Peakbagr
Well-known member
Nothing disrespectful here. I agree.
LOST HIKER IN Spaulding mountain area maine.
- Thread starter Red Oak
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
Nothing disrespectful here. I agree.
griffin
Active member
+1.
One of the more interesting and thought-provoking articles I read related (sort-of) to Gerry's story was this one on "lost person behavior":
http://www.smcmsar.org/downloads/Lost Person Behavior.pdf
(I could have sworn I first saw it here, but now I can't find the original post)
I've never been that lost, but I have no delusions about how calm and "right-headed" I'd be able to stay if I were. Why did she stay put for that long? If I know I have a bad sense of direction, have no idea where I am, am lost in an area with fairly rugged terrain (tons and tons of deadfall on the ground waiting to bust my ankles and/or knees), and I know people are expecting me and will be out looking for me? I might err on the side or staying put as well. Then I run out of food, and on top of everything else, my physical condition weakens. Again, weighing the risks of getting even more lost and possibly injuring myself in the process? Her decision obviously (to us) cost her her life. But I don't think we're in a position to say it was made on "blind faith."
Red Oak
New member
I would respectfully say two things 1] if anybody wants it open for education reasons, that makes sense. 2] I am slightly concerned with precedent for future threads in regards to the position of the O.P. to close a thread they feel has drifted. The bigger issue though is how people feel.I am glad people are still concerned about what happened. As someone who still bushwhacks in Maine learning how to keep cool when you get lost or "confused" is critical.
I'm all for keeping it open as I have followed this as closely as anyone. I know people her aged that through-hiked the year before. My mother was still bagging peaks when she was older, and her abilities probably weren't even up to than Geraldine.
I felt these statements were a bit over the top. But, majority rules and carry on.
She was known to have a poor sense of direction, and also known she is instructed to stay put. She already got into a situation, she didn't want to make it worse. By the time she needed to move, she was unable to physically.
Yes, through thick brush and as mentioned above...she was lost. Certainly didn't want to go so far deeper, and since she was "so close" this would be the best spot for her. Realistically, if due to misinformation they weren't searching so far away, it would have.
So, wait. You read an article in the Boston Globe, and are now saying it's an article written to tug at heart strings. What did you expect? It's not like it was an the Alpine Journal. It's an article to endear to the most readers, not VFTT
Yes, when someone knows where the endpoint is, it's remarkably easier to navigate there.
I don't think anyone agrees with her approach. I also know she has been taken to task pretty well over at Whiteblaze, too. But, reports are she had her limitations, knew them, and did quite well for herself until the very end.
But, that's just me.
I felt these statements were a bit over the top. But, majority rules and carry on.
She was known to have a poor sense of direction, and also known she is instructed to stay put. She already got into a situation, she didn't want to make it worse. By the time she needed to move, she was unable to physically.
Yes, through thick brush and as mentioned above...she was lost. Certainly didn't want to go so far deeper, and since she was "so close" this would be the best spot for her. Realistically, if due to misinformation they weren't searching so far away, it would have.
So, wait. You read an article in the Boston Globe, and are now saying it's an article written to tug at heart strings. What did you expect? It's not like it was an the Alpine Journal. It's an article to endear to the most readers, not VFTT
Yes, when someone knows where the endpoint is, it's remarkably easier to navigate there.
I don't think anyone agrees with her approach. I also know she has been taken to task pretty well over at Whiteblaze, too. But, reports are she had her limitations, knew them, and did quite well for herself until the very end.
But, that's just me.
sierra
Well-known member
You make and bring up some interesting points. My thinking is this, there are some great hikers/climbers out there. yet, that's where there expertise ends. I got lost with a great climber and when I told him I was lost and asked how much water he had, He freaked and said " forget that, get me out here now!" So much for taking inventory of stocks, lol. My point is and I've thought about Gerry in this regard. I think she was a great hiker, but that was where her skillset ended. To be frank, she is like many hikers if not the majority. I've spent year's studying survival, but I think that's not that common. I hike alone and frankly to allow myself to enjoy it, I needed to cover all the bases to quell my anxiety being out so far and alone. I think it's worth taking a minute and putting yourself where she was, using your current knowledge base and your standard pack contents. How well do you think you would fare? Griffin to your point specifically, if you think you will be found stay put, if there is any doubt, I would never wait past 48 hours. Move while your strong, come up with a plan and do it.
It's not the first thread on SAR or the death of a person involved, and it won't be the last. This is not a precedent-setting thread. Because of all the prior threads, we choose to close threads only if it gets really nasty, overly political, or goes nowhere. I'm actually pretty proud that we have had to close only a handful in the last 5 years.
Also, FWIW, the thread had no activity for 15 days prior to your publicly asking to close it, so if you want it to run its course, probably best to leave it lie, don't-cha-think?
Tim
iAmKrzys
Member
I have been hiking for years and I never got lost, so I didn't give much thought to what I would if found myself in such situation. Reading about Gerry (here and elsewhere on the Web) I started asking myself a lot of questions. What would I do if I got lost? How good are my navigation skills? Am I adequately prepared to spend a night in the woods? What can I do to minimize my chances of getting lost? How are my survival skills? What does it take to survive? Would I have enough willpower to keep going when everything would seem hopeless?
While I keep pondering on these questions I introduced some small exercises into my hikes, e.g.
I quickly realized that I am far from perfect on any of the above skills. Actually, I am often surprised how sometime seemingly small curve in the trail can result in complete change of direction, while at other times the turns seem bigger yet the trail still goes fairly straight over longer distance. How can I tell if I see no reference points?
Since I have become a bit of gps addict I am actually thinking of decoupling a bit in a bushwhacking exercise with someone else, maybe my older son, when only one of us looks at the gps while the other has to find the way out.
We have a great advantage of hindsight that Gerry did not have - we can look at the maps and at the point on the map where she set up a camp, and where the roads were, however, if you don't have a gps, don't have a view of any landmarks, never hit a road and are surrounded by dense brush you may really have no idea where you are and be totally disoriented.
If I found myself in a similar situation I think I would try to get to some road or trail as I suspect chances of getting found on a road are much higher. Assuming that I had no clue where I was (or my guess were really off the chart) I would probably try to pick a direction e.g. East and try to stick to it until I got to a road. Alternatively I might follow a stream with a hope of hitting some road at some point. Who knows if that would work - the woods can be pretty uninhabited in some places.
The bottom line is that this thread had been helpful to me and I suspect others as well.
While I keep pondering on these questions I introduced some small exercises into my hikes, e.g.
- it's cloudy and I don't look at my gps or compass, which way is North?
- how much distance did I cover since point X?
- I look at some distant point on the horizon or on a trail, how far is it?
- which peak is bigger if they are not equally distant from me?
I quickly realized that I am far from perfect on any of the above skills. Actually, I am often surprised how sometime seemingly small curve in the trail can result in complete change of direction, while at other times the turns seem bigger yet the trail still goes fairly straight over longer distance. How can I tell if I see no reference points?
Since I have become a bit of gps addict I am actually thinking of decoupling a bit in a bushwhacking exercise with someone else, maybe my older son, when only one of us looks at the gps while the other has to find the way out.
We have a great advantage of hindsight that Gerry did not have - we can look at the maps and at the point on the map where she set up a camp, and where the roads were, however, if you don't have a gps, don't have a view of any landmarks, never hit a road and are surrounded by dense brush you may really have no idea where you are and be totally disoriented.
If I found myself in a similar situation I think I would try to get to some road or trail as I suspect chances of getting found on a road are much higher. Assuming that I had no clue where I was (or my guess were really off the chart) I would probably try to pick a direction e.g. East and try to stick to it until I got to a road. Alternatively I might follow a stream with a hope of hitting some road at some point. Who knows if that would work - the woods can be pretty uninhabited in some places.
The bottom line is that this thread had been helpful to me and I suspect others as well.
Red Oak
New member
Tim ,I asked for it to "publicly" be shut because I did not get a response when I sent you a private message several months ago about shutting it down dude. I assumed it would "run its course" but it did not. On a personal note please remember I was censored by YOU for being upset about a thread being shut down a while back. I have a right to feel maybe there is a little hypocrisy here but so be it. My first point in my previous thread was that I am all for keeping it open now. My life is at a very different point now then years ago and I am in a much better place. I would hope as a moderator you do not hold a grudge and can move on from past tension between us...thank you....
Stan
Well-known member
This is a rather harsh assessment of Gerry and "demonstrably false" is, well, a demonstrably false characterization of what SAR people recommend under the circumstances. 50 feet? I am unfamiliar with the 1990 case but factual misstatements and personal judgements, or should I say mis-judgements, do not lend themselves to a constructive dialogue on how to avoid this situation.
Here's a link to a compact useful guide for survival in the woods. The hard copy edition is 4"x6" but contains a wealth of practical preparation and survival advice by Maine Wardens for hunters. http://maine.gov/ifw/education/pdfs/aloneinmainewoods.pdf
hikerbrian
Active member
<Off_Topic> I've found this thread pretty darn informative, even the personal reactions and thoughts that go beyond 'data.' <\Off_Topic>
iAMKrzys: Very, very few people can navigate effectively in the absence of appropriate tools (GPS or map and compass) or landmarks and visibility. I think a better strategy, instead of trying to build an 'innate sense of direction' which may not even be possible, is to develop your skills with another form of naviation. If you're solid with GPS AND with map and compass, it's pretty unlikely you'll ever truly be lost again.
I think it's very good practice to be looking fairly constantly at your map, always matching what you're seeing with what is on paper in front of you. [Let's see, we just climbed steeply for several hundred vertical, now we turned sharply left, that must mean we're HERE.] Anytime the map doesn't match your expectation, figure out why not. This way, in the worst case, if you do become disoriented, you can go back to a 'last known' spot, calculate approximately how far you've gone since, and draw a radius around that point. When you do that, it almost always becomes exceedingly obvious what direction you need to go to get to a trail or a road. And you can do that extremely effectively with a compass (this scenario assumes you don't have a working GPS). As many have suggested, if Gerry had done that, it would have been quite obvious which direction or directions could be followed to lead some place productive. And that sort of knowledge does wonders for the psychology too. Don't misunderstand me though, as far as I can tell there's a near complete lack of navigating skills among the general hiking public. Parctically no one knows how to effectively use a compass. That's just a fact of life, and I don't blame Gerry for setting off on her adventure without this skill. Many have gone farther with less. I think she had a string of circumstances line up that weren't in her favor, and that ultimately led to her death. If any of them had gone the other way, we wouldn't even know her name. I'm certain similar things happen EVERY DAY, but the ending is happy because one item lines up in the hiker's favor. That's why I view Gerry's death as tragic. She was loved, and there were so many ways she could have survived.
Trail Boss
New member
In a previous post, you wrote it was the "correct decision" to stay put because it is the official advice. I stated it was "demonstrably false" because, in her situation, heeding the official advice resulted in her death. The official advice failed her badly so it was hardly the correct decision.
"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." - Helmuth von Moltke
Beyond, oh say, four days, she needed a new "battle plan".
You should re-read my post because I never made any connection between "Boomhower" and "50 feet". David Boomhower attempted to cut his trip short and followed a spur trail that, in fact, was not a shortcut to the highway. He compounded the rescuer's challenge by also making a wrong turn off the spur trail and into the woods. Four months later, hunters found his body, near his tent, about a quarter-mile away from the trail.
David Boomhower did precisely what Gerry did; he camped in the same spot and waited for rescue. He also maintained a diary and that's why we know he tried to self-rescue. Unfortunately, he waited over a week before making the attempt and was too weak to make any headway. In other words, if rescuers can't locate you in the first 72 hours, you may not have many more days left for a self-rescue. Boomhower's situation was even more time-constrained because, unlike Gerry, his absence was reported 2 days after his expected exit from the woods. By that time, he was already lost for seven days.
Gerry walked off-trail to answer the call of nature. That's what she texted to her husband. I used "50 feet" as an estimate for the distance to walk off trail but most people don't even go that far. For any trail-walker, the inability to make a short side-trip and return safely is a liability. Know thyself. Address your deficiencies.
"Alone in the Maine Woods" includes information about staying put and what to do if you choose to move on.
Trail Boss
New member
Yup!
Here's a little self-reflective "meta" for the hiking community: we're all quick to point out someone's "equipment deficiency". Failure was guaranteed because they didn't have this, that, or the other gadget. "My gosh, you wouldn't believe all the under-prepared people I saw on the trail!" However, if you say they lacked a skill, like sound judgment or the ability to navigate, it isn't deemed to be much of a deficiency. We're funny that way. Maybe because most of us can't navigate so, hey, that's "normal" and it hasn't proven to be a problem (yet).
Words to live by.
If you don't know where you are on the map, wandering off your planned route makes it just that much harder to correct your mistake. If you have poor sense of direction, as Gerry's trail companion had reported about Gerry, then you're exacerbating the problem by traveling off-trail. Do something about mitigating it before circumstances put you to a test you can't pass.
I can't help contrasting Gerry's story and that of Grandma Gatewood, who at 67 was the first woman to thru-hike the AT in 1955. I just watched the documentary Trail Magic about her life and her experiences hiking the trail in lightweight sneakers and jeans, with a shower curtain, a wool blanket, and a homemade sack she carried on her shoulder. The two woman were about the same age when they attempted their hikes. On her first attempt, Emma Gatewood started in Maine and didn't get very far before she wandered off the poorly marked trail. While she was ultimately found by two rangers, she refused to admit she was lost. "I was just misplaced for a time," she said. She also took many steps to self rescue including building fires and following deer tracks that led her to water. She never panicked. After aborting that trip, she came back the next year better prepared, started in Georgia, and made it all the way to the finish. She was a truly amazing person and I can strongly recommend the film.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandma_Gatewood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandma_Gatewood
iAmKrzys
Member
This reminds me of Jenny Bennett's blog posts in which she made numerous assertions that she was navigating off-trail mostly with a map and analog altimeter (one tool that I have never used.) In fact she explained it in this post: https://streamsandforests.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/map-compass-and-altimeter/ Here are my two favorite passages from that blog:
"As a matter of fact, we didn’t use our compasses all that much. It was mostly topo map and altimeter."
"I haven’t ever acquired a GPS because I am happy with the tools I’ve been using all these years."
Obviously, Jenny has become a master when it came to navigation skills. I don't remember reading how she acquired the skills although it sounds like she probably learned quite a lot from the people she was hiking with. I also don't if Gerry has taken any navigation course(s) or was taught by anyone with sufficient know-how. In some sense this underscores another important on pre-hike check list - knowing what you don't know. Once you know your limitations (and everyone has some) it may become extra important not to skip on backup safety measures such as bringing Spot GPS tracker.
Changing the subject a bit - I have not seen any mention of warden service using portable cell towers. I know that such technology exists but I don't know how viable it is to bring such towers into the woods. I imagine these devices are quite pricey now but at some point they may become affordable enough to make them practical. Given that most people nowadays carry cell phones, this could make locating them much easier. Too late for Gerry though.
DougPaul
Well-known member
An altimeter can be quite useful--I've used my mechanical (barometric) altimeter along with a map to help with navigation while bushwacking. Any time you are in terrain that varies in altitude, it gives you potentially useful information. And on trails which climb slopes it makes it very easy to tell where one is.
Don't forget that people (eg pre-European-contact American Indians) navigated without written maps, compasses, chronometers, astrolabes, sextants, or electronics of any kind. Any of the newer technologies (starting with maps, compasses, altimeters, chronometers, astrolabes/sextants) makes it easier, more reliable, and often more accurate. You don't have to use the newer technologies, but most of us choose to use some subset of them.
Doug
Last edited:
Trail Boss
New member
They're mounted on trailers thereby requiring road access. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_cell_sites#Cell_on_wheels
Assuming the Maine Wardens had access to this equipment, how do you envision they could've been used to expedite Gerry's rescue?
nartreb
Well-known member
Yeah, portability is a problem since they need a bit of power - a proper cell site would use power in the low tens of kilowatts. You need access to the electrical grid, or a generator and fuel. But at the same time, you need a hilltop site, or you're not going to have any range.
Theoretically, if you know someone has a cell phone, you could deploy a "stingray" on an aircraft to sweep the search area. If their phone comes into range, you could get their GPS coordinates and even make a voice call to exchange information. (Like, "we know where you are, sit tight.")
But in practice, after a few days either the hiker's battery is going to be dead, or they're going to be keeping their phone powered down most of the time in order to conserve the battery, so your odds of flying over while the phone is on are pretty low.
And finally, over-reliance on her cell phone was one of Largay's biggest mistakes. Two hours thrashing uphill looking for better signal, when she knew she was a few minutes from the trail... at some point you have to conclude that technological fixes won't give you much return on investment, and you'd better address the human element instead.
Theoretically, if you know someone has a cell phone, you could deploy a "stingray" on an aircraft to sweep the search area. If their phone comes into range, you could get their GPS coordinates and even make a voice call to exchange information. (Like, "we know where you are, sit tight.")
But in practice, after a few days either the hiker's battery is going to be dead, or they're going to be keeping their phone powered down most of the time in order to conserve the battery, so your odds of flying over while the phone is on are pretty low.
And finally, over-reliance on her cell phone was one of Largay's biggest mistakes. Two hours thrashing uphill looking for better signal, when she knew she was a few minutes from the trail... at some point you have to conclude that technological fixes won't give you much return on investment, and you'd better address the human element instead.
Last edited:
iAmKrzys
Member
I imagine a portable cell tower (or a set of them) could be helpful in the following ways:
- Gerry's text messages might go through possibly with some clues to her whereabouts and state. Rescuers could text her back and ask her to try calling 911
- Assuming that she had a relatively modern cell phone, if she called 911 that would activate GPS built into her phone and that would be most helpful if that info got relayed
- Even if she wouldn't call but her phone pinged nearby portable towers her location might be approximated via triangulation. Something like this happened about 2 years ago when a family in Nevada went to play in the snow and their car rolled off the road and flipped. ( http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/nevada-family-found-alive/ ) While it took 2 days for them to be found, rescuers used cell phone pings to approximate location of the family: 'The Civil Air Patrol, an auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force, said its cell phone forensics experts "played a critical role in helping rescuers narrow the search area," according to a statement by the patrol.'
Actually, when I originally said "portable cell tower" - I was thinking of Stingrays ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker ) they are much smaller then "real" transmitters but as Narterb pointed out, they don't have much power, so you probably have to place them on planes or drones to pick up a weak phone signal.
In some sense if you only care to get a ping from a phone then the question becomes "what is the least amount of power to get the cell phone into thinking I am a cell tower and to send me a ping?" I believe, normally, cell phones transmit location signals back to towers to let the network know where to route the incoming calls, but I don't know if they send any signals when they don't detect any towers in range - maybe they just listen for any signs of network and don't broadcast anything? DougPaul - what do you know about this?
I think advent of drones and advances in artificial intelligence hold great promise for unmanned SAR missions - one could imagine a swarm of inexpensive drones scouring large area for anything out of "ordinary" - a tent, clothing in colors that don't match surroundings, fire, smoke etc and send back selected images along with gps coordinates for further human analysis. I would be surprised if DARPA weren't spending tonnes of money on applications like this, so sooner or later these things will show up in civilian applications as well.
Btw, last Spring I bought a solar panel rechargeable 5000 mAh battery for use with my phone. It sucks in terms of re-charging speed (it is small and lightweight), but solar panels are getting better, so one day this technology may really work when you need some juice to make that emergency call.
DougPaul
Well-known member
I have not studied cell phone communication protocols. However my guess is:
1) The tower sends out an "Is anyone there?" (IAT) message
2) The cell phone listens until it hears the IAT and answers with an "I am here" (IAH) message.
3) Once the tower hears the IAH, they exchange enough data to prepare for a possible incoming or outgoing call and/or data. (To enable a user to receive calls, the system must at least know the closest tower.)
4) The above must be repeated periodically or if the phone moves to a place where it gets a stronger signal from a different tower.
(The cellphone and tower adjust their transmitter powers to use the minimum required for reliable communication to conserve battery power and minimize interference.)
* If only one tower hears the phone, it may be able to estimate a range
* if two towers hear the phone, they may be able to estimate a (parabolic) line of position
* if three or more towers hear the phone, they may be able to estimate a location.
(AFAIK cell towers do not have precise direction finding--the above requires a protocol which includes precise timing, but a *much* less accurate estimate can be made from signal strength alone.)
None of the above requires GPS. Of course, a SARSAT (via a PLB**) or GPS location could be helpful to searchers. However, as seen in the Matrosova incident, electronic locations are not a guarantee. (Note: her SPOT locator sent several locations with a fairly wide spread. While at least some SPOT devices include GPS, I don't know if all models do and specifically if her device did. GPS receivers also vary in their quality.)
** A PLB also contains a radio beacon which rescuers can home in on from the air or from the ground.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_tracking for more.
Re: airborne cellular base stations:
Just google "airborne cellular base stations"--it is at least an active area of research.
Although they could be useful for SAR, a much more important use of airborne cellular base stations would be to establish communication in disaster areas where the communication infrastructure has been wiped out. Such specially equipped aircraft might be too rare and too expensive for routine SAR.
Doug
Last edited:
Trail Boss
New member
I believe natreb pointed out the chief deficiency of this strategy. It relies on the victim having a functional cell phone that is active when the COW/Stingray/whatever is in range.
Your cell phones broadcasts its presence (edit: after receiving an SID message; the carrier's unique ID code. Until then it is listening and listening and listening). If it didn't do that, the cellular network wouldn't know your availability (the cell you're in) in order to connect an inbound call. Leave one turned on in an area of no service and it will exhaust its battery as promptly, if not more so, than an active day's usage. If you want to maximize battery-life, either switch it off or use airplane mode to (minimally) shutdown the phone's cellular transceiver.
I agree it might be a useful tool. However, given the typical phone's limited battery life (and potential to be turned off to conserve battery life), a Stingray would have to be used early in the search. Most SAR operations have a high rate of success in the first 48 hours so there may be a significant cost-justification hurdle for acquiring Stingray equipment. After 72 hours, success diminishes dramatically. Unfortunately a Stingray employed that late in the search would be of limited use because most phones won't last that long.
Gerry's plight serves as an example why one shouldn't rely on cell phones for emergency use in the backcountry. Be pleasantly surprised (and relieved) when they do work but don't bet the farm on it. Cell-phone communications in the backcountry may improve in the future but for now it's a roll of the (loaded) dice that favor the house.
Your cell phones broadcasts its presence (edit: after receiving an SID message; the carrier's unique ID code. Until then it is listening and listening and listening). If it didn't do that, the cellular network wouldn't know your availability (the cell you're in) in order to connect an inbound call. Leave one turned on in an area of no service and it will exhaust its battery as promptly, if not more so, than an active day's usage. If you want to maximize battery-life, either switch it off or use airplane mode to (minimally) shutdown the phone's cellular transceiver.
I agree it might be a useful tool. However, given the typical phone's limited battery life (and potential to be turned off to conserve battery life), a Stingray would have to be used early in the search. Most SAR operations have a high rate of success in the first 48 hours so there may be a significant cost-justification hurdle for acquiring Stingray equipment. After 72 hours, success diminishes dramatically. Unfortunately a Stingray employed that late in the search would be of limited use because most phones won't last that long.
Gerry's plight serves as an example why one shouldn't rely on cell phones for emergency use in the backcountry. Be pleasantly surprised (and relieved) when they do work but don't bet the farm on it. Cell-phone communications in the backcountry may improve in the future but for now it's a roll of the (loaded) dice that favor the house.
Last edited:
