Results 1 to 25 of 58
Thread: The Finger of God
-
01-24-2013, 11:00 PM #1
The Finger of God
Hell of a good read
http://blog.mec.ca/2013/01/23/the-finger-of-god/
-
01-24-2013, 11:19 PM #2
good read and sound advice
I don't work and I don't save, desperate women pay my way.
-
01-25-2013, 03:20 PM #3Dude.
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Posts
- 38
This article and the Tunnel Creek ones referenced make for a really sobering read. It's excellent to be reminded about the pressures of group dynamics and decision making.
Thanks!
-
01-25-2013, 04:50 PM #4
-
01-25-2013, 08:30 PM #5
Good reading indeed. thanks for sharing.
-
01-25-2013, 08:40 PM #6Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Posts
- 7,167
eh, wouldn't have mattered. shit was gonna get skied regardless in both cases. local weather both current and past along with the daily advisory tell the tale. under 30 degrees with nothing else steeper attached and no traps woulda been the call.
when the mind(s) are set on skiing and pow fever is runnin high, digging a pit oftentimes just makes the decision to ski a slope a good 95% more probable that that slope is getting skied no matter what the pit results show.
both cases (as all do) had the new snow/slab, the sliding surface, the trigger(s), and the slope angle. don't need to dig to figure that shit out. a good bit o pole handle probing works best to feel the composition imo in most cases. low angle might not be exciting, but all woulda lived to ski another day if meadows were skipped. simple science.
rog
-
01-25-2013, 09:14 PM #7
^^ what rog said and there's tons of articles which go deep geek into snow science. Not enough in to human factors which is what this one did
-
01-25-2013, 09:31 PM #8
Rog nailed it. No need to make a level 1 problem into a level 2 or 3 problem.
"The idea wasnt for me, that I would be the only one that would ever do this. My idea was that everybody should be doing this. At the time nobody was, but this was something thats too much fun to pass up." -Briggs
More stoke, less shit.
-
01-25-2013, 09:36 PM #9"The idea wasnt for me, that I would be the only one that would ever do this. My idea was that everybody should be doing this. At the time nobody was, but this was something thats too much fun to pass up." -Briggs
More stoke, less shit.
-
01-25-2013, 09:59 PM #10Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Posts
- 7,167
-
01-25-2013, 11:47 PM #11
I agree about the human factor needing more attention. I disagree about the pit stuff. No pit at all? Not looking for geeked out science, but perhaps they would have had second thoughts if a block slid a meter deep with a finger tap. Obviously there were many other warning signs, like weather, hearing activity, settling, bad vis unknown terrain speaking to unknown exposure, etc. But seeing a deep block come out with a light tap may have made it more real or woken someone up.
Either way. Good reads about really bad decision making, groupthink, and communication.
"That shit is gonna get skied not matter what" is something I've avoided skiing with (ie. I know my friends, and I know which ones get gungho, amped and all brobrahed up, so I don't tour with them, make excuses to decline etc.), and is something that I've lost too many friends to in the past. I just don't understand that bravado, particularly when you can get killed easily enough without it.Last edited by iscariot; 01-26-2013 at 12:10 AM.
-
01-26-2013, 12:16 AM #12
What would the snow stability tests tell you? It snowed S3+. Winds were at least light to moderate with visibility obscured the very next day. That all indicates instability. Which indicates the need to tiptoe lightly - or - as the author indicated maybe a day to sit around and drink coffee inside. There aren't any more wx or terrain details to go on.
Frankly they didn't need a pit
-
01-26-2013, 12:20 AM #13Hugh Conway Guest
How many people who actually tour regularly dig pits? Sorry, don't see it happening
-
01-26-2013, 12:30 AM #14
I agree with all you noted except that they didn't need a pit. A pit does more than just show you the pretty snowflakes and layers, it gives you time to stop, think, reconsider, breakup the pace if you've got peakfever, or breakup the dynamic if you've got a brobraher trying to call all the shots, etc... Whenever we dig, we always comment on how it really brings home the other signs. Makes it more real and outlines or impresses the real consequences of the situation. Stopping to dig a pit and discuss the snow science can change the communication and dynamic of the group. It provides an opportunity to do so. I wanted to hear about the pit or science, as they had discussed it, to see how it affected the group. Unfortunately neither group bothered to use a bit of pit time to stop the train, and possibly save lives.
Consider if the writer had said, hey guys, before we head right (once out of the trees and into open terrain) let's stop and dig a pit. Could have changed the pace, fever, and dynamic.
If their goal was to go out and be retards, no matter what, then their mission wasn't a failure at all. And, in that case, maybe a pit wouldn't have brought it home for all of them. Or maybe it would have made one of them reconsider, speak up, and change the bad patterns that had developed that day in that group.Last edited by iscariot; 01-26-2013 at 01:20 AM.
-
01-26-2013, 07:38 AM #15Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Posts
- 7,167
20+ years touring with more than half of those being 100+ day ski/touring seasons east/west. maybe dug 5 or 6 pits TOTAL, mostly due to boredom. daily hasty handers and my fave pole probing on every tour whether low or high danger. my shovel does get some use for digging nice little beer pits tho
my snowgeekyness goes like this: does this slope, feel/look/smell/taste stable enough to ski based on the avy report/weather/recent snow/lack there of/terrain? fairly simple yes or no answer. then each slope gets skied in certain ways to keep penetration light throughout if a bit bridged or a bit density inverted, or skied (cut) hard at the top to see what i might break free 1st to clear the run, and then run it out once it feels good to go. not into minute details of snow/pit data. just not what interests me. just there to ski.
once a slope is skied without incident, i deem it was safe, a good run, and move on, not ever looking back or thinking, "was that the right or wrong decision?" done. move on.
rog
-
01-26-2013, 12:21 PM #16
Group dynamics are key - trust me on this one. Choose wisely and ask a lot of questions pre-trip. And just say no to drugs. Wow.
Lately, in my desire to tour more again and the fact that old partners are not willing or able anymore I have made some interesting choices and decisions in touring partners and also have been guilty of not speaking up when I should have. I have also been guilty of few poor decisions both recently and in the past and probably was lucky a few times. No more or so I plan.
I have always been conservative in the bc and these articles and recent experiences have pushed me to some deep self-reflection and it is time to return to my way.
Poor group dynamics and poor decision making or trumps snow science each an every time. Snow science certainly has its place but is less important than these potential killers.
I agree with those that say no pit was necessary for the day discussed in the article. The group put themselves in the position they were in and they were lucky that the outcome was not worse. The choice of partners (esp. knowing the history per the author's perspective), the choice of terrain / objective for the day and not choosing a more conservative plan based on new snowfall and conditions or having the flexibility to change plans was what led to this incident.
Poor group dynamics and ego - simple. Pow fever and ego kills. Find better partners that are flexible, willing to discuss and change plans, and leave the ego at home. Easier said than done at times.
I found myself falling into this trap recently and have taken a big step back into my comfort zone. Live to ski/climb another day.
Thanks for posting.The Passion is in the Risk
-
01-26-2013, 12:31 PM #17
Good point - a pit could well have prompted a conversation based on facts, and created the opportunity for people to speak up without feeling like the designated stoke assassin.
Except if the pit doesn't show any big issues...we all know it happens occasionally. Now the more aggro folks in the group are even more sure of the mission's righteousness.
Like the author sez - Better for people to speak up whenever they are sketched.
One interesting tidbit - both with this group and at Tunnel Creek, survivors were parked just above trees, not below, when they were caught. Something I'm definitely gonna start doing.
-
01-26-2013, 01:15 PM #18
Yup. Agreed with all above.
I also noted the survivors above the trees too. I've been contemplating that too. I guess I always figured above the trees meant a high speed blunt trauma ride through the strainer if something did go above you. Seems like those above the trees were in the start zone and managed to fight it or hang on enough to stay alive. Those below had the forest flying at them. I think it depends on the terrain in general, where it starts, where others are loading slope/skiing, etc...; staying above trees may not be a golden rule.
I'm still thinking out the details on that one, it'd be good to hear others opinions on this.
Edit to add a couple basic examples that I'm thinking of...
Eg1. You're above/at treeline and a crown above you goes and you're waiting above trees.
Eg2. You're above/at treeline and the trees act as a weak point causing a start zone near you.
-
01-26-2013, 02:37 PM #19Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Posts
- 7,167
-
01-26-2013, 05:15 PM #20
Newton's 2nd Law: Force = Mass * Acceleration
=> Blunt Force Trauma = mass * deceleration when you hit an object exerting Force > Force(slide)
= Kg (water in mass of snow around you) * (meters/second)^2
Mass is fixed by the size of the slide, and is presumed to greatly exceed your mass.
Since acceleration (and thus Force) increases exponentially with distance as objects travel down an incline under the force of gravity, it would follow that, ceterus paribus, the closer you are to your stationary anchor, the less blunt force exerted on your skeleton when you hit it.
The guy at Tunnel Creek wedged himself between two trees just before the cloud hit, so his force against the snow = Mass (two trees+guy) *0. Same situation with the author's buddy.
Variables...
Size of slide; bigger = more Mass to resist - both for you and your anchor. Put another way, all bets are off if your anchor, or your connection to it, fails. Then, the blunt force = mass(slide) *'acceleration(you)
Density of snow when you get hit - it may be 5% water, 95% air at rest, but the friction of the slide makes it more dense. There's also the force of the air being pushed ahead by the oncoming snow to consider. Finally, as the density increases, the bonds between water molecules strengthen and the effective area of the slide exerting force on you increases even more, causing an exponential increase in force.
Density of anchors above you - these will reduce both mass and acceleration of the snow
[/Newton]
-
01-26-2013, 06:41 PM #21
-
01-26-2013, 08:40 PM #22
In a situation where a party proceeds in the face of multiple naturals, "group dynamics" is too polite a term. What they had was a bunch of guys scared of being thought to be wimps. In a situation like that one compares the absolute certainty of being thought a wimp by three other guys if he begs off, versus the likelihood that they'll be ok if they go on, even if things are very sketchy. In that setting it takes a lot more courage to be the one who says no than it does to keep going, more courage than most men, especially young men, have.
-
01-26-2013, 08:59 PM #23Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Posts
- 7,167
-
01-26-2013, 09:20 PM #24
-
01-26-2013, 09:27 PM #25Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Posts
- 7,167
Bookmarks