Tertiary stability?

[nickcrowhurst]

It's 20 below freezing here in Minnesota, and the next pool session's not till Sunday, so on a quiet Thanksgiving Day I have time for some ramblings.We frequently hear the expressions "primary stability" and "secondary stability" when referring to the characteristics of various sea kayaks. They are useful practical shorthands for complex matters, although there are good reasons why they can be considered as over-simplifications. That being said, I am far more concerned with what I'll call "personal stability", by which I refer to the emotional stability of the paddler.

When deciding whether to paddle offshore or on white water with another person, my concern is less for their technical competence, than their emotional stability. I'll give a couple of examples. Twice recently I've carried out tow recoveries from surf while rock-hopping with pals who've capsized, followed by a T-recovery in one case, and a paddle float re-entry in the other. In both cases the swimmers were superb. Total control, while being knocked about by surf right amongst sharp rocks. No panic, no inability to carry out instructions. Perfect stability. Such circumstances are not "rescues". They are a routine part of an adventurous day. I'll paddle with these guys again.

Contrast that to another occasion when paddling with another person I thought I knew well, but who had never paddled in in any swell. This person totally fell apart, lost emotional control, and needed one kayak on each side to get the raft to shore.

While rock-climbing I've had similar experiences. On one occasion, the first time we climbed together, my second (partner) refused to follow on the first pitch of a rising traverse above the sea. He remained on the ground and would not even attempt the first move. He was, he had said, an experienced rock climber at that grade, but he had totally lost his emotional stability. I presume he was spooked by the swing he would have taken if he fell. He would not have been at risk of serious injury.He knew he was putting me in danger. I couldn't abseil off my belay as I was over the sea. Nothing I could shout across to him would make him even try. Eventually I had to reverse climb the route. We never climbed together again.

The risks of emotional instability range from total collapse to an inability to function, or to inappropriate behaviour or bad judgment such as summoning rescue services when not required or agreed by the group.

Our own emotional stability is something we explore throughout our lives when carrying out these pursuits, particularly when solo. How do we know how we will behave in times of stress? Gently raising our comfort level, gaining experience, and being well-equipped and trained must be key. However, in my experience, sometimes it just comes out of the blue.It must be devastating for the person who has emotionally collapsed.

When considering whether or not to paddle in company with another person, their personal stability is uppermost in my mind.
The turkey's ready, so I'm done here.

Nick.

[tg]

I couldn't agree more, I know my limits ....

As Mr Rumsf ... thingy said,

'There are things we know, things we don't know .... etc'.

Same applies to people.

Tim

[Robert Craig]

Here we call the effect "getting freaked out". I can go that way on rivers, getting illogically frightened on rapids where I can't see round the corner. I can get out, have a look from the bank, see that there's no issue - but back in the boat the brain still says "no". No problem (or not the same problem) if I can see where I'm going.

I've seen a sea paddler in waves just taking off on a fixed course, unwilling to divert to safety or do anything except paddle straight, looking straight.

[Big Ade]

I know what you mean there. But how do you bring (keen) beginners to the sport on without risking taking them too far?
When going out around our local Island when it's a bit windy I'll often get people to do a few circuits around me or a moored boat as we leave the beach so they can try out the following sea, side sea, etc.
People new to sea kayaking often self select themselves for sea trips and then wish they hadn't so doing a few unintentional surf rides or broaches and slap supourts in the nursery area with some beefy punching into tide and wind gives me/us a chance to change the trip for a less daunting alternative and allows them to get up the learning curve without going into melt down.
Getting into tertiary stability iusues when out to sea is not the recipie for a nice day out.
And is a subject not often discussed as so much emphasis seems to be put on trip leaders rather than the led.

I agree with TG about paddling within your limit

[PeterG]

We have a Club rule about no more than 1/2nm offshore without BCU 2 star for exactly this reason. By the time you achieve 2 star within the Club, your tertiary stability has been demonstrated. Newcomers with any number of stars from elsewhere need a few easy grade paddles or a reference from an experienced paddler before they can join trips.

We had an interesting experience at an Anglesey Symposium some years ago where conditions turned out more gnarly than expected. As relative beginners but used to being some way offshore, after initial tensing up we managed to relax. Some very experienced young and fit white water paddlers, but new to the sea, who 'never came out of their boats', found their bomb proof rolls deserting them and turned a challenging paddle into a mass rescue involving outside help.

I have also seen paddlers suddenly paddling away at supersonic speed, far above their normal maximum pace, oblivious to shouts and whistles or anyone trying to catch up with them, when caught in a larger set in a choppy corner.

Interestingly, I find, both on the water and in the mountains, that if I am trip leader or on my own it is much easier to stay relaxed and realistic about the objective dangers, than as a member of a group following along. It is then, just when you should have less to worry about, that the doubt gemlins creep in and you have to work on your own tertiary stability.

Leading youngsters it sometimes helps to have a talk about good and bad fear, that fear is a normal and useful thing that sharpens your responses and gives you a valuable edge; but that it has a negative side if you let it paralyse you. Parents sometimes complained that their kids had been frightened. My reply; that they had still enjoyed themselves, and came back for more, that they would be frightened at some stage in their lives and that it is good to get to know what it feels like and to be able to use it to good effect; was not always appreciated in this cotton-wool age. The activities had been 'safe', so it was not a safety issue.

[GrahamKing]

A wise and thought-provoking post, Peter. I've seen either the "supersonic escape" reflex, or the "rabbit frozen in the headlights" reaction in more than one paddler. On each occasion, this corresponded with either a deterioration in conditions or reduction of peer-support (either actual, or perceived to be imminent). Maybe the contrast with solo paddling lies in a sudden realisation that one can no longer rely on the group for one's own safety. (Aside: we should probably all think of ourselves as solo paddlers, because by the time we need the group it might well be every-man-for-himself anyway)

Those of us who have not yet personally experienced one of these disabling reactions should not feel smug; we just haven't found that particular limit yet. I once challenged a well-known coach to find my limit, because I wanted to see whether my own collapse of confidence would be sudden and disabling, or gradual and manageable. Of course, his duty of care and good sense precluded such an exercise.

Perhaps others here have thought more deeply about this, or maybe there is something to learn from other sports, from psychology, or from the military? Loss of tertiary stability is certainly not unique to paddling (example: P.Aldhous, New Scientist 12 May 2009).

[nickcrowhurst]

Those are great contributions to this important topic. It is so vitally important, but so rarely openly discussed. There are three particular aspects of tertiary instability that particularly concern me. These are:

1. The sudden onset.
I can immediately recall six specific incidents of instability over the past 50 years of "outdoor activities". In all cases there have been no "obvious" warning signs. Victims have gone from apparent confidence to total instability without a gradual decline to enable proactive remedial action.

2. Irreversibility.
In none of these cases has there been success in restoring some degree of equilibrium. Encouraging, cajoling, moral and physical support all seemed useless. The victims seem to be how I can be when seasick on a large vessel at sea. The only aim in life is to get back to solid dry land.

3. Unpredictabilty in identifying who is likely to become unstable.
I've been taken aback by just who is likely to suffer from instability. It has not, in my experience, always been the obvious candidate.

I can give one example that illustrates all three major concerns. Some years ago I led a four man team in a mountain race across seven peaks. This was a race for fast mountaineering, not fell-running. Light packs, emergency bivouacking gear, food and boots were required. The teams had to stay close together, and all four had to finish together to count in the race. The race would take about twelve hours for an average team, and we were only average. Because we lived far apart we had no chance of training together, but we agreed training regimes which included long runs with packs. We had not previously run together, but we all claimed to be experienced distance runners, and we worked in the same organisation.
One of the four, let's call him Fred, was about 30 years old, slim and fit-looking. He assured me that he had carried out his training regime. The rest of us were considerably older. The first half of our race was uneventful, we kept a reasonable pace, and no-one complained of exhaustion, blisters, pains, etc. We kept hydrated. At the halfway point there is a descent into a valley where there is a road, a race check-point, and a first aid tent. After a rest and a drink, we geared up to set off for the second half. Fred refused to continue. We said we would rest some more. He refused to continue. I explained to him that we had to finish as a team, and that he had to continue. He refused. I explained that we would carry his pack, and that we would walk the rest of the race at his pace, resting when he wanted to rest. He refused. I was his senior officer by three ranks. I pointed out to him that he would spoil the trip for the rest of us. This had included 500 miles of travelling to participate, much training, and some expense. He refused to continue. He was, in popular parlance, "a broken man".

