"Massachusetts hiker, 26, found dead after Christmas Eve hike in White Mountains"

[egilbe]

22 miles in Winter is a really long day. Im wondering if he was already exhausted and/or dehydrated when he came out above treeline again. No reserves and probably wasn't thinking too clearly when he was exposed to the wind. He probably couldnt warm up, or stay warm enough, at that point.

I too, wont hike in the Whites in Winter without the ability to shelter in place and stay warm and dry. That decision is made before I ever pack a bag or leave the house. For me, the risk is too great, the reward is too small. I won't go above treeline when the wind is forecasted to be above 70mph. I dont like getting knocked off my feet. Im actually afraid of dying, so I minimize the risks while still enjoying being outside. The Pemi loop is actually on my bucket list. I'll pick a date and time when the risk is low.

I guess getting older does teach one to weigh risks more than someone who is younger. I read somewhere, once, that the older you get, the more likely that you will live to get older. Your risk of dying is reduced. It seems counter-intuitive at first, but the more you think about it, the more it makes sense. The risk of a 20 year old dying is greater than a 40 year old. The 40 year old is more at risk of dying than a 60 year old, and so on.

[imscotty]

Remember... the 'Ignore' button is your friend.

keep-calm-and-don-t-feed-the-troll-22.png

[pilgrimskywheel]

Remember... the 'Ignore' button is your friend.

keep-calm-and-don-t-feed-the-troll-22.png

Exactly. There's another country heard from. Did you have something to contribute to the thread? We've been discussing the pointless and tragic death of a young hiker in the Whites and it's potential ramifications, before we were brought back around to issue of real import like off-topic snarkiness and judgy name calling.

[pilgrimskywheel]

Ooops, sorry about that typo - I meant to say "...issues of real import like snarkiness and judgy name calling." Thank you.

[Alligator]

Consider this thought experiment. Suppose a really experienced hiker makes the correct decision 99 times out of a hundred. And we'll get back to that number at the end, so just accept it for the moment. Now, one particular day, our hypothetical hiker is faced with three important decisions.
1. Deciding to put on inclement weather clothing at the right time.
2. Providing the body with enough calories.
3. Correctly judging the day's mileage.

The experienced hiker can now get decisions 1-3 correct or not (we'll have to state independently here, it's important mathematically but not a deal breaker.) What I want to focus on is the case where the experienced hiker unfortunately gets all 3 wrong. That combination has probability of happening 0.01x0.01x0.01=0.000001 or one in a million.

A series of small mistakes can place even an experienced hiker in critical jeopardy. This is what egible says in the first paragraph not his post above. Further, if you lower the probability each decision is correct, being completely incorrect becomes more likely. Go with 90% correct, then the experienced hiker is totally wrong 0.1x0.1x0.1=0.001 or one in a thousand. Also, I stated the decisions were independent. Not enough calories, the brain makes poorer decisions, misjudges hiking time and distance and/or decisions about say putting on your rain gear or a hat, warm layers. Again the probability of making all 3 incorrectly becomes more likely.

Be vigilant for hypothermia, the brain stops working properly. You get the umbles.

Sad to hear of a fellow outdoors person passing. It may have been as simple as not keeping himself fueled properly throughout the hike. It's pretty early to come to any reasonable conclusions though. From the report of the jacket being on upside, that points to fuzzy thinking and could easily have been hypothermia. Sure most people know hypothermia is the inability to maintain your core temperature, but how one ends up in that state can be the result of several to many different pathways.

Try to assess your risks properly folks and be careful in the wet and the cold.

[rocketsocks]

Consider this thought experiment. Suppose a really experienced hiker makes the correct decision 99 times out of a hundred. And we'll get back to that number at the end, so just accept it for the moment. Now, one particular day, our hypothetical hiker is faced with three important decisions.
1. Deciding to put on inclement weather clothing at the right time.
2. Providing the body with enough calories.
3. Correctly judging the day's mileage.

The experienced hiker can now get decisions 1-3 correct or not (we'll have to state independently here, it's important mathematically but not a deal breaker.) What I want to focus on is the case where the experienced hiker unfortunately gets all 3 wrong. That combination has probability of happening 0.01x0.01x0.01=0.000001 or one in a million.

A series of small mistakes can place even an experienced hiker in critical jeopardy. This is what egible says in the first paragraph not his post above. Further, if you lower the probability each decision is correct, being completely incorrect becomes more likely. Go with 90% correct, then the experienced hiker is totally wrong 0.1x0.1x0.1=0.001 or one in a thousand. Also, I stated the decisions were independent. Not enough calories, the brain makes poorer decisions, misjudges hiking time and distance and/or decisions about say putting on your rain gear or a hat, warm layers. Again the probability of making all 3 incorrectly becomes more likely.

Be vigilant for hypothermia, the brain stops working properly. You get the umbles.

Sad to hear of a fellow outdoors person passing. It may have been as simple as not keeping himself fueled properly throughout the hike. It's pretty early to come to any reasonable conclusions though. From the report of the jacket being on upside, that points to fuzzy thinking and could easily have been hypothermia. Sure most people know hypothermia is the inability to maintain your core temperature, but how one ends up in that state can be the result of several to many different pathways.

Try to assess your risks properly folks and be careful in the wet and the cold.

after re-reading this thread and looking through all the non ease tail stuff, that makes total sense to me and something I can take away and apply...one poor decision may lead to another and compound the situation further. Thanks

[Engine]

This is the analogy we liked to use with students at the fire academy:

Swiss_cheese_model_of_accident_causation.png


"The Swiss cheese model of accident causation illustrates that, although many layers of defense lie between hazards and accidents, there are flaws in each layer that, if aligned, can allow the accident to occur."

Another model used links in the chain which requires a decision to break any link, thus ending the accident chain.

As Alligator very aptly described, every decision leads to the next, and sometimes the end consequences aren't as clear for the person involved as they are for us, given the benefit of reflection. Especially when the same decisions have led to a positive outcome in the past, simply because "the cheese didn't line up that time."

[Traveler]

Try to assess your risks properly folks and be careful in the wet and the cold.

Excellent. While there is the primary cause of an incident its usually the smaller contributing causes that make it more severe. The chain of events leading to accidents and/or death can be broken if one is aware there is a chain being made. Have a plan to deal with that potential if you are alone and be alert for it in others if you are not.

[T.S.Kobzol]

I have done that route a few weeks before although I did spend a night near Mt Galehead. I went from Linccoln Woods to 13 falls and then up to Galehead. I pitched my tent on snow around 5pm, made dinner and slept through a snowstorm. Next day I broke the trail up South Twin. I was to meet a friend there who was finishing the Grid (for the second time).

I was early so I continued on. Our agreement was that he would catch up with me since he wasn't carrying overnight gear.

I continued breaking trail over the remaining peaks of Guyot, the Bonds... I haven't seen anyone. Got into some fierce winds and a snow storm on the way down from Bond to Bondcliff...the spot where this young man perished will now be associated with my memory of my hike.

I was worried about my friend not catching up with me yet and the winds when I would at times use all my strength to stay upright.

Luckily my buddy caught up with me by the river down from Bondcliff. I was wery happy to see him.

My mileage for that day was less than 22 miles but the remaining few miles are a slow if you are exhausted.

[T.S.Kobzol]

Slow=slog

Sorry for the typo.

[jeffmeh]

Consider this thought experiment. Suppose a really experienced hiker makes the correct decision 99 times out of a hundred. And we'll get back to that number at the end, so just accept it for the moment. Now, one particular day, our hypothetical hiker is faced with three important decisions.
1. Deciding to put on inclement weather clothing at the right time.
2. Providing the body with enough calories.
3. Correctly judging the day's mileage.

The experienced hiker can now get decisions 1-3 correct or not (we'll have to state independently here, it's important mathematically but not a deal breaker.) What I want to focus on is the case where the experienced hiker unfortunately gets all 3 wrong. That combination has probability of happening 0.01x0.01x0.01=0.000001 or one in a million.

A series of small mistakes can place even an experienced hiker in critical jeopardy. This is what egible says in the first paragraph not his post above. Further, if you lower the probability each decision is correct, being completely incorrect becomes more likely. Go with 90% correct, then the experienced hiker is totally wrong 0.1x0.1x0.1=0.001 or one in a thousand. Also, I stated the decisions were independent. Not enough calories, the brain makes poorer decisions, misjudges hiking time and distance and/or decisions about say putting on your rain gear or a hat, warm layers. Again the probability of making all 3 incorrectly becomes more likely.

Be vigilant for hypothermia, the brain stops working properly. You get the umbles.

Sad to hear of a fellow outdoors person passing. It may have been as simple as not keeping himself fueled properly throughout the hike. It's pretty early to come to any reasonable conclusions though. From the report of the jacket being on upside, that points to fuzzy thinking and could easily have been hypothermia. Sure most people know hypothermia is the inability to maintain your core temperature, but how one ends up in that state can be the result of several to many different pathways.

Try to assess your risks properly folks and be careful in the wet and the cold.

Exactly. What almost every tragedy of this nature has in common is a series of bad judgments. One need not know all of the details of this particular incident to recognize some of those bad judgment, given the conditions.

[JohnHuth]

I'm a bicycle commuter, a sea kayaker, and a backpacker/hiker. As much as I hate to read about tragedies like this, I force myself to, trying to see if I can glean another nugget that I can use to bolster my defenses.

The two or three items that come to mind are - a) the length of the hike, b) the temperature and rain conditions, and c) the possibility that he was fairly thin (looks like it in the photo). Although we (I) don't think of 35 degrees as cold, with rain and wind blowing, it can be the worst of the worst - absolutely miserable - it drains the heat right out of you.

As others have mentioned, cold related problems can sneak in very fast. Thermal management can seem like a hassle until it's too late - think - moving slower, but never stopping and achieve an equilibrium where you aren't sweating, but still generating heat.

So sad to read these accounts.

[ScareBear]

Exactly. What almost every tragedy of this nature has in common is a series of bad judgments. One need not know all of the details of this particular incident to recognize some of those bad judgment, given the conditions.

In Alligator's hypothetical, all it took for me was to f up #1. Now I do agree that #2 and #3 might have something to play in many scenarios, but they had nothing to do with mine. There was no real series of bad judgments. No chain of bad judgments. No lining up of cheese holes.

I ScrewedThePooch(tm) by making a fully conscious decision that was not influenced by improper caloric intake or errors in pathfinding skills(I knew exactly how far I had to go, both vertically and horizontally). The initial poor decision could have been reversed at any time during the two mile climb. As I posted, with all my winter backcountry experience, I had never played chicken with hypothermia. Never even let myself get close, because I knew the consequences. I had seen it up close. But, I allowed myself to lull myself into a false sense of security by poor rationalization of a poor decision. As long as I was in forced march mode, I was warm. The only error, other than the continuing one of failing to don rain gear, was the failure to appreciate the temperature drop v. time and the direction and speed of the wind at the top. But, it was always the failure to don rain gear that doomed me. I didn't don it until it was too late. I didn't realize it was too late, because I failed to appreciate the immediate effect of the wind and 10 degree temperature drop once I cleared the woods and peaked. I actually recall saying out loud as I fumbled with the buckle on the pocket where the tent was "Oh, F--K, I'm in it now!" My mind was still clear and had not progressed to panic mode, although it was racing!

All it took was getting wet from an initial poor decision that persisted all the way to the top, when it was too late due to meteo conditions. Running back into the woods was as smart a move as I can figure, looking back on it today. Getting out of much of the wind reduced much of the tragedy, but would not have ended it, successfully, without the additional action that was taken...

