Those were the first things I cut off my Voiles back in 2010. New models do not offer this "feature".
Printable View
Those were the first things I cut off my Voiles back in 2010. New models do not offer this "feature".
20' on that big chunk of crown[emoji15]
Fuck, I’ve transitioned right in that area but still in the trees and on low danger days. Had the though that it would be a deposition zone if the bowl slid. Noticed trees w/ scars just above me, and rethought my strategy for future tours.
I’ve also seen people skinning all over that face many times and just shook my head. Saw a group of five ascending nuts-to-butts straight along that fracture line on the east side of the slide in the pic.
RIP to the victim. So much tragic loss in the BC this season.
I hope this and other accidents will get people to chill the fuck out in the backcountry this season but I doubt it will.
Curious was the split board on his feet the likely reason the airbag didn't keep him ontop of the snow? I didn't see that he died from trama
An airbag isn't a "get out of jail free" card. He could have ended up in the position he was in regardless of the board being on his feet. Or he could have ended up on top, or he could have been buried 10 feet deep with his airbag inflated. Those of us who tour alone regularly (should) realize the even narrower margin for error we work with when companion rescue isn't an option.
I hear ya. But there is a lot of evidence that airbags do a pretty good job keeping people ontop. It's not like they are uselessQuote:
Originally Posted by glademaster
The effectiveness of them is highly dependent on the terrain in which a slide occurs, what the deposition zone looks like, the size/depth of the slide and where the skier is relative to the slab. There are quite a few scenarios where their effectiveness is limited.
I own one and tour with it regularly, so I'm an advocate for their use. I hope I never have to find out if it's capable of saving my life, but I can tell you that I don't factor the (potential) added safety it provides into my terrain selection. [I'm also not insinuating that is what happened on Trelease, as a point of clarification]
Nobody said they were useless, just that they aren’t going to save you in every slide. Look at the size of this slide, 20’ fractures, 9 acres of debris, deposition in the trees. Your little airbag ain’t much help there.Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
And no, split board bindings aren’t releasable, whether in ski or ride mode, and even that Voile release device depends on you reaching down to pull it. Try doing that to both feet when you are in a massive slide like this one.
One thing from the report that I’d dicker with is
Given where the rider was caught, having a partner would have likely meant two deaths. IMO having a partner does not save you in this case.Quote:
Traveling alone in avalanche terrain increases the consequences if you are caught in an avalanche. Although this was a very large avalanche, Rider 2’s head was buried only a foot beneath the snow surface. A partner that was not in the avalanche may have quickly rescued Rider 2. Rider 2 did have traumatic injuries, so we don’t know if a speedy recovery would have produced a different outcome.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Agreed on all of the above. Airbags work on the theory that basically requires that you are entrained in the debris. Their usefulness is reduced when you are stationary, moving uphill, in a deposition zone.
agreed "Brazil Nut Theory" is a stupid term. I love nuts and it doesn't even make sense to me.
Alpha Angles, who uses them? 23degs it a very far running avalanche.
Maybe a partner says "we shouldn't be right here."
ETA:
@Foggy, I stopped using "Brazil Nut Theory" to describe vertical sorting in turbulent flow/granular convection. I learned the term was coined in 87 and introduced to the avalanche world (I think) in the 90s or early 2000s. Lately when I used the brazil nut/mixed nuts analogy, the younger students have been giving the "WTF" look, and upon clarifying "you know... the mixed nuts from the store with brazil nuts, almonds, peanuts... for parties..." I get the "how fucking old are you dude?" response. Mixed nuts ain't cool no more. I use Raisin Bran Theory (flakes vs raisins) as the example now and people seem to get me. The kids still eat cereal.
I digress, if you are low in the runout or in the deposition, inflating the airbag will mean that you are buried with an inflated airbag. Perhaps it increases chances of surface visibility, but that requires a partner to increase survivability.
This year there have been an unusual amount of solo traveler avalanches and group avalanches with multiple people caught. Most years ~20% of US fatalities are in multifatality avalanches. This year it is 50% so far.
As far as some of the solo accidents, I'm not sure if we are seeing some solo oriented folks who have established habits during the previous couple seasons that they've gotten away so far, but won't work this year? Or if we are seeing new folks who don't know their stuff or are piecing together what parts of a kit they can in the scarce gear market this season (I've seen two snowboarders in L1 courses with carbon approach skis because they couldn't find a split). Maybe some of both? Maybe that is why this guy had a balloon but no beep? Or maybe it was deliberate choice.
Ugh, uphill travel in avalanche terrain. Such an avoidable thing yet so much more dangerous.
Yeah
And maybe if he had gathered a party of 10 they would have all thought he was the messiah and died. Conjecture and knee jerk lectures about solo travel dont have a place in the reports IMO.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Maybe it was posted and I missed it, but full report is up here.
There's something particularly horrifying to me about a burial where the rider's head is only a foot down.
Avalanche Fatalities provide pointed learning moments for all of us. It is challenging to respect the event while understanding that some of the lessons that we should be learning can be a bit hypothetical as may stray aware from the events at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick
I don't feel that the above was untrue. Another travel protocol to things about is to say something like:Quote:
Traveling alone in avalanche terrain increases the consequences if you are caught in an avalanche. Although this was a very large avalanche, Rider 2’s head was buried only a foot beneath the snow surface. A partner that was not in the avalanche may have quickly rescued Rider 2. Rider 2 did have traumatic injuries, so we don’t know if a speedy recovery would have produced a different outcome.
Choosing to travel uphill or within the avalanche terrain may exposure multiple people to the hazard. Best practice is to set your up tracks and transition areas outside of the avalanche terrain. If you do expose yourself to the hazard, move one at a time from island of safety to island of safety. Avalanches are running far and wide and are frequently being triggered from below and remotely. Use your inclinometer often, familiarize yourself with the terrain in which you travel, be observant for signs of previous avalanche activity, and ensure that your safe zones are substantially distance from even the largest avalanche track you can imagine.
The video indicated that he started on an established skin track but deviated and just broke trail straight into the danger zone.
I have been thinking about this.
Some people are just risk takers. Adrenaline junkies. ECT ect.
These things are always going to happen. And when condition's are really bad. It's gonna happen more.
Let's just hope all the attention it's getting doesn't cause a government action to protect us from ourselves?
If Texas were not the story of the week. This would be
Solo travel is a factor, just like travel with a large group is a factor. Deal with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick
I offered my opinion. “Deal with it” yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Name Redacted
Point is someone could go solo ski touring staying off and out from under avy terrain or solo ski touring in avalanche terrain at low danger thousands of times and not have this type of incident happen to them. Short of inventing a scenario “his partner’s grandma might have called his phone lower in the skin and their ascent delayed and they might have reconsidered...” IMO the # in the party was likely to be the # of victims.
The pertinent fact is that the party ended up directly below hugely windloaded avy terrain in the deposition zone.
Dont do that, whether you are one or 100.
Focusing on solo travel waters down the message.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
My good friend had a close call on Trelease 10 years ago when his (new to him) partner went too high way out in front of him and triggered it from below, my friend yelling with no response for him to stop his ascent...miscommunication nightmare and with the hangfire they shouldn't have been below it anyway. My friend survived by hanging on to a tree. IIRC his partner and his dog were able to dig themselves out. Always gives me a shiver when I see the same shit happen again and again.Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
Of course violating one of the safe travel rules is a problem that can defeat other best practices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick
What partners offer is
1. A second set of eyes and thoughts to buddy check. "Hey I don't think we should skin here... let's take a lower route"
2. A rescue "let's travel 1 by 1 through this zone so if one of us is caught the other can rescue."
3. A trailhead check "you aren't beeping, did you leave it in your car?"
Sure IF this hadn't been a solo traveler AND IF the group still traveled into the dangerous area AND IF they violated 1 by 1, likely more than one would have been caught and perhaps also critically buried... AND IF they also still didn't have beacons in this scenario, THEN the situation would still be messed up in that regard.
But the point is that with a partner, there are more opportunities to catch/correct errors and more capacity to handle a situation.... up until the point that you have diminishing returns from too large of a group to manage and communicate with (or a MCI).
