This news article is tragic on many accounts....

DAWN WALTON
Globe and Mail Update
February 25, 2009 at 7:10 PM EST

During nearly 10 days stranded in the British Columbia backcountry, a pair of lost skiers stamped SOS signs in the snow — distress signals that were reported by helicopter pilots and skiers — but nobody went to look for them.

It wasn't until Tuesday morning that a helicopter pilot flying near Kicking Horse Mountain Resort in the B.C. interior noticed another SOS. As he was preparing to jot down the co-ordinates, he also saw signs of life.

“The pilot flew over the area, spotted someone on the ground waving who appeared to be in distress,” RCMP Constable Annie Linteau said Wednesday.

Full news article here

"Tragic' only in that it could have been so easily prevented...

-Blast

Exactly....

The story states 'they became disoriented and got lost.' So, Did they go out of bonds deliberately or by accident, and is this reason for the 'constables'rather cold assesssment?
A big canadian EH?

It looks like a major screw-up on both sides.

Did the authorities think the BEARS were making the SOS in the snow??? SOMEONE was out there, and had signaled that they were in trouble, and a bunch of mental zeros ignored it.

I'm sure this isn't the first time they've had people go out of bounds in BC. Unless, of course, they're all still out there, frozen or eaten.

Sue

That's appalling.

Regardless of their questionable decisions, the response to a distress signal in the snow is to count the rental skis and check the cars in the parking lot?

They were out there ten days. The granola bars and lack of water is a red herring, a detail released by the police to emphasize the mistakes of the victims -- it sure as hell didn't kill them. Neither did going out of bounds kill them, directly. What killed them was (a) getting lost and (b) the failure of the authorities to respond to their distress signals.

Everyones covering his ass. I hope there's a coroner's inquest on this one.

Sure am glad I am not the head of that agency...

Sad and unfortunate since it was avoidable. A Beacon and or a Routecard along with a proper SAR effort once the SOS was seen.

Bad on both sides.

This can/will also be bad for tourism to B.C. and can/could be made much worse depending on how the local authorities deal
with the situation.

VERY sad. I can only begin to imagine the hell they went through.

This is an all too common story. They never intended to be out that long. They were dressed/equipped just fine for their intended activity.

The fact that the gentleman survived is a testiment to their efforts to survive.

A $100 GPS would have most likely saved the woman's life ... assuming the batteries wouldn't have failed (I don't buy the GPS's are worthless since they run on batteries rant). Of course the journey back may have been difficult through that terrain.

A $450 PLB would have quickly brought rescue teams to them.

With with all due respect, I wonder if her family feels that her life was worth the $450?

THAT is why I own and carry a PLB when out in the 'field'.

Ken

I wonder if there have been false distress signals in that
area ? That or adverse weather would be the only reasons for not calling in a SAR efford that I can think of.

I know with ELT's we have had so many false ones that unless there is a missing aircraft we just run a three person DF team to find it and shut it down.

As for thr GPS that's what extra batteries are for, come on how much space/weight for two to four AA batteries.

If I was going into the back country I would spend the 450.00 on a PLB with out a doubt.

The big problem here is that the SAR response didn't even go that far. If they had, they probably would have found the victims camped near the signal.

Today there are more details in this story and this story.

Seems pretty clear there was fatal miscommunication here between the RCMP and Golden SAR (which is a volunteer organization). Golden SAR says "we can't search without RCMP say-so," but they didn't notify RCMP in the first place?

A GPS is a great tool for staying found. Even a cheap GPS like my old Garmin Geko will point the way back to where you parked the car. A mapping GPS like my Garmin 60CSx will present a map of what's around you and put your location in perspective. Really useful tools, calling in the cavalry is not required if you stay found.

If you leave a GPS on continuously, you do run the risk of running down the batteries which is why:
1) You don't leave it running continuously, you turn it on, determine the course to your destination and then turn it off. Use a mag compass to follow that course; and,
2) Carry spare batteries, just in case.

As for the couple who got lost in this incident and the authorities who seemingly failed to respond, I have little to say that isn't fairly self evident to the readers of this board.

This story makes me equally sad and mad. It seems there were communication failures and judgment calls on both sides that added up to tragedy.

Meaning no disrespect to the family, I have to say that these skiers' actions, however innocent at the time, contributed greatly to the tragic events.

They checked out of their hotel, turned in their rental car, and then went skiing. Innocent, but it means they made themselves completely invisible. No-one knew where they were, there was no trace of them locally, and no-one would miss them for more than a week.

Then they went out of bounds. It's usually pretty hard to go out of bounds by accident, though it's not impossible. That made them doubly invisible. The rest, sadly, we know.

I can understand the reluctance of law enforcement to mount a ground search when there's no report of someone missing. Not only is a wild-goose chase costly, it can put searchers at significant risk. This is very steep mountain terrain in winter; it's serious avalanche country. The follow-up to additional sightings seemed a bit weak as reported (as seen from my comfortable armchair).

Both the skiers and the authorities made judgment calls that turned out to be tragically wrong. Better communication would have averted this.

I don't know the rules at that ski area, but one near Nelson
BC I have been to used to allow, even sort of advertised, that
there is good skiing to be had in the nearby out of bounds
backcountry. Unlike most areas here in CA that make it a crime to
leave the boundry.

The couple is still responsible for their actions, but leaving
the area may not be viewed in the same way it is in other
locations. IE, leaving the bounds of the ski area is not a
mistake, getting lost is.

If officials ignore SEVERAL SOS', whats to say they won't ignore
a PLB?

With the kind of thinking demonstrated by the people in charge, would a PLB have been of any benefit? Or would they have ignored that, too? "No, we don't have any report of people being out there, so don't worry about it."

Sue

If they'd had a PLB, then the call would have come through the normal channels to the RCMP, which has the responsibility for ground SAR in BC.

But in this case the initial call went into the volunteer SAR organization locally, where the local SAR manager took it upon himself to check with the resort for any sign of missing persons, and then not to notify the RCMP. Then, when the RCMP got the second report and called him, he told them it was a false alarm.

So I'm thinking a PLB or SPOT would have made a big difference in how things were handled.

No one is going to want to hear my cold, soul-less opinion, so here goes anyways,

They deserve what they got. They have no one to blame but themselves for their mess, whether a volunteer group decided to help them or not. They made the mistake, and they paid the price. If you don't want to rely on the good will of others, don't make such reckless decisions.

That the SAR and others were as apparently callous as my own opinion is perhaps unfortunate, uncharitable, and seems lacking in compassion. However, that doesn't diminish one whit where ALL the responsibility for this tragedy lies, with the perpetrators.

I understand my view is not a popular one. It is, in my experience, realistic.

That's life.

I suspect that there wasn't a clear, formal process for dealing with reports. That seems to have compounded the problem. When there's a standard process, and an established chain of reporting, it's not so easy for things to be missed. So IMO we're looking at a communications failure, and a big one.

I can certainly see the challenge facing a small police detachment, dealing with a constant flow of tourists who often do not feel bound by the rules of normal behaviour or the laws of physics. FWIW, when the RCMP show up, the situation generally improves rapidly. They are highly professional, well trained, and the entry requirements are extensive. Callous disregard is not one of their defining traits.

Regrettably, something went off the rails in this situation.

It sounds like the authorities put forth a less than desirable response. However, like in the US, I doubt the Canadian authorities have a mandate to protect everyone from everything. Basically you're on you own, and should make plans for this. Hopefully the authorities can/will help you out in dire circumstances ... but don't bet your life on it. What if the authorities were already out on another SAR mission and couldn't gather the resources to help you? Per the news reports it sounds like the error this time was communications, not resources, and definitely needs to be addressed - but the bottom line is you have to take responsibility for yourself. Nobody is guaranteed to help you out, no matter what their reason (lack of resources, incompetence, failed communications, etc.)

Exact-a-mundo. Turn on the GPS, take a fix, turn it off. In this mode lithium batts last for weeks and weeks of use.

In my original comment I forgot to mention the absolutely critical "take a fix" step. They would have needed to turn the GPS on and create a waypoint for the hotel, parking lot, shelter, .... a safe place.

Without that, all they might have is the direction and distance to a great fishing spot back home.

For me taking a fix (marking a waypoint) at the truck when I start is a given. Then I take additional waypoints as I travel -- waypoints are free. Marking significant geographical features is a good habit because then you can literally draw a map on a featureless non-mapping GPS. Much easier to stay found. If on the other hand you are out skiing and don't bother to take care of basic backwoods navigation. . . 2 minutes with a GPS can spare you a lot of time stamping S O S in the snow.

"They deserve what they got."

Yes, but...

The authorities on both sides of the border collect a lot of taxpayers monies to go after fools who are doing stupid things in the wrong places. They've been doing it for years and people get to expect it. Fine.

But if you're going to change the rules of this particular game, you'd better give some warning. You can't just arbitrarily decide that this is the day you're going to pull the rug out from everyone who isn't aware of your decision.

So put signs all over at the accesses to wilderness areas, and broadcast it on the news, radio and weather stations: IF YOU GET YOURSELF INTO SOME STUPID PREDICAMENT, WE AREN'T COMING TO GET YOU. MAKE PLANS TO RESCUE YOURSELVES, OR DIE OUT THERE AND FEED THE BEARS.

I'm fine with this. But I'm not fine with the people responsible for the wilderness areas being just as stupid as the people they rescue. That's really a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Sue

Are we going to start this stupid ideological argument again?
Sure there is plenty of blame to go around, and one woman has paid with her life for her incompetence, the incompetence of the resort manager, the search leader, the police etc etc etc.

