Wasatch 21/22 - We're All Here 'Cause We're Not All There!

[baron]

Interesting posts

I think the 2 dry months previously played a little into the thought process. Our mountains are so close and fresh hanging fruit seems so tempting sometimes.

20 minutes under ...change that nickname to lucky Hope he has a fast & full recovery!

[sfotex]

Glad Willie is alive. Gotta be an indication about how weird it is out there right now.

Sounds like when they split the group he took up he took the rear, so the maybe the client wandered into a less then ideal spot. That's the rub when your skiing in these conditions. A couple feet that way ,and your drinking beers in the parking lot, a few feet the other way and your buddies are drinking beers in your memory.

[CirqueScaler]

I sincerely appreciate everyone's comments. I think what I'm trying to express is: I believe that when we discuss avalanche accidents, what went right, what went wrong, what could have been, etc. that it should be OK to include our normative thoughts as well. I.e. "x should not have skied that slope." I regularly have these conversations with my touring partners when there isn't an accident or even an avalanche, and I think it's constructive.

Often, it seems to me there's an instinctive reaction from some people to prohibit normative statements in the discussion of an avalanche or accident, and I don't think that's best.

D Roc - I understand what you mean re: an attack. But I think some level of "attacking" is appropriate, and you acknowledge that some "attacking" helped you learn. I'm sure some attacking was done very maliciously and was a total PITA to deal with too.

brutah - fair point.

tfw - your attitude seems to me to be the public service attitude that SAR have about rescuing, e.g., dehydrated hikers on Olympus, and I think it's really admirable. I don't think that attitude is incompatible with my perspective, but perhaps it is. Example: I have a ski partner who has a different risk preference from me. I want him to know that I think he's taking too much risk - i.e. "I think you should not have skied that slope" - but I also think that I genuinely respect his decision to do so (which I tell him). Again, I don't think those two thoughts are incompatible, but maybe they are?

And to be very clear, none of this is coming from a "this couldn't happen to me" perspective. Absolutely it could have happened to me. In fact, there's literally an instance from two weeks ago I'm thinking of right now that could have ended in the exact same way. On March 6th, I skied a 35* avalanche path with two partners on a considerable-rated, NE slope in new snow off Big Water that ended in a terrain trap (the stream gully). Then we put skins on in the terrain trap. At the top of the slope, I thought to myself "wow, if there's a place to find a soft slab, it will probably be here because it's not often skied so we're more likely to have a connected PWL and/or slab just like the forecast says to avoid," and then I still skied it anyways. JFC. My party 100% got away with it, thankfully.

=====

Separately, reading WP's account, I'm so impressed with the composure & methodical handling of the situation. What a complex situation, especially with some of the women having training and some not. Half skins half booting is great thinking, and something I'll store in my mind. Composure, too, I think to grid box to 1.8. I think a lot of people would have seen a 1.6, panicked, and started blindly probing which probably would have been counterproductive. The rescue must have been so, so exhausting. Booting through so much soft snow and digging 1.6m - I can't imagine. Somewhat ironically, it was so fortunate that it was a guided group.

[D-Roc]

[QUOTE=CirqueScaler;6572484]

And to be very clear, none of this is coming from a "this couldn't happen to me" perspective. Absolutely it could have happened to me. In fact, there's literally an instance from two weeks ago I'm thinking of right now that could have ended in the exact same way. On March 6th, I skied a 35* avalanche path with two partners on a considerable-rated, NE slope in new snow off Big Water that ended in a terrain trap (the stream gully). Then we put skins on in the terrain trap. At the top of the slope, I thought to myself "wow, if there's a place to find a soft slab, it will probably be here because it's not often skied so we're more likely to have a connected PWL and/or slab just like the forecast says to avoid," and then I still skied it anyways. JFC. My party 100% got away with it, thankfully.

This exemplifies the point i was making my post. Not confusing a good decision with luck, good on you for having the insight to at least question your decisions and realize it was luck and taking the lesson from it

[skifishbum]

Haven't spoken with Willie yet, he's still in hospital. So no facts from his perspective.
I'll have more to say after speaking with him, but pretty sure y'all are expecting some wisdom from me so I'll give er a go.
I've been involved in many avalanche rescues and recoveries over the years, yet I've never judged anyone, ever.
Even when my personal safety is at risk cuz of some dumb fool.
Very few of us head out thinking we or someone we are with may not return from this joyous experience.
Mistakes are made, often more than one to result in an accident or tragedy.
To err is human.
Do we learn from mistakes made? Hopefully.
Should we discuss the mistakes made in this case? Of course.
Sorry we don't have all the facts yet.
Willie Benegas has forgotten more than any of us will learn about being in the mountains.
And has put his safety and his client's summit chances in jeopardy on large mountains around the world to rescue complete strangers. (Some of these mountains cost clients a pretty penny, too).

