Is this a new idea for mountain rescue?

In My Humble Opinion
21

Issues:

Enough cannons to cover an appropriate amount of wilderness.

A shell that can be loaded with useful things that can survive the force of the shot.

It can land accurately enough to be within reach of a distressed person but not so close as to risk harming them worse.

It can land softly enough not to damage the componets. A parachute would have a good chance of either getting caught in trees, or being blown a mile away if we’re on a moutaintop.

Installing these cannons to rescue. . .what 50 people a year who know what risks they’re taking when they get into these situations?

Installing cannons in the harshest environments on earth, maintaining them, and training people to use them, especially after you. . .

Figure in the chances that even if a cannon could deliver a filled cartridge close to a person that they still might not survive.

This sounds completely infeasible on every level I can imagine.

22

[QUOTE=Common Tater]
Cell phones, sat phone, GPS coordinates - once the location is known by the suitable authorities/first responders, if some sort of provisions are envisioned I’m thinking an air-drop is the way to go, assuming they can’t make a pickup, or land safely.
[/QUOTE]

Cell phones are a false sense of security when it comes backcountry travel and rescue. Cell phones require a huge infrastructure that just does not exist in the backcountry (and would be illegal to construct in a designated wilderness anyway). There are always exceptions to the rule but those most often fall into quirks of nature when the lost cell user just happens to be in a direct line of sight to a distant cell tower, the signal actually goes through, the weather is just so and all the ducks are in a row.

Sat phones are great but how many ordinary backcountry users own them, or even rent them as a potential safety item?

If you venture off the beaten path, there are steps you should be taking ahead of time, including notifying friends and family ahead of time of the particulars (if you become overdue), adequate knowledge, skills and tools to assist you if something happens, and basic common sense.

23

No, I wasn’t implying that cell-phones should be depended on or anything like that just that IF the exact location is determined because of any of those devices, a rescue could then be initiated with a degree of certainty.

24

[QUOTE=Duckster]
Cell phones are a false sense of security when it comes backcountry travel and rescue. Cell phones require a huge infrastructure that just does not exist in the backcountry (and would be illegal to construct in a designated wilderness anyway). There are always exceptions to the rule but those most often fall into quirks of nature when the lost cell user just happens to be in a direct line of sight to a distant cell tower, the signal actually goes through, the weather is just so and all the ducks are in a row.

Sat phones are great but how many ordinary backcountry users own them, or even rent them as a potential safety item?

If you venture off the beaten path, there are steps you should be taking ahead of time, including notifying friends and family ahead of time of the particulars (if you become overdue), adequate knowledge, skills and tools to assist you if something happens, and basic common sense.
[/QUOTE]

Cell phones? We don’t need no stinking cell phones

25

[QUOTE=Duckster]
Cell phones are a false sense of security when it comes backcountry travel and rescue. Cell phones require a huge infrastructure that just does not exist in the backcountry (and would be illegal to construct in a designated wilderness anyway). There are always exceptions to the rule but those most often fall into quirks of nature when the lost cell user just happens to be in a direct line of sight to a distant cell tower, the signal actually goes through, the weather is just so and all the ducks are in a row.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. But I participated in a rescue about 6 weeks ago in which the ducks were definitely in a row.

A friend crashed his glider in a remote area. His cellphone worked and so, despite serious injuries, he was able to call his wife. She notified me; I called him and got a description from him of his position.

His cellphone stopped working not long after this. A huge search effort was mounted (weather was terrible), and we found him alive the next morning. I’ll note that he did have a basic ELT (crash-activated radio beacon) that contributed significantly. And it was indeed a fluke that his cellphone worked: he was hitting a tower over 50 miles away, which was only possible because he crashed high on a mountain ridge.

My current view is that you should assume a cellphone will not work in an emergency and should not depend on it. But it’s still worth carrying one with you.

26

[QUOTE=Telemark]
And part of the appeal of wilderness is that there are no 155mm howitzers at the ready.
[/QUOTE]

That reminds me of an incident about 3 years ago in Colorado when the Park Service was using a 155mm howitzer that they obtained from the National Guard for avalanche control.

They fired, and ended up missing the mountain slope completely. The shell went over the crest and exploded in some guy’s backyard about 10 miles away, pepppering his home with shrapnel. No one was hurt, but still, I fear inadequate training.

27

Why does it need to be a howitzer shell. Why not a large smart bomb casing packed with supplies and a flare.

You get any old high flying aircraft to deploy it. As it gets to about 5000 feet a chute will deploy. As it gets to 2000-1000 feet a flare will illuminate and a LOUD whistle should sound. When it touches down a series of sequential smoke canisters should ignite.

How 'bout that?

It should have a universal mount that would allow it to be attached to various aircraft and a portable programing unit.

28

[QUOTE=DustyButt]
You get any old high flying aircraft to deploy it. As it gets to about 5000 feet a chute will deploy. As it gets to 2000-1000 feet a flare will illuminate and a LOUD whistle should sound. When it touches down a series of sequential smoke canisters should ignite.

How 'bout that?
[/QUOTE]

And if the lost party is incapable of tracking the parachute and/or going to where it lands?

I think we have a developing issue where some are more enamoured with all the potential technical whizzbangs rather than the basic practicality of rescuing someone in the backcountry.

29

Couple of things:

  1. If you know where the party is to within 100 m, you would be better off simply sending in a rescue helicopter.
  2. The payload of a 155mm howitzer is limited. You’d be better off with a 16" naval gun. :smiley:
  3. Your payload will need to be able to survive being fired from a 155mm howitzer. No many things are. Possibly apple sauce and some flares.
  4. The last thing I need when trapped in the wilderness is to have artillery shells raining down on me.
30

Again, what are you delivering to these lost hikers?
[ul]
[li]Food? - Unless they’ve been lost for a long time you really don’t need this[/li][li]Water? - Possibly, but not likely to help in the long run. If they are very dehydrated they probably won’t be albe to help themselves much[/li][li]Cell Phone/Radio? - You know where they are, what are they going to tell you over the phone?[/li][li]GPS/Navigation tools? - Nope, unless they know what they are doing you are probably going to have to get them out. It takes time to train on a GPS for navigation in the woods. If they are injured they’ll need help anyways.[/li][li]First Aid Gear? - Unless they are trained, it’s not worth much. You don’t know what their problem is and you don’t want them giving drugs to a victim.[/li][li]Shelter? - Possibly, but your goal is to get them out of there. If you can find them, get to them and get them moving. If you can’t get to them due to weather or conditions, a smart bomb or artilery shell isn’t going to help either.[/li][/ul]

What you need to get them is rescue personnel and a way out. Finding them is usually the problem, then getting people on the ground. These delivery systems don’t address either.

31

[QUOTE=Zambini57]
That reminds me of an incident about 3 years ago in Colorado when the Park Service was using a 155mm howitzer that they obtained from the National Guard for avalanche control.

They fired, and ended up missing the mountain slope completely. The shell went over the crest and exploded in some guy’s backyard about 10 miles away, pepppering his home with shrapnel. No one was hurt, but still, I fear inadequate training.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, it was a 105, it was 2 years ago, in Utah and missed the target by 3 miles. :smack: :smiley:

32

[QUOTE=Duckster]
And if the lost party is incapable of tracking the parachute and/or going to where it lands?

I think we have a developing issue where some are more enamoured with all the potential technical whizzbangs rather than the basic practicality of rescuing someone in the backcountry.
[/QUOTE]

That’s the reason for using a smart bomb as the basis of the idea. You program in an accessable location and the bomb does the rest. the ultra loud whistle and flare will ease location as it travels via parachute to the ground and the sequential smoke markers will allow for location once on the ground.

33

[QUOTE=DustyButt]
That’s the reason for using a smart bomb as the basis of the idea. You program in an accessable location and the bomb does the rest. the ultra loud whistle and flare will ease location as it travels via parachute to the ground and the sequential smoke markers will allow for location once on the ground.
[/QUOTE]

Except you don’t know where they are, so how are you going to get it close enough for them to find? In the mountains, things can be very close by and still inaccessible, even if you can hear/see them. Sound travels in funny ways. If you are in the wrong drainage it might as well be on Mars.

If they could get to the accessible location, put a person there and be done with it. Again, what are you delivering to them that actually makes their situation better?

34

[QUOTE=DustyButt]
That’s the reason for using a smart bomb as the basis of the idea. You program in an accessable location and the bomb does the rest. the ultra loud whistle and flare will ease location as it travels via parachute to the ground and the sequential smoke markers will allow for location once on the ground.
[/QUOTE]

Are you forgetting local weather conditions, especially winds? Terrain? Trees and other thingies to hang a chute 100 feet up in the air? Are those to be rescued ambulatory and of sufficient health to locate it if the package drifts (and it most certainly will)?

And if indeed those to be rescued are in a designated wilderness area, it’s all for nothing. You cannot introduce that sort of equipment into a wilderness area, even in an emergency.

35

[QUOTE=Duckster]
You cannot introduce that sort of equipment into a wilderness area, even in an emergency.
[/QUOTE]

This is not true.

http://www.donaanawild.org/wilderness.html

36

[QUOTE=Duckster]
Are you forgetting local weather conditions, especially winds? Terrain? Trees and other thingies to hang a chute 100 feet up in the air? Are those to be rescued ambulatory and of sufficient health to locate it if the package drifts (and it most certainly will)?

And if indeed those to be rescued are in a designated wilderness area, it’s all for nothing. You cannot introduce that sort of equipment into a wilderness area, even in an emergency.
[/QUOTE]

Really, I understand that for this idea to have any practical application, it has to be able to get its payload to where a helicopter can’t go, or when time is so critical that there’s not one in range. And it has to be a meaningful payload.

The idea was inspired while I was posting to the thread Another climber left to die on Everest. It came upon me first that in order to encourage climbong parties to assist an ailing climber up in the very high ranges, that they get offered some quick resupply for the time they might lose in caring for the person ailing. Like, maybe an oxygen bottle, and some kind of inflatable sledge, maybe (really, I have no idea whether such a thing exists either) to help transport someone down.

So the very first thought was about giving a chance to the party that first gets stuck with a sick or injured climber – a chance to do the right thing, help out, and still maybe continue on with their trek.

It was about how one could develop a professional rescue service serving Everest. Since it would seem impossible to permanently station personnel at or near the “death zones” – well, I suppose it might be technically feasible to dig in and created a heated, pressurized camp up real high, but I don’t see it – the best way to handle things is to get the guides trained and paid for rescue efforts, and get supplies up fast where needed.

Then I started to think about a wider applicability, and it seems that even with a bunch of techno bells and whistles added on, most every time it’ll get beaten by a plain old helicopter.