View Full Version : Success rates
GA/MEon14
03-09-2012, 20:23
After thru-hiking the AT last summer I starting thinking about the success rates for people attempting a thru-hike. According to ATC website the success rate is around 30%. I was wondering if their is a further break down for people who attempt the approach vs those who bypass those 9 miles and get dropped off at the summit of springer. I did the approach trail and most of the hikers I was met up north also completed it. Any opinions on approach vs not?
30% is probably the reported success rate.
If you take out those that hitched significant amounts, it's probably a bit more half of that.
RWheeler
03-09-2012, 20:53
That'd be an interesting statistic. If I had survey data for everyone, I'd run it through SPSS for every sort of variable I could imagine and share the results, because stats really are a hobby of mine. But sadly, I don't.
I'm doing the Approach on my thru attempt this year, though. I'll be sure to share the results :D
mirabela
03-09-2012, 20:53
What difference could that possibly make? I did about half the approach trail, because my "ride" dumped me out at a dirt road washout a couple of miles below the gap where it crosses the blue trail halfway up. What difference?
and if you take away all those who slacked.. by getting shuttled up the mtn or say 10 miles north to hike south to a hostel without a pack.. how many are still left?
Lone Wolf
03-09-2012, 21:49
After thru-hiking the AT last summer I starting thinking about the success rates for people attempting a thru-hike. According to ATC website the success rate is around 30%. I was wondering if their is a further break down for people who attempt the approach vs those who bypass those 9 miles and get dropped off at the summit of springer. I did the approach trail and most of the hikers I was met up north also completed it. Any opinions on approach vs not?
doing or not doing the approach trail has nothing to do with finishing or not
kayak karl
03-09-2012, 22:04
and if you take away all those who slacked.. by getting shuttled up the mtn or say 10 miles north to hike south to a hostel without a pack.. how many are still left?
anybody that slackpacked is not a thru hiker??
GA/MEon14
03-09-2012, 22:39
I am not trying to say it's for better or worse to hike the approach trail. Just simply curious to see how many of those who complete the AT hiked the approach. Is their any correlation between the two. Are those who go in with the attitude what's another 9 miles more likely to finish on Katahdin?
Montana AT05
03-09-2012, 22:47
After thru-hiking the AT last summer I starting thinking about the success rates for people attempting a thru-hike. According to ATC website the success rate is around 30%. I was wondering if their is a further break down for people who attempt the approach vs those who bypass those 9 miles and get dropped off at the summit of springer. I did the approach trail and most of the hikers I was met up north also completed it. Any opinions on approach vs not?
It's actually a good question. The Approach Trail, which I've never done, is supposedly pretty hard (for a novice who has never done much hiking but is trying to thru-hike the AT). It's mostly uphill. Whereas hiking from Springer Mountain is largely downhill for miles-- a much milder, happier starting experience!
Funny story: In 2010, I was section hiking the AT, Springer to Pearisburg (though after a few shuttles I left the trail in Harpers Ferry). I hiked with a fun guy with the trail name Bartless.
He was named Bartless because he had planned and started the hike with his cousin "Bart", who, a few miles up the approach trail stopped and said, "No, I do not want to do this" and turned around and left for home. His cousin was christened Bartless soon after by other hikers. One of the best name stories I've come across.
The problem with any trail stat is that they are based on self-reported starts and stops. Not everyone logs in at Amicalola Falls, or the Springer registery, or anywhere else, including the finish. I suspect many more people complete thru hikes on many of our trails everyear without anyone ever knowing. Not everyone gets involved with the trail in that way.
kayak karl
03-09-2012, 23:14
i think more have been hurt on the approach trail then any other part. they're not ready for it. i think you may have it backwards.
I think a hikers decision to hike the approach trail is a indication as to what type of person they are. Those who do hike the approach trail, in my estimation, are more commitd to hike the whole trail. those who choose not to hike the approach trail are more likely to be less commited to hiking the whole trail. More of a commitment will definately help a hiker to finish without skipping any parts.
doing or not doing the approach trail has nothing to do with finishing or not
I know you have hiked it several times. I'm guessing it's more mentality than physical. 10 years ago, I was 215 lbs. and in the best shape of my life. Had I attempted a thru-hike then, I think I'd have a 5% chance of doing it.
I'm leaving in 3 weeks. I wiegh almost 280 lbs. I've done research on hiking the AT and while I don't pretend that I have a 100% chance of finishing it, I do know it's higher than 5%. I'd like to say it's 50% but who knows? 10 years ago, I would have left w/ 50 or 60 lbs. I'm leaving with less than 30 lbs. 6 months ago I didn't even know what a tarp tent was. Now I'll never go hiking/camping w/o one.
From everything I have read, preparing yourself for the hike is probably the most important thing. You need to know that weather will be bad; hot, cold, raining, snowing, windy, drought, etc. I'm assuming that hiking an extra 5-10 miles on a side trail has nothing to do with finishing a thru-hike.
I think a hikers decision to hike the approach trail is a indication as to what type of person they are. Those who do hike the approach trail, in my estimation, are more commitd to hike the whole trail. those who choose not to hike the approach trail are more likely to be less commited to hiking the whole trail. More of a commitment will definately help a hiker to finish without skipping any parts.
Why do you need to be "more committed'? The AT is pretty much 2,200 miles as it is. Why is hiking an extra 10 miles a bigger help to those "more committed"? Just makes no sense to me. Let's say the AT started in the parking lot instead of the top of Springer. Would you say those willing to start 10 mlies away are more committed?
I think people are confusing it with those that are already in shape. Someone that is in shape is more willing to hike the approach trail because he knows he can do it. A fat ass that doesn't want to do it is more likely to not know what he's getting himself into. So that's why they fail. But they would have failed anyway had they tried the approach trail because backpacking is hard.
brian039
03-10-2012, 01:32
The Approach Trail is just an easier place to get dropped off than FS42, which I think has more to do with why people do it or not. I didn't do the approach because I live close by and had family who could drop me off on the FS road. Plus I had already hiked from Amicalola to Fontana in sections and knew the approach wasn't really anything special and didn't care to do it again. I had my eyes set on other blue-blazes like Mt Cammerer, the Wilburn Ridge Trail, the Presidential peaks that the AT skips, the Gulf Hagas Trail, and many more trails that were more worth my time.
Pedaling Fool
03-10-2012, 09:29
I don't get this issue over the approach trail; slap some white paint over them blue blazes and you wouldn't know the difference between that trail and the AT. What really gets me is that some seem to think if they start on the approach trail that it's not really hiking until they get to the AT:confused: There's something psychologically wrong with that thought process.
Emily Harper
03-10-2012, 11:59
I don't think doing the approach makes much of a difference. I didn't do it, but those who did had a weird pride about it - that I found annoying. Like you're half way up the trail and people are talking about the approach, it seems to irreverent.
max patch
03-10-2012, 12:18
I don't get this issue over the approach trail; slap some white paint over them blue blazes and you wouldn't know the difference between that trail and the AT. What really gets me is that some seem to think if they start on the approach trail that it's not really hiking until they get to the AT:confused: There's something psychologically wrong with that thought process.
I agree with what John says; just wanted to point out that, except for some relos which made the approach easier today than it was back in the day, that back in 1958 they slapped blue paint over the white blazes.