There you have the three issues exemplified: sudden onset, irreversibility, and unpredictability between individuals. My preferred attempt to minimize this risk is either to paddle solo, or to paddle only with those who can demonstrate good recovery and rescue skills, and where we have gradually attained mutual confidence by gently pushing our combined envelopes. In this regard, I have felt at my most vulnerable when paddling in a large group. In crude terms, who is going to be the first to cry "chicken"? I feel comfortable paddling with just one other trusted paddler. Even with two others, regardless of "less than three.....", a group dynamic comes into play. If I say I've had enough, and would rather get somewhere less demanding, am I spoiling the day for the others? It is possible, of course, that all three are thinking the same, but don't wish to spoil the day for the others. The answer, for me, has to be a developing trust and openness with a small number of paddlers. The same goes for rock-climbing.
I sometimes see posts advertising for partners on a sea or white water trip, perhaps the next weekend. With complete strangers. Not me, sunshine!

Back to the shed.
Nick.

[Jim]

I find this most interesting because I simply can't understand going to pieces in such a situation. It simply doesn't make any sense to me. My self preservation instinct has always told me that no matter how bleak the prospects, I just need to trust in myself and keep going as best I can. Freezing up or panicking just doesn't have a place, it's giving up and accepting death isn't it?

Dirty Harry said 'A man's got to know his limits'

He was right, but needn't have restricted it to just men.

I have honestly never considered in advance how other people deal with their limits, and must have been lucky never to have a friend freeze up when they have found theirs unexpectedly.
That's not that I and friends haven't found our limits, we have, but we always kept our shit together to get to a safe place in a safe way and then decide how best to not carry on...

It's really rare that a friend has stopped and refused point blank to continue, never at sea, a few times on rivers (but only when the group was safely stopped in eddies to facilitate it - in fact I've made the choice to get out and walk myself a few times). Nick's example, whilst frustrating and disappointing for the rest of the team, doesn't completely show what concerns him most - the guy had clearly dealt with his demons up to the check point, rather sitting down on the top of the hill and having his breakdown, which is clearly the more worring situation.

As for mountain racing, we used to do a competition hill walk in the scouts (which is not at all the same thing), there was one occasion where I was pulled out of it by a first aider at a checkpoint - I went in to see if they had some deep heat for my sore knee, he noticed it was hugely swollen and decided that freeze spray was a better option and that I was unfit to continue. Fortunately we had more than the minimum number so the team could carry on. It's OK I returned another year and completed it in a winning (adult) team, well we were in second most of the weekend being beaten by a team of minimum size who were running it (the rules allowed that for the adults, not the kids). They had about an hour over us when one of them turned an ankle and the whole team was forced to pull out... We beat the rest by a good margin.

I have at sea seen my brother quite agitated after a group split up 3 ways. The split had not been planned or discussed, but 3 groups had formed going in slightly different directions, one group turned into a bay for a look around, and then followed the coast, one group aimed for the cliffs just before the next headland we were aiming for, and the other group stayed well out aiming just past the headland, more or less directly for the spot we intended to camp. We were in the middle group and got into the lee of the cliffs first and closed up to wait for the others. The group following the cliffs obviously had further to go but weren't long after us. The guys a bit further out had stopped for a chat, but were probably the 3 most experienced paddlers in the group. Being an outdoor instructor used to keeping groups close all the time my brother did not like this and had clearly started imagining problems that didn't exist. He had decided that the remaining group must have some kind of a problem (becasue they weren't paddling much), and that they were being swept way past their objective by the wind and tide. The point is that neither was the case and he simply wasn't used to distances and viewing angles at sea - they were simply enjoying themselves, as was I until he started getting agitated and arguing with me about it. We paddled in much more challenging conditions the following day, but did pre-arrange a buddy system for that, because it was necessary. He wasn't happy, but he certainly didn't freeze up!

[GrahamKing]

...Even with two others, regardless of "less than three.....", a group dynamic comes into play. If I say I've had enough, and would rather get somewhere less demanding, am I spoiling the day for the others? It is possible, of course, that all three are thinking the same, but don't wish to spoil the day for the others.