My message, especially to those of you newer to this touring / mountaineering game and are quick to judge is this:
If it can happen to Willie, it can happen to anyone. You, me, anyone.
Believe it.

well said and im just gonna leave this here for CP

and them chicks got an irreplaceable day of learning in the mountains
and will be stronger bc partners for life
and i find it odd that the 4 post satchjong claims to be a noob
but has an odd axe to grind using the guides names

[sfotex]

Example: I have a ski partner who has a different risk preference from me. I want him to know that I think he's taking too much risk - i.e. "I think you should not have skied that slope" - but I also think that I genuinely respect his decision to do so (which I tell him). Again, I don't think those two thoughts are incompatible, but maybe they are?
.

I think it comes down to being able to *honestly* evaluate the risk, have a plan to deal with each risk if possible and execute. If your not seeing the risks your taking and/or won't accept them then your probably going to get stomped on.


I look at people like Kyle Dempster and Scott Adamson (RIP) as an extreme example of this. Those guys knew what they were getting into and knew they could die on the Ogre. Unfortunately it didn't work out for them, but they went in eyes wide open. Too much risk for me, but there's people out there that think a ski area is too dicey for them.

[wasatchgravityresearch]

and i find it odd that the 4 post satchjong claims to be a noob
but has an odd axe to grind using the guides names

I'm here to learn and spur some conversation, which I think is beneficial for everyone, whether they're at 4 posts or 13,000.

Over the last couple years of reading posts on this forum I've learned some great insight and background information to avalanche accidents which has really changed my decision making, so trying to pass that learning forward – in a way. I don't think high profile accidents should be swept under the rug just because its associated with a guiding service or a public figure. Reviewing and learning from avalanche accidents is often one of our greatest tools for safety. We're all predisposed to making mistakes in the mountains, of course, no one is perfect. The other day I re-read last year's posts from late Jan and early Feb to remind myself how spooky buried facets can be. As Ben10 put it, guides have to be held to a higher standard, and they would probably agree with that too.

[baron]

I'm glad to see people more openly discussing these accidents as time rolls along.

Quite a few years back , a popular local got caught in a bad one and died in BCC. It was borderline red/yellow conditions, and whole run was a terrain trap, ... I got absolutely shredded for posting something to the effect of ''why are people surprised this happened'' not any blame game stuff. But, the guy must of been a very popular skier locally... so discussing the accident conditions were off limits.

Glad, again to see how far we've come with helping understand these accidents better now a days.

[2_1_3]

-caltopo shading: considering the 40 ft contour intervals of usgs quads, is the resolution of those maps really so good as to rely on them over a clinometer for making micro route finding decisions?

From my understanding and use of CalTopo products for both ski and geomorphology applications, the slope shading is based on an underlying digital elevation model (DEM) and not USGS quad-based topography. This likely means much of the elevation data is sourced from the 30 m resolution SRTM data, but in some places where you are lucky enough to have LiDAR (much higher resolution elevation), the shading resolution is higher and likely closer to reality...assuming CalTopo has ingested the LiDAR/recalc'd the slopes. That all said, even at 1 or 3 m resolution typical of LiDAR, likely due to wind redistribution and snowfall patterns, the clinometer is still a critically valuable tool.

Given what happened, I am glad this turned out the way it did (glass raised to full recovery and to the efforts of those involved in the rescue) instead of a number of other potential outcomes.

[Bronic]

The caltopo slope shading is great. But my sense is that it's being used inapropriately quite often, myself included. Jeff Deems wrote an article this topic for The Avalanche Review a few years ago. He also gave a talk at CSAW if anyone knows where to dig that up (I believe the video was uploaded somewhere after the event)

https://theavalanchereview.org/tar-38-2/

CONVERGING ON BEST PRACTICES

To summarize the primary ways in which digital terrain models can fail us:

• Small terrain features are often not captured by DEM
• Errors in DEM could omit, create, or mis-represent the size and shape of terrain features, due to forest cover, steeper slopes, & complex terrain
• Digital slope angle is likely low-biased

By getting our heads out of our phones and actively looking for ways the terrain is different from what our digital planning suggested, we can reduce our likelihood of being surprised by the terrain.Rules of Thumb are rarely appropriate in the avalanche world, but here’s one that might keep us out of trouble: it’s probably steeper than the slope map says.

