >> survival, given that the individual swam. We would also be >> interested in >> the conditional probability of survival, given the individual >> stayed with the boat. Unfortunately, this source turns these >> conditional probabilities around, and gives for example: P(swim | >> survival)=.60 and P(stay | survival)=.30. This is not very helpful, >> and does not provide sufficient information to employ Bayes Rules >> to compute P(survival | >> swim) and P(survival | stay). > > In terms a dumb chemist might understand, I think this means we don't > know what proportion of bodies found dead swam, and which proportion, > instead, held onto the hull until they passed out and could not hold on > any longer. > > The advice to consider swimming is moot where I paddle; 800 - 1000 > meters is more than I can swim, most likely, and much of the time I am > farther than that away from shore, anyhow. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Thank you Brad for illuminating one of my pet peeves of popularly applied probability. DuCharme's paper mentioned in the article is available at: http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ppv/RPViewDoc?_handler_=HandleInitialGet&journal=apnm&volume=32&calyLang=eng&articleFile=h07-042.pdf (search for 60%) My first hope was that the journalist misinterpreted something written in the paper. But no, the article is true to DuCharme's exposition. My next hope was that DuCharme blindly copied someone else's analysis, but this turns out not to be so. His source is also available: http://www.redcross.ca/cmslib/general/ws_final_m2_english2006_04_19.pdf (Search for "VICTIM & SURVIVOR RESPONSES TO IMMERSION") As it turns out, the 2006 Drowning Report lists, for victims and surivors who had the choice, how many swam immediately, swam after a delay, and stayed with the boat. Using the raw totals, here are the relevant results: P{survive} = 0.53 (81 survivors, 72 victims) P{survive | swim immediately} = 0.51 P{survive | swim after a delay} = 0.53 P{survive | stay with the boat} = 0.55 I haven't done the statistics, but I'm guessing that the small variation in these numbers with a relatively small sample is not statistically significant, so no claim can be made as to which course of action gives the best chance of survival. (Of course, the real answer is that this is situation dependent and must include information like, proximity to shore, swimming ability, PFD, clothing, etc.) While the drowning report does not report the numbers exactly as Brad suggested, it also does not report them as DuCharme did - so he must be held accountable for twisting his Bayesian inference all by himself. As for whether you should swim or stay, you'll have to decide that based on the conditions. -Mark PS - The good news is that of all types of boating victims, only 3% were kayakers, making kayaks safer than rowboats, canoes or even large powerboats (22%) (and yes, I'm kidding) On Nov 8, 2007 6:59 PM, Bradford R. Crain <crainb_at_pdx.edu> wrote: > I would assume we are interested in the conditional probability of > survival, given that the individual swam. We would also be interested > in the conditional probability of survival, given the individual stayed > with the boat. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
I have to agree that a simple attempt to do a statistical analysis using Bayes Theorem is just not sufficient. There are too many mitigating factors and intangibles. A good analysis could perhaps be obtained through a planned, well-designed experiment, but of course this is not ethically and legally possible. Brad Quoting Mark Perkins <marker_at_gmail.com>: > Thank you Brad for illuminating one of my pet peeves of popularly applied > probability. > > DuCharme's paper mentioned in the article is available at: > http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ppv/RPViewDoc?_handler_=HandleInitialGet&journal=apnm&volume=32&calyLang=eng&articleFile=h07-042.pdf > (search for 60%) > > My first hope was that the journalist misinterpreted something written in > the paper. But no, the article is true to DuCharme's exposition. My next > hope was that DuCharme blindly copied someone else's analysis, but this > turns out not to be so. His source is also available: > > http://www.redcross.ca/cmslib/general/ws_final_m2_english2006_04_19.pdf > (Search for "VICTIM & SURVIVOR RESPONSES TO IMMERSION") > > As it turns out, the 2006 Drowning Report lists, for victims and surivors > who had the choice, how many swam immediately, swam after a delay, and > stayed with the boat. Using the raw totals, here are the relevant results: > P{survive} = 0.53 (81 survivors, 72 victims) > P{survive | swim immediately} = 0.51 > P{survive | swim after a delay} = 0.53 > P{survive | stay with the boat} = 0.55 > > I haven't done the statistics, but I'm guessing that the small variation in > these numbers with a relatively small sample is not statistically > significant, so no claim can be made as to which course of action gives the > best chance of survival. (Of course, the real answer is that this is > situation dependent and must include information like, proximity to shore, > swimming ability, PFD, clothing, etc.) > > While the drowning report does not report the numbers exactly as Brad > suggested, it also does not report them as DuCharme did - so he must be held > accountable for twisting his Bayesian inference all by himself. > > As for whether you should swim or stay, you'll have to decide that based on > the conditions. > > -Mark > > PS - The good news is that of all types of boating victims, only 3% were > kayakers, making kayaks safer than rowboats, canoes or even large powerboats > (22%) (and yes, I'm kidding) > > On Nov 8, 2007 6:59 PM, Bradford R. Crain <crainb_at_pdx.edu> wrote: > >> I would assume we are interested in the conditional probability of >> survival, given that the individual swam. We would also be interested >> in the conditional probability of survival, given the individual stayed >> with the boat. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
--- skimmer <skimmer_at_enter.net> wrote: > Boat capsized? Advice changes on what to do > <http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/229808> > thestar.com (06-27- > 07) > Is this our best advice? It must be-- its from government scientists. Harvey *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
G'Day, A lot of food for thought there. I was struck by two sentences. One was the sheer commonsense of: - "In the wilderness, where I have seen nobody over the last five days, what's the point of waiting for a rescuer?" The other was: - "DuCharme's team looked at 35 people who were dunked into water with temperatures of 10, 14 and 23 degrees Celsius. They found that in all temperature ranges, people wearing a life jacket could swim between 800 and 1,000 metres, or about 45 minutes, before their arms and legs stopped working from the cold." Would your arms really stop working from the cold after swimming 45 minutes in 23 degree C water? Another thought was how much more difficult it seems to be to make progress swimming when wearing a life jacket. If I was in isolated and cold waters and had to swim a kilometer would it be better to abandon the lifejacket. Somehow that doesn't feel right? One would be swimming faster but without the benefit of buoyancy and any insulation the PFD provided. I guess it depends on one's physique and swimming ability. Is there a preferred stroke for best speed swimming while wearing a PFD? If I was strong enough to swim a kilometre I'd take the easy option and roll up or paddlefloat rescue. Perhaps this advice is fundamentally irrelevant to kayakers with good self rescue skills. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
rebyl_kayak_at_energysustained.com wrote: > Would your arms really stop working from the cold after swimming 45 > minutes in 23 degree C water? No. We used to swim for hours, no PFD, no immersion gear -- just a bathing suit -- in 23 C (73 F) water; actually for an active swimmer, 73 F is a bit warm. Our limit for "hours" of swimming was about 62-64 F (ca. 17 C). Below 60, it became pretty brutal to stay out for an hour. the rate of heat transfer being proportional to the _difference between_ skin temp and water temp. > Another thought was how much more difficult it seems to be to make > progress swimming when wearing a life jacket. If I was in isolated and > cold waters and had to swim a kilometer would it be better to abandon > the lifejacket. Somehow that doesn't feel right? One would be swimming > faster but without the benefit of buoyancy and any insulation the PFD > provided. I guess it depends on one's physique and swimming ability. > > Is there a preferred stroke for best speed swimming while wearing a PFD? I've not swum more than a few meters with my PFD on (a very high volume one), so I am extrapolating from that experience. The Australian crawl would be cumbersome; better would be the side stroke, for distance, or one of the back strokes. Personally, I would not abandon the PFD; I'd want it for insulation once ashore; plus it has my E-gear in/on it. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
>> I would not abandon the PFD; I'd want it for insulation once ashore; plus it has my E-gear in/on it. That's providing you could even make the swim with the pfd on. Personally, if I thought a swim was necessary then I'd ditch the pfd. Oh, wait, that's right, I most likely would not be wearing it in the first place :-) Scott So.Cal. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
If you werent wearing a PFD you wouldn't have a choice about swimming. Jim et al On Nov 9, 2007, at 6:52 AM, Scott Hilliard wrote: > >> I would not abandon the PFD; I'd want it for insulation once > ashore; plus it has my E-gear in/on it. > > > That's providing you could even make the swim with the pfd on. > Personally, if I thought a swim was necessary then I'd ditch the > pfd. Oh, wait, that's right, I most likely would not be wearing it > in the first place :-) > > Scott > So.Cal. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
>>If you werent wearing a PFD you wouldn't have a choice about swimming. Jim et al Not true! IF I came out of the boat, which is a pretty good stretch in itself, I would climb back into the boat from the water which is a technique I not only frequently practice, but teach classes in - and although I do wear a pfd in the classes and encourage the others in the classes to wear theirs as well, the fact is that the techniques are far easier to perform without a pfd on. Scott So.Cal. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> Not true! IF I came out of the boat, which is a pretty good stretch > in itself, Hubris > I would climb back into the boat from the water which is a > technique I not only frequently practice, but teach classes in - > and although I do wear a pfd in the classes and encourage the > others in the classes to wear theirs as well, the fact is that the > techniques are far easier to perform without a pfd on. >> A reentry and roll is much easier with the added flotation of a PFD. >> In my club people have trouble getting back in the boat at all and >> they sure as hell come out of the boat a lot. Break your collar >> bone in a wipeout and tell me the glories of how easy it is >> staying in the boat or getting back in. Wear or dont wear the >> choice is yours... > Jim et al *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Having seen a fair number of very good rollers swim, what I have observed is: Good rollers swim in conditions where rolling did them no good. They were generally able to roll, but the conditions were such that even after a roll they were not yet out of trouble. They either were still buried in the pile of a breaking wave or jammed up against an obstacle that made being upright as or more dangerous than being in the water. Whatever the source of the problem, they ran out of air before they were in a position where it was safe to breath, or they accurately determined that they were not going to get free before it was safe to breath. They didn't swim because they were unable to roll, but because rolling didn't resolve the problem. Once you have a reliable roll, it is time to consider contingencies for when that reliable roll fails. What kind of conditions would cause it to fail? The belief that a reliable roll is 100% reliable is just ignoring how powerful water really is. No matter how strong you think you are, the ocean is much, much, much stronger. If you have a reliable roll you probably have a really good brace, conditions that force you to the point where you are relying on your roll are probably quite severe. In fact they are probably so severe that you are approaching the point where your roll may not be enough. If the conditions are severe enough that your roll is not enough, then chances are quite good that they are also severe enough that you may not be able to maintain contact with your boat. Remember, if you have a really good roll, you are probably getting your butt kicked if you even need to use it. If conditions are mild enough that you can keep a hand on the boat, they are probably mild enough to roll back up. So, it is not a bad assumption that a reliable roller, forced to exit the boat, will probably no longer have contact with the boat. The forces that forced them over in the first place are enough that they are unable to maintain contact with the boat once they exit it. This matches my experience. When I have seen good rollers wet exit, they have often also lost touch with their boat. Based on my experience seeing good rollers swim I feel that the next logical safety step for good rollers is to prepare for some form of extended swim, because that will be the next logical line of self- defense should their roll fail. It may involve swimming to retrieve the boat or swimming to shore. Personally, I would at least want to start with a PFD on should the situation get that bad. Nick On Nov 9, 2007, at 8:12 AM, Scott Hilliard wrote: >>> If you werent wearing a PFD you wouldn't have a choice about >>> swimming. > > Jim et al > > Not true! IF I came out of the boat, which is a pretty good > stretch in itself, I would climb back into the boat from the water > which is a technique I not only frequently practice, but teach > classes in - and although I do wear a pfd in the classes and > encourage the others in the classes to wear theirs as well, the > fact is that the techniques are far easier to perform without a pfd > on. > > Scott > So.Cal. > Nick Schade Guillemot Kayaks 824 Thompson St Glastonbury, CT 06033 USA Ph/Fx: (860) 659-8847 http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/ *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Scott Hilliard wrote: > Dave wrote first: >> I would not abandon the PFD; I'd want it for insulation once ashore; >> plus it has my E-gear in/on it. > That's providing you could even make the swim with the pfd on. > Personally, if I thought a swim was necessary then I'd ditch the pfd. > Oh, wait, that's right, I most likely would not be wearing it in the > first place :-) > > Scott So.Cal. The difference is told by our sigs: he's in Southern California and I'm in northern Oregon (and paddle in BC a lot): the water up here is always colder, and often coming out of the sky. Survival ashore up here is almost always dependent on avoiding death by hypothermia. That PFD is a lot of insulation to lose. If I paddled the warmer climes of SoCal, I'd probably ditch the PFD, also. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
There are two main functions of a PFD. One is to sit on during lunch. The other is to make it much easier for Search and Rescue to find your body. That's why a brightly colored PFD is preferred. Another important use is so that you don't get a fine when the sheriff finds out you don't have one. OK, so I can't count. Bradford R. Crain PeterO said: > G'Day, > > A lot of food for thought there. I was struck by two sentences. One was > the sheer commonsense of: - > > "In the wilderness, where I have seen nobody over the last five days, > what's the point of waiting for a rescuer?" > The other was: - > > "DuCharme's team looked at 35 people who were dunked into water with > temperatures of 10, 14 and 23 degrees Celsius. They found that in all > temperature ranges, people wearing a life jacket could swim between 800 > and 1,000 metres, or about 45 minutes, before their arms and legs stopped > working from the cold." > > Would your arms really stop working from the cold after swimming 45 > minutes in 23 degree C water? > > Another thought was how much more difficult it seems to be to make > progress swimming when wearing a life jacket. If I was in isolated and > cold waters and had to swim a kilometer would it be better to abandon the > lifejacket. Somehow that doesn't feel right? One would be swimming faster > but without the benefit of buoyancy and any insulation the PFD provided. I > guess it depends on one's physique and swimming ability. > > Is there a preferred stroke for best speed swimming while wearing a PFD? > > If I was strong enough to swim a kilometre I'd take the easy option and > roll up or paddlefloat rescue. Perhaps this advice is fundamentally > irrelevant to kayakers with good self rescue skills. > > All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 20:36:10 4, skimmer <skimmer_at_enter.net> wrote: > > Boat capsized? Advice changes on what to do > <http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/229808> thestar.com (06-27- > 07) > Is this our best advice? Re-reading the article, I'm not at all sure it applies to kayakers much; if at all. I believe the piece was aimed at "boaters" who were advised to get up as high on their boat as they could if they chose not to swim. Additionally, it seemed to be aimed toward those who paddle on lakes and rivers rather than salt water. The remarks about swimming 800 to 1000 yards was followed by a line saying that would be enough to get them to shore on most Canadian lakes and rivers. No mention was made of rolling, re-entry, paddle-float or any other means of self-rescue kayakers would be likely to use. So the story seems to me to be that when you're standing up in your 18-foot powerboat, casting for fish, and you reach for that next Bud Light you fall in... then swim for shore. Don't try to rescue the Bud Light. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
The paper said........" would be enough to get them to shore on most Canadian lakes and rivers. " I pretty much doubt that Canadian Lakes and Rivers are at 23 Degrees Celsius, even in the summer. So the 800 or 1000 meters may be strongly reduced under real conditions there. Best Regards, Rafael. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Friday 09 November 2007 18:19, Brad wrote: > There are two main functions of a PFD. One is to sit > on during lunch. The other is to make it much easier > for Search and Rescue to find your body. That's why > a brightly colored PFD is preferred. Another important > use is so that you don't get a fine when the sheriff finds > out you don't have one. OK, so I can't count. This is about as cynic as one can get! The warmth of a PFD is a blessing, and I am positive that I wouldn't have met Craig, and other on this list, if I hadn't have the habit of using mine! When I was young and stupid, like you seem to be now, I sailed offshore without one - a bit wiser now! Tord *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Tord writes; >>I sincerely think that emergency gear as important as skills, While either can fail, the former is easier to maintain in top trim! Duane writes; >>I think