Interesting interview with Drew Tabke on Freeskier

[Freuchen Icepick]

worth checking out, curious interplay... i suspect reactions will vary.

http://freeskier.com/stories/why-dec...ith-drew-tabke

[arild]

l agree 100%. Smart guy.

norsk

[Buster Highmen]

When the interviewer can ski as well as Drew in as many places, I might give them some credibility.
Until then, they should stfu and let him have his say.

[Schemeboat]

terrible interviewing...

but she has reasons

[toast2266]

When the interviewer can ski as well as Drew in as many places, I might give them some credibility.
Until then, they should stfu and let him have his say.

The interviewer was part of the tunnel creek group that has been receiving so much attention lately. That would seem to further detract from her credibility, although I guess it means she's probably put a lot of thought into the subject.

[snapt]

Weird interview by Megan, Drew makes a lot of good points that a lot folks have hinted at. She's being really dense to not see where he's coming from.

[Poop~Ghost]

I read this in the paper magazine (I haven't paid for a subscription EVER and I still get that thing).

Dude's got a point - skiing deep pow in the BC is probably the worst place to do it. Having a beacon on means absolutely jack shit - other than body retrieval if you get caught. Having a float keeps you on top - until you get blasted through a tree and impaled.

It's the same conversation we have been having here on tgr since the beginning of time... does having the gear change your mind. Nobody is going to have the same opinion because we're all made up of different stuff. Dude A is going make riskier decisions with a beacon and ABS on and Dude B is going to always make the same decision.

I don't think the interviewer was bad or has any less credibility at all... I think they have a different point of view.

[PNWbrit]

Weird interview by Megan

I can't believe she's a pro.

[Dantheman]

Pretty much agree 100%. I view my beacon as a body recovery device so that my loved ones can have my funeral in a timely fashion and S&R doesn't have to waste time and risk lives with a probe line.

[iscariot]

People were saying the same shit when helmets first became widely used, resort or otherwise.

"I don't wear a helmet because they don't prevent concussions and they people will ski stuff that they wouldn't or shouldn't ski otherwise, just because they feel safe in their helmet."

False dichotomy.

Has wearing helmets saved lives? Yes.

Has wearing helmets increased risk taking? Probably.

Has BC gear saved lives? Yes.

Has BC gear increased risk taking? Probably.


The answer is both, not either or.

Wear the gear and make good decisions.


Gear won't save you.

Decisions won't save you.


Both will increase the likelihood of fun instead of death.

With they prevent it? No. Again, false dichotomy.


To maximize TOTAL survival chances, use both.





Horrible interview, and really bad responses, creating false dichotomy.

[Scotsman50]

Drew's views are over simplistic but I understand his POV.
Beacons have saved many lives.
Good decision making has saved many lives.
You need both with the emphasis on good decision making.
Unfortunately, decision making even by experienced humans is always prone to error eventually so I'll continue to try and make good decisions but retain my beacon for when I inevitably fuck up and hope that my partner can save my ass.

[The Gnarwhale]

I figured Megan was egging him on? And Drew was being sensationalist, stirring the pot just becaues? It makes for a good interview, but they could use a fact-checker.

Most glaringly, one is 60-something % likely to survive a ride in an avalanche even without beacon/shovel/probe/airbag. Add a beacon, and you're something like 75% likely to live. Having an airbag pack adds another 10 or 15% to your liklihood of living. When you see the airbag manufacturers claiming "90% likely to surivive!" there's a body of researching they're citing. Contrary to what Drew says, odds are on you not dying.

The other part of this interview I found both interesting and incomplete is the discussion of "risk homeostais." Theres a good body of reasearch that documents the change of accidents over time when new safety equipment is required. When seatbelt laws went into effect, the fatality rate dropped for a year to three but then peope just began driving faster, causing more violent accidents, and fatality rates bumped back to their former level. That same pattern has been identified with other public safety mandates around the world.

The snow pros seem to think that, while you still may be 90% likely to survive an avalanche while wearing a b/s/p/airbag, you might compensate by getting avalanched more frequently and that % of backcountry skiers dying in a given year will remain similar.

[MTT]

I see where he is comming from, and I agree with him.

He really was trying to make a point. Megan of all people should have gotten it.

I had a differnt opinion of Drew before reading the article. He is not about acess the burly terrain in the Back Country for the Burly ride.

Like Myself he enjoys the adventure and solitude of the Back Country The Climbing and Skinning into a remote snow cover mountain and looking over the world is the Adventure., not the ski down. Altho that can be awfull fun.

I really do like the Spring Corn skiing over the powder.

Drew is on a whole other level than myself and the masses in general.

Hey may die in the Back Country, but he is saying I know what I am doing and I am not going to put myself in situations where that is likely to happen.

Just to play devils advocate, when you are out touring alone, why the F would you need a probe and shovel.

[beaterdit]

I agree with the basic point. Also think both parties were behaving in a contrary manner.

Bottom line though, even if all the gear increases survivability to 90%, is a one in ten chance of dieing acceptable? For any sane person the answer is NO, so you make decisions based on not going down. Maximizing your chance of survival IF you fuck up and get caught is still a no-brainer.

Shit, even if it was a one in ten chance of 'just' a season ending injury, you'd do anything you could to avoid that ie: making smart decisions.

[The Gnarwhale]

Bottom line though, even if all the gear increases survivability to 90%, is a one in ten chance of dieing acceptable? For any sane person the answer is NO, so you make decisions based on not going down. Maximizing your chance of survival IF you fuck up and get caught is still a no-brainer.

Former UAC director Tom Kimbrough likes saying, "If you were about go into a bar but got warned that there was considerable danger of getting beat up badly or killed, would you go in?" Touche.

[Freuchen Icepick]

I think tabke is advocating safe skiing, and reacting perhaps to the focus of recent discussion on decision making in terms of risk assessment. B/c That's missing a central point - you can do it in ways where risk is eliminated. And you certainly don't need a beacon if there's no chance of being involved in an avalanche.

[Poop~Ghost]

To make this point a little more pointed - if the crew that the author was with on Steven's DID NOT have beacons, probes, ABS... would they still have been out there that day?

[MTT]

To make this point a little more pointed - if the crew that the author was with on Steven's DID NOT have beacons, probes, ABS... would they still have been out there that day?

The coversation those two might have had about that, (Off the record) would have been an interesting abet harsh read.

[ACH]

This right here sums it up for me:

"The final chapter in all avalanche books is psychology. It’s more decision making and goals. The conversation among the group shouldn’t be, “How much risk can we take and get away with?” It should be, “How can we be 100-percent safe and still have fun?”

[pvars]

Agree you need to make good decisions, etc. and beacon oftentimes is a body recovery device, but there are other considerations as well...if you get buried and don't come back, people will inevitability go looking for you...by making their search harder and longer you're putting rescue professionals at unnecessarily greater risk in avy terrain and your loved ones will not get closure until you thaw out in the spring...also if there is any chance there will be others in the backcountry that day that need your assistance and you're not carrying...the right thing to do is carry the standard equipment and practice so you know how to use it.

[Poop~Ghost]

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012...t=tunnel-creek

In case anybody has been living under a rock and missed this massive 5 part article about the steven's pass avy... it's impressive reading.

Could barely get through the last section without selling all my bc gear on gearswap.

[komo]

Thanks for posting, interesting read. I agree with much of what Drew said.
I would point out though that it's no accident that AIARE's level 1 is titled Decision Making in Avalanche Terrain.
This focus on decisions is intentional, so people that are actually using their level 1 training (i.e. in decision making) are more in line with Drew's attitude than he seems to assume.

I also agree with other posters expressing surprise at Megan's reactions.
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt though, that she was egging him on and playing devil's advocate as a good interviewer.
It doesn't come off well though.

Most glaringly, one is 60-something % likely to survive a ride in an avalanche even without beacon/shovel/probe/airbag. Add a beacon, and you're something like 75% likely to live. Having an airbag pack adds another 10 or 15% to your liklihood of living. When you see the airbag manufacturers claiming "90% likely to surivive!" there's a body of researching they're citing. Contrary to what Drew says, odds are on you not dying.

A good question to ask, when presented with statistics like this, is whether they're valid in your region.
For example, at the coarsest geographic scale, one's fate as an avalanche victim depends strongly on whether they're in Canada, the US, or Europe, e.g., 50% of victims in Canada die from trauma vs 25% in the US (Fig I-1 Tremper 2008).
It'd also be worth thinking about the followup, "do they apply to the type of terrain I'm skiing?".
For terrain with consequences, the odds may differ greatly...

[AlderBash]

I like what Drew is saying and appreciate his perspective.

A similar discussion takes place in brown bear country- carrying a gun leads a person to believe they are safe from bears. But a person without a gun will make noise, talk to themselves, etc to avoid an interaction. The person without the gun is probably safer in many scenarios. But a combo of preventative care and urgent care is probably best.

On a side note- Saw "A Las Kaminatas" with Drew and Chopo Diaz the other day - pretty nice film about ski-plane touring if you get the chance.

[Trackhead]

Just to play devils advocate, when you are out touring alone, why the F would you need a probe and shovel.

To save the life of people like Otter, who get buried, and then are dug out by by partners and a solo "angel".

Without that guy, Otter might be dead.

Not saying it's anyone's responsibility to do so, but it certainly can be useful in a place as crowded as the Wasatch.

[213]

Well, I tried to stir the pot on the comments, we'll see if it works!

I disagree with the point that decisions can 100% save you (objective hazards notwithstanding or as I said in the comments crazy alpha angles). If you ski low angle trees in pow and follow the sun on corn slopes, the probability of avalanche approaches zero. Make the right (safety speaking) decisions, and you will not be visited by the dragon.

But that means that you are not shreddin the sickness brah!

Oh yea, I'm from Cali, and I make bad decisions all the time! So take my avalanche bs (soon to be phd) with maritime heed