[Boissal]

From my understanding and use of CalTopo products for both ski and geomorphology applications, the slope shading is based on an underlying digital elevation model (DEM) and not USGS quad-based topography. This likely means much of the elevation data is sourced from the 30 m resolution SRTM data, but in some places where you are lucky enough to have LiDAR (much higher resolution elevation), the shading resolution is higher and likely closer to reality...assuming CalTopo has ingested the LiDAR/recalc'd the slopes. That all said, even at 1 or 3 m resolution typical of LiDAR, likely due to wind redistribution and snowfall patterns, the clinometer is still a critically valuable tool.

My experience with the slope angle shading is that the resolution is quite a bit more granular than what you get by looking at contour lines but nowhere near sufficient to sniff out small terrain features. Great to get a feel for a drainage you've never laid eyes on, adequate to plan reasonably accurate routes, but nowhere near precise enough to trust for serious decisions (getting into lines that may or may not cliff out, finding sneaky passages through said cliffs, navigating complex terrain in sketch conditions).

I don't like all this slope angle finagling when it comes to safety in avalanche terrain. The line between safe and unsafe isn't as sharp as that 32 degree magic angle we've all learned about. You can reason with a 28 degree slope all day long telling it that it's not steep enough to slide but it may decide to fuck you up regardless. We're all bad at judging angles and fancy tools can give a false sense of confidence. You might be standing on 26 degree spot with a clinometer in one hand to validate that reading and your phone in the other to further confirm that. The problem is the 30 degree slope 50' above you which your brain and tools aren't measuring accurately.

And this omerta around incidents which involve guides or pillars of the community needs to fucking disappear. When mistakes are made and lead to an accident there's always something to learn. If someone's ego gets bruised in the process, good. Ego has no place in this conversation in the first place.

[Bronic]

Slope angle discussion reminds me of this accident

https://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/a...=685&accfm=inv

https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...h-snow-safety/

TFW: I interpreted CS's comment to be complimentary, trying to acknowledge that years of selfless public service in the rescue world leads to a different outlook, that many of us don't have.

By the way, thanks to all for the thoughtful discussion here, the conversation is important!

[muted reborn]

Reminds me of this accident

https://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/a...=685&accfm=inv

https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...h-snow-safety/

BTW, thanks to all for the thoughtful discussion here, the conversation is important!

Nope, not even a remotely close comparison! In the UAC report Caltopo is mentioned on being a valuable tool and helped the all-women group got down safely. The incident linked above shows how reliance on Caltopo lead to death.

As for Willie, I bet he knew the slope angle of the slope his group skied, and that he skied that line many times before, and that he was not looking at Caltopo before skiing it.

[wra]

I went and looked at the deal, today. Skied east bowl, no issues. Up West bowl out Days Fork.
Doubt Willie had skied that line many times. I may have skied it once with about 4000 days bc in the Wasatch.
Overview. East bowl is middle lookers left. Big group followed the ridge and descended through the grove of fir trees?
Follow the ridge lookers right to the pass. Too dangerous/ Middle of the photo is the cabin ridge. The open slope down the ridge with a couple of chutes above is "down and out"



I started the day at Brighton. Had a proto spitboard and hardware but, since I hadn't snowboarded for two years took a coupla laps to warm up. Back bowls(almost side tracked) to twin lakes pass traversed grizzly gulch to the shoulder of east bowl. Third time in the last month, first time not bottom feeding.



Davenport ridge with West bowl in the background.



Crown of the recent deep burial slide is middle of the photo to the looker's right of rock band. I descended continuing to the common skin up beside the main gully.
Looked to me like Willie was buried at the feet of the group of girls. Nasty terrain trap. Skinned up, ascending without a closer look to the west bowl ridge and descended.



