Jones Pass Fatality

I wonder how in depth the CAIC report will be, given that it's been pretty difficult (I am guessing) to get out into the field and examine the slide/area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

I feel that this is a bit overstated. When everything is coming down, just stay off of and out from underneath avalanche terrain. Its not rocket science. Human factors may make the decision difficult, but just be disciplined. Think about the consequences of everything around you and just say no.

---

When everything is sliding like it has been, places that many would have thought were not underneath avalanche terrain have turned out to be under such terrain, when the slides are at historic levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SterlingSpikeDancer

Help me understand as someone who skis sidecountry, and not true backcountry. It is a dangerous activity and I understand that. But help me understand the decision making that leads to this human caused death.

---

Sidecountry is backcountry. Any area that is outside ski resort boundaries and therefore not patrolled, bombed, etc should be treated as backcountry. Just because you started on a lift and then hike out of bounds doesn’t mean you are in less danger. I would argue it can be even more dangerous as you didn’t pick up information as you toured up into a zone.

Take some classes to gain knowledge and find some experienced mentors to show you the ropes.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

When everything is sliding like it has been, places that many would have thought were not underneath avalanche terrain have turned out to be under such terrain, when the slides are at historic levels.

---

Don’t overthink it. Look at a topo. Does it have avalanche terrain above it? If you want to get more risky, use the alpha angle and run some conservative calculations.

Lindahl is right: if it's cold enough I can always stick to lower foothills that have nothing at all above shallow, almost totally flat slopes. Boring in some ways, but historic conditions generally provide interesting things to observe. It's possible to go out without going into avi terrain.

ETA: Meant to note that I'm not in CO, just speaking in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

Don’t overthink it. Look at a topo. Does it have avalanche terrain above it? If you want to get more risky, use the alpha angle and run some conservative calculations.

---

Exactly - But while the process is simple, I will point out that the pool of safe, but good ski pots will be significantly reduced in conditions such as these. I was looking for treed slopes <30 deg that top out well below treeline. Approach cannot pass beneath even distant (defined by historic alpha angle) avy terrain. Usually, for considerable or even high danger, a bunch of spots with relative safety can be considered appropriate. I think of popular places like south side of trelease, butler gulch, Vic trees (mostly), etc. For the conditions last week, all of those spots were off the table for me.

FWIW a few of the recent large, historical slides have run well beyond what their alpha angle calculations would say. The slide on Victoria/Peak one for instance. There have been multiple new avalanche paths created just last week, so traditional wisdom might cause you to think that you are not in avalanche terrain when you really are. I've also seen some pretty big slide in heavily treed areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shredgnar

FWIW a few of the recent large, historical slides have run well beyond what their alpha angle calculations would say. The slide on Victoria/Peak one for instance. There have been multiple new avalanche paths created just last week, so traditional wisdom might cause you to think that you are not in avalanche terrain when you really are. I've also seen some pretty big slide in heavily treed areas.

---

What was the angle on the Victoria/Peak slide?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shredgnar

FWIW a few of the recent large, historical slides have run well beyond what their alpha angle calculations would say. The slide on Victoria/Peak one for instance. There have been multiple new avalanche paths created just last week, so traditional wisdom might cause you to think that you are not in avalanche terrain when you really are. I've also seen some pretty big slide in heavily treed areas.

---

A friend said they measured 18, which was perfectly in line with 100 year extent for CO. I was a bit curious though because the path is a bit circuitous. Checked the path out yesterday morning it it sure is frightening.

Edited - using my GPS track to roughly estimate the toe of the slide, I calc 21.8 deg alpha. Well above the 18 deg - 100 year standard. If I factor in the actual path length vs line of sight, I get 21 deg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

I feel that this is a bit overstated. When everything is coming down, just stay off of and out from underneath avalanche terrain. Its not rocket science. Human factors may make the decision difficult, but just be disciplined. Think about the consequences of everything around you and just say no.

---

I disagree, you’re reverting back to the ‘I can make good decisions’ mantra and using that four letter word “just”. That’s my point - in conditions like that it isn’t as simple as writing or telling yourself “just” do this or do that.

But yeah if you just stay safe then you’ll stay safe.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

When everything is coming down, just stay off of and out from underneath avalanche terrain. Its not rocket science. Human factors may make the decision difficult, but just be disciplined. Think about the consequences of everything around you and just say no.

