A pretty amazing survival story for those who know how cold the water is
here in the Pacific Northwest.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ational/Canada

In article ,
Johnhh wrote:
A pretty amazing survival story for those who know how cold the water is
here in the Pacific Northwest.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ational/Canada

Foolish for falling off in the first place, smart for going with the
current, lucky for surviving.

I wonder if there is a measurable difference between men and women, as
far as cold water immersion and survival time goes. I vaguely that
women have an extra layer of fat, although this is not something I
would bring up when hitting on a woman. :-)




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Why would you say smart for going with the current when the current was
taking her across the straights? I was wondering about that. I always
thought in cold water situations that unless the shore was easily reachable,
it was better not to swim because you loose much more heat when swimming
than with your limbs tucked in. If she hadn't swam, she may have remained
in the search area and been rescued earlier.

Definitely very lucky and she definitely screwed up, but I'm not sure I
would call her foolish.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Johnhh wrote:
A pretty amazing survival story for those who know how cold the water is
here in the Pacific Northwest.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ational/Canada

Foolish for falling off in the first place, smart for going with the
current, lucky for surviving.

I wonder if there is a measurable difference between men and women, as
far as cold water immersion and survival time goes. I vaguely that
women have an extra layer of fat, although this is not something I
would bring up when hitting on a woman. :-)




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Ok, I'll go with foolish too--she wasn't wearing a life jacket.

"Johnhh" wrote in message
...
Why would you say smart for going with the current when the current was
taking her across the straights? I was wondering about that. I always
thought in cold water situations that unless the shore was easily
reachable, it was better not to swim because you loose much more heat when
swimming than with your limbs tucked in. If she hadn't swam, she may have
remained in the search area and been rescued earlier.

Definitely very lucky and she definitely screwed up, but I'm not sure I
would call her foolish.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Johnhh wrote:
A pretty amazing survival story for those who know how cold the water is
here in the Pacific Northwest.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ational/Canada

Foolish for falling off in the first place, smart for going with the
current, lucky for surviving.

I wonder if there is a measurable difference between men and women, as
far as cold water immersion and survival time goes. I vaguely that
women have an extra layer of fat, although this is not something I
would bring up when hitting on a woman. :-)




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Johnhh wrote:
Why would you say smart for going with the current when the current was
taking her across the straights? I was wondering about that. I always
thought in cold water situations that unless the shore was easily reachable,
it was better not to swim because you loose much more heat when swimming
than with your limbs tucked in. If she hadn't swam, she may have remained
in the search area and been rescued earlier.

Definitely very lucky and she definitely screwed up, but I'm not sure I
would call her foolish.

Well, you're right.. not swimming is better, but going with the
current is better than fighting it.

Foolish because one should not fall of a boat at night, while alone on
deck especially. Why wasn't she hooked on? She should have been. I
guess I could have said not too bright, or very inexperienced. I would
also blame the person in charge of the boat for poor instructions
and/or safety measures.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Johnhh wrote:
Ok, I'll go with foolish too--she wasn't wearing a life jacket.

I think the skipper should share some of the blame for this also.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

It's always easy to second guess in these situations, but the fact is, once
she went over the side her chances were slim no matter what she did. Doing
the wrong thing probably saved he life.

Swimming with the current is no easier than swimming against it; you just
don't move as fast and in this case that would have been a good thing.
Except that she survived doing what she did.

She should have been hooked on, but I wonder how many sailors in these
waters even have harnesses, tethers and jack lines, let alone use them. I
do because I often single hand, but think I am the rare exception.

She shouldn't have fallen off. If the dog hadn't stopped to take a dump, he
would have caught the rabbit. Sh*t happens, I'm just not too big on the
need to always assess blame.


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Johnhh wrote:
Why would you say smart for going with the current when the current was
taking her across the straights? I was wondering about that. I always
thought in cold water situations that unless the shore was easily
reachable,
it was better not to swim because you loose much more heat when swimming
than with your limbs tucked in. If she hadn't swam, she may have remained
in the search area and been rescued earlier.

Definitely very lucky and she definitely screwed up, but I'm not sure I
would call her foolish.

Well, you're right.. not swimming is better, but going with the
current is better than fighting it.

Foolish because one should not fall of a boat at night, while alone on
deck especially. Why wasn't she hooked on? She should have been. I
guess I could have said not too bright, or very inexperienced. I would
also blame the person in charge of the boat for poor instructions
and/or safety measures.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Comments embedded...

In article ,
Johnhh wrote:
It's always easy to second guess in these situations, but the fact is, once
she went over the side her chances were slim no matter what she did. Doing
the wrong thing probably saved he life.

That is for sure... the gods protect drunks and fools.

Swimming with the current is no easier than swimming against it; you just
don't move as fast and in this case that would have been a good thing.
Except that she survived doing what she did.

I disagree, especially from what she said... that she was fighting the
current. That would definitely affect your survival time.

She should have been hooked on, but I wonder how many sailors in these
waters even have harnesses, tethers and jack lines, let alone use them. I
do because I often single hand, but think I am the rare exception.

Don't know. But when I sail on overnight passages, we hook on when
coming on deck and don't unhook until below. It's the boat
owner/skipper's responsibility to make sure the boat is rigged for the
trip and the crew properly trained/informed.

She shouldn't have fallen off. If the dog hadn't stopped to take a dump, he
would have caught the rabbit. Sh*t happens, I'm just not too big on the
need to always assess blame.

Neither am I, except when a tragedy happens. In this case, lots of
money was needlessly spent because someone didn't use common sense. I
can think of better uses for my tax dollars than spending it on things
that should have been prevented.

I feel sorry for the woman and for the others on the boat. Certainly
one hope that they all learned from their experience. It must have
been traumatic thinking someone had died.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."