Near Deaths on the Lower Gauley
 

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 23:23:21 +0200, Wilko wrote:


The international difficulty rating has nothing to do with consequences,
but all with how difficult it is to stay on your line, because of the
width of the line, the manouvering required because of holes, waves,
rocks, drops, speed of current etc..


Hmmm according to the international scale of river difficulty (I found the
following on the americanwhitewater.org site)

class I - "... Risk to swimmers is slight; self-rescue is easy."

class II - "... Swimers are seldom injured and group assistance, while
helpful, is seldom needed. ..."

class III - "... Injuries while swimming are rare; self-rescue is usually
easy but group assistance may be required to avoid long swims. ..."

class IV - "... Risk of injury to swimmers is moderate to high, and water
conditions may make self-rescue difficult. group assistance for rescue is
often essential but requires practiced skills. ..."

class V - "... swims are dangerous, and rescue is often difficult even for
experts. ..."

class VI - " ... The consequences of errors are very severe and rescue may
be impossible. ..."

So each of the classes does define what the consequences are

Cheyenne

Near Deaths on the Lower Gauley
 

Cheyenne Wills wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 23:23:21 +0200, Wilko wrote:


The international difficulty rating has nothing to do with consequences,
but all with how difficult it is to stay on your line, because of the
width of the line, the manouvering required because of holes, waves,
rocks, drops, speed of current etc..



Hmmm according to the international scale of river difficulty (I found the
following on the americanwhitewater.org site)

Exactly, you got the *American Whitewater* version of the classes, which
for some bizarre reason includes consequences, not the international
scale of *difficulty* rating.

Apples and oranges.

Difficulty and consequences have little do to with eachother, and I
would understand it if they would add a seperate factor for consequences
(maybe another one for remoteness etc., a al Corran style), but that
would make the scale even more difficult to use. How do you rate
consequences, anyway?

I'm not a big fan of ratings, thinking that they should be nothing more
than guidelines for people wanting to take a first trip down something
when having done similarly rated rapids before. The real decision should
be made on the spot, including the feelings and atmosphere of the
moment. That decision making process should include the perceived
consequences, not some bizarre combined rating. Is something a class IV
because of a class I line with class VI consequences? What are class VI
consequences exactly?

Polluting the ratings makes them even less useful and more subjective,
especially when you look at the regional differences already in effect
(western U.S., eastern U.S., etc.).

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

Near Deaths on the Lower Gauley
 

Here is an alternative guide to grades.

class I - "... Risk to swimmers is slight; self-rescue is easy."
Take the Mother-in-law

class II - "... Swimers are seldom injured and group assistance, while
helpful, is seldom needed. ..."
Take the Girlfriend

class III - "... Injuries while swimming are rare; self-rescue is usually
easy but group assistance may be required to avoid long swims. ..."
Take the Wife

class IV - "... Risk of injury to swimmers is moderate to high, and water
conditions may make self-rescue difficult. group assistance for rescue is
often essential but requires practiced skills. ..."
Take the Mistress

class V - "... swims are dangerous, and rescue is often difficult even for
experts. ..."
Take the Photographs

class VI - " ... The consequences of errors are very severe and rescue may
be impossible. ..."
Take the Mother-in-law

--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk

Near Deaths on the Lower Gauley
 

Larry Cable wrote:


How about the problem being that the average raft customer treats the river as
an amusement park ride and doesn't pay any attention to safety or instructions.

No argument there. The only thing I'd add is that the rafting companies
market it like it's an amusement park ride, so I can see where the
customers get that idea.

--
//-Walt
//
// http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040514/matson.gif

Near Deaths on the Lower Gauley
 

Larry Cable wrote:

Walt

Typed in Message-ID:

I have no problem with experinenced boaters with the proper training and
experience shooting class V water. But rafts full of clueless tourists
don't belong there. (and neither do I)

However, the Lower Gauley is a Class III/IV
river at best, most of the river being Class III. It's pool and drop, and
although there are undercuts and other dangers, is relatively easy on swimmers.
The problem with the commercial rafting operations is that they treat
the tourists like so many sacks of potatoes. If the sacks bounce out of
the rafts, the guide rounds them up and hopes he can find them all and
that they're not too damaged. And

if the sack gets hurt, well it's the
sack's fault not the guide's. What's amazing is that they don't kill
more people than they do.

How about the problem being that the average raft customer treats the river as
an amusement park ride and doesn't pay any attention to safety or instructions.

I don't want to totally defend the rafting industry, which has it's share of
problems, but a guide isn't any better than the crew he gets stuck with that
day. Arnold Swartznegger couldn't handle a 16' raft full of tourist that are
all air bracing and not getting a paddle in the water. Yet many passengers seem
to expect that from the guides.

We used to eat lunch at Dimple on the Lower Yough. I would predict which rafts
were going to have trouble with pretty amazing accuracy. After awhile, my
companions asked how I did it. It was pretty simple, you just watched how
effective a stroke the paddlers were taking.
If they were not paddling or using just the tip, banging each others paddles,
etc, it was a good bet that they would bang the Rock at Dimple, not know how to
high side and either flip or dump most of the people out of the raft.

In the immortal words of a young female guide on the Upper Ocoee as she
attempted to ferry to river left above Humongous when all of her "guest" just
stopped paddling, PADDLE!PADDLE!!PADDLE!!!
SYOTR
Larry C.

So, what I have seen, and read, is that experienced river runners tend to down grade a river.

JAM

Near Deaths on the Lower Gauley
 

Walt wrote:

Larry Cable wrote:

How about the problem being that the average raft customer treats the river as
an amusement park ride and doesn't pay any attention to safety or instructions.

No argument there. The only thing I'd add is that the rafting companies
market it like it's an amusement park ride, so I can see where the
customers get that idea.

--
//-Walt
//
// http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040514/matson.gif

Another load of crap. How many safety talk-ups have you given?

JAM

Near Deaths on the Lower Gauley
 

So, what I have seen, and read, is that experienced river runners tend to down grade a river.

I don't know where you live (i.e. what rivers you are familiar with).
But someone who has just run the Royal Gorge (class IV, but guides call
it class V [at least to customers]) successfully for the first time is
NOT ready for Gore Canyon (real class V).

Near Deaths on the Lower Gauley
 

J. A. M."

Typed in Message-ID:
References:

Another load of crap. How many safety talk-ups have you given?

JAM


who are you asking?

I've pushed rubber around since the 70's,
teach kayaking several times a year and I'm a SWR instructor, so I've given one
or two in my time.

Walt is correct, raft trips are often marketed as an amusement park ride. Just
go down to the Ocoee and see how they run the business there.


SYOTR
Larry C.

Near Deaths on the Lower Gauley
 

Larry Cable wrote:

J. A. M."

Typed in Message-ID:
References:

Another load of crap. How many safety talk-ups have you given?

JAM


who are you asking?

I've pushed rubber around since the 70's,
teach kayaking several times a year and I'm a SWR instructor, so I've given one
or two in my time.

Walt is correct, raft trips are often marketed as an amusement park ride. Just
go down to the Ocoee and see how they run the business there.

SYOTR
Larry C.

I've been pushing rubber for 15 years and I have never heard anyone promote the trip as an amusement park ride. In fact just the opposite is true. The dangers and the level of physical activity required
are spelled out in great detail.

To tell the truth, I do talk up a rapid before I run it. I give the same talk up above Big Nasty at 2 feet and I do a 5 1/2 feet. Stay left!, don't run the hole! Then I take them right down the middle
(2') into the hole. My crew is so happy that they made it that they don't even know they aren't having fun.

JAM

Near Deaths on the Lower Gauley
 

"J. A. M." wrote:

I've been pushing rubber for 15 years and I have never heard anyone promote the trip as an amusement park ride. In fact just the opposite is true. The dangers and the level of physical activity required are spelled out in great detail.

I sincerely wish that what you are saying were true. Maybe the
standards are higher in your neck of the woods. Where do you paddle?

--
//-Walt
//
// http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040514/matson.gif