too much emphasis is put on immersion gear at the expense of skills and judgment. I would tend to agree with Duane, except that I would include all safety equipment, immersion and otherwise. I know that we have been through this all before, but since it's back on the front burner again I am going to include my two cents. While I realize that it is so much easier to plunk down the money for a new piece of equipment then it is to learn and polish a new skill, the odds are that your equipment will not save you. To paddle into a situation with the belief that your equipment will bail you out if you get into trouble is sheer folly, and those who approach this sport with this assumption deserve what they get. One should only paddle into a situation if they believe that they have the skills to handle it - and that they have the equipment to back them up if they make a mistake. Please note that what I am saying is that if you have to resort to your equipment then you screwed up! The equipment should be considered a weak substitute for the skills. On another note, James Farrelly seems to think that my posts are just so much "hubris" (like we don't get an overabundance of that on this list). Well I agree, I tend to slant some of them in that direction. Regardless, I think a lot more people have died with your equipment then they have with my skills. Scott So.Cal. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On 11/9/07, Scott Hilliard <kiayker_at_sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > >>I think too much emphasis is put on immersion gear at the expense of > skills and judgment. > > I would tend to agree with Duane, except that I would include all > safety equipment, immersion and otherwise. I'm a little confused here, Scott. What are you lumping in with "safety equipment"? Are you talking about equipment that's intended to assist someone else or just you? Are PFDs included in your definition of "safety equipment"? I mean, if we take this to the extreme we'd all be paddling a 4x4 with a 2x4 and wearing a fig leaf. There should be a balance between skills, equipment and judgement. The problem is that of those three only equipment stays the same day-in and day-out. Every paddler has an off-day with judgment and with skills and, with luck, both of those won't go south the same day. But if they do, if you have some thought towards safety equipment you might come out of it alive. To believe that you cannot - ever - be caught unawares isn't just hubris. Two expert paddlers on the east coast owe their lives to being dressed for immersion and having two VHF radios. For those two, both their skills and their judgment went somewhere else (paddling a river bar with an onshore wind and an ebb tide compounded by heavy flooding the previous week) but their equipment summoned help and allowed them to live to wait for it to arrive. Now, if you're saying that everyone should garb up and load themselves down with all their equipment for every paddle, then I'll agree. That's where judgment comes in. But if your contention is that simply having safety gear (whatever (*that* is) leads paddlers into trouble I'll have to disagree. Paddlers acquire new skills by doing things they cannot already do and that, all by itself, means that it's dangerous. It's easy to say that your skills will save you but do you believe that someone just learning to surf shouldn't be prepared for immersion? I'm thinking that they're more likely to be in the water than on it and that only an idiot wouldn't prepare for it. As long as people attempt to do something that's beyond their current level we'll need appropriate safety equipment and, in my opinion, also need to encourage them to use it properly. Because they're probably going to push their competence anyway. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
How do I get to the archives of emails to this list? At first the current topic that started out as "Swim for it" didn't seem to be of interest to me and, I just deleted. Now it looks likely there were great pearls of wisdom that I need to search for. I went to the home page, followed link and looked for an obvious link called archives, but no luck. Maybe I need another cup of coffee. Thanks Mike San Rafael, CA *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Mike Euritt wrote: >How do I get to the archives of emails to this list? > http://paddlewise.net/getarchives.html To remember how to get to the above, on the home page of Paddlewise.net , at the bottom, there is a link to information for new folks on how to sign up. At that link is where you will find lots of information for new folks including the link for information on how to retrieve archives: "Subscribers to PaddleWise may retrieve back issues of archived discussions that do not appear on this website. For instructions on how to retrieve back issues of PaddleWise discussions, click on this link <http://paddlewise.net/getarchives.html>" Jackie *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Two points. 