I don't often look at slides anymore but...curiosity.
Terrain management with large groups is tricky. East bowl had been heavily skied and wind had scoured it several times. Pole probing reveals crust layering lacking distinct faceting.
Never used cal topo, seems a strange method for route finding by a guide with more than 15 years in the Wasatch.
Snow pits for the purpose of determining stability of planned ski should be in an area representative of the slope.
Wanna split the group? Down and out, quick and easy, ski cutable and had seen traffic.
Sad that the cabin burnt down. That ridge was never a favorite descent route for me because of issues to the left and the right.
Good for the rescue and survival. Lessons learned.

[Bronic]

Nope, not even a remotely close comparison! In the UAC report Caltopo is mentioned on being a valuable tool and helped the all-women group got down safely. The incident linked above shows how reliance on Caltopo lead to death.

I edited my post a few minutes before your comment to add that the slope angle discussion was what reminded me of the Silverton accident. Regardless, I didn't say they were similar. Simply reminded me digital tools in this age are changing the way we route plan, for better and for worse. Both these accidents are great examples of that

[telefreewasatch]

...delete...

[schindlerpiste]

I was about to quote your post for awesomeness. Glad I didn't

[muted reborn]

Doubt Willie had skied that line many times. I may have skied it once with about 4000 days bc in the Wasatch.

thank you, assumptions, as always, make an ass of me, ha.

I edited my post a few minutes before your comment to add that the slope angle discussion was what reminded me of the Silverton accident. Regardless, I didn't say they were similar. Simply reminded me digital tools in this age are changing the way we route plan, for better and for worse. Both these accidents are great examples of that

Connecting the two accidents without context isn't helping the conversation, it's making it more confusing. Every accident is related to slope angle anyways and almost every user - ALMOST NOT ALL - is using digital tools. Not necessarily just Caltopo for anyone using apps, of course. Anyways, sure I'm splitting hairs here but I've seen some sloppy conclusions in this thread and based on your lack of info I presumed you were doing the same - my apologies if I'm taking this all wrong.

[Hey Diddle Diddle]

I went and looked at the deal, today. Skied east bowl, no issues. Up West bowl out Days Fork.
Doubt Willie had skied that line many times. I may have skied it once with about 4000 days bc in the Wasatch.
Overview. East bowl is middle lookers left. Big group followed the ridge and descended through the grove of fir trees?
Follow the ridge lookers right to the pass. Too dangerous/ Middle of the photo is the cabin ridge. The open slope down the ridge with a couple of chutes above is "down and out"



I started the day at Brighton. Had a proto spitboard and hardware but, since I hadn't snowboarded for two years took a coupla laps to warm up. Back bowls(almost side tracked) to twin lakes pass traversed grizzly gulch to the shoulder of east bowl. Third time in the last month, first time not bottom feeding.



Davenport ridge with West bowl in the background.



Crown of the recent deep burial slide is middle of the photo to the looker's right of rock band. I descended continuing to the common skin up beside the main gully.
Looked to me like Willie was buried at the feet of the group of girls. Nasty terrain trap. Skinned up, ascending without a closer look to the west bowl ridge and descended.



I don't often look at slides anymore but...curiosity.
Terrain management with large groups is tricky. East bowl had been heavily skied and wind had scoured it several times. Pole probing reveals crust layering lacking distinct faceting.
Never used cal topo, seems a strange method for route finding by a guide with more than 15 years in the Wasatch.
Wanna split the group? Down and out, quick and easy, ski cutable and had seen traffic.
Sad that the cabin burnt down. That ridge was never a favorite descent route for me because of issues to the left and the right.
Good for the rescue and survival. Lessons learned.

Totally agree “down and out” was way to go even if it had some tracks in it. Slope angles are manageable and lots of rider compaction. Looks like he ended up in the gully under “over easy”? Hope Willie makes a full recovery.

[Dantheman]

Anyone skiing the Bird this afternoon? Shooting for a noon-ish arrival.

[Dantheman]

Looks to be a wicked spring day up here.

[Dantheman]

Firing! Where is everyone?

[detrusor]

Sun valley…ski champs


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[soul_skier]

Looks to be a wicked spring day up here.

If I had known who you were I would have said hi! I was the guy with wildcats and silver p18s chatting with you about the 3 hole look ZRs on the tram.

Fun day all around, not too crowded and pockets of good snow were there for the taking.

[jtran10]

Is this lack of snow almost anywhere in park city a low snow/new climate thing, or has it always been a mountain that completely burns off on solar aspects? Fun day today here, but man I have a tough time figuring out why people ever moved to park city to ski

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk