Another Lost hiker rescue on Washington

I didn't read the news story but I have read all the posts in this thread.
The guy who left the other guy high and dry by driving off without him should be hanged by his thumbs. Like, come on, is he a sociopath or what? Totally inadmissible, inexcusable and unpardonable. That is not my opinion, it's a fact.

Neil said:

Totally inadmissible, inexcusable and unpardonable. That is not my opinion, it's a fact.

Click to expand...

This thread would indicate otherwise. There's only one hard and fast rule - there are no hard and fast rules.

Billy said:

I think I just threw up in my mouth.

Click to expand...

+1. A really, really big +1.

The plot thickens

Just saw this - comment at the U.L. article. No idea if it's authentic:

Yuval Kochman said:

I must say, that by that report indeed Mr. Kochman is a complete jerk. However, since I am Mr. Kochman - I know that the report is not accurate. If anyone is interested in what happened, here it is.Until Vinoth disappeared, I kept a distance from him that I considered reasonable (for the conditions of a clear trail in perfect weather, below tree line, about a mile from the road), and was stopping in order to meet him every 5-10 minutes. I noticed him missing around 9:30 AM. I searched for him immediately, but could not find him; therefore, I concluded that most likely he is / will be on his way back to the car before I can find him. I also knew that no search would be held after him before the afternoon, even if I called for help immediately. When I got back to the car around 5:30 PM and he wasn't there, I did not return to Boston immediately. Instead, I went to AMC at Pinkham Notch, and following their directions I held an independent search by car and on foot, including hiking back up to the place where I last saw him. Only when it was getting dark, around 9 PM, the AMC recommended that I contact Fish and Game. By the way, in the eyes of the AMC people I was being over-devoted (one of them said "you're a hero"), which I did not think was true either.Thank you for reading.
(Report Abuse)
June 13, 2012 8:53 pm

Click to expand...

sardog1 said:

+1. A really, really big +1.

Click to expand...

How about some viable options for preventive actions on stopping newbies from hurting themselves or getting lost from the notch?My previous quote about the baxter treatment at Pinkham notch did have the word "maybe" twice.Just trying to throw out some discussion points. I most def do not know the answer here.However I can think of a few fatalities in the last few years that might have been prevented if there had been a better system to check hikers and climbers before they head up from P.Notch.
The saga of "pokey" and "speedy" continues........Just glad "pokey"did not have to spend the night out last week in the snow and wind!

Tim Seaver said:

Just saw this - comment at the U.L. article. No idea if it's authentic:

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that, Tim.

Assuming the source of that comment on the U.L. is indeed the gentleman in question, then certainly an "Opps. Sorry" is in order from several posters on this thread.

Sadly, most of us have experienced instances of totally callous behavior on the part what I'd like to believe are the minority of our fellow human beings. But, Yuval Kochman may not be one of them in this instance.

Kevin Rooney said:

Thanks for posting that, Tim.

Assuming the source of that comment on the U.L. is indeed the gentleman in question, then certainly an "Opps. Sorry" is in order from several posters on this thread.

Sadly, most of us have experienced instances of totally callous behavior on the part what I'd like to believe are the minority of our fellow human beings. But, Yuval Kochman may not be one of them in this instance.

Click to expand...

Seems like a clarification from fish and game is needed. Mr. Kochman's account seems to differ from other ones in regards to if he returned home first or went to get help from the amc. Regardless maybe he should have waited to see what was going on before he went back home to his material comforts. One reaps what they sow right?

Red Oak said:

...Regardless maybe he should have waited to see what was going on before he went back home to his material comforts.

Click to expand...

Again ... let's wait for the AMC and/or F&G to weigh-in. Having said that - I think there are some good observations being made in this thread about the degree of responsibility we may or may not have to our fellow hikers, so long as those observations are not focused around the fellow in question. We just don't know the facts. Newspaper accounts are frequently inaccurate, especially when judgments are made.

I have some concerns with Mr. Kochman's explanation.

According to MR Kochman, he was checking on Pokey every 5-10".
If this were indeed a fact, I would have thought that Pokey would have said to Mr Kochman during one of these very frequent 5-10" checks", "I am going back down". Was Kochman running up and down every 5-10" to be sure Pokey was doing OK, or perhaps calling out to him? Pokey would have known he was coming back in 5-10" so with all this intense monitoring, I would think he would have mentioned to Speedy that he was going back.

I would also like to hear more from the AMC. You tell them that the last Pokey siting was at 0930. At 5:30 pm he has been "missing" for 8 hrs and they recommend you go look for him? That's a good start and perhaps something that he could have initiated at 0930. Was the AMC told that he was checking on him every 5-10" and he suddenly just "vanished". Poor Pokey had a full 8 hrs to get himself lost in the Whites. By 9 pm it was up to ~12.

I wish we could hear the Pokey version of this saga. I don't buy into Kochman's story line 100%. Too many things do not add up.

I need more info before I come to my final conclusion. I certainly haven't placed Kochman in my "hero" category quite yet. The medal of valor is on hold.

I'm glad to see information coming from the parties involved, albeit only one so far.

To the lost hiker's detriment, he appears to have been totally dependent on his partner. They both can be faulted for a critical loss of communication that could have lead to a much worse ending. These are good lessons to learn, and that's a large part of why I read this forum. It's also interesting to see how imaginations can run amok in the vacuum of the limited available information regarding this story.

I agree that the "hero" status seems a little over the top. I would probably be compelled to hang out up there until the whereabouts of the lost hiker were established. But that's just me.

Neil said:

Totally inadmissible, inexcusable and unpardonable. That is not my opinion, it's a fact.

Click to expand...

David Metsky said:

This thread would indicate otherwise. There's only one hard and fast rule - there are no hard and fast rules.

Click to expand...

Tim Seaver said:

Just saw this - comment at the U.L. article. No idea if it's authentic:

Click to expand...

One could also add: there are multiple sides to every story (and we'll never know them all). I may have been a tad quick on the judgement. However, I can't imagine driving home alone.

Do note that many of the personel at the AMC Pinkham notch camp are seasonal retail workers, lodge staff, or kitchen staff. There are no outdoor skills whatsoever required to work at Pinkham notch. Granted the work may attract people with outdoors interests, but its not a requirement and AMC doesnt represent itself as the local rescue organization. AMC may have a standard operating procedure when an accident or lost hiker is reported but it may be as simple as to call to fish and game as fish and game is ultimately responsible to direct all S&R in NH (although they may delegate significant responsibilities to local S&R organizations). From a liability point of view, I expect AMC would not formally respond to a lost hiker report with a search effort as it would potentially draw them into litigation. Informally they may help as this is most likely a frequent event but at some point, someone had to make the decision to call fish and game.

I have heard for a couple of parties over the years that the S&R coordination and management of rescues has been formalized significantly in recent years, I dont have direct information but perhaps someone more involved with S&R in NH would care to comment.

Several years ago, I talked with a local who worked a stint as an overnight desk clerk at Pinkham. Basically she was paid to stay awake all night and make sure that nothing happened at the lodge. She was supposed to take a walk up and down the parking lot twice a night and make sure people werent camping in the their cars. She was a nice person but her familiarity with the trails and outdoors skills were marginal at best.

Is it true that F&G won't go out early/only after some time has elapsed or it's dark ? Like if we started at 5am, friend is completely missing at 9:30am, I've looked/gone back down and up, etc...F&G waits untill 10pm or some such to start to look ? Perhaps it's depending on conditions and reported preparedness of the missing ?

The majority of rescues are initiated by a 911 call from a cell phone. These calls go to a local police dispatcher. Depending on the location of the receiving cell tower it may or may not go to the nearest town. The dispatcher may then direct the call to the local life squad or fire department. If the situation is beyond their means the call goes to the F&G or the State Police (who will call F&G).
Once F&G is involved they act quickly, sending Conservation Officers right away. Larger scale operations involving SAR teams take longer to initiate due to logistics like assembling the team and locating the victim(s).

Thanks. That's what I thought. I was questioning this part of "his" response;

Yuval Kochman said:

I also knew that no search would be held after him before the afternoon, even if I called for help immediately.

Click to expand...

Assuming the comment is valid, it's still leave a few things. every 5-10 minutes & he was last seen at 9:30 AM a mile from the road. So an 8:30ish start seems an approximate time, give or take 10-20 minutes. So he met with him 4-14 times.

As mentioned by others, some type of communication for a plan seemed to be missing but the other guy was, apparently so unfamiliar with the area he ended up off trail so a plan of where & when to meet would likely have not worked. Still don't really know the relationship of the two men or how much knowledge they had of each other's experience speed, etc. "A reasonable distance" we don't know his definition of reasonable & based on people's experience, a reasonable distance should change. I know I keep a shorter distance between me & my kids hiking (in larger groups, adults & kids close together even if the sweep & leader are spread out more) but when a group is very expereinced, that distance can grow. (Heck a certain AT hiker who used to post here often - maybe he still does some - used to start a couple hours after us.)

