It's very, very important to understand their headspace. Yes, in hindsight the textbook decision would be to bail as soon as the weather got bad. But consider the scenario from their perspective: You've been on the trail for a week. The weather has turned unseasonably bad, contrary to your best knowledge of the forecast when you left. You have no idea how long it will last. You've got less than 2000' of scrambling to go until relative safety. Your options are to continue on in sub-optimal (but manageable) conditions, or bail down an epic bushwhack and then figure out how to return to your car many miles away. The weather seems to be letting up, but you have no idea for how long. Do you roll the dice and go for it, or do you resign to the completely unattractive but more certain plan B?BHallDDS wrote:"At daybreak, visibility was very poor with driving rain. When visibility improved slightly, we still had time to cover the short but difficult distance to our intended campsite."
That's their account. Again, the storm was ongoing. And the distance to the Boulderfield is yes short, but it's the most difficult and committed part of their entire loop. Anyone who has done the Narrows would tell you doing it when slick is an absolute nightmare. I quite honestly want to stop hearing tragedies about people dying up on Longs. I realize it's gonna happen but good lord. They are lucky they didn't die or have someone die trying to get them.
With the benefit of hindsight on just how bad the storm was, plan b is an easy call. But would you honestly make that choice given the same information? Wouldn't you have felt like a jackass if it was a typical short-lived storm and the sun came out 3 hours later? I'm not saying that decision was right, but I think most people wouldn't have done anything different - and that's the point. People need to realize that it's really easy to follow the textbook - until you find an exception which convinces you that you can bend the rules this time.
