An honest (armchair) discussion of the 11/13/11 Gad Valley avalanche accident.

[wolfelot]

Good discussion in this thread guys. Thanks for posting. This is all a real shame about JP and the chain of bad decisions that led to this accident. I really have not done any BC touring, but if and when I do I won't be one of the many idiots that don't consider the entire safety picture. The part where it was mentioned that people kept skiing above the incident while the rescue was going on angers me. I hope that after they realize what happened they understand just how foolish they were. If and when I go BC I will be committed to being educated and have all the needed gear and information at my disposal. I'll also make sure the people I go out with do the same or I won't go with them.

[beaterdit]

I just have a question for people familiar with the terrain where the slide occurred...

In the last photo, showing the location of the crown/chute/final location of jp, how much of that rock would have been covered before the slide? Just trying to get a better understanding of how they may have made their decision.

Yeah Like EC said, a lot. It takes a lot more snow than what we've got before you can get down South Chute without mandatory air. Thing is though, it dog legs and rolls over to boot so you can't see any of that from above, where he dropped in and started the slide.

[todug27]

Yeah Like EC said, a lot. It takes a lot more snow than what we've got before you can get down South Chute without mandatory air. Thing is though, it dog legs and rolls over to boot so you can't see any of that from above, where he dropped in and started the slide.

I was also thinking, a shallow snow pack often time makes people think, "oh this won't slide, not deep, etc." when in reality, not only can it slide, but it also is breaking up the snow pack. Before I started touring and taking courses, I had the incorrect assumption that trees and rocks would always act like anchors. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

[Z]

So sad. Good thread to read at 3am between ski days however.

Something I've been thinking about lately is how sketchy early season really is. Tons of triggers are that much closer to the surface, making them that much easier to trigger. Rocks, tickler trees, bushes, etc. are all facet farms and make triggering a slide so much easier. I think we should start to emphasize more how sketchy early season snowpacks can be. Simply getting 4 feet of snow on the ground covers up a ton of these trigger points making them more difficult to hit. This combined with the draw of early powder turns makes this part of the season the scariest by far if you ask me. I think we should change the verbage from "if there is enough snow to ski, there is enough snow to slide" to "if there is barely enough snow to ski, it is more likely to slide." Or something to that effect....

[treebark]

I too am trying to piece together the sequence of Jamie’s route across Baldy on the Snowbird side. In WasatchCrawlers initial account (in the wasatchconditions thread) of the avalanche he witnessed, he mentions that he was on the Baldy Shoulder and that the slide was some 200 feet to his east.

I wanted to quote him here but I guess I can’t do that yet.

If WC was on the Baldy Shoulder and the slide was to his east, I wonder if this is the ride that SpreadEagle took down Little Chute? If so why did he not see SE in the debri or hear the patrollers yelling? Maybe he just wasn’t far enough around the corner or SE was too far up the apron? Also he said the slide was only about 200 feet to his east. And little chute would have been maybe 700 feet east of baldy shoulder. So maybe the slide WC witnessed was a separate unreported slide? Regardless…ballsy move by WC to traverse out on to Alta side of Baldy to check on everyone. But brings him honor in my opinion. WC may not know east from west but he's got a big heart.

I wanted to quote WC second account of the same slide here but cant quote yet..please review it.

Back to Jamie... I guess that at this point WC was not sure which way Jamie had gone...east to Alta or West to Snowbird. My hunch is that Jamie went to Pierre's patch. This was one of his favorite early season haunts, and in my opinion may have offered a safer way down Baldy rather than traversing all the way to West Baldy or trying to go over Fields of Glory above the Gauntlet. If he did descend Pierre's Patch and stayed a little right it would be more treed and a little more west facing which may have seemed less wind loaded than the more north and east facing slopes. Maybe he then went down to Chips Run and walked back up to the Mid Cirque to get another west facing run on the Gad side. Sorry for all the speculation, just can’t stop trying to piece it together and figure out what his thought process was. This was a smart guy with tons of backcountry experience and avalanche knowledge.

