missing hiker - Lancaster, NH

[Driver8]

Other than actually going on the trip, can't say she did much wrong. The reasoning why she went seems almost reasonable, to a degree, as well. But, that one mistake which ultimately led to her demise ultimately may have happened from the warmth of her car ten hours earlier.

Not bringing a sleeping bag and shelter, given the conditions, were also mistakes. She might well have turned back at the hut after summiting Madison, too, but she evidently was feeling great at that point and may not have been aware of how bad the weather, especially the wind, was going to turn.

I wonder if her GPS tracker logged not only her trek but the time frame of her hike. When did she reach the following points: hut, Madison summit, return to hut, Adams summit? Alternatively, when did she take the snapshot at the hut? If that information were available, it would give a fuller sense of her experience. Bottom line, is she was overwhelmed by the weather - truly worst in the world on that day.

Given the reports that she hiked into the weather aware of the forecast, this is a lesson to us all to go into the mountains determined, but to maintain that element of reasonable doubt about any of our outdoor adventures. The caution that comes from that can be our best friend.

As to the immediate cause of her demise, it seems like Mike Pelchat, quoted in the article, most likely has it right. As she started to get out of the lee of JQ Adams, she got hit with a big blast of wind and knocked off trail to her final stopping point. The gusts at that point were equal to an F2 tornado or more. Most of us wouldn't hike into a tornado.

At that point, she didn't have much choice, though it was close to impossible to traverse those flats northward into the stern winds. She might could've descended on the Buttress Trail and looked for a relatively level spot to build a shelter out of snow and scrub, even though she apparently lacked shelter and a sleeping bag.

When my mom was in high school, her church group got caught in a blizzard high in the Boulder Field on Longs Peak, I think it was late summer 1964, and that's what they had to do to survive, was to build a snow cave. Telling me the story years later, she said she never again climbed after that, having developed an acute fear of heights. She said her legs got so cold, it frightened her to her core, even though she suffered no permanent physical damage. And they did survive, thanks to the skills of her group's leaders. It's a shame it didn't work out better in this situation.

 

[ChrisB]

At the Risk of Beinng Indelicate...

Not bringing a sleeping bag and shelter, given the conditions, were also mistakes.

I think this is the first fatal since the introduction of the Hike Safe card.

If she did not have one, is there a chance that her family will be charged for the efforts of F&G? I believe there is some helo time involved as well as many man-hours.

Given her supposed knowledge of the harsh wx , audacious route plan, and solos status, might a case for negligence be made?
cb

 

[Whiteman]

I did not see this posted earlier (but apologies if it was). Here is a video from the SAR crew.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP4u6VyrgCk

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

I know not if it is a custom or a policy, but I read somewhere that F&G does not charge for SAR if the lost person becomes a fatality. Whether KM was negligent or not is debatable, but I'd think our hearts would have to be colder than the wind chill on Mt Washington 2/15/15 for us to send them a bill for SAR.

 

[DayTrip]

I think this is the first fatal since the introduction of the Hike Safe card.

If she did not have one, is there a chance that her family will be charged for the efforts of F&G? I believe there is some helo time involved as well as many man-hours.

Given her supposed knowledge of the harsh wx , audacious route plan, and solos status, might a case for negligence be made?
cb

Max Lurie of Mountain Rescue Service was quoted in the Boston Globe article as saying "It was negligent for her to be up there".

Whether they will pursue the costs I don't know. Someone speculated in another forum that given the husband's wealthy status possibly he would voluntarily make a generous donation for their efforts. I suppose that will depend on whether the husband is thankful they risks their lives and made the effort or if he feels they could have done more (i.e. the bouncing signal, etc). Given the end result it would probably just be best to let it go and move on. I'm sure the rescue folks are just as disappointed with the outcome.

 

[Stan]

I think she paid the ultimate price, sadly.

However, if I lost a loved one during the SAR, I would think twice, and consult an attorney, with respect to recovering damages from her estate and her husband. I say that with much reluctance having led SAR cases with the Coast Guard where the saying was, "You have to go out but don't have to come back." That was not a command, it was an attitude.

 

[Chip]

I'd say most winter peakbaggers, especially soloists, would never wear a climb or ski helmet It may have helped here. It's not hard to fall or get blown over.

 

[TJsName]

I'll try to answer my own question, but please correct me if I go astray...

Since water is about 784 times as dense as air, then it would appear pretty straight forward that you could divide the air speed by that and get equivalent water speed. Of course, that would mean you're fully submerged in water, and that water and air have the same drag coefficient (.6 ish is what I am finding). Most people don't do crossings that are that deep, so let's assume you go thigh deep. The proportion of the body in the water is significantly reduced to say, 20% a crosscut of your body. That would make the water equivalent math pretty straightforward comparing the two. That would mean walking in winds of 62.6mph is as hard as walking upstream in thigh-deep water moving 5 mph (assuming my math is right - air math; water math. The effect of a cross wind would be the same as trying to cross the stream, since the forces are just vectors.