1. Only you have your skills. 2. I don't recall lending the dead my equipment. Nick's post said it better than I ever could on this subject and I shall paraphrase on the water whenever the opportunity arises. Jim et al > > On another note, James Farrelly seems to think that my posts are > just so much "hubris" (like we don't get an overabundance of that > on this list). Well I agree, I tend to slant some of them in that > direction. Regardless, I think a lot more people have died with > your equipment then they have with my skills. > > Scott > So.Cal. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Boy, I go away for a couple days and Paddlewise wakes up! In real conditions, I have no roll yet. It is rather bothersome at San O as I'll usually find myself making a few swims quite a way to shore. As Patrick says, even if you were a good swimmer, in real conditions you find out how difficult it is. Have to say though, the whole time I'm swimming, I'm wishing I didn't have my PFD on. Cold water in this case isn't a factor; it's just swimming with a PFD is inefficient. Try attaching it to the the hull of your boat when you paddle if you don't think so! If I decide my life depends on me having to swim, the PFD is probably coming off. They can always have a nice funeral for it if they can't find my body. I've been meaning to get back in the pool to work on my swimming skills, maybe this thread will help me take the plunge. And Scott is my hero. Mark -----Original Message----- >>I think too much emphasis is put on immersion gear at the expense of skills and judgment. I would tend to agree with Duane, except that I would include all safety equipment, immersion and otherwise. I know that we have been through this all before, but since it's back on the front burner again I am going to include my two cents. While I realize that it is so much easier to plunk down the money for a new piece of equipment then it is to learn and polish a new skill, the odds are that your equipment will not save you. To paddle into a situation with the belief that your equipment will bail you out if you get into trouble is sheer folly, and those who approach this sport with this assumption deserve what they get. One should only paddle into a situation if they believe that they have the skills to handle it - and that they have the equipment to back them up if they make a mistake. Please note that what I am saying is that if you have to resort to your equipment then you screwed up! The equipment should be considered a weak substitute for the skills. On another note, James Farrelly seems to think that my posts are just so much "hubris" (like we don't get an overabundance of that on this list). Well I agree, I tend to slant some of them in that direction. Regardless, I think a lot more people have died with your equipment then they have with my skills. Scott So.Cal. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Well, getting back into your boat is the most obvious answer for kayakers - if you know what you are doing. Next to that, if a capsized boat of any description offers reasonable support out of most of the water and rescue is eventually possible, then don't swim. A friend of mine did just that with a flooded rec boat and his pleas for help carried across the bay and he was eventually saved. Given the currents in the area he capsized, it was a good decision. Though he was yelling for help like a drowning puppy, he actually remained calm and thought through his decisions. I've swam a number of times in the ocean by accidental immersion - if one can even maintain going in the water as a paddler should be considered in the same category as an accident. Dexterity goes quickly, but swim-ability can deteriorate more slowly. There are many variables. Unless I'm well prepared for immersion in colder waters, anything over half a mile, for me, I'd generally not try and make shore. I have swam that distance without my boat wearing fleece/raingear. It's doable. It's difficult. I really encourage folks to try some cold water distance-oriented swimming in their various seasonal paddling attire, while at the same time ensuring you do it under controlled circumstances of course. It can be a real eye opener. I'll bet those fellows from the Howe Sound incident would have given their crossing a second thought if some of them had previously had to practice swimming in similar conditions more than say, 500 meters. Fit paddlers with extra body fat probably might fare better. Why can I hear "Chocolate Brain" in the back of my mind? :-) Joviality aside, Polar Bear swim-club events aside, and apart from the obvious multitude of mitigating factors that suggest some sudden-swimmers fare better than others in cold water, the fact of the matter is people in my province die on a regular basis from cold-water immersion. I'd like to see outdoor magazines cover the subject of exposure with greater emphasis. Just my opinion.Oh yeah, that's what you asked for Chuck. BTW, I read somewhere that if the water isn't cold enough to kill you from hypothermia, then the probable threat is likely sharks! Poor sharks, always getting a bum rap. Doug > Boat capsized? Advice changes on what to do > <http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/229808> thestar.com (06-27- > 07) > Is this our best advice? > > Chuck Sutherland *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