Hypothetically if I liked to drink and smoke-out and bang slutty blond snowboard chicks...I have no rational for doing these things...Logic tells me that these things could be bad for my health but I hypothetically do them anyway. No regrets. Millions of people with kids and families choose to smoke cigarettes. They understand the medical scientific processes perfectly..but choose to live their life in the way that they makes their life as full as possible in their own way. I’m not saying that Jamie’s actions were delinquent, but just that there are many examples of where many people’s rational and logic don’t match up with their actions. This is part of being human. (This is may be why many experienced people sometimes ignore obvious avalanche conditions. I find Jamie’s outlook on risk refreshing in world of tech avalanche weenies. (me included) Same with SpreadEagle’s. And having the run of your life each run is sure a hell of lot more fun than smoking cigarettes. I don’t know, maybe you are suppose to grow out of these things before they kill you. Maybe I find his attitude refreshing because I have grown so cautious that I now grow old never getting to ski the line for which I have been waiting to be perfect form. I think Jamie was very calculated in the risks he took but he did think outside the box with his approach to risk. This is what allowed him to be so progressive. It may be analogous to his spiritual beliefs… it was not a formal religion, but a spiritual connection and I think he felt that he was not always the only one in charge of his destiny. His unique outlook is refreshing and is on of the things that made him such an individual. In the name of progressing avalanche science and understanding heuristics, we can’t assume everyone thinks the same way. Jamie lived a full life..balls to walls... and got to experience things that many of us will never know.

Rest in Peace Jamie Pierre

[Lindahl]

Rocks, tickler trees, bushes, etc. are all facet farms and make triggering a slide so much easier. I think we should start to emphasize more how sketchy early season snowpacks can be.

Your warning reminds me of this accident from way back:
http://avalanche.state.co.us/acc/acc...ident=19990123

Though the ski tracks enter through relatively tight aspens, there are other clues that this is a very dangerous place to be. Notice the brush sticking up through the snow, both above and below the crown face. Also notice the shadow line where the crown face crosses the ski tracks. Doug Fesler and Jill Fredston (authors of the avalanche book Snow Sense) call areas of snow-covered brush "facet gardens". Very weak depth hoar (sugar snow) is found in abundance in areas of snow-covered brush and willows. The brush supports the shallow snow, not allowing the snow to settle and strengthen. Since the snow cannot settle (compact) the snow cover remains very porous; the branches also provide plenty of air spaces within the snow and this further enhances the development of depth hoar. Instead of holding the snow on the slope, the brush actually makes the snow weaker and less stable.

Rocks can do the same, but in another way, through heat transfer (exaggerating the temperature gradient). Scary when you consider what most people think of this type of terrain:

Before I started touring and taking courses, I had the incorrect assumption that trees and rocks would always act like anchors. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

[skifishbum]

If you desire to understand snow/stability science you pursue it. You call or read the uac reports.
you try and edjucate yourself through classes or education.
you probably carry avvy gear which can be used as evacsleds or splints or to test for stabilities.
You probably don't booter one on top of each other on cosiderable/high days up concave known + 30 degree avvy chutes while makin phone calls.

exactly where did this "TON" of avalanche knowledge that you speak of come from
OSMOSIS????
No disrespect but imo he didn't get understand or want to.
ps wow made 287 turns on bonkers smokin a ciggie.

[treebark]

I know what you're saying SFB...I was just thinking that he skied day-in and day-out all day long. Much of it backcountry slackcountry.... for years and years in some of the most avalanche prone country in the world. Although not giving him formal training it did give him lots of experience and knowledge...mostly self taught. I'm sure a lot of it was tucked away in there, seat of pants style.

But you are right ...There is no substitute for the formal training and the drive to understand the science...and a sense of self preservation. Jamie didn’t do things the way everyone else did them. If you are a pioneer no one can teach you. There was no one to teach Ed LaChapelle, he taught himself. Did I just compare Jamie Pierre to Ed LaChapelle?

But kind of like with Jaime's jumps... he taught himself with years or successful calculated risk and was a pioneer in this area.

I’m not trying to put Jamie on a pedestal or justify his actions...just trying to understand the human element or heuristics of this type of accident.