[egilbe]

You were not hiking alone, though, correct? Chain was broken right there. The swiss cheese holes didn't line up. I tend to look at rain gear as not so much keeping me dry, but keeping me warm. You were lucky someone else was there or you would have completed the chain and died. You kept hiking when you should have stopped. You got above tree line, exposed to the elements without stopping and prparing for the wind. There was a series of bad decisions made before you ever got to the point of no return.

Are you going to put yourself in that position again?

[ScareBear]

You are correct, I had a TrailPartner(tm).
However, I had a couple of other options and I do think Plan B had a high probability of success. Plan C was just to descend as rapidly as possible and try to outrun it. Plan C had a significantly lower probability of success, as I would have bonked, calorie wise. Plan D would have been to stay put, but without a TrailPartner(tm) the likelihood of success was near zero.

No more false sense of security. If it is raining and I am ascending, even on the AT, I will don rain gear.

[Tipi Walter]

I too, wont hike in the Whites in Winter without the ability to shelter in place and stay warm and dry. That decision is made before I ever pack a bag or leave the house. For me, the risk is too great, the reward is too small.

My point all along in this thread. Put another check in the Gear column.

I ScrewedThePooch(tm) by making a fully conscious decision that was not influenced by improper caloric intake or errors in pathfinding skills(I knew exactly how far I had to go, both vertically and horizontally). The initial poor decision could have been reversed at any time during the two mile climb. As I posted, with all my winter backcountry experience, I had never played chicken with hypothermia. Never even let myself get close, because I knew the consequences. I had seen it up close. But, I allowed myself to lull myself into a false sense of security by poor rationalization of a poor decision. As long as I was in forced march mode, I was warm. The only error, other than the continuing one of failing to don rain gear, was the failure to appreciate the temperature drop v. time and the direction and speed of the wind at the top. But, it was always the failure to don rain gear that doomed me. I didn't don it until it was too late. I didn't realize it was too late, because I failed to appreciate the immediate effect of the wind and 10 degree temperature drop once I cleared the woods and peaked. I actually recall saying out loud as I fumbled with the buckle on the pocket where the tent was "Oh, F--K, I'm in it now!" My mind was still clear and had not progressed to panic mode, although it was racing!

All it took was getting wet from an initial poor decision that persisted all the way to the top, when it was too late due to meteo conditions. Running back into the woods was as smart a move as I can figure, looking back on it today. Getting out of much of the wind reduced much of the tragedy, but would not have ended it, successfully, without the additional action that was taken...

But you had a shelter which in part saved your butt. Failure to don rain gear didn't exactly doom you as here you are posting on this forum. Your trail partner set up your shelter and got you in it---therefore Un-doomed. My question is, what if your trail partner and you had no decent gear like a shelter??

Think about the Dayhiker's Mindset---Without a shelter on their back a dayhiker in bad conditions can only survive by hiking out to his car. This one reality in my opinion causes him to overextend and push on (and backtrack)---with a sliding scale downward of debilitating symptoms. Perhaps a John Muir-type or a Jim Bridger could hole up under a rock overhang and start a fire and get thru the night to see the next day. Then again, a Jim Bridger-type would have everything he needed to spend the night.

[ScareBear]

True. And, even alone, Plan B had a high probability of succeeding. I believe I could have gorilla'd the tent bag out of the shove-it, although it might have damaged the pocket, but who cares? Then got the fly out and rolled up in it like a bug in a rug. I recall my brother telling the tale of tarp-ing somewhere in MA and eventually had to drop the tarp and roll up in it to make it to sunrise...

[JumpMaster Blaster]

In this particular instance a young man, very familiar with the trail and mountains he was in, ended up falling victim to hypothermia. Whether this was due to the lack of overnight gear or not is really not the debate. There have been many instances like this one where hikers equipped with proper gear failed to use it in time to avoid hypothermia. In my view, the debate should be more focused on how one can make sound decisions when alone regarding go/no go and proceed/turn back during the hike.

