There's an adage that goes "you can't improve it if you can't measure it". I've heard this used in all sorts of circumstances. Management types use it. It's a given when doing software performance tuning. Probably other things. I've not heard it applied to kayaking but I'm thinking perhaps it's time to try.
I was talking with some friends the other day and mentioned the The Principle of Charity which says, essentially, that people you talk to are rational and well intentioned. I use this all the time in my work which is pretty much an endless series of passionate debates on often obscure points that very, very few people care about. And in my biz everyone really needs to be this way otherwise we would each be systematically beaten with a keyboard by someone on the other side of this or that debate. I've not heard it applied to kayaking but I'm thinking perhaps it's time to try.
This all leads me to do something particularly annoying to many folks but I think is rather enjoyable. I'm going to define the requirements for a rescue. Not a T-Rescue. A rescue. In order to get the most out of this you want to understand RFC 2119. RFCs are, BTW, the things that define the standards that most of the internet works under. It's short and, besides, you'll get to see the kind of writing that is akin to erotica for a geek like me. So that's good.
Let's hypothesize a process that addresses this circumstance:
A person paddling a sea kayak has capsized and has been forced to perform a wet exit (the swimmer).
and fulfills the requirement that:
The person is back in their boat.
A quick note. We have said nothing about conditions of anything. Not the paddler, equipment, nor environment. Regardless there are things, or requirements, we can say (using our RFC 2119 language) that are certainly true even without specifying any of those conditions. Some of them might be:
- The process MUST NOT damage the swimmer
- When completed the process MUST allow for the boat to be in a state that it can be moved
- The process SHOULD be executable by all paddlers/swimmers
- The process SHOULD be executable in all environments in which the paddler will paddle
- The process MUST be executable within a reasonable period of time
I think it's self evident that these non-functional requirements apply to all rescues, self and assisted.
Let's move directly to an assisted rescue. For the sake of argument we'll say that an assisted rescue is more desirable than a solo rescue in this case (i.e. someone is swimming). An assisted rescue requires, obviously, an assistant and that's just what I'm going to call him or her here. The assistant. The function of the assistant, again obviously, is to assist the swimmer in getting back in the boat. And again, regardless of conditions, there are requirements for an assisted rescue process that will hold regardless of how it is done. Some of those might be:
- The process MUST NOT damage the assistant
- The process SHOULD NOT cause the assistant to require rescue
- The process SHOULD be executable by all paddlers/assistants
- The process SHOULD be executable in all environments in which the assistant will paddle
I think these apply to all assisted rescues.
I'm not going to try to design an assisted rescue. Frankly the T-Rescue I think is a fine way to assist someone back into their boat. What I am going to do is to demonstrate how I think some aspects of the T-Rescue advocated by others violates some of the requirements above.
When I think about pushing down on the back of an upside down boat, or not having the swimmer flip it over, I think several things. Lifting a potentially large weight. A slippery hull. Boat movement proportional to the roughness of conditions.
For myself there are certainly weights I simply cannot lift. There are other weights which I could perhaps lift but I am exposing myself to injury because I'm not conditioned for them. And of course there are some weights which are no problem. A pint is more or less entirely manageable for example. But the fact is that there are weights that boats reasonably will attain that I cannot lift. It is a fact, therefore, that I could not perform an assisted rescue in all conditions in which I might paddle if the process required me to lift the boat. Conditions, in this case, might mean a boat loaded for 2 weeks on flat calm waters.
A composite hull that is wet can be slippery. A slippery hull is harder to initiate and maintain a hold on than, say, a deck line. If I lean too far over in my kayak I will capsize and require a rescue (a roll perhaps, but a rescue nonetheless). This is a fact. If I attain a hold on a slippery hull and commit to that hold prematurely I can end up leaning too far over. Not a fact. But the previous factors increase the probability of the circumstance.
In rough conditions the ends of a boat can move further in space relative to the surface of the water than the center of the boat. Pushing down on the end of the boat requires me to hold onto a slippery hull. If I do not and choose rather to hold the deck lines while the boat is upside down my face is placed directly over the part of the boat that can move far and fast, risking my ability to drink beer for a while, to say nothing of my teeth and nose.
You get the idea. I think that flipping ones boat over, staying away from the ends, not lifting to empty it, and other things, keep one closer to conformance with the requirements outlined. These requirements are a priori desirable and worth realizing (says I). So in order for me to accept, say, pushing down on the back of the boat is better or the same as having the assistant use inertia to help it onto the deck I'd have to be convinced that lifting the boat better satisfies the requirements. To do that someone is going to have to somehow change the laws of physics so that I can lift a boat loaded with enough beer to get me through 2 weeks in the wilderness...or convince me to take less beer. The physics thing is really going to be easier to do though. Or they'll have to convince me these requirements are incorrect. That they in fact do not define the qualities of the best or ideal assisted rescue.
It seems that paddle sport is rife with a general lack of specificity and an over abundance of generalization. "Tools in the toolbox", a common if trite utterance, is a wonderful concept, but fails miserably if it doesn't tell you when to use the ball peen hammer instead of the claw hammer. Or if it tells you that a circular saw cuts wood faster than a handsaw but fails to talk about kick back.
The conditions in which such and so rescue or paddle type or whatever will be used to achieve a particular outcome can be enumerated with some accuracy. Which means the applicability of this or that technique or bit of kit can be measured and considered objectively with respect to those conditions and outcomes. It can be measured. Measuring means that the question of better and worse, of right and wrong, can be better understood if not quantified.
The above things are (some of) my metrics for a rescue. I can state, with specificity, why such and so technique fails or is less optimal than something else because of and relative to them. I can debate with others, objectively and specifically, why this, that or the other is better or worse. I can understand when I'm being told something that is not optimal and make a reasoned consideration of it's usefulness or applicability. I think that is useful. It's how some of my coaches have taught me and it seems to work pretty well.
Jesus, this is long as hell. So here's where I'm at. Above are my requirements for a rescue and how I evaluate the bits of a T-Rescue and I'm going to stick by them. If someone suggests something and it seems to not satisfy these above requirements then I'm going to think carefully about it. If someone continues to suggest, cajole or insist that something without addressing these requirements then I'm going to think carefully about them. Charity does end at some point. I'm not sure that's measurable though.
You get the idea. I think that flipping ones boat over, staying away from the ends, not lifting to empty it, and other things, keep one closer to conformance with the requirements outlined. These requirements are a priori desirable and worth realizing (says I). So in order for me to accept, say, pushing down on the back of the boat is better or the same as having the assistant use inertia to help it onto the deck I'd have to be convinced that lifting the boat better satisfies the requirements. To do that someone is going to have to somehow change the laws of physics so that I can lift a boat loaded with enough beer to get me through 2 weeks in the wilderness...or convince me to take less beer. The physics thing is really going to be easier to do though. Or they'll have to convince me these requirements are incorrect. That they in fact do not define the qualities of the best or ideal assisted rescue.
It seems that paddle sport is rife with a general lack of specificity and an over abundance of generalization. "Tools in the toolbox", a common if trite utterance, is a wonderful concept, but fails miserably if it doesn't tell you when to use the ball peen hammer instead of the claw hammer. Or if it tells you that a circular saw cuts wood faster than a handsaw but fails to talk about kick back.
The conditions in which such and so rescue or paddle type or whatever will be used to achieve a particular outcome can be enumerated with some accuracy. Which means the applicability of this or that technique or bit of kit can be measured and considered objectively with respect to those conditions and outcomes. It can be measured. Measuring means that the question of better and worse, of right and wrong, can be better understood if not quantified.
The above things are (some of) my metrics for a rescue. I can state, with specificity, why such and so technique fails or is less optimal than something else because of and relative to them. I can debate with others, objectively and specifically, why this, that or the other is better or worse. I can understand when I'm being told something that is not optimal and make a reasoned consideration of it's usefulness or applicability. I think that is useful. It's how some of my coaches have taught me and it seems to work pretty well.
Jesus, this is long as hell. So here's where I'm at. Above are my requirements for a rescue and how I evaluate the bits of a T-Rescue and I'm going to stick by them. If someone suggests something and it seems to not satisfy these above requirements then I'm going to think carefully about it. If someone continues to suggest, cajole or insist that something without addressing these requirements then I'm going to think carefully about them. Charity does end at some point. I'm not sure that's measurable though.
No comments:
Post a Comment