De-brief groundrules (for discussion)

[ratagonia]

I think this is a very instructive opportunity, blessed by the lack of
significant injuries (other than the knee - ouch!), and that a formal debrief
(ie, following specific guidelines (see below)) would allow for greater
understanding and enlightenment than a wide-ranging, informal discussion.

A formal debrief I am envisioning along the following lines:

A. the incident is broken into manageable chunks. Each chunk is analyzed and completed before moving on to the next chunk. For instance, the first chunk is everything up to the point of injury: How the particular canyon was chosen, what information was gathered, what stuff was brought along, how they thought the day would go, choices about how they moved through the canyon.

B. each person who chooses to offer critique is asked to say all they have to say in one post (and then, more or less, keep still).

C. this is not an argument! Each person states their views on the matter,
the issues involved, and what they think SHOULD have happened. In your own post, you may counter what you think was incorrect in another post but... the idea is for us all to see the issues from each other's viewpoint and consider all viewpoints as valid (rather than, for instance, argue back and forth about each little detail).

D. it is a great help if the persons involved in the events go first, and I will
provide questions for those people to start with. I also hope to eventually lure the persons involved over to the Canyons Group by offering them a 'fair and balanced' (and as non-judgemental as the events allow) playing field to speak and be spoken to on - with a different set of people that will have differing viewpoints.

This thread is for discussion of, clarification of and modification of the ground rules, before we get started on the first segment.

Does this make sense? Do you see how and why this is a good process (if it is a good process)? How can this be made better?

Tom :

[Don]

The point being we can all, participants and observers, learn from both the strengths and weaknesses discovered in a discussion of this or another event. In the Army the format used would be an After Action Review, or AAR. Often while out with my friends, most of whom are in the Army, we use the AAR format at the end of the day or end of a trip mainly to take note of things we can improve (like bringing starter fluid for the briquettes). Here are some key points taken from the Army handbook on how to conduct an AAR with bold text added by me to stress things we should be thinking about here:

[i]An after-action review (AAR) is a professional discussion of an event, focused on performance standards, that enables soldiers to discover for themselves what happened, why it happened, and how to sustain strengths and improve on weaknesses. It is a tool leaders and units can use to get maximum benefit from every mission or task.

Because soldiers and leaders participating in an AAR actively discover what happened and why, they learn and remember more than they would from a critique alone. A critique only gives one viewpoint and frequently provides little opportunity for discussion of events by participants. Soldier observations and comments may not be encouraged. The climate of the critique, focusing only on what is wrong, prevents candid discussion of training events and stifles learning and team building.

After-action reviews--

[cookiecutter]

This sounds really good to me, thanks for bringing this up Tom. I especially like the guidelines listed - seems like a good way to make sure most things said are pertinent. It also seems like a good opportunity for self reflection from the person(s) involved. It should also keep the respect level higher for all involved, that in itself will lead to a more helpful discussion

[Scott Card]

Is this what you are thinking of? Too broad? Too narrow? See http://www.bogley.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19636

[ratagonia]

The point being we can all, participants and observers, learn from both the strengths and weaknesses discovered in a discussion of this or another event.

Yeah, like that. One of the key points is that everyone's viewpoint is valid. In a regular argument, the point is to bully the opponent into agreeing that your viewpoint is MORE VALID than theirs (rarely works). In an AAR or Incident Debrief, the point is for each person to relate their viewpoint, and for everyone else to GET IT. Validity is beside the point.

Yah!

T

[Cirrus2000]

The AAR concept seems great.

This is an area where I think this forum format can really outshine the linear format of the Yahoo group.

At this point, the biggest bonus would be buy-in from those involved. So, Jaxx, chabidiah, Chungy22, lets see what we positive can get out of this...

[oldno7]

This is a great idea Tom #4 for those keeping track

Maybe even go back and do the same on previous incident's,(after the Larry one is complete) even though time is working against detailed de-briefing in those incident's.

[Scott Card]

Ok, already. We ain't the US Congress. Lets get started! Apparently I am a bit anxious however, so please get this to the rules committee for passage. Let's move people, the day light hours are short.

[ratagonia]

Ok, already. We ain't the US Congress. Lets get started! Apparently I am a bit anxious however, so please get this to the rules committee for passage. Let's move people, the day light hours are short.

We're waiting on Jaxx, Chabadiah and (the new guy) to sign on to the program. While YOUR viewpoint, dear Scott, is (ahem...) valuable, their input especially at the start, is INvaluable.

Tom

[ratagonia]

Ok, already. We ain't the US Congress. Lets get started! Apparently I am a bit anxious however, so please get this to the rules committee for passage. Let's move people, the day light hours are short.

We're waiting on Jaxx, Chabadiah and (the new guy) to sign on to the program. While YOUR viewpoint, dear Scott, is (ahem...) valuable, their input especially at the start, is INvaluable.

Tom

OK, I launched, and looks like 'Dad' (aka TNT) is available to play.

I set up a 'side comments' thread too, to relieve some of the pressure. Please try to keep it non-judgmental over there, too. No WTF's!

We do these debriefs at ZAC while training and while working with other guides. There needs to be a lot of o p e n . . s p a c e. When we debrief, there is often half the time quiet, just contemplating and understanding what the other person said. It is a digestion process.

Tom

[ratagonia]

bump

[Jaxx]

OK. Where to start?
Most of my comments will be from what my dad told me. He can come on here and defend himself, I will spread the gossip and rumors.


They were trying to hurry in the canyon because of the late start so they could find the exit in the daylight. They downclimbed alot of stuff already that had been bolted so this wasn't a worry. Dad got to a point where he felt he couldn't go any farther and turned to tell chungy that he needed the rope. He slipped as he was turning to tell him. Landed facing down hitting his waterbottle and camera case that were strapped to the front of his backpack straps and also hitting his forehead on rock. The helmet saved his life.

Obviously have a rope in the ready while downclimbing just in case. Is this really a valid option? I have never set up a rope before downclimbing. The point is to save time. Mabey more valid is know your limits?

They stayed calm and he stabilized his knee with a makeshift splint out of webbing and backpack frame. A+ IMHO.

got to the last 2 raps, running out of daylight. Discussed options and decided to push 911 on the SPOT.
Other options were to have Chungy hike out and call for help Or help dad out in the morning, taking a seriously long time and possible second bivy night in the canyon.

gathered firewood, built small windshield out of rocks. took inventory of food and water. They were good for the night for sure. A+

Now this is where I come in:

We should have tried to lower stuff to them. Water and real food. We had beef stew and other stuff in the car. We had 1.5 gallons of water in our backpacks. We had warm weather clothes and about 470 ft. of rope on us. It would have been a difficult throw but we should have tried atleast. It dropped a couple of times with 50ft wide shelfs inbetween a 100 ft and 250 ft drop. so about 100 ft out and 350 feet down. I doubt we could have made it past the two shelves.

We should have gone back in in the morning and found the exit crack. We had to wait for SAR to get there so we could direct them to Dad and chungy.
We could have taken Chungy out in the morning. We thought the heli would take everyone out so we didn't worry about a plan B.

When SAR got there we showed them where they were and just sat back.

They sent the whole rap team in. No one was left up top who knew any ropework from SAR.
Obviously that shouldn't have happened.

When it was getting later we should have offered to go down to the bottom just incase they needed help from the bottom. Plan B.

We should have taken the litter out with the ropes they had set up. We should have also lowered water,food, and headlamps to SAR and Chungy.

We could have set up a haul system and hauled them out but they wouldn't let Chad and I do anything with their ropes, liability reasons.

I should be better at navigating. I get lost all the time. The dark just added to that. I can't describe the feeling other than disheartening not being able to find the exit crack, failure would suffice.

Better maps would be awesome. The map we had was printed out quickly before we ran out the door and it didn't show alot of detail.

Chungy had a GPS. It ran out of batteries and he didn't know how to use it. The coords for the exit crack were marked.
Make sure others know how to use your GPS. It ran out of batteries and they gave up on it. Dad ALWAYS has extra batteries. the SPOT had fresh batteries in it they could have used.

Dont try to get out of that canyon with the horse trail. it is unmarked and difficult to find, even in the light. It is in a different wash seperated by hills.

So having a plan B would have saved the second heli. If I hadn't been so lax and mabey a little more proactive it could have helped alot. Finding that exit in the light would have changed everything.

SUMMARY:
HAVE A PLAN B EVEN IF PLAN A IS A DEFINITE. Make sure you can successfully carry out plan B (find the exit in the light so you don't have to try to in the dark)

Don't lower crap into the canyon until you know you need it.

Don't take your whole team into the canyon. Leave a ropework guy uptop

Don't wear doc martin's into a canyon. Even if you think you will be air lifted out.

Always carry your own food, water, headlamps just incase you have to hike out in the dark.

We should have lowered the needed gear to SAR and lifted out the litter before we pulled their ropes.

I need better orienteering skills.

Learn to use GPS even if you don't own one.

I learned that SAR had my dad and Chungy drink a bunch of their own water because they were getting dehydrated waiting for the heli. That is why they didn't have any water while hiking.

SAR told my dad they aren't trained in high angle rescue so that wasn't an option for them to haul them back up to the top. down or heli were the two options for them. I didn't know this until we were home.

SPOT called SAR dispatch and told them that they recieved a 911 cancelled message and SAR called off the search. SPOT should have never made that call and I am currently in an email "discussion" with them about that.
The Sherriff told us he would have made sure to make contact with us before totally cancelling the search.
Because SPOT called dispatch the SAR guys were postponed in the morning.


Deputize the two dudes that helped out!

[ratagonia]

Thanks Jaxx. Moving to the debrief Part 1 thread...

T

[ratagonia]

Tom~In the canyon community, my ARROGANCE is FAMOUS. I AM "The Emperor" after all, and I EARN that title on many occasions, in many different ways. I will attempt to NOT earn it here (in all but Brian Cabe's opinion)

No, I disagree. Several may make that assessment by the time you're done.

Complexity of sentence structure perhaps has led you to mis-interpret the original sentence. The implication is that it is impossible for Brian Cabe to read ANYTHING I write (including this) without reading it as arrogance. The plain statement is that I will ATTEMPT to word things in such a way that some people will be able to listen past the arrogance. I challenge your disagreement - I claim to be an expert is what I am ATTEMPTING to do.

First: Questions I have for y'all (TNTRebel and Chungy22) are the following:

1. Who are you, what is your experience, what is your training? A brief resume of canyons done and your role in prior adventures (leader, follower, heckler) and conditions (ie, have you done stuff in winter before), plus any training you have had either formal or informal, and with whom, plus age and general fitness level. Please include First Aid/Medical training in that resume. TNT-had you had knee problems previously?

Maybe it is time that you explain your qualifications for conducting a "debriefing".

I am a member of Bogley.

Are there other qualifications required for starting a thread?

I am also a big believer in learning from the mistakes of others, and broadbanding such analysis with the hope that a wider audience can learn from the mistakes of others. I believe that discussion of decisions made by many members of the community would improve the safety of the community as a whole. I invite EVERYONE to take part in the debrief, and illuminate for other people what they see. I believe this is good for the community.

If you do not agree, no problem. Your participation in these threads is entirely voluntary, last I checked. As is everyone else's.

Tom ~I'm thinking of heading out there

DiscGo wrote:
Tom- I think you are awesome for your willingness to go out last night. I sure think you are great!

Thanks, but after a long day, it proved unrealistic.

Tom

At least the SAR showed up. A discussion of giving unrealistic hopes to family members and not following through may be appropriate, rather than an anal restructuring of the rescuers and rescuees.

Dave

I prepared to be called-out on Sunday night, knowing that a big storm was looming. I asked for more information, the most important question being "would it do any good for me to go out there". I did not receive an answer on a timely basis. Thus I did not drive out there. In retrospect, this turned out to be a good decision, as the SAR was completing while I was packing.

Tom

[Jaxx]

I am a member of Bogley.

That's a good enough reason to do anything in life really. Isn't it?

[Deathcricket]

Tom ~I'm thinking of heading out there

DiscGo wrote:
Tom- I think you are awesome for your willingness to go out last night. I sure think you are great!

Thanks, but after a long day, it proved unrealistic.

Tom

At least the SAR showed up. A discussion of giving unrealistic hopes to family members and not following through may be appropriate, rather than an anal restructuring of the rescuers and rescuees.

Dave

Grrrrrrrr....


Tom posted his home phone number and was willing to assist them at a moments notice if he was needed. If I recall he just said to call before midnight or some late time and give a couple details so he could be effective and assist. That meant more to ME (being a friend of a friend in trouble) than you will ever know.

Are you part of the bumbled SAR operations that day and have hurt feelings or something? You were the guy who forgot his medication weren't you! If so, you are forgiven then, I would be embarassed too. I'll give you a pass this time.