Well said, Nick. I sometimes use the expression "saying 'no' is OK" when planning/briefing before a trip. Someone who says "no" is often being courageous and may be voicing the misgivings of more reticent members of the group. There are always less demanding ways for today's group to have fun in this sport, and less demanding days to do that particular trip. Having said that, I think saying "no" in the context of this thread is only an option before the onset of "tertiary instability", rather than a possible symptom of it as in your example.

[Kim Bull]

A fascinating topic with particular relevance to the activities we undertake, and I'm not sure that the term tertiary or emotional stability or instability is the most useful one. When I have witnessed such situations as many of those described, I don't necessarilty think that the person is 'unstable', rather they have just reached their threshold.

Perhaps, in sports psychology terms, the person has become 'over aroused' (look up arousal theory and catastrophe model of arousal). In theory, we all need an optimum level of arousal to perform at our best. People increase their levels of arousal by psyching up, however if people become over aroused their performance falls significantly (and catastrophically). The theory also suggests that this fall in performance is not reversable in the short term and that the person should be removed from the environment until arousal levels drop completely.

Arousal can be increased my anxiety and fear. This may explain why some anxiety or fear may be useful (as it may increase arousal to optimum levels for performance). However, if anxiety or fear continues to increase then over arousal may result with a corresponding fall in performance.

Perhaps this goes some way to explain the sudden onset and irreversability experienced above. As to the unpredictability of who will be effected, this can partly be explained by the fact that things like fear and anxiety are often subjective. We all experience and interprete things in different ways. It is often not real danger to life and limb which brings on fear and anxiety, but perceived fear and anxiety. For some it may be fear of physical harm, for others fear of failure, fear of losing control, fear of losing face - the list goes on and on and is usually unique to the individual.

I believe that getting to know our group well, and learning to calibrate their arousal levels from physical signs and behaviour is a skill worth developing and time well spent.

Very best regards,
Kim

[Owen]

We have a Club rule about no more than 1/2nm offshore without BCU 2 star for exactly this reason. By the time you achieve 2 star within the Club, your tertiary stability has been demonstrated. Newcomers with any number of stars from elsewhere need a few easy grade paddles or a reference from an experienced paddler before they can join trips.

Glad I'm not in your club.

I have also seen paddlers suddenly paddling away at supersonic speed, far above their normal maximum pace, oblivious to shouts and whistles or anyone trying to catch up with them, when caught in a larger set in a choppy corner.

I've come across this, just takes off at a tangent, warp factor 10, head never moves from the bow of his kayak. Oblivious to anything around him except the Perceived danger. The irony is that he was in fact heading away from the safety of the group and into greater danger. Not much I could at the time, lucky we picked him up on the other side of the breaker zone. Now, if it looks like it will be at all lumpy I give him the least able paddler, perfurably a female paddler, to look after. That way he's too busy being paternal to notice the conditions.

[TechnoEngineer]

I've also had an experience with someone steaming off at full tilt; he looked like he was being chased by a lion! I'd only eaten 10 minutes beforehand, so had to be careful not to make myself sick trying to keep up with him. I just about kept up for a while, but when he was more than 3 boat lengths away, I decided to switch to "solo mode" and eased off the pace. I'm pretty sure he didn't look back for quite some time.

We have a Club rule about no more than 1/2nm offshore without BCU 2 star for exactly this reason. By the time you achieve 2 star within the Club, your tertiary stability has been demonstrated. Newcomers with any number of stars from elsewhere need a few easy grade paddles or a reference from an experienced paddler before they can join trips.

Glad I'm not in your club.

If you don't mind me asking Owen, why?

[Owen]

A sea kayak club that has rules that say people can't go paddling, has in my opinion lost the plot. Setting an arbitrary distance from shore is nonsensical. I can think of many places where 1/2 nm from shore would put the paddler in a very dangerous place. The club I'm in is very active, but I would guess 98% of members don't have any BCU stars and have no intension of ever taking them.

[TechnoEngineer]

I think you're being harsh. In that club, most trips are within 1km offshore; it's only the Solent crossings that tend to fall into the 2-star required category. What they're really looking for is "2 Star standard" i.e. able to perform T-rescues and have a reasonable amount of stamina. They're not anal enough to require you to produce evidence or such like. In the crossings I've done with that club, the paddlers don't hang about, and in at least 2 of those crossings I'd say the conditions were such that they warranted 3 star ability, and on one occasion a paddler lost his nerve, dropped out of the return crossing and took the ferry instead.

