Trelease fatality 2.14.21

[Name Redacted]

No one says in the official reports about multiple fatalities: “it is worthy of note that if this had been a solo traveler, they may have been more cautious and avoided avalanche terrain”

Why invent a May the other way?

It may have been...

Why my opinion so triggering to you that you find it imperative to psychoanalyze me? Cause only Summit and CAIC have a legitmate say?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Actually, groupthink and expert halo are just two heuristic errors that are frequently attributed to accidents that happen to parties of more than one and are also discussed in accident reports when necessary.

[adrenalated]

No one says in the official reports about multiple fatalities: “it is worthy of note that if this had been a solo traveler, they may have been more cautious and avoided avalanche terrain”

Because of the probability of survival is directly related to amount of time buried, it is provably true that, if you are buried in an avalanche, having a trained partner ready to rescue you increases your probability of survival. That is what CAIC is pointing out.

I'm not aware of research or studies showing that solo backcountry travelers are more likely make more conservative decisions than groups, but maybe it's out there. Do you have a link to such research?

Edit: I vaguely remembered seeing some research on group size so I searched and found this:

https://www.wemjournal.org/article/S...461-5/abstract

Here's a couple relevant lines:

We found higher avalanche risk for groups of 4 or more people and lower risk for people traveling alone and in groups of 2. The relative risk of group size 4, 5, and 6 was higher compared with the reference group size of 2 in the Swiss and Italian dataset. The relative risk for people traveling alone was not significantly different compared with the reference group size of 2 in the Italian dataset but was lower in the Swiss dataset.

This is only Italian and Swiss data; I have no idea if US data would be different.

[summit]

https://www.wemjournal.org/article/S...461-5/abstract

Those are some very messy statistics except for groups of 5 and larger, where the data is clear between the subgroups (CI don't overlap the reference and the P values are good). The subgroups were starkly different in several cases suggesting there is large regional variation. This makes sense because managing various group sizes changes greatly depending on terrain.

Relative risk (RR) for all group sizes in the Swiss and Italian datasets is shown in Figure 3. In the Davos self-registration boards dataset group size 1 had an RR of 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38−0.82), which indicates significantly lower avalanche risk than the reference group size 2 (P = .003). Groups size 3 had an RR of 1.32 (CI 0.97−1.79; P = .070), and group size 4 had an RR of 1.30 (CI 0.90−1.84; P = .153), which was not higher for either of these groups compared with group size 2. Group size 5 (RR = 2.40; 95% CI 1.54−3.68; P < .001) and 6 or more people (RR = 2.14; CI 1.30−3.43; P = .002) had significantly higher RR than the group size 2.

And the comparison is just whether the group is involved in a reported accident per (estimated) days without adjustment for number involved or relative outcome. By that I mean if a solo has a worse chance of a negative outcome if there is an accident (likely) is not measured while scaled survivability for larger groups (more diggers) is also not considered while larger groups could have multiple people caught.

If you just consider group involvement (risk of the group being in an accident) you are looking at something distinct from individualized risk as determined by group size (a group of two is 2 individuals each accepting a tour's worth of risk). You can think of Individual RR as total lives lost vs the linked article looking at chances of a group being in an accident. In that mindset, individualized RR makes more sense.

So, let's convert the numbers! Let's say with no companion rescue that a solo has 2x the risk of dying if there is an accident vs non-solo (a gross underestimate), while a group larger than 1 has a 25% increase per extra person in the group of there being a multifatality (an overestimation), and then divide the RR by group size for individualized risk. If you rescale the RR for the above off group size of 2 then the individual RR (readjusted to group size of 2) are:

Group Size: RR
1: 1.79
2: 1.00
3: 1.06
4: 0.91
5: 1.54
6+: 1.28

Again, these are not conclusive findings, just a conservative adjustment to individual RR from non-outcome-specific group RRs that were not statistically significant in the case of group sizes of 3 and 4! It just happens to match what we have always taught and observed: group sizes of 2-4 are best.

[powdork]

Why does it matter?

Because some jackasses will take the message that “wouldn’t happen to us because we dont ski solo”

And that isnt the core issue and is a conclusion based on conjecture.

“May”. There are infinite “May”s and only one:

Being on or directly under avalanche terrain got this party fatally avalanched.

Well it certainly got the party (you can't even bring yourself to say it was one person) avalanched. A surviving partner would have made the avalanche much less likely to be fatal.
Don't get me wrong I have over 50 days this year and they're almost all solo touring days, but I certainly understand (even if I don't fully appreciate the magnitude of) the risks. I'm guessing you solo tour. Do you ever consider the fact that you are alone in your decision making? If the answer to that is yes, why does it bother you that CAIC considers it a factor worth mentioning?

[summit]

For the record, I'm not anti-solo. I sometimes go solo.

Solo just needs a different mindset because consequences are multiplied while safety factors are reduced vs small groups of good partners. Nobody will catch your mistakes before you make them. Nobody will help you get out of mistakes you make. Something minor with a partner can become major as goldenboy mentioned on the other page. So you gotta dial things back on the terrain choices for a given vs what they might with a group while also being very observant and disciplined. Some people are good at doing that and some people are comfortable with traveling solo, less are both.

Watching powdork move through and read terrain the other day, I noted him naturally picking out guardrails and considering terrain. He's an observant guy and an experienced tourer.

[glademaster]

Also noticed in the report the comments about the airbag sternum strap being pushed up around the victims neck due to him not wearing the leg loop. How many of you have skied with an airbag pack and not worn the leg loop. Especially on your way uphill? Definitely something to consider.

This is something I am HYPER aware of when touring. Never, ever, ever have an airbag pack on without the leg loop secured. I caught a lot of flack for this on a hut trip last year, where both other guests and a guide poked fun at me for skinning with the leg loop secured in place.

I told that them I usually offer free sniffs, but because of their shitty attitude, it was going to cost them $20/inhale to smell my butt floss after a long day of touring.

[Name Redacted]

This is something I am HYPER aware of when touring. Never, ever, ever have an airbag pack on without the leg loop secured. I caught a lot of flack for this on a hut trip last year, where both other guests and a guide poked fun at me for skinning with the leg loop secured in place.

I told that them I usually offer free sniffs, but because of their shitty attitude, it was going to cost them $20/inhale to smell my butt floss after a long day of touring.

Dude you are supposed to wear it on the outside of your pants!

[NWFlow]

That seems like pretty poor form for the guide to poke fun at that.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I love touring solo and I do it a lot. But I do it under constraints: I stick to simple terrain. I keep it under 30 degrees unless I have close to zero doubts about stability (which is rare in CO in the winter). I don't fuck with PWL ever:



More on the Terrain Exposure Scale

I figure if I'm going to be solo it's best to eliminate most of the possible mistakes I could make before I even get to the trailhead, because the cost of mistake is likely to be very high.

I'm not saying this is what everyone should do, but it's where I find balance.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

guide poked fun at me for skinning with the leg loop secured in place.

Was this a certified guide? Or a "guide?"

[Foggy_Goggles]

Was this a certified guide? Or a "guide?"

Either way, people associates with this term have made too many mistakes historically to get any kind of a free pass from me. At the end of the day, they are still human and are subject to all the same risk factors as us regular hacks. The good ones will let you know that.

[Dark Energy]

This is from Mallwalker in the Wilson Glade tragedy thread, " regarding group size, an old guy way back when told me once: “the best group size is 3. everyone gets a say, and you have a good chance of someone making the conservative call. the next best size is 1, because you have nobody to impress, and you’re a little bit scared. the next best size is 2, though with very regular partners you have to watch out more for heuristic traps / familiarity issues. those are the only group sizes you should ever tour in”

I roll solo often. While decision making is easier, I like to believe it magnifies my assessing and acknowledging of the heuristic traps, and in particular familiarity, consistency/goals and scarcity when considering the consequences and "what if's."

[getoutside]

Those were the first things I cut off my Voiles back in 2010. New models do not offer this "feature".

agree its not a "feature" but its also not jerry rigged. interested to learn why you cut them off? no way you're clicking all 4 in time in a wash. just curious.

[Danno]

I don't tour solo very often (don't tour very often), but I get kinda spooked doing it.