The truth is that we set up a system that should have prevented this and which failed in this case.

When the coroners are finished and the lawyers are done maybe we will get lucky and will have learned how to prevent it failing this way again.

More likely all we will end up with is somebody being blamed for it instead and nothing done to fix the problem. A totally useless solution.

I'd say the incompetence finger only points to one spot for blame, and that is the couple that tempted fate. They instigated the event, and they are solely responsible for the outcome. The volunteers are all discretionary, and anyone stupid enough to go into the wilderness thinking that there's always going to be a safety net if they take a chance and it doesn't work out for them is just plain stupid. You can't fix stupid. Signs telling people they are responsibile for their own actions are wishful thinking.

Volunteers don't get paid, although the organization may receive some funding for their effort, but that is not an instant obligation, nor should it be.

However, I believe the lawyers will make a case and policies will be changed, and in the long run once again the general public will be footing the bill for ever more contingency against stupid people taking stupid risks.

It would be far better, I think if we spent the money on paid advertising telling everyone that they actually need to think before they do, and have some sort of plan on how to mitigate the risks they take. Imagine how different the outcome if the couple had been on this forum for a couple months before attempting what they did? Prevention is far, far more desirable and efficient than response.

Maybe spread some unsubstantiated rumors on the internet that say something to the effect that if you get lost in the great outdoors and nobody knows you're missing, you could die.

What exactly does "experienced skiers in unfamiliar terrain" mean? They were very capable of getting seriously lost? The more I think on this the more I think Benjammin is correct.

"Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."
-- John Wayne

Today's Globe & Mail has a more detailed account.

Two days after they went missing, their first SOS was spotted by a local skier, who told Purcell, which in turn notified Kicking Horse to check if it had any signs of an overdue skier. The answer was no. Golden and District Search and Rescue heard informally through a volunteer who also works at Kicking Horse, but weren't called out by RCMP, who no one told.

This is where the finger-pointing appears to begin.

Purcell claimed late Thursday night that Kicking Horse had told it that Search and Rescue had been called, and therefore the helicopter company thought the matter to have been dealt with. The resort presumed that since one of its staff volunteered with Search and Rescue, that staff member would in turn inform Search and Rescue, which would then deal with it.

...

(It was at a joint ski outfitter and Search and Rescue meeting held in Golden, just last month, that both Purcell helicopters and Kicking Horse resort were directly informed that RCMP must be alerted in order for a search mission to be launched. All sides agree that, on Feb. 17 after the first SOS was spotted, neither Search and Rescue nor RCMP were formally notified).

The issues here are clear. If this account is accurate, the resort is negligent. Outfitters, etc., have a duty of care that extends at least as far as calling police on behalf of their clients. The police have a clear duty to respond and investigate when notified.

We can engage in interminable and otiose ideological debates, or we can acknowledge the facts: that there is a search and rescue system, and that the system exists for the sake of people who screw up. I expect that system to work.

You can blame the victims, thus excusing incompetence and neglect and perpetuating it. Alternatively, you can acknowledge that people will do stupid things, and demand that the SAR system that your taxes pay for is competent and effective.

Hmm, the investigation should turn up more facts. So far all is heresay. If the statements hold true, then it could be someone at Kicking Horse didn't exercise due diligence in accounting for the missing skiers, which would probably convey a negligence tort violation on the resort. From there, it looks like the communications were relying on the faulty initial info from the resort as the basis not to deploy, which was likely prudent based on the Feb 17 agreement.

Now, there may also be a good case of criminal negligence/reckless endangerment against the surviving male, especially if they find out it was his idea to go out of bounds. If anyone is going to go to jail for this, he is first in line. The rest may all be just face civil claims, unless someone can prove malicious intent, which doesn't seem to be the case here.

Sure, the SAR community didn't get called in, but all the hotel guests were accounted for. These two were no longer clients of the resort, they checked out.

For $116 plus S&H you can get a Garmin Geko 201 on ebay -- cheap insurance. 3.1 oz with batteries.

Really, the cost of a vacation, ski's, rental car, resort et al and they get lost? In the age of $billion$ GPS constellations there is no excuse for two healthy people to get lost.

Incorrect; they still had ski passes on the day they went missing. Their car was still parked in the lot, but the resort missed it when they did their check -- they didn't check the underground parking.

Yes, indeed, they could have had a GPS, or a PLB, or a dozen things. And that angle is being covered. (Although the media is fascinated with plugging SPOT and has apparently never heard of PLBs.)

But someone inevitably won't, and that's why we have a SAR system.

For anyone who's interested, here are a few of the latest reports.

