Loveland Pass avalanche 4.20.13

I don't think any change in training will prevent accidents like this from happening, people should realize than catastrophic failures are a normal part of any system. The best we can do is TRY and make good decisions based on the available information. One of the reasons I ski tour and do other backcountry activities alone is that I can remove ego from the decision making process which makes it easier to back off and be more conservative than when someone is chomping at the bit to charge a risky line. Hopefully we can learn from this and it might help someone avoid this type of failure in the future, but it will happen again.

I transcribed the avy crown and burial locations from the CAIC map (fig 8) to a map with slope angle shading, as best I could. The red dot marks my best guess at the clump of trees, based on the burial locations and comparing satellite imagery to fig 5. Slopes greater than 27 are yellow, 30 orange, 35 red - should be largely correct but perfect accuracy not guaranteed.

Attachment 137059

I'm having a hard time reconciling this with the CAIC's statement that

Quote:

---

With this in mind, they decided that they would . . . cross the Sheep Creek drainage gully, and ascend a few hundred vertical feet onto northwest-facing slopes

---

as the path from the road to the trees is a straight line up the base of the gully. From my armchair, it looks like crossing the creek at the road and moving out of the gully a little would have been both safer and more consistent with their original plan. Am I having trouble interpreting the report or did they actually skin up through the red box? Not looking to criticize, just seeking clarification.

Depending on where the initial collapse was triggered, it looks like they were around 150'-200' vertical below most of the 30deg+ stuff, and possibly as much as 500' distance wise. Per earlier comments about maritime skiers, you just don't see propagation like that in California. If many people here were to visit CO, I doubt they'd give such wide berth to starting zones.

It's worth noting that in mid-winter 2011 (ostensibly a similar snowpack to April 2013 in many ways) Colorado had two fatalities from avalanches undercut by snowboarders traversing their exit runs. How many of us can say with utter confidence that we've never skied under something that could whack us? Did you stop to calc alpha angles? No, you scooted like hell with your fingers crossed.

2011/01/17 - Colorado - High Trail Cliffs, northeast of Berthoud Pass
2011/02/22 - Colorado - East Snowmass Creek Valley, Sands Chute

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icelanticskier

to say that anyone should not have been out on a day like this or that is fucking rediculous. choose terrain wisely and it doesn't matter if whole mountain sides are coming down. just don't be underneath them. there is never a bad day to be out unless you have no viz or the snow sucks. touring on days when shit is hitting the fan is the best way to see avy terrain in all it's wildest glory and to learn by observing using all of your senses. you stay home on high days, good, but you'll have zero perspective on what it's like to be out on those days.

rog

---

You have said this many times Rog - but this is the first time I agree - my version of that would have been a dawn patrol skin at the resort if applicable until snowpack was more stable, but my risk tolerance is quite a lot lower than years ago. Nice contributions in this thread, and that scares me as much as Pbrit....

Vibes to the CO folks and elsewhere hurting from this - hope these are the last for this year. Was just thinking last week about how this year was a lot less fatalities....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynchdogger

I was going to stay out of this because I am not an expert and I certainly fall in the category of experienced and less knowledgable - although working to change that now that I can play again since the kids are older.
Here goes:
Based on this comment alone, you and others like you scare me way worse than a few of "the experienced experts" I have met in the last couple years and no longer will tour with.
It is close but not really. It just takes longer to figure out the true character and decision making process of those "experienced" former partners. You on the other hand are easy (and to be fair, I will use you to refer to the you who made this asinine comment).
I don't know you but based on this comment alone I know if I met you I am pretty sure I would not tour with you based on a short conversation abd a few questions. Anyone who does may want to rethink the partnership. Sorry buddy but you are tapped or at least your comment was. So dumb. Five people are dead. Wrong place at wrong time? Aaaaahhh ....!
With respect to the deceased, I agree that many mistakes were made. Trust me, we all make them and I know I have. I hope none of us ever make one like this again.
I do not know this area but are the trees down lower too thick to navigate? Are the north west facing slopes that they wanted to ski not accesible from any other access? If there was no other way than someone should have spoken up and the days destination should have been changed.
Unnecessarily crossing a terrain trap / slide path with these known deep instabilities was the key mistake as had been played out day after day before this incident based on other CAIC reports alone.
Taking this risk and the unsafe travel procedures in which they attempted to cross was fatal. So sad.
IMHO, groups of six are too big for avy terrain unless guided where the heirarchy is clear and decisions are made by the guide. Please note, I did not say that guides are infallible but at least the heirarchy is known. I no longer travel in avy terrain in groups larger than four and have not in decades.
That said. Again, my deepest sympathies and condolences to all involved and their family and friends.