Solo was not the sole cause, but it may have contributed. Thus it was discussed in the accident report as a consideration, but not as the sole focus.
What Summit said.
Beyond that, solo travel is dangerous in other ways. Break your leg on a downed tree with no cell service or inReach while you're solo and now what? It's something I even consider while mountain biking solo on unpopular trails. I've done it, but there is no question it significantly reduces your margin of safety.
Knocked unconscious?Quote:
Originally Posted by cravenmorhead
No idea just thinking out loud
Discussing all of the factors that lead to an avalanche accident is not watering down a message, it is called being thorough, and I’d prefer the CAIC be thorough than gloss over certain details. It is their job to educate and inform the public and discussing the danger of solo BC travel is exactly what they should be doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick
I bought radios for that reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenboy
But have not bothered to even find the frequencies to get someone in the area I might be in.
Also have not even toured for the past 3 or 4 seasons
Also noticed in the report the comments about the airbag sternum strap being pushed up around the victims neck due to him not wearing the leg loop. How many of you have skied with an airbag pack and not worn the leg loop. Especially on your way uphill? Definitely something to consider.
I have forgotten the leg loop more than once. I'm trying to work on not doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Name Redacted
The moment one is going to be in avalanche terrain is the moment you gotta turn on the pack, deploy the trigger, and apply the leg loop.
Buddy check (divers term) is key here, just as you might buddy check boot walk mode, helmet strap, pack straps, no pole straps, and binding setup at the top of a line. Maybe you go up a no hazard up-route and you do the airbag check at the top. Maybe you are going up through hazard and do it before starting.
Leg loop is annoying particularly if you are putting things in/out your pack on the ascent (like layers). And people forget (I forget leg loop). That is why we need the buddy check.
The leg loop does stabilize the pack when you are bouncing through chunder...
All of this. It's a factor and they're supposed to discuss the factors. I don't see how this: "Traveling alone in avalanche terrain increases the consequences if you are caught in an avalanche. Although this was a very large avalanche, Rider 2’s head was buried only a foot beneath the snow surface. A partner that was not in the avalanche may have quickly rescued Rider 2. Rider 2 did have traumatic injuries, so we don’t know if a speedy recovery would have produced a different outcome. " somehow is the focus of the report or waters down any of the messages not related to solo travel in the report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
I think Alpha (runout) Angles are a very useful and important tool. I have actually considered the potential runout angle of this very slope while traversing those flats. Bruce Tremper recommends a maximum of 19-22degrees if you are building a basecamp and states that most fatal avalanches fall in the 23-33 degree range. This one was obviously on the low end of that spectrum although it seems that the victim was well up the slope when it occurred.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
Why does it matter?
Because some jackasses will take the message that “wouldn’t happen to us because we dont ski solo”
And that isnt the core issue and is a conclusion based on conjecture.
“May”. There are infinite “May”s and only one:
Being on or directly under avalanche terrain got this party fatally avalanched.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
How do you consider multiple factors in determining avalanche risk when you appear to be capable of only comprehending a single factor in an accident analysis despite having multiple factors explained to you by several people?
Or is being intentionally obtuse part of a defensive reaction because you somehow feel the solo commentary applies to you? Maybe ask yourself why?
Boy, CAIC reports would be pretty simple if you were in charge. "This party was directly under/on avalanche terrain. They died because of that. The end."Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick
No one says in the official reports about multiple fatalities: “it is worthy of note that if this had been a solo traveler, they may have been more cautious and avoided avalanche terrain”Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Why invent a May the other way?
It may have been...
Why my opinion so triggering to you that you find it imperative to psychoanalyze me? Cause only Summit and CAIC have a legitmate say?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
My understanding is the victim also wasn't wearing a beacon.
I get that he was riding solo, but still, that's just poor form. And maybe indicative of the victim's broader mindset.
Actually, groupthink and expert halo are just two heuristic errors that are frequently attributed to accidents that happen to parties of more than one and are also discussed in accident reports when necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick
Because of the probability of survival is directly related to amount of time buried, it is provably true that, if you are buried in an avalanche, having a trained partner ready to rescue you increases your probability of survival. That is what CAIC is pointing out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick
I'm not aware of research or studies showing that solo backcountry travelers are more likely make more conservative decisions than groups, but maybe it's out there. Do you have a link to such research?