Like a lot of us, I do a considerable amount of hiking alone and have worked out a fairly reliable plan of action that provides several opportunities to stop and consider my circumstance. When planning a day hike of any length over 6 miles out and back or a weekend outing, I set up decision points (DPs) where I will stop and make some basic examinations. The DPs are marked on a map, typically features I can easily recognize if tired or vision is obscured like trail intersections, view points, or water crossings. These decision points are established based on what gear I have or am planning on having with me, what the anticipated weather conditions are, and what type of terrain I will be traveling through.

At day hiking DP stops I examine a simple list of circumstances:

Am I too warm or cold?
If yes to either, make adjustments or turn back
Is my progress at or near my estimations?
If no, assess why not and see if the hike is able to be completed in the allotted time
Has the weather changed?
If yes, do I have gear for it and should I make a new DP to reassess continuing
Is there enough daylight to complete the hike?
If unsure, determine if headlamp hiking would be safe, if not, retreat is default

Since there are a lot of things that can add up to a dangerous circumstance, when dealing with small problems I find the rule of three to be valuable. The rule of three doctrine is pretty simple, when an unexpected circumstance like unforecasted weather change couples with another unexpected condition like gear failure (rain gear tears open), the third unexpected circumstance triggers the turn back decision on a day hike. When someone is hiking with me I use a similar strategy but discuss observations with my trail mate to reach a decision.

DPs are not infallible, however I found using them routinely I have grown accustomed to the stop, check, decide, act process they provide. There have been a few times when fatigue or lightheadedness has set in and stopping at a DP gave me the opportunity to make the turn back decision using the "if there's a doubt, there is no doubt" rationale.

While I understand hiking without a partner in winter conditions carries significantly higher levels of risk, if I had to wait for someone to go with me I would miss many days of being out and about. I have found having a plan helps mitigate poor decision making and the default decisions I have established has turned me back more than a few times over the years. Very likely some of those instances avoided more serious consequences.

Its not only about the gear, its about the decisions.

This, exactly. I have no need to hike with 100% of the gear I own for a 5 or 6 mile out & back. Whether or not I'm familiar with the area, if I have cell reception, altitude, and weather are all factor in what I pack. However, unlike many dayhikers, I never go out without a first aid kit, headlamp, raingear, food, emergency bivvy, water & filter, and some kind of insulating gear (except in the dead of summer). And I never, ever wear cotton.

[egilbe]

My point all along in this thread. Put another check in the Gear column.



But you had a shelter which in part saved your butt. Failure to don rain gear didn't exactly doom you as here you are posting on this forum. Your trail partner set up your shelter and got you in it---therefore Un-doomed. My question is, what if your trail partner and you had no decent gear like a shelter??

Think about the Dayhiker's Mindset---Without a shelter on their back a dayhiker in bad conditions can only survive by hiking out to his car. This one reality in my opinion causes him to overextend and push on (and backtrack)---with a sliding scale downward of debilitating symptoms. Perhaps a John Muir-type or a Jim Bridger could hole up under a rock overhang and start a fire and get thru the night to see the next day. Then again, a Jim Bridger-type would have everything he needed to spend the night.

The gear does me no good if I decide not to take it. If Im going on a day hike, or to bag a peak, or chck out a view, why would I need a tent? Chances are very good that I will be back home and sleep in my own bed. A tent is just extra weight.

[rafe]

I'm not buying the anti-day-hiker argument at all. The notion that all hikes need to be done with full pack is absurd.

But young Jack Holden's hike wasn't just any old day hike. There's a big difference, for example, between doing the Franconia Loop and an out-and-back to the Bonds. The former is eight miles and extremely well-traveled. The latter is 20+ miles, and much less traveled.

IMO, Alligator made the most important point: there was not necessarily one single factor leading to tragedy here. It was a series of misjudgements combined with some really bad luck.

Hiking alone isn't necessarily fatal, even in winter. Hiking 22 miles a day in the Whites -- not my cuppa, but younger and fitter folks than me have done it. Awful weather above treeline -- to some degree, many of us have dealt with that. Limited daylight... maybe not a problem for a short hike, but more so for an ambitious one. Throw all those factors together and the odds of disaster are too large to ignore.