287 turns smoking a ciggie...sweeet...I saw the picture…I wonder if I could have the best of three worlds?

[wasatchcrawler]

treebark
After looking at some maps and photos (I do not know what every little shot at Alta is called because I rarely ski anymore), the slide I saw was not SE's Little Chute slide. The slide I saw did not get reported to UAC, which I find amazing since it rattled the whole shoulder area, but no one was caught so I guess it got overlook and the other slides where people got hurt and caught got the headlines. I reported it to Alta partol but not UAC (I should have). The slide was in Alta, skiers right of upper Baldy shoulder, and it came off of that north-northwest facing steep rocky face and cliff area up there, it was not northwest facing Baldy in Snowbird territory. Ya, I did not know if Jamie and party went left or right up there, and it was so soon after I talked to them I figured it was them. I am amazed they did not hear the slide (it was loud) or me screaming avalanche. There was also a very small slide on the ridge that did get reported to the UAC (called Baldy shoulder on there site). It was uphill about 40 feet away from me when I was putting my splitboard together, I saw Jamie and party walk up to it and look and then hike around it. Thats the last I saw of them. They must have decsended Snowbird's northwest facing Baldy. A very bold move considering that is a very avalanche prone area. Remember the fatality a few years ago there, and after control work had been done.

[covert]

But kind of like with Jaime's jumps... he taught himself with years or successful calculated risk and was a pioneer in this area.

Successful engagement with a scenario does not necessarily validate the risk calculation that occurred prior. Just sayin.

Far more often the opposite is true: people make all the wrong decisions but get away with it and feel validated in their decision making process. Slippery slope that results in the confusion of experience with expertise.

[treebark]

Good point covert. You could role the dice 7 times getting snake eyes each time, Does that mean the next role will be snake eyes?

Thanks for the reply wasatchcrawler, that clears up part of the puzzle. and yes, thanks for reminding me about the small Baldy Shoulder slide reported on UAC that same day. I had forgotten. This is another piece of the puzzle, as Jamie walked around it. Note that it was not reported by the triggering party, but by the second party right behind them. There is no time stated in report but it seems like this slide happened some time before your party and Jamie's party got there. Also note that there are now 2 other slides being reportred on UAC on the Alta side of Baldy, one at 11:30am west of Main Chute Exit, and one from 11:00am in the same location. I think these two are the same slide but still not the one you witnessed.

[PNWbrit]

But kind of like with Jaime's jumps... he taught himself with years or successful calculated risk

Or like the old joke about the optimistic suicide who jumped out of skyscraper, "ok so far, ok so far"

[neckdeep]

This accident brings to mind the observations made by Gonzales in his essential book "Deep Survival: who lives, who dies and why". Anyone in this thread who has not read this book, do so, it will make you a much wiser person. The point Gonzales makes is that heuristic assumptions often cause us to compound our levels of risk to a point that, if risk comes to fruition, the result is almost certain to be a catastrophic outcome. His point being that we need to respect how each decision we make can have a multiplying effect on our other decisions and that survival demands we keep a "big picture" perspective of systemic risk.

Honestly, how many of us would take a monetary bet where the odds are strongly in our favor but, if the house wins, you die. But many of us do this with health and life in a rather cavalier fashion. In this case, I see this when I look at the hazards studding that chute in the UAC report photos. To my mind, the question of "will this slide" is eclipsed by "if it does slide, can I survive a 40 mph tumble down through those rocks." I have to wonder if this question even came into their situational awareness. Because if you told me that there's just a 1 in 20 chance it's going to slide but if it does I'll be somersaulting helmetless through hundreds of feet of exposed rocks, I'd say that was a shitty bet for a meager payoff and you are not thinking clearly.

A sad day and one can only hope there's a few groms out there who learn from this. JP certainly was the bravest skier out there and noone will ever take that away from him. Oh well....they say there are lots of bold pilots and old pilots but not many old, bold pilots. Gonzales opines that survival favors people who are humble in the face of nature, calm, observant and flexible. People who are strong and confident in their abilities to overcome anything are the likely ones to steer straight into heuristic traps and die.

