Six days in high Sierra with badly injured leg

Hiker Gregg Hein of Clovis "entertained the idea" of possibly dying in the high Sierra of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks as he lay severely injured for six days.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/07/15/4026125/hiker-gregory-hein-of-clovis-talks.html

Pretty impressive. I've hiked there in my younger days; lots of granite, scree, pines ... not a great place to go off-trail and be found; the trails though were decently populated (pass 2-3 groups/day)

He was obviously a very inexperienced hiker and uneducated in preparedness. This is even more disturbing since he graduated from Humbolt. Perhaps there needs to be a mandatory wilderness preparedness course. My niece graduated from there--I will have to ask her if she had any such training there.

"Its the Complications that make a Survival Situation Complicated"

I'm not sure why you think that? While in 20/20 hindsight there were certainly some things he did wrong, but he did many things right.

"Hein left his backpack on the side of Mount Goddard. He grabbed only a few things from the pack: A poncho, pocket knife, cords, whistle and a bivvy sack -- a small, lightweight shelter. He didn't take more because he miscalculated, believing he was closer to Evolution Valley, where he hoped he'd see hikers."

If you know you are going to crawl out, you obviously need to shed any excess weight. What to take and what to leave would be a tough choice. Having a bivvy sack, and taking it was a good move. Not knowing exactly where you are was a big mistake.

"For four days, he lay near the edge of a small glacier, nursing his injury with ice. Hein stabilized his leg with hiking poles, wrapping them with a belt and some cord, and on Wednesday, headed for Davis Lake -- crawling about a mile and dropping about 1,000 feet. He hoped the new location might increase his chance of being found. On Thursday, he saw helicopters -- but they didn't see him. Two flew over him several times, he said. "It was kind of wrenching." "

Splinting his leg and treating it with ice to keep swelling down was smart. This may have saved his leg. Moving to a different location may not have been a good move. Not having a way to attract the helos was also not good.

Real survival situations are graded pass/fail. He survived, and still has his leg, so he gets a passing grade.

Many times on this site there have been stories of people that did just about everything wrong and survived. So, surviving does not mean they are experienced and savvy. Surviving is often due to the help of others or pure chance.

Yes, he did some things right, but what did he do wrong?

Granted, he couldn't carry his backpack in his condition, but he could have dragged it on a cord. Or, at the very least taken the food from the pack (he said he was without food).

He said he had no medical supplies.

He had no method of signaling--no PLB, no mirror, no orange tarp, no smoke flares.

Most experienced and knowledgeable hikers would not go on a multi-day trip without those things. I don't even go on a day hike without them--food, first-aid kit, and signaling device (plus the rest of the ten essentials). If you hike alone and off-trail, these things are even more critical.

darn lucky. I'm glad he made it. :-)

Pete

Treeseeker, we might have to agree to disagree on some of these points. One useful tool in evaluating preps or lack therof is to ask yourself the question "Would this have changed the outcome?" Let's apply this to your points:
I haven't tried it myself, but crawling any distance with a severe leg fracture has to be incredibly exhausting. Even dragging a pack on a cord would likely be too much. Did his lack of food change the outcome? Probabaly not in this case. (Though it might have had the weather been colder or had the rescue taken longer). Interestingly, no one seems to have asked the obvious question, that is should he have tried to move at all? The usual advice is to stay put, but there are exceptions. Not enough info here to decide that. Actually, the article says next time he would take "more medical supplies". In any case he was able to improvise a splint and save his leg. I see no reason to think a bigger FAK would have made any significant difference in the outcome. Interestingly, the most highly trained wilderness first aid practitioners I know tend to carry only a very minimal FAK on their personal back pack trips. They generally only take those items which one can't improvise or substitute for, things like tape, meds etc. Everything else they can improvise from other gear. (This is probably worth its own thread.) I agree with you on this one. This is the one area where additional gear would have made a huge difference. Most people have no idea how hard it is to spot someone from a helicopter. Even having a bright colored jacket could have made a huge difference.

Certainly in 20/20 hindsight there were things he could have done better, but overall I think the guy did OK. I don't agree with your original point that "He was obviously a very inexperienced hiker and uneducated in preparedness."

Like most of us, he made some good choices, some that were bad, and some that were questionable. The thing to avoid is a series of several bad decisions, which can put you into a situation where survival doesn't happen. This person earns a passing grade, and that is really all that matters.

You can drag a backpack (if you are a glutton for punishment)and you don't even need cord or rope. the extra energy required to drag a pack is often excessive. If there is access to water, staying put is usually the best option.

A good FAK is a small, reasonably light package, supplemented by improvised items. A red bandanna is a triangular bandage, as well as a signalling device, snot rag,pot grabber, etc. -Splints are fashioned from hiking poles or backpack stays. I often drilled holes in backpack stays to better suit them for this purpose and it made them lighter, as well.

Knowledge and skills are at least as important as gear.

Signally is the place where he the most room for improvement IMOHO.

This pair of reports from Rocky Mountain NP are a thoughtful bookend to this incident. Signalling of some sort (cell phone, mirror, or whatever) is really necessary.

Obviously, a fairly busy day at the park...

Rocky Mountain National Park (CO)
Body Found On Longs Peak

Early on the morning of Friday, July 25th, a man climbing the Keyhole Route on Longs Peak called the park and notified rangers that he and other members of his climbing group had seen a man’s body below The Ledges. Rangers reached the location just after 10 a.m. and confirmed that the man was dead.

The incident is under investigation, but foul play is not suspected. A Forest Service helicopter assisted with recovery efforts. The man’s body was flown to the helipad at Upper Beaver Meadows and was transferred to the Boulder County coroner's office.

[Submitted by Kyle Patterson, Public Affairs Officer]

Rocky Mountain National Park (CO)
Seriously Injured Man Rescued From Backcountry

On the afternoon of July 25th, the park received a cell phone call from a 31-year-old man who reported that he’d fallen an unknown distance while glissading down Gabletop Mountain and had sustained numerous injuries.

The Forest Service helicopter employed earlier in the day for a body recovery from Longs Peak was utilized for aerial reconnaissance. Using cell phone GPS coordinates, rangers were able to determine his general location below Gabletop Mountain; the helicopter’s crew provided his exact location.

A rescue operation was begun. Four rangers and rescue equipment were flown to Loomis Lake between severe thunderstorms. They then hiked to his location, a steep cirque above the lake at an altitude of around 11,300 feet, arriving just after midnight. The injured man greatly aided in his rescue by moving down a steep band of rock, then down a steep snow field toward the rangers.

The rangers found that the man was ambulatory, but that he was suffering from life-threatening injuries. They lowered him 500 feet with ropes and then assisted him an additional 700 feet down steep mountainous terrain to Loomis Lake. A paramedic on the park's rescue team provided advanced life support throughout the incident.

The man was flown to Beaver Meadows Road, then taken by a Flight for Life helicopter to St. Anthony's Hospital for further treatment.

Park rescue team members feel this was truly a life-saving mission. The man was fortunate to have cell phone coverage in this remote location, which has very limited coverage.

[Submitted by Kyle Patterson, Public Affairs Officer]

AKSAR, you seem to be saying that anyone that survives an outdoor incident is properly prepared and educated in preparedness. That would include anyone that had taken absolutely nothing with them and did things that actually made the situation worse.

I don't think that is what you meant, but defining preparedness by survival doesn't seem logical to me. As I mentioned in a previous message, there are lots of totally unprepared people that have been rescued, but probably more that have not.

Here is a recent local (San Diego) example that illustrates my point well. Two women were hiking in the local mountains in 85F weather and had no water. Both were rescued but one later died from dehydration. So, using your logic one was prepared and the other wasn't--even though neither of them had any water. I would argue that neither were prepared.

To answer your above question regarding this incident, "Would this have changed the outcome?" Yes, both would have survived.

Regarding my statement about the man rescued in the Sierra's, being inexperienced and uneducated in preparedness, granted this is subjective. The people on this forum (you and I included), tend to be more prepared than the norm, so perhaps I expect more from others.

No, that isn't what I was saying. Not quite sure why you got that impression? I clearly said there were some things he could have done differently. I just don't think he was as totally unprepared as you seem to believe.

Regarding my "Would this have changed the outcome?" question, I said it was one tool, but I did not suggest that it is the only appropriate tool. Note that in applying that tool to your three points that 1) he didn't take food, 2) he didn't have first aid gear, and 3) he had no means signaling), I said that the first case (lack of food) didn't matter in this case but could have if it had taken longer to find him, the second case (lack of FAK) probably didn't effect the outcome since he was able to improvise a splint, but that the third case (lack of means to signal) most certainly did mean that it took longer to find him than it should have.

I absolutely did not say that because he survived he was properly prepared. I said he passed the survival test. I also said did some things right, and he did some things wrong. Although he did some things wrong, I don't believe that automatically means that "He was obviously a very inexperienced hiker and uneducated in preparedness" which was what you explicitly stated.

One issue I have with some of the discussions of survival on ETS is that people often assume a very judgemental attitude. There is all too often the implicit assumtption that we would never get into the same kind of trouble because we are way too prepared, and that anyone who does get into trouble must therefore be inexperienced and unprepared. I try to take a more humble view. There have certainly been times I have found myself in situations that I was not properly prepared for. When I read stories about survival situations I try to learn what I can from other people's mistakes, but also give them credit for what they did right.

Learning from other's mistakes is much less painful than experience.

I'm big on good navigation -- aka, staying found,, GPS, map, compass, it's all good. Staying found is probably the number 1 way to not become a statistic. I'm also big on signaling -- PLB, signal mirror(s), whistle(s), a little surveyor tape. Then I take water and try to not break anything.

I've only ever broken one bone and that involved beer. Fortunately the guys I was with got a cab and we made it back to the hotel. A quarter century later and I hike solo, so being careful is a rule.