Printable View
I've long said that the danger ratings are one of the least informative parts of the forecast- the good stuff is all in the problem types and forecast discussion. It always drives me nuts when someone says "it just went moderate!". Who cares if it's a pwl like we usually have in CO. Somehow they need to bring the problem types to the front, and put the rating in the back...
Great discussion and it would be interesting to get a psychologist's input on how people actually assess risk. I believe one reason PWLs are so dangerous is that humans are not adapted to rationally assess low probability/high consequence events like PWLs. I don't know if we will ever solve this problem but if we do lottery ticket sales will probably tank.
I don’t agree that the forecasting is the issue. Every forecast available is very clear about the issues in the snowpack, and those who read them and have the humility and discipline to adapt accordingly don’t have problems. However plenty of people either don’t read them, don’t think they apply to them, or just inexplicably act contrary to them. It’s fascinating to speculate about all the complicated psychological and societal factors at play in such risk taking, but imagining that changing how forecasts are communicated is somehow going address these fundamental human qualities, seems a tall order.
^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by wra
I've said that I don't know how to keep people on top of the snow.
That's not true. I've taught scores of people to do just that in and out of the ski area.
And paid great attention to linking up older with younger patrollers on routes.
How does one learn the stuff that a forecast can't teach you?
One learns it best from mentoring not just unguided experience.
So, how do we get young "expert" folks mentored?
Especially for the up where all time is spent and folks are most likely to be traveling through avy terrain more than one at a time, like wra says.
No one is gonna pay for it, and if it is free is it worth anything?
People have a hard time implementing the only highly effective strategy during shitty PWL = 0 avalanche terrain.
Recognizing avalanche terrain and skiing clear of it is more effective then any asterisk or X rating or whatever improvement on the forecast report.
IMO too many people want to make it about “making the call.” With PWL the call is not skiing on or under avalanche terrain until there is major bridging or a metamorphosis of some type.
Discipline is required. Days, weeks, months can go by without being able to ski on or under avalanche terrain. And that’s not as exciting as steep terrain today and requires constant attention from planning to skin track chatting to choosing the less exciting way down.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
The "or under" seems to be a major issue this year. A related challenge is that while PWL are pretty standard in some places, the "shitty PWL," as you called it, is a whole other animal. There are places I ski most winters on moderate days that I'm scared of this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick
This is the real crux of the biscuit. Discipline. I know Nancy Reagan ruined it for us, but truly, you gotta just say NO to avalanche terrain. Gotta be patient. Gotta wait til spring or til next year. Sure we could re-work the avalanche bulletin, but that's not the issue. People gotta OWN terrain choices. I know the general demographic that is getting smoked. As Pogo says, they are US, they are ME. Attachment 362316Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick
This, and then you add in familiarity.Quote:
Originally Posted by total_immortal
I've talked a bit about this and decision making in general with my wife, who is a psychologist. She's not specialized in cognitive behaviour, so she's not really into these things, but overall she just says that most people are built so that they always try to justify why they can do something they want to do. As opposed to finding reasons not do it. The difference is mainly that different people relies on different heuristics.
I also work together with a few psychologist and other with degrees in psychology. Neither has really given me good explanations of how we function cognitively when we assess LPHC-situations. To me it seems that this "defect" has had a function in human evolution. Would you hunt wolly mammoths, if you considered the risk rationally? Or would you eat berries and whatnot?
I'm pretty certain that I on a group level see a difference between boys and girls in how they assess and accept risk. I'm pretty certain that there's been research into avalanches as well, were groups including girls are less prone to avalanches.
There it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by homemadesalsa
But an addict is going to do it regardless of the risks.
It's where we are
To address the original post:Quote:
Originally Posted by sfotex
Where did the term pwl come from, anyhow?
A fancy term for what is usually large facets on the ground.
It's kind of a stupid phrase and like Sfotex says, doesn't have a warning bell to it.
There's a tremendous difference like he says between new and old snow avalanches.
We use to talk about "deep slab" or "full depth avalanches" instead of pwls.
That is we are talking about what could slide, not the weak layer that was the cause.
Much more attention getting, yes?
Always had an ominous ring to it, at least for me.