Edit: I vaguely remembered seeing some research on group size so I searched and found this:
https://www.wemjournal.org/article/S...461-5/abstract
Here's a couple relevant lines:
This is only Italian and Swiss data; I have no idea if US data would be different.Quote:
We found higher avalanche risk for groups of 4 or more people and lower risk for people traveling alone and in groups of 2. The relative risk of group size 4, 5, and 6 was higher compared with the reference group size of 2 in the Swiss and Italian dataset. The relative risk for people traveling alone was not significantly different compared with the reference group size of 2 in the Italian dataset but was lower in the Swiss dataset.
Those are some very messy statistics except for groups of 5 and larger, where the data is clear between the subgroups (CI don't overlap the reference and the P values are good). The subgroups were starkly different in several cases suggesting there is large regional variation. This makes sense because managing various group sizes changes greatly depending on terrain.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
And the comparison is just whether the group is involved in a reported accident per (estimated) days without adjustment for number involved or relative outcome. By that I mean if a solo has a worse chance of a negative outcome if there is an accident (likely) is not measured while scaled survivability for larger groups (more diggers) is also not considered while larger groups could have multiple people caught.Quote:
Relative risk (RR) for all group sizes in the Swiss and Italian datasets is shown in Figure 3. In the Davos self-registration boards dataset group size 1 had an RR of 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38−0.82), which indicates significantly lower avalanche risk than the reference group size 2 (P = .003). Groups size 3 had an RR of 1.32 (CI 0.97−1.79; P = .070), and group size 4 had an RR of 1.30 (CI 0.90−1.84; P = .153), which was not higher for either of these groups compared with group size 2. Group size 5 (RR = 2.40; 95% CI 1.54−3.68; P < .001) and 6 or more people (RR = 2.14; CI 1.30−3.43; P = .002) had significantly higher RR than the group size 2.
If you just consider group involvement (risk of the group being in an accident) you are looking at something distinct from individualized risk as determined by group size (a group of two is 2 individuals each accepting a tour's worth of risk). You can think of Individual RR as total lives lost vs the linked article looking at chances of a group being in an accident. In that mindset, individualized RR makes more sense.
So, let's convert the numbers! Let's say with no companion rescue that a solo has 2x the risk of dying if there is an accident vs non-solo (a gross underestimate), while a group larger than 1 has a 25% increase per extra person in the group of there being a multifatality (an overestimation), and then divide the RR by group size for individualized risk. If you rescale the RR for the above off group size of 2 then the individual RR (readjusted to group size of 2) are:
Group Size: RR
1: 1.79
2: 1.00
3: 1.06
4: 0.91
5: 1.54
6+: 1.28
Again, these are not conclusive findings, just a conservative adjustment to individual RR from non-outcome-specific group RRs that were not statistically significant in the case of group sizes of 3 and 4! It just happens to match what we have always taught and observed: group sizes of 2-4 are best.
Well it certainly got the party (you can't even bring yourself to say it was one person) avalanched. A surviving partner would have made the avalanche much less likely to be fatal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick
Don't get me wrong I have over 50 days this year and they're almost all solo touring days, but I certainly understand (even if I don't fully appreciate the magnitude of) the risks. I'm guessing you solo tour. Do you ever consider the fact that you are alone in your decision making? If the answer to that is yes, why does it bother you that CAIC considers it a factor worth mentioning?
For the record, I'm not anti-solo. I sometimes go solo.
Solo just needs a different mindset because consequences are multiplied while safety factors are reduced vs small groups of good partners. Nobody will catch your mistakes before you make them. Nobody will help you get out of mistakes you make. Something minor with a partner can become major as goldenboy mentioned on the other page. So you gotta dial things back on the terrain choices for a given vs what they might with a group while also being very observant and disciplined. Some people are good at doing that and some people are comfortable with traveling solo, less are both.
Watching powdork move through and read terrain the other day, I noted him naturally picking out guardrails and considering terrain. He's an observant guy and an experienced tourer.