an assisted self-rescue
Risto Lappalainen
A new rescue, if you please...
I have recently developed a rescue which might be called combined,
hybrid, or maybe "assisted self-rescue". The idea just came to me one
day and I don't know why it did - at least I made no concious effort to
find it. But I have for long been somewhat unhappy with both traditional
self- and assisted rescues. The former can be quite difficult (e.g.
re-entry and roll) and the latter involve dangerous proximity if the
seas are at all rough. And both can be rather uncertain as to the
outcome, in high winds with choppy, near-breaking waves. So maybe it
just had been cooking up, by itself. Anyway, it would not go away.
The point of departure is the paddle-float self-rescue, by now probably
known and practiced by almost all sea kayakers everywhere, at least as a
back-up. Could this somehow be made easier, if there happens to be
another paddler near-by ?
Since the big problem in the paddle-float solo rescue, the fact that the
waves tend to roll one right back in, is largely caused by the fact that
a kayak left to itself always turns parallel to the waves (into the most
vulnerable position), why not assist the victim with a slow tow, the
rescuer paddling just enough to keep the bow to the waves... This can be
achieved from a safe distance once the rope has been attached and does
not require excessive force or skill. With his/her bow held in the wind,
even a beginner has a reasonable chance to climb in (with or without the
paddle-float, depending on skill and strength), pump dry, and attach the
spray skirt. And since no lifting is required, the weight of the
victim's boat doesn't matter.
This approach is simple: easy to understand, easy to practice (one can
practice attaching the ropes, towing, and pumping separately, no need to
wet exit), almost everyone already possesses the equipment ie. a
paddle-float and some rope anyway, etc. Furthermore a third paddler can
more safely approach once the victim has his bow held in the wind and
lend a hand, a float, a pair of sponsons, or a pump. Also if there are
rocks downwind, towing will help to avoid these. One should perhaps also
note that as the minimum force needed is not very great, even a smaller
or weaker paddler may thus be able to help. Nor is excessive skill
required.
I won't go into the details here, it would get too long. And anyway,
since most kayaks have very different deck-riggins, everyone must in any
case figure out or at least check out the details on his/her boat. But
very simple arrangements will suffice - slight modifications to existing
bow and stern lines, cleats, and clips. I have also written a more
extensive article on this subject, which I hope will find publication
sometime during this summer or next fall.
So this will suffice here. Any comments ?
Risto Lappalainen
Tapiola, Finland
Vernco
>A new rescue, if you please...
>
>I have recently developed a rescue which might be called combined,
>hybrid, or maybe "assisted self-rescue". The idea just came to me one
>day and I don't know why it did - at least I made no concious effort to
>find it. But I have for long been somewhat unhappy with both traditional
>self- and assisted rescues. The former can be quite difficult (e.g.
.
.
.
I was reading your article and I do take an interest in self rescue.
I usually do most of my kayaking alone so I consider self rescue
important.
I had a kayak where I spent my winters in Guatemala a few years ago
and I used to take it out on a big lake there that was 8 kilometers
wide and almost 20 kilometers long and the water was usually rough
there with swells at least one half meter high and I was always able
to jump out of the kayak even under those conditions, turn the kayak
upside down, empty it out and climb back in and keep going.
I am absolutely insistent that any kayak I take out in rough water
MUST have the two bulkheads of suitable size (not little tiny ones)
and as small a cockpit area as possible in order that the kayak can be
emptied out in open water easily. Also, I think the kayak should
be of a design such that one does not have to be a real expert or
circus type acrobat to climb back in it. My old kayak in Guatemala
was that type. I don't think all kayaks made today are that way and
I think that is one of the factors that has to be taken into
consideration choosing a particular kayak. I do not want a kayak
with a rudder simply for the reason the rudder is an interference in
being able to clilmb back in and I want to be able to climb back in
quickly. With my old kayak, I was able to jump out and climb back
in usually within 15-20 seconds and with my clothing on.
I don't know what kind of conditions you are describing in your
article as I getting the impression they are much rougher than I have
even done like choppy waves at least one to two meters high ready to
break on you. If they are long smooth swells let's say at least
two meters high, they might be all right but really choppy swells
might be something else. The swells on the lake in Guatemala were
well apart as the lake was very deep. I don't know how I would
handle in large chip-chop swells. The lake used to have standing
waves where the cliffs go in the water and places where the waves
would come together from two directions and that was no problem but
some of the conditions in your articles sound different like storm
conditions and that might be a time I just don't like to go out at
all.
Vernon
teemu teekkari
Vernco wrote:
> I don't know what kind of conditions you are describing in your
> article as I getting the impression they are much rougher than I have
> even done like choppy waves at least one to two meters high ready to
> break on you. If they are long smooth swells let's say at least
> two meters high, they might be all right but really choppy swells
> might be something else. The swells on the lake in Guatemala were
> well apart as the lake was very deep. I don't know how I would
> handle in large chip-chop swells. The lake used to have standing
> waves where the cliffs go in the water and places where the waves
> would come together from two directions and that was no problem but
> some of the conditions in your articles sound different like storm
> conditions and that might be a time I just don't like to go out at
> all.
Yes, you make a good point and spot an essential thing there. I was more or
less having in mind the choppy kind of wave one finds on lakes and also on
the Baltic Sea where salinity is low. These are different from the swell on
finds on oceans and tend to be nasty even when not so high - 3 to 6 feet can
be most troublesome. Wind-blown, choppy, "young" waves in other words.
Risto
teemu teekkari
teemu teekkari
teemu teekkari
Vernco wrote:
> I don't know what kind of conditions you are describing in your
> article as I getting the impression they are much rougher than I have
> even done like choppy waves at least one to two meters high ready to
> break on you. If they are long smooth swells let's say at least
> two meters high, they might be all right but really choppy swells
> might be something else. The swells on the lake in Guatemala were
> well apart as the lake was very deep. I don't know how I would
> handle in large chip-chop swells. The lake used to have standing
> waves where the cliffs go in the water and places where the waves
> would come together from two directions and that was no problem but
> some of the conditions in your articles sound different like storm
> conditions and that might be a time I just don't like to go out at
> all.
Yes, you make a good point and spot an essential thing there. I was more or
less having in mind the choppy kind of wave one finds on lakes and also on
the Baltic Sea where salinity is low. These are different from the swell one
teemu teekkari
Vernco wrote:
> I don't know what kind of conditions you are describing in your
> article as I getting the impression they are much rougher than I have
> even done like choppy waves at least one to two meters high ready to
> break on you. If they are long smooth swells let's say at least
> two meters high, they might be all right but really choppy swells
> might be something else. The swells on the lake in Guatemala were
> well apart as the lake was very deep. I don't know how I would
> handle in large chip-chop swells. The lake used to have standing
> waves where the cliffs go in the water and places where the waves
> would come together from two directions and that was no problem but
> some of the conditions in your articles sound different like storm
> conditions and that might be a time I just don't like to go out at
> all.
Yes, you make a good point and spot an essential thing there. I was more or
less having in mind the choppy kind of wave one finds on lakes and also on
the Baltic Sea where salinity is low. These are different from the swell on
teemu teekkari
Vernco wrote:
> I don't know what kind of conditions you are describing in your
> article as I getting the impression they are much rougher than I have
> even done like choppy waves at least one to two meters high ready to
> break on you. If they are long smooth swells let's say at least
> two meters high, they might be all right but really choppy swells
> might be something else. The swells on the lake in Guatemala were
> well apart as the lake was very deep. I don't know how I would
> handle in large chip-chop swells. The lake used to have standing
> waves where the cliffs go in the water and places where the waves
> would come together from two directions and that was no problem but
> some of the conditions in your articles sound different like storm
> conditions and that might be a time I just don't like to go out at
> all.
Yes, you make a good point and spot an essential thing there. I was more or
less having in mind the choppy kind of wave one finds on lakes and also on
the Baltic Sea where salinity is low. These are different from the swell one
teemu teekkari
Vernco
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 19:17:30 +0300, teemu teekkari <te...@hut.fi>
wrote:
>
>
>Vernco wrote:
>
>> I don't know what kind of conditions you are describing in your
>> article as I getting the impression they are much rougher than I have
>> even done like choppy waves at least one to two meters high ready to
>> break on you. If they are long smooth swells let's say at least
>> two meters high, they might be all right but really choppy swells
>> might be something else. The swells on the lake in Guatemala were
>> well apart as the lake was very deep. I don't know how I would
>> handle in large chip-chop swells. The lake used to have standing
>> waves where the cliffs go in the water and places where the waves
>> would come together from two directions and that was no problem but
>> some of the conditions in your articles sound different like storm
>> conditions and that might be a time I just don't like to go out at
>> all.
>
>Yes, you make a good point and spot an essential thing there. I was more or
>less having in mind the choppy kind of wave one finds on lakes and also on
>the Baltic Sea where salinity is low. These are different from the swell on
>finds on oceans and tend to be nasty even when not so high - 3 to 6 feet can
>be most troublesome. Wind-blown, choppy, "young" waves in other words.
>
>Risto
I haven't been on what one would call really choppy waves of the
height you were describing. I know lakes like Lake Superior and
the other Great Lakes will have them and I have seen ocean conditions
like that too. One of the recent articles in this newsgroup on the
Apostle Islands had some mention of the conditions you were
describing.
I would not want to try to put my kayak through the surf to get out to
the water unless the waves are under 3 feet in height and maybe even
less.
I think under high surf conditions if one wants to put his boat in
the water, he has to find a harbor or protected area and launch from
there just as motorboats and ships do. I have seen it out in Hawaii
when the surf was like 12 feet high, yet a mile out the water was like
a millpond, smooth as glass and such it was all right for a canoe but
soon as one get near shore, the waves appear.
Vernon
KAYAKFAN
Very interesting. How does one practice in any kinds of conditions worth
trying with minimal risk?
BIGZIPPER
If you are doing an assisted self rescue, why not do a regular two person
rescue? Rescues should be as simple and fast as possible. A T rescue will get
a swimmer back into the boat in very little time, and is possible in severe
conditions as long as the boat being rescued has perimeter deck lines. I have
done T rescues in rough conditions on loaded boats with no difficulty, and have
seen them done in tide races and other severe conditions (waves larger than 6
feet). If conditions are too rough for a T rescue, just put the swimmer back
into the boat and pump.
Keep it simple
Brian D
Tom ckayak
>a kayak left to itself always turns parallel to the waves (into the most
>vulnerable position), why not assist the victim with a slow tow, the
>rescuer paddling just enough to keep the bow to the waves
I know a seakayaker who carries a small sea anchor to deploy and turn his kayak
into the wind for a self resque. I have not seen it used.
If you have two kayaker why not do an assisted rescue. I have done this a
number of times for real. If you have a third kayker he could hook the tow
line and pull the two side by side kayks into the wind or keep them off the
rocks.
I have taken part in a resque of this type. I was first toan over turned Sea
kayak in front of some rocks with breaking waves. I hooked my line to the bow
and pulled her out to sea as a third Sea kyaker rafted up with she to do the
assisted resque. This was not something we had planed for or practiced. It
seemed the obvious thing to do at the time.
T. C.
Edmonds WA . USA