Sent from my SCH-I535 using TGR Forums

---

Agree 100% LD - Would def feel better in presence of guide I had travelled with before - The hierarchy being set in stone and lack of second guessing (but healthy discussions) seems a safer system in non optimal conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinner

It's worth noting that in mid-winter 2011 (ostensibly a similar snowpack to April 2013 in many ways) Colorado had two fatalities from avalanches undercut by snowboarders traversing their exit runs. How many of us can say with utter confidence that we've never skied under something that could whack us? Did you stop to calc alpha angles? No, you scooted like hell with your fingers crossed.

2011/01/17 - Colorado - High Trail Cliffs, northeast of Berthoud Pass
2011/02/22 - Colorado - East Snowmass Creek Valley, Sands Chute

---

Depends on the conditions and forecast. When stuff is ripping to the ground, wall to wall, in the late season, you won't find me tempting fate below a slide path in a terrain trap. On other days, midwinter, you'll find me ripping that very slide path (not LL pass, but ones I'd be avoiding at other times). You have to look more of a micro than macro level (last few days or weeks, not what month is it). In other words, "you're doin it wrong".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simple

As one of the two skinners i can assure you we did not skin up a terrain trap. We skinned up a closed ski area run which tops out and then along a summer road which opens to the gully. For reference look at the maps on caic

---

Thanks for the clarification. That was not clear in the report.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoPostholio

You have said this many times Rog - but this is the first time I agree - my version of that would have been a dawn patrol skin at the resort if applicable until snowpack was more stable, but my risk tolerance is quite a lot lower than years ago. Nice contributions in this thread, and that scares me as much as Pbrit....

---

thank you:).

Quote:

---

Was just thinking last week about how this year was a lot less fatalities....

---

was thinking the same thing myself a coupla/few weeks back. then i thought, well there's still plenty of time. amazing:eek::frown:

rog

and as far as crossing under big scary avy paths in suspect conditions goes, i'm way guilty. with groups it's ALWAYS been one at a time 100% from 10's of yards before entering to 10's of yards beyond exiting. sometimes i've looked up at these paths and said, "now you're gonna let me pass by without incident, now aren't ya?" or how lucky do i feel today?

i've also crossed back under these slopes later in the day to find that i was climbing debris piles that woulda burried a small village. pretty trippy, but all good so long as i make it home each and everyday. try not to make a habit of that behavior tho.

rog

I just took AIARE level 1 in central oregon and the focus was on decision making, careful planning, group dynamics, terrain selection suitable to day/group, and weather. Very little attention given to snow analysis, and very little value given to pit results in decision making. Don't know if it was just our awesome teachers preparing us for a maritime snowpack, or if AIARE has shifted their focus considerably since 2010.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by telebobski

Another group (who turned out to be the first responders) toured in the same area at the same time without slides, so I really don't think staying indoors was the only answer.

..

---

While there is always something you can ski safely any day--even if it's just up a road, the fact that a given party (not talking about any specific party) didn't get avalanched doesn't necessarily mean they made better decisions. They may have made better decisions or they may have been lucky. On almost any given day most people who make bad decisions will be lucky. If that weren't the case I would never have survived high school.

