Printable View
I think I've cover that...let's Tokoyo Drift to Berthoud, my local. Since when did touring up from the bottom and half lapping become a thing?
In the last month, I've seen people transitioning in the start zones of Nitro, Russell Bench and Corner Pocket.
That's basically setting up your lemonade stand in the middle of the intersection.
Sent from my Turbo 850 Flatbrimed Highhorse
Hmmm, yeah, Foggy, as often as you drop truth bombs here, I'm not sure if I'm on board with your take. This group seemed pretty on top of things overall and a quick pop tart on the summit isn't grounds for a group gang skiing over the top of you. Also not sure about the shot at Bluebird, it was a pretty rad thing imo.
Fair point if their side of the story isn't the reality though.
Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk
should of been a good trip to Anchorage, weather has been good. Was introduced to half lapping on the Plunge at Wolf Creek. The level of skier at popular places is pretty low.
So reading this party's recount of the incident:
1) they knew another group was planning on the same line and was not far behind them
2) at the top of the line "we saw a lot more snow deposited in it than we imagined" and "we thought the line might be a little loaded" (his words)
I agree that gang skiing on top of another group is bullshit but to Foggy's point... your safety is your responsibility. You know that another group is going to be coming the same way and you know that you can't control what they're going to do. You know that there is a higher risk of avalanche than you thought there would be. I'd argue that they applied a strategy that was insufficient for managing these un-foreseen hazards. As far as I can tell, they pretty much just continued with their original plan. They could have potentially avoided this incident by having a more detailed conversation on the summit about intentions and protocol, letting the other group play through, or just picking a different objective for the day.
Decision making in avalanche terrain is all about identifying hazards to the best of your ability and mitigating them to the best of your ability. Higher uncertainty requires larger margins for error. In this case the party encountered two unforeseen things that increased their uncertainty, yet as far as I can tell failed to increase their margins to account for this.
I don't really have an issue with these guys sharing the story, hopefully it does get through to someone to not drop above others and be aware of what's below you (something that is pretty ubiquitous in avalanche education as far as I know, we certainly cover it at the awareness level). But at the same time I hope they are considering things they can do better for themselves in the future like communicating more clearly with other parties, adjusting plans when you encounter higher than expected hazard and uncertainty, choosing better safe zones, and generally spending less time in avalanche terrain when feasible.
OK, some really good points. I just have to ask, isn't BC skiing an activity that is suppose to get you away from having to worry about other people doing dumb shit above you?
Rock climbing use to be that way.
And yes, I am old school as hell, so sloughing a group below you has no fucking excuses.
That'd be nice, and is mostly the case where I ski now, but wasn't really the case when I skied in the Frange. Quandary on a weekend is probably not a good objective if that's what you're looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
It'd be nice not to worry about about people doing dumb shit like running a red light while watching porn too, but that's the reality of driving a car. It's also funny you mention rock climbing, I learned to climb 20 years ago at the Gunks on weekends and people doing dumb shit above you was virtually guaranteed at all times.
I hope I'm not making excuses for Group 2 - fuck those guys, if Group 1 poured a hazy IPA all over their flatbrims back at the trailhead I'm down with that. I think it's wise to generally assume any other group you encounter are mouthbreathing neanderthals and try to eliminate their assumed dipshittery from your risk profile whenever possible.
1) You can't drop in on people.
2) You can't expect people not to drop in on you.
3) Even if you do run into someone while skiing a less popular or more remote line they are much less likely to behave like an ass than someone on a "famous" or easy to access line.
4) Talk to people. If they are unable or unwilling to explain what they are up to and why you should probably assume they have a lot to learn. Maybe you can help. If they do share, listen. Maybe they know something you don't, or noticed something you didn't.
5) This humility matters so damn much. Some people would rather die than show a little humility. If you lead the way by asking questions, and express some uncertainty it can help others do the same. Plus when you display a little vulnerability people tend to treat you more compassionately, i.e. not drop in on you.
6) Make sure you know what a safe zone is and what a safe zone isn't. This seems to be a weak spot for a lot of otherwise skilled bc skiers.
Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
Trg consensless is building, particularly in the emission of the philological and mayonnaise worthy gem of dipshittery. Deft snarkasms season the diatribes fecetiously wedelling among the driving and bike riding analogies.
A little bit of masuclinity can be attributed to each position, both here as well as in the bc.
Insufficient broviations posed by each freeriding group and even possibly inadequate broviation as a result of insufficient trailhead terminus datum. Likely induced by smugmatic group gnarcissim, again by each party.
Don't see much room to defend group 2 if group 1's account is true. As for the following:
1) Avoid crowds duh
2) Never drop in on a party below you duh
1 is always the goal, and many on this forum (myself included) have put themselves in a position to put it into practice. Good job, us. I don't think it's a fair expectation for everybody to avoid the popular areas/lines entirely ("should've skied it 20yrs ago!"), or avoid them unless they have flexibility to get out whenever conditions for good+safe skiing and minimal crowds align. If you're not an established dentist with an open schedule, there should of course be an expectation to manage the crowd you're putting yourself into.
I'm onboard with 2 when all parties are accounted for and able to communicate prior to skiing down. I think the opposite is justifiable in certain scenarios, typically when 1 group is ascending and another is descending without prior opportunity to communicate (or knowledge of each other's presence), and descent routes are limited, hazard is increasing with time, etc.
Seems you didn't learn much then.:fmicon:Quote:
I learned to climb 20 years ago at the Gunks on weekends and people doing dumb shit above you was virtually guaranteed at all times.
Those are the helicopter friendly mounties mounts for hut trip enforcement.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
The Bluebird comment was just about the PR, they were savy.
Group 2 - most likely a bunch if danger noodles
Group 1s PR guys - could possibly be safer and happier understand a bit about the nuance of managing high traffic objectives
Sent from my Turbo 850 Flatbrimed Highhorse
thank you for picking up skifishbum slack on the broviating as of late. it's good exercise for the brain of the reader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
My change for a nickel...
1) Adrenalated mentioned making decisions based on all the factors. That's always been true. As our beloved sport, particularly in popular zones, increases in popularity I wholeheartedly feel like "other parties" are as big a potential risk as windloading at the entrance to a line. It's maybe not taught consistently, but if I meet a dismissive, non-communicative or non-cooperative group I'm picking up weird vibes from at the top of a drop, they become as risky as crossloading or quickly warming snow.
2) Here's the part that sucks though. It didn't use to be this way. Jerries and dickheads exist everywhere in percentages. But when the b/c side of our sport took off, that percentage has exacerbated in here too. That kind of behavior of group 2...it would have been hard to imagine just 10 years back. What I love about b/c is people excitedly and respectfully asking each other "where you headed?" in the parking lot, exchanging beta on the skintrack, etc. That ruled (and still does). It's just an overall friendly sport. I've always appreciated that, and "sold" it as such to select friends I've mentored or whatever. Incidents like this bust that though. So, although group 1 didn't factor group 2 into their plan, I feel bad for group 1 even having to figure group 2 into their plans. But yeah. It's reality now.
3) What is taught is to have backup plans if your objective plan is a no-go. So if group 1 had any additional fault it was still choosing to drop that north couloir anyway (like noted, they noticed sketchier conditions). They were clearly single objective-minded. There's lots of ways off that peak. They seemed generally educated (which is different than practiced/experienced) but hindsight said they probably dodged a bullet on their initial descent before they were swept.
4) Group 2 were/are dicks. While they perhaps should have been allowed to play through and don't "owe" anyone anything per se, the pure fact that they swept someone below them and didn't assist in rescue or assessment, and just blasted past? That there is fucking horseshit. I can't say if I were in group 1 I would have stopped at pouring IPA over their brims in the parking lot. That's just unacceptable, sez me. I don't care who challenges me on this.
5) A restated version of 1 & 2 above is....too many humans. I like what everyone else is saying. Seeing more cars than you like? Go somewhere else or have a bunch of backup plans.
and...
6) I've heard lots of TALK on a GAH ski-off, but not much ACTION said ski-off :fmicon:
I would put my money on that assistant guide, buddy had a pretty solid alpine racing/ DHing background also hangs with some of the big dogs in revy who get paid to do silly things on vid and the big one wait for it
he knew where he was
So...four pages of this and that + an Outside mag interview casting blame etc, with my question unanswered.
Why didn't the first group ski cut the wind drift?
They got radios and the whole thing plotted on smart phones but, no one knows how to ski cut a wind drift?
I agree Wra. I mean he had 4 years experience, took the classes and so on. At what AAIRE rec level is how to strategically ski taught?
Here in The Deep Persisent State, we generally preaching that ski cuts are of limiting value, but on this particular day, ski cuts were effective at mitigating storm/wind slabs (but not step downs to deeper instabilities).
Sent from my Turbo 850 Flatbrimed Highhorse
I’ve ceded first tracks on suspect slopes to the group right behind me and have zero regrets about it. Not sure if that makes me smart or an ass for egging them on to Guinea pig things for me. I’ve also politely asked to leap frog ahead of a larger group on lines I was going to ski in one go. Group to group communication and minimizing time in danger zones is my biggest takeaway from this report.
Although, once in euroland I topped out right behind a group of French dudes who were very concerned our group was going to try to leapfrog them and take their untracked line only to have all four of them snowplow down the entire run…
^^^ I have told people to go for it on top of a wind loaded slope many times in our hike to terrain. Some of it is stability testing and some is to see what the snow is like
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
There’s some really good discussion/posts on this page. Great perspectives, should be required reading.
:yourock:
Again pardon my ignorance but isn't the practice in avy terrain to ski one by one from safety zone to safety zone--assuming there is a safety zone? Why should the practice be any different whether it's one party or more? In theory. Which no one will ever follow.
People in another thread were skeptical of the Euros prosecuting people for avalanches that involve others. This thread suggests that that might not be a bad idea here. Which will never happen.
Again pardon my ignorance but isn't the practice in avy terrain to ski one by one from safety zone to safety zone--assuming there is a safety zone? Why should the practice be any different whether it's one party or more? In theory. Which no one will ever follow.
People in another thread were skeptical of the Euros prosecuting people for avalanches that involve others. This thread suggests that that might not be a bad idea here. Which will never happen.
It depends. As you mentioned sometimes there's no "safe" safe zone in which case you move fast and ski it in one shotQuote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Hmmm reminds me of my rock climbing days. I just wouldn't follow climbers already on a route.
Interparty avalanches have already begun to be litigated in civil court in Colorado -- I've compiled links in Section 3.10 of this ISSW Proceeding .Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
It may take me a couple of weeks, as day-job is bonkers, but I'll add this incident to a running list of interparty avalanche incidents and near-misses.
Interparty avalanches sounds like we got a squirter.