I ride my bike solo a lot, and definitely dial it way back. Because in the places I ride, if I wreck bad nobody's going to find me until the next day.

[MakersTeleMark]

One thing from the report that I’d dicker with is



Given where the rider was caught, having a partner would have likely meant two deaths. IMO having a partner does not save you in this case.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

What part of the quote you posted, namely "not in the avalanche" do you not understand. Even a partial that could dig themselves out could have had a considerable difference in this outcome given the visible cues. Also, have you ever gone out with a partner without doing a beacon check?

Yeah
And maybe if he had gathered a party of 10 they would have all thought he was the messiah and died. Conjecture and knee jerk lectures about solo travel dont have a place in the reports IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

They absolutely do, just as much as touring in a group of 10.

The video indicated that he started on an established skin track but deviated and just broke trail straight into the danger zone.

I have been thinking about this.
Some people are just risk takers. Adrenaline junkies. ECT ect.
These things are always going to happen. And when condition's are really bad. It's gonna happen more.
Let's just hope all the attention it's getting doesn't cause a government action to protect us from ourselves?

If Texas were not the story of the week. This would be

If you look at the photographs, the standard skinner where he deviated was taken out too.


Also, don't forget another advantage of the some bags is that they auto-deflate, giving you a pocket.

I hope this guy died of trauma, because it would be a nasty way to go to be barely buried, possibly seeing the light through the snow, and facing oneself until the end, augured and completely helpless.

And a final point, who the fuck tours in that kind of popular terrain without a beacon to at least be able to help in an accident, or to speed up your body recovery and save a shitton of folks probing?

[bendtheski]

I'm getting from some pretty reliable sources that death was caused by trauma, not suffocation. I won't go into detail, but it was disturbing requesting a cell phone ping for the victim, and seeing it plot on the map where we could assume the deposition field was/is, and to not see it move after multiple rebids.

The reporting party was extremely proactive in providing a vehicle description of the single car at the trailhead when he arrived. We were able to identify the registered owner, find a phone number, and start a ping and confirm responders were searching in the right area. Not the positive outcome we were hoping for, but at least no one else was injured during the recovery.

Condolences to family/friends of the victim.

[Kinnikinnick]

Some good and correct thoughts on solo travel everyone.

But still not the pertinent detail of this fatality IMO.

In particular the conjecture about a partner possibly offering cautious opinions to change the course.

No report or comment on a party of two or more avy accident ever said “perhaps if there had been one more in their party that person would have convinced them to stay out of avy terrain or the extra searcher might have meant the victim was saved”



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[goldenboy]

^^^ I think that's fair, K. Solo travel leaves very little margin for error, but often leads to more cautious decision making than group travel, and especially large group travel. I know that if I was solo, I probably wouldn't have been there at all, but if I was, I would likely stop before the usual transition point. With even one partner, I would probably just go to where everyone else does. Sadly, this snowboarder chose to go even higher than most people do.

[Danno]

Some good and correct thoughts on solo travel everyone.

But still not the pertinent detail of this fatality IMO.

In particular the conjecture about a partner possibly offering cautious opinions to change the course.

No report or comment on a party of two or more avy accident ever said “perhaps if there had been one more in their party that person would have convinced them to stay out of avy terrain or the extra searcher might have meant the victim was saved”



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

That's not what the report said, IIRC. The report spoke about solo travel because he was found visible, and only slightly buried, and the report speculated that maybe a partner could have rescued him. And that's what you objected to. The report didn't say a partner might have led to a different decision.

[frorider]

That's not what the report said, IIRC. The report spoke about solo travel because he was found visible, and only slightly buried, and the report speculated that maybe a partner could have rescued him. And that's what you objected to. The report didn't say a partner might have led to a different decision.

Thanks for articulating what I was thinking.

[bendtheski]

Looking at the victim’s fb, it seems to me there’s a pattern of choices which sort of explain the solo travel. I don’t believe a partner would have changed the outcome, unless the partner had been able to change his mind about the approach. This wasn’t the first time the victim chose a route which placed him squarely between the dragon’s teeth.

The airbag did what it’s supposed to in keeping him at or near the surface. It couldn’t protect him from the forces at play with a release of that scale, and that probably shouldn’t surprise anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums