Good point, thanks, shows that the other students didn't speak up since they didn't know what they were getting into.Quote:
Originally Posted by North
Printable View
Good point, thanks, shows that the other students didn't speak up since they didn't know what they were getting into.Quote:
Originally Posted by North
Very true!Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
One of the biggest things that I've picked up over the many years of BC in Colorado is the concept of connected terrain. Long time ago I would only be assessing the intended line very carefully, but now, it's a whole different ballgame. It's like defending that gut punch and neglecting that massive left cross.
Solid analysis, Jonathan. Thanks for posting.
Probably the only thing I'd add is that much as Aspen Expeditions owner Dick Jackson helped out Whiting after the March, 2005 event, Lowell might now be a "go to" instructor after his experience.
Tough way to learn a lesson for everyone involved (as if that needed to be said).
... Thom
Reminds me of the old line about the safest airline to fly on is the one that recently had a crash.Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
(I have no idea if that's true, but something to be said about a mistake causing an institution or individual to rethink protocols. I like how the various Tremper books/editions have conceptual graphs to illustrate this effect.)
Absolutely not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan S.
Depends why they crashed and what the reaction was. You gotta work hard to relate that to avalanche safety. Aviation safety includes aircraft, maintenance, training, and regulatory factors that translate poorly. Even the human factors are mostly quite different. The culture of safety is important.
Yes, we (every industry that isn't aviation) like to talk CRM and checklists as tools appropriated from aviation, but apart from that, it's an entirely different type of flying altogether.
^ Yes, exactly (i.e., for the expanded version above). That's why I described it as the "old line" not as a reliable guideline or statistically proven concept. If an otherwise "safe" airline has a crash, then sure, that line could make sense. But if Whereveristan Air has a crash with one of its ancient Soviet hand-me-down planes flown by one of its many pilots who attended Hollywood Upstairs Pilot School, not a good sign.
Yup, organizationally, there are so many things to consider.
On an individual basis however, I can only imagine what that guide lives with every day. We have no way of knowing, but I'll bet this factors significantly into his risk tolerance.
I'd love to have seen videos of conversations between Bjarne Salem and Andreas Franson to compare with the discussions he currently has with Cody.
... Thom
Unfortunate event. At the end of the day, any BC skiing in avalanche terrain in Colorado is akin to swimming in a shark factory. Thin snowpack, cold temps, lots of wind, extended dry sunny spells. No thank you. BC users are ALWAYS getting caught off guard there. I appreciate the thoughtful analysis, but it's hindsight. I feel like there is this big myth in the backcountry community that if you can be perfect at decision making and have all the snowpack assessment skills and local knowledge, you will be safe. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Not really, given the number of BC users VS the number of accidents it seems that is not a myth. For example, avoid avalanche terrain and avalanche runout zones and then you are perfectly safe, from avalanches. And what exactly is "safe"?Quote:
I feel like there is this big myth in the backcountry community that if you can be perfect at decision making and have all the snowpack assessment skills and local knowledge, you will be safe. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Examine any accident (not just avalanche) and somewhere, someone fucked up.
I bet your dog crate is well appointed, JONG.Quote:
Originally Posted by MT36
Sure, but I don't think a lot of backcountry users avoid avalanche terrain, because that is not as fun. Even then, there have been heli guides who have gotten clients killed on sub 25 degree slopes in just the right avie conditions. I think what I am getting at is that there are so many decisions that go into a tour, and so many variables, that it is impossible to not "fuck up" at some point. The challenging thing about BC travel is you can make a bad decision and not have an accident, or you can make a bad decision and someone can die, it depends to a large extent on variables that are out of one's control. The challenging part is you may even "fuck up" and there are no consequences, so by getting that feedback, BC travellers think they made a good decision because they didn't die, even though they may have taken a risk outside their risk threshold without knowing it. By "safe" I mean not putting yourself in a position where you run a chance of having to phone your partner's spouse and tell them that their kids are now orphans. I know that is a little intense, but after a couple decades of the game, my threshold for risk is pretty low. That's a personal choice and I don't judge others for taking risks, even big ones, because I have been there too.
From personal experience, it is really easy to read articles and accident reports and pinpoint where the mistake was made in hindsight and think, "I won't make that mistake." When in the big picture, the mountain environment is too complex, with too many unknowns, to eliminate situations that don't run a chance of killing you or your partners. Ask anyone who has been doing this for a long time, and most of them will say they know dead skiers or they have had some very close calls where luck prevailed. I think that the average BC user doesn't actually understand how dangerous the sport actually is; even guides and avalanche professionals are caught in slides on average, every three years.
Also, my post was a bit more oriented to Colorado backcountry travel (per the article in Outside and the report from Red Pass). There are a lot of very manicured and posh resorts in CO, but as soon as you step outside the boundaries, you find the worst snowpack in North America. I think I recall in the Outside article the Silverton school was originally just for studying snowpacks that are terrible for recreation, because it is such a shark factory, and not intended to be for teaching BC skiing.
Please describe your decades in "the game", and also tell me how you know the backcountry right outside the posh Colorado resort I ski has the "worst snowpack in North America".
There is so much more in your post that is utter bs, but start there.
Caught every three years? If you are gonna spout stats like that, you need to be citing a reference, because that sounds quite off to my knowledge and experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by MT36
As for the rest, while we agree that risk comprehension is low, you are really trying to emphasize the idea that people have good luck and bad luck with this matrix in mind. I normally draw it on the board or zoom, but here is an MS Paint just for this thread:
Attachment 409727
I think we would agree that people have more good luck than bad, but I think people have more fail than bad luck and more wins than good luck. You can go on and on about how you can end up with a case of bad luck, but that is deceiving to write it off as unavoidable. You control the chances of bad luck:
1. Consistently using good practices so they are second nature and then you can actually focus on your processes
2. Reflecting on and honing your decision making process without consideration to outcomes (avoids good luck reinforcing bad processes)
3. Managing risk comprehension and then acceptance
I think I will sit this one out and let the folks who actually live in CO share their wealth of knowledge. Funny thing about TGR is you just never know who you may be having a discussion with or their level of knowledge.
Ain't that the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
I've argued with some folks on here that (I later found out) if I met in my professional life I'd have to be all differential too. Not so on here. Experience doesn't always mean right. But there's almost always something to learn regardless.
Agreed, but with the add'l pts that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
- Everyone will inevitably make lots of mistakes (avy or otherwise) eventually, cumulatively, while backcountry skiing and ski mountaineering.
- Although any "accident" (for which I prefer the term "incident") will of course entail someone making a mistake, almost all of such accidents entailed many (many) mistakes, during a single outing (and especially in the planning stage).
- My conclusion is that if you build a sufficiently large safety margin, then the fatalistic attitude expressed earlier in this thread is not applicable.
- However, what is inevitable, is that you will end up knowing people who die in avalanches (and via other ways while backcountry skiing and ski mountaineering), and also stand a "good" chance of coming across dead bodies in the mountains, as well as the ghosts of people you had the chance to dissuade from their mistakes. It takes its toll after awhile (especially if you grew up in a safe childhood far removed from such concerns).
All excellent points JS, thanks.