Loveland Pass avalanche 4.20.13

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinner

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. .

---

I don't know if I'm better qualified but according to the instructors that teach the courses we host (including our field director) that has definitely been the case. When I took my Level 1 and 2 about 7 years ago level 1 was more focused on snow study and pits and rescue scenarios. If you had good instructors they might spend more time on travel and terrain selection but the curriculum was not focused that way. Level 2 was pretty much all advanced snow science.

At the time we tried offering an Advanced Level 1 class that focused on in-the-field travel and terrain because so many people finished Level 1 and told us they still felt unsure about how to apply all the class room and pit info to practical situations. Ironically we had to quit after 2 season because of lack of interest. Everyone wanted the official courses so they could say "I've got my Level 1 and Level 2 avi." The focus now on travel and terrain and group decision making is for better IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solesides

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".

---

I found it undignified. It started out so dramatic, and continued to be so, that it was hard to take his "post-match" diagrams seriously, despite being interspersed with well meaning thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wildsnow.com

Indeed, to be fair to both the living and dead the site visit was mandatory for honest blogging, so we could look at the situation in the light of normal fun seeking backcountry recreation — not the cold prose of a CAIC report constrained by legal concerns and limits on raw interpretation — not a newspaper report constrained by ignorance or word count limits.

---

Indeed.

Was a slow year for for the CO blogger up until now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solesides

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

---

Probably people going to check out the avalanche site...like he did.

...to create content to sell advertising on his site, no less.

/crude of me, but FFS.

My only issue with his write-up.

"If you did make it safely along the short but avalanche exposed access trail, by simply dropping 10 or 15 vertical feet and crossing a gully you can access a 100% safe route up the drainage. For a group with this much experience, doing so would have been trivial. Why they did not do this and instead forged their way up their deadly route is mystifying. The route choice is totally obvious to the experienced eye, and the avalanche slope that killed them is totally obvious as is the extent it can run."

100% safe? Only if there is no snow. Anything can slide. And the slide that did occur could have been bigger and made it 20 feet further across the gully. Much safer yes, 100% safe, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bean

Probably people going to check out the avalanche site...like he did.

---

On the comments on the WS post, he now seems to suggest these "sight-seers" are just people traveling over LL Pass stopping and snapping pictures (not avi-tourists/skiers).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bean

Probably people going to check out the avalanche site...like he did.

---

Over-reaching a bit with this?

"You went sight seeing, for the purpose of creating site content which will help you sell more advertising. You also seem to show one of your partners skinning through the “death zone” while throwing stones at the victims."



There is a TON to be learned here and taking shots at Lou for broadening the discussion instead of the same old "vibes, man" shit isn't fair. No stones thrown at the victims. Lives will be saved from speaking about this tragedy which is clearly evident in this thread alone by most people's comments about lacking terrain trap/safe approach awareness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by funkendrenchman

My only issue with his write-up.

"If you did make it safely along the short but avalanche exposed access trail, by simply dropping 10 or 15 vertical feet and crossing a gully you can access a 100% safe route up the drainage. For a group with this much experience, doing so would have been trivial. Why they did not do this and instead forged their way up their deadly route is mystifying. The route choice is totally obvious to the experienced eye, and the avalanche slope that killed them is totally obvious as is the extent it can run."

100% safe? Only if there is no snow. Anything can slide. And the slid that did occur could have been bigger and made it 20 feet further across the gully. Much safer yes, 100% safe, no.

---

I picked up on this as well. 100% safe never exists in my eyes. A few of the sentances and statements he made I thought were a bit unnecessary and IMO make him come off as sounding a bit smug and judgmental. However, I'm still pretty sensitive to that at this point as I'm still struggling to put together the puzzle of decision making that day. I know he is trying to illustrate the mistakes made by the group and I think he does a great job of that. The pictures are really nice too for someone who doesn't know that particular area very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PappaG

There is a TON to be learned here and taking shots at Lou for broadening the discussion instead of the same old "vibes, man" shit is way helpful. No stones thrown at the victims. Lives will be saved from speaking about this tragedy which is clearly evident in this thread alone by most people's comments.

---

There certainly is a ton to be learned here. Lou's doing good work, he's also being a self-righteous stone-thrower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canwilf

I don't get that. He has said in his commentary many times that this is a mistake he has made in the past and that needs to be guarded against in the future.

Lou is showing us the facts objectively, not white washing them. A lot of people do stupid things in the back-country and live to ski another day. They didn't. Learn.

---

All week, Lou's been denigrating the experience level and skill of the victims - fine, that's just Lou, and mistakes were obviously made (otherwise we wouldn't have five dead backcountry tourers from one incident). He then goes out and surveys the site, wherein he traversed an "obvious" avalanche path, continuing to insult people who cross said path.

I'm just trying to save lives here. :rolleyes2

edit: he clarified, and it sounds like the typical Loveland Pass shitshow was in effect when he was there

Ooof. What a brutal, but educational set of reading. My heart goes out to the victims. I'm also grateful to CIAC and Lou for shedding more light.


Matt: good eyes. Dawson's recent blog seems to agree with your interpretation below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mattyj

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.

