Loveland Pass avalanche 4.20.13

This thread has drifted pretty far off the OT. Maybe this discussion could be continued in another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neck beard

The Canadian AST Level 1

---

I don't think he's talking about the AST L1 but the CAA Profesional L1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DasBlunt

Why not have a test? Guys "claiming" particular "certification" because they took a class, thus implying superiority in hierarchy. Does a person going through Canadian guide school have tests for certs?

Just a point of discourse, I know and understand you were specific in making that not the point.

---

L1 and L2 are recreational level courses and are not certifications (Since there is no minimum skill/knowledge requirement to "graduate") People dont have a L2 they take a L2. That said since they are recreational courses, and I think people should be able to take as much or as little from them as they please without having to stress over pass/fail since ultimately, the amount of information they take only effects them and people that choose to ski with them (Ideally)

The Level 3 (AIARE or AAI) however is a professional certification requiring a minimum level of skills and knowledge to pass.

Am I making sense?

Oh and anybody that waves their dick around saying they took a class and therefore have superiority over the decision making process sounds like a shitty partner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Aaron_

Am I making sense?

Oh and anybody that waves their dick around saying they took a class and therefore have superiority over the decision making process sounds like a shitty partner.

---

What, you don't have to even have a complex of superiority to assume that because you took a class, now might be a part of the problem?

Anyways, in all seriousness, plenty of dudes think they know it all anyways, and submit that air of superiority in the activity they participate in. Add to that the labels "Level 1" and then "Level 2" and IMO, a clusterfuck ensues.

I dont think this is off topic BTW. Heuristic traps et al.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Aaron_

This thread has drifted pretty far off the OT.

---

Guess so. I removed my post. It was perhaps informative, but O/T.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neck beard

Guess so. I removed my post. It was perhaps informative, but O/T.

---

I think information and being informative is part of this thread, regardless of the tangent on the theme.

Talking to a wide variety of winter sports type of people all around Colorado these past 2 weeks about this event, I heard a bunch of different major consensus' about the "public" perception, they are in no order,

a. too large of a group.

b. mistakes were made with location and route

c. Highly "experienced" group still made major route mistake.

d. bad luck and Loveland Pass is a shitshow


AIARE seems to imply their level 1 and level 2 are an official certification, as Crested Butte Guides Avalanche Safety Courses have an alternative "Backcountry Intro Course", "for those not interested in an Official Level 1 AIARE Certification". http://www.crestedbutteguides.com/page.cfm?pageid=8886 bottom of page.

and if a test and basic comprehension is not required, how can the cost or the title "certification" be justified? Plenty of people cannot comprehend certain combinations of simple information. I can imagine the same people not being able to comprehend complex data points and highly variable scenarios.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadyNasty

What in your Level 1 was such useful knowledge that you took the course twice?

---

I took it twice because my uncle recommended that I take it again out here, before taking a Level 2, and he's someone I definitely listen to. My first course was many years ago, so things have certainly changed since then. I suppose it could have been considered a refresher. It's hard to remember exactly what I learned in the first course, versus spending time with my uncle. The most useful thing I took out of the 'refresher' was a few extra tools that I didn't know about and the ability to ask questions I had, mostly specific to the CO snowpack, to fill what I felt like were holes in my education back in WA. Some of what I asked about might be normally covered in a Level 2 (it certainly wasn't part of the Level 1 curriculum).

Quote:

---

Other than companion rescue, the Level 1 course only teaches you to identify avalanche slopes and redflags, but they give you NO TOOLS that would allow you to complete the formal decision making process; deciding whether a slope is safe to ski based on the forecast, your observations, and test results.

---

I'd disagree, based on my experiences. In a Level 1, they give you some tools, and ones I would argue as the most important set of tools - especially in Colorado, considering our snowpack is categorically deeply unstable. But they certainly don't spend any time on snow stability tests and more detailed snow science. That said, like Aaron mentioned, it's what you take away from the course, not that you took the course. There's a TON of reinforcement that needs to happen with what's learned in Level 1. It's easy to take a Level 1, get out there, and not use everything that was taught in the course. And that's a scary thought - because almost EVERYTHING taught in that course is so critical. With only one field day, the reinforcement just isn't there, and the odds are stacked against you that you'll do some things right and some things wrong. This is the reason, IMO, for the statement "a Level 1 is just enough to get you killed". Most people will learn what they do wrong through close calls, the others will be injured/dead.

