Loveland Pass avalanche 4.20.13

[NoPostholio]

This lou dawson guy is a total d-bag, he drives three hours to go investigate some avalanche and does a write up on his blog about how these guys fucked up. Way to go lou, I'm glad your the smartest guy in colorado. Way to piss all over 5 dead people. Way to point out how they fucked up and how smart you are.

His nice little write up is pure self promotion so he can tell all his advertisers that he's getting mad hits to his blog and keep collecting money. Lou, five people haven't even been laid to rest and you shit all over them with that blog post. The rest of you people are "trying to learn from this" There isn't any learning, just pointing fingers and posturing get over yourselves, peoples lives have been turned up side down

The point is not to second guess the deceased, it is to plant the seed for someone to second guess or speak up in a similar situation in the future - under that premise, everyone is contributing except you...

[bendtheski]

Lou's and the CAIC report, especially Lou's pics helped paint a much clearer picture of the fatal mistake(s) in route choice.

Friends who were out in that area that day support the findings in Lou's and the CAIC report. IMO, last Saturday was not a day that all bc forays were unadvisable, just ones that ignored what should have been obvious red flags.

Does anyone know what visibility was like last Saturday? Maybe if the pass was socked in, and the group were unfamiliar with the terrain, they could have missed that lurking behemoth on their right?

Personally, I hate skiing anything above tree-line with poor visibility even in familiar (and avy controlled) terrain. Even if viz was decent most of the day, it would only have taken a fifteen minute passing squall to mask some otherwise glaring hazards.

[icelanticskier]

i thought lou's investigating was valuable. getting right up and into the scene of the incident is the best way to observe/learn, and get a better understanding of what went wrong.

my take on what went wrong is, you take a bc ski/ride event, attendees are stoked to come together, celebrate what a great sport/passion we all share, and what better way to do that than get right out into the bc and make some turns together? a mixed group of six decide to take a "quick" tour up into some real alpine terrain with easy access. time was probably a factor and the leader wanted to be as efficient as possible to get these guys into some beautiful terrain for a taste, but still get back in time to enjoy the rest of the event. being that it was a mixed group with some less experienced folks, the leader probably felt some added weight from this which may have clouded his judgment just a bit, enough where other more important factors were overlooked. spread out 50' apart? why would anyone or group spread 50' apart when "one at a time" is just as easy to do, but much safer? time. or just more clouded judgement from the dynamic of the group and the excitement from the festive atmosphere of the day due to the event. was a cloudy overcast day from what i understand. flat light can cause certain visuals to become harder to recognize, but i doubt that was the issue here.

tragic.

lou seems to poo poo solo touring. well lou, if this tragedy involved a solo skier, we'd be talking about 1 person dead and not 5.

rog

[irratator]

Mr Icelandic: I think you're hittin it..... right.

[Meadow Skipper]

...my take ... probably ... probably ... why would anyone ...? ... or just ... from what i understand ...but i doubt that was the issue here....

[icelanticskier]

coming from a meadow skipper................tool.

rog

[Zeedashbo]

That lou guy sure sets a douchey tone in his writing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using TGR Forums

[Lindahl]

^^^I actually had a much better understanding of the terrain and exposure of the party after Lou's field trip than I did from the CAIC report.

+1 me too

[Meadow Skipper]

coming from a meadow skipper................tool.

Bwah! That's it? That's what you got? lol And after that and your post I responded to, you called me a tool? Too funny. What a fucking moron.

[~mikey b]

Lou sounds like a tool sometimes, but I have grown to respect him more over the years. Rog sounds like a tool sometimes, but he deserves some respect too. I sound like a tool much of the time and some respect me.

MS has never sounded like a tool to me and has my utmost respect.

[old goat]

Lou's and the CAIC report, especially Lou's pics helped paint a much clearer picture of the fatal mistake(s) in route choice.

Friends who were out in that area that day support the findings in Lou's and the CAIC report. IMO, last Saturday was not a day that all bc forays were unadvisable, just ones that ignored what should have been obvious red flags.

Does anyone know what visibility was like last Saturday? Maybe if the pass was socked in, and the group were unfamiliar with the terrain, they could have missed that lurking behemoth on their right?

Personally, I hate skiing anything above tree-line with poor visibility even in familiar (and avy controlled) terrain. Even if viz was decent most of the day, it would only have taken a fifteen minute passing squall to mask some otherwise glaring hazards.

I also agree that Lou's description was very helpful and completely appropriate. I too was wondering about visibility. It was snowing. Not only the avalanche slope but the "obvious" safer route may not have been obvious that day. That's what maps are for. A lot of times we (at least I) don't use them in the mountains on day trips when landmarks are obvious, but they are also useful for reading terrain for risk and planning a safe route, if you know how to use them, which I don't--I don't know how to read slope angle and alpha angle from a map. (And of course terrain features too small to show up on the most detailed map can kill you or save you.)

[icelanticskier]

Bwah! That's it? That's what you got? lol And after that and your post I responded to, you called me a tool? Too funny. What a fucking moron.

if i thought you were worth the effort, i'da put more effort into it. tool.

rog

[summit]

I also agree that Lou's description was very helpful and completely appropriate. I too was wondering about visibility. It was snowing. Not only the avalanche slope but the "obvious" safer route may not have been obvious that day. That's what maps are for. A lot of times we (at least I) don't use them in the mountains on day trips when landmarks are obvious, but they are also useful for reading terrain for risk and planning a safe route, if you know how to use them, which I don't--I don't know how to read slope angle and alpha angle from a map. (And of course terrain features too small to show up on the most detailed map can kill you or save you.)

There are some great map tools available for reading slope angles. The AIARE fieldbook and several other fieldbooks contain these tools and Brooks Range Mountaineering sells a transparent overlay map tool with these features. http://brooks-range.com/All-in-One-Map-Tool.html Also a great tool for nav.

[summit]

I guess a major problem I have with Lou's report is it has played on this whole idea that these folks "almost made it." It goes back to my "close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades." Safe zones are truly safe or they are just "safer." The route Lou proposes looks totally safe in hindsight... but if it "went bigger," Lou's route could have resulted in the same tragedy. If the slope had gone smaller, they'd had been safe. Quite frankly, the routes Lou lays out as the "woulda/coulda/shoulda" is a bunch of 20/20 hindsight "safer zone" horseshit especially if he wants to claim that they had inappropriately exposed themselves the second they touched the trail. I also think Lou is overblowing the danger of the first section of trail; that was not an inappropriate place to be: witness the massive SAR response along that trail.

I'm not taking issue with critically analyzing and learning from the situation, but Lou's proposed analysis is NOT spot on in my opinion.

One presumes that his "stupidity" with people visiting the site relates to his fear of the first trail section and people proceeding without gear or knowledge and that he is not a total hypocrite.

[simple]

The problem i have with Lou's blog post is that he could have waited just a few days to post it. Saying goodbye to these boys was fucking hard.

Fastfred covered one side of my feelings well. The other side is much like Summit's. The biggest fear is that we all could have made this mistake. Lou fucking Dawson included.

[bendtheski]

^of course that was probably 4-5 hours after the slide; a lot could change in that time. I know flights was unable to respond due to weather; don't know if it was due to wind or viz or both; don't know how much difference it would have made anyway.

[skifishbum]

If you go to the circus enough times, eventually you will see an elephant. Even if you find elephants repulsive and avoid them studiously.

Condolences to everyone who knew and loved these men.

Once again the alias of a dead WRITER wins the thread.
special vibes for the lone survior living through this hell must only be compounded by industry leaches/BLOGGERS "pestering" them for their story to make sucking slong for ad space easier in the guise of keeping us "SAFE"

[ShadyNasty]

Theres been enough discussion of death here, so I'm going to address this instead

Both L1s I've taken (WA and CO) focused heavily on terrain. CO a little more so. I'm surprised to hear this is not always the case. Alpine World Ascents in CO did a very good job of this for those that still don't have their L1.

I've noticed first hand on numerous occassions that this is a major weak spot with most in the BC who have never taken a course, even those with lots of experience, much to my surprise. It's been scary to see.

What in your Level 1 was such useful knowledge that you took the course twice?

Look Level 1 is nothing but a prep class for Level 2+companion rescue. Take a Level 1 and you are possibly qualified to follow a more experienced person. Level 2 makes you a recreational leader who can take small groups of friends they know and trust into areas they know (my level). Level 3 makes you a professional.

Other than companion rescue, the Level 1 course only teaches you to identify avalanche slopes and redflags, but they give you NO TOOLS that would allow you to complete the formal decision making process; deciding whether a slope is safe to ski based on the forecast, your observations, and test results. They can barely cover all the basics of this process in the Level 2 course, so they don't want to even mention assessing stability in Level 1 and give false confidence.

Change the industry's standard from "wear a beacon & take a course" too "find Level 2&3 riders and follow them not just in the mountains, but around town, at the bar. Badger them with questions and use their knowledge to guide you and you are ready to take the LEVEL 2 yourself."

Do this (I did) and you might not only last a few seasons in spite of a defective brain (I did), you may also make numerous lifelong friends and mentors (I did)

That and yes, AWA is one of the best education/guiding outfits in the country. I took Level 2 with them

[ShadyNasty]

and okay I gotta jump to Lou's defense here, because even though I don't know him, I know his son (one of the friends and mentors mentioned above). But through his blog, his son, and somehow all my other HS friends skiing with him, Lou has had a major impact on many of my closest backcountry friends. I honestly think that with out his advice, one of us would be dead by now. I can say that the Dawsons helped change my life

So SFB, which is worse? Lou Dawson feeling that his status obligates him to be a huge advocate for backcountry safety so that his son and his friends don't feel pressured by the Legend of Lou to go kill themselves? (selling adspace according to you)

Or...

GearMakers pushing the buy a 'beacon, shovel, probe" message (now with avalung or ABS)? Which is an obvious way to grow their customer base and sell gear by creating the illusion that gear, rather than knowledge, is what keeps people safe in the backcountry. (glaring at you BCA)

and before anyone else calls one of the orignal legends of American backcountry skiing a hypocrite, maybe you should read up on the hindsight Lou provides about his own experiences

http://www.wildsnow.com/avalanche-sa...l-dawson-1982/

"If you choose this sort of sport, as I have, you stay alive by using elaborate safety systems. In my case, I had these perfected. But human beings being what we are — proud, competitive, impatient — we sooner or later make a mistake. On top of that, risk sports give you feelings of invincibility. You come back alive, and you know hubris. These feelings are imaginary — they have nothing to do with the reality of snow moving at 100 mph. Edward Whymper confronted this more than 100 years ago during his first ascent of the Matterhorn. “A momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime,” he wrote after four of his companions fell to their death on that famous climb." - Lou Dawson

[_Aaron_]

Look Level 1 is nothing but a prep class for Level 2+companion rescue. Take a Level 1 and you are possibly qualified to follow a more experienced person. Level 2 makes you a recreational leader who can take small groups of friends they know and trust into areas they know (my level). Level 3 makes you a professional.

That is painfully oversimplified and generalized. Like any class some students come out with an understanding of all the material they were taught and others come out with varying levels of understanding. Without some sort of test of skills and knowledge at the end of a class (Such as in a L1 and L2) there is no standard that the graduates must meet. Just because somebody sat though a L2 doesn't mean they are automatically ready to lead friends in a recreational setting. Some defiantly are but some are defiantly not.

BTW Im not in favor of any sort of test for L1 and L2 but felt the need to point out that just because you took a class doesn't mean you're automatically ready to make good decisions. Its a great start, and a great way to build or learn new skills but, like most things in the avalanche world, isn't a solid go/no-go.

[ShadyNasty]

yeah I know it was over-simplified, just like a level 1 course

did you want me keep on elaborating? cuz i do that all day anyways and people generally want me to shut up

[ShadyNasty]

I also never used taking a Level 2 as an indicator that I was 'ready to go', I went out for years starting as a teenager before taking a Level 1 or 2. No one can or should tell you that you are ready to go, other than yourself

all I was saying is that i found the information in my Level 1 to be almost useless for anything other than preparing me for the AIARE way of doing things, so that I would be able to communicate properly in a Level 2

basically all I am oversimplifying to make the point that Level 1 is not basic training, 1&2 is. From what I hear the Canadian Operations Level 1 IS pretty much an AIARE Level 2

but i think we basically agree here Aaron

[_Aaron_]

but i think we basically agree here Aaron

We do. I didnt mean to say that you or anybody else had taken a L2 as an "all good" just to clarify so that someone else wouldn't read and think that a couple days in a classroom or in the field is all they needed.

[DasBlunt]

BTW Im not in favor of any sort of test for L1 and L2 but felt the need to point out that just because you took a class doesn't mean you're automatically ready to make good decisions. Its a great start, and a great way to build or learn new skills but, like most things in the avalanche world, isn't a solid go/no-go.

Why not have a test? Guys "claiming" particular "certification" because they took a class, thus implying superiority in hierarchy. Does a person going through Canadian guide school have tests for certs?

Just a point of discourse, I know and understand you were specific in making that not the point.

[ShadyNasty]

jeesus christ Das Blunt that's all I can fucking say is Jeesus christ