|
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
Every Spring and Summer, people drown on low-head dams. It's one thing
to accidentally end up in a low-head dam, but to do so intentionally is madness and to do so without wearing a PFD is a death wish. Hopefully, someone who has pondered running a low-head dam will learn from this tragic mistake. Don't do it! ---------------------------------------------------- SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/..._Over_Dam.html Tuesday, June 6, 2006 · Last updated 6:13 a.m. PT Kayak goes over dam in Tri-Cities, man missing and presumed dead THE ASSOCIATED PRESS KENNEWICK, Wash. -- Two men in a kayak went over a dam on the Yakima River between Richland and Kennewick, and one was missing and presumed drowned, Benton County sheriff's deputies said. Gary Dean Kirk, 46, of Kennewick, reportedly surfaced a couple of times about 30 feet downstream from the Wanawish Dam, also known as Horn Rapids Dam, along State Route 240 before a witness lost sight of him Saturday afternoon, witnesses said. Cody Lee Hughes, 20, of Kennewick, who had been with Kirk in the two-person kayak, was rescued after swimming toward shore through the rapid current and clinging clung to a snag near a maple tree in about four feet of water about 30 feet into the river, according to a news release issued by sheriff's Capt. Charles Kissler. As of Monday evening no trace of Kirk had been found in a search using ground parties, personal watercraft, inflatable boats and a sheriff's airplane, deputies said. More aerial searching is planned, Cpl. Brian White said. Kirk's 19-year-old daughter Janelle was being comforted by friends at home, while his 18-year-old son Aaron joined in the search. Signs posted along the river warn boaters to stay out of the area, and the kayak contained life jackets but neither Hughes nor Kirk was wearing one, White said. "The information that I received from (Hughes) was that (Kirk) said he had gone over the dam before, so they were trying to go over the dam intentionally without wearing life jackets," he said. Lowhead dams like the Wanawish can be deceptively dangerous because boats and other objects that go over the drop can be caught in currents that force them under water, said Scott Pattison, a spokesman for Columbia Basin Dive Rescue. Kirk and Hughes were swept beyond the boil line but were pitched out of the kayak in the turbulence, he said. --- Information from: Tri-City Herald, http://www.tri-cityherald.com |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
Bobo wrote:
Every Spring and Summer, people drown on low-head dams. It's one thing to accidentally end up in a low-head dam, but to do so intentionally is madness and to do so without wearing a PFD is a death wish. Even WITH a PFD, the recirculation and the aeration in a low-head dam tailwater can easily drown you. They aren't called "drowning machines" for nothing. Dive-Rescue International has a training course about low-head dam rescue. The bottom line is that it's a very low-probability rescue. They show some helicopter rescue, a fire-ladder rescue, and, most soberingly, an attempt by some public safety officials in a boat at the site of a boating accident attempting to recover what they thought was a swimmer but which turned out to be an unused PFD from the earlier incident. I think one guy survived, by hanging on to the lower unit of the overturned would-be rescue boat. We watched people die on that video, and it was a very disturbing sight. If you have lines off both shorelines you can ease an inflatable "Zodiac" boat into the tailwaters. Another expedient is to take a large line off a fire truck, inflate it with air from a SCUBA or a firefighter's SCBA device, and push the inflated hose across the surface to a swimmer -- but that swimmer would have to be awfully lucky, awfully strong, and have a stationary snag to hold onto while you got the rescue together. |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
"Bobo" wrote in message oups.com... Every Spring and Summer, people drown on low-head dams. It's one thing to accidentally end up in a low-head dam, but to do so intentionally is madness and to do so without wearing a PFD is a death wish. Hopefully, someone who has pondered running a low-head dam will learn from this tragic mistake. Don't do it! ---------------------------------------------------- Uh oh......the hair on my neck is standing up. --riverman SAY it ain't so.... |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
Pardon my ignorance -- I'm new to paddesports -- but what's a
"low-head" dam? |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
I have no actual knowledge of the situation beyond what has been posted, but
a couple of things caught my eye: First was they had supposedly successfully gone over the dam before. Secondly, the article said they "were swept beyond the boil line but were pitched out of the kayak in the turbulence". Not to diminish the danger of low head dams in general, but it sounds to me like this particular dam (at least at this water level) may not be of the really lethal variety. It sounds like they got through what should be the really dangerous part of the dam and came out of their boat just after due to "turbulence" (white water?). In a typical low head situation, PFDs won't save you--they'll just make it easier to find your body (assuming it stays on). In this case, it sounds like PFDs would have saved lives. Can anyone who actually has seen this dam clarify the reports? -Paul |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
"leftylisa" wrote:
