[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[pct-l] Expedient Water Crossing
Doesn't this method rely on people on both banks anchoring the rope. This
seems like the biggest drawback to this method. The first person across has
to carry the rope. He risks slipping and getting held under by the rope or
getting swept away. The last person faces the same risks. Any hikers
between those two may benefit. Hmmm, how many thru hikers does it take to
cross a stream?
I did read several pages in this manual. It has lots of good, practical
information. The rope method of crossing streams, however, doesn't appeal to
me. And I don't think their advice of a heavier pack holding you down better
is good advice either. A heavier pack just makes it harder for me to
maintain my balance.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "pct" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Expedient Water Crossing
> Technical note:
> >From what I remember, you would have multiple people holding lines
> held fast, kept fairly tensioned. Just enough slack for the person to
> move around. One line is horizontal to the water, kept in line with
> the person crossing. The other person starts in that position, and
> moves down at the same rate that the person moves across. In this way,
> if the person were to fall, the person at the farther position down
> river now has a nearly horizontal pull.
> It works like a pendelum, where the downward action of the person
> being swept away is stopped by the upstream line (made fast), and the
> downstream line can pull them quickly closer to shore. The idea being
> that the instant someone moves downstream, your ability to pull them
> (or even their ability pull up) against quick moving water is remotely
> small. But you can act to keep them from going further downstream. The
> horizonal "pendelum pull" line is the one that really gets you closer
> to shore, and possibly out of the water entirely.
> You also would have people on the shore (and as you move the unit
> across, both sides of the shore), who are tied off themselves, ready
> to go up to thigh deep or so to recover anyone who needs help.
> But again, military situations are unique. You're talking about
> usually a minimum of 12 people, where one "hero" just zipping along
> the rocks to the other side isn't going to do that. They're all going
> to work as a team and get across. It takes longer, but is safer.
> Atleast, that's what the people told me as I went somewhere for
> someone to shoot at me, so maybe they didn't know much after all. :-)
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:22:12 -0700, Eric Lee (GAMES) <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Steel-eye wrote:
> > >
> > In view of the recent discussion about the hazards of fording creeks and
> > rivers I would like to refer interested readers the following website.
> > Please see Chapter #17. You may find some surprises, particularly in
> > reference to the effect of pack weight.
> > >
> > Hmm, I suppose stream crossings are like bear canisters and horses and
> > other perennial arguments that never die but . . . I see that the Army
> > Field Manual you cited recommends a stream-crossing technique using a
> > rope.
> > Most wilderness manuals I've read specifically state that this is a bad
> > idea, since if a roped-up person loses his footing the force of the
> > moving water will instantly pin him to the stream bed and keep him
> > there. The only options that that point are to cut the rope or drown.
> > But I'm sure there are a wide variety of opinions on the subject.
> > <grin>
> > Eric
> > _______________________________________________
> > pct-l mailing list
> > email@example.com
> > unsubscribe or change options:
> > http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> pct-l mailing list
> unsubscribe or change options: