Fatality on Mt. Guyot

[Cartophile]

I'm just curious about the decision to start the rescue on foot, rather than calling in a helicopter right away. That's a long distance, especially through snow. I've hiked as far as Bondcliff in winter, from Lincoln Woods, and the trail was already broken. Fresh snow would make for very, very slow progress. And, although I've never ridden a snowmobile, I can't imagine getting one up the step to treeline; even that narrow passage where, lower down, you can see the summit, might be too narrow for the machine.

 

[KRooney]

There are some areas in the Whites which are particularly snowy, and in my experience there's about a 1/2 mile section between Guyot and the spur to W. Bond that can have deep snows. But, given his substantial experience, he probably knew and planned for this.

 

[SpencerVT]

Winter climbing in the White Mountains cannot be made perfectly safe, no matter what. Some risk must be accepted if one is going to do it.
To mitigate the risk, when I am packing, I think of it in a similar way to how bridges are built:
What is the maximum load that could drive over this bridge? Then, the bridge is built to exceed that maximum possible load.
Likewise, I think of: what are the worst conditions and temperatures that could happen?.....and then I pack to exceed that worse-case scenario.

The White Mountains cannot be over estimated. No matter how much of an optimistic person you are, you want to assume the worst and build off of that foundation in preparing for a winter hike. Which means I carry a ridiculous amount of stuff when I go out. Light and fast is reckless when it comes to winter and you are asking for disaster. Moreover, carrying a heavy pack will help make you a stronger hiker and just think of how light you'll feel when you go back to hiking in warm temperatures after getting used to carrying a much heavier load. It will feel great. So in my mind any downsides of carrying a heavy pack in winter are vastly outweighed by the upsides.

Lastly, folks need to be thinking that even if the forecast looks ok, it could be wrong or change unexpectedly. Rain, snow, wind and storms can and do all occur which were never in the forecast.
Also, if the weather forecast or observable weather even hints at being poor, don't go. Know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. It's not worth it. I always tell myself if I'm dead I can't hike any more mountains, so I just don't go. Which is why I am not hiking in the Adirondacks this weekend. Too cold and sketchy.

 

[CaptCaper]

Winter climbing in the White Mountains cannot be made perfectly safe, no matter what. Some risk must be accepted if one is going to do it.
To mitigate the risk, when I am packing, I think of it in a similar way to how bridges are built:
What is the maximum load that could drive over this bridge? Then, the bridge is built to exceed that maximum possible load.
Likewise, I think of: what are the worst conditions and temperatures that could happen?.....and then I pack to exceed that worse-case scenario.

The White Mountains cannot be over estimated. No matter how much of an optimistic person you are, you want to assume the worst and build off of that foundation in preparing for a winter hike. Which means I carry a ridiculous amount of stuff when I go out. Light and fast is reckless when it comes to winter and you are asking for disaster. Moreover, carrying a heavy pack will help make you a stronger hiker and just think of how light you'll feel when you go back to hiking in warm temperatures after getting used to carrying a much heavier load. It will feel great. So in my mind any downsides of carrying a heavy pack in winter are vastly outweighed by the upsides.

Lastly, folks need to be thinking that even if the forecast looks ok, it could be wrong or change unexpectedly. Rain, snow, wind and storms can and do all occur which were never in the forecast.
Also, if the weather forecast or observable weather even hints at being poor, don't go. Know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. It's not worth it. I always tell myself if I'm dead I can't hike any more mountains, so I just don't go. Which is why I am not hiking in the Adirondacks this weekend. Too cold and sketchy.

Ignoring or not knowing mother nature well seems to be a big factor in many so called expierenced hikers deaths in the winter. Take the Monadnock park ranger Kenneth R. Holmes , then Kate's death on Monroe,Emily last season, now this and many more before and they'll be more to come. One thing they all had in common was I believe thinking they are such great hikers and will beat the weather out or can handle it up there and can travel light cause I'm in good shape etc. Not to mention obession with the "list's" they want to bang out.

 

[sierra]

Ignoring or not knowing mother nature well seems to be a big factor in many so called expierenced hikers deaths in the winter. Take the Monadnock park ranger Kenneth R. Holmes , then Kate's death on Monroe,Emily last season, now this and many more before and they'll be more to come. One thing they all had in common was I believe thinking they are such great hikers and will beat the weather out or can handle it up there and can travel light cause I'm in good shape etc. Not to mention obession with the "list's" they want to bang out.

With all due respect, you are painting all these victims with a pretty broad brush. This latest hiker was a lot more experienced than that young girl Emily. As far as Kate goes, she was not familiar with the Whites and was used to being guided, two distinct differences between her and this latest hiker. Saying they thought they were "great" is also pretty insulting if you didn't know them personally. No offense, but your pretty damn judgmental towards someone who just lost their life.

 

[Yury]

That’s why any time I’m out in the mountains here, day hiking or snowshoeing, I carry a pack with appropriate sleeping bag, pad, 2P tent, stove, 1-2 days food, thermos of hot drink, extra clothes, and down jacket/pants/booties. Along with the 10 essentials, of course. You never know when you’ll run across someone in trouble. It‘s far more likely to be a snowmobiler here, though; I’ve never seen anyone else on foot in the winter who wasn’t with me.

@NH211, how heavy is your day pack in this case?

 

[NH2112]

Winter pack load out.

I took this video a few weeks ago when I was out bushwhacking on Boundary Bald. Temps that day were in the mid 30s F or so, with overnight lows forecast to be around 20F so I had some things I wouldn’t have brought in colder weather - the Soto Amicus and SMD Deschutes would have been replaced by the Whisperlite and Marmot Hammer. Pack weight was 48lb, those snowshoes are about 5.5lb and I had 1l water and a 1l thermos of cocoa. I’m constantly trying different stuff, the FF Ibis I recently bought is a little lighter and should be warmer than the NEMO Sonic 0F and I can drop another pound by leaving the Therm-A-Rest Trekker at home. Though the extra weight of the Hammer and Whisperlite will just about offset the savings.

I believe there’s definitely a place and time for fast & light, but winter in the mountains of northern New England is neither. You aren‘t outrunning Mother Nature no matter how fast & light you are. I’d much rather be slow & heavy and able to overnight if I want or have to. There’s nothing like the winter night sky in the mountains, that alone makes the pack weight worth it.

 

[TEO]

Very few of us plan our deaths. Unfortunately it is often in circumstances that involve great pain and suffering. I happened to have quite a few people close to me die recently where great suffering occurred. By all available references we have, we are led to believe death through hypothermia may not involve as much physical or psychological suffering. You may have missed the most significant point of suffering that Chris may have realized that I wrote in my post; that "...except for the pain he may have realized that he could not return to his son."

I did not say that it was good that this gentleman died, the fact is that he did. I'm saying that at least it was doing something he loved and from all accounts in a setting that he passionately loved, as opposed to a fiery car crash on his way home.....or something similar.

Not that the event itself is good, but rather that most people would prefer having death occur (if it has to) in such a way over getting some of the diseases that people get and spend months or years fading away slowly and sometimes painfully for both the person and others around them.

I recognized what you were saying, @Andrew, but in my view dying at 75 or 80 in a fiery crash or after a battle with dementia is better than dying at 37 "doing what you loved," especially when it means that your child does not get to know you and you do not get to see your child grow up. @BillyGr, I can guarantee you that Christopher Roma's son would rather that his father had lived another thirty years, then developed dementia and died five years later. (And I don't mean to belittle dementia or other extended deaths. They can be cruel.)

Usually when people say "they died doing what they loved doing," the deceased is too young. It is a trite comment trying to put a positive spin on a tragic event. If someone dies after a long-suffering illness, whether it was physically or mentallly painful or with dementia, death can be seen in a positive light. But when someone dies too young, because something went wrong, there is nothing good about their death. It is tragic and awful for the deceased and those who loved them. It's OK to say so.

 

[JoshandBaron]

From a boston.com article:

Christopher Roma, 37, was an expert hiker who ran his own long-distance trail guide business and had walked this familiar trail many times before. He had begun the hike with two other people, but the others felt it was too much for them and turned around, his mother told The Associated Press.

 

[Mountain Thunder]

This is tough one, given he was triple crowner (AT PCT and CDT) and an experienced ultra trail runner including a Direttissima
he was not inexperienced. Definitely a case where we can hope that there is more information released. Even tougher is he leaves a 2 year old son behind. There is a go fund me https://www.gofundme.com/f/christopher-roma

The Lincoln NH weather was not recorded as extreme on Tuesday but degraded significantly overnight into Wednesday. My guess is the recent storms that have dropped a lot of snow yet changed to rain down low leading to lower accumulations may have led to the assumption that snow depth in the eastern Pemi was not that deep in the backcountry and at elevation the snow depth may have been much higher leading to slow progress breaking trail with a resultant higher than expected energy expenditure. Most of MLK weekend was not great for backcountry activities so backcountry trails like those leading to Guyot probably were not broken out.

It is really easy to get damp breaking trail through deep powder leading to mild hypothermia and the first thing that goes with hypothermia is clear thinking. Given the timing, he would have had to have had significant extra gear with him to survive an unplanned bivy overnight into the next day that few folks these days carry. I wonder if there are some parallels with Kate M?.

