The Human Factor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CookieMonster

Sometimes people talk about human factors as if people aren't under their own control. Does anyone really benefit if the community at large decides that it's okay to use human factors to cover up incompetence?

---

That's the million dollar question right there. I think this is one of those areas where, as a culture, we need to first accept that the core of our user base is likely "incompetent" and/or unable to use training to overcome our traps. In other words, getting over the denial factor and accepting that we need to stick to process rather than shortcuts or subconscious guidance to make terrain / exposure decisions. It's a hard pill to swallow when you get away with it 99.9% of the time.

I don't think we are there yet from a training perspective. I think about Hohes/neck beard's stellar comment in the Pucker Face thread regarding the idea of "operations mentality": view yourselves as an avalanche operations team who happens to ski, not a ski touring group who happens to talk (or not) about avalanches. Again, we are not there yet either, culturally.

It'll be really interesting to see how the rest of these turn out. I've been trying to not read these as they come out, to save them all for the end, but having Jake be the focus of the articles so far has been hard.

Having my inbox, facebook, and other media saturated with the story of a good friends vibrant life cut short has been rough on myself and our group in town. I'm currently crashing on a couch in Katie's old home, now passed down to a new group of college-house-dwellers and chocked full of brothers that knew Jake in various respects. Many of us were his friends, some of us, his students. It was not hard to see the change in mood, the somber tone that this house took on today as people read through and reflected. There is so much Jake here within these walls.

Seeing his smile, and hers, and knowing that everything they said in the article about his character was true made it a little better. Reading Katie's quotes and hearing her talk in my head. But the conversation we held tonight really honed in on what we all knew everyone else thought.


He was the best of us.


When the person that fills that niche in your group of riding partners succumbs to what we all had at one point looked to him for advice on, where do you go? We did not rely solely on his voice, but it held a gravity in our circle that pulled you to reconsider and see things from a view slightly closer to his.

Did I miss something in part 2 or does it skip over the incident that took Jake's life? I remember the incident and can find the details but it seems a little weird to gloss over what exactly happened after building up to it.

Str8chuter can chime and and clarify, but he seems a bit more indifferent to risk in this article than he normally is. Not sure if its the best representation or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snapt

Did I miss something in part 2 or does it skip over the incident that took Jake's life? I remember the incident and can find the details but it seems a little weird to gloss over what exactly happened after building up to it.

---

Wasn't that covered sufficiently in part 1? Maybe I'm missing your point.

To the argument that this is too much like the Tunnel Creek article, I think the more article like this the better. The more likely people will read them and understand the whole story and not just the report which tends to be a little dry. I don't feel that this is sensationalizing the event (so far), which I am completely against, but telling the story leading up to and examining more in-depth the events leading up to the accident.

The article (especially part 2)does have a more emotional aspect to it which might leave more of an affect on some people, which I think is a good thing. If it gets more people to read and be affected by the story, then maybe they will think a little more cautiously before heading out. I find that after some experiences with these kind of events, I definitely think more about the consequences of my actions out there than I did before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shredgnar

Wasn't that covered sufficiently in part 1? Maybe I'm missing your point.

---

Well shit, part one never loaded after the video on my work comp. See it now on my phone, thanks for clearing that up.

What are everyone's thoughts on the whole, "wait 5 to 10 turns before you go" method applied in this case? I could see the potential for confusion with wait 5 to 10 seconds accidentally slipping out. The groups I've been in have always used a marker (i.e. wait until the skier in front of you goes past those trees down there). Is "5 to 10" turns fairly standard or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

What are everyone's thoughts on the whole, "wait 5 to 10 turns before you go" method applied in this case? I could see the potential for confusion with wait 5 to 10 seconds accidentally slipping out. The groups I've been in have always used a marker (i.e. wait until the skier in front of you goes past those trees down there). Is "5 to 10" turns fairly standard or not?

---

Either way it was stupid. If you throw out the valid point that they shouldn't have even been on that slope, they should have skied it one at a time from the top to the safe spot and if they couldn't see the whole slope they should have communicated with the radio they had. That was the standard practice when I skied with WAH.

No one else sees the irony of McLean talking about the importance of intuition in the first episode, then just sort of glossing over in Ep 2 how intuition totally failed them when Grove took that ride?

or Roman Latta?

Skiing one at a time on any slope is just better form in general whether there are instabilities or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

What are everyone's thoughts on the whole, "wait 5 to 10 turns before you go" method applied in this case? I could see the potential for confusion with wait 5 to 10 seconds accidentally slipping out. The groups I've been in have always used a marker (i.e. wait until the skier in front of you goes past those trees down there). Is "5 to 10" turns fairly standard or not?

---

The five to ten turns between skiers could be all it takes to load a slope to release, imho.
Safe zones minimize multiple burial potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by telemike

or Roman Latta?

---

One would hope McLean's intuition has improved since then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by telebobski

No one else sees the irony of McLean talking about the importance of intuition in the first episode, then just sort of glossing over in Ep 2 how intuition totally failed them when Grove took that ride?