"... The study appears in the National Research Council journal Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism. The paper points out that recent research by the Canadian Red Cross showed that 60 per cent of those who survived cold-water emersions swam for shore or other dry sanctuary. Only 30 per cent of survivors stayed with their craft. ..." The following questions may, of course, already have been answered adequately in the published text of the study itself, but it seems unclear from the article, and so one wonders: - How many of the non-survivors tried to swim and failed? How many died staying with the boat? - How many of the swimmers carried flippers and used them to enhance their swimming? - How many survivors swam while wearing PFDs? How many died without wearing PFDs? - How many paddlers plan to rely only on their own devices to survive? How many plan to rely on outside help alone? AND: If you find yourself in the water in conditions that allow you to swim for a full 45 minutes, why can't you get back in the boat and paddle or row back to shore that much faster?!? Ralph Hoehn -----Original Message----- From: skimmer Subject: [Paddlewise] swim for it? Boat capsized? Advice changes on what to do <http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/229808> thestar.com (06-27-07) Is this our best advice? Chuck Sutherland *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Great topic, Chuck -- and great timing, too. I've worked a fair amount with the Canadian Defence Research and Development folks, and have great respect for their research, especially in airliner safety. And I've worked in their part of the world long enough to know that in June, when the last of the snow has melted -- mostly -- it's easier to think about cold water because there's less of it. However, my knee-jerk reaction to the article and to Dr. Ducharme's new theories was that his research needed a very hard look. Others have noted the stats and other issues: I'm centered on the note in http://cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/media/press/swim_safety_e.html that, "In its 2006 drowning report, the Canadian Red Cross stated that if rescue is unlikely, it may be preferable to swim to safety." That's up there with "it's better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick," and I think an earlier response had a similar reaction. (That link also has a link to the full report. That said, in a related article, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abs tractPlus&list_uids=17622298&tool=MedlinePlus, Dr. Ducharme and a colleague make a valid point: their study noted that "... the subjects were quite astute at deciding their swimming strategy early in the immersion with 86% success, but after about 30 min of swimming or passive cooling, their decision-making ability became impaired. It would therefore seem wise to make one's accidental immersion survival plan early during the immersion, directly after cessation of the cold shock responses." That's a very valid point, and requires some thought process rather than a checklist response -- "in water, don't swim". And, to the earlier point, if there's no way anyone is going to even begin to look for you -- you're playing hooky, the dog ate your float plan, and you have not attempted a re-entry and roll or another self-rescue technique (which doesn't seem to figure into the logic of this study) and you seem to have forgotten your VHF and your cell phone and your survival flares and smoke signals, swimming to shore doesn't seem to be a bad option, although you could be making one bad decision on top of other bad decisions -- like how is it that you fell out of the boat in the first place while alone and far away, and why can't you do a self rescue? Lies, damn lies, and statistics. As to Harvey Golden's note (of irony) that the research must be good because it's from the government, an additional note: The Journal of the American Medical Association on Wednesday published a study which pointed to the fact that being fat does not negatively effect one's health, and may, in fact, be good for you -- based on statistics. Joq Boat capsized? Advice changes on what to do <http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/229808> thestar.com (06-27- 07) Is this our best advice? *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:47 PDT