Rafting company strands 43 in Lehigh River

[FarmerDave]

wildtrout2 wrote:
For what it's worth, the article that I read mentioned that the "rafters" were all church girls from 12-16 years of age. I seriously doubt they had much, if any, experience running rapids on a rain swollen river. To my thinking they were completely reliant on the Outfitters/guides to make responsible decisions for them. I don't think that happened. Frankly, I believe the Outfitter just rolled the dice at the expense of their clients.

What rapids?

I rarely draw conclusions on one article, at least not on a public forum. Otherwise I couldn't make fun of those who do. ;-)

L has Class I, II, and III which usually isn't an issue if there is an experienced guide. However, according to another article, they took them on the calm part of the river. Normally Class I and II, tops.

It seems to me the only issue was that it became swollen by rain ... and the media, after they launched.

Should the company have known it would swell that much?

That required opinion and at this point, assumption.

 

[wildtrout2]

^ If I didn't know better, I'd think Trump wrote this. :-D

 

[Swattie87]

FarmerDave wrote:
Should the company have known it would swell that much?

That required opinion and at this point, assumption.

Agree.

It's my opinion that they could have, and should have, had they looked at the forecast and radar, both of which were surely available to them with a short series of mouse clicks or finger taps. If they did, but misjudged the conditions anyway, that's still potentially negligence as they are the professionals in this case.

It's my assumption that checking the forecast and radar, along with the flow level, should be a normal part of determining the safety for such a trip when you're the professional outfitter and have inexperienced clients. (I mean, I don't think that's the inexperienced client's job.)

I don't think it's reasonable to think they could have predicted the Lehigh's raise in CFS to the nearest decimal, but I do think it's reasonable that after reviewing the forecast and radar Monday morning, a judgment decision could and should have been made that potentially unsafe conditions for novices were likely to exist on the river prior to the end of the float.

(If the outfitter did direct the boats to shore mid trip, they are essentially acknowledging the unsafe conditions by their actions to terminate the float. It then just becomes a question as to whether or not it was reasonable for them to have been expected to know whether those unsafe conditions were likely to exist. This is why we have lawyers and juries, if needed. Based on the evidence so far, IMO, yes, they reasonably should have known that unsafe conditions were likely to exist.)

 

[sarce]

If a guide looked at the radar and saw this and said, "Looks like a fine day for some rafting" there's a problem.

 

[Swattie87]

Pictures are far better than words. Thanks sarce.

 

[ryansheehan]

Bamboozle wrote:

ryansheehan wrote:

Bamboozle wrote:
If it was up to me it's time a government agency is created and given the authority to determine what a threshold unsafe water level was after a rain event.

Oh hell no. Thank god it's not up to you or anyone anyone else for that matter. Seems like you really think this is a good idea....smh.

Quite frankly I couldn't give a rats arse about the welfare of ANY ****** who goes out in a rain swollen river in a plastic boat for the thrill of all or to post images or videos on social media to show the world how great and brave they are.

Here's another thing you can shake your head at...I shed no tears at any bad outcomes.

What I don't like is seeing blowhards from out of state or out of the area who are are TOTALLY clueless as to the reality of what was and has been going on around here tell us it is OK to waste our resources.

But most importantly, I don't like seeing first responders having to risk THEIR lives to save idiots, especially when there were other people all over our region who didn't intentionally put themselves in danger for a thrill that were in need of assistance.

Wow, that's how we roll with the personal attacks, impressive. You want to create a government agency to tell people when to go on a river and I'm a blowhard? Keep up the good Monday morning quarterbacking, one day you'll figure it out.

 

[FarmerDave]

Swattie87 wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:
Should the company have known it would swell that much?

That required opinion and at this point, assumption.

Agree.

It's my opinion that they could have, and should have, had they looked at the forecast and radar, both of which were surely available to them with a short series of mouse clicks or finger taps. If they did, but misjudged the conditions anyway, that's still potentially negligence as they are the professionals in this case.

It's my assumption that checking the forecast and radar, along with the flow level, should be a normal part of determining the safety for such a trip when you're the professional outfitter and have inexperienced clients. (I mean, I don't think that's the inexperienced client's job.)

I don't think it's reasonable to think they could have predicted the Lehigh's raise in CFS to the nearest decimal, but I do think it's reasonable that after reviewing the forecast and radar Monday morning, a judgment decision could and should have been made that potentially unsafe conditions for novices were likely to exist on the river prior to the end of the float.

(If the outfitter did direct the boats to shore mid trip, they are essentially acknowledging the unsafe conditions by their actions to terminate the float. It then just becomes a question as to whether or not it was reasonable for them to have been expected to know whether those unsafe conditions were likely to exist. This is why we have lawyers and juries, if needed. Based on the evidence so far, IMO, yes, they reasonably should have known that unsafe conditions were likely to exist.)

I actually agree with this. The part I don't know are the parts that you are assuming.

What exactly was the forecast for that morning?

I did my own search for actual forecast for that day, for Allentown area, and all I could find was predicted showers and T showers. Chance of precip 86%.

That alone might not be enough. Now, if it was a tropical depression or something like that...

Good luck finding more (actual forecast) for that day because forecasts constantly change.

Remember, we are talking about the actual forecast for that day, before they shoved off.

As far as Sarce's radar photo,... This is not a forecast. It is a single radar image that doesn't tell much of anything, let alone expected rainfall, but it is pretty.;-)

 

[FarmerDave]

ryansheehan wrote:

Bamboozle wrote:

ryansheehan wrote:

Bamboozle wrote:
If it was up to me it's time a government agency is created and given the authority to determine what a threshold unsafe water level was after a rain event.

Oh hell no. Thank god it's not up to you or anyone anyone else for that matter. Seems like you really think this is a good idea....smh.

Quite frankly I couldn't give a rats arse about the welfare of ANY ****** who goes out in a rain swollen river in a plastic boat for the thrill of all or to post images or videos on social media to show the world how great and brave they are.

Here's another thing you can shake your head at...I shed no tears at any bad outcomes.

What I don't like is seeing blowhards from out of state or out of the area who are are TOTALLY clueless as to the reality of what was and has been going on around here tell us it is OK to waste our resources.

But most importantly, I don't like seeing first responders having to risk THEIR lives to save idiots, especially when there were other people all over our region who didn't intentionally put themselves in danger for a thrill that were in need of assistance.

Wow, that's how we roll with the personal attacks, impressive. You want to create a government agency to tell people when to go on a river and I'm a blowhard? Keep up the good Monday morning quarterbacking, one day you'll figure it out.

Ryan and others... if you read the post that you are questioning in it's entirety, including the very last part where he contradicted the rest, and then subsequent material, what are the odds that Bamboozle was being sarcastic?

 

[Swattie87]

FarmerDave wrote:

As far as Sarce's radar photo,... This is not a forecast. It is a single radar image that doesn't tell much of anything, let alone expected rainfall, but it is pretty.;-)

Maybe he can get one with the animation loaded. ;-)

Presumably, the animated version would also have been available to the outfitter, albeit with one more click or finger tap required.

 

[FarmerDave]

Swattie87 wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:

As far as Sarce's radar photo,... This is not a forecast. It is a single radar image that doesn't tell much of anything, let alone expected rainfall, but it is pretty.;-)

Maybe he can get one with the animation loaded. ;-)

Presumably, the animated version would also have been available to the outfitter, albeit with one more click or finger tap required.

Swattie, presumably it was. Probably was available to any cell phone on the trip, too.

But the image still just doesn't really say or prove anything. I could make several comments about it, but the biggest problem is that it isn't time stamped or even dated.

Edit: I could have sworn that it wasn't time stamped. Sorry, my bad.

If they pushed off during or shortly before that radar image was created... Move over, Consider me on the band wagon. These were kids for Christ sake. Pun intended.

 

[wildtrout2]

Yep, mere kids. That should have been the main consideration, and it wasn't! I honestly don't think we've heard the last of this incident.

 

[FarmerDave]

For the record, I knew they were kids from the start. I just don't like making judgements in a public manner based on initial media reports because they are usually very incomplete and often inaccurate.

 

[sarce]

The entire eastern PA region received 2-4+ inches of rain that morning from the big yellow and red blob that was on radar covering a quarter of the state and moving NE. The time stamp is UTC which is 4 hrs ahead of EST so that image is in the morning. It is true that it was not forecast to be quite that intense however NWS had posted flood watches anyway. Also seems like some media overreaction as people were safe on the banks but the empty rafts washed downriver and triggered the call to rescuers. Media definitely ran with the fact that empty rafts were found and made it seem as if people were possibly stranded or washed away in the flood. The guides at least did enough to keep everyone safe, even if it was a disorganized mess. But I don't know how you could see that radar in the morning and decide it was still good idea to go out.

 

[sarce]

Here is a link to that radar archive site. You can set initial date and time on the left and go back and forth in 5 minute intervals.

radar data map

 

[wildtrout2]

The storms, or the possibility of them were forecast for the area. Regardless, they went ahead with the trip. I guess they forgot about the Duck Boat incident, that had very different results. They too ignored the forecast of possible storms, and they were on a calm lake.

 

[FarmerDave]

Maybe the church group threatened to sue if the outfitters canceled the trip. ;-)

 

[tomitrout]

Maybe the church group threatened to sue if the outfitters canceled the trip.

Also a likely scenario and as plausible as some greedy fly by night outfitter putting these kids danger just to make a buck....

The kids have been looking forward to this trip all summer, so chaperons insist on them going despite hesitation from the rafting outfitter and maybe there's a non-refundable reservation deposit also in play....or do organized groups of 30+ just show up on site and expect to have that many seats available? Outfitter consults forecast and makes a judgement call for this pre-arranged and paid for trip and of course now, hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Bamboozle]

FarmerDave wrote:
I did my own search for actual forecast for that day, for Allentown area, and all I could find was predicted showers and T showers. Chance of precip 86%.

What was more telling was the warnings I received via email from my home county of Berks.

I must have received at least 10 from Saturday through Monday all warning of flash floods in a multi county area due to the forecast which seemed tame unless you looked deeper into the projected accumulation estimates.

I am relatively sure the same warning system is in place for residents of Lehigh, Carbon & Monroe but whether the outfitter or their clients would have heeded the warnings is open to speculation.

I was out and about over the weekend and Monday and experienced four road closures in less than 4 miles due to flooding.

If I had exceptions on getting to the Poconos or Carbon County via my normal routes I would have had a very difficult time getting there. Even my old hood in Delco got absolutely clobbered with water rescues on suburban streets.

Heck all you had to do is catch the local news on TV or the Internet...!!

Anybody getting anywhere near any moving body of water with that reality staring you in the face is an idiot.

 

[ryansheehan]

Dave, I read it again, don't see it that way.

 

[rrt]

Some interesting responses.

Not taking sides -- but I have been caught in thunder-and-lightning storms on familiar water and have had the streams come up rapidly and nearly strand me on the wrong side as I waited out the worst of the lightning fifty yards from my "lightning rod."

No one's perfect; everyone makes bad decisions from time to time.