Regarding the sequence of events and the SAR-related tangled communications:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090226.wskier0226/BNStory/National/home

Regarding some of the skiers' actions and experiences after they got into trouble:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Lost+skiers+leaves+drank+creek+water/1334887/story.html

http://canadaspace.com/CBC.php?/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/02/26/rescue.html

Plenty of blame to go around, but SAR's first shot at ending this came two days after they went missing when their first SOS was spotted by a local skier. Maybe if SAR wasn't there at all and people knew they really were on their own, they wouldn't be so stupid.

This should have ended on the first day when they could have stayed in-bounds. Or it could have ended in the afternoon when realizing they were lost they broke out their GPS to see where they needed to go. Instead they were out there two days before their first SOS was seen and they weren't even with the signal because they kept moving instead of staying in one place.

Lot's of blame for the resort and RCMP, but it starts with the victims.

I am interested in everyone's thoughts on this issue:

When you're travelling alone or with a spouse/friend, and undertaking a variety of outdoor activities, what's the most effective way leave word with a responsible third party so that you will be missed in a reasonable time frame?

As the story above illustrates, two weeks is far too long a period to drop off the grid. 24 hours is better if you're in real trouble, but perhaps that's not practical.

I'm curious how the rest of you do this.

Better education is the key. An club for out-of-bound skiers might help.

In a situation such as this, I would leave word with the front desk at the resort as to my plans and locations, and I would also call my daughter(s) with my agenda and a contact time for later. If we miss the call, then the girls will contact the resort and escalate, and most importantly, remain tenacious until we are contacted. The girls know the drill.

At a minimum +1 with a note at the front desk.

Look were not secret agents here, in fact as we try to be on this site, 'prepared', it makes sense to let the hotel know if your going to be doing something that involves risk and to contact the appropriate business if you don't return on time.

I'm not talking about telling the chick at the front desk of the the Marriott that your family is going to Disneyland for the day and should be back by the 9pm. I'm talking about telling the hotel, ranger station, resort that your going scuba diving, rock climbing, trail running, hiking, etc.

"Hi there, hey my wife and I are going skiing out-of-bounds. If we don't make it back for some reason could you call the RCMP?"

Ya see, the whole point of what they were doing precludes telling anyone -- that wouldn't be fun.

That's an interesting question. When hiking out of my "home area" it's a no-brainer ... I leave maps with my planned routes and timeframes highlighted with the wife and kids at home. Also, I leave copies of the same in my car parked at the trailhead.

But one vacation, at a hotel, hmmm ... that's different. On those occasions it's always the entire family that goes hiking together. I have not left word at the hotel where we were going in the past, but probably should. We are typically on high use trails so it's not back country wilderness, but still problems could occur. It would probably be a good idea to leave an envelope, addressed to your hotel room number, at the front desk with your plans written inside. Pick up that envelope when you return and hope that if you don't, the front desk might check into why you are checked in but not picking up your messages. Maybe even write on the front of the envelope "Front desk: Hiking plans inside: Please open and read if not retrieved by <date> <time>".

The takeaway lesson here for me is that, as practitioners of preparedness, we shouldn't be surprised that bureaucracy makes mistakes, we should count on it. The person primarily responsible for keeping you safe is you. Bad things do happen where you will need help (broken leg, animal attack etc.) but that is far different from just wandering off then suddenly looking up and relizing you don't know where you are or how to get where you want to be.

SAR is great thing and necessary. But they are going to have about the same success rate as the police department does at preventing crime and apprehending perps, or the fire department does at preventing fires and saving fire victims. Nobody bats 1.000. That's why we spend time on forums like this, and hopefully, practice what we learn here.

As for leaving your plans at the front desk or the ranger station, unless the organization in question has a procedure for that sort of thing, your information isn't going to survive past shift change. Leaving plans with family or frineds is much more reliable (well, depending on who your friends are ;)).

Not really, some places that is an acceptable activity.

Look were not super secret spies, moving down dark alleys in eastern bloc countries trying to thwart the KGB or Stasi.

If your not comfortable leaving your own house to go into the back country without leaving some sort of notice, why should your guard be less when in your in unfamiliar location, state or country.

Being on vacation from life is not the time to drop the preparedness you practice in your everyday life.

I don't tell the front desk I am going to the shopping district and then having dinner with friends, but I do tell them that I am going on a 2.5 mile out and back trail run starting out heading east and if I don't call or check in in 90 minutes Im lost.

One of the problems with this "out of bounds" thing is that people who aren't familiar with the region misinterpret it.

It does not mean "off limits." It means "outside the boundary of the resort, not maintained or patrolled."

These areas are crown land and unless specifically posted as closed (and I'm not sure what provisions exist to do that in BC), you may ski there. But whenever one of these stories hits the news, the media fail to clarify this -- because they know that it will stir up controversy.

The authorities discourage skiing out of bounds, but then, the authorities discourage fishing in the stormwater management pond near my home, because they imagine someone will drown. The authorities discourage you from doing all kinds of things that it is your right to do.

Thousands of people ski out of bounds every year. A small number get into trouble, and these people are almost universally those who don't know the area and are ill-prepared.

This is the same old story whenever a SAR callout hits the news, because callouts for well-prepared people don't make good news stories.

What stands out here is the part that isn't the same as it ever was: the fact that there was no SAR callout for nine days, despite the fact that several people saw the signals and the town was buzzing, according to reports, with rumours of skiers lost in the backcountry.

If you don't think people should be concerned over that failure, I don't know what to say to you.

So it's not really out-of-bounds, just outside the resort's area of responsibility. Still, if someone chooses to go there they should know that they are on their own. This incident reinforced that concept.

If the boundaries are not clearly posted, people may not KNOW they're out of bounds.

As I see it, if you DO get lost, and DO survive for ten days, and DO signal BY WHATEVER MEANS (PBS, fire, signal mirror, messages in the snow), and people see it and report it, WHY would anyone in the business IGNORE it?

We've got two posts right together, of people getting into trouble, contacting (by whatever means) the outside world, and no one goes to help.

If the British couple on the yacht died during a storm after talking to family and authorities, would it be their fault for being on the ocean? Would it be their fault if their rudder sticks? Would it be their fault that they are in a less-traveled part of the world? Would it be their fault that ships' captains are afraid of pirates?

Both these cases were dependent on private decisions: the BC couple were found by a private helicopter company that went looking on its own. The Brits were rescued when ONE SINGLE SHIP CAPTAIN went out of his way to find them.

Now, I'm as nasty and as cynical as most (and more than some), but if someone does get into trouble and does survive and does get the word out, why should they be ignored?

Like I said, don't change the rules in the middle of the game. You wouldn't tolerate it in penny-ante poker.

Sue

Thanks Andrew.
I was thinking about coming back to this thread to explain that part of it. You did a good job.

Not only is "Out of Bounds" not prohibited, "closed for the season" in parks just means no services. Going into the park outside of season is not a criminal offense either

You need to do the notification thing like Russ, Comms, DesertFox and others say, just like if you were heading into the north bush.

Now accepting that they didn't cover that need properly, knowing that their SOS was basically ignored even after it was reported should still give you a bit of a pause.

What if a person was in there and had never been at the lodge? What if it had been somebody else whose life was lost based on the resort's front desk flunky not finding a car in the parking lot (that they were too incompetent to even properly check)?
What if SAR or Coast Guard decided they needed a missing persons report before responding to a PLB, SOS broadcast or red flares?
What if they were depending on hotel parking staff for that report?

Whose fault would it be then? Who would you point the finger of blame at in the hypothetical scenario you just outlined? Who would you send to prison because it was "their fault"?

Sometimes bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own. That doesn't mean you get to blame someone else for the event.

Assigning blame is one topic. Discussing the moral aspects of a failure to respond or a mis-communication between the authorities is different. Authorities should respond to credible reports, but only after taking their own safety into consideration first. But things happen, poor choices are made, and things look different in retrospect. Learn from it but don't waste time slinging blame around - it's counterproductive.

On a related note, I see that families of the people who died in that recent airplane crash are blaming everybody. The airline, the pilots, the training they had, the airplane manufacturer, to deicing system ... and they're throwing lawsuits around to add exclamation points to their blaming. Nobody knows why the plane went down yet, it's still under investigation. I feel sorry for the families involved, but I abhor what they are doing with the lawsuits. They will no doubt end up ruining reputations and lives in their zeal to prematurely assign blame while hitting everybody, the blameless included, with these shotgun lawsuits. It wasn't the fault of the passengers riding on the airplane, so everybody else is fair game, right? What kind of thinking is that?!

One of the other problems with blame finding is it very seldom leads to useful solutions of the problem.

Well stated Sue, I was considering posting virtually the same things that you stated very nicely. Comanche7

Missed my point, I was trying to say what Andrew S. said.

Working on solution:

A sigh on the boundaries of the ski area:

''Don't venture past this sign without at least one of the following:

Pictogram of PLB, VHF radio, satellite phone, etc...

But I know that signs are no antidote for human nature...

If there are mechanisms in place to effect a rescue, we like to think that they will work efficiently. At the same time, if one chooses to abdicate the responsibility for one's life or personal safety to others, one must accept the quality of the service provided. We do this every day--with surgeons, with automobile mechanics, with migrant fruitpickers--because the cost to us is deemed too high, to attend those needs personally. Many times we are afforded an opportunity to switch service providers, sometimes we are not. In any case, it is ultimately our own responsibility to carry the burden, or to pass it off to someone else, who may not find our needs as pressing as his own.

What if this situation had happened because of a plane crash, and the plane was covered with snow, but various people saw the SOS?

"We didn't know there was a plane" isn't a really good excuse, is it?

Fixing blame is not my point as much as questioning the thought processes of the people who should have followed certain procedures and didn't. My main question is WHY?

Do 911 dispatchers generally critique an emergency call and decide not to send help? Do they get a call where all they can hear is choking or gasping, and since they can't get a full explanation, they don't send anyone out? (Well, yes, they do, but they usually lose their jobs.)

Don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

Sue

I wonder about the thought process, too, Sue. I guess I don't see it as changing the rules midgame, just that the unreliability is an integral part of the game.

The 5P's Sum's it up very well [Poor Planning Provides Poor Performance]. In reality the army taught me the 7P's, but I skip the the 1st and 5th (which are the same )to be more politically correct.

Proper Prior Planning Prevents P*** Poor Performance

Uncle Goo, it is true.
Unreliability is part of the game.

The two who got lost were never expecting to get ten days lost on an afternoon ski tour that was only to be a few hours of easy to follow track.
But why there is an immediate shift to blaming finding and finger pointing instead of problem solving is something I have never really understood.
It is a very immature attitude in my opinion, I would describe it as infantile.

I suppose that families tend to close ranks as part of the grieving process. And perhaps public finger pointing at the authorities is natural in that context, especially since mistakes were clearly made. No doubt they have private opinions regarding how responsibility should be divided up.

One of the links I posted earlier really does give some insight into what went wrong. It doesn't answer every question, but for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, it's worth the time: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090226.wskier0226/BNStory/National/home

What I think happened, is they didn't have a checklist
It always seems to be the case when there is a procedural screwup. Don't know procedure well enough, don't get regular exercise, don't have a checklist.
911 operators have a computer screen in front of them,
very hard to forget something when you have a script (and it notifies your supervisor).
They also handle a large volume of calls, and run through training scenarios regularly. If you don't do it every day, or practice everyday, you forget, which is why you need a checklist.



STOP and Hug-a-Tree, its not just for kids.

It appears to me, on the basis of the news report, that when the SOS was reported, a check was made of both the locals and the guests at the resort. Every one was accounted for.

The missing couple had checked out and were therefor presumed to have left the area. It's probably not practical under normal circumstances for the RCMP to trace and contact every one who has been through the resort during that time frame. Given that everyone appeared to have been accounted for.

I am of the view that had the RCMP had reason to think that someone was in trouble, they would have made a search.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090226.wskier0226/BNStory/National/home

"No one noticed the couple's rental car sitting in an underground parking garage, untouched for nine days."

UM, as Susan pointed out, they were seeing SOS signs out in the mountains, and her question about whether they thought bears were making them is quite to the point.

In this case everybody with the power to act decided to ignore the fact that there was somebody out there making distress signals.

The missing couple had checked out and were therefor presumed to have left the area.

Well, never presume. It makes a pre out of ... wait, this isn't working.

Already, we have important lessons learned.
1. the heli-skiing company spots an SOS, determines that it's not from their clients, calls the resort. They assume the resort will report it.
2. the resort does a check on their guests. They assume that (a) any missing skier will still be checked in to his room, and (b) any missing skier will have parked in above-ground parking. They also assume that the heli-skiing company would have reported it.
3. the resort assumes that one of their employees, who is a SAR volunteer, will notify the volunteer SAR group. That employee, in turn, assumes (naturally, I think) that his employer has notified authorities.
4. when RCMP gets involved, the resort assumes they're talking about a two-days old signal, not a new, different one. Fatal miscommunication: the RCMP fails to initiate a search.

Lots of people making assumptions here. First lesson learned: when in doubt, call it in.

Did anyone else read the reason they kept moving? They were afraid of the wolves tracking them? Wolves are notorious for following a human's trail simply because it is easier for them to walk through the snow. I know there have been a few wolf attacks in history, but AFAIK they are quite rare. Had the couple stayed put, they would have retained much more energy and they could have made more elaborate signaling, etc.

Heck, even if the wolves were surrounding them, it would be easier to spot from the air.

Any wolf experts on the board who'd like to educate me on the "dangers" of wolves? I've had a wolf at 10 paces, and I've got the video to prove it. Not scary at all. 'Course, I'm usually pretty well armed.

I posted this link maybe 2 weeks ago?

http://www.plbrentals.com/

Not associated with them, never used them, but, now no excuses. Everyone can have one.

If this was the USCG instead of RCMP, they would have gotten a boat, helicopter and probably a C-130. USCG takes SOS seriously. They will triangulate your position as best as possible. If its a hoax, they'll hunt your ass down and prosecute you if it isn't real.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/coastguard/a/searchrescue.htm

First lesson learned -- Carry a GPS when you go off the marked trails so that if you get really lost, you can self-rescue.

Second lesson learned -- Do not count on SAR when you get really lost unless you have a direct line into the system such as a PLB or SPOT (in those areas that SPOT works).
Edit: strikethrough based on DR's 3:13PM post.

Third lesson learned -- If you still get lost and the GPS fails for whatever reason, find a nice place to camp and then stay put while your S O S works for you. Get a fire going and stay with your signal.

This website is about being equipped to survive. It isn't about pointing blame at minimum wage resort workers who don't realize there's a car in the parking that hasn't moved. I'm sure there are cars in that parking lot that don't move because it's a resort and the guests might stay for more than a day.

Bottom line for me is that these two were not equipped for the recreation of their choice.

Let's try to stop talking about blame, shall we? It should be clear that many mistakes by many parties contributed to this woman's death. It's not about blame, it's about learning.

To the extent that the only thing you can control is your own behaviour, yes, it makes sense to carry a GPS, etc. But should we assume that none of us will ever be in the position of the helicopter pilot or resort employee?

Actually, it sounds like Russ and Andrew are mostly on the same page, if I'm reading their posts right. I agree, we should try to learn as much as we can from this tangled business.

Looking at the skiers' side, a few things do stand out (as they always do, with 20-20 hindsight):

I think Red picked up on a very important point: they kept moving because there were wolves about. The man was said to be an experienced hunter, but may have had an outdated understanding about wolves and the minimal threat they pose to humans. It would be understandably unnerving to see them a pack hanging out close by, but it cost them a lot of crucial energy, took them away from their signals, and forced them to improvise new shelter every night. I think this may have been the tipping point for them.

The other thing that stands out is how much a tiny bit of gear would have helped. (I know this has been covered before, but bear with me.) The man obviously had some outdoor skills; he was said to be an experienced hunter, and he stayed alive with nothing (as far as we know) in a hostile environment for a long time. He wasn't a quitter; even near the end he was going up every day to clear off his SOS. Imagine what he could have done given a bit of extra food and a handful of essential tools.

(No blame in any of the above. I'm just trying to learn, learn, learn from someone else's misfortune. Though I confess some frustration because so many small things could have tipped the balance in their favour.)

Reminds me of the movie Cast Away after Tom Hank's character is rescued and starts seeing everyday things that would have made life so much easier: a propane match for lighting the fondue and a SAK on the Jeep's keyring come to mind. Little things we carry in our pockets and take for granted.

Look, I don't have a problem with Susan's banging on the system for virtually ignoring the multiple S O S signals, I really don't know what they (resort, et al) were thinking; that should be addressed at the systemic level because somewhere there's a hole in the system and this couple slipped right through that hole.

My biggest issue though is the common held belief that because the SAR system exists, we should rely on it rather than on ourselves. We should be equipped to survive whatever environment we choose to put ourselves. When you ski off the back-side of a resort you should be carrying more than a couple granola bars.

I'm getting ready to invest in a PLB (either the ACR MicroFix or the new McMurdo Fast Find (w/ GPS) if the FCC clears it before I purchase and it gets good reviews). So why would a guy who is big on self rescue buy a PLB? Because when you're floating in your PFD 100 miles off the coast, self rescue isn't an option. My buying a PLB is strictly for a ditching at sea contingency; if I find myself wet when I should be dry, I intend to have a direct line into the SAR system.

Then again, once I own this device, maybe I'll go off the back-side and take more risk knowing I have a safety net at my fingertips. . . nahh, bad form.

SPOT DOES NOT have a direct line to SAR. That is one of the problems and a potentially serious one. Numerous examples of their GEOS call center making calls to the wrong people trying to figure out who should be contacted. Moreover, at times they have been less than fully cooperative, simply providing a location with no added information that they do have at their fingertips, according to my SAR sources. So far, nobody has died as a result, but their are definite issues.

Again, while a PLB alert goes directly to SAR, SPOT does not. SPOT is better about this in the marine environment, because USCG has made it a point to hit them over the head with a virtual 2 x 4 and get them in the loop, so to speak, but not for normal terrestrial SAR. They may get it right, depending upon where you are, but they also may not. This was a major topic of conversation at the RTCM SC-128 initial meeting last week that I attended where all the parties were present. SAR wants a better process and interface. How we get there is a question.

Excellent point and another reason SPOT is not on my short list.

One of the irritating aspects of the news coverage on this has been all the free advertising for SPOT. Not one mention of the subscription cost, not one mention of alternatives. Most of the news reports that have mentioned SPOT have understated the purchase price, as well.

That's what happens when you have a robust advertising and promotion campaign and budget and a generally uninformed media and, for that matter, many in SAR and elsewhere. Fact is, SPOT would likely have saved them.

I don't mind if folks want to buy SPOT, for whatever reasons, but it really irks me that they generally are doing so without being fully informed. Bottom line is there's no practical solution to that. Plenty of history to show that "best" is not necessarily the winner in a technology battle... <~> The odds are not in COSPAS-SARSAT/406 MHz beacons' favor in this battle, long term, they don't have the resources or the attitude. <shrug>

Why would the 406 MHz beacons lose this battle? What resources are they lacking? Attitude?

