NEClimbs.com forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Reading the forum on your cell phone? There's an easier way. We've enabled a Tapatalk app that makes browsing the forum a whole lot easier. Check it out in the iPhone or Android store if you don't own it already.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Accident in King Ravine  (Read 714 times)

darwined

  • Guest
Accident in King Ravine
« on: January 26, 2013, 08:31:53 PM »

Somebody died in King Ravine today.  Was he a climber?  What happened? 
« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 08:47:03 PM by darwined »
Logged

slevasse

  • NEClimbs Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
Re: Details?
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2013, 08:42:10 PM »

This references it but it really doesn't give much information.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130126/NEWS07/130129296
Logged

darwined

  • Guest
Re: Details?
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2013, 08:50:02 PM »

Doesn't really matter I guess.  Prayers and condolences to his loved ones.
Logged

Admin Al

  • NEClimbs Administrator
  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6998
  • Climb 'till your forearms turn to jelly!
    • NEClimbs
Re: Details?
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2013, 12:26:09 PM »

I saw the report on the news this morning. hard to grok what really happened from that, however they must have slipped and fell. the last report I heard said that he had fell/slid 1500 feet! the snow up there is pretty bulletproof right now, like the fan in Huntington, so I could well imagine that scenario.
Logged
Al Hospers
____________________________________
my music
 https://www.facebook.com/BlackMountainRamblers

web hosting, design and software programming:
 http://www.cambersoft.com

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: Details?
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2013, 07:02:33 PM »

Some info I found from WMUR:

"Investigators said 64-year-old Richard Gabriele slipped on hard packed snow and fell. Fish and Game officers said he fell more than 1,500 feet down a 67% grade. The fall sent him tumbling down more than 950 feet in elevation. He died at the scene.

Investigators said the group had people from Maine and Texas. All were experienced and had the right equipment. Gabriele was the last person in the line and no one actually saw him fall."

I wish they wouldn’t use “67% grade”... can someone explain to me what angle that is?

Also, and we use better topic titles that “Details”?

OP, I think you can edit the topic title to actually say what this thread is about...
Logged

rbirk

  • NEClimbs Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
Re: Details?
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2013, 07:45:15 PM »

DMan the definition of grade is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_%28slope%29

But basically 67% is for every 2 feet up, you move 3 feet horizontally. 67% is around 34 degrees.
Logged

rbirk

  • NEClimbs Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
Re: Details?
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2013, 07:55:06 PM »

Reading the Berlin Daily Sun they say the slope is 67 degrees which is much steeper than 67%.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=440789425993753&id=156821377723894
Logged

darwined

  • Guest
Re: Dman's Thread
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2013, 08:00:05 PM »

Happy now? :P
Logged

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: Dman's Wisdom
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2013, 08:19:44 PM »

rbirk, thanks. I’m assuming “grades” are much less understood by general public than “angle/inclines”, and would think media should stick to angles (34 degrees), which sounds right for Great Gully. Obviously Berlin Daily Sun is confused as there is no way that gully is 67 degrees.

Darwined, LOL, thanks... while I might be considered “forum police”, it’s decent forum etiquette to elude to what is inside a topic so people will read it if interested...

How about “Accident/Fall/Fatality in King’s Ravine”

Perhaps someone who actually has details would catch the topic title, read it, and contribute...

“Details”, and “DMan’s Wisdom”, is unlikely to gain as much attention ;)

Helps with Google searches too, but be side the point....
Logged

sneoh

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1920
Re: Dman's Wisdom
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2013, 08:30:22 PM »

If "fell more than 1,500 feet down a 67% grade. The fall sent him tumbling down more than 950 feet in elevation." were accurate, then the slope in degrees would have been about 40.  1500 * sine (40deg) = 960 feet. sine (40deg) = 0.64 .

P.S.  I believe 100% grade is 45 degree slope or 1 in 1.  Tangent (45deg) = 1.0.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 08:34:41 PM by sneoh »
Logged

"You have to decide to do a flag, where you can broke your vertebrae or a barn door depending of your pro" - the poster formerly known as Champ

darwined

  • Guest
Re: Dman's Wisdom
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2013, 08:48:35 PM »

rbirk, thanks. I’m assuming “grades” are much less understood by general public than “angle/inclines”, and would think media should stick to angles (34 degrees), which sounds right for Great Gully. Obviously Berlin Daily Sun is confused as there is no way that gully is 67 degrees.

Darwined, LOL, thanks... while I might be considered “forum police”, it’s decent forum etiquette to elude to what is inside a topic so people will read it if interested...

How about “Accident/Fall/Fatality in King’s Ravine”

Perhaps someone who actually has details would catch the topic title, read it, and contribute...

“Details”, and “DMan’s Wisdom”, is unlikely to gain as much attention ;)

Helps with Google searches too, but be side the point....

Couldn't resist.  Cheers
Logged

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: Dman's Wisdom
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2013, 09:16:55 PM »

If "fell more than 1,500 feet down a 67% grade. The fall sent him tumbling down more than 950 feet in elevation." were accurate, then the slope in degrees would have been about 40.  1500 * sine (40deg) = 960 feet. sine (40deg) = 0.64 .

P.S.  I believe 100% grade is 45 degree slope or 1 in 1.  Tangent (45deg) = 1.0.

The 1 in 1 = 100% grade = 45 degrees is the epiphany I needed. Thanks!

Today, with some explanation from USFS Snow Rangers, I also finally grasped how the snow density is calculated from liquid equivalent (should have known that a long time ago)...
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.141 seconds with 23 queries.