---

Pinner: Nice post. Your suggestion that the way we talk about out training influences our decisions is an interesting one. It rings of Gladwll-ish pop-psych but I wouldn't be surprised if there's more than a grain of truth in it. I've been trying to think about whether this idea fits into one of the heuristic traps. If so I'd say it's a combination of 'commitment' ie commitment to an identity of being well-trained able travel safely even in unstable snowpacks, etc, and some sort of self-reflected expert halo.

I can also add another data point to your statement about AIARE. Having taken a class last year (L1), the focus was indeed on route finding/terrain choices, planning, and making good decisions as a group etc (in addition to basic snowpack and self rescue stuff). The main 'tools' emphasized were of the checklist type (communication checklist, decision making framework). Our instructor said this this focus was relatively new, within the last few years, and previously there had been more emphasis on snow science and self rescue techniques.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bean

All week, Lou's been denigrating the experience level and skill of the victims - fine, that's just Lou, and mistakes were obviously made (otherwise we wouldn't have five dead backcountry tourers from one incident). He then goes out and surveys the site, wherein he traversed an "obvious" avalanche path, continuing to insult people who cross said path.

---

Based on the whole hunk of trees missing (and the young growth on the '48 slide path) isn't it kinda obvious? Sure, whatever, he makes money. TGR trys to make money of this babble, I thought the pictures were more useful than the CAIC report.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

Based on the whole hunk of trees missing (and the young growth on the '48 slide path) isn't it kinda obvious?

---

I was taking issue with insulting the deceased for poor route-selection through an avy runout zone and then passing through an avy path himself.

If finding fault is insulting to you perhaps you shouldn't read after action reports? Maybe a separate memorial thread is more your style?

I'm fan from a Dawson fan boy and I guess that can be said about my opinion of most bloggers. To be fair to him however, he is open to critique in the comments section of his own website. Why don't you just ask him why he thought that was OK?

I think this discussion is valuable and I thank everyone for participating. That being said, if it really is a learning exercise, we should not keep guessing about the why and concentrate on how either and everyone of us will avoid the same mistakes going forward.

I took issue with this statement from Lou-

“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.”

Pure speculation from someone that doesn't know the victims on a personal level and admittedly acknowledges that even the most experienced bc travelers make mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles

To be fair to him however, he is open to critique in the comments section of his own website. Why don't you just ask him why he thought that was OK?

---

I did (though it was more of an accusatory tone), he gave a not terribly satisfying response (just doing his job), I don't particularly care to pursue it further. There's a valuable message and continuing to go after the messenger...meh.

I thought that was the interesting question - why'd they think it was a safe route and a good plan? The two viewpoints presented here (an obviously stupid plan from the armchair vs. a good plan by good people) aren't really that useful because by definition it wasn't a good plan (they died) and apparently it wasn't terribly obviously bad to them because they went ahead and did it.

maybe he thought it was ok cuz the thing had aready slid and was stable nuff to be on it safely. complex stuff, i know:fm:

rog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icelanticskier

maybe he thought it was ok cuz the thing had aready slid and was stable nuff to be on it safely. complex stuff, i know:fm:

rog

---

The path in question has not yet slid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bean

The path in question has not yet slid.

---

oh. well he is still alive so i'd guess it was fine:)

rog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

I thought that was the interesting question - why'd they think it was a safe route and a good plan? The two viewpoints presented here (an obviously stupid plan from the armchair vs. a good plan by good people) aren't really that useful because by definition it wasn't a good plan (they died) and apparently it wasn't terribly obviously bad to them because they went ahead and did it.

---

That's part of what makes this situation so hard. They weren't idiots, a bunch of good people died, and we may never understand why they went where they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bean

That's part of what makes this situation so hard. They weren't idiots, a bunch of good people died, and we may never understand why they went where they did.

---

good and bad people makes mistakes every day. some die. don't beat yerself up trying to figure it out. where's cookieman when we need him:D

rog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmsummit

I took issue with this statement from Lou-

“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.”

Pure speculation from someone that doesn't know the victims on a personal level and admittedly acknowledges that even the most experienced bc travelers make mistakes.

---

This particular statement really bothered me as well as one or two others with a similar tone. To me he is adding in his personal opinion on the matter when he touts off about using it as a learning experience for others. That's all well and fine, but if you really want to let others learn from this objectively than leave out statements such as this and stick to the facts. Just seems a little bit like he is saying well I could clearly see that there is a dangerous avalanche path and if they had the collective wisdom and experience that they claim they should've too and taken the route that I took up which is 100% safe. Just seems in bad taste IMO.

I personally knew one of the victims and will never know why they chose the route they did on that day. Its been one of the harder things for me to deal with in all of this because the knowledge was there to know to avoid it. I think it was either a bad judgment call on how far the slide would go or they just took a chance and it bit them in the ass. I haven't known Rick to be a huge proponent of taking unnecessary risk from my short time knowing him. That's what's so hard about this.

Just 2 things to add into the thinking pot:

1) Use google earth to looks at the vegitation that was under the snow. Knee high willows right where they presumably crossed.

2) Predominant SW winds all winter. Look at the fetch.