I'm also keeping medal of valor for a more worthy candidate. Heck Jeremy Haas went to the OBS braving horrific conditions to try & get help for his friend but hero & epic haven't been mentioned in his misadventure, nor should they... - (okay he had no business bringing him in those conditions & continuing to be above treeline & leaving him above treeline)

A bit more communication beforehand should have given Mr. Kochman a clue that they were mismatched (or he was a great BS'er) & the other guy would have been more suited going to Lowe's Bald Spot via the Old Jackson Rd. T (I find it hard to believe a non-hiker can BS that well, If a non-hiker tells me he's been up Washington by HRT, he should know about climbing over rocks, the fan, that it's harder than the TRT trail & it doesn't start at PNVC but from the HRT & when you go up that way you cross the road, etc. Just like I can't BS my way on about a Rainier trip a Whitney trip (well I've read some of those) or even a Sewards trip, some of my 11 left.... )

We all should be able to come with lines to scare people out of trips if you don't want them along. (My parole officer -or old cell mate - says....; I like the woods, the voices in my head can whisper instead of screaming like they do in the city; Favorite movie, Soylent Green, Deliverance, Children of the Corn,; Bundy & Dahmer got bad deals; The guides on my Rainier trip were wimps, turning back because of avalanches, the group ahead of us was swept away, what was the chance of another monster avalanche on the same route? Rock climbers who use protection are lightweights, you don't mind hanging 200 feet above the ground right; You'd be amazed at how many places in the Whites you can hide a body....)

No hard & fast rules? I like Twight's, more suited for winter, used for a boot ad, carry in carry out also means your fingers & toes....

Chip said:

Is it true that F&G won't go out early/only after some time has elapsed or it's dark ? Like if we started at 5am, friend is completely missing at 9:30am, I've looked/gone back down and up, etc...F&G waits untill 10pm or some such to start to look ? Perhaps it's depending on conditions and reported preparedness of the missing ?

Click to expand...

I can certainly imagine F&G saying "How do you know he or she is lost?" if it's only 9:30am, justified by there still plenty of opportunity for the person in question to get out on their own.

MichaelJ said:

I can certainly imagine F&G saying "How do you know he or she is lost?" if it's only 9:30am, justified by there still plenty of opportunity for the person in question to get out on their own.

Click to expand...

So can I - but it's one thing to recognize that F&G won't organize a search party at 9:30 AM. It's another to keep hiking until 5:30 before you decide to investigate further, no? Taking him at his word (assuming that is his word in the UL comments), his clarification isn't helping him, imo.

I'm truly at a loss as to how to understand most of the comments here. I mean, we've read almost exactly the same story in UL about a hundred times in the last couple of years, and each time the vast majority of the comments on this board are something like, "Wow I can't believe that person just didn't think before going on that hike, how could anyone go out on that kind of trip without some semblance of preparation?" In this case, an inexperienced, ill-prepared, generally ignorant newb Naudakumar (aka Pokey) heads out on an ambitious day hike - no map, no compass, no extra clothes, no headlamp. He gets himself lost in rapid fashion, and ultimately needs to be rescued. The only difference between this and the hundred other cases is that Naudakumar asked someone for a ride to the mountains. Yet almost no comments (with a couple of notable exceptions) in the entire 4 pages even begin to suggest that Naudakumar may share some of the blame here. Am I to believe that by asking for a ride to the mountains, I'm absolved of any responsibility for my own well-being? That if I then require rescue as a result of my own ignorance and stupidity, it's someone else's fault? The moral of the story, at least to me, is don't ever give anyone a ride to the mountains. Or maybe I need to keep wavers in my car. Jeez.

hikerbrian said:

I'm truly at a loss as to how to understand most of the comments here. I mean, we've read almost exactly the same story in UL about a hundred times in the last couple of years, and each time the vast majority of the comments on this board are something like, "Wow I can't believe that person just didn't think before going on that hike, how could anyone go out on that kind of trip without some semblance of preparation?" In this case, an inexperienced, ill-prepared, generally ignorant newb Naudakumar (aka Pokey) heads out on an ambitious day hike - no map, no compass, no extra clothes, no headlamp. He gets himself lost in rapid fashion, and ultimately needs to be rescued. The only difference between this and the hundred other cases is that Naudakumar asked someone for a ride to the mountains. Yet almost no comments (with a couple of notable exceptions) in the entire 4 pages even begin to suggest that Naudakumar may share some of the blame here. Am I to believe that by asking for a ride to the mountains, I'm absolved of any responsibility for my own well-being? That if I then require rescue as a result of my own ignorance and stupidity, it's someone else's fault? The moral of the story, at least to me, is don't ever give anyone a ride to the mountains. Or maybe I need to keep wavers in my car. Jeez.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's what is being said here at all. People are basically trying to understand what happened. Only in the last little while has whathisname replied to comments in the UL. His one-way riding partner has not, not that I've seen. The moral of the story for me is not to shut myself off from ever giving rides, but to have better communication. So many people, myself included, make assumptions. My son asked me recently on another topic if I would like to know the truth about something rather than make guesses? Sure I'd rather know the truth, but in the meantime guessing helps me keep my imagination strong. I think it does for others here, too. We're not making rules, just wondering about what has gone on.