Independence Pass 2.15.14

[Slaag Master]

anymore the best predictors for avi death seem to be lots of experience, gear and at least 1 avi class!!!!! experience does not immunize against stupidity!!!!!!!!!!!

[summit]

Telemike: I do what I can in the real world. I volunteer to help others. I educate to help others. I go to my main job and help others. And on this community, I don't post much anymore, but in Slide Zone I try to pass on information and opinions that I hope are helpful to others. I also try to avoid negative assumptions of others, part of my attitude I've been working on over the years. This thread (and other avalanche threads) is NOT about me, so let's end that perrenial side-discussion once and for all?

This thread is about an avalanche, learning, the victims, reflections of the community, etc.

I like newbreaks post a lot:

That terrain during this type of avy danger... to manage it you have to thread a tiny fu*king needle, doesn't matter how experienced or inexperienced of a BC traveler you are, your margin of error is miniscule and right now probably more like Nonexistent.

Any time the margin for error is smaller than the margin of uncertrainty (or certainty of danger) it is a very bad risk. The bulliten that day indicated that was the situation even for much less hazardous and exposed terrain.

Just because you do compression tests and dig a pit, it doesn't tell the story at all, just adds context to the infinite problem of the surrounding snowpack. Human decisions are made every time. This one is a head scratcher to me.

There are lessons to learn, that's what I think the spirit of the Slide Zone forum can be. Sometimes it takes harsh criticism to unearth the lesson itself. Other times it's being directly connected to the victims and survivors.

I hope the survivors can heal quickly, and the victims families can get closure.

RIP

I take little stock in any media claim that so-and-so was an "experienced expert." That sort of typical media coverage spawned the sardonic joke at avalanche conferces that "all the experts are dead." We do teach in classes that "avalanches don't know that you are a local and don't care about your avalanche education."

I do take some stock in someone like EK3 posting and giving his impression relating to the victims backgrounds. I am puzzled on this one... the human factors that must have been at play considering the conditions and warnings? But should I be puzzled? We cannot erase human nature through awareness. Conditions? I remember listening to Ian McCammon presenting on avalanche education, decision making traps, and missed signs back in 2003. ALP TRUTH exists as a mneumonic checklist because those were the clues PRESENT that people MISSED before dying. The same for FACCETS.

As a community, as ski partners, as avalanche educators, we cannot hope to eradicate mistakes and deaths. But we can try very hard to reduce it through awareness of knowledge and a culture of good practices, communication, and thought.

I will still be keen to hear the details of this incident.

[cold_smoke]

Let's hope it was an unfortunate egress at the end of a long day, though that doesn't make things better. Tragedy sucks especially when exhilleration and good times with friends in the mountains is the expected outcome.

I for one appreciate Summit's posts and insight. Bummed to see too may rippers and good friends I've met directly and indirectly through the boards get driven away by the shitshow they have become. The stoke goes with them...

[Name Redacted]

People can be experienced, educated backcountry travelers who attempt to make good decisions. They can also be expert skiers, who are better than the average skier. I know plenty of avalanche pros who are pretty mediocre skiers and that's ok too. I think that the claim is usually meant to allow the general public understand that these people generally knew what they were doing. Even highly regarded, professional avalanche educators and forecasters are occasionally caught off guard in avy terrain. I think that certain people put too much stock into the semantics behind "Expert" and "Experienced". Even seasoned pros take offense when these terms are used, as if they themselves are being insulted by being thrown in with someone who would make such an error.

In the press release last year, this claim was made by one of the friends and first responders to the accident at Sheep Creek: "It should be known that many of the members of this group were extremely experienced and educated in backcountry travel." Now, remember, this was written by a friend of the victims, the day after the accident. Is he going to say his friends were retards and didn't know what they were doing? I doubt it. Is he going to paint his friends in a good light for the families of the victims? Yes. At least three of the people in the accident had at least a level 1 avy class under their belts and had been traveling in the CO backcountry for many years. One victims was a guide in RMNP for a local school. Experts? maybe not, but did they know what they were doing to some degree and did they have a good amount of time in the CO BC? Yes.

People are always so quick to jump at the level of expertise that the group had, especially right after the accident. Problem is, it doesn't really matter. Some of the most experienced people I know and look up to, have had a ton of close calls, many of which could have killed them. It's part of it, especially here in CO. But that's how you learn about the things they can't teach you in class.

I do think that moving forward, Avalanche education should place more emphasis on route finding, on the approach and decent, and human factors. Traveling in a group of seven, for me, means we are meadow-skipping, and not coming anywhere near avy terrain and we'll sure as hell be somewhere I've been a hundred times. I have no idea what factors lead to this accident, and I'm sure it will come to light soon enough. Mistakes were made, and people will get the chance to learn from them soon enough.

Sorry, I know: tl;dr
[/blog]

[Name Redacted]

And I for one, have no problem with Summit starting threads about Avalanche accidents. He's usually one of the first to know, due to his involvement in SAR, and the early notice and info is appreciated. Why shit on someone who's letting you know about an accident? This place is fucking toxic.

[pappag]

times are a changin. the new gear may be bringin death more near.

rog

We just had 10 feet of new snow in two weeks followed by high winds and a 40+ degree temperature gradient between the bottom of the snowpack and ambient temperature for almost another week. Pretty sure that is what has been causing death lately. You step onto something that is hollow at the bottom 2-4' and you'll likely get bitten.

[smitchell333]

Tragic for these guys' friends and family. Take care out there, shit can turn bad so fast.

I can only guess that they thought they could piece together a safe route in the trees up the side. From the photos it looks like one could be deceived into thinking that trees on the side meant safety.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword...n_colorado.php

This article mentions that two "two of the skiers were uninjured, because they were above both avalanches."

I've been out a couple days this weekend and while staying low-angle in the trees I did find it difficult to get anything to release on steeper test slopes which is typical of Colorado mid winter deep instability. The difficulty of releasing deep slab instability in pits or on test slopes can create a false sense of security because it is hard to get anything to move. The problem is that your consequence is very high IF you DO trigger the deep instability.

[icelanticskier]

Pretty sure that is what has been causing death lately.

nah, people are causing death lately. the warnings have been there 10 fold. brains have been turned off is all.

rog

[TBS]

We just had 10 feet of new snow in two weeks followed by high winds and a 40+ degree temperature gradient between the bottom of the snowpack and ambient temperature for almost another week. Pretty sure that is what has been causing death lately. You step onto something that is hollow at the bottom 2-4' and you'll likely get bitten.

No, like Rog sez, it's people going out into known crazy conditions and triggering shit that causes death. Pinner said well in another thread "If you tickle the dragons nuts, don't be surprised if he spooges on your face"

[simplypow]

This pseudo political discussion of how to make brain damage contagious and available to the masses might just be the best we can do, Although I like rog's suggestion of staying low...

[Danno]

Tragic for these guys' friends and family. Take care out there, shit can turn bad so fast.

I can only guess that they thought they could piece together a safe route in the trees up the side. From the photos it looks like one could be deceived into thinking that trees on the side meant safety.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword...n_colorado.php

This article mentions that two "two of the skiers were uninjured, because they were above both avalanches."

I've been out a couple days this weekend and while staying low-angle in the trees I did find it difficult to get anything to release on steeper test slopes which is typical of Colorado mid winter deep instability. The difficulty of releasing deep slab instability in pits or on test slopes can create a false sense of security because it is hard to get anything to move. The problem is that your consequence is very high IF you DO trigger the deep instability.

In that link is a link to a CBS news story, and I don't know why I watch that crap, it pisses me off so. The sheriff says "they all were wearing beepers, it's just unfortunate this happened" like it was a freak accident. The story also refers to them as "cross country skiers" and out "cross country skiing". That seems like a terribly incorrect designation.

[simplypow]

Danno something from Jesus Christ would be appropriate-Nao?

[Rodneyyee]

Any statistics?
how many Experienced VS inexperienced/Little to no real BC time, avalanche deaths?

[Tye 1on]

Any statistics?
how many Experienced VS inexperienced/Little to no real BC time, avalanche deaths?

maybe read shredgnar's post above. The real world is a lot more complicated than your simple question.

and if you haven't read the TAR article on Sheep Creek that Bunion linked on page 2 you should. We all should.

not sure how this thread got so sideways, but vibes to the family/friends/SAR/etc who were hit by this incident.

[JoeStrummer]

Sideways? It followed the usual recipe. . .

rumor

confirmed rumor

vibes

MMQ

Debate over the appropriateness of MMQ

More MMQ

Questioning how the thread went to shit

Then a few more vibes and MMQ until this thread is rendered obsolete by the next uncovered slab when the entire process repeats itself with minor variations (i.e references to Darwinism if the victim was a sledder, etc.)

We do a disservice to the dead everytime we start one of these goddamn threads..

[La Vaina Ajena]

Never did. Never will. Doesnt matter who you are, doesnt matter who you with. You are the variable. Snowpack is the control.

Terrain is the constant. Snowpack is the variable. We are the most interesting operative in the equation.

Sent from my XT1030 using TGR Forums

[MakersTeleMark]

Terrain is the constant. Snowpack is the variable. We are the most interesting operative in the equation.

Thanks, Captain Fucking Obvious. I'd love to tour with you.

[icelanticskier]

that's what i thought.

rog

[leroy jenkins]

Wow, those are some awfully bold claims. I suppose you can cite sources, or is this really just your opinion?

Sent from my Paranoid Android using TGR forums.

Is it really? Thought it was pretty obvious it was an anecdotal observation, but is it really that bold? Seems very common to me for people to choose safe zones that while most surely safe from any slides that will probably happen, are not safe from the largest slides that have the potential of happening on a given day. I see it all the time, and when you hear about multiple experienced people getting buried it seems like the only explanation.

There are some things with avies that you need to be an 'expert' to really understand, snow science, etc. Then there are a lot of things that you really only need to be aware and have common sense. Route selection uphill and down to utilize safe zones is really pretty obvious, you just have to always be thinking to yourself, what is the absolute worst biggest deadliest slide that could possibly happen today, and plan according to THAT chance, not to what size slide seems likely if it were to slide.

Yea, anecdotally, it seems to be one of the most common mistakes I see people making, yea, this is a safe zone.

[leroy jenkins]

We do a disservice to the dead everytime we start one of these goddamn threads..

I think the dead are past giving a fuck about the tgr forums, if they even did in life.

[skifishbum]

tar article was good
thanks

[goldenboy]

CAIC report is up

Question for 911 operators/SAR/1st responders: Is there any ability to text 911? There are many areas where I ski that might support a text message in case of emergency, but a phone conversation would be garbled at best. The write-up describes this scenario and while it had no effect on the outcome, one could see a scenario where it could.

[Danno]

That report is strong evidence for the fact that snowpits don't tell you everything. They certainly don't tell you where the weakspots in a slope are. So, they dug a pit, and found it hard to get the snow to fail. but the pit just gives a general snowpack profile for that aspect/elevation. Taking that general snapshot and applying it to the entire slope, as if the entire thing is homogenous, is a mistake.

The report also highlights something that has been discussed a lot lately, the "safe zone" versus what is really just a "safer zone". All 7 people got slid because they were only using a safer zone.

[Hugh Conway]

Question for 911 operators/SAR/1st responders: Is there any ability to text 911? There are many areas where I ski that might support a text message in case of emergency, but a phone conversation would be garbled at best. The write-up describes this scenario and while it had no effect on the outcome, one could see a scenario where it could.

It's coming in the future (like, perhaps next season, but you'll have to verify where you are):
http://www.fcc.gov/text-to-911

[bean]

That report is strong evidence for the fact that snowpits don't tell you everything.

Far too many people use a non-responsive pit to justify a "go" decision when everything else points to no-go. I'm not seeing it in the report, but I'm pretty sure the rating was at least considerable that day. Considerable danger, on a steep above-treeline NE-aspect slope. After many feet of snow over the prior weeks. During a hudge avalanche cycle.

Every other piece of information was screaming "no-go" but the group either didn't know, or didn't care, about anything other than what was in that pit.