I'll never forget hiking the LeConte Canyon in the Sierra one summer and crossing multiple avalanche paths and having to scramble over stacked timber 3 ft in diameter and 3-4 logs high. Across the canyon a slope a hundred yards across and a thousand feet high was covered with downed timber of the same size. The patroller killed at Squaw a few years ago and the one killed at Alpine this season were both standing in safe zones when their partners threw the bombs. The things make you reconsider what a safe zone is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SgtSkidmark

I just took AIARE level 1 in central oregon and the focus was on decision making, careful planning, group dynamics, terrain selection suitable to day/group, and weather. Very little attention given to snow analysis, and very little value given to pit results in decision making. Don't know if it was just our awesome teachers preparing us for a maritime snowpack, or if AIARE has shifted their focus considerably since 2010.

---

I'm not aware of any major shift in AIARE curriculum, since 2011 anyway. There's a lot of variation across instructors and programs, and many are not AIARE certified - my refresher being an example. Sounds like you were in a great program

Curious as to the kind of terrain ID/mitigation exercises you went through, both in class and in the field...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

While there is always something you can ski safely any day--even if it's just up a road, the fact that a given party (not talking about any specific party) didn't get avalanched doesn't necessarily mean they made better decisions. They may have made better decisions or they may have been lucky. On almost any given day most people who make bad decisions will be lucky. If that weren't the case I would never have survived high school.

---

Totally agree. Problem's made worse because the feedback when we get lucky in avy terrain is the pretty much the same as when we are good.

I've been staying away from the analysis so far, but my 2 take-homes from this incident are:

1) A mistake I could easily see myself making/maybe have made: not correctly judging how far down a low angle slope/run-out can propagate so far uphill in a hard slab just from skinning; and
2) How organized gatherings in the bc on a considerable day are a really bad idea (see last year's bc comp in Summit, accident, and avi).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark

I've been staying away from the analysis so far, but my 2 take-homes from this incident are:

1) A mistake I could easily see myself making/maybe have made: not correctly judging how far down a low angle slope/run-out can propagate so far uphill in a hard slab just from skinning; and
2) How organized gatherings in the bc on a considerable day are a really bad idea (see last year's bc comp in Summit, accident, and avi).

---

I think both your points are spot on and generally mirror my take from all this. Just makes you really look at your own travel techniques and how safe they are.

Group size is a much bigger factor than I generally take into account. I think about the countless hut trips I've been on where we charge into the backcountry with 6-8 people. Likely will never be doing that again.

Terrain and route finding. These are two things that even beginners can control from looking at the topo and following the caic forecasts. Should be a major point beaten into the head of any beginner or person new to the backcountry.

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.

I have read a lot of CAIC incident reports, this is the first one that made my heart feel like it was going to beat out of my chest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SgtSkidmark

I just took AIARE level 1 in central oregon and the focus was on decision making, careful planning, group dynamics, terrain selection suitable to day/group, and weather. Very little attention given to snow analysis, and very little value given to pit results in decision making.

---

Same in Canada for AST 1 and 2.

Digging in the snow would likely not have told these guys anything they did not already know from carefully reading the bulletin and recent activity, which they would have seen and known about. The unfortunate thing is that their first encounter with a local sign of instability in the snow they were moving on was the sign that toe triggered the avalanche (the whumf). From road-side to high consequence avalanche terrain in such a short distance is a distinct disadvantage. So are large groups and, dare I say it, organized backcountry events which are not part of a formal 'club' which would allow familiar members time to trip plan in advance.

I shiver at the thought of arranging a recreational trip into Challenging terrain with unfamiliar people the evening before on a Considerable day with a PWL or DSP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

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.

---

I think in general many regular people are just simply terrible about finding their way. A lack of visual and spacial awareness they end up depending on the "guide", be it a real guide or designated group leader, or in the end, the alpha male. Traps that are well known to veterans.