Pardon my ignorance -- I'm new to paddesports -- but what's a "low-head" dam? Otherwise known as a weir. It's a structure built all the way across a river to control upstream levels (often to feed water into a diversion canal for irrigation). The water flows over the top of the structure. If the downstream side is uniform (as they typically are unless the person who designed it was particularly smart), the hydraulic created by the water flowing over it is incredibly uniform, and often very powerful. Unifrom means there are no tongues crossing the hydraulic which can pull people or boats out. To make things worse, they often have concrete walls at each side, making it impossible for anyone stuck in it to get out at the edges. Rescuing someone from a powerful low head dam can be very dangerous--many rescuers have lost their lives over the years. For pictures of one, look at http://members.aol.com/RivierRatt/Trash/TrashUG.html This one, as the author's disclaimer says, requires Class V skills to get out of. But it does have a way out. Many do not--no matter how good you are, either in a boat or as a swimmer. -Paul |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
leftylisa wrote:
: Pardon my ignorance -- I'm new to paddesports -- but what's a : "low-head" dam? http://www.chicagopaddling.org/dam.html -- John Nelson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org (A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell) |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
Paul Skoczylas wrote:
In a typical low head situation, PFDs won't save you--they'll just make it easier to find your body (assuming it stays on). In this case, it sounds like PFDs would have saved lives. If a PFD provides enough flotation, wouldn't it be able to keep your head above the water? I was surprised once that with drysuit, thick fleece, and an Extrasport Hi-Float, I was able to breathe while trapped in a hole. I would have stayed in the hole if not for a throwbag, but I could breathe. |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
Bill Tuthill wrote:
Paul Skoczylas wrote: In a typical low head situation, PFDs won't save you--they'll just make it easier to find your body (assuming it stays on). In this case, it sounds like PFDs would have saved lives. If a PFD provides enough flotation, wouldn't it be able to keep your head above the water? I was surprised once that with drysuit, thick fleece, and an Extrasport Hi-Float, I was able to breathe while trapped in a hole. I would have stayed in the hole if not for a throwbag, but I could breathe. I think it depends on a couple of things: My experience with weirs is that if the water is too aireated, you simply float just below the surface, due to lack of buoyancy. Also, if the hydrolic below the weir is too strong, you get pulled below, despite a PFD and wet-/dry-suit. You might come up every once in a while, but since you stay under for quite a bit of time in between and since we lack gills, that eventually means that you run out of air in between the pop-ups. :-( A couple of years ago I had difficulties rescuing a friend of ours who was getting recirculated, I remember that I was amazed at how long she stayed under during each circulation, despite wearing a PFD. -- Wilko van den Bergh wilkoa t)dse(d o tnl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://kayaker.nl/ |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
Wilko wrote:
A couple of years ago I had difficulties rescuing a friend of ours who was getting recirculated, I remember that I was amazed at how long she stayed under during each circulation, despite wearing a PFD. In desperate circumstances, you're better off taking off the PFD and diving down to follow the bottom current out of the backwash. Few people who get in (low-head-dam) trouble have the knowledge or composure to make that radical move, however. |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
Bob P wrote:
In desperate circumstances, you're better off taking off the PFD and diving down to follow the bottom current out of the backwash. Few people who get in (low-head-dam) trouble have the knowledge or composure to make that radical move, however. I've given that some thought. Over the years, this option seems to have surfaced on RBP a couple of times. My main concern would be what happens after you get out of the hydrolic, and what would happen if taking off your PFD wouldn't get you out. I'm fairly ambiguous about whether or not that would be a smart thing to do. It's the main reason why I have a PFD with a front zipper though... so that I can quickly take it off if needed. -- Wilko van den Bergh wilkoa t)dse(d o tnl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://kayaker.nl/ |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
"Wilko" wrote in message ... Bob P wrote: In desperate circumstances, you're better off taking off the PFD and diving down to follow the bottom current out of the backwash. Few people who get in (low-head-dam) trouble have the knowledge or composure to make that radical move, however. I've given that some thought. Over the years, this option seems to have surfaced on RBP a couple of times. My main concern would be what happens after you get out of the hydrolic, and what would happen if taking off your PFD wouldn't get you out. I'm fairly ambiguous about whether or not that would be a smart thing to do. It's the main reason why I have a PFD with a front zipper though... so that I can quickly take it off if needed. This boondoggle arises all the time. As far as my experience goes, the old "take off your PFD and flush out the bottom of the hole" strategy is an urban legend. Everyone knows the rule, but afaik, no one knows anyone who has actually had to do it. Its in the same legendary category as putting maggots in an open wound to stymie gangrene from forming, or as using soldier ants as stitches to close a wound, or to use a swiss army knife to cut an oar in half to extricate it from your leg. Sounds good in theory, but in practice you are just never in that exact type of situation, or else there are other complicating factors that prevent it from really being a good strategy. I think if you were actually trapped in a hole with sharp enough edges to keep you in, you would be underwater and tossed around so much that you would have no idea which way 'down' was, let alone how to crawl along the bottom. Also, once you shed your pfd, the force of the water would almost certainly prevent you from using the rocks along the bottom anyway, as you'd be plastered down there at best, or slammed among them at worst. As Wilko points out, even if it DID work, you'd then be downstream without a PFD, pretty beat up and completely out of breath. Also, in the aerated water behind the pourover, you would have less floatation than normal and would have NO chance to catch a breath, so you'd be more likely to drown without a pfd than with it on. I think it'd be very interesting to hear some statistics about people who have gone over low-head dams with and without PFDs, and get some statistics of who actually has washed out vs who has drowned. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the majority of people without PFDs drown, and the majority of people with them flush out. No, unless I hear some pretty definitive stories from folks who have had to actually do this, and who can verify that their PFD remained in the hole indefinately afterwards (in other words, it was a true keeper hole), I choose to believe that this is a poorly thought out legendary old wives tale that impressess newbies. --riverman |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
riverman wrote:
I think if you were actually trapped in a hole with sharp enough edges to keep you in, you would be underwater and tossed around so much that you would have no idea which way 'down' was, let alone how to crawl along the bottom. That's correct. Spatial disorientation would be but one facet of the experience that makes a low-head tailwater hydraulic a "drowning machine". Visibility is bad to non-existent, bubbles go in all directions, and the current is quite deceptive. I know a guy who went diving in a similar current, looking for lost anchors. He did this and several similar crazy things in his younger years, and is quite lucky to have survived many of them. He's the only person I know who was in such a current and lived to talk about it, he had SCUBA gear and advanced training, he was quite impressed with the power of the hydraulic and says he couldn't see how anyone without all the equipment could have gotten out of it. Our Dive/Rescue team had one of these hydraulics in our jurisdiction and we used to really worry about a potential rescue or recovery there until the Army Corps of Engineers solved our problem by rebuilding the structure in question to eliminate the low-head dam. |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
Wilko wrote:
Bob P wrote: In desperate circumstances, you're better off taking off the PFD and diving down to follow the bottom current out of the backwash. Few people who get in (low-head-dam) trouble have the knowledge or composure to make that radical move, however. I've given that some thought. Over the years, this option seems to have surfaced on RBP a couple of times. My main concern would be what happens after you get out of the hydrolic, and what would happen if taking off your PFD wouldn't get you out. I'm fairly ambiguous about whether or not that would be a smart thing to do. It's the main reason why I have a PFD with a front zipper though... so that I can quickly take it off if needed. I suspect it's an urban legend. Perhaps all the swimmers found dead without a PFD attempted to do it. Or their PFDs weren't tight enough. Here's a story of somebody who did it and survived: http://www.ptone.com/Kayak/RF/ |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
riverman wrote:
"Wilko" wrote in message ... Bob P wrote: In desperate circumstances, you're better off taking off the PFD and diving down to follow the bottom current out of the backwash. Few people who get in (low-head-dam) trouble have the knowledge or composure to make that radical move, however. I've given that some thought. Over the years, this option seems to have surfaced on RBP a couple of times. My main concern would be what happens after you get out of the hydrolic, and what would happen if taking off your PFD wouldn't get you out. I'm fairly ambiguous about whether or not that would be a smart thing to do. It's the main reason why I have a PFD with a front zipper though... so that I can quickly take it off if needed. This boondoggle arises all the time. As far as my experience goes, the old "take off your PFD and flush out the bottom of the hole" strategy is an urban legend. Everyone knows the rule, but afaik, no one knows anyone who has actually had to do it. Its in the same legendary category as putting maggots in an open wound to stymie gangrene from forming, ... Actually, maggots are now occasionally used in hospitals to eat dead flesh. I think if you were actually trapped in a hole with sharp enough edges to keep you in, you would be underwater and tossed around so much that you would have no idea which way 'down' was, let alone how to crawl along the bottom. Also, once you shed your pfd, the force of the water would almost certainly prevent you from using the rocks along the bottom anyway, as you'd be plastered down there at best, or slammed among them at worst... --riverman As I said, it's a desperation measure. If you can keep your head above water long enough for someone to rescue you, you're better off not taking the chance. However... If you look at the typical water flow of a low-head, the water first goes down and along the bed, away from the lip of the dam before it doubles back. It's the only path where the water takes you to safety rather than holding you against the top flow. I've never use it, and I certainly don't intend to experiment, but the logic is reasonable. |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
Per Wilko:
It's the main reason why I have a PFD with a front zipper though... so that I can quickly take it off if needed. This thread is making me re-think my practice of tying that waist band on my PFD... -- PeteCresswell |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
"Bob P" wrote in message .net... riverman wrote: "Wilko" wrote in message ... Bob P wrote: In desperate circumstances, you're better off taking off the PFD and diving down to follow the bottom current out of the backwash. Few people who get in (low-head-dam) trouble have the knowledge or composure to make that radical move, however. I've given that some thought. Over the years, this option seems to have surfaced on RBP a couple of times. My main concern would be what happens after you get out of the hydrolic, and what would happen if taking off your PFD wouldn't get you out. I'm fairly ambiguous about whether or not that would be a smart thing to do. It's the main reason why I have a PFD with a front zipper though... so that I can quickly take it off if needed. This boondoggle arises all the time. As far as my experience goes, the old "take off your PFD and flush out the bottom of the hole" strategy is an urban legend. Everyone knows the rule, but afaik, no one knows anyone who has actually had to do it. Its in the same legendary category as putting maggots in an open wound to stymie gangrene from forming, ... Actually, maggots are now occasionally used in hospitals to eat dead flesh. Yes, I know. But I was referring more to the 'Jungle Jim survival' scenario that makes the Reader's Digest Drama in Real Life pages. I think if you were actually trapped in a hole with sharp enough edges to keep you in, you would be underwater and tossed around so much that you would have no idea which way 'down' was, let alone how to crawl along the bottom. Also, once you shed your pfd, the force of the water would almost certainly prevent you from using the rocks along the bottom anyway, as you'd be plastered down there at best, or slammed among them at worst... --riverman As I said, it's a desperation measure. If you can keep your head above water long enough for someone to rescue you, you're better off not taking the chance. However... If you look at the typical water flow of a low-head, the water first goes down and along the bed, away from the lip of the dam before it doubles back. Well, that's certainly the theory. In reality, the 'break line' where the current splits surges around quite a bit (in all but the most surgically designed dams), there are bursts and boils that erupt in various places, and the bottom of the river is usually anything but regular. I think the hydrodynamic model that we all look at is most accurate in man-made spillways, with precise and consistent angles, concrete bottoms and very clean riverbeds. And only somene with a death wish would be running something like that: those are true killing machines. In the natural world, there are always lots of little variations and 'irregularities' that affect the model. It's the only path where the water takes you to safety rather than holding you against the top flow. I've never use it, and I certainly don't intend to experiment, but the logic is reasonable. Sure, if you assume that all the natural variations don't exist. All logic is reasonable is you start with 'lets ignore any diversity to the model'. Its like that old joke about the mathematician, the physicist and the engineer betting on a horserace, and the mathematician says 'assume a spherical horse'. :-) --riverman |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
riverman wrote:
"Bob P" It's the only path where the water takes you to safety rather than holding you against the top flow. I've never use it, and I certainly don't intend to experiment, but the logic is reasonable. Sure, if you assume that all the natural variations don't exist. All logic is reasonable is you start with 'lets ignore any diversity to the model'. Its like that old joke about the mathematician, the physicist and the engineer betting on a horserace, and the mathematician says 'assume a spherical horse'. :-) --riverman So you wouldn't try the maneuver even if you knew you were going to drown if you did nothing? Here's a little story. It happened to me about 20 years ago. We were paddling the Thurmond-to-Fayette section of the New River (WV) at fairly low water. About 2/3 of the way down there's an huge rock on river right (unknown to me as The Undercut Rock). I had run the rapid a couple of times before at high water and pillowed off the rock quite nicely. This time, however, I came right up to the rock, broached and flipped upstream. The boat was sucked down, down, down and finally lodged quite nicely upside down with me in it. I popped my skirt, undid my thigh straps, and tried to push myself out of the boat, but the water pressure kept me pinned. Tried again, and again. Hey! I'm going to die here! Time for a Desperation Move! I reached above my head (actually down) and, (Holy Crap!) there was the cockpit rim of another pinned boat below me. Somehow, I was then able to pull myself out using the cockpit rim. I guess that the extra reach was enough to get me all the way out of the boat. I pushed off and was able to get into the current enough to get around the rock. Come on Charlie Walbridge (pfd)!!! I reached the surface just before I was about to take a nasty breath of water. My boat came out 2 days later, when the water dropped even more. So sometimes you do things, even if they have a low probability of success. |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
"Bob P" wrote in message . com... riverman wrote: "Bob P" It's the only path where the water takes you to safety rather than holding you against the top flow. I've never use it, and I certainly don't intend to experiment, but the logic is reasonable. Sure, if you assume that all the natural variations don't exist. All logic is reasonable is you start with 'lets ignore any diversity to the model'. Its like that old joke about the mathematician, the physicist and the engineer betting on a horserace, and the mathematician says 'assume a spherical horse'. :-) --riverman So you wouldn't try the maneuver even if you knew you were going to drown if you did nothing? Here's a little story. It happened to me about 20 years ago. We were paddling the Thurmond-to-Fayette section of the New River (WV) at fairly low water. About 2/3 of the way down there's an huge rock on river right (unknown to me as The Undercut Rock). I had run the rapid a couple of times before at high water and pillowed off the rock quite nicely. This time, however, I came right up to the rock, broached and flipped upstream. The boat was sucked down, down, down and finally lodged quite nicely upside down with me in it. I popped my skirt, undid my thigh straps, and tried to push myself out of the boat, but the water pressure kept me pinned. Tried again, and again. Hey! I'm going to die here! Time for a Desperation Move! I reached above my head (actually down) and, (Holy Crap!) there was the cockpit rim of another pinned boat below me. Somehow, I was then able to pull myself out using the cockpit rim. I guess that the extra reach was enough to get me all the way out of the boat. I pushed off and was able to get into the current enough to get around the rock. Come on Charlie Walbridge (pfd)!!! I reached the surface just before I was about to take a nasty breath of water. My boat came out 2 days later, when the water dropped even more. So sometimes you do things, even if they have a low probability of success. Great tale! Its sort of spooky, too! Sure, we all try Desperation Moves when in desperate situations, and any paddler with tons of experience will have a tale to tell. But promoting the 'shed the PFD' anecdote from 'Desperation Move' to 'River Strategy' is inappropriate, imnsho. Desperation Moves are born of specific situations mixed with a paddler's experience and assessment of what to do right there, right now. They aren't universally applicable, and its useless to try to learn them all. There are a bazillion 'desperation moves'....we all have our tales. But 'self-rescue strategies' are, or should be, tried and tested strategies that all river runners are familar with and that have a high record of success; not in theory, but in commonly encountered situations. This one doesn't seem to fit the mold of such things as, say, breathing in the air pocket in front of your face when trapped in a vertical pin, or some of the various rope tricks for unpinning boats, or dragging a line across the river to free a foot entrapment. Those were all originally 'desperation moves' that have become 'rescue strategies' that everyone has heard about. --riverman |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
Thanks to Paul & John for answering my question ... and everyone else
for sharing their info & stories. Y'all taught me something today! |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
wrote in message ... Bill Tuthill wrote: That's why one possibility is to remove your pfd and crawl on the bottom past the boil, Think about that carefully for a second. Crawl on the bottom? With all that current and turbulence? This is the problem when hypotheticals become anecdotal. Does anyone know of anyone who has 'crawled along the bottom of the river' at the base of a waterfall or in fast current? I certainly don't, although I know of lots of folks who have been recirced and flushed. I think the actuality would be that you would be tumbling around like a ragdoll, no idea what was happening or what way was up, rapidly running out of air and without a PFD. With any luck you might flush through the bottom and come up for air while you still had enough clarity of mind to know when to grab a breath, but you'd probably not have enough wits to know which way to swim to the surface. Certainly this is better than flushing around the recirc until you drowned, but I suspect that in real life, its a disorienting and disasterous situation. No offense to the poster, but people throw around this self-rescue technique like its a pretty straightforward deal, and I think its not only not straightforward, I have serious doubts about how often it even happens as described. --riverman |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
|
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
"Bob P" wrote in message . com... riverman wrote: "Bob P" It's the only path where the water takes you to safety rather than holding you against the top flow. I've never use it, and I certainly don't intend to experiment, but the logic is reasonable. Sure, if you assume that all the natural variations don't exist. All logic is reasonable is you start with 'lets ignore any diversity to the model'. Its like that old joke about the mathematician, the physicist and the engineer betting on a horserace, and the mathematician says 'assume a spherical horse'. :-) --riverman So you wouldn't try the maneuver even if you knew you were going to drown if you did nothing? Here's a little story. It happened to me about 20 years ago. We were paddling the Thurmond-to-Fayette section of the New River (WV) at fairly low water. About 2/3 of the way down there's an huge rock on river right (unknown to me as The Undercut Rock). I had run the rapid a couple of times before at high water and pillowed off the rock quite nicely. This time, however, I came right up to the rock, broached and flipped upstream. The boat was sucked down, down, down and finally lodged quite nicely upside down with me in it. I popped my skirt, undid my thigh straps, and tried to push myself out of the boat, but the water pressure kept me pinned. Tried again, and again. Hey! I'm going to die here! Time for a Desperation Move! I reached above my head (actually down) and, (Holy Crap!) there was the cockpit rim of another pinned boat below me. Somehow, I was then able to pull myself out using the cockpit rim. I guess that the extra reach was enough to get me all the way out of the boat. I pushed off and was able to get into the current enough to get around the rock. Come on Charlie Walbridge (pfd)!!! I reached the surface just before I was about to take a nasty breath of water. My boat came out 2 days later, when the water dropped even more. So sometimes you do things, even if they have a low probability of success. I know exactly which rock your talking about. I think it was back around 1990 when I ran that stretch of river. A lady from a rubber raft got bounced out and stuck under that rock. The current was so strong they could not recover her body for like 2 months. You got locky under that rock. When I used to run the new river, something like 2-3 people a year have been killed in that section. |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
riverman wrote:
That's why one possibility is to remove your pfd and crawl on the bottom past the boil, Think about that carefully for a second. Crawl on the bottom? With all that current and turbulence? This is the problem when hypotheticals become anecdotal. Does anyone know of anyone who has 'crawled along the bottom of the river' at the base of a waterfall or in fast current? I certainly don't, although I know of lots of folks who have been recirced and flushed. One time (in a natural hole) I was recirced three times. On the third approach to the pour-over, I got my legs out and kicked as hard as I could into the rock creating the pour-over, like a turn in competitive swimming. The momentum created was enough to push me out of the boil area. Don't know if anybody read the URL I posted, but it seems to me that Rocky had much difficulty in, and without PFD barely survived, the class IV swim below Royal Flush. A friend of mine once saved his own life by crawling along the bottom, but it was in a body-entrapment tunnel, not a low-head dam recirculation. On another note, it is possible to build low-risk low-head dams. The AWA could form an engineering advirosy group to make recommendations for 'em. |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
"Bill Tuthill" wrote:
On another note, it is possible to build low-risk low-head dams. The AWA could form an engineering advirosy group to make recommendations for 'em. Actually, there is a project underway (assuming it gets all the necessary approvals and funding) for turning the Calgary Weir (Calgary, Canada) from one of the most lethal weirs around into a safe whitewater play park, with several passable channels of varying difficulty. -Paul |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
Per (PeteCresswell):
Because of exhaustion? Cold water? Forget it.... now I'm reading some of the other poster's accounts of near misses and I'm starting to get the pictu Moving water is a whole quantum leap more hazardous than plain old surf... -- PeteCresswell |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
Wilko wrote: wrote: "riverman" wrote: Think about that carefully for a second. Crawl on the bottom? With all that current and turbulence? This is the problem when hypotheticals become anecdotal. Does anyone know of anyone who has 'crawled along the bottom of the river' I seem to recall that a person got stuck in Charlie's Hole (where Scott Bristow was killed in 98) on the Great Falls section of the Potomac, and crawled out along the bottom. From what I heard (which may be urban legend) the bottom of the hole is a boulder pile with water flowing thru the boulders so it is not exactly like a low head dam. The hole looks a bit like a hand with the palm pointed up, the water flows between the fingers, with the left and right rocks next to the hole being the thumb and little finger. Any wood sticking between the fingers turns it into a very effective sieve. From having stood on the edge of the rock next to Charlie's hole (trying to look for Scott's body), I remember that it was so violent (at that water level) that I seriously doubt that anyone could crawl out against that current. That's just my opinion... IIRC someone went for a swim that morning (or the day before) before Scott died, and he managed to get out alive. Don't remember what he did to get out though. I apologize Wilko for requesting your response to my questions, on this memorial post to your friend Scott, but hopefully you will help me out with the info I requested, so that I would not have to post on other special occaisions in order to get your attention! TnT |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Wilko wrote: wrote: "riverman" wrote: Think about that carefully for a second. Crawl on the bottom? With all that current and turbulence? This is the problem when hypotheticals become anecdotal. Does anyone know of anyone who has 'crawled along the bottom of the river' I seem to recall that a person got stuck in Charlie's Hole (where Scott Bristow was killed in 98) on the Great Falls section of the Potomac, and crawled out along the bottom. From what I heard (which may be urban legend) the bottom of the hole is a boulder pile with water flowing thru the boulders so it is not exactly like a low head dam. The hole looks a bit like a hand with the palm pointed up, the water flows between the fingers, with the left and right rocks next to the hole being the thumb and little finger. Any wood sticking between the fingers turns it into a very effective sieve. From having stood on the edge of the rock next to Charlie's hole (trying to look for Scott's body), I remember that it was so violent (at that water level) that I seriously doubt that anyone could crawl out against that current. That's just my opinion... IIRC someone went for a swim that morning (or the day before) before Scott died, and he managed to get out alive. Don't remember what he did to get out though. I apologize Wilko for requesting your response to my questions, on this memorial post to your friend Scott, but hopefully you will help me out with the info I requested, so that I would not have to post on other special occaisions in order to get your attention! TnT Hi Tom: Threatening to become a nusiance to prove that you're not a troll? That will easily support your claim of not being a netkook. Be sure to cover it with the caveat that 'he started it'. --riverman |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
On 14 Jun 2006 18:48:36 -0700, "Tinkerntom" wrote:
(snipped) I apologize Wilko for requesting your response to my questions, on this memorial post to your friend Scott, but hopefully you will help me out with the info I requested, so that I would not have to post on other special occaisions in order to get your attention! TnT You should apologize to everyone who reads the newsgroup. Keep your little flame spats out of normal posts, please. I don't care if you're the troll / whatever he thinks you are, but when you do things like that, you certainly lose credibility as a useful or interesting poster. -- r.bc: vixen Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc.. Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really. Don't ask me what time it is lest I'm of a mood to tell you how to make a clock. http://www.visi.com/~cyli |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
Cyli wrote: On 14 Jun 2006 18:48:36 -0700, "Tinkerntom" wrote: (snipped) I apologize Wilko for requesting your response to my questions, on this memorial post to your friend Scott, but hopefully you will help me out with the info I requested, so that I would not have to post on other special occaisions in order to get your attention! TnT You should apologize to everyone who reads the newsgroup. Keep your little flame spats out of normal posts, please. I don't care if you're the troll / whatever he thinks you are, but when you do things like that, you certainly lose credibility as a useful or interesting poster. Cyli, I apologize to you and to everyone that reads this newgroup, that I found it necessary to acost Wilko for his statements regarding Tnt, however, I have put up with his nastiness for a long time now without saying anything! The rest of you readers may be totally innocent, and unaware of this web-bullying and abuse perpetrated by Wilko on me and on Sees-koo-wee-hah-nay! This could just as easily be you, if you are a newbie as Sees-koo-wee-hah-nay is, and as I was 2 years ago when all this started. That I returned only recently, and posted on topic, and had Wilko flame me out of the blue, was dissapointing to me. That you Cyli call for my apology, and say nothing to Wilko, and demand his apology, is equally dissapointing! That you don't want to be bothered by this little flame spat, only show how insulated to the real world you have become. If my credibility with you as a useful or interesting poster, is dependent on my being willing to allow Wilko to have his way with me, forget it! He may be a web-bully, but I have learned a few things over the last few years of posting, and I know that I have plenty of credibility without your approval or interest. It is nice to know that you are listening, and that you apparently care about RBP. My request for info has nothing to do with Wilko having identified me as a troll! He is free to judge me a troll on whatever grounds he chooses. That is a subject to be worked on later! My question has to do with him identifying me as Sees-koo-wee-hah-nay, of whom I am not equated in any way. So if there is abuse going on here, I would venture that Wilko in his web site and here in usenet is guilty of being a web-bully, and abuser! I was more than content to stick my head in the RBP and say hi from time to time and do some posting about paddling. I even tried last Fall, to establish a new alias to come here with no history and start over, with a new persona. At the time I was willing to drop the TnT nym, and just try to get along with folks and just talk boating. That attempt was hijacked by certain individuals, namely Wilko and Kman, who did not want me posting here under any name, that they were able to associate with TnT. They were very proud of their sleuthing skills, and were sure to let me know that they did not want me here under RkyMtnHootOwl, or more recently Hanta-Yo-Yo. So TnT spent the last few months taking a sabatical from RBP, and only returned recently when I found that Wilko has been defaming TInkernTom on his website all along. Ironically, I have posted under other names here in RBP in the meantime, to which various ones have replied, and none seemed to be particularly bothered. Apparently Wilko's sleuthing skills are not all he has them cranked up to be. That he should call TnT, OvO, HYY a troll is one thing, but to associate this other gentleman as a troll alias of mine, he either owes me an apology, and or, Sees-koo-wee-hah-nay an apology for sure. Sees-koo-wee-hah-nay has posted here less than 15 times since April, and not before according to my google search, and in those post, I could find no reason for him to be labeled as a troll, or to be equated to Tinkerntom, as Wilko has done. If Wilko, or any of you have further info on Sees-koo-wee-hah-nay that indicates that he is a troll, then I would be interested in that info, for I do not want to be associated with someone who is defaming my name and reputation, or vice versus. I think it is patently unfair for a newbie in the group to be labeled a troll, because you feel he is one of my aliases! It seems that Wilko was the one to start this little tif with me, and all I ask, is for him to provide some proof of his claim, or apologize and STFU! I was and still am interested in boating, but I am not interested in getting mugged everytime I show up here, nor do I put my tail between my legs and slink off like it seems some of you old timers think I and other newbies should do it deference to your royal asses. You are welcome to file any report to , and I am sure they will come racing to your aid, to keep me from posting in the RBP in such a way that it upsets your tea kettles. Until then I will continue to post, and if it upsets you, I would suggest that you get with Wilko, sort this out and provide me either the proof that I desire, or the apologies, and then, and only then will I decide to leave the RBP. If that disturbs your solitude, then be disturbed. TnT OvO HYY Forwarded to: |
Low-head dam drowning on Yakima River, WA State
riverman wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Wilko wrote: wrote: "riverman" wrote: Think about that carefully for a second. Crawl on the bottom? With all that current and turbulence? This is the problem when hypotheticals become anecdotal. Does anyone know of anyone who has 'crawled along the bottom of the river' I seem to recall that a person got stuck in Charlie's Hole (where Scott Bristow was killed in 98) on the Great Falls section of the Potomac, and crawled out along the bottom. From what I heard (which may be urban legend) the bottom of the hole is a boulder pile with water flowing thru the boulders so it is not exactly like a low head dam. The hole looks a bit like a hand with the palm pointed up, the water flows between the fingers, with the left and right rocks next to the hole being the thumb and little finger. Any wood sticking between the fingers turns it into a very effective sieve. From having stood on the edge of the rock next to Charlie's hole (trying to look for Scott's body), I remember that it was so violent (at that water level) that I seriously doubt that anyone could crawl out against that current. That's just my opinion... IIRC someone went for a swim that morning (or the day before) before Scott died, and he managed to get out alive. Don't remember what he did to get out though. I apologize Wilko for requesting your response to my questions, on this memorial post to your friend Scott, but hopefully you will help me out with the info I requested, so that I would not have to post on other special occaisions in order to get your attention! TnT Hi Tom: Threatening to become a nusiance to prove that you're not a troll? That will easily support your claim of not being a netkook. Be sure to cover it with the caveat that 'he started it'. --riverman I did as you said, and pointed out that Wilko started this! If he had let by gones be by gones, we would not be involved in this conversation at all. That he has it figured out that he believes that TnT, OvO and HYY is a troll, is not really the issue. That he is so astute to make this determination, is a testimony of his half ass web skills and nothing else. That he is a web-bully and net-kook in his own standing, is unquestioned by others outside these hallowed halls of RBP. With the outstanding attendence and volumous posting that goes on here in RBP these days, I think that the undertaker should be building a little box for what remains of this group. That most have moved on, is an indicator, that most have moved on! I have found them on other sites, and had good conversations with them, and found that their biggest objection to the RBP, as they chuckled, are the self appointed net nannys who want to run the show. Many new boaters that checked out the RBP, chose not to stick around the good old boys club that has gone over the hill, and have only stories about the good old days! Sorry riverman, but you are a has been! I am sure that is not a news flash for you as you try to do the things you use to do, and the old bones don't work so well anymore! So if you find it possible to get with Wilko, and provide the info that I desire, and the apology that should be forth coming, then I would be very appreciative, and most likely would be more than glad to just move on myself, and leave RBP for you good old boys! TnT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com