Promotional budget and profit motive.

I think you can bet that SPOT's marketing people made a lot of phone calls over the past week, with this being one of the top news stories in Canada.

What Andrew said, to a great degree. The PLB market is relatively small, promotion of any sort is fragmented by the multiple players, none of which are very large, nor have they proven all that capable or fast on their feet. COSPAS-SARSAT secretariat isn't a player in promotion, it's just an international agency that oversees the various national partners. The U.S. or Canadian govt. hasn't the promotional means, flexibility or anything to compete against private industry in this regard. Many there don't even see it as a problem, for a variety of reasons.

Then add in the value added capabilities of SPOT vs a PLB. PLBs are limited in this regard as a result of the standards to which they are built. Nothing stops a PLB manufacturer from adding in capability, but it has to be in addition to the basic PLB capability and at that point cost and size/weight kill it. If there are changes in the standards, perhaps they will have a better chance in this regard, and that is under discussion. However, they represent fairly radical changes to accepted practices and that's hard to make happen. Will it come at all or come soon enough? Who knows?

Wouldn't that be an issue for ACR and McMurdo? They make and market PLB's and EPIRB's. Seems to me that SPOT needs to catch up and they're being a bit opportunistic with this incident -- ACR and McMurdo could have done the same but apparently chose not to do so.

Of the two systems though, isn't the communications satellite system used by SPOT less robust/reliable? It definitely has less geo coverage and that alone sold me on a real PLB.

Full size map at globalcomsatphone.com spot_map
Note that according to this map there is no (zip, zero, nada) coverage in Hawaii. That's the deal breaker for me. Also, no coverage in Africa south of the equator nor much of India (not a big deal for me, but for others it could be critical).

Les Stroud is a good pitchman though.

SPOT coverage in US looks good, except for Alaska. Unfortunate.

To Red etc...
Wolves attack on humans are extremely rare. Only a few recorded.

That's an easy one. Read them the riot act. If you or I picked up a distress signal and failed to pass on evey bit of infomation we had, we would quite rightly face criminal charges. So have the SAR make it very clear that if by their act or ommision someone dies or suffers injury, the operator(s) on duty, C.E.O. and board will face charges for murder, manslaughter, endangering life or whatever.

Being "less than cooperative" when lives are at risk is a criminal act by any reasonable measure.

Globalstar is much more adept at promotion and spends a good deal more on it than ACR and McMurdo (who are represented by a distributor here in the U.S.), who must also spread their budget over a much wider lineup of products. Could they do a better job? Maybe, but they certainly haven't to date.

Yes, the COSPAS-SARSAT system is more robust, reliable and provides worldwide coverage, and your point is? <~> Most consumers don't care or cannot differentiate. Most consumers take the advertising at face value, end of story.

Your coverage map is not correct. Still no Hawaii. Current SPOT coverage here: http://www.findmespot.com/en/index.php?cid=1200

For the average hiker, etc., it's hard to justify spending $500+ on something you intend never to use. In marketing terms SPOT is a clear winner, because of the "I'm OK" button -- now it's something that you aregoing to use -- and something your spouse, possibly, really wants you to use.

Long term, there's no question SPOT is going to be the winner in that consumer market, and Globalstar knows that to win people over, people who up to now have been unconcerned, they have to promote, promote, promote. And not only the public, but the media who are supposed to inform them are taking the advertising, as Doug says, at face value.

Leigh, you might like to think that Globalstar will get nailed with criminal charges for not sharing info, but no. Civil suits, yes. But ... you don't think they have lawyers? They promise only to call 911, tell them where you are, and tell them you need help.

I'm thinking the kind of info they're not sharing is contact info on your family, friends etc. -- info they're probably reluctant to share out of privacy concerns. But I'm guessing there. Doug, can you clarify that?

Thanks, the newer map does have a bit better coverage in some areas but by and large still has the same major holes.

As far as consumers not caring or being unable to differentiate, that may be true. I'm a consumer and don't do marketing. I try to get unbiased input on equipment that my life may depend upon.

That said, even with the holes in their coverage relative to the COSPAS-SARSAT system, SPOT could do a lot of good for folks who don't venture into those coverage holes -- assuming they can get the SPOT/Globalstar system to respond. Since I occasionally work in one of those holes, SPOT is not an option for me.

In this case, what SAR agency would have been contacted by
a PLB and then who would have been called out to search?

It's a real shame that the industry abandoned HF. A portable blank and burst HF transmitter can be heard around the world, and can be df'd and thereby fixed by enough Wullenweber sites to narrow the search area to about 1/2 a square mile. I know, because that's what I used to do for a living, tracking ruskies of course.