I've seen similar requirements in other scenarios; clubs often require paddlers to be 2 star before going on a whitewater trip, facilities such as the Nene Whitewater centre require 3 star ability - either you show a certificate, demonstrate your ability to a member of staff, being escorted by a level 3 coach, or have "been there before".

I find the BCU awards are useful reference points. In a similar vein, I haven't bothered to do 3 star yet since I've not encountered a situation where I've needed to actually have that award.

[Big Ade]

A sea kayak club that has rules that say people can't go paddling, has in my opinion lost the plot. Setting an arbitrary distance from shore is nonsensical. I can think of many places where 1/2 nm from shore would put the paddler in a very dangerous place.

Theres always someone who wants to take a pinpoint on a broad brush topic.
This is a broad brush topic, encompasing the whole globe.
Pinpointing say Stanley Embankment as place intimately close to land where you are going to die at certain states of the tide is true but not helpful to this thread. (closed ended recirculating stopper, inside the tunnel, BTW).
Lets keep it broad brush and concentrate on the brain, please.

I'm finding the psycology aspect really quite interesting, are there any websites out there for more info on tertiary stability?

[Jim]

I think you're being harsh.

You are both entitled to your opinion.

Personally, I wouldn't be interested in joining such a club, I dare say I would paddle with individuals from it on an ad-hoc basis though.
When I think of the number of strangers I have paddled with in relatively serious conditions (river mostly, but also at sea), some of whom have become good friends, I can see that it just doesn't fit in to my way of doing things.

I do appreciate that for a great many people, and especially for clubs, this sort of approach is welcome and useful.

Jim

[Jim]

I'm finding the psycology aspect really quite interesting, are there any websites out there for more info on tertiary stability?

Tertiary means 'third level', Nick chose the term to differentiate between the frequently discussed 'primary' and 'secondary' stability of boats, outside of this discussion the term could have been applied to anything!

I guess what we are really discussing is emotional or mental (of the mind) stability - and psychologists out there able to put a more common or correct name to it?

[horis karloff]

I try never to paddle with a club. I'd bring it into disrepute through my lack of regard for others, in their opinion. I would'nt want to paddle on the sea in rough conditions cos I wouldn't want the worry that someone was a bag of nerves and then needed rescueing when they capsize.

I paddle in very rough seas as long as it's not too cold and on my own. Other times I stick to a regular 3 paddlers I know well. There's something about being the master of your own fate and taking certain risks but I wouldn't go too far off shore in bad seas, just a few miles.

I went out with a WW Dart regular a few weeks ago off south Devon and the first thing was their lack of fitness and nerves that got my attention in choppy seas. May have been better if he'd had a swim first before getting in the kayak.

Tertiary to me is being competent and confident through practice, don't worry etc. when I have got worried I deliberatly get aggresive and that emotion keeps me powered up and prevents my fears getting the better of me.

[PeterG]

I try never to paddle with a club. I'd bring it into disrepute through my lack of regard for others, in their opinion. I would'nt want to paddle on the sea in rough conditions cos I wouldn't want the worry that someone was a bag of nerves and then needed rescueing when they capsize.

Most of us are keen to give something back and encourage personal development in the sport we love. Clubs are a way of doing this. Their varied trips offering mutal support and learning. However, we all enjoy paddling on our own or with a few friends as well. One does not exclude the other, rather the opposite.

Getting back to topic of the thread, you have obviously not reached your threshold yet, you need to push yourself a bit harder.

[nickcrowhurst]

Getting back to topic of the thread, you have obviously not reached your threshold yet, you need to push yourself a bit harder.

That raises a central point in this discussion. Are we all liable to "tertiary instabilty" if pushed hard enough? PeterG seems to suggest that is so. (Apologies if I've mis-interpreted your comment, above.) However I'm with Jim and horis karloff in suspecting that many people, even when pushed beyond their physical and technical limits, will respond with agression and a desparate fight for life or total exhaustion and ultimate acceptance of death, without passing into "tertiary instability". That's been my own experience, which has included too many desperate situations. A close friend has died in my arms.