People get caught up in their gear and the motions of touring and basically not looking around. When in groups they are "in the track", even well spaced. People with questionable fitness are not paying attention due to "keeping up". Every possible complication of larger than 2 in the BC it seems.

While understanding the simple fact from the knowledge here that route selection was the downfall, I cannot let it go that something more was missing here.

CAIC obviously is extremely concise and complete, but why can't there be more, for more highly populated BC areas? Maybe something similar to fire danger signs? Within about an hour of the Denver front range, you have about 4 high traffic BC areas. RMNP, Mt Evans, Berthod and Loveland. Easy enough IMO, to have some local beta and stark warnings (if needed) for the weekend warriors at well trod trailheads and parking lots.

Maybe I'm playing semantics, but I've got to insert this here because it's important that we all speak the same language and understand what we think we know about avy education.

You didn't "get" and you don't "have" your Level 1 or Level 2. No one does. You might have completed a Level 1 or Level 2 course. And I congratulate you for it.

There is no such thing as a Level 1 or Level 2 "cert." The certificate you were given by your course provider certifies that you showed up each morning and probably hung around on the last day long enough to trade phone numbers. You could have slept though the entire course for all we know (which, no doubt, at least a few people have.)

There's a reason for this: the only AIARE course with a written and practical exam is Level 3, which is a professional level course requiring a solid base of experience and a serious commitment to the craft. "The Level 3 course is an advanced certification course for experienced and professional avalanche practitioners, professional guides, patrollers and advanced recreational backcountry travelers." Show that you're competent (ie: run with the big dogs) and you'll be recognized for it with a L3 cert.

Others are far better qualified to speak to this, but as I understand it, the AIARE curriculum has evolved over the last couple years to put a greater emphasis on terrain identification at L1, leaving the snow science to L2. The course titles reflect this:

AIARE Level 1: Decision Making In Avalanche Terrain

AIARE Level 2: Analyzing Snow Stability And Avalanche Hazard

AIARE Level 3: Advanced Avalanche Training For Professionals And Recreational Leaders


I've spent a fair bit of time learning about the course progression from the AIARE directors and consulted with them closely as we tweaked the FOBP curriculum into a solid, foundational awareness class-- a "pre level 1" if you will. It's been an eye-opening and humbling process.

Take it for what it's worth, but I strongly believe it's important that we all use the same vocabulary, base our assumptions about someone's level of training on the same criteria, and most significantly, acknowledge that as much as you think you know, there's a guy not far away who knows a LOT more than you. Nine times out of ten, they're quieter than you are. (interesting to note: I've never met anyone who told me they had a L3 without me asking.)

This is why we feel it is so important to be an apprentice and a mentor throughout your entire career as a backcountry skier. Personally, the older I get, the more friends I lose to the mountains, the humbler I become and the more I realize that I still have a shitload to learn.

Unrelated, but I noticed a BIG slide up on the south end of Peak 6 today as I was driving into work this morning. It ran well below the point where most slides stop up there. Most likely a natural that occurred during yesterday's rapid warm up. Stay safe out there.

Lou Dawson has a bunch of helpful pictures on his site: http://www.wildsnow.com/9980/sheep-c...he-site-visit/

Those photos on Lou's site make this accident even more devastating. Truly in awe what a difference 20 feet may have done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

Lou Dawson has a bunch of helpful pictures on his site: http://www.wildsnow.com/9980/sheep-c...he-site-visit/

---

Very informative....

Got to give him credit for always saying what he means and meaning what he says. Pretty rough around the edges sometimes though (e.g. "...And that fact would have been no mystery to these guys if they had anywhere near the level of collective experience they are said to have had).

I wonder what he meant with that last line re: "stupid sight seeing activity at the accident site".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

Lou Dawson has a bunch of helpful pictures on his site: http://www.wildsnow.com/9980/sheep-c...he-site-visit/

---

Those pictures are worth well more than a thousand words. Wow. Speachless.

Like Lou said, even if those trees had actually been a safe zone, where were they going to safely travel from there?