---

What I see setting up in all of these articles is a binary argument where the only "good call" is the decision not to ski in avalanche terrain since any amount of risk we accept and get away with becomes "getting lucky". No amount of rehashing of accidents like these will have a dramatic effect on behaviors or outcomes because the element of risk is what makes us feel the activities are worthwhile. Do you know anyone that only skis in non-avalanche terrain? I can't say that I do. I remember a convo I had with Andrew ~20 yrs ago where he said that he found just skiing powder to be boring, he craved the risk. This was maybe a few years after the Wolverine accident before the chuting gallery came out. The video in episode 2 clearly shows this opinion hasn't changed. The comment something could happen on day 5 or day 5000 is certainly true-we have an incident (hopefully not accident), try to analyse the clues as to what we missed, back off our accepted amount of risk in the near term, then continue pursuing activities that involve risk and slowly build back up to the level we were at previously. Intuition fails us when we choose to ignore it.

Whether we label it heuristics or incompetence when discussing factors the add to the risk, the reality is they mean the same thing- an error in judgement was made. Labeling it heuristics merely lessens the blow to the friends, family, survivors, and memory for those we felt were highly competent and yet still made incompetent decisions within that moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mofro261

What I see setting up in all of these articles is a binary argument where the only "good call" is the decision not to ski in avalanche terrain since any amount of risk we accept and get away with becomes "getting lucky". No amount of rehashing of accidents like these will have a dramatic effect on behaviors or outcomes because the element of risk is what makes us feel the activities are worthwhile. Do you know anyone that only skis in non-avalanche terrain? I can't say that I do. I remember a convo I had with Andrew ~20 yrs ago where he said that he found just skiing powder to be boring, he craved the risk. This was maybe a few years after the Wolverine accident before the chuting gallery came out. The video in episode 2 clearly shows this opinion hasn't changed. The comment something could happen on day 5 or day 5000 is certainly true-we have an incident (hopefully not accident), try to analyse the clues as to what we missed, back off our accepted amount of risk in the near term, then continue pursuing activities that involve risk and slowly build back up to the level we were at previously. Intuition fails us when we choose to ignore it.

Whether we label it heuristics or incompetence when discussing factors the add to the risk, the reality is they mean the same thing- an error in judgement was made. Labeling it heuristics merely lessens the blow to the friends, family, survivors, and memory for those we felt were highly competent and yet still made incompetent decisions within that moment.

---

so long as humans keep being human........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio

... and/or unable to use training to overcome our traps.

---

I fear that you're still missing the point. Incompetence is when someone can't / won't / doesn't use their training to manage/overcome susceptibility to human factors, or when they don't rigourously apply their training, or when they pick and choose best practices, or when they ignore obvious signs of instability, or when they fail to follow even the most basic principles of backcountry avalanche forecasting and decision making with respect to margin of safety. Incompetence is when someone conflates their accumulated experience as a backcountry skier with actually being skilled at backcountry avalanche forecasting and decision-making or any other principle of winter mountain safety. Knowing how to do something ( experience ) is not the same as knowing how to do something the right way ( skill ).

So much of this talk about human factors seems to paint backcountry skiers as zombies devoid of free will who have had their agency removed. This is very rarely true and it is especially untrue for backcountry skiers who are aware of these issues beforehand. Assuming we're talking about legally competent adults, then I absolutely cannot see how someone is "unable" to use their training to tour in competent fashion. I think it's much more fair to say that people become lazy and complacent and just do what they want, with small varnishes of safety added on for effect. The thing is that the physics of snow and avalanches mean that being complacent and lazy and using small varnishes of safety is almost always good enough. Until it's not.

***

For the record, I'm using "incompetence" in the most clinical and non-judgmental sense possible.

***

Dale Atkins wrote an ***absolutely incredible*** article on uncertainty in this issue of The Avalanche Review. It taught me a lot and really should be required reading.

http://www.americanavalancheassociat...31_4_LoRes.pdf

The article begins on page 22 ( where page 22 is on the top left of the page, which is not necessarily the page 22 indicated by your PDF reader ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mofro261

What I see setting up in all of these articles is a binary argument where the only "good call" is the decision not to ski in avalanche terrain since any amount of risk we accept and get away with becomes "getting lucky". No amount of rehashing of accidents like these will have a dramatic effect on behaviors or outcomes because the element of risk is what makes us feel the activities are worthwhile. Do you know anyone that only skis in non-avalanche terrain.

---

No one is saying that the only good call is the decision not to ski in avalanche terrain.

I feel like it's worthwhile sorting out the difference between good decision making and gambling, and I feel like it's important to try and know the difference.

There's nothing morally wrong with taking a gamble, but wouldn't you at least like to be able to say to yourself, honestly, "well, I don't have enough information, so this is a gamble." At least then you can try to implement extra precautions to make sure that an accident doesn't become a total disaster. Or maybe you want to take the gamble, but recognize that you're tired and that maybe today isn't a good day for a gamble. But if you're saying "oh yeah, we've done our due diligence" when in reality you are just throwing the dice, wouldn't you want to know? Isn't that difference important to you? It's important to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CookieMonster

No one is saying that the only good call is the decision not to ski in avalanche terrain.

I feel like it's worthwhile sorting out the difference between good decision making and gambling, and I feel like it's important to try and know the difference.

There's nothing morally wrong with taking a gamble, but wouldn't you at least like to be able to say to yourself, honestly, "well, I don't have enough information, so this is a gamble." At least then you can try to implement extra precautions to make sure that an accident doesn't become a total disaster. Or maybe you want to take the gamble, but recognize that you're tired and that maybe today isn't a good day for a gamble. But if you're saying "oh yeah, we've done our due diligence" when in reality you are just throwing the dice, wouldn't you want to know? Isn't that difference important to you? It's important to me.

---

realize that people like mofro are the cultural problem. smart, well educated, lots of experience, still come up with stupid rationalizations to themselves for doing dumbshit while looking down their noses at others not like them who do "dumb shit". It's an addiction issue.

I think perhaps you overestimate the ability of most people - even "smart" ones - to put things together in an area outside of their comfort zone, which acting as a guide is for most. Try to find one area of life (outside of perhaps their professional sphere) where an upper middle class person is supposed to independently make decisions without outside advice/handholding?

I think we all agree 5 - 10 turn spacing is not enough. how many people are going to get smoked and not even know it. I'm really big on safety spots and stress to people that wot you think is safe ... aint!!! this is the number 1 thing I have picked up from reading avy incedents and talking to people who have been thru it.
having some one drop in above me scares the shit out of me. we once had the 3rd guy down the chute get taken for a ride. good thing the other 2 were down and safe.
wots the farkin rush ... ... paying customers with expectations ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

realize that people like mofro are the cultural problem. smart, well educated, lots of experience, still come up with stupid rationalizations to themselves for doing dumbshit while looking down their noses at others not like them who do "dumb shit". It's an addiction issue.

---

Even if this is true, I'm interested in whether or not people who self-describe as "competent" actually are competent. Because, and we can use the Wallowas incident as a basis, clearly there are some disconnects in this regard.

Anyway, to do this, we first have to determine what constitutes competence in this domain, and I think this is an important conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

realize that people like mofro are the cultural problem. smart, well educated, lots of experience, still come up with stupid rationalizations to themselves for doing dumbshit while looking down their noses at others not like them who do "dumb shit". It's an addiction issue.
?

---

Hugh, this is really close to true - well educated, several decades of backcountry experience, very fit and strong skiing abilities from a life long pursuit of the my addictions. And yes I am highly addicted to doing dumb shit- I often tour solo, I venture out in what others might consider questionable conditions, I (gasp) rarely wear a helmet, i'll often lap partners in the course of a tour. But I mostly proceed in the mountains in a manner that will have little impact on others, ie part of my rationalization for doing dumb shit is trying to do it in a semi-responsible manner that doesn't endanger others. I don't look down my nose at others for doing dumb shit or being inherently different, I look down my nose at others who act like or are dumb shits and fail to grasp what should be common sense. Like you, I'm quite at peace with being the asshole I am and also content with the talents I've been given and those I have earned.

Cookie, I've never been partial to gambling, but gave up exposing myself to what I considered excessive risk pretty close to the time I had kids to come home to. Call it calculated risk but it is all subjective, my "good call" may be your "gamble" and we may both be right or wrong.

Competency is a tricky one to nail down. In the last several years I have known highly competent and very accomplished mountaineers/skiers who have fallen through cornices. Competent skiers who have suffocated in tree wells. Competent skiers who have died in avalanches. We could debate in each instance whether or not that person was truly competent or not really that competent but I fail to see a level of competency that makes any of us infallible. So we pour over the data to look for the clues, the signs missed, that when faced with the same circumstances, that we be able to make the right decision. While a helpful exercise to move past a tragedy, in reality we will never be exposed to those exact same circumstances (be it the slope, snow pack history, current conditions etc), and the cycle continues.

Part 3. More of the same IMO. This is probably good for younger folks and newbies who have no or less awareness and really can't/don't appreciate the risks. Maybe this will also encourage objective discussion of accidents without being judgmental or defensive by observers and those involved.

I don't necessarily think this is a good piece of journalism but it is a good discussion that we've had here before. The Pucker Face thread here was more valuable than this piece for me.

Regurgitating the same discussions of the same problems we've been talking about for well over a decade, very pretty though.

Yup. The only thing keeping people from dying in avy terrain is other people dying in avy terrain. People die, people wake up.

Shame folk with the media presence, like Powder and (ahem) TGR, can't be as proactive about moving the conversation forward as they are about hocking smut stoke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by covert

Shame folk with the media presence, like Powder and (ahem) TGR, can't be as proactive about moving the conversation forward as they are about hocking smut stoke.

---

Starting to see a bit more safety conversation amidst the ski porn -- there's the occasional 1/2second clip of a snow pit or beacon practice or pros mentioning the snowpack. But agree there definitely needs to be more. I don't think it's in conflict to their movies' objectives -- doesn't the known risk make it all the more extreme? -- and even a small dialogue could have such an impact on awareness.