[pct-l] Probability of Disaster

[Tortoise]

My what if scenario was inspired by my reading of that book.

I recall a tragedy a few years back where a couple from SF and their two 
children got stuck in a snow bank in Southern Oregon.  There were a number 
of mistakes made which compounded into the father dieing going for help (as 
I recall).  First mistake was missing their intended exit on I-5. Second 
mistake was not turning around and going back to it. Third, they relied on 
a map which either did not adequately describe the roads or else they 
misread the map, and .....

Tortoise

<> Because truth matters! <>

On 09/02/10 10:47, CHUCK CHELIN wrote:
> Good morning, Tortoise,
>
> I’ll second your comments.  Some good examples are presented in Laurence
> Gonzales’ book *Deep Survival.*  Other PCT-L contributors have referred to
> this book, and it’s a good one.
>
>
>
> When reading the case-studies in the book, hardly anyone in their armchair
> can fail see the danger as facts are presented.  Unfortunately, those facts
> were often also available to the people involved but they were apparently
> too close to the situation to recognize the danger.
>
>
>
> Steel-Eye
>

>
>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Tortoise<Tortoise73 at charter.net>  wrote:
>
>> In accidents there are usually a chain of errors/mistakes which lead to the
>> fatality.
>>
>> for instance -- hiker dies in a blizzard on JMT in summer.
>>
>> chain of mistakes / errors may be:
>> 1.  ignoring weather forecast of incoming storm,
>> 2.  ignoring or not knowing weather indications while on the trail,
>> 3. lack of experience and/or knowledge of survival in snow storms.
>> 4.  leading to not taking proper shelter in the storm, and
>> 5. other gear inadequate or not used so as to survive storm.
>> 6. maybe inadequate conditioning / stamina to reach safer location such as
>> bailing down a side trail.
>> 7. good or bad luck (bad luck: feet too sore to travel and caught. / good
>> luck: sore feet causing one to leave trail or not even getting to the
>> danger zone.
>>
>> So estimating the probability of a bad occurrence is, as you said, very
>> difficult and also very imprecise.
>>
>>
>> Tortoise
>>
>> <>  Because truth matters!<>
>>
>> On 09/01/10 20:19, Yoshihiro Murakami wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> if bad things happen at probability 0.1 ( assuming events are
>>> independent as Jim and Jane said, when events are dependent, difficult
>>> to analyze)
>>>
>>> Assuming
>>> bad event1... 0.1
>>> bad event2 ... 0.1
>>> bad event3 ...0.1
>>>
>>> The probability of no occurrence of bad events is
>>>
>>> (1 -0.1 ) X (1 - 0.1 ) X ( 1 - 0.1 ) ..... -->   0.9 X 0.9 X 0.9 = 0.729
>>>
>>> Then the probability of bad events is
>>>
>>> 1 - 0.729 = 0.271
>>>
>>> The intuitive thinking of probability often misleading.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pct-L mailing list
>> Pct-L at backcountry.net
>> To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
>> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>>
>> List Archives:
>> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net
> To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
>