Is the sudden, irreversible and unpredictable emotional collapse a quite separate and distinct phenomenum, or are we all ultimately susceptible?
Nick

[Enray]

Funnily enough I was talking about this kind of thing last night with a couple of colleagues. We were discussing the emerging profession of 'wilderness therapy' here in the UK - more to the point - conducting psychotherapy in wild landscapes either through general immersion experiences or possibly sea kayak journeys and the like.

Anyway, the theme of our discussion was the whole aspect of psychological depth and how this is managed in a wilderness and adventurous context. What emerged was a consensus that - humans will not knowingly compromise their psychological integrity - in other words we will not knowingly choose to go to pieces.

When our psychological integrity is compromised it is generally due to a wide range of triggers and in the instances you described Nick - this could be a response to perceived risk of life. That perception of risk and the subsequent psychological response to this - extreme fear of death and harm - overhwlems the psychological ability to rationalise the situation, and to ultimately problem solve - get their self out of the difficulty.

As to the question to the possibility of everyone of us experiencing 'tertiary instability' - then I think this is entirely possible - especially if we are not aware of what our triggers for extreme stress might be. These triggers may be latent within us - possibly caused by past harm or experiences - possibly similar to what we know now as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (although this is a diagnostic condition). However, it is very rare for humans to lose psychological control and we will do everything in our power not to let this happen - and this prevention occurs usually at a subconscious level as well. Most of us here on the forum choose to sea kayak because it is an activity that we are well in control of and we will generally keep well within our comfort zones when undertaking it.

Having said this though - there are 6 psychological 'needs' (Eric Berne) that we require to function physically and psychologically healthily - one of these being the pyschological need for incident - this is the need for excitement in our lives. It follows then that this is why many of us kayakers enjoy the experience of being pushed a little (or a lot) when we are out there. We thrive on this and can cope when we find ourselves extended more than normal.

Unfortunately for some people there comes a point where the experince overwhelms their ability to psychologically process the level of excitement they are encountering and they shift into survival mode and possibly lose that psychological integrity you refer to. Getting angry, becoming determined, etc are all problem solving approaches and can be viewed as a way of maintaining our ability to psychologically function.

As a note - if we are out there and a paddling partner suffers a collapse of their 'tertiary stability' - the simplest way to work with this is to continually bring their awareness to the immediacy of the present moment. i.e. encourage them to acknowledge what is happening, tell them to breathe and to be aware of doing so, to look at the sky and notice the colour, to notice the colour of their kayak, to respond to your vopice by repeating words and phrases, etc. This all helps to bring their psychological process into the present - to connect with their adult ability to problem solve - to ground them.

Just my pennys worth.

[nickcrowhurst]

Tertiary or emotional stability, in the form of hysteria, was reported as an issue in the recent Portland Bill rescue:

http://worldkayakblogs.com/uhcc/2011/01 ... ip-report/

I have great sympathy for those involved. There have been excellent thoughtful contributions to this thread,and I have one further point that I find important. As mentioned in the courageous Portland report, it is the importance of listening very carefully to, and closely monitoring, the paddlers in the group, even to the point of apparently over-reacting. Paddlers may, for many reasons, be reluctant to reveal their true levels of fear, apprehension, disorientation, fatigue, coldness or sea-sickness. Pride, embarassment, group solidarity or loyalty can inhibit requests for assistance.
This has happened to me.
On my first ever white water trip, on a cold January day, with no training and unsuitable equipment, I paddled with a club, and repeatedly capsized. I quietly mentioned to some of the group that I was cold. I should have said "Get me out of this. I'm in trouble. I'm shivering wildly, and will have trouble using my paddle" Finally, an empathetic lady realized the situation, monitored me, advised when and where to portage, and generally kept me out of trouble.
I have noticed on several occasions "in tight spots" , kayaking or climbing, that the spoken word is like the cliched "tip of the iceberg", and that 90% of the true emotion is concealed.
My policy henceforth is to listen and watch carefully, and to "over-react" to overt concerns. If a paddler says "I'm getting tired", or "this is a bit much for me" or "is it much further?" or makes similar comments or exhibits worrying behaviour, then I will assume the worst, and take strong action.
A few months ago a pal took an unexpected swim on a surf rock-hopping trip. He was properly clad and equipped, but once he was retrieved I said we should return via a direct route to our launch site, and get him warm and dry and fed. Tellingly, this very strong and fit guy did not object. His silence taught me a lesson. We were doing the right thing.
So, "over-react to small signs" is part of my armoury in attempting to deal with the difficult phenomenon of "tertiary instability".
Nick

[Ceegee]

I've come to this excellent thread rather late, by virtue of Nick having re-activated it.