[Tye 1on]

This accident brings to mind the observations made by Gonzales in his essential book "Deep Survival: who lives, who dies and why". Anyone in this thread who has not read this book, do so, it will make you a much wiser person. The point Gonzales makes is that heuristics often cause us to compound our levels of risk to a point that, if risk comes to fruition, the result is almost certain to be a catastrophic outcome. His point being that we need to respect how each decision we make can have a multiplying effect on our other decisions.

Honestly, how many of us would take a monetary bet where the odds are strongly in our favor but if the house wins, you die. But many of us do this with health and life in a rather cavalier fashion. In this case, I see this when I look at the hazards studding that chute in the UAC report photos. To my mind, the question of "will this slide" is eclipsed by "if it does slide, can I survive a 40 mph tumble down through those rocks." I have to wonder if this question even came into their risk assessment.

Good points. Looks like a great book, thanks for the rec.

[Trackhead]

I don't know why JP ignored the risks....but isn't that what made him famous in the first place? Doing what others wouldn't even think about doing?
He was rewarded for that type of behavior over and over. He made a life out of it!
The media, ski industry and everyone else condoned his risk taking up until the time it killed him....and now people say what he did was ignorant. Interesting, isn't it?

Meh, what Jamie did was fucking mild and pedestrian when compared to Alex Honnold or Uli Steck.

Criticizing him for not having a beacon/shovel/probe is idiotic when we are praising these wacko climbing soloists in the same breath. All athletes are media whores, and big risk is the way to achieve the media. Like it or not, we perpetuate this shit. Personally, I think filming a climber soloing stuff is the gayest form of whoring ever. They all say they are doing it for personal reasons, but come on, you're doing it with four different camera angles for your sponsors. Quit kidding yourself...........

It would be interesting to put a ten year ban on TR's and ski films, then see how many people are hucking huge or just pulling it back a little in an effort to stay alive.

None of my comments are directly aimed at this specific incident. They are more just about "hucking for bucks" and "Kodak Courage".

[rip]

This is a great discussion here.

To expand on TreeBarks post a little I have been trying to put myself into the situation to try and imagine what scenario could lead me to similar decisions. How does this sound.. (I have no idea what their original plan was, just brainstorming, based on my own experiences from that day)

The plan is to head up to Alta for some preseason pow, getting a little late start but who cares, we'll find something fun to ski. As you get to alta, by the time they started hiking its likely they had heard of slides on gunsight, maybe little chute, and even eagles nest. NE, and N aspects. Hiking up the traverse to wildcat chair there was another small slide above the cattrack between bad news and wildcat, another NE aspect.

You get higher up on the mtn, and hopefully its becoming obvious things are a little unstable, and now the plan needs to change.. you dont want to call it and just ski back down under wildcat chair, the safe option, but in your head W aspects could be ok, you could drop into Snowbird.

They do, and have a run with no activity that no one is exactly sure where they dropped.

Now here, is where I think the biggest mistake could have been made, instead of calling it a day and heading down peruvian gulch, they decide to boot up and hit one more west or nw shot. Easy to be lured by untracked powder slashes of the previous run, and not wanting to wallow out the flats since they are on boards. However, things are changing, its getting late in the day, the sun is warming all aspects, back at alta stonecrusher has slid, a NW slope, there are no longer "safe" aspects.

Even if they witnessed the slide on the cirque(this is unclear) it might not have stopped them, it was ENE and in their heads already a no go.

Now factor in that you have left the unbelievably thick crowds over at alta, are now enjoying an empty resort to yourself, and have a chance to head up and get first tracks of the season down one of your favorite runs you ski all the time. Oh yeah, and remember your profession for the last 15 years has been as a professional risk taker.

I'm not saying these are all good decisions but to learn from these events its very important to not think of JP and partner as "risk taking idiots."(not that I think anyone in this thread is doing so) But they did made decisions that led to the death of one person.

edit- To add to this a little more. I guess what is really on my mind is that I just don't think that they started out with anywhere near the intention of, "lets hike up Alta, ride into the bird, and end the day with south chute!" But somehow they ended up there at the end of the day. May be an excellent example of how one thing leads to another to another, and if you can't step back and look at the big pictured you end up somewhere you would never be in the first place.

Observed slides on East facing aspects sends you into snowbird, being on a snowboard and not wanting to wallow out the flats of peruvian gulch sends you up the cirque, lust for pow sends you down a run that ends your life.

[Blurred]

Meh, what Jamie did was fucking mild and pedestrian when compared to Alex Honnold or Uli Steck.

I disagree and I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Pierre sent 200+ feet several times. The first time Uli or Honnold send 200 feet will be their last.

They're all super sick but I think comparing one to the others as being pedestrian is not a very well thought out statement from you.

[The AD]

Far more often the opposite is true: people make all the wrong decisions but get away with it and feel validated in their decision making process.

I agree and what happened was a terrible tragedy, but I have to say when I first heard this news I was not in the least bit shocked or surprised. It almost felt inevitable.

[skifishbum]

I disagree and I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Pierre sent 200+ feet several times. The first time Uli or Honnold send 200 feet will be their last.

They're all super sick but I think comparing one to the others as being pedestrian is not a very well thought out statement from you.

sendin 200' cliffs =apples
understanding snow stability = oranges
you an lead a horse to water give him the info easily avaiable but you can't make him fill the bong with it

[danimal's dead]

Nice comments PNW Brit, I thought you were just a dick in polyass, guess you're dick in real life too.

I can't stand all this self righteous, I'm safer than them, bullchit. Any of you could die any day on any average ski hill. If you're so concerned about your safety go play golf, or go bowling.

Jamie was a bad mofo who pushed himself way beyond what most of us have the balls to do. For that he'll be remebered, not for one day of bad luck.

[Blurred]

Nice comments PNW Brit, I thought you were just a dick in polyass, guess you're dick in real life too.

I can't stand all this self righteous, I'm safer than them, bullchit. Any of you could die any day on any average ski hill. If you're so concerned about your safety go play golf, or go bowling.

Jamie was a bad mofo who pushed himself way beyond what most of us have the balls to do. For that he'll be remebered, not for one day of bad luck.

Good post.

[Blurred]

sendin 200' cliffs =apples
understanding snow stability = oranges
you an lead a horse to water give him the info easily avaiable but you can't make him fill the bong with it

WHUT IS GUD ANURISM METHY? GLAD TO SEE YER STILL BANGIN' ROUND DEAZ PARTS U OLD BEATR!!!

2 OXYCOTINS ARE WORTH ONE BUD IN DA BUSH.

YO! FRIEND IZ HAVIN' BACH PARTY GOT STRIPS PLZ HIT UP YOUR HOME SLICE FRIEND WIT GRAY PUBES SKI BUILDERZ OF DELAMS PRO MODS FOR SOME BLOWZERZ!

PEACE POW AND PERCS!

[Trackhead]

I disagree and I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Pierre sent 200+ feet several times. The first time Uli or Honnold send 200 feet will be their last.

They're all super sick but I think comparing one to the others as being pedestrian is not a very well thought out statement from you.

It stems more form the idea of risk taking and what we deem acceptable, cool, or not cool. My point being, people are calling Jamie careless for no beacon/shovel/probe, supposed standards in backcountry skiing. Yet soloists are applauded for their risk taking.

[Blurred]

It stems more form the idea of risk taking and what we deem acceptable, cool, or not cool. My point being, people are calling Jamie careless for no beacon/shovel/probe, supposed standards in backcountry skiing. Yet soloists are applauded for their risk taking.

Yeah, good point. I stated the same thing basically a few posts back.....

Why didn't anyone criticize Billy Poole when he died? I think that's how most thought JP would die.

[Trackhead]

Humans have complex brain chemistry, and sometimes kids, families, and aging aren't enough to influence a persons behavior to "acceptable levels". That's a fact. No amount of castration will "fix" some people. So enjoy their time on this earth, and leave it at that. Celebrate their life, even if it was careless as hell.