Competence

[CookieMonster]

What makes someone a truly competent backcountry skier?

I'd start off with:

1. Adheres to best practices rather than pick/choose, including trip planning, travel technique, and general mountain craft.
2. Has working knowledge of terrain, snowpack, weather, and human factors and can participate in discussions about each.
3. Realises that clear answers are often unavailable and proactively manages awareness and uncertainty.

What does everyone else think?

[Hugh Conway]

I'd say you have a wonderful ideal that is rarely met. Look at the qualifications for a UIAGM guide - better than 99% of the population out there for training and skills (WAG number, but not hard to see in terms of ski/climbing/avalanche and medical training it's far better than most beaters), with ongoing training and some of them still make "dumb" mistakes that result in death or injury.

regarding the above, the AMGA ski guide qualifications were a decent start with many decent ideas. Unfortunately it's not a reality for anyone but a professional guide, I think.

[TBS]

4. Is equipped for and can perform when shit hits fans - emergency biviuoac, equipment failure, injury, burial
5. Understands their limitations - skiing ability, fitness - and returns to the trailhead with a little something in the tank

[thewon]

someone who is perfect.

[BFD]

4. Is equipped for and can perform when shit hits fans - emergency biviuoac, equipment failure, injury, burial
5. Understands their limitations - skiing ability, fitness - and returns to the trailhead with a little something in the tank

I am a big believer in #5. That is one reason I quit teleing.

[LightRanger]

I was going to mention #5 as well before I scrolled down and saw telebobski's post.

Fitness and technical skiing ability are important components of competence. Physical competence is important in speed-is-safety situations (in skiing, and climbing/mountaineering).

[Kinnikinnick]

What makes someone a truly competent backcountry skier?

Simple answer - gets out there and gets stuff done, but without getting into trouble, at least as infrequent as possible. Practices craft with low or nil rate of trouble.

In reality its much more complicated than that as everyone's objectives, situation (solo or small group vs guide), local terrain (glacier travel, intercontinental pack, etc), and risk tolerance (meadow skipper vs circus stunt pro) are different.

Add to that the reality that short of excluding terrain steep enough to slide from all travel there is no way to guarantee never getting into trouble. Normally competent professional in fields other than snowcraft/bc travel occasionally make mistakes, its just that often lives aren't on the line, whereas in BC travel they are.

[cat in january]

I think the "5" capture it. There obviously is volumes of context under each of the 5 headings.

We are all somewhere on a continuum for each of the 5. In another field a long time ago I learned either you are improving or you are falling behind, you never remain static. If you do not work to improve yourself in each of the 5 areas you will be falling behind in your competence. This must be active/conscious work on your part.

[Hugh Conway]

Simple answer - gets out there and gets stuff done, but without getting into trouble, at least as infrequent as possible. Practices craft with low or nil rate of trouble.

Your definition includes a large number of incompetent skiers. Even for the uber-cool skiers on this board who are all "getting out and getting shit done" all the time the sample size is small - 100-300 days a year is small; some smaller number of days with an avalanche hazard high enough to reward/punish questionable decisions. the classic non-skiing example would be the fund manager that blows up - highly successful until suddenly they spectacularly aren't. "Black Swan" has much of this (at least the older edition before Taleb was widely fellated did)

So much of this is cultural excuses for failure and encouraging future failure. It's somewhat reminiscent of Nascar prior to the death of Dale Earnhardt; the culture was OK with fatal failure. They decided to change that.

[LeeLau]

Your definition includes a large number of incompetent skiers. Even for the uber-cool skiers on this board who are all "getting out and getting shit done" all the time the sample size is small - 100-300 days a year is small; some smaller number of days with an avalanche hazard high enough to reward/punish questionable decisions. the classic non-skiing example would be the fund manager that blows up - highly successful until suddenly they spectacularly aren't. "Black Swan" has much of this (at least the older edition before Taleb was widely fellated did)

So much of this is cultural excuses for failure and encouraging future failure. It's somewhat reminiscent of Nascar prior to the death of Dale Earnhardt; the culture was OK with fatal failure. They decided to change that.

Can't really add much to the list that hasn't been discussed here.

But what HC said is what Tremper said in Staying Alive in Avalanche Terrain. You get out enough, you will make mistakes, and if the mistakes involve a binary outcome situation then you will be exposed to risk. Whether that risk is acceptable to you is then an entirely subjective thing. But it's pretty self-delusionary to think that mistakes are impossible so what CM said "Realises that clear answers are often unavailable and proactively manages awareness and uncertainty." hits close to home.

[LeeLau]

and maybe to add something that can actually be done. I identified Summit Fever as a trait in myself. Ie a goal oriented mindset. It's a trait where I will look for things to reinforce my decision to bag a certain peak or a line. As opposed to looking at things and assessing them objectively.

My solution is - when touring solo (rare) I will just stick to mellow objectives and not deviate from those objectives.

Another solution is to not go out with touring partners who's aggression levels are greater than mine since my theory is then that we will reinforce each other's weaknesses.

Another solution is to pick touring partners who are not afraid to speak up and question decisions (I tend to have guide mentality exacerbated by being usually stronger and setting trail but am not formally trained as a guide). Also select touring partners who are more of the objective mindset and not prone to summit fever.

Note this does not preclude going out with JONGs or lesser experienced partners. It's just a self-help remedy to deal with my own personality trait

[CookieMonster]

and maybe to add something that can actually be done. I identified Summit Fever as a trait in myself. Ie a goal oriented mindset. It's a trait where I will look for things to reinforce my decision to bag a certain peak or a line. As opposed to looking at things and assessing them objectively.

My solution is - when touring solo (rare) I will just stick to mellow objectives and not deviate from those objectives.

Another solution is to not go out with touring partners who's aggression levels are greater than mine since my theory is then that we will reinforce each other's weaknesses.

Another solution is to pick touring partners who are not afraid to speak up and question decisions (I tend to have guide mentality exacerbated by being usually stronger and setting trail but am not formally trained as a guide). Also select touring partners who are more of the objective mindset and not prone to summit fever.

Note this does not preclude going out with JONGs or lesser experienced partners. It's just a self-help remedy to deal with my own personality trait

This is great.

So maybe "partner selection" ( and the ability to integrate that type of personality information into a backcountry outing ) is part of what constitutes competence.

How would you write this as #6?

[Kinnikinnick]

Your definition includes a large number of incompetent skiers. Even for the uber-cool skiers on this board who are all "getting out and getting shit done" all the time the sample size is small - 100-300 days a year is small; some smaller number of days with an avalanche hazard high enough to reward/punish questionable decisions.

Sounds to me like you're confusing competence with perfection

[Hugh Conway]

Pointing out that if your determination for competence is "no major fuckups" it's quite easy with the small number of days - and statistically even a year skiing is a small number of days when you consider the smaller number of days where decisions in avalance terrain would make a difference, even 5 years is small, which is likely far longer than any skill/knowledge plateau - to be a complete fuckup and not have a major fuckup.

[Kinnikinnick]

Pointing out that if your determination for competence is "no major fuckups" it's quite easy with the small number of days - and statistically even a year skiing is a small number of days when you consider the smaller number of days where decisions in avalance terrain would make a difference, even 5 years is small, which is likely far longer than any skill/knowledge plateau - to be a complete fuckup and not have a major fuckup.

So are you saying that you would put a threshold number to the number of days that someone tours in the BC when decisions "would make a difference" before considering the title of "competent?" I suppose I'd be in agreement with that.

I just got the sense that you were saying that the measure of competence is never making a mistake, which would be perfection not competence.

[LeeLau]

This is great.

So maybe "partner selection" ( and the ability to integrate that type of personality information into a backcountry outing ) is part of what constitutes competence.

How would you write this as #6?

I was thinking its a subset of # 5 "Understands their limitations - skiing ability, fitness - and returns to the trailhead with a little something in the tank".

Physical and mental limitation is different side of the same coin no?

[Hugh Conway]

Saying, as I think cookie monster better did, competence is procedure based. Which is harder to evaluate because poor procedures don't necessarily result in adverse results. Even adverse results can be written off by "higher risk tolerance". There is no perfection, only striving for it.

*not that I like this answer, I don't.It all makes the awesome freedom of skiing too much like work.



back to the op - one thing that BFD mentioned, but is I think rarely done, (aside from dickswinging over just how hardcore someone is) is managing the exertions/planning/decisions of skiing in the context of life. It's one thing if you are an actual ski bum who has nothing other to do in life than ski. planning the physical/mental exertions of touring (and a potential rescue) around other things can be a very different matter if you have a job; commuted to the mountains from the flatlands, have something highly stressful M-S, etc. Exactly how into that Dawn Patrol is the guy who's managing 50 other thoughts? How into it are you with the brutal tequila hangover and stripper breath? Maybe that's obvious... or not. Dunno. edit: it appears lee mentioned the physical/mental bit before me.

