Scouting & Weather Safety

[Murdoughnut]

I imagine this fits in the Family Life thread rather than the Lav, but interested in getting others' opinions here.

My kid has a Scout campout this weekend - they're set to caravan to the site Friday afternoon. There's a storm system forecasted to pass through that area in the evening hours - with a forecast of damaging winds and possible isolated tornados.

Interestingly, this same situation happened last year - and when I asked about driving my kid to camp Saturday morning instead, I was told that the Troop has a firm policy of camping in all weather conditions - no exceptions. Naturally this attitude has me concerned, and interestingly the only other parent in the Troop who shares my concern is a professional meteorologist. They do not plan anything for the kids on Friday night, so their telling us that kids will not be allowed in camp if showing up Saturday morning seems arbitrarily punitive for parents that have safety concerns. As a pilot, you can imagine how I cringe at any organized effort to punish someone for making a safety related decision.

Am I being overly cautious here? We just had the preceding system damage tiles on our roof and knock down two of my neighbor's trees. My concern with the campout is that the kids will be in tents under the canopy of large pines and oaks. It's one thing if it's in the middle of the campout, but at the beginning I'd otherwise rather bring my kid the next morning. Thoughts?

 

[ppragman]

I think they'll be ok and that they should go. I reckon I'd send my kids. Now, watch me say this, and a bunch of scouts die on that campout and I'll feel terrible, but statistically the odds of them being hurt or killed are pretty low. I'm not sure what part of the country you're in (Florida I think?) and I think "we always go in all weather conditions" is stupid because it primes kids to think that's an acceptable mindset. Try that up here and you're dead for sure in the winter. That said, I think there's a lot of merit to having your kids spend a sleepless night in the cold and do something challenging. If you can be reasonably sure (given the area) that nobody will get killed because of exposure or drowning (the most likely causes of death), I think I would approve it. If they were going to be canoeing out to some island, or doing a really strenuous hike or something, let them go.

Also, talk to the kids. You should include them in the decision making process. "Do you think this is a prudent plan? What are your risk mitigation strategies? What do you want to do to stay safe and keep your friends safe?" Put them in the driver seat and you may find that the kid his or herself says, "dad, I think it's stupid to go out there, I don't want to go." But if they evaluate the risks and still want to go, let them go and make the mistake.

I get the caution, but it'll be good for them to get wet and shivver and be cold, and when they come out of it on the other side of it, they'll be better, more resilient kids. "Can you believe you made it through that wild night when the wind blew over the tent?!" It'll be an adventure for them. If you're worried drive out there with them and get a room in a nearby hotel. That's what I'd do.

If it helps, mine are nearly 12, 10, and 8, and if they were interested at all I'd send them out to deal with the storm provided I was reasonably sure cold wasn't an issue and they had an escape/backup plan.

 

[Murdoughnut]

I think they'll be ok and that they should go. I reckon I'd send my kids. Now, watch me say this, and a bunch of scouts die on that campout and I'll feel terrible, but statistically the odds of them being hurt or killed are pretty low. I'm not sure what part of the country you're in (Florida I think?) and I think "we always go in all weather conditions" is stupid because it primes kids to think that's an acceptable mindset. Try that up here and you're dead for sure in the winter. That said, I think there's a lot of merit to having your kids spend a sleepless night in the cold and do something challenging. If you can be reasonably sure (given the area) that nobody will get killed because of exposure or drowning (the most likely causes of death), I think I would approve it. If they were going to be canoeing out to some island, or doing a really strenuous hike or something, let them go.

Also, talk to the kids. You should include them in the decision making process. "Do you think this is a prudent plan? What are your risk mitigation strategies? What do you want to do to stay safe and keep your friends safe?" Put them in the driver seat and you may find that the kid his or herself says, "dad, I think it's stupid to go out there, I don't want to go." But if they evaluate the risks and still want to go, let them go and make the mistake.

I get the caution, but it'll be good for them to get wet and shivver and be cold, and when they come out of it on the other side of it, they'll be better, more resilient kids. "Can you believe you made it through that wild night when the wind blew over the tent?!" It'll be an adventure for them. If you're worried drive out there with them and get a room in a nearby hotel. That's what I'd do.

