Fascinating.Quote:
Originally Posted by dos bolsas
Printable View
Fascinating.Quote:
Originally Posted by dos bolsas
On the nwac accidents page (it's not allowing linking because of my n00b status)
Back country near Mission Ridge Ski Area; east slopes central WA Cascades - that is the name of one of them
Hooky Bowl on Trout Ck drainage, near Mt Cashmere, east slopes central WA Cascades - that's the other
One shows just how small an avalanche can be and still bury you. The second shows how bad it can be to get dragged through trees.
Lindahl - kudos for the willingness to put all this out there. You obviously thought about things a great deal.
A few more thoughts from my (old guy, conservative) perspective:
Basic avalanche evaluation looks for (a) Avalanche terrain + negative consequences, (b) weak layer, and (c) load or trigger. You found all of these and then moved on to more complex and much less objective criteria (how much snow will go, how fast will it go, when will it break, will I get caught, how to I get out, will I get injured, what kind of injures, etc.). This is during one of the worst avalanche years in one of the year-in-year-out worst snowpacks in the world.
You are making the classic mistake of using those secondary mitigating factors to talk yourself into skiing slopes you have objectively determined to be likely to slide.
Odds are stacked against you no matter how you justify it if you are keeping your evaluation going after those first three come up bad.
In my observation, the more experience you have in the bc evaluating difficult avalanche conditions, the more respect & humility you have for luck, randomness and the power of the mountains. The way you talk with such confidence about predicting such complex factors indicates to me a limited understanding of them. I don't mean that with any disrespect, it's just an observation on my part.
I fully understand the risk tolerance part, but think it is widely mis-used. Seems to me that there is a very high correlation of high risk tolerance with relatively inexperienced backcountry skiers. I.e. it takes lots of experience to accurately understand the risk. [cliche] There are old bc skiers, and there are bold bc skiers, but there are no old, bold bc skiers. [/cliche]
Like some old Greek said, It is impossible for a man to learn what he already thinks he knows.
OP - I think you're a bit casual with the potential for things like "partial burial" and a "few broken bones." But what do I know, I paid $11 for an overcooked resort cheeseburger today and was shitting my pants within 90 minutes, so my own risk-benefit analysis isn't too good.
In the end, your choices are your choices and one man's auto-erotic asphyxiation in a church closet with a strand of barbed wire around his nutsack is another man's missionary position with the lights off in his own bedroom.
I heart Joe Strummer.....sig worthy
Forgetting the very important avy discussion for a moment that was some tight skiing. If I ever see you I'll make sure not to follow you into the trees. Those look like first year Billy Goat topsheets?
whats the difference tween side and backcounty again? I forgot
are 2 sidecountry days = to 1 backcountry day?
how many feet outside the resort does the sidecounrty end and the backcountry start?
if you don't ride lifts is it backcountry by default?
Leaving the slide part of this POV aside, loved that run starting at 2:45 or so. Good stuff.
sounds like you managed terrain while running with scissors, make sure you learn something and keep having fun.
Another thing that just occured to me to mention, that if it wasn't for the adjacent old slide, our decision would have been different. It gave us a good idea of what a slide would look like, if we triggered one. One of our party members wasn't ok with the same personal risk, and chose a different line and was able to get lower, and give us good beta on what the old activity looked like.
The burial slide is a classic gully terrain trap (where snow can pile up in huge debris piles). We did get a close look at the debris below our slide (and the adjacent old slide), and it was insignificantly deep, but that's mostly just anecdotal evidence and not really something I'd prefer to use in judgements.Quote:
Originally Posted by natew08
The trees I would have been pushed through are dramatically different. Most of them are small midget trees, with only a couple of "real" trees. Force would likely be a lot greater, as well, due to the significantly higher slope angle. Not saying I know all and that it's impossible for similar massive trauma to occur, but I still question whether it was a probable consequence.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=39.627...num=1&t=h&z=18
I've read similar accident reports from around CO (Dry Gulch for trauma, and multiple reports for gully terrain traps).
Great points. I'll have to think about those. I am aware that it is pretty subjective criteria, and that confidence is often an hindsight luxury, with balls/boldness being the foresight. I certainly wouldn't be doing this with a good chance of death on the line, but I do gamble some when it comes to injury in my other activities (mtb, canyoneering, climbing/mountaineering).Quote:
Originally Posted by dino
Funny shit that needs to be quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeStrummer
Could you have stood up in the middle of that avalanche without being knocked over? Didn't look like it. Therefore, it was big enough to knock you over and burry you. But if it was so small, you should have just skied it out like they do in the movies. You can't surf them like waves, they churn and drag you to the bottom. Once the snow stops moving, it turns to concrete. Go burry yourself under 1 ft of avy debris and see if you can sit up, it'll make you not want to fuck with even "smallish" slides.Quote:
I'd like to know if I'm underestimating the burial ability of that size of an avalanche.
In order to claim "Risk Tolerance" you must first understand the risks involved.
You sound a lot like that airbag chick from zuma. :biggrin:Quote:
In order to understand my risk tolerance a bit better, it should be noted that I partake in lots of similarly-consequential activities outside of skiing. For example, jumping into pools, rather than rappelling, while canyoneering in a remote canyon on the fringes of Lake Powell, or free-soloing a low class 5 route, without beta, on the north spur of Mt. Powell, deep inside the Gores. I do have a high risk tolerance, in most activities. For me, it's a part of living. For others, it's a stupid decision.
You skied a line, kick off an avalanche, posted it on the internet and then are going to act like it wasn't a big deal to show how gnarcore you are. Here's to you, GoPro Hero guy. [/bud lite commercial]
Being injured and needing rescue could involve more people than just yourself:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
http://www.summitdaily.com/article/2...ntProfile=1055
Not that we don't all go into the backcountry where evacuation would be costly and difficult, but something to think about before you go bragging about it on the interwebs.
Speaking personally with the 'airbag chick from Zuma', she didn't even think the slope would slide, and was not comfortable with the consequences if it had. Quite different.
Not stood up, but certainly sat up. Or at least, sat up as it began to slow (as it hardens). I've seen numerous people in similar slide flows, several in person. These are personal experiences, or related from personal experiences, reinforced up by numerous accident reports and case studies that I've read. That is where my assessment of burial risk is coming from (not from movies, etc.). What point of view is yours coming from?Quote:
Originally Posted by shredgnar
If you really think that's what my attitude and perspective is, then you're as dumb as dos bolsas. I've already stated the 3 reasons why I started this discussion. None of them are even close to what you suggest. The reason I threw it into the video, was to emphasize others to be careful (hence the ending text). This schtick is getting old, but I'm not surprised a few have stopped by to regurgitate it. I'd like to keep the discussion relevent - thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by shredgnar
I'm well aware of that. My risk of injury is not just relegated to the result of avalanches, however. It's a year-round thing for me. For this reason, I have my CORSAR card - the only thing I'm aware of that pays into this, but I'll look into the backcountry insurance mentioned in the article. Thanks.Quote:
Being injured and needing rescue could involve more people than just yourself:
http://www.summitdaily.com/article/2...ntProfile=1055
Well, not that anybody should give a fuck about my opinion,Quote:
Originally Posted by skifishbum
The way I look at it, sidecountry is where the lifts take you up, and you ski out of and back into the ski area without skinning or bootpacking
slackcountry is where you skin/pack up a small distance (<1000ft), and most of the vert is still gained by the lift, ski back into ski area
backcountry is anything that is more work than the previous two.
Meaning what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
That you were comfortable with the "consequences" of your stupidity?
heh-she actually thought it wuldn't slide. her slide was, like, so unpredictable. you just can't make this shit up. so awesome.[/
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeStrummer
POTD
678
I was comfortable with my overall assessment of the risk - the probability of it sliding, mixed with the probability of me being caught, mixed with the probable consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by dos bolsas
Dino has brought up some good points - mainly the overall subjectivity of judging the probability of being caught (and other less objective factors). And Nate has brought up some good points - enough to make me spend more time analyzing what the probable consequences would have been. This was what I was hoping to get from this thread. If anyone has anything constructive to add, along these lines, I'm all ears. I'd love to hear from personal experiences with slides, both in being caught, and the consequences of such. The experiences are far and few between, but the possibility of learning from them are huge - why keep it to yourself?
nice babble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
the reason we are giving you shit is not because you had a close call;
its because of the stupid shit you're spewing.
Yawn. Care to contribute something useful yet? Or are you just upping your postcount and superiority aura?Quote:
Originally Posted by dos bolsas
keeping you from posting stupid shit is useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
helping you understand that you're a poser is useful.
and why would anyone care about post counts?
i mean, i can see you keeping track of your post count, but that's because you are you.
My observations of this entire thread are that you need to be more careful, Brian.
With that said, you are also in a different "risk factor" zone than many of us, including me (as you know).
Lindahl and I, including many others have had great days in EV last year and he has learned a lot from various partners and knowledge bases...but that is a constant process, and many of you posting here were at that point at some time. Hell, some of you have some pretty fucking hilarious posts from the early 2000's regarding EV if you do some searches (you know who you are).
I would rather have someone posting up their own mistakes and slide discussions to the masses here and trying to have an open conversation than just continuing to blast down Big Horn, Racquet Club, and Timber Falls assuming that "nothing will ever happen" to them.
Keep skiing, keep living your life. Just don't expect others to be happy about it when they care about you and/or don't want to drag your body out of the chutes and put their own lives in danger.
I will gladly ski EV with you again (I haven't been back there once yet this season), but you know me...in that lower risk zone than you :) I know you would have eventually found a lot of those lines that you have in your video without myself and a couple of others, but I feel partially responsible for getting you hooked on the crack that is Big Horn, haha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
how did you justify this to yourself? Even with excellent terrain management, familiarity with the area, going into an area with the expectation that you are going to start a slide just seems like asking for trouble. If you had fallen on that last slope, or it broke far wider then you thought, you could have been swept down and gotten seriously fucked up or died from trauma alone.
I see the difference, Meesh called it occupational hazard, you aren't even getting paid. That's a shame. And the fact that you thought it would slide and she didn't does nothing for your case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
OMG! You've seen people sit up in 3' slides before AND you've read snowy torrents?!?!?! I have met my match.
Seriously though, anytime you A) post GoPro footage of an avalanche, 2) ask for people's opinions, G) admit that you thought the slope might slide but went anyway, 9) brag about your risk tolerance (5th class in the Gore!?! can I touch you?!) You are setting yourself up for ridicule and failure.
Oh, I realized I failed to address why I made the distinction between backcountry and sidecountry. That distinction was made because as you spend more time in a location, one better understands the terrain and the general sun, wind and thermal effects.
Totally agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowTron
Its whole defensivenss, justification, fake "analytical" blathering that's wrong on so many levels.
His responses, while bewildering and yet humorous, do shed light as to the motivations and thinking (or lack therof) of what we've all been seeing in the backcountry recently.
Well, I WILL agree with you on that with the justification part.Quote:
Originally Posted by dos bolsas
Lindahl, next time I see you I am going to punch you in the face and then go ski laps with you ;)
The probability of it breaking far wider than I thought was extremely low. The two old slides and dense trees played a role in that assessment, as have previous observations in that area. If I am wrong in this assessment, then certainly that would be a fuck up. Similar, but not in the least to the same degree, as the fuck up in Stephens Pass, where they assumed they were in a safe zone.Quote:
Originally Posted by mc_roon
The chances of me falling while skiing that slope was a probability that I was willing to gamble injury on. I make that gamble quite often outside of avalanche danger, often times with a higher probability. I don't see how it's any different when making that gamble with avalanche danger?
It's not about bragging. It's about explaining that I'm comfortable with the fact that I may be seriously injured if I misjudge my abilities, or the terrain - something that few people are comfortable with. I find it an enjoyable personal pursuit, even. I don't feel like that makes me better, more hardcore, or more superior. Just different.Quote:
Originally Posted by shredgnar
It doesn't help at all if you make claims without backing them up with reason. I don't operate on emotion (hell, I'm an engineer). If you want me to "see the light", you'll have to explain it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dos bolsas
Armchair quarterbacking aside,that is a pretty cool POV edit.
what would Mc Roon know about being hurt in an avy ;)
keep yer hands still rookie
Be careful. You don't know as much as you think you do with only a handful of seasons of b/c skiing and a course or two.
If you want to go out in higher danger and ski obvious avalanche paths that you "know" will avalanche and claim that you're just operating within your risk tolerance then feel free, but if you're asking for constructive criticism I think that you went too far out on a limb.
Even a small slide could easily step down into the deeper slab/depth hoar. You probably had a couple tons of snow moving.
I also think you need to ask yourself if such a run is worth the possible consequences given the risk of a slide. If nothing else your described "worst case" could easily be a season ending bone break (death is more likely your worst case) - is that one face worth ending your season, not to mention your life?
Edit to add
I do like the videos, keep it safe so you can keep them coming.
The way I like to think about avy danger is that I never want to trigger one. If you don't trigger one then you don't have to speculate about the consequences. I've been skiing BC in Colorado for 20+ years and have only triggered a few small slides. This is one of the worst years in a long while for the depth hoar and that = deep slab instability. The best way of avoiding the danger IMO is to be hands off when its instable like it is now and go hard when it is stable.
it's pretty arrogant to minimize the potential injury from that slide in my ignorant opinion.
Not saying it applies to everyone, but this is the first thing that came to mind here:
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/j.../tremper-1.jpg
(From Tremper's Staying Alive in Avalanche Terrain)
That slide was no joke. I'm glad everyone was safe this time, but what if your "safe zone" wasn't so safe? The more confident you get, the more likely you are to have this happen in a not-so-safe area. What if someone falls on the landing and triggers the slide? Last week's slide at Stevens Pass killed 2 very experienced people that were waiting in the trees in their "safe zone" that didn't end up very safe.
I don't claim to be an expert by any means, but just some things to think about.
*DISCLAIMER* I've read a decent amount of the thread discussion, but honestly, not the whole thing. Hopefully I've read enough to get a solid handle on the situation. */DISCLAIMER*
Anyway, here's my $0.02.
Potential For Slide:
Regardless of how you came to the conclusion of the "high likelihood" for a slide (which was obviously correct), I'm curious what you mean by "high likelihood"? If you thought that the slope was more likely to slide than not, then perhaps this was a valuable experience for you given that you ended up being unscathed. It may help you more deeply understand your risk assessment in relation to your risk acceptance. More on that later (in the Risk Assessment and Mountain Respect section).
Personally, my idea of a high likelihood for a slide is something like a "10% chance" of avalanche. This is not easy to gauge and it takes a crap load of experience to do it well. Also, in high likelihood cases I like to try to test the slope in some way that I don't get caught on it. Ski cuts can accomplish this, but they are not always a viable option and again take a lot of experience and training to do correctly. If testing the slope is not an option in a "high likelihood" scenario then I think it is a good idea to back down...and this is coming from another person with a fairly high level of acceptable risk. Perhaps this is one thing you could have done differently.
Whether or not a slope with high likelihood of avalanche should be skied is not a black-and-white issue. There are a plethora of factors that go into that decision and I'm not even going to begin discussing them now.
Risk Acceptance and Mountain Respect:
No matter where you ski, inbounds or out, there is always some level of risk (thank you captain obvious). I'm not saying this to justify Lindahl's actions, but for the armchair quarterbacks out there just keep this in mind...how many of you are comfortable skiing a groomer super fast with other people around?...how many of you are comfortable skiing fast through the trees?...how many of you blaze down a snowy highway to get to the mountains for a ski day? Before you crucify Lindahl and act like you never take any unnecessary risks, just consider that. A lot of you do it every day.
Now to Lindahl, I'm really glad you came away from this unscathed. There is no better way to learn about avalanches than to be around them. Unfortunately, being around them is quite dangerous. I know you have a high level of risk acceptance. I hope this experience helps you gain a deeper understanding of the actual risks you're actually taking. Much of the time, people may think they are fine with the possible consequences of a given activity, but don't truly understand it until they see those consequences.
You thought it was likely to slide and you skied it anyway because the risks were acceptable to you given the rest of the scenario. Quite bold, but I'm not one to judge your decision as long as you truly know the risks and can honestly assess your ability to cope with them.
Like you said, this certainly wasn't a huge slide and it didn't move all that fast. But, it was obviously still quite powerful. I'm 6'4" and 235 lbs, and even that small slide would be enough to bully me around. Even the small ones deserve our respect. I'm not going to pass judgement on your statement that you'd ski the line if you had to do it over again, I just hope that you would be making that decisions with the deeper understanding of the consequences. I'm not one to tell you how much risk is acceptable for you, but hopefully this experience gave you a better idea of the risks you're actually taking.
I repeated myself a few times...I did that on purpose.
My goggles fogged up today and I took a tumble because I couldn't see a substantial bump in the snow. I had a close call with a tree because of it. I'm still going to ski in the trees, but after today I have a better appreciation for how dangerous it can be.
I also skied by an unknown person on the cat track today in a Texas Tuck with my pants down...full moon. You never know when something crazy may happen in the mountains. :wink:
High Likelihood (your evaluation) + Critical/Catastrophic Severity (your and others evaluation) = High Risk
You mitigated the risk it seems. Spotters, safety zones, etc.
How many time your mitigation will work before the odds catch up with you? Was it really the mitigation that prevented an accident?
If you have this level of risk acceptance, I would assume you are fairly comfortable with dying if you continue to accept these circumstances.
I work in a catastrophic severity line of work, but the likelihood of an accident happening is still low. And the frequency of the event is low. This puts me in the "high risk" category.
I have personally accepted that it may kill me, and can respect someone else making the same decision. Just make sure you really understand the consequences.
There's many names for the same line in EV. What you call Timber Falls, I call King Arthur. When that slides, it often slides a lot farther. It is a much more open path that Racquet. Was it moving 80MPH, no, but you wouldn't call it slow or feckless had it caught you; your rationalization is very much "it is gonna go but I'm a good enough skier not to get caught."Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
If you are looking for snow science feedback, you figured on the avalanche running short AND not stepping down. It is hard enough with the unpredictability of when a skier may trigger deep instability, but it is dubious to say that you looked around, dug one pit, did a CT, and decided that a "high likelihood" shallow avalanche would not set off something deeper. How in Colorado winter can you be confident in that? Did you have a good sample?
CT has poor sensitivity to deep instability. Also, the load of an avalanche is a larger trigger than a skier by several orders of magnitude.
It didn't step down... this time. Was that judgement, or luck? Suffice to say that you think it was judgement. Being unlucky is a poor outcome despite judged/managed risks; being lucky is a good outcome despite misjudged/unmanaged risk.
I wasn't there. But, I doubt I'd trust a depth hoar snowpack in that way. Is that about my risk acceptance? Or is it about your overconfidence in your ability to prognosticate with your 2 seasons and a maritime Level 1? Maybe there is some of the former, but absolutely there is the latter. You haven't seen a snowpack like this season's before.
So here is my advice: Don't put so much stock in your pit. We don't dig pits for permission to set off avalanche A and not experience avalanche B. Pits do not say "go!" They can say no. We dig pits to make sure we aren't missing something.
I think you'll enjoy this thread about risk... it will appeal to you as an engineer: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...28with-pics%29
Maybe you have an extensive history of serious injuries and recovery. You seem extremely nonchalant and confident that you can deal with such injuries. Maybe you don't have any history. Nobody skis far on a broken leg or worse. So I have to ask, what do mean by being prepared to "deal with the sorts of injuries I mentioned"? Does your first aid kit have what you need to let you "deal with" with a pneumothorax, a femur, a broken pelvis? Do you think you can patch up and ski with a tib fib? Do your buddies know how to use your first aid gear? Do you have enough equipment to bivy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
Say you get an open tib-fib one afternoon in Timber Falls. If you haven't had something like that happen, I REALLY want to know what do you think your next 3 hours would look like? Next 12? Day? Week? Month? Year?
^^^ This is a perfect representation of what is going here. I've seen it happen to myself, and many others. Avalanche education will only get you so far. Having a bad day, will alter your risk tolerance sooner or later. Learning from your mistakes, rather than justifying them, will help you prolong the timeline.Quote:
Originally Posted by bfree
That's what I know it as and what I thought it was when I watched the video. Thanks for the clarification Aaron, you bring valuable perspective to this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Lindahl, I think you need to weight those probable/possible conditioned scenarios more heavily in your decision to ski a line. IMO, your confidence in predicting what the outcome will be is running at levels far beyond what your experience and perspective can account for. Given the persistent, deep instabilities in our snowpack, skiing something that you believe has a high potential of the upper layers moving, is just asking for it. That's a lot of weight and energy being translated down through a sensitive snowpack. Be safe man. No line is worth getting seriously hurt or worse.
Hard to quote everyone, so I'm not going to bother.
smitchell333
----------------
Yes, to me, that run is worth risking a season-ending bone break, as is the large number of other risky scenarios I place myself in. I could choose to live in fear of a season-ending injury and run around making truly safe choices, but I would not be staying true to myself, and would not be as happy in my life.
Risking death? No, at least not that particular scenario. I do risk my life in certain scenarios, but, in this scenario, if I felt death was a probable outcome if I were to be caught, I wouldn't have done it - the probability of being caught was too high for those consequences for me. Based on this discussion, and discussions with more experienced friends/family, I am truthfully re-examining my assessment that serious injury was the worst consequence (I felt that death by major trauma or burial was a freak outcome). I am not completely sold, but it is something I want to spend more time looking at.
bfree
----------------
Thanks for your contribution of the graph. Definitely something to think about. The safe zone is truly safe. I am extremely confident in
that assessment. Though, I should have pulled further into it. Hard to tell in the video, but the landing zone was not in avalanche terrain. It was on a 15-20 degree bench before the rollover. Failing to stomp the landing was not a risk. If it were, I wouldn't have skied that line. I regret skiing a line earlier this year where failing to stomp was a risk (with less slide potential, but still dangerous) - I should have turned back from that one.
jbski
----------------
I had put the chances of it sliding greater than 10%, less than 25%. I felt the odds of me being caught were significantly small(er), based on old slides, the confidence in my ability not to fall, the speed at which I would be entering avalanche terrain, the terrain itself (mainly slope angle), and the state of the snowpack (no hard slabs, friction between the layers). I know you didn't outright say it, but using the 'odds of being caught' as a safety buffer in avalanche decision making is certainly something to think about.
Summit
----------------
The pit was not the deciding factor in my assessment that stepdown was extremely unlikely (it played little role). The old slides, other recent activity in many other EV areas (some representative, some not), and the history of that location (both witnessed by myself, and others who have more experience out there) were major factors in that assessment. The CT test was mainly to look for shearing layers in the upper snowpack as was testing for friction of these shearing layers (though I did want to see what happened in the depth hoar layer as a curiousity). The layer examination of the pit provided reinforcement that stepdown was unlikely - the state of the depth hoar (compacted, somewhat refrozen, shrinking crystals) was similar to other areas I had been in. I was looking for depth hoar that looked more dangerous, ala Mushroom - a reason to say no, and turn away from Timber Falls altogether. Regardless, I certainly was not treating the pit as a true representation of the slope (far from it), but more to get a general idea of the state of things, and to satisfy my curiousity (I want to send the large 40' diving board above the entrance when the conditions allow for it). A hasty pit above the slope, before dropping in, was used to judge the spacial variability and confirm the general layers I had seen in the pit, as well as identify any suncrust that was missing from our pit.
I have enough to create a makeshift emergency sled and deal with major limb breakage. Broken pelvis - not much you can do about that in the field other than try to stabilize the leg as much as possible and get help - FAST. Collapsed lung, no, I don't have a way of releasing trapped air, but it's definitely something that I now want to add to my kit (as well as knowledge to treat). Broken ribs are very much a possibility with the type of skiing I do (avalanche danger aside).
I took a suspended downed tree to the stomach very hard last year (www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ7TD4D_GHw). If it had hit my ribs, rather than my abs, a broken rib would be quite possible. If there was a pointy branch facing the direction I hit (luckily it was pointed towards the sky), there was a chance for disembowlment, or at least severe lacerations to the abdomen.
I've had season ending injuries before. Though not while skiing, my most recent, and most long-term effects, was an ankle dislocation (yes, it's possible), completely blowing the outside ligaments of my ankle. It took two people to pop it back into place (it's amazing how much force it took). Quite painful and risk of losing my foot (if blood supply was cut off - it wasn't). Surgery a week after. I was in bed, couldn't move for a week, watching TV (doped up), and had people making me food/etc. In bed watching TV for another week, but able to get up and take care of myself. In crutches for 2 months. PT for 2 months. Couldn't run for 6 months without significant pain. A year and a half later, it still gives me trouble at the end of a long day. This last summer/fall, when coming back from backpacking and full day+ trips, I often couldn't walk without a significant limp and pain for an entire day. Longer tours, early this winter, give me similar problems. I still don't run very often, as the resulting pain can interfere with activities a day or two after.
These two incidents, and other injuries I've recieved over the years, have made me more aware about what it would be like to be injured in the backcountry and the aftermath. But, as I've mentioned above, I could choose to live in such a way as to avoid such injuries during the sports I enjoy, but to do so would be to go against a lot of what makes me feel happy, alive and, well... me. And, to choose to live in such a way as to avoid such injuries as a result of an avalanche would be hypocritical of sorts.
----------------
I want to say that I don't make a habit of rolling the avalanche dice during every outing (and certainly not with more risk-adverse groups). This is the first time this ski season. I fully intend on waiting until I have nothing more to learn from this incident before I put myself in a similiar position again. There's a few more people I'm waiting to hear from, and discuss the incident with. I really respect all of you that have chimed in with your own personal perspective and put a lot of weight in what each of you have to say, despite if it sounds like I am justifying away your point of view. Thanks. That said, I would still love to hear from some of you that have been involved in slides, both similiar, and dissimiliar, but I understand that it's a tough thing to share.
you are a fool. Have to say good job getting almost 1700 views and 80 responses to your mediocre video.