[PNWbrit]

proactively manages awareness and uncertainty.

Whatever you think best.

[LeeLau]

I just want to add some numbers to what HC said because I'm a math guy and find math "exciting".. I ski about 100 days a year and am probably 70 days a year in avalanche terrain. This for the last 10 years. Not dick-swinging but just for the thought-experiment.

Suppose I make 3 choices each day I'm out in avalanche terrain that could cause involvement in an avalanche. Over the past 10 years that's 2100 possible avalanche-involvement related decisions. Suppose my decisions are "correct" 99.9% of the time - correct in the sense that it doesn't result in my getting involved in an avalanche. That would result in 2 avalanche involvements.

I would say that a 99.9% correct decision rate seems to be pretty decent. Perhaps even competent. But it would still result in 2 involvements. I've been involved in one semi-burial and watched wife get semi-buried in front of me (could just as easily have been me caught) so that 99.9% WAG doesn't appear unreasonable.. This doesn't count the 2 other sizeable slides I've witnessed triggered by other's in my party where no-one was involved but easily could've been.

No real clear point here other than that it really does appear to be a numbers game. And if you are out frequently then you will have involvements. Hence reinforcing the already reinforced point that perfection does not necessarily equal competence.

[Mofro261]

without incidents it may be hard to gauge the difference between our perceived competency and that of our actual competency. It's just as important to utilize what is encompassed in the 5 factors listed above to prevent incidents from resulting in accidents.

Maybe in line with what Lee alluded to in terms of mental aspects, # 6 displays humility and respect for the mountain environment.

[PNWbrit]

Suppose my decisions are "correct" 99.9% of the time

Surely 99.9% without bad consequence would be more helpful than "being correct".

[Hugh Conway]

Surely 99.9% without bad consequence would be more helpful than "being correct".

Only if you realize the difference, which would appear rare.

I was thinking more along the lines of 2100 "decisions" of which maybe 420 require beyond beginner competence because of snowpack/terrain present that day (adjust numbers as you see fit for your person) so 2 (using above numbers) would be 99.5% accuracy. Maybe it's only 210 decisions (99%). Some simpler range (sierra) has fewer "real" decisions than something complex (Rogers Pass) while both are avalanche terrain.

[LeeLau]

Yeah it's not the tightest of thought experiments due to sloppiness of terminologies. Also because not every decision has binary life/death outcomes. To me. it's just useful as a reality check against hubris. in that maybe competence can be thought of more along the lines of recognizing there is risk and managing the risk. I think about it whenever I read about incidents and fall into MMQB mode than think about whether I would be in that position. More often than not, i suspect i might be

Sorry for thread derail CM

[CookieMonster]

Yeah it's not the tightest of thought experiments due to sloppiness of terminologies. Also because not every decision has binary life/death outcomes. To me. it's just useful as a reality check against hubris. in that maybe competence can be thought of more along the lines of recognizing there is risk and managing the risk. I think about it whenever I read about incidents and fall into MMQB mode than think about whether I would be in that position. More often than not, i suspect i might be

Sorry for thread derail CM

Thread derail?

It's a great discussion and thanks for taking the time to contribute!

[neck beard]

What makes someone a truly competent backcountry skier?

As a subset of being a competent backcountry skier, there has been an effort to define avalanche decision making competency within the recreational avalanche curriculum in Canada. Spectrum: Unaware > Entry Level > Intermediate > Advanced > Expert > Master.

Positions on the spectrum are defined as a combination of days and type of of training and days of experience applying structured decision making in critical situations (or with a mentor, or in a different snowpack). It takes a long time with commitment to training and meaningful experience to reach Advanced.

More generally I agree with others here: a sure sign that I see in people who overestimate their backcountry competency (and sometimes even call themselves guides) is that they are utterly unaware of what they do not know. Unaware of their own limitations. Conversely, people with advanced competency more often than not have travelled a long distance to become aware of their limitations. I think this is a defining juncture. One of the more empowering moments in a risk takers life is when they become aware of their own limitations and start to act accordingly.

It doesn't really matter how good you are, so long as you know how good you are and act accordingly. If you lie to yourself, the mountains will send you a reminder note. They are honest.

Oh yeah, a competent backcountry skier is also one who is having fun and feeling happy.