If it helps, mine are nearly 12, 10, and 8, and if they were interested at all I'd send them out to deal with the storm provided I was reasonably sure cold wasn't an issue and they had an escape/backup plan.

Thanks - we’re in NC now. Appreciate your perspective.

 

[ppragman]

Thanks - we’re in NC now. Appreciate your perspective.

least I can do, I'm not sure the advice will work for you, but yah, I remember being about my kids ages and going camping with my cousins a bunch, or the time me and my friend from school rode horses around his parents farm, camped through a thunderstorm, and killed a rabbit with our bb guns. Because of life circumstances, my kids haven't gotten the same possibilities, and the world is fundamentally different... and don't get me wrong, I probably wouldn't sleep the whole night they were gone if a storm actually did materialize, but I think the more freedom and adventure we can get them at a young age the better. More than anything though, "involve them in the process" - in particular, have them analyze "we go camping no matter what the weather is." That's a stupid policy and would get people killed here without the appropriate equipment (and sometimes with).

If you think it's going to be cold, I'd be more cautious for sure - like snow cold that is, shivvering is fine, hypothermia is not. How old are your kids? But definitely involve them in the decision making process, and it's critical for them that they get a chance to make some bad decisions occasionally.

This is actually kind of perfect because my wife and I were just talking about this sort of thing this week.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Am I being overly cautious here? We just had the preceding system damage tiles on our roof and knock down two of my neighbor's trees. My concern with the campout is that the kids will be in tents under the canopy of large pines and oaks.

Even without caution, who wants to be camping in a storm?

Anyway, if there is a tornado warning, where is the tornado shelter? Assuming they are next to it, sounds fine. We just had tornados here the other day. I wouldn't intentionally be in a tent for that. Of course, I'm sure they've figured out shelters and evacuation routes, I think it is part of their motto or something.

 

[Beaker]

I have only reached Cub Scouts so far, which is much more lightweight and everything is viewed through the lens of "will this be a fun experience for the kids". I understand at the Troop level things get more serious about developing wilderness survival skills and working through adversity. But at least at the Cub Scout level, I have never ever received or heard of anyone getting flak for arriving late to a campout or activity for whatever reason. We are all busy, have multiple kids with multiple commitments, and have different views on what is worthwhile. At first blush the policy of show up Friday or stay home strikes me as overzealous hogwash.

Since you are in Scouts, you and your child want to have character-building wilderness experiences. But there are thunderstorms, and then there are thunderstorms. Something that just produces moderate rain and winds is one thing. You could discuss with your child if this is an experience they want to have, and also consider the capabilities of the people participating in the campout. Is this old hat for them? You could come to a decision to participate on Friday night, but in my opinion that decision should rest with your family and your family alone. Not the bylaws of a kids extracurricular club.

Severe thunderstorms are another thing entirely. I have seen some nasty things blow by here in Tornado Alley. Intense winds, hail, tornadoes. There is no way that I would knowingly go camping in a squall line just to build character. If it came up unexpectedly in a two-week expedition, so be it. Forecast for the first day, and you can easily push back to the next day? Waiting it out seems like the obvious choice.

My personal choice, from what you've said of the weather, would be to wait a day. But I am not a die-hard Scouting person. I think I would shrug and take my kid camping some place else if the Troops doors were shut.

 

[Roger Roger]

We never used to worry about it when I was a kid (not in scouts) but these winter thunderstorms these days be gettin cray so idk

 

[Flyinthrew]

I have a lot of thoughts on this. First, it will be unlikely to be a fun experience. I’m a father of a 14,11, and 5 year old boys. The 14yo has autism. I believe with every fiber of my soul in antifragility and grit. I want them to have all of the adversity without the trauma that my childhood involved. The troop is really trying for something that I call type 2 fun-it sucks while you’re doing it, but you look back on it and it is unforgettable in a good way. Not all adventure is amusement.

All that said, my test is “would I make a platoon of Marines come out here and set up a bivouac?” That sounds ridiculous, but I spent many, many nights in the woods of eastern NC, many of them wet. We also decided NOT to go when were supposed to many more times than one would guess. I would bring my older two out in any of the conditions that we were out in.

I think from a risk management perspective I would set my no-go criteria as tropical force straight line winds, probable tornado warnings, ice storms, heavy snow, temps below freezing.

That last one sounds ridiculous to people in the mountains and upper midwest, but I know what kind of gear you probably are sporting.

Good luck.

 

[Murdoughnut]

Appreciate the opinions. Our Troop leadership kept coming back with "we camp in all weather" even after the site Ranger informed troops that they had the option to come in Saturday morning instead. I was at that same camp this past summer, and watched one of the adult leaders tie his hammock to a tree, only to have that tree (25' or so) snap and fall over due to rot. I messaged with the assistant Scoutmaster heading up the trip who at least said he'd have the boys tent in the central area not under the canopy.

Then this afternoon we found out that the site Ranger decided it was unsafe and ordered all troops to arrive early Saturday morning. I'm relieved, but still a bit angry that our Troop leaders were so adamant about making the kids ride it out when arriving early Saturday doesn't change a thing. We just had a storm that rolled through a few days ago that knocked two of my neighbors trees over and into his house, and this one is calling for 45mph winds in the area exactly where the campsite is, so that was my issue - not the storm or rain, but the winds, as I've seen too many trees and large branches fall in my short time here.

Interesting note - my old man was hit by a tornado in his 18-wheeler back in 1989 in Jarrel, Tx. Destroyed his rig, picking the whole thing up 40' off the ground, ripping his door open, depositing him and the truck in a culvert. He escaped with a large gash to his elbow.

 

[Beaker]

I am glad that more reasonable heads prevailed. That's wild regarding your dad. I remember when an F5 levelled an entire Jarrell neighborhood in the 90's. Bad tornado juju in that town.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Even without caution, who wants to be camping in a storm?

Implying camping in Scouts was a “want to” thing for me, ha!

 

[Avalon781ML]

I imagine this fits in the Family Life thread rather than the Lav, but interested in getting others' opinions here.

My kid has a Scout campout this weekend - they're set to caravan to the site Friday afternoon. There's a storm system forecasted to pass through that area in the evening hours - with a forecast of damaging winds and possible isolated tornados.

Interestingly, this same situation happened last year - and when I asked about driving my kid to camp Saturday morning instead, I was told that the Troop has a firm policy of camping in all weather conditions - no exceptions. Naturally this attitude has me concerned, and interestingly the only other parent in the Troop who shares my concern is a professional meteorologist. They do not plan anything for the kids on Friday night, so their telling us that kids will not be allowed in camp if showing up Saturday morning seems arbitrarily punitive for parents that have safety concerns. As a pilot, you can imagine how I cringe at any organized effort to punish someone for making a safety related decision.

Am I being overly cautious here? We just had the preceding system damage tiles on our roof and knock down two of my neighbor's trees. My concern with the campout is that the kids will be in tents under the canopy of large pines and oaks. It's one thing if it's in the middle of the campout, but at the beginning I'd otherwise rather bring my kid the next morning. Thoughts?

I’m late to the party and Patrick has given some pretty good advice. I’ll share my thoughts as one of perhaps many Eagle Scouts on this website and former camp counselor… camping in all weather conditions is great and I’m a firm believer that doing so improves a scouters resilience. However, camping in all weather conditions while throwing caution to the wind is pure stupidity. The whole point is the teach, mentor, and reinforce self reliance, team building, and critical thinking. So what exactly is being taught when severe/extreme wx conditions aren’t taken into the equation?

Among other concerns it doesn’t sound like the adults in the troop are well versed in what it’s like to be outside in severe weather at best and negligent of the scouters safety at worst. If no contingency plans were in place I’d start shopping for a new troop. Kids pick up on things we don’t even consider and unmitigated risky behavior is something I don’t want my kids to learn.

Glad it worked out in the end…

 

[BobDDuck]

From a SAR point of view (and a bit of a generalization), the Scouts risk assessment protocols and their adherence to them are terrible.

 

[ppragman]

From a SAR point of view (and a bit of a generalization), the Scouts risk assessment protocols and their adherence to them are terrible.

this is exactly why I said, "put the kids in the driver seat." "Hey, do you think this policy is a good idea?" Sometimes learning that the people in charge are idiots is a super valuable skill...

Still, I'm in favor of having the kiddos end up in some more "challenging" sorts of simulation - to channel Calvin's dad "it builds character." You want to bring them close to danger without them ever really being in any actual danger, but where they can see where that line is. Obviously, that line is different for every parent, and obviously, it's hard even for adults to assess.

 

[BobDDuck]

Still, I'm in favor of having the kiddos end up in some more "challenging" sorts of simulation - to channel Calvin's dad "it builds character." You want to bring them close to danger without them ever really being in any actual danger, but where they can see where that line is. Obviously, that line is different for every parent, and obviously, it's hard even for adults to assess.

That's going to happen naturally. Do to unforeseen issues arising. Intentionally putting kids in situations that could cause some (low) level of danger/character building is weak sauce.

Learning to not go camping when there is a forecast for tornados should be learned from watching experienced people make that decision, not going camping and having a treen fall down right next to your tent and saying "well I won't do that next time", especially if you are a kid. There is a ton of research showing that Scared Straight (TM) was a stupid idea.

 

[ppragman]

Learning to not go camping when there is a forecast for tornados should be learned from watching experienced people make that decision, not going camping and having a treen fall down right next to your tent and saying "well I won't do that next time", especially if you are a kid.

I mean, "agreed" but with a caveat - arguably, they have to get some exposure to risk in their lives and (age dependent naturally) they have to be able to learn to make some of their own decisions. I think "we always go" is stupid - if that wasn't clear from above - but also, it's fine if they get cold (not hypothermic) and have an adventure. And (not saying @Murdoughnut is doing this at all, to be clear), but "as pilots" we have a very bad habit of deciding we know what's safe and what's not safe because we are often very bad at weighting the actual risks accurately. That is to say, we often weight "scarier risks" much higher, and many of us are the biggest helicopter parents ever. Again, I'm not saying that @Murdoughnut is doing that at all - indeed I think his hesitancy to just call it off is admirable, but I think now, a while later with the lens of hindsight is appropriate. Would anything have happened? Now I'm not following the weather for there, and haven't really been paying attention, again, for the record, "I think we camp in any weather is stupid" - but with the crystal clear hindsight of retrospect would it have been some tragedy? It does not appear that that is the case.

Admittedly, I'm pulling a little bit of a rhetorical fast-one here, but I think it is worth mentioning, that had they gone, probably everything would have been fine.

There is a ton of research showing that Scared Straight (TM) was a stupid idea.

Now, did I say that? No. And arguably, learning risk management with training wheels on is really important. It's why we teach people stalls - because even though we know there's a certain level of risk associated with practicing this, it's valuable to learn it.

I'm not advocating for sending these kids out into arctic with a swiss-army knife and a mission. I'm not even arguing for some sort of scared straigth curriculum or whatever - I actually find it a little bit frustrating that you'd think so. That said, it is really important (at least in my mind) that kids get a chance as they grow up to experience some crappy situations with training wheels on. You cannot learn how to critically evaluate other people's risk mitigation strategies if you do not actually get a chance to, you know, practice that. Put the kids in the driver seat, see what they think, make them have to make a call. As a parent, you always get veto rights - my nephew has literally zero fear of anything at all - I'm not letting that guy decide anything safety sensitive without extreme training wheels given his blatant lack of a fear of death, however, putting other kids in charge of making the decisions allows you to see if they're actually learning. More importantly, just like I said before, it will teach them that sometimes the adults are idiots.

Learning is a "change in behavior as a result of experience" - if you do not experience anything, you will not learn. And again, I'm not trying to put @Murdoughnut on blast here - that's not my intention at all, I'm just trying to explain why I think kids need a chance to make decisions like this sort of thing. Regardless, the kids need to be a part of the process - as much as we'd like to forget it, they're full "people" too - they have desires and wishes, and goals - they're not idiots, and I have found (maybe I'm just lucky) that when I treat mine like adults they tend to rise to the occaision.

 

[USMCmech]

My second campout with my troop we were hit by a severe rainstorm. By dawn we were all soaked and cold with a lot of soggy firewood.

One of the assistant scoutmasters showed us how to make napalm out of siphoned gasoline and styrophom. Once that got a fire started I knew I was going solve my time in the Boy Scouts.

 

[Beaker]

but with the crystal clear hindsight of retrospect would it have been some tragedy? It does not appear that that is the case.

This is tricky. When we make safety decisions, we are estimating a probability distribution. Something is safe if the probability of serious harm is below a sufficiently low threshold. So let's say the probability of serious harm is 1 in 10 during a severe weather event involving strong winds and possible tornados. That is nowhere near safe enough, yet 9 times out of 10 the situation would pass the test of nothing happening in hindsight. When we only get one sample of our decision it's easy to draw the wrong conclusion.

That is why regulations, codes, protocols, and data gathering are so important. As a human being, I do not think I can tell the difference between a 1 in million or 1 in a billion risk just by looking at it and going with my gut. In both cases the bad event seems very remote. Yet if you repeat both behaviors everyday across an organization, one is clearly safe and the other is a death trap.

Anyways, I suspect I am preaching to the choir on this point. With your current field I know you know statistics and the importance of tracking data better than most, including me!

I agree with the overall thrust of getting outdoors in situations that stretch you. I found this to be an interesting read on the topic: Comfort Crisis

 

[ppragman]

This is tricky. When we make safety decisions, we are estimating a probability distribution. Something is safe if the probability of serious harm is below a sufficiently low threshold. So let's say the probability of serious harm is 1 in 10 during a severe weather event involving strong winds and possible tornados. That is nowhere near safe enough, yet 9 times out of 10 the situation would pass the test of nothing happening in hindsight. When we only get one sample of our decision it's easy to draw the wrong conclusion.

well, I said I was pulling a rhetorical fast one you're right, and I appreciate the thought behind this; I doubt the assertion that the probability of series harm was 10% - that's an extraordinarily high probability - like really high, I bet it was way lower, it just felt high because that's what we do (especially us pilots).

I remember when I was writing risk assessments for bush operations when we were trying to make FRATs etc. most of the numbers were pulled out of someone's ass somewhere, either that or the value was fundamentally unknowable, but we tried to treat it as "knowable" - and indeed we assumed that you could treat risk as some sort of linear combination of values. You cannot (welllll, kind of), but many of us delude ourselves that we can easily add up the risks like that. How is it that the guy getting the divorce is more likely to to crash? He's a 7 now on the chart - what does that number mean? It's dimensionless and (largely) meaningless - someone in the training department thought that getting a divorce was really stressful (I'd imagine it is, I wouldn't know) so they made the number "big" relative to the other numbers - meanwhile, flying 8 legs in a day with 8 approaches, manually loading and unloading your airplane could score less despite the weather being just crappy enough to need to fly IFR all day and statistically you being exposed to more "danger."

I'm rambling a little bit, but I guess the point I'm trying to make the argument here that we should not ignore the base rate. We're assessing a higher risk to the "what-if" than maybe we should have in this case and I'd say, we do that a lot in general. To try to put some numbers to it, Google says something like 280million people visit national parks every year in America and about 120-140 people die. The base rate is something like 1 in 1-million die. Let's say that we want to exclude not only death, but "having a really bad time" - let's say (and this is totally pulling a number out of my ass now), in these conditions it's a couple orders of magnitude better and still 1-in-10,000 have a really bad time in similar conditions.

Does that change the equation? Absolutely it does, 1 in 10,000 is such a tiny number by most practical purposes Is it as safe as transport category 121 airline operations? No, but nearly nothing else is in this life - it's actually safer to have a heart attack in an airplane than at your house. I found a handy chart for thinking about this on the interwebs - see below, but how does the trip stack up against stuff we don't even think about? Before I got sick, I took my kids flying, didn't think twice about it, I'm sure many others do too, but that's probably a lot more risky than a rainy camping trip.

That book looks amazing, I bought the audible immediately. It does kind of "jive" with my life too. Ironically, since I've gotten sick I've spent more time traveling than I ever did when I flew for a living - so maybe there's something to running from what's comfortable.

 

[ppragman]

Also, I really hope I can get a job doing this sort of stuff (not scouting, but stats, ML, math etc.) in an aviation context here in the next several months. I'm so ready to be done with school.... I love what I'm studying, but I am so freaking tired. It is pretty sad that a random convo about parenting is more interesting than digging into my thesis more.