IMO there is no rational explanation to this behaviour. I've only experienced such a thing once myself, where a flat calm island crossing went "wobbly" for me and I started to experience unease, claustrophobia/panic and vertigo - feeling that at each paddle stroke I was just going to keel over sideways. My two companions could not fathom it. Perfect summer day, warm water, absolutely no danger whatsoever. The rational mind would have said you can just roll up, do a rescue easy. I think the problem was the subconcious realization that regardless of all mitigating factors, if I got back in I would still feel the same. As you said, single-mindedly get ashore, grit teeth and paddle! Never happened again,even on the return trip.

That said I can happily go out of the harbour in winter and practice (solo) rescues in the swell, sit in the clapotis off the pier end and practice my balance, head off round the local offshore islands in 4-5' swell. In such cases the rational mind knows that I am 99.999% safe - what can really happen? The same applied in the wobbly incident (even more so) but this was not a "rational" moment.

Never happened before (or since - in case I ever end up paddling with one of you). I guess we can all have our off moments. The whole realm of premonition psychology and subliminal cues (often wrongly interpreted) is a subject in its own right.

[nickcrowhurst]

Yesterday I received through the mail a purchased copy of "Confessions of a Wave Warrior" by Eric Soares, of the Tsunami Rangers. Between pages 138 and 147 are descriptions of two incidents relevant to this thread. The first involves one student in a group who behaved irrationally, and was unable to respond to repeated commands. After that day he never repeated this behaviour. I immediately thought of Ceegee's experience, related above.
The next section deals with loss of emotional stability by both instructors, one being the author, when coaching a class. As a result of these two incidents, the author lists these lessons learned:

1. Everyone, including instructors, can space out at the same time. Be alert to this and constantly keep tabs on yourself and every paddler in the group.

2. Only one person can lead a class and make binding decisions. Be sure of the command structure before getting on the water.

3. Give commands. Don't ask people if they want to do something. They may want something but aren't ready for it. In big seas, people need to be told what to do.

4. Don't lecture too much; don't let students work out too much. Find the middle way.

5. Every few minutes, look students in the eye and ask how they are doing. Ask if they are warm and having fun. If the answer to either is no, that is a major warning.

5. NEVER ditch a class. They depend on you. When times get rough, stay with them and keep them safe, by force if necessary. This is the lesson that stays with me every time I take a student into the surf.

Although much of this relates to instructed classes, I feel that most of the points have relevance to emotional stability in other paddling groups.

Nick.

[PeterG]

Just been reading up on the internet about the Greely Expedition, following meeting a reference to it in the excellent 'Les Derniers Rois de Thule' 1957 by Jean Malaurie. Apart from the amazing divergence in the 'facts' presented by different sources, and that this cock-up from start to finish kick-started the modern US navy into existence; it is relevent to this thread. Tertiary stability or the lack of it, demonstrated by hiding behind irrelevent orders, led to the lingering deaths. Good summary of how not to lead anything, but in our case sea kayak trips.

There was also one kayak death on the autumn trip south when the sea was too open to walk and too closed to boat.

[nickcrowhurst]

There was an interesting discussion on reactions under stress on Radio 4's PM yesterday. I noted the opinion that no-one can accurately predict his or her reaction under acute stress. The discussion is from 45 minutes to 52 on Listen Again, here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b019gzqk
Nick

[GrahamKing]

The BBC interview is full of interest, so before it disappears from iPlayer, I've captured some of it. The context is a discussion between Bruce Hood, Director of the Bristol Cognitive Development Centre, and R.Adm. Chris Parry RN (retd.), of the ineffective behaviour of the Captain of the Costa Concordia at the time of its sinking.

What happens when we panic: [BH]flood of hormones - flee/fight/freeze - makes us unreasonable.
CP: An alpha male placed in a situation where his self-esteem is shattered in an instant will behave "very oddly." Importance of training, and conditioning of brain to deal with stressful incidents and environments. "Until you're in that situation, you don't always know how people will react." [When others are at their limit], look the person in the eye and say "I have faith in you." Break lock on the panic mode.
BH: Training is essential. Teaches you to recognise signals and avoid loss of [self]-control. People have a belief about how they will respond in certain situations but ... this does not always match up [with reality].

[Jim]

Interesting reading that excerpt having watched something on the worlds most dangerous plane landings (or similar title) recently.

It seems that airline pilots are really thoroughly drilled in following procedures even when things have started to go wrong, which seems to be why they don't crack under pressure and have recovered some seemingly impossible situations. Following procedure makes them consider their options rather than just reactively doing the first thing that comes to mind. No. 1 was the guy who landed on the Hudson in 2009, less than 2 minutes into the flight he hit a flock of geese and lost both engines with hardly any altitude still over New York. He reported to the tower and checked his options, assessed his rate of descent and the distance to either airport (which would involve turning which will lose more altitude) and realised he wouldn't make either. I guess he looked out of his window for somewhere flattish and clear to land and all he cold see that even nearly fitted the bill was the river, so he told the tower he couldn't make either airport and was going to ditch somewhere, maybe the Hudson. He then stopped talking to the tower to concentrate on setting the plane up (without power) for a water landing. The entire incident took less time than it took me to type it, and he made a perfect landing on the water.

It may be counter-intuitive, but it seems that by taking time and running through procedure even when there was very little time available, contributed to a successful outcome. I guess ones gut reaction if one hadn't been trained to ignore it, would be to throw the plane into the tightest turn possible and try to make it back to where you came from - that would have resulted in it crashing short of the runway, presumably into a built up area.

This would certainly seem to be a good argument for frequently drilling in rescue practice etc. A point I think we have discussed before, but without a couple of 'experts' views on somethign entirely independant to reinforce it.

[Kayaks'N'Beer]

Panic/Fight or flight response is something that you can train yourself to deal with but only by getting yourself into a situation where it kicks in. This pretty much precludes going out and doing it on purpose. I'm fortunate in that I've been in enough of those kind of situations (both at sea in a kayak and in other hi-stress settings) that I can recognise the onset and "ride it out" It's not difficult and it does get easier with practice.

What's vitally important is to have enough experience and awareness of your situation to be able to react effectively. If you don't have that then, in my experience, you're going to slide back into panic mode and just shut down with "what the hell do I do?" running round and round your head like a mantra. This is why we must practice all manner of self rescue, t-rescue, all-in's, tows and the like, both as swimmer and rescuer - so that when that singularly weird headspace comes to call, you have a better course of action to grab hold of than throwing your hands up in the air and screaming "help!"

[MoultonAvery]

Bravo, Nick. A superb, fascinating topic and a wealth of very insightful comments. Just wanted you to know that a whole lot of mates from across the pond were following the discussion. I've only encountered this on one occasion and it was very much like your climbing incident. The third in our climbing team froze up when confronted with a long traverse that would have resulted in a long and nasty pendulum into a rock wall if he came off. As the second, I had to reverse climb the route, and then belay him from the rear while our lead belayed him from the front. The rope management was a bit tricky but it all worked out in the end and we were able to rappel down after the traverse. It wasn't a particularly difficult route, but it was quite exposed and a fall at that point would have been a really bad one. Fracture City. He was a great mate and a good climber and had never behaved that way before. I suspect that we all have our limits. I've certainly been in conditions while sea kayaking that prompted me to tune out everything but the immediate task at hand, which was to paddle as direct a route as possible, as fast as possible, to a safer location.

I think the comments about prior training and experience are spot-on. When things happen very fast or get really nasty, or both, cognition often deteriorates or falls apart completely and we revert to whatever, if anything, we were trained to do. Police in gunfights, pilots in crippled aircraft, and martial arts responses to an attacker are good examples. That's the real beauty of sufficient training. It permits a person's response to an incident to bypass the slower and messier cognitive route, allowing instinct, in the form of a much faster trained response, to take the wheel.
Moulton Avery
Arlington, Virginia, USA