Okay, I'll state up front this is a troll - maybe this forum needs a good troll now and again to shake it up <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

It seems to me that a lot of the regular posters around here are more interested in the latest gadgets and trinkets than they are about "survival", at least as I understand it.

For example, it seems to me there are people on this forum who will happily spend $200 for a knife that they don't need, but will balk at spending half that sum on a First Aid course. (I don't think they're the majority, or even a sizable minority; but we continue to encounter posts from supposedly experienced outdoorsmen who talk blithely about using duct tape and super-glue to close a superficial wound, for example.)

What about accident prevention? Or, failing that, accident avoidance? (i.e. Making sure you're not around when the accident happens.) I've just finished reading "Deep Water", an account of the June 1978 canoeing tragedy on Lake Temiskaming, on the Quebec/Ontario border. One boy who was scheduled to go on the trip was pulled off it by his father, literally at the last minute. When the school headmaster protested the father's decision, threatening dire consequences for the son, his father poked him in the chest and said clearly, "Someone is going to die and it's not going to be my son." With that, he got in the car and drove off, his son in the back seat. Less than 24 hours later, 12 of the boy's classmates were dead, along with one adult leader.

The boy is not listed among the "survivors" because he never went on the trip; but is this not really the ultimate survival technique? Recognising a dangerous situation and bailing out before it's too late?

I posted on the other forum, asking for tips on how non-pilots might recognise a potentially dangerous situation and opt to take the bus instead of flying. Every year, incompetent pilots kill not only themselves, but trusting passengers who deserve better. So far, over 70 people have read this post, but not one has responded. Why? Is it because they don't perceive this as a "survival" topic? Has nobody here ever considered the principle of making a go/no-go decision in a situation where you lack the formal training necessary? Does nobody have anything useful to say about it?

I must confess, I'm more than a little disappointed. To me, "survival" is much more than debating the merits of this knife over that one, or how much stuff we can cram inside an Altoids tin. All the survival skills in the world won't save you if you're killed on impact.

There's an old saying among pilots that "A superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid getting into situations where he needs to employ his superior skills to save his superior ass." That, to me, is the ultimate survival mechanism - simply not being there when "it" happens.

Any comments? Questions? Curses or insults? Or should I just shut up and go away? <img src="images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

aardwolfe,
Though you haven't been the most frequent poster I would hardly consider you a newbie or troll. You have often posted interesting information and provoked good discussion. This may be another case (or not), in anycase, don't just shut-up and go away! That would be a loss to this forum.

I think that there are certainly an abundance of gear-heads here on this forum. (there are probably good statistically valid reasons why computer-using, internet frequenting, nerds are fascinated with gadgets) It is good to occasionally be reminded that survival is first a mind-set, secondly a skill set and lastly a set of gear.

OTOH, If you are in the Alaskan bush and a pond hopper plane comes to rescue you how are you going to be able to assess your go, no-go decision without the weather-band radio needed to get a forcast? <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

ramblings begin here
Doug is certainly one of the forum members here who may be capable of providing an answer to your question on the other forum. There may be other pilots on the forum also who can answer that question. Also, pilots aren't likely to take kindly to having untrained individuals question their judgement and may be reluctant to 1/2 educate a bunch of back-seat drivers.

Risk is a part of life and great risk is a part of an exciting life. To completely avoid being there when "it" happens you might stay home. I am sure that this isn't what you meant. I believe that any adult should be wise enough to take any level of considered risk that they wish. I think that reading this forum and other sources, getting some skills and gear, and keeping informed on the news are part of what allows me to consider the risks of my choices. I can't make anyone else any better at considering their risks (and many wouldn't if the could) That is sad. OTOH if someone else (like the pilot who came to rescue me from the alaskan bush) chooses a higher risk profile than I am comfortable I would like to be informed enough about the risks to make my own evaluation of the risks as part of deciding to accompany him. Trouble is, I can't become perfectly informed about everything so sometimes I will have to simply trust others evaluation of the risks and if they turn out to be less conservative than I. I will have to pray.

I guess I'd rather be the SAR individual than the consumer of SAR services. Which is why I volunteer on the EMS in my town and particpate in HAM Emergency communications. With sufficient time and cash I would probably join up with CAP and get certified for light plane rescue missions.

Hmmm, very interesting points.

Unfortunately, many of the forum members (myself included) delibirately go into situations where they expect to encounter accidents - that is the nature of many outdoor activities. I agree that accident prevention/avoidance is the best form of suvival, but when the very nature of your activities involves taking calculated risks that could result in survival situations, I for one would like to have the gadjets that could assist me in using my knowledge, skills and techiniques to get myself out of such a situation.


I don't think so. I just think that not many people actually know the answers. there was a post recently about PLB's (the latest in survival technology) that really didn't get many answers. Why? because people just don't really know the anwers.


Where does the pilot learn his superior skills to get him out of such situtions that he might just encounter?

I do agree with you that more emphasis should be placed on identifying, judging, and avoiding possible survival situations, but I also think that (most of) the threads in the forum remain very informative.

DEFINANTLY NOT! I need a thread like this to wake me up every now and then and make me aware of the drool on the keyboard after seeing pictures of a Spyderco Military in a "Mili vs Sebenza" post!

I'm not sure I really disagree with your points, but maybe I can supply a counterpoint.

We don't value being alive just for the act of breathing, there has to be more to it than that. As Shelby Browne said, "A ship is safe in the harbor, but that's not what ships are for". Getting anything out of life that makes it worthwhile and maybe worth preserving, is going to entail some risk in itself. The alternative is agoraphobia, which builds on itself until the victim is afraid to step out of his room. He may be very safe- but he's wasting his life anyway.

There are always going to be some aspects of the subject that are more interesting to people than they are really important, and some that are much more important than they are interesting to most people... but, if you don't let people indulge their interests, they'll just go do something else and forget about the whole thing. Surely that's worse than a less-than-survival-optimum balance of subjects?

I haven't replied because I too am waiting for Doug to answer this one. As forum administrator I don't want to respond Pavlovian like to every inquiry. I agree knowledge and training are desired over "stuff." My gear is a sickening mix of state of the art, used,homemade, surplus and traditional. Instructor Mors Kochanski says " It takes one personality to get into a situation, and paradoxically an entirelly different one to get out of it" I am paraphasing, but it applies to laymen in any activity. I once took a boating party onboard my ancient 36'MLB. One lady was very nervous leaving their state of the art ( but rapidly sinking) powerboat for my 'relic.' "Is this thing safe? Oh yes ma'm, this cutter was made by your generation in 1939 and it's still afloat. Oh, and have you been doing this long? yes ma'm, I qualified 3 days ago." <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I, too, have been waiting for someone to answer your post on flying tips for non-pilots because I think it raises an even bigger question; Is there a "checklist" of sorts that could keep a person out of all/most/some/any survival situation, or is it more of a gut feeling or sixth sense that helps the most?

If I was on an airplane and the pilot stumbled aboard reeking of burbon, I, as well as anyone else with even the slightest self-preservation instinct, would be inclined to get off. That's an obvious one. But what about the times when something "just doesn't feel right," even though nothing can be pinpointed as wrong or out of place? Should that be considered an indicator of something being wrong, should it simply be dismissed out of hand, or somewhere in the middle?

Back to the checklist, other than the obvious things (drunk pilots, hurricane conditions, duct tape holding wings on, etc) do you think a comprehensive list CAN be compiled such that following the list eliminates, or more realistically, severely reduces the likelyhood of bad things happening?

Chris.

P.S. Aardwolf, why did the father pull the boy of the trip in "Blue Water?"

<img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> LOL I was just kidding, you can't get rid of me that easily.

Maybe I need to clarify some points. I wasn't suggesting that everyone stay home in a padded cell and have their food shipped in daily. Otoh, there's a difference between a "calculated risk" and foolhardiness, or outright negligence.

Flying through the mountains in a light plane is a calculated risk, as long as you actually do the calculations; but doing so with only one day of training, without (apparently) bothering to check the weather reports, and getting yourself sandwiched between two frontal systems, is arrant stupidity.

>>Also, pilots aren't likely to take kindly to having untrained individuals question their judgement and may be reluctant to 1/2 educate a bunch of back-seat drivers.

If a pilot got miffed because a non-pilot passenger questioned his judgement, then IMNSHO that in itself would be a red flag that this is not a pilot you would want to trust your life to.

I have two words for those pilots - JFK Jr. (Or is that 4 words?) <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I'm a private pilot, though I haven't flown for several years. I hope that, as a pilot, I would never put a passenger into the position of having to say "Sorry, but I have a bad feeling about this flight, so I'm going to stay on the ground." Many pilots might actually be relieved, because it enables them to cancel the flight without "losing face", as it were.

Anyway, I'm about falling asleep here so I'd better wrap this up before I start rambling inhecorently...

So what was the story of father's refusal to let his son go on the outing?

Also, what are the exact title of the book and the name of the author? It sounds like an interesting and potentially illustrative account.

Thanks,

John

Basically, that was pretty much it. The author had been trying to contact the survivors and the parents of the boys who went on the expedition; he finally got in touch with the boy who had dropped out at the last minute only a few weeks before the book went to press, called him, and interviewed him over the phone. So he didn't get the father's side of the story, only the son's; and of course the son was recalling something that had happened over a quarter of a century earlier, and his recollection may have been influenced by the events of the next day. What the son did say was that his father, for over a month prior to the expedition, had been having vivid nightmares about his son's death. I don't believe in psychic premonitions, so I personally would conclude that the father had noted, either consciously or not, several warning signs that made him uneasy about the upcoming expedition.

I looked on both amazon.com and Indigo.ca for the book but was unable to find a listing. However, it's a recent book - I don't have it with me but I'll post the author's name and ISBN # tonight when I'm home.

To summarize, the school in question (which closed for good about 10 years later) was a private school run by devout Anglicans, based on the British boarding school concept. They bragged about their safety record – they hadn’t had a fatality in 25 years of operation, but in hindsight they were fooling themselves. They routinely had canoes overturning on canoeing expeditions, and it wasn’t strictly true they’d never had a fatality – one student had died during a snowshoeing race about 10 years previously.

One rule of thumb I would glean from this book is that anyone who brags about “no fatalities” should immediately be questioned about whether there have been any “near misses”. It seems clear in hindsight that this particular school was running on borrowed time, and were long overdue for a serious mishap, in spite of their “perfect record”.
<img src="images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Title: Deep Waters - Is the Adventure Worth the Risk - The Lake Timiskaming Canoeing Tragedy
Author: James Raffan
ISBN: 0-00-638574-5
Harper Perennial Canada, http://www.harpercanada.com