Quote:

---

Change the industry's standard from "wear a beacon & take a course" too "find Level 2&3 riders and follow them not just in the mountains, but around town, at the bar. Badger them with questions and use their knowledge to guide you and you are ready to take the LEVEL 2 yourself." Do this (I did) and you might not only last a few seasons in spite of a defective brain (I did), you may also make numerous lifelong friends and mentors (I did)

---

I agree, it's much more relevant than 'wear a beacon and take a course'. I've learned far more from being out there both with and without my uncle (and just with others, in general), than what I could, in a class. However, I think a lot of it is reinforcement of the topics covered in Level 1 (and perhaps some in Level 2). Like I mentioned above, without reinforcement, it's easy to do things the wrong way. I would guess that most experienced backcountry skiers (including myself) do at LEAST one thing the 'wrong' way. Getting out with others that are outspoken is a good way to safely find out what you are doing wrong - whether they be mentors, peers, or even ones that you are mentoring. I don't necessarily like the "mentor" idea, as that does not necessarily encourage an open, two-way dialogue. The other way to 'safely' find out what you are doing wrong is to be in avalanche terrain on low consequence slopes.

I should probably clarify, also, that what you do wrong, and what you do right, isn't necessarily consistent, hence reinforcement being so important. But it's a double-edged sword, as you can certainly also reinforce what you do wrong - but thats why getting out with others that are outspoken will hopefully call you out on reinforced bad behaviors. Not necessarily the most well-written post, but hopefully my point came across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DasBlunt

and if a test and basic comprehension is not required, how can the cost or the title "certification" be justified? Plenty of people cannot comprehend certain combinations of simple information. I can imagine the same people not being able to comprehend complex data points and highly variable scenarios.

---

I think a test is a bad idea. The entire approach taken by the people taking the course will be different. You might pass the test right after you take the course, but what happens when you're actually out in the field?

I'd like to see all American avalanche courses change to being longer.

I'd like to see Level 1 and 2 be at least 4 days long (currently they are mostly 2.5 days long). This way we could get away from the current "drinking from the firehose" (i.e., so much information is given to students in Level 1 too fast) style of teaching.

The other thing folks currently do is they take Level 1 & 2 back to back. The American Avalanche Association's education guidelines, recommends that folks take Level 1 and then get some ACTUAL field experience before they take Level 2. When they take Level 1 & 2 back to back, they are totally overloaded with information. Level 2 makes more sense if you have some field experience.

How many of you guys think folks would go for a 4 - 5 day long Level 1 & 2 courses?

^ I thought that L1 was not enough information, too slowly.

I also thought that the L2 I took was a bit slow and weak on information, and it was four ten hour days. I also read and enjoyed 3/4 of The Avalanche Handbook in the couple days leading up to that class, so possible skewed perception from how most see it.

I'd love a 2-3 weekend L2, Friday afternoon through Sunday night, with 60-90 hours total instruction time.

agreed on courses being longer. much longer. 4 full days minimum (preferably more) with 3 full days outside, like up in/around avy terrain and stuff. sure you'll hear folks complain about not being able to take that much time or the cost would be too high for some, but ya know what? snow sense is a lifelong learning commitment and no part of it should be rushed through or overloaded inappropriately.

when i took my wfr which was 10 days long i was appalled that we spent just the 1st afternoon on cpr training. a good 2/3 full days shoulda been spent just on cpr alone.

rog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hacksaw

[...]

How many of you guys think folks would go for a 4 - 5 day long Level 1 & 2 courses?

---

I don't know for sure, but I bet a big reason they are 2.5 days is so that more weekend warriors will sign up for them. The thinking being "why should I burn vacation time sitting in class then digging pits when I could be skiing?"

Maybe offer a hybrid -- book learning with appropriate exercises (16 - 20 hours reading/writing?) via the innertubez and a 2-3 day practicum on the snow? Maybe once you can demonstrate familiarity with the written material, you can sign up for the snow portion. This gives people all the time they want to read beforehand. Online education has come a long way. Hell you could even have a forum like this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianH

Maybe offer a hybrid -- book learning with appropriate exercises (16 - 20 hours reading/writing?) via the innertubez and a 2-3 day practicum on the snow? Maybe once you can demonstrate familiarity with the written material, you can sign up for the snow portion. This gives people all the time they want to read beforehand. Online education has come a long way. Hell you could even have a forum like this!

---

Such courses exist, here is one example (conducted by a contributor to TGR forums).

There are a few others, and more of the same in the works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hacksaw

How many of you guys think folks would go for a 4 - 5 day long Level 1 & 2 courses?

---

my gut thought is that 4-5 days in a row would be too much commitment for rec users and would result in reduced participation numbers. Aren't the canadian courses this long? do they have data about this?

how about consecutive weekends?

i took the course that used to be offered by the friends of the utah avalanche center, which occurred over the wintertime 3-day weekends. three pretty long days with (what I thought was) a fair bit of time touring in avalanche terrain. terrain management and route selection were a large focus. the particular time that i took the course, the hazard flowed from relatively stable to very touchy (lots of naturals and human triggered avalanches) to relatively stable again.

it was interesting (and a little scary) to observe how different people were getting different levels of take-away from the course. some folks seemed like they were in the flock, simply following a guide and some were much more engaged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

my gut thought is that 4-5 days in a row would be too much commitment for rec users and would result in reduced participation numbers. Aren't the canadian courses this long?

---

Nope. They are 2.5 days also. The AST1 is anyways, not 100% sure about the AST2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lvsper

Such courses exist, here is one example (conducted by a contributor to TGR forums).

There are a few others, and more of the same in the works.

---

NSPs has had things like that for years and years.... I wouldn't consider it what people are looking for. Nor is just "longer" better unless the course is at a time/place where longer useful. This is where multiple, separate, weekends for fieldwork could be useful. Reality is for most cube monkeys there's no need for a longer course because the risk is relatively low.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

NSPs has had things like that for years and years.... I wouldn't consider it what people are looking for. Nor is just "longer" better unless the course is at a time/place where longer useful. This is where multiple, separate, weekends for fieldwork could be useful. Reality is for most cube monkeys there's no need for a longer course because the risk is relatively low.

---

Strangely, I agree with this very strongly.

Simple economics applies here: if your basic Level 1 goes from 24 hours to 48 hours or so, its going to cost a lot more. Fewer people will be able to pay or take the time, and you'll end up with fewer people with avalanche training, but not fewer people in the BC.

Courses are already very expensive and so are the instructor courses if you go that route.

We are talking recreation, not a professional course like AAA AvPro, AIARE/AAI Level 3, or CAA Level 2.

FWIW: I test at the end of my Level 1s. It is a good knowledge review, lets students see where they are and lets me see what I need to reinforce.

Sent from my DROID4 using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icelanticskier

agreed on courses being longer. much longer. 4 full days minimum (preferably more) with 3 full days outside, like up in/around avy terrain and stuff. sure you'll hear folks complain about not being able to take that much time or the cost would be too high for some, but ya know what? snow sense is a lifelong learning commitment and no part of it should be rushed through or overloaded inappropriately.

when i took my wfr which was 10 days long i was appalled that we spent just the 1st afternoon on cpr training. a good 2/3 full days shoulda been spent just on cpr alone.

rog

---

Just so you know CPR has awful success rates. It's quite poor as an intervention (though unfortunately sort of the best we have). I don't think there is that much involved in it to really justify taking a large period if time on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benkraj

Just so you know CPR has awful success rates. It's quite poor as an intervention (though unfortunately sort of the best we have). I don't think there is that much involved in it to really justify taking a large period if time on it.

---

well there sure as hell is a lot more to it (imo), and takes more effort to be good at than putting pressure on a bleeding wound or or splinting up a fracture to evac a breathing individual. aweful success rates cuz folks suck at doing it and were rushed through that portion of a course.

rog

What's the proper way to do CPR?

Let me chime in with my thoughts on course length. I think the level 1 length is fine. It works for the "cube monkeys" and at least in the course I took they tried to make it very clear that this is the absolute first step in your education.

Personally I am deterred by the length of the level 2 because it's hard to get 2 full days off work for me. I can get out EVERY afternoon, but can't do a full day without actually taking the time (meaning one less skiing vacation). As a result, I ended up in the BC ~75+ days this year but can't "justify" taking the time to take the class.

What people have suggested either with the course being part online with a test before a couple days of on snow, or split over two weekends would get (in my opinion) SO MANY MORE people to take the level 2 course. Which, in reality, is what we need. Level 1 is great, but the stats are that by % more people are killed who have level 1 than anything else. What I hope isn't happening in other classes (but I suspect is to a certain extent) is level 1 gives people the confidence without the skills. Bad combo.


EDIT: Another thought. A longer combo course that is pretty much a Wilderness First Aid course + Avi Level 1 course. I find that people with better wilderness medicine skills/awareness are more aware about what they are potentially getting themselves into as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by concretejungle

What's the proper way to do CPR?

---

compression only CPR is accepted as the best mode for bystanders

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/CPRAnd...ubHomePage.jsp


one exception being a lightning strike, where lungs depolarize and dont reset for an extended period

Compression only model is for urban bystanders made primarily under the basis of 2 assumptions:
1. By far the most common etiology is cardiac, so there is enough residual O2 in the blood for the assumed 8 minute urban response time of a healthcare provider.
2. Bystanders don't want to do mouth-to-mouth on strangers, so they were doing nothing at all.

Obviously, avalanche related arrests almost always fail assumption 1, we can argue about 2. There is a counterargument that perhaps there is some ventilation from the compressions.

I do think it is silly that we spend time on avalanche rescue, but not on what to do after or, more likely, the more likely event of nonavalanche medical issues, eg what happens if someone puts a tip under a log and gets an open tif fib. Everyone should have CPR whether they ski or not; it should be taught in highschool. IMO taking a Level 2 before spending a day on first aid is putting the cart before the horse.

Sent from my DROID4 using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icelanticskier

well there sure as hell is a lot more to it (imo), and takes more effort to be good at than putting pressure on a bleeding wound or or splinting up a fracture to evac a breathing individual. aweful success rates cuz folks suck at doing it and were rushed through that portion of a course.

rog

---

Sorry rog, this isn't correct.

There was a study done looking at all the cpr given in hospitals in Japan for a year. (95,000 cases or so). They found that someone given cpr survives only 8% of the time. Furthermore, of these 8% only 3% of them had a favorable outcome, i.e. back to having a good quality of life.

Here's a podcast talking about this, it's pretty interesting. http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiol...15/bitter-end/

^^^^^^i could give a fuck about some study in japan. my opinion is my opinion and i'm sticking to it:)

rog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by georgio

EDIT: Another thought. A longer combo course that is pretty much a Wilderness First Aid course + Avi Level 1 course. I find that people with better wilderness medicine skills/awareness are more aware about what they are potentially getting themselves into as well.

---

I had both Wilderness First Aid (16 hr class) and an Avy Level 1 as part of a NOLS trip.

I already held a Wilderness First Responder (40 hr) so the WFA was a nice basic review, but i can definitely get behind combining emergency medicine, backcountry travel, and avalanche awareness skills into the same course work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icelanticskier

^^^^^^i could give a fuck about some study in japan. my opinion is my opinion and i'm sticking to it:)

rog

---

It is true that effective CPR is important to better outcomes, but the problem isn't 4 vs 8 hours. Professionals spend 8 hours and there is data which shows that some medical types who do it regularly still do it poorly and more training doesn't help. The solution is proper resources and rotation, plus feedback mechanisms whether human or machine.

CPR outcomes are poor, but 3% beats 0%, thus my argument to teach it in highschool. However, we are talking about educational priorities for backcountry recreationalists: if everyone did CPR perfectly, overall outcomes would not likely improve greatly, which is your opinion. 8 hours vs 4 won't fix that, and even if you did, you would not suddenly see 50% survival to discharge rates. The evidence does not support your opinion. If I had a computer in front of me I'd happily cite dozens of studies. If you want I can talk about I'll leave you to ponder the quality of CPR one can perform as an individual on snow.

Sent from my DROID4 using TGR Forums