I am reminded of Kate with every one of these tragedies. We know that Kate was training for Everest and likely persisted b/c such weather is the norm above 25K. We also know that Emily’s goal was to accomplish the remaining mountains by her birthday. As for this gentleman, this was just probably business as usual in the Whites, in winter.

 

[mncta5]

I implore anyone interested in safe winter hiking to go through the AMC Winter Hiking Series! It's an annual series of classes/hikes that cover best practices and what to bring for safe winter hiking. I went through the 2012/2013 class and that knowledge gained has made me a better (and safer!) hiker, despite already having been a member of the 4000 footer club for decades.
The reaction that I get from fellow hikers when they see my pack and ask if I'm staying overnight is even more surprising when I reply "maybe."
The instructors' mantra is "Summiting is optional. Returning is mandatory".

 

[peakbagger]

From a boston.com article:

Christopher Roma, 37, was an expert hiker who ran his own long-distance trail guide business and had walked this familiar trail many times before. He had begun the hike with two other people, but the others felt it was too much for them and turned around, his mother told The Associated Press.

I expect those two folks are having a rough time over the decision. If they kept going would they have had the same fate?. Was there something they could have done to convince the deceased from pressing on regardless? Practically, unless it was an unmatched pairing of one fit ultra hiker and two people far less fit who were dragging the deceased down, a group of three should go faster in winter than a group of one in winter. Group think can be an asset or a liability at that point, some inexperienced groups will talk each other into taking more risk, while a rational group will have a better chance of realizing that they are in too deep. Usually, it takes a while and several hikes to turn into a rational group. An unusual aspect to this tragedy is that the deceased was advertising his services as an experienced guide, that usually implies that the guide has a background and understanding of group and individual dynamics, and I would be hard pressed to see how a professional would break a group up in winter but maybe someone else with guiding experience could explain such a decision rationally. Sure they could have been out recreationally, but the guide mentality would still be there as that type of backgrond does not switch itself on or off.

One of my long term "rules" is I don't consider anyone a true hiking partner until we get to the point where we both look at each other on a crappy day and say "lets head down and get a beer" prior to our original goal. On the other hand, on a few occasions, I have hiked with folks focused on a summit or trail to check off a box, I usually try to avoid getting in that situation again with them or make sure that on future trip my intentions are clear. Some of the folks eventually slow down, some burn out. There is also the concept of the adrenaline junkie, like any other addiction, the high starts getting harder to get unless the risk is increased. Folks like that can be a big risk to someone joining them if the person going with them dont realize the motivation. Adrenaline junkies can be great people and stand out in group and tend to attract a following of people who want to hang out with greatness but sometimes the followers get hurt if they do not realize that ultimately the leader is focused on only one thing and that is the risk. If you have read the analysis of the Hass Tinkham accident, Hass was an adrenaline junky out for the risk who convinced a far less experienced person into going on in degrading conditions to the point where Tinkham was unable to proceed and died. That no rescuer died or was seriously injured was surprising and reportedly after the rescue the groups involved put in new protocols for when to or not to go out for a rescue.

No doubt with a Triple Crown (and a bonus PCT) under his belt, he was exposed to other big risk situations and worked his way past them due to shear luck, training or some combination of the two. For many, sheer luck is rationalized into "skill". Talk to many thru hikers and they seem to all have a tough time going back into the "real world" post hike, some handle it while others just delay the inevitable and just pull together enough of a living for the next thru hike or long trail and if they are exceptional, they may be able to get sponsored but in most cases that just delays things a bit. Eventually they need to attempt to blend back into the real world and by reading what he wrote in his webpage for his business, that transition was just beginning. Ultimately some succeed and some do not.

 

[TomK]

If you go "light and fast", and something happens that causes you to lose your speed (injury, conditions, something else?) you now are slow and unequipped and have few options.

If you go "well equipped, but slower because of it", if something happens that causes you to lose your equipment (probably less likely than what might cause a "light and fast" hiker to lose speed), well, now you are "light" and maybe faster, and will be certainly retreating.

I generally opt for "well equipped" because even when I am "light", I'm no longer likely to be much faster. But I will not quibble with the hiker who makes a different decision.

TomK

 

[Yury]

I expect those two folks are having a rough time over the decision.

Why do you expect them having rough time over a common sense decision?
Each person on this hike made a decision based on his own abilities and risk tolerance.
As a result two people decided to turn back and one person decided to go ahead.

What would have happened had all three of them continued this hike?
We could have had two or three corpses instead of one.

 

[peakbagger]

Sorry I was editing my post when you replied, you may want to review the edit.

 

[pedxing]

I was struck by the similarities with Ken Holmes in '04. Same age, same time of year, same area, both experienced and fit hikers, both reached out to friends via cell phones...

I had the same thought. Just - sad. I immediately recalled the discussion here on VFTT at that time, for example:

https://www.vftt.org/threads/tragic-news-in-nh.1522/
Chris had a few recent articles in The Trek: White Mountain Direttissima - The Trek

 

[skiguy]

I expect those two folks are having a rough time over the decision. If they kept going would they have had the same fate?. Was there something they could have done to convince the deceased from pressing on regardless? Practically, unless it was an unmatched pairing of one fit ultra hiker and two people far less fit who were dragging the deceased down, a group of three should go faster in winter than a group of one in winter. Group think can be an asset or a liability at that point, some inexperienced groups will talk each other into taking more risk, while a rational group will have a better chance of realizing that they are in too deep. Usually, it takes a while and several hikes to turn into a rational group. An unusual aspect to this tragedy is that the deceased was advertising his services as an experienced guide, that usually implies that the guide has a background and understanding of group and individual dynamics, and I would be hard pressed to see how a professional would break a group up in winter but maybe someone else with guiding experience could explain such a decision rationally. Sure they could have been out recreationally, but the guide mentality would still be there as that type of backgrond does not switch itself on or off.

One of my long term "rules" is I don't consider anyone a true hiking partner until we get to the point where we both look at each other on a crappy day and say "lets head down and get a beer" prior to our original goal. On the other hand, on a few occasions, I have hiked with folks focused on a summit or trail to check off a box, I usually try to avoid getting in that situation again with them or make sure that on future trip my intentions are clear. Some of the folks eventually slow down, some burn out. There is also the concept of the adrenaline junkie, like any other addiction, the high starts getting harder to get unless the risk is increased. Folks like that can be a big risk to someone joining them if the person going with them dont realize the motivation. Adrenaline junkies can be great people and stand out in group and tend to attract a following of people who want to hang out with greatness but sometimes the followers get hurt if they do not realize that ultimately the leader is focused on only one thing and that is the risk. If you have read the analysis of the Hass Tinkham accident, Hass was an adrenaline junky out for the risk who convinced a far less experienced person into going on in degrading conditions to the point where Tinkham was unable to proceed and died. That no rescuer died or was seriously injured was surprising and reportedly after the rescue the groups involved put in new protocols for when to or not to go out for a rescue.

No doubt with a Triple Crown (and a bonus PCT) under his belt, he was exposed to other big risk situations and worked his way past them due to shear luck training or some combination of the two. For many, sheer luck is rationalized into "skill". Talk to many thru hikers and they seem to all have a tough time going back into the "real world" post hike, some handle it while others just delay the inevitable and just pull together enough of a living for the next thru hike or long trail and if they are exceptional, they may be able to get sponsored but in most cases that just delays things a bit. Eventually they need to attempt to blend back into the real world and by reading what he wrote in his webpage for his business, that transition was just beginning. Ultimately some succeed and some do not.

Excellent post. Especially your observation of the Psycho/Social component.

 

[JustJoe]

I am reminded of Kate with every one of these tragedies. We know that Kate was training for Everest and likely persisted b/c such weather is the norm above 25K. We also know that Emily’s goal was to accomplish the remaining mountains by her birthday. As for this gentleman, this was just probably business as usual in the Whites, in winter.

His mother stated in an interview on AP, "he was trying to be his personal best." I assume that is for the Pemi Loop in winter, which is what he was doing.

 

[skiguy]

I recognized what you were saying, @Andrew, but in my view dying at 75 or 80 in a fiery crash or after a battle with dementia is better than dying at 37 "doing what you loved," especially when it means that your child does not get to know you and you do not get to see your child grow up. @BillyGr, I can guarantee you that Christopher Roma's son would rather that his father had lived another thirty years, then developed dementia and died five years later. (And I don't mean to belittle dementia or other extended deaths. They can be cruel.)

Usually when people say "they died doing what they loved doing," the deceased is too young. It is a trite comment trying to put a positive spin on a tragic event. If someone dies after a long-suffering illness, whether it was physically or mentallly painful or with dementia, death can be seen in a positive light. But when someone dies too young, because something went wrong, there is nothing good about their death. It is tragic and awful for the deceased and those who loved them. It's OK to say so.

Well said. We all deal with death differently. "He died doing what he loved" IMO is more for the comfort of the living. Also more than likely part of the mourning process.

 

[sierra]

I solo, because I do not want to negotiate anything when I climb. I have had two incidents in a pair and a group where the correct decision could not be agreed upon. I then became a pure soloist and have never looked back. When I do now climb with partners, it's women I meet in hiking groups and I lay the ground rules down ahead of time, I make all the decisions during a climb and they are non-negotiable.