3 climbers, 1 injury: Who stays or goes ?

[Chip]

1) All 3 stay together, stay warm and wait for help/better conditions
2) One stays with injured, the 3rd goes for help
3) 2 leave the injured alone and they both go for help
4) 2 help the injured decend

In this case on Rainier it looks like all 3 would have been lost in a slide if they had stayed together, but aside from that possibilty, what's SOP in this case ? (and, yes, I know some here will claim they'd send the 2 uninjured on and crawl out on their own, but that's not an option here. )

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Let me be the first of many:

It depends

I often consider what would happen if one of my two kids got hurt. If with just me I think we all stay put, unless really, really close to the road, or a real easy carry for me (piggy back). If my wife were along, hmm... not sure who would stay and who would go.

Tim

 

[nartreb]

Let me be the second of many: it depends.

What kind of injury? Can it be treated in the field? Likelihood of death if untreated?

Is staying in the current location inherently dangerous? (avalanche, weather)

Is the route to possible rescue inherently dangerous? (ditto plus terrain, navigation)

What are the odds you will be found if you stay put? How long is it likely to take? How long will it take to seek rescue? Will you be able to guide rescuers back to this spot?

How much food/water/shelter is available? Do all members of the party have enough skill/stamina/equipment to stay? To go?

Are there third or fourth possibilities? e.g., hobble down to treeline with the party's help, set up a comfy lean-to and fire in an easy-to-find location, then one or more of the party goes for help (maybe after a rest)?

I should point out that carrying an injured adult on even slightly rough terrain is incredibly slow, tiring, and often painful. Not an attractive option. If the injured party can walk or hop, they should. If they can't, then unless there's a significantly safer spot quite close, it's often better to build what shelter you can at the location of the injury, and go fetch more manpower.

 

[Little Rickie]

1) All 3 stay together, stay warm and wait for help/better conditions
2) One stays with injured, the 3rd goes for help
3) 2 leave the injured alone and they both go for help
4) 2 help the injured decend

In this case on Rainier it looks like all 3 would have been lost in a slide if they had stayed together, but aside from that possibilty, what's SOP in this case ? (and, yes, I know some here will claim they'd send the 2 uninjured on and crawl out on their own, but that's not an option here. )

1 help the injured decend if possible

2 fastest person goes for help

3 real bad conditions all three stay together

4 RIP, 2 leave the deceased

I wouldn't leave anyone alone.

 

[DougPaul]

Let me be the second of many: it depends

Agreed--it depends on many things. There are no hard and fast rules in these situations. You assess the details, make your best guess at a strategy, and go with it. Sometimes you make it, sometimes you don't. You try to maximize the probability that you are in the first group rather than the second.

Doug

 

[Little Rickie]

It helps to think about these things so when stuff hits the fan and emotions are running high you can have something to fall back on and keep your head on straight. Panic is the killer more than anything else.

 

[jrbren]

I agree with it depends. This is discussed at length in back country first aid courses (assessing the situation, when to stay, when to go for help, what state you should leave the victim in if you do have to leave them, etc...). I highly recommend these courses to anyone spending any length of time in the back country. I could use a refresher myself, it has been a few years since my last one. You can also find this info in text books that cover back country first aid. Good topic. In the specific case discussed on Rainier, it sounds like the two the descended were in danger of getting hypothermia themselves so they probably had to descend. But not enough info given to really play Monday morning quarter back. I am sure that is a very different situation then a sprained ankle on the Van Hovenberg trail to Marcy on a sunny summer Saturday.

 

[erugs]

It helps to think about these things so when stuff hits the fan and emotions are running high you can have something to fall back on and keep your head on straight. Panic is the killer more than anything else.

I agree. I also agree with the idea of staying together, as many have stated. What "staying together" means for me is that you plan as a group, hike as a group, stay as a group IF everything is okay. You stay together in your pace, adjusting as needed. Accidents change everything, and that is where the "it depends" comes in. For me, reading about how others face situations is important, and even one of the reasons I'm active here. What is the psychology behind what we do when stressed, when scared, when tired and hungry, when disagreements come up.

