[pct-l] Probability of Disaster

Wed Sep 1 18:58:22 CDT 2010

In my opinion, this was an exceptionally well thought out, informative and
literate post. Even a quote from Winston Churchill.   But then I have to
confess to having printed out Steel Eye's earlier dissertation on blisters
and making my daughters read it before hiking with them this year; so
perhaps I'm already a convert.

I would add an additional factor or two.  First, the paradigm assumes a
constant level of risk which actually would vary based on the length of time
spent on the trail and magnitude of risk (actual outcome) involved; and,
second, any additional weight carried predisposes one to cumulative
injuries, which also are a greater risk over time. This latter point is
especially true for older hikers, which I, unfortunately, am.  Also, of
course, there is experience which can often mislead as well as inform as far
as unexpected conditions are concerned.  It seems that many
injuries/fatalities are the result of bad luck ...such as slip and falls
which may be contributed to by a heavier pack, being tired and distracted,
etc..

Steel Eye, you raise the level of discourse.

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Gary Schenk <gwschenk at socal.rr.com> wrote:

> An interesting post with much food for thought.
>
> A couple of question:
> How many PCTers have died from being under-equipped?
> How many PCTers have died from being over-equipped?
>
> On 9/1/2010 4:00 PM, CHUCK CHELIN wrote:
> > Good afternoon, all,
> >
> > I represent the ultra-lite faction when discussing gear.  For a
> > long-distance hike I prefer to keep my base weight around 8 lbs, and
> seldom
> > conditionally stretch that to 10-12 lbs.  I’ll admit one of my basic
> credos
> > is, “When in doubt, leave it out.”  That doesn’t leave a lot of margin
> for
> > “difficulty”, but having successfully survived wilderness situations for
> > about 50 years I feel comfortable with that approach.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sir Winston Churchill once said, “Why, you may take the most gallant
> sailor,
> > the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a
> table
> > together- what do you get?  The sum of all fears.”  Author, Tom Clancy,
> like
> > that comment so much that he borrowed part of it to use as the title of
> one
> > of his books.
> >
> >
> >
> > PCT-L is much like that meeting table:  One expert claims a 4-season tent
> is
> > necessary.  Another says lots of layers of clothes is best.  One claims
> > communication is the key with a phone, a two-way radio, and a SPOT.
>  Another
> > advocates having full-on alpine climbing gear.  Occasionally someone
> feels
> > they need to carry a gun to foil the large, carnivorous wildlife.
>  Someone
> > else simply must have a serious, expedition-capable first-aid kit.  It
> goes
> > on and on: All of their arguments seem to have merit but if we take the
> sum
> > of their recommendations to heart we end up carrying a huge load.
> >
> >
> >
> > Those who advocate carrying lots of “what if” gear usually claim they
> want a
> > greater margin in the event of a problem.  They say, “What if …
> (something
> > bad)… happens?  I would certainly … (suffer somehow) … with no-one around
> to
> > help.  If I just pack … (an additional item) … I could use it to save my
> > life.”
> >
> >
> >
> > That all sounds very sensible as we play these “what if” games in our
> mind,
> > but let’s parse that statement and see what it really means.  That
> statement
> > presupposes:
> >
> > 1)       Something bad could happen, and,
> >
> > 2)      The result could be a disaster, and,
> >
> > 3)      There are no options to consider, and,
> >
> > 4)      An additional piece(s) of gear is the answer, and,
> >
> > 5)      I can use that gear to resolve the disaster.
> >
> >
> >
> > If any of those suppositions are untrue – meaning having a near-0%
> > probability of occurring – the entire scenario is either not going to
> happen
> > or the results will be significantly mitigated.  If all five of those
> > suppositions are possible, the probability of each actually happening is
> > sequentially multiplied.  That’s why it’s called sequential conditional
> > logic.
> >
> > For example, bad things may be possible but they don’t often happen –
> except
> > in our minds.  What’s the chance of our being caught in a freak
> snowstorm,
> > or being stranded on a high-angle snowfield, or encountering a really
> deep,
> > dangerous ford, etc.?  Pick a number – let’s say it’s 20%.
> >
> > Next, what’s the chance of that event – if it happens -- really being a
> > potential disaster?  I don’t mean the discomfort of being soaked to the
> > skin; or the inconvenience of a cold, uncomfortable night; I mean
> something
> > that genuinely threatens life and limb?  Again, pick a number -- let’s
> say
> > it’s 10%.
> >
> > Also, what are the chances that there are no options available to
> mitigate
> > the potentially disastrous possibility?  Is there no-one around to lend a
> > hand?  Is there no re-route that can be taken?  Can one not bail out on a
> > convenient side trail?  Is it not possible to just continue to hike –
> even
> > night-hike -- to stay warm?  I submit there are almost always options to
> > avoid disaster, but let’s say there’s a 20% chance that no viable options
> > are available.
> >
> > Next, what’s the chance that an extra piece(s) of gear will really save
> the
> > day?  It can happen:  Maybe a nice 4-season tent would help.  Maybe a
> > generous array of alpine climbing gear would get us off the hook.  Maybe
> a
> > GPS would help us find our way back to the trail. Maybe a really full-on
> set
> > of storm gear with extra clothing would save the day, etc.  Gear won’t
> get
> > us out all troubles, but I’ll say there’s a 50% chance it will.
> >
> > Finally, what’s the probability that we actually know how to effectively
> > employ that extra gear?  A tent we can pitch; clothes we can put on, etc,
> > but many – or most -- hikers can’t use climbing gear; most can’t use GPS
> > effectively; and the contents of a big “survival kit” or an expedition
> > first-aid kit are largely a mystery.  A gun?  Very likely the average
> hiker
> > couldn’t hit a circus tent with it at any range over 10 feet.  I guess
> the
> > odds of a hiker being actually able to use specialized extra gear to be
> 50%
> > at best.
> >
> > So here’s how it stacks up:  The likelihood,
> >
> > … of an event happening, 20%
> >
> > … of it being potential disaster,  10%
> >
> > … of few/no options or help being available,  20%
> >
> > … of gear being the substantial answer, 50%
> >
> > … of expertise being available to employ gear, 50%
> >
> > Now comes the “sequential” part:  Multiply 0.20 x 0.10 x 0.20 x 0.50 x
> 0.50
> > and see that the result of that conditional string equals 0.001 which is
> > 0.1%.  That’s a one tenth of one percent likelihood of all that
> happening.  I,
> > for one, am not going to carry very much extra gear against such a
> > probability.  Don’t quarrel with my numbers; plug in your own.
> >
> > Your results may vary – as will your pack weight.
> >
> >
> >
> > “Tools are deceiving.  They have a way of making you think you can use
> them,
> > as you study them and imagine yourself owing them...  There is no name
> for
> > this quality that tools -- have, but it’s undeniable.”
> >
> > -- Geoffrey Norman, *Outside*, Oct. 1986
> >
> >
> >
> > Steel-Eye
> >
> > Hiking the Pct since before it was the PCT – 1965
> >
> > http://www.trailjournals.com/steel-eye
> >
> > http://www.trailjournals.com/SteelEye09
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pct-L mailing list
> > Pct-L at backcountry.net
> > To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> >
> > List Archives:
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net
> To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
>