"How arm-chair quarterbacking avalanche tragedies perpetuates the problem"

[babybear]

yea I think the grizzly gulch incident is sort of why people are taking part of this conversation.

[camlax]

remember, just because somebody "took an avalanche class" doesn't mean squat. i've watched countless students sit through classes staring at iphones, dicking around with their bros, or just not getting anything useful out of it.

[ts01]

The problem is not amqb'ing, it's bad amqb'ing.

Post-mortems are the wrong place for dickishness and self promotion so the internet versions become troubling (but internet versions of many otherwise valuable discussions are troubling). Otherwise, bring it on. I prefer the professional after-assessments by the pros who deal with it daily but the voices in the crowd are good to hear too.

The nature of this risk is it could easily be impossible to learn from our own mistakes - "one and done" is a real possibility. So we ought to think seriously about the mistakes of others. It can be done respectfully (eg, Stevens Pass story in NYT) or pointlessly and rudely (we've all seen it).

From a personal standpoint it seems like being an organ donor. If remains go to science or to prolong or improve the life of another, great. But not so great to be shredded by a pack of ignorant hyenas.

[skifishbum]

remember, just because somebody "took an avalanche class" doesn't mean squat. i've watched countless students sit through classes staring at iphones, dicking around with their bros, or just not getting anything useful out of it.

one of the few certs you can acquire w/out havin to prove any competence
basically show up and you get the piece of paper and the right to call yourself experienced
all 72 hours worth

[cmcrawfo]

one of the few certs you can acquire w/out havin to prove any competence
basically show up and you get the piece of paper and the right to call yourself experienced
all 72 hours worth

Its not much different than the vast majority of Occupationally related safety training. Any one who has taken industry tickets can attest. Training is just one aspect of safety. Many industries use the accronym S.K.A.T.E to demonstrate this; Skills, Knowledge, Attitudes, Training, Experience .... You need all 5, and you need to continually self evaluate and address deficiencies.

Avy training is not regulated, and even if it was, there still wouldn't be a requirement to demonstrate mastery of the topic upon completion. Just getting the ticket doesn't make you experienced or knowledgeable, anyone who thinks thats is ignorant, arrogant and/or dangerous.

The ownus should always be on the rider (or worker) to ensure that they have an understanding of the topic, before they commence.

After any course, including avy courses, all you get to call yourself is trained.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

one of the few certs you can acquire w/out havin to prove any competence
basically show up and you get the piece of paper and the right to call yourself experienced
all 72 hours worth

This kind of bugs me, Avy 1 doesn't provide any certification that I'm aware of yet I hear people claim all the time "I have my Avy 1 Cert"

[Angle Parking]

I think that a lot of mmqb's are just trying to convince themselves that they would never make the mistakes that the victims did. This in turn allows them to justify making risky decisions in the back country because they think of themselves as experts.

^^^^ Bingo.

[skifishbum]

Its not much different than the vast majority of Occupationally related safety training. Any one who has taken industry tickets can attest. Training is just one aspect of safety. Many industries use the accronym S.K.A.T.E to demonstrate this; Skills, Knowledge, Attitudes, Training, Experience .... You need all 5, and you need to continually self evaluate and address deficiencies.

Avy training is not regulated, and even if it was, there still wouldn't be a requirement to demonstrate mastery of the topic upon completion. Just getting the ticket doesn't make you experienced or knowledgeable, anyone who thinks thats is ignorant, arrogant and/or dangerous.

The ownus should always be on the rider (or worker) to ensure that they have an understanding of the topic, before they commence.

After any course, including avy courses, all you get to call yourself is trained.

in da roofin, fishin, and skibum industry
we smoke dope and call it safety meetings
had to pass a written and practical for emt though
odd that avvy 3 has prerequisites but 2 don't other than taken 1 and they let me clepps dat

[bendtheski]

“As soon as you realize ‘that could be me,’ that’s when you’ve arrived as an avalanche expert,” says Tremper.
“You see that the world is a lot more random place than you imagined."

Anyone else notice the contradiction in these two statements? I agree with the first part, but the 2nd is a cop-out, and seems to suggest that we have no hand in events, good or bad, that take place around us, which is nonsense.

It may be human nature to look at an accident report, and cherry-pick only the information that makes you feel warm and fuzzy about your decisions, and exposure to risk, but it's not very productive IMO. I think that's what the author was getting at in a roundabout way, and if that's the case, it's a valid point.

[Hugh Conway]

Anyone else notice the contradiction in these two statements? I agree with the first part, but the 2nd is a cop-out, and seems to suggest that we have no hand in events, good or bad, that take place around us, which is nonsense.

Realizing the probablistic nature isn't a copout. It's realizing the true nature of the danger. Taking it out of avalanches to finance: would you consider someone an expert who made alot of money in a short timeframe then repeatedly blew up? Or would it be someone who repeatedly made money over the course of their lifetime and built a number of great companies?

I realize it comes in great conflict with the bravado of TGR and skiing though.

[totaliboard]

not sure if this relates exactly to the thread, but ive found the quote "avalanches don't care that youve taken an avalanche class." and its true. an expert or a novice can get avalanched. in the backcountry, the playing field is level. past or future is irrelevant, and your attention and behavior determine most outcomes. not training or experience so much as dumb luck.

[jono]

True for two people in the same situation, but it says nothing about how they got there. You gotta remember to see both the probability angle and the personal decision to hand yourself over to it.

[sfotex]

Anyone else notice the contradiction in these two statements? I agree with the first part, but the 2nd is a cop-out, and seems to suggest that we have no hand in events, good or bad, that take place around us, which is nonsense.

I think it's more a nod to you can still do everything right and still be in the wrong place at the wrong time...
http://utahavalanchecenter.org/avala...-kessler-slabs

After seeing the accident site and the avalanche conditions, we all agreed that it was the kind of accident that could have happened to any of us. In the mountains, sometimes the snowpack can vary dramatically with subtle variations in terrain and only a step too far can have huge consequences. It was a sad day for all of us to lose a friend, a co-worker and such a wonderful person.

---or---
http://utahavalanchecenter.org/avala...ident-blue-ice

This party appeared to just have some bad luck and they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. With an up track in a slightly different spot, they would not have been hit by this particular slide on this particular day, but would have been vulnerable to other potential slides.

[totaliboard]

True for two people in the same situation, but it says nothing about how they got there. You gotta remember to see both the probability angle and the personal decision to hand yourself over to it.

i dont see why it matters how they got there. probability is virtually equal, and this "personal decision" does not distinguish much of anything. a decision to ski a slope is irreversible..

[jono]

It's irreversible after you start down: so there's a point at which you are trusting to luck and the probability that you set something off, but before you reach that point it's still up to your brain. In phase 1 training/experience/knowledge can do a lot of good in determining what the odds actually are going to be in phase 2 so you make an informed decision. After you make it, though, it may go well and it may go bad whether you did everything 'right' or not. Sometimes the inside straight comes through and sometimes it doesn't, but those who don't know the odds lose more often. I'm not disagreeing with what you said, I'm just saying it doesn't remove the value of learning how to make good decisions while they still matter.

Edit to take that a step further: I like that statement of equality a lot myself, but I think the way it relates to this thread is that it becomes true after the point of no return, and I think it is helpful to think of it that way.

[TahoeJ]

I'm not sure I buy into the whole "analysis prevents further incidents" argument. Are we learning? Um, maybe a little, I guess. This shit will just keep happening no matter how many other slides get analyzed. I say armchair QB away. Or don't. Who cares? Seems like half of the note-worthy slides over the past few years were fair game because in many of the cases it was stupid to even be out that day and/or anywhere near a slope that steep. And a lot of people did decide not to go those days, so they have a "right" to armchair it all they want IMO.

[ill-advised strategy]

This (the whole thing, the MMQB stuff, the backlash, the defense of analysis both thoughtful and rash) is painfully reminiscent of what happens when wildland firefighters die.

Somehow, I think it's just how people work.

edit for this: I have a number of fire stories where I was creeped out by a situation, decided to make an unpopular move, then saw the move confirmed...and in each of those situations I think comparative analysis of previous incidents versus current conditions was taking place unconsciously and manifesting as a generalized feeling of "this isn't right". I really believe that without that base of having studied tragic mishaps in detail I might not be here.

The question then, is how do we promote thoughtful dissemination of factual information when things go wrong...it certainly isn't by raking survivors and victims' families over the coals with dismissive, inhumane, self-serving vitriol. Digging into a situation to expose mistakes needs to be done with a great deal of decency and compassion...which are their own reasons and rewards, but also because it's so important to disallow people the luxury of feeling like they're above the accused (if you will) and it's so important to protect access to factual findings from future incidents.

It's awkward typing this, because on one hand it seems like maybe I'm ranting about something everyone should clearly understand via common sense, on the other hand it seems like plenty of people don't...and I find that troubling.

[lpkdz]

Avy 1 is a great course, but I felt like it benefitted me most by scaring the shit out of me. I learned quite a bit, but still felt poorly prepared to do anything out in the backcountry without being with someone more experienced than me. I think I learned enough to generally tell if the experienced person I am with is making shitty decisions, but the experience I choose to follow generally makes good decisions as evidenced within other activities I participate in with them. But I think that regardless, there is no course you can take that will make you safe, you really have to go out and do it a lot to get better. Unfortunately that means that you will have to put your trust in others with more experience, since I sure as shit wasn't going to cruise out into the backcountry and go to town after avy 1 or 2 for that matter. The partners I go with now are people I rock climb with who play things very safe, but I am sympathetic to noobs who are trying to gain experience with little guidance or poor teachers. You see it all the time in rock climbing- a good mentor goes a long way, a shitty mentor can kill you. You have to be careful who you put your trust in and do your due diligence in research to try and double check the more experienced party. I like the detailed post-mortems, and try to learn from them. However, when people belittle the accident by saying people are just idiots, and anyone who wasn't an idiot it wouldn't have happened to aren't doing anyone favors. Pointing out that poor decision making placed the party at increased risk is okay, but name calling just belittles the problem and may prevent people trying to learn from taking the incident seriously.

[spook]

i learn from the discussions. i used to learn more but it gets repetitive. one thing i continue to learn though is that there are a lot of people i wouldn't want to ride with. not necessarily on this board, but from reading these reports and hearing about peer pressure or group think or whatever you want to call it. especially that one that killed all those pros in washington last year or the year before.

[Meadow Skipper]

This (the whole thing, the MMQB stuff, the backlash, the defense of analysis both thoughtful and rash) is painfully reminiscent of what happens when wildland firefighters die.

Somehow, I think it's just how people work.

edit for this: I have a number of fire stories where I was creeped out by a situation, decided to make an unpopular move, then saw the move confirmed...and in each of those situations I think comparative analysis of previous incidents versus current conditions was taking place unconsciously and manifesting as a generalized feeling of "this isn't right". I really believe that without that base of having studied tragic mishaps in detail I might not be here.

The question then, is how do we promote thoughtful dissemination of factual information when things go wrong...it certainly isn't by raking survivors and victims' families over the coals with dismissive, inhumane, self-serving vitriol. Digging into a situation to expose mistakes needs to be done with a great deal of decency and compassion...which are their own reasons and rewards, but also because it's so important to disallow people the luxury of feeling like they're above the accused (if you will) and it's so important to protect access to factual findings from future incidents.

I just now came across this thread and was going to write something along ^those lines, though nowhere near as eloquently.

There are lessons in accidents that can, and should, benefit others. If that's MMQBing, then so be it. But one problem with calling victims reckless or idiots is that no one thinks they're an idiot or reckless and the lessons can be overlooked because of that. "I'm not a moron, so that won't happen to me."

A big problem with investigations into wildfire accidents is that over-the-top blaming and finger-pointing on at least one accident (Thirtymile fire) led the fire agencies into a place where now the reports have become so "nice" and muddled and soft-peddled that it's damn near impossible to learn what happened and how to avoid similar situations (Granite Mtn/Yarnell fire). There's a balance, as others have noted before me. I led an investigation on a wildfire incident once that was somewhat controversial and I think about this stuff a lot.

[hop]

I think it's more a nod to you can still do everything right and still be in the wrong place at the wrong time...
http://utahavalanchecenter.org/avala...-kessler-slabs

After seeing the accident site and the avalanche conditions, we all agreed that it was the kind of accident that could have happened to any of us. In the mountains, sometimes the snowpack can vary dramatically with subtle variations in terrain and only a step too far can have huge consequences. It was a sad day for all of us to lose a friend, a co-worker and such a wonderful person.

I still don't think he did everything right on this one. After reading through the report and looking at the pics, my armchair-o-meter tells me he got caught when he crossed over the ridge onto the new aspect. Based on the evidence I'm going to hypothesize (all I can do because I wasn't there) that if he had stayed on the aspect where he had made the rest of his ascent he probably would have been fine. We'll never know whether he crossed over to the new aspect because he thought it was good to go OR he just had a lapse of judgement but it is important to note that because he was alone he had nobody to discuss his route with or maybe snap him out of his trail-breaking.

The "final note" of that report really pisses me off because it's entirely possible/probable/I'd really hope that a competent partner could have stopped this before it started by saying "hey, getting a bit close to the ridge there, how about a kick-turn?". I've had my partners do that to me and I've done it to my partners. Aside from sharing a good time, the whole point of having solid backcountry partners is to keep an eye on each other.

This has nothing to do with flying solo in the BC. If you want to go out on your own that's great, more power to you. It's the conclusion of the report and the final note that bother me.

[jumpturn]

looks like a pretty high survival rate here...

Great vid! "they had no ABS but they came out pretty well."

[bendtheski]

looks like a pretty high survival rate here...

At first I was all like "awwww", but then I was like "yay!"

Spook delivers the emotional roller-coaster of the thread.

[splat]

The backfield went long and the line held til the whistle blew.

[simplypow]

this is thread is long overdue, just like a nice natural
cycle in the gORES. Here's to cleaving, sluffing, and stepping down/ And since there is apparently no reasonable alternative to 40 degree temps 10 days after -15 lets watch it run big