 

[RoySwkr]

I agree that the answer is: it depends

I would think that the default is to stay together if the person can move reasonably or to get them out of danger, else leave one person with the victim and one go for help, but there are certainly exceptions:
* there is reason to believe there will be prompt rescue without sending somebody, so both can wait
* stabilizing and caring for victim requires 2 to stay
* neither person is confident enough to travel alone
* the route out requires 2 people, such as technical route with belaying
* victim's location is too dangerous to wait there, and victim can't be moved
* victim is better off alone, as trapped scuba diver who would prefer buddy to leave extra air tank and go

Generally I would say most reliable person should go for help, but you might also consider who would be better to stay:
* person with most first aid knowledge
* spouse of victim
* more cheerful person

As to the case that brought this up, a person with hypothermia may be better kept moving as it may warm them up, particularly if they are in a dangerous avalanche zone. Leaving a hypothermic person alone who can't move is very likely a death sentence under the circumstances, and while 1 person dead is better than 3 they should have understood what they were doing. If the uninjured people could not wait in the area (perhaps walking in circles) without getting hypothermia, then they were woefully underprepared.


-rs

 

[Chip]

Leaving a hypothermic person alone who can't move is very likely a death sentence under the circumstances, and while 1 person dead is better than 3 they should have understood what they were doing. -rs

Also my thought. Can't second guess what happened there. Leaving a hypothermic person behind would be my last choice.

 

[nartreb]

The route they were on does not lend itself to walking in circles. Setting up an emergency shelter or even lighting a stove could be quite difficult over many parts of the route, depending on snow conditions - there are a handful of OK stopping spots, and they would have been using those as campsites along the way.

13600' would be not far from where this photo was taken:

I agree that leaving a hypothermic victim alone is not likely to have a good outcome (rescue will take many hours), but you don't have a lot of options once one of your party is immobilized on a long technical route. The survival of the rest of the party may have been a real concern. It's important for team members to check each other frequently to catch problems before they become serious.

It's also likely that we're not hearing the whole story at this stage. Quite a few things could go wrong that lead to a team member becoming hypothermic (e.g., after the whole team stops together for a while), and at that point the original problem becomes a minor detail that the rangers may not know or may not share with the press.

 

[nartreb]

http://www.nps.gov/applications/morningreport/morningreportold.cfm
(navigate to June 15, first item)

Well, I started from a false hypothesis in my previous post. According to the NPS, he was in camp when his teammates decided to leave him. It's not clear when or where his hypothermia started nor what treatment was attempted.

I don't think camping at 13600' is normal (ideally you summit in a single day from Thumb Rock at 10,600') but it's also common for parties to make improvised camps along the way, especially in bad weather.

 

[Chugach001]

13600' would be not far from where this photo was taken:

So if that's the scenario, you're stuck there in that situation, here's my memory of rescue doctrine;

First, Waiting gets you nothing. There has to be an immediate and strong forward force of self-rescue. Of course that sort of diligence might have helped them reverse hypothermia in the first place.

Second, I assume they had no radio but if you do, get on it and wait for instructions.

Third, make things minimally worse, meaning don't go from one injury to 2, etc.

And in this scenario, having been on Rainier, I wouldn't descend alone. So now you are simply waiting or are figuring out how to get the healthy two on a rope headed down hill. It's not a pretty set of options but I think your odds flag quickly after 24 hours.

 

[Stan]

It's unanimous: it depends.

The Rainier case and "SOP" show the importance of the variables and exercising good judgement for the specific people, injuries, preparation, conditions and locations. Little Rickie makes a great point of pondering these things in advance.

The first rule in any emergency is, don't panic. Assess the situation and discuss before making a decision ... few decisions have to be made instantaneously and a calm, well thought out plan is more likely to be successful than an impulsive move.

A group embarking on a dangerous undertaking should likewise ponder, in advance, the possibilities. Compatibility in the attitude of when it's "one for all and all for one" or "every man for himself" constitutes a wise group characteristic.

 

[sierra]

I think every situation requires a different application. Im good in a bad situations, been in a few. My first thought and attempt would be to perform my own rescue and get my partner down. I would be willing to suffer greatly to accomplish this goal first and foremost as leaving someone who is already hpothermic is basically giving up on him realistically. I once shortroped a climber down a snowslope almost a mile long by myself in two hours, after climbing for 6 hours to get there. The conditions where 10 degree's, 45 mph winds, totally exposed above treeline and the victim had a badly broken ankle. I caculated the time table for going for help and help arriving and deducted he would be dead for sure in those conditions if I left him. ( by the way he was a stranger to me I just happened on him and his friends they had no idea what to do, one descended for help.) Secondly if I couldnt lower him, I would go for help myself, Im fast and would try my best. If the situation leaves no chance for the persons survival, all surviving members must go down and leave him. While this sounds harsh, staying with someone and dieing with them just so they dont die alone if absolutely foolish.I would hope in that situation if it was me and I knew I was done, I would encourage my partners to leave me and save themselves.