3 nights in Alaska

definitely a good argument for owning a St Bernard :-)

Pete2

Nuts!

Glad she made it through.

A very serious business, being exposed in those conditions. I assume the lady had some significant health/mobility issues as an underlying factor. Inexperience in the care/feeding of a sled? Maybe; they can be finicky buggers at times.

If the news report is accurate (!?) the first responders fired up a PLB to ramp up the search. This suggests extremely limited comms in the area.

Edit: +1 on "Nuts!"

Just one unnecessary mistake after another, progressively jeopardizing more lives along the way. Poor planning, poor judgement, leading to a potentially tragic ending.

It is still better to be lucky than good, especially if you are an idiot.

I wonder how much the rescue will cost them? Buying a decent radio system would've been cheaper. But you rolls the dice and you takes your chances I suppose.

"It is still better to be lucky than good, especially if you are an idiot."

well Benjammin ... let's contemplate this.
Maybe there is some sort of principle of Darwinian selection operating on Plant Earth. The lucky idiots are surviving ... and then mating and multiplying. Do you think it's possible that eventually the entire world will be populated completely by lucky idiots???

Hahahaha!
Pete2

The Denali Highway is a 135 mile road, mostly gravel open in the summers, with a fair bit of use by hunters in the fall going after the Nelchina Caribou Herd. Even in summer there are very few services out there (a lodge and a few campgrounds). It is very remote in winter, though snow machiners travel it.

A slightly different news report Wildlife trooper helps rescue overdue trapper, wife near Cantwell

I don't know what comms the troopers may have out there. If anything, they might have a repeater or two. I would speculate that if the Wildlife Trooper was in a dead zone and didn't have direct comms where he found the lady, he may have used the PLB as the quickest way to alert the RCC. The RCC can activate the PJs and Pavehawk from the Air National Guard who would be by far the best option for quickly getting advanced medical aid to the hypothermic woman. (Severe hypothermia is very tough to deal with in the field.) Once the RCC had a C-130 Herc overhead, the Trooper could talk directly to them.

Easy to say, but a radio is of little use if you are out of range of anyone, or if no one is monitorying that channel. An Iridium Sat phone would work. (Global Star sat phones don't work too well in Alaska, since GlobalStar's satellites are very low in the sky up here.)

Regarding costs, the RCC, C-130 Herc, Pavehawk, and PJ's do it for training. A win-win, in that the military gets the most realistic training possible for their primary mission, and the public gets help in difficult situations. The volunteer searchers are...well...volunteers who work for free. The only real cost in this case would be the Wildlife Trooper's time.

Without knowing more details, I can't comment much on the rescued couples preparation, or lack thereof. It is all too easy for us to use our 20/20 hindsight to Monday morning quarterback these cases. Note that the gentlman was able to get a fire going and stay put until rescued. Why the woman burned her sled I have no clue. I think that to be in your sixties and out living the trapping lifestyle is commendable.

This general model is widespread across the country, and works rather well in my experience.

You've never read Ringworld, by Larry Niven. In this universe, you could get an extra baby permit by winning a lottery. One character in this novel is a product of several generations of this.

That's what taxes are for. We get to pay for all that luck the idiots seem to find. Wish I were lucky, and not an idiot.

Say, that gives me an idea. I've wanted to test a PLB out in the boonies. Maybe I should plan a monthly trip out to Trapper Valley or out south of Hatcher pass and pop the PLB and see if they can come find me. I mean, since it is good training for them, I am sure they wouldn't mind. That way, I can also get a free ride back into town, and maybe a hot meal off them while they're at it.

I just knew there was a better way of going about this adventure thing than having to pay my own way. This will be far cheaper for me than buying a suitable snow machine and all that gear and fuel and planning out my trip. I'll just head up to the REI and pick up a PLB or two, and see if I can go find that there gaggle of wolves that like to just stare at folks.

Maybe the wolves were wondering "what the heck is wrong with this person, they're burning up their snow machine and not bbqing the snack they brought with them"

Lets not confuse issues here, shall we?

Whether or not they were idiots is one question. Since I wasn't there, and have no information other than press reports (which often have little to do with what actually happened), I will reserve judgement on their idiocy (or lack thereof) until I have more reliable information. Note that I would give you the same benefit of the doubt, should you become the subject of a SAR mission.

Regarding your tax dollars, a portion of those go to support the 176th Wing, Alaska National Guard, who's primary mission is combat SAR. They are very, very good at that mission. The reason they are so good at that mission is that they train, and train hard under the most realistic conditions possible. Hence some of your tax dollars go towards training.

Experience has well demonstrated that some of the best training possible for combat SAR is civilian SAR in Alaska. That is in fact why the 176th is located here. They get it all. Extremely challenging terrain, severe climate, real hurt people to use their medical skills on, vast distances and remote areas, difficult flying. About the only thing lacking is someone shooting at them. (Considering all the idiots with guns running around the woods in Alaska that too will probably happen, if it hasn't already.)

The fact remains that they would spend the exactly same tax dollars on training if they had not rescued this couple. The only difference being the training would not be as good.

Well Ben, you could do that. Your best chance of getting the PJs to come get you would be if you include in your plans falling of a cliff up there, or getting mauled by a griz, or getting severely hypothermic.

You see the RCC is kind of selective in which missions they send the air guard on. They like missions that have some training value. If it's just a guy with high cholesterol who wants a free ride home they would probably just punt your case to the Alaska State Troopers. But then again the Troopers might bust you for sending a false distress signal.

By the way, you ought to get out more and learn some Alaska geography. Note that "....out south of Hatcher Pass..." would just about put you in the town of Palmer.

The articles seem too sketchy at this point to support decent analysis of the incident. One thing that came to mind is the troopers' description of the woman as "severely hypothermic", yet she was apparently able to speak with them and explain the situation. I suppose it is a matter of terminology, but even if a person is confused and has the "umbles" that is not what I know as severe hypothermia. Maybe the trooper first did some immediate action to help warm her, and only then was she able to communicate.

One article says "Her mobility was limited, Peters said, and she could not simply walk the mile back to the cabin". Is this because she was injured, or because she had a pre-existing handicap? If the latter is the case, I question the wisdom of leading the trapper lifestyle in those conditions and at that age with such a handicap.

Still, I've learned the hard way here on ETS to wait for better info after these incidents are initially reported.

Special thanks to folks like AKSAR and BenJammin for giving perspective as folks living in Alaska.

Good point Glock.

To some extent it is terminology. Strictly speaking, it sounds like from a clinical perspective she was likely only moderately hypothermic. Keep in mind that these classifications are very only gradational, and somewhat arbitrary. And not all patients present exactly the same way. In WFR we are taught that in the field, without the ability to get a reliable core temperature, we can really only reliably distinguish hypothermia into two categories: "mild" and "moderate/severe". Mild hypothermia can be effectively handled in the field. Moderate/severe hypothermia is best handled with advanced medical care. In a pinch you might be able to rewarm a moderately hypothermic patient in the field, but it is very risky. Problems like afterdrop or ventricular fibrillation can easily kill them. For a severly hypothermic patient, there is very little likelihood you could successfully rewarm them in the field. Hence if I found a hypothermic victim, and was not absolutely sure it is only mild hypothermia, I would try to prevent further heat loss and try my best to arrange an evac to advanced care for rewarming. Simularly, I suspect the Trooper was being appropriately cautious.

For more details on clinical presentation and treatment options, a good source is the State of Alaska Cold Injuries Guidelines (pdf). It covers hypothermia, frostbite etc, both in terms of field care, and in advanced care in a hospital. Back in 2003, Alaska DHSS convened a panel of medical experts who developed the guidelines. Some revisions were made in 2005. It is well worth looking at.

Awesome. Thanks!

Well, a bit more info about this story is beginning to emerge.
See Wolves or no wolves, Cantwell couple sur... what happened.

From a quick read on my lunch hour, my take is that Mr Mayo made the classic mistake of being overconfident of his route finding in an area he knew well. That, and continuing to wander about after he clearly knew he was lost. If he had even carried a compass (let alone a GPS) this would never have become a story at all. Once he ran out of gas, he didn't do too badly. He started a fire and kept it going, improvised shelter, melted snow for water, and stayed in one place.

As for Mrs Mayo, she seems a good bit less skookum. While she was no doubt at least mildly hypothermic and certainly in a very dangerous situation, she clearly was not "severly hypothermic" in the clinical sense. What I don't understand is why she chose to burn up her snow machine, rather than gather wood and build a fire? The only possible explanation I can see is that she was in one of the more open areas, and her mobility issues prevented her from traveling even a short way to gather wood. Since she apparently did see and hear some mushers one night in the distance, a strobe light and/or whistle might have got their attention.

No comment on the alleged wolf pack.

[quote=AKSAR What I don't understand is why she chose to burn up her snow machine,

[/quote]
Having had some experience with snow machines of unreliable design and questionable character, I have on numerous occasions seriously considered setting fire to machines after a mechanical betrayal. Much more satisfying than shooting them.

I've had thoughts of that nature regarding laserprinters.

+1 Extremely interesting reading - but - no revisions since 2005?

During my SAR career, I have responded to well more than 400 incidents, many of which were reported in the media, primarily print. Occasionally, the reports resembled the incident to which I had responded. An exceptional few were quite accurate, and roughly an equal number were hopelessly garbled.

I don't advise reaching any conclusions based on immediate media accounts. It isn't that the media folks are incompetent or lazy (at least not most of them). Sometimes definitive information isn't available, and there is always that editor or producer with a deadline to meet - so accuracy suffers.

It is best to wait before reaching significant conclusions.

Well, up and over the south ridge at this time of year might be problematic for a 10 mile hike due south, but it was just an example. I am sure there are worse places to find. Picking one that would be of greater interest to the PJ shouldn't be too hard.

As for false distress, that would be extremely difficult to prove if I were out on location and claimed I was lost. You don't actually have to be in distress to make it appear enough like you might be.

But remember, this is a training mission, not an actual survival situation, so if they are looking for a challenge, I am certain it would be fairly easy to generate one. I mean, if they are going to respond to a call like this one in Cantwell, then the bar isn't that high. The ride home is just incidental.

Since the budget is being spent anyways, I may as well get my money's worth out of them too. It seem only fair, since I wouldn't otherwise be in need of their services.

Is it really such a dreadful machination to plan on using their services as part of my exploration, rather than simply wait until I might be forced to due to unfortunate event? If I include their participation in my plans, my chance for success should be much improved. What's wrong with that?

Long as it's part of an agreed on scenario before hand (i.e. an advanced game of hide & seek) I don't see why you couldn't. Just because it's a training mission for them doesn't mean you can't use it to check out an area new to you.

I'm easily confused. Are you saying it's okay to "pop smoke" as part of a plan to have SAR pull you out while still being capable of self extraction or that if you are part of a SAR training exercise it's okay to head into unexplored country?
-Blast

It's not all right and the SAR types know when they have been used. It will come back and bite one in their butts! The shrimpers in the GoM used to pull that trick and the USCG brought out some little known regs that allow them to charge for "intentional rescues".

Here is one such case:

Man Charged for Boat Sinking Hoax

(In my best Bugs Bunny impersonation voice)

"Myeh, whatever works for you, Doc."

By not having to plan for a round trip on my nickel, I can afford much more adventure that way. If all I gotta do is provision for a one way trip, then self-extraction would, by design, be atl least impractical, but more likely impossible, and popping smoke would be an imperative.

However, the idea that heading into an area not planned for as part of a SAR exercise would be preferable, or at least make it that much more interesting. Adding an element of the unknown to an exercise always makes it more sporting, don't you think?

Regardless of how you infer it, I am more than willing to do my part for the improvement of the program, whatever it is...

As part of my Denali adventure many moons ago, at the very end once we were back in the lowlands, we spent one final day on SAR training. As luck would have it, I got to be the victim, hoisted up through the hatch in the aircraft. There is a reason they call that aperture "The Hell Hole."

The deal there was about what we have described earlier in this thread - the military involvement was charged to training in support of NPS operations. I have seen the same general arrangement in other settings. As a taxpayer, I have always thought it a useful, sensible, and humane use of tax dollars

I have very nearly dirtied up my mess gear working around choppers on actual SAR operations. I suspect folks who mess around with helos routinely lead very eventful lives that are somewhat shorter than average.

NPS = NationalParkService

Hikermor,

It is bad to go through "the hole", but it is lots worse when the hoist quits and you have to ride the jungle penetrator for 10 min.

I don't know if their lives are shorter, but the events often make you think they will be.

Respectfully,

Jerry

Having lost a friend last year, who was piloting a helo on a SAR mission, I am unable to give you an objective opinion on that.

I apologize.In light of your situation, my remarks come across as flippant. But helos are hazardous. The only SAR related memorial service I attended was for two Arizona DPS pilot who crashed returning from their last mission. They had dropped off three of our volunteers about twenty minutes before their ship turned into a rock.

No apologies necessary. I didn't take your remark as flippant. I took it as realistic.

Having flown in helos both for work, and for SAR, I have a love-hate thing with them. On the one hand, a helicopter is like a magic carpet. You decide "I want to go there" and it takes you there, to a place it would take many hard hours (if not days) to reach on foot. On the other hand, they scare the crap out of me.

I am reminded of a quote:

My feelings are very similar to yours and definitely ambivalent. I resolved long ago that I would jump, either on or under, a helicopter to participate in a significant mission. But I would never get near one for something frivolous or insignificant.

These days there are commercial sightseeing helicopter tours in the Black Hills (South Dakota) and the Grand Canyon. I wouldn't go on one of those if you paid me.

The Reasoner quote,or something very similar,is said to explain why plane pilots are happy and optimistic, while helicopter pilots are always frowning and worried.

10,000 parts flying in close formation. I'm sorry about your friend, AKSAR.

AKSAR, my condolences. Some 35 years ago I worked in a Hospital which had a helicopter transport service as a part of its ambulance service. I never got to ride on a helicopter transport. Once I was irritated about that. No longer. Helicopters just scare me now.

In the Army I was Quickly was Taught the 5P's "Poor Planning Provides Poor Performance". In reality I was really taught the the 7P's in the 1980's, but political correctness soon got rid of 2 of them!