 

[Driver8]

I'll try to answer my own question, but please correct me if I go astray...

Since water is about 784 times as dense as air, then it would appear pretty straight forward that you could divide the air speed by that and get equivalent water speed. Of course, that would mean you're fully submerged in water, and that water and air have the same drag coefficient (.6 ish is what I am finding). Most people don't do crossings that are that deep, so let's assume you go thigh deep. The proportion of the body in the water is significantly reduced to say, 20% a crosscut of your body. That would make the water equivalent math pretty straightforward comparing the two. That would mean walking in winds of 62.6mph is as hard as walking upstream in thigh-deep water moving 5 mph (assuming my math is right - air math; water math. The effect of a cross wind would be the same as trying to cross the stream, since the forces are just vectors.

Probably good for back-of-the-napkin purposes. The key to remember is that the force exerted by wind increases as the square of the speed. So the 75-ish gust which blew me over May 12, 2012 at the Lakes Hut is on the order of half the force of gusts Kate was dealing with. The speeds experienced by Kevin in the video he posted from atop the Sherman Adams Building, 86 mph, would be significantly less forceful than the top gusts she likely encountered. Awesome in the truest sense.

 

[Brambor]

For me anything in excess of 40mph is no hiking day
Anything over 20mph is no kayaking day
��

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Brambor has brought up kayaking in wind and wave, and that is more relevant to this discussion that it first appears.

I will launch my Wilderness Systems Cape Horn 15 into 3' chop on our big lakes, if the waves are higher than that I think it is too risky. In such conditions you get bounced around a lot whether you are holding course, or hove to and bow to the wind. Stern to the wind and surfing downwind is much more regular motion, and more predictable and easy.

My point is that when you get bounced around for a while your sense of balance gets degraded, which leads to funny antics when you go ashore and try to walk. You really do seem to be falling-down drunk. Now, consider getting blown around the alpine zone for some time, throw in whiteout conditions, eyes squinting and tearing up in the bright sun even with goggles, and one becomes clumsy in a place that demands the utmost agility. If this goes on for hours, fatigue and hypothermia degrade you further.
As many have said, trouble is better avoided than surmounted...

 

[Raven]

I'll try to answer my own question, but please correct me if I go astray...

Since water is about 784 times as dense as air, then it would appear pretty straight forward that you could divide the air speed by that and get equivalent water speed. Of course, that would mean you're fully submerged in water, and that water and air have the same drag coefficient (.6 ish is what I am finding). Most people don't do crossings that are that deep, so let's assume you go thigh deep. The proportion of the body in the water is significantly reduced to say, 20% a crosscut of your body. That would make the water equivalent math pretty straightforward comparing the two. That would mean walking in winds of 62.6mph is as hard as walking upstream in thigh-deep water moving 5 mph (assuming my math is right - air math; water math. The effect of a cross wind would be the same as trying to cross the stream, since the forces are just vectors.

I might suggest you set the kinetic energy of the water equal to the kinetic energy of the air.

KE = 1/2 (mass) x (velocity squared)

Set the velocity of the wind to the speed you are interested in equating to water (100 mph? - will need to be converted to appropriate units)

Estimating the mass will be where much of the uncertaintly lies in this. You might start by estimating your body's front surface area which will equal the surface area of the water or the air hitting you straight on. From that area in two dimensions, you can estimate a volume in three dimensions - to do this, you may need to use the wind velocity and pick an arbitrary time (t = 1 sec) over which to detemine a volume of air (three dimensions) that would pass by you in this time (another source of error in the calculation). Once you have a volume, you can get the mass of air or water from the density of each (temperature dependent) and then fill in your variables to get the KE (air). Set this equal to the KE (water). You will have an estimation of the mass of the water and then can solve the equation for the appropriate velocity to answer your question.

This would give a starting point but it does not take into account a few important considerations (mainly estimating the volume of air/water in a given time to be used as a way of estimating what is actually hitting you. Might be interesting for an intellectual discussion but doubt it would be highly accurate.

For clarification, forces are primarily dependent on acceleration (F=ma), so one would feel a huge force when the wind picks up very quickly as in a gust - that's a force.

It's the kinetic energy that actually increases as a result of the square of the velocity (KE = 1/2 MVV).

A small point in general discussion but an important one in calculations.

 

[carla]

I know not if it is a custom or a policy, but I read somewhere that F&G does not charge for SAR if the lost person becomes a fatality. Whether KM was negligent or not is debatable, but I'd think our hearts would have to be colder than the wind chill on Mt Washington 2/15/15 for us to send them a bill for SAR.

Totally agree...well put. Can you imagine getting that invoice? Also, who cares whether the husband was wealthy or not? Hate to see where that line of thought would go--charge more if the family is wealthy, charge less if they are not? Sounds grim.