Maybe we should be talking about pwls less, and deep slab potential more, eh?
That is a good point. My first stint living in Colorado, we had a really bad year. I remember reading the term "deep slab" over and over in the report every day, seeing lots of reference and pictures of small slabs stepping down into the older snow and ripping out the entire bowl. I was scared enough, then I took a SAR page for a fatality. Third person down the slope iirc in a heavily skied area. Triggered a small slab that stepped down and wiped out the whole pitch. I don't think I left the resort for a month or two after that.Quote:
Originally Posted by telefreewasatch
This is a really good discussion. I'm all about creative problem solving and I 100% agree that when the rating encompasses both probability and consequence, it has limitations with Deep slab/PSL/lingering problems with high spatial variability. That said, the true problem is consistently conservative decision making, a commitment to being awesome and being hyper situationally aware.
As a user group, we need to be more in tune with the fact that we are the problem. We talk about "heuristic traps" and "humans being inside the avalanche triangle" but it is not enough. I advocate for this being the number one and first agenda item for any day in the backcountry. Check in with yourself and be honest about how you are feeling, where your brain is at and make a commitment to safety. Do this before you even look at the forecast or start with any trip planning. Then have this conversation with your partners. Do it again as part of your beacon check. Have everyone look each other in the eye and make sure that you and your group respect each others lives to the extent that getting everyone home safely from now until forever is by far and away the priority.
If you can't do that or if you place something else above a true rigorous commitment to safety, you and your group are at risk and you may want to consider whether travel in avalanche terrain is an appropriate activity for you. Nobody wants to hear this. Everyone thinks that because they love skiing that the logical progression is into the backcountry.
In many ways it is the antithesis of ski area skiing which can be an escape from reality. Backcountry skiing can be the most stark and deadly teacher of reality.
^^^Good post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
Edited to add: Kin nailed it. You just have to stay out of avalanche terrain, up and down. If you can't accept the fun in that, then the resort is where you should stay.
Man, so many people don't get this when they get their first BC setup. They are practically two different sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
https://avalanche.state.co.us/foreca...e/front-range/
The hazard rating for today is MODERATE for all elevations. The associates verbiage is:
Quote:
Summary
You can trigger an avalanche large enough to bury you completely. The most dangerous slopes have firm slabs of recently wind-drifted snow. Identify and avoid steep areas with smooth, pillow-like drifts of snow. You're likely to find these under ridgelines and in steep, sheltered gullies. Avalanches can break into deeper layers and produce surprisingly large and destructive avalanches.
To me, as a 25+ year ski tourer in a Continental Snow Pack, my tour plan for today would be "AVOID ALL AVALANCHE TERRAIN". That doesn't make it the right answer, it just makes it my answer. The incidents this year are just reinforcing the idea that ski touring in avalanche terrain just sucks right now. Unless you are willing to avoid avalanche terrain, you are at risk. Go to the ski area, go meadow skipping, figure out a traverse, prospect new zones, get a snowmobile, learn to pow surf. Mid winter travel in avalanche terrain is the exception not the rule.Quote:
In the first week of February, at least 14 people were killed in avalanches in the U.S., making it one of the deadliest weeks in 100 years. This comes despite advances in weather forecasting, personal safety equipment, education and training. There is no doubt that the mountains can be a perilous place. Still, safety is possible, but it requires nearly monastic focus and careful planning when conditions are dangerous. Even after all that, you have to stick to the plan and be ready with contingencies when the unexpected occurs.
Recent avalanche activity shows a pattern of larger avalanches recently and some running longer than expected. Despite low snow volume for this time of the season, bed surfaces are almost slippery, wind has concentrated snow in start zones, and avalanches are reaching areas that people haven't seen in recent memory.
Years like this are uncommon but not unheard of. Avalanches occur on a geologic timescale, with landscape-altering events occurring infrequently. It's a timescale more akin to massive floods than severe thunderstorms, as far as the frequency of severe events goes. Most people never see big avalanches in their lives. Others live through a historic avalanche cycle like March 2019 in Colorado.
This year, your previously used travel plans might not be safe. Long-running avalanches are always possible, but this year they are more likely. Keep your planning and communication tight and focused on careful travel and don't be afraid to adjust your plans if you get new information along the way.
As someone on the other side of this equation, I couldn't agree more: the best knowledge comes from personal, 1x1 relationships, mentoring, hands on teaching. My partners and I try our best with the tools we have at our disposal - CalTopo, WBS map, searching UAC for previously reported slides while planning a tour the night before, etc, but we're all right around 30 +/- 5 years, and we just don't have the depth of knowledge that many of the more seasoned backcountry travelers have. Nor do we see the world through your eyes; I'm sure that on the same tour, you would pick up on twice the available evidence of avalanche activity or snow instability than we would.Quote:
Originally Posted by telefreewasatch
For whatever it's worth I could easily find a group of 3 highly motivated, younger skiers who would gladly pay for the opportunity to have this type of mentorship. Please shoot me a PM if you're serious
I respectfully disagree, and I think that your comment represents an oversimplification of human behavior, risk assessment, and data analysis/interpretation. It's not simply a matter of hubris or lack of humility or reading comprehension, and fundamentally, if the goal of an avalanche center is to reduce injuries and fatalities, it is incumbent upon them to identify communication and visualization strategies that effectively convey the desired information. Moreover, equipping people with the right tools and knowledge pays dividends for years to come - it's not enough just to say "Don't ski steep shit or UR GONNA DIE"Quote:
Originally Posted by kootenayskier
I agree completely with this, and with comments that Boissal and others have made in previous threads. Simply put - you can't outsmart a PWL problem. The only answer is avoidance, plain and simple. No other management technique will work.Quote:
Originally Posted by kinnikinnick
That said - when I look at the choices of the recent Wilson Glade accident, as well as our own choices that day (skiing similar avalanche terrain in the same area), I think there's a bit more going on to this problem. The tragedy is that I'm sure the Wilson Glade party thought they were skiing in safe(r) terrain, and they probably rationalized their choices because "it's only 32 degrees", much in the same way we did. It wasn't about skiing "exciting" terrain, it wasn't about ignoring the forecast, it was a rationalized decision based on a presumption of lower risk - we all knew the forecast, and a series of events led to some really bad decision making. "This terrain is only 30 degrees and while it technically can slide, it's not like we're going to go ski some 38 degree bowl". That type of thinking.
Attachment 362363
I know we've all seen similar graphs, but I know that one of the hardest lessons for me of last weekend is internalizing the fact that slides can and do and will kill people even at (or slightly under) 30 degrees.
Do you buy your lunch? Do you complain about snow conditions? Do you go inside when the weather sucks? Do you need the trail map to get around? Go XC skiing on ungroomed trails 20 times and get back to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by snowaddict91
Within my short life experience, backcountry skiing has gone from something mysterious and implicitly dangerous that just a few of us weirdos practiced in obscurity, to what is now sold as a logical extension of resort skiing by an entire industry and their tools of mass persuasion. We’re now in the realm of mass movements, which have a momentum of their own, that in aggregate are impossible to anticipate or manage. No different than trying to convince voters to make rational choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
Tgapp, with all honest respect, I read that post and I see a smart person trying to walk a tightrope. I think my mindset is pretty well known so I won't waste your time with that, I'll just say that it appears to be that you need to build in a larger margin of safety.
I can't speak directly to the UAC, but generally this is a dangerous fallacy. Avalanche Center's are primarily forecasting entities and often funded by Highway Departments. To be short, you need to own all that. If you need assistant, get with the local guide or avalanche education community. It's totally bullshit to put that on the avalanche center. It is really a fairly recent change to have forecaster even begin to start talking about decision making.Quote:
if the goal of an avalanche center is to reduce injuries and fatalities, it is incumbent upon them to identify communication and visualization strategies that effectively convey the desired information.
Hey to be clear, I'm not trying to walk a tight rope here - I'm acknowledging that I fucked up and made dumb decisions. No effort to thread a needle on my part; I'm only pointing out that rationalization or selective interpretation among (somewhat) experienced backcountry users plays a large part in often fatal choices, and that helping backcountry recreationalists recognize and contextualize that data can change their decision making process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
It's not like they didn't read or understand the forecast, it's that there is often a gray area between 100% safe areas (20 degree gladed meadows with nothing above) and 100% dangerous areas (38 degree windloaded slopes or whatever). All I'm saying is that there is nuance that is missed by experienced (20+ veterans) reducing the issue to "OMG the backcountry is full of so many resort skiers, they're so dumb they don't even read the forecast amirite??". And, unfortunately, new backcountry skiers (myself included) lack the depth of knowledge to say "Remember when this went big back in 2001? It might not go every year, but we had a very similar snowpack that season".
Yep, and I can't speak to many avalanche centers outside of the areas where I ski commonly - UAC, CAIC, and Bridger Teton, but I can say that their mission (and methodologies) have shifted dramatically with the influx of huge numbers of backcountry recreationalists. I'm not "putting" that on the UAC, everyone who goes out into the backcountry (or anywhere for that matter) needs to own both their choices and the consequences thereof: I believe in radical accountability as a basic principle of human autonomy. I do something, it's on me. It's not the UAC's fault if I make a dumb choice, BUT, their advisories, communication, and community outreach has a direct impact on it's mission and goals as an organization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
The UAC's sponsorship of the Know Before You Go program is direct evidence of the shift from traditional forecasting (which is more like meteorology) to active harm reduction/community invovlement, as is their sponsorship of numerous classes and community events (Snow and Avalanche workshops, AVY101/AIARE1 courses, fireside chats, etc). Times have changed, and they're no longer just an extension of the department of transportation or the forest service - and the shift in messaging (or the consideration of how backcountry users read/interpret that message) is evidenced by different visualization strategies, marketing budgets, etc.
...And there you have it. That's backcountry skiing in between Low and Extreme Hazard Ratings. I'm not the best at explaining myself on the internet and I'm only using your comments as an example (it may not be accurate so don't let me pile shit on ya that doesn't apply).Quote:
there is often a gray area between 100% safe areas (20 degree gladed meadows with nothing above) and 100% dangerous areas (38 degree windloaded slopes or whatever)
There is no Secret Decoder Ring. Long time tourers have no additional skills or knowledge. They may have a level of refinement (stubborness) that allows them to be more consistently awesome with their decision making (or not) when managing a deep slab problem.
To be honest, the nuance that we think we have may be making it worse not better. I've been quasi-mentoring a few paraglider pilots and they struggle with the lack of answers also. It is an imprecise science with many unknowns. The best we can do is best honest with ourselves about the objective level of risk (that can't be mitigated), embrace the uncertainty, and make conservative choices.
[total sidebar: engineers have a hard time with uncertainty and think their needs to be a better mouse trap].
i think - the biggest difference is - long time tourers are able to pick up on more contextual data, have a longer history with the place (they remember that big year back in 2001), and spend less energy making decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
i thought this presentation at USAW around how experienced people think vs how inexperienced people think (decision making fatigue) was extremely insightful - i would recommend it to everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_xL...3E&index=2
This is what I was trying to emphasize in our texts the other day. I see exactly this rationalization amongst experienced ski tourers and have done it myself. To echo Boissal's earlier post for the n'th time, it's easy to fall into this pattern of risk reduction when storm snow is the focus. But the margin isn't there with a pwl waiting to explode the whole slope with the right trigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by tgapp
I'll watch that video tonight maybe. Just spitballing, but maybe there is some frustration it trying to the thirst for progression with "there is no substitute for experience"?
It gets back to the "we are the enemy" idea. So many newer ski tourers are smart, wealthy, confident, successful etc. You probably got there through hard work, determination, focus, risk acceptance, fearlessness and desire. These attributes are gonna work again you if you try and "over manage" a persistent weak layer.
Great discussion with lots of varying degrees of experience and risk acceptance/avoidance.
That needs to be on a label for all BC gear.Quote:
Man, so many people don't get this when they get their first BC setup. They are practically two different sports.
There are plenty of people who pour over maps, read the advisories and study the weather, follow their local areas of choice snow pack and travel with wide safety margins.
There are also plenty who throw their shit in the truck and drive to the trailhead to get out and go skiing with no planning and no discussion of goals and their concerns.
It would be interesting to see the breakout between these ranges and who ends up getting into trouble more often.
My gut feeling is that is is about 50/50.