 

[Breeze]

I know not if it is a custom or a policy, but I read somewhere that F&G does not charge for SAR if the lost person becomes a fatality. Whether KM was negligent or not is debatable, but I'd think our hearts would have to be colder than the wind chill on Mt Washington 2/15/15 for us to send them a bill for SAR.

+1

True, F & G does not pursue cost recovery in fatalities.

Breeze

 

[peakbagger]

By the way, the local ambulance squad and the hospital will attempt to charge no matter the outcome, Collecting is another story.

 

[Whiteman]

Hospital and ambulance will, I am betting, bill her health insurance company.

 

[TJsName]

I might suggest you set the kinetic energy of the water equal to the kinetic energy of the air.

KE = 1/2 (mass) x (velocity squared)

Set the velocity of the wind to the speed you are interested in equating to water (100 mph? - will need to be converted to appropriate units)

Estimating the mass will be where much of the uncertaintly lies in this. You might start by estimating your body's front surface area which will equal the surface area of the water or the air hitting you straight on. From that area in two dimensions, you can estimate a volume in three dimensions - to do this, you may need to use the wind velocity and pick an arbitrary time (t = 1 sec) over which to determine a volume of air (three dimensions) that would pass by you in this time (another source of error in the calculation). Once you have a volume, you can get the mass of air or water from the density of each (temperature dependent) and then fill in your variables to get the KE (air). Set this equal to the KE (water). You will have an estimation of the mass of the water and then can solve the equation for the appropriate velocity to answer your question.

This would give a starting point but it does not take into account a few important considerations (mainly estimating the volume of air/water in a given time to be used as a way of estimating what is actually hitting you. Might be interesting for an intellectual discussion but doubt it would be highly accurate.

For clarification, forces are primarily dependent on acceleration (F=ma), so one would feel a huge force when the wind picks up very quickly as in a gust - that's a force.

It's the kinetic energy that actually increases as a result of the square of the velocity (KE = 1/2 MVV).

Thanks, Scott! The final result I got was a force (thankfully): 229.7 kg m/s^2, which is pretty darn strong (1/3 the force of the average human bite apparently). I think I got the KE math right (air density/2 * wind speed ^2). The rest of the math is to convert into more normal force units for my brain.

Assumptions: The air density variable assumes dry air. Any snow/water content ups the force. The biggest question I had was the drag coefficient, as a significant change there will significantly change the outcome. The other assumption I made is the size of the person. 0.76645008 m^2 for cross-cut surface area was assuming a person is roughly 5'6" tall and 18" wide on average, which might be high for smaller people, and small for taller people - click the links to change the variables.

What's clear here is that the bigger you are, the greater the force that will hit you, offsetting strength and weigh advantages - though to what degree I'm not sure. Where's DP?

 

[nartreb]

On the air vs water comparison, it's important to remember that the main difficulty in both cases is usually not the total force, it's the difficulty one has in keeping one's balance while opposing that force. In stream crossings you have to contend with unreliable, uneven, invisible footing, and you have to train yourself not to look down lest you become dizzy from seeing the water rushing past. In windy situations you have to deal with sudden gusts. In both situations it can help to turn sideways, though in high wind a backpack becomes a big liability. In wind, you can wear crampons and/or try crawling; those are generally not possible in stream crossings.

Once you get to 100mph winds, then the total force also becomes nearly impossible to handle. (I'm not sure what water speed would be equivalent at any particular depth, but from experience, getting past waist deep makes things much, much more difficult at almost any water speed.) Leaning into the flow results in an upward force that can exceed your body weight, and you'll fly/float. Crawling with head held low and butt held high should reverse that balance of forces, but now you're going to be moving agonizingly slowly and you'll have great difficulty seeing enough to navigate.

 

[TJsName]

On the air vs water comparison, it's important to remember that the main difficulty in both cases is usually not the total force, it's the difficulty one has in keeping one's balance while opposing that force.

One of the articles I referenced summarized it nicely: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1256/wea.29.02/pdf

The latter reinforces the earlier observation that our fine-tuned skill at remaining upright despite the gross instability inherent in our bipedal habits makes us very sensitive to relatively small values of wind drag.

 

[DougPaul]

Forces due to fluid flow:

* Drag (force in the direction of fluid flow):
Fd = 1/2 * Cd * S * rho * v*v
where
Fd =drag force
Cd =coefficient of drag (depends on shape and orientation of object)
S = frontal area of object
rho = density of fluid
v = velocity of fluid flow (relative to the object)

* Lift (force perpendicular to fluid flow):
Fl = 1/2 * Cl * S * rho * v*v
where
Fl =lift force
Cl =coefficient of lift (depends on shape and orientation of object)
S = area surface of object perpendicular to fluid flow (eg wing area)
rho = density of fluid
v = velocity of fluid flow (relative to the object)

I will leave filling in the proper parameters as an exercise for the reader...

Doug