---

Or one could ski an avalanche chute solo on a black day cuz... human factors: https://www.instagram.com/p/BuuinCFFoc5/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shredgnar

FWIW a few of the recent large, historical slides have run well beyond what their alpha angle calculations would say. The slide on Victoria/Peak one for instance. There have been multiple new avalanche paths created just last week, so traditional wisdom might cause you to think that you are not in avalanche terrain when you really are. I've also seen some pretty big slide in heavily treed areas.

---

Like I said... if you want to get more risky, use alpha angles. You can avoid it all together by not. And yes, the terrain that fits these parameter is very limited. But you can’t really control that. Again, comes back to being disciplined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick

I disagree, you’re reverting back to the ‘I can make good decisions’ mantra and using that four letter word “just”. That’s my point - in conditions like that it isn’t as simple as writing or telling yourself “just” do this or do that.

---

No. Don’t ski on or below avalanche terrain. It IS just that simple if you want to stay safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

Don’t overthink it. Look at a topo. Does it have avalanche terrain above it? If you want to get more risky, use the alpha angle and run some conservative calculations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trogdortheburninator

Exactly - But while the process is simple, I will point out that the pool of safe, but good ski pots will be significantly reduced in conditions such as these. I was looking for treed slopes <30 deg that top out well below treeline. Approach cannot pass beneath even distant (defined by historic alpha angle) avy terrain. Usually, for considerable or even high danger, a bunch of spots with relative safety can be considered appropriate. I think of popular places like south side of trelease, butler gulch, Vic trees (mostly), etc. For the conditions last week, all of those spots were off the table for me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shredgnar

FWIW a few of the recent large, historical slides have run well beyond what their alpha angle calculations would say. The slide on Victoria/Peak one for instance. There have been multiple new avalanche paths created just last week, so traditional wisdom might cause you to think that you are not in avalanche terrain when you really are. I've also seen some pretty big slide in heavily treed areas.

---

What these guys said is what I am getting at. Sure, if you're on a little hill, with nothing taller around for a mile in any direction, then there is "no avalanche terrain above". But in conditions like this, people could be on a thickly treed 20 degree slope with nothing obvious above them, and still be in more danger than they realize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

No. Don’t ski on or below avalanche terrain. It IS just that simple if you want to stay safe.

---

It is.

What isn't always so simple is determining whether you are truly below avalanche terrain or not. Many people might think that is the case when it is not, when facing conditions that are highly unusual. My guess is the fatality that is the subject of this thread thought he was in safe terrain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Or one could ski an avalanche chute solo on a black day cuz... human factors: https://www.instagram.com/p/BuuinCFFoc5/

---

I saw that. Irresponsible.

Those most subject to human factors are apparently completely oblivious to the influence of said factors.

‘I willfully ignore the avalanche forecast since I’m above that and chose a bunch of random observations that miraculously give me the go ahead and then I’ll post to my thousands of followers about skiing an avalanche path during extreme danger rating’


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

But in conditions like this, people could be on a thickly treed 20 degree slope with nothing obvious above them, and still be in more danger than they realize.

---

Sure, but this doesn't mean he's wrong. The fact that some bc skiers ski terrain they feel/judge to be safe while being ignorant of what is above them is orthogonal to the proposition that one can safely ski in the bc even on the highest of danger days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

No. Don’t ski on or below avalanche terrain. It IS just that simple if you want to stay safe.

---

I’ve been BC long enough to know to question my own judgment at times like that.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Or one could ski an avalanche chute solo on a black day cuz... human factors: https://www.instagram.com/p/BuuinCFFoc5/

---

But dude Fritz said "I stand by my methods and as an ambassador to the sport put those methods to criticism publicly. I have skied in Europe and only used a guide one for a zone I didn’t do my research on and hadn’t planned to ski. I tagged a lot of peaks that trip."

He is a pro dirt bagger. Knowledge knowledge son

Here is a quick map of the new pk 1 (or peak 0.5) path. Also called the original Ironing Board.
Attachment 273709

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

Sure, if you're on a little hill, with nothing taller around for a mile in any direction, then there is "no avalanche terrain above". But in conditions like this, people could be on a thickly treed 20 degree slope with nothing obvious above them, and still be in more danger than they realize.

---

Yes and that is terrifying in a way. We spoke about it from a rescue standpoint, about how hard it would be to route find if responding to an avalanche in such conditions like the expanded Peak 1 runout, areas that are exposed to multiple start zones under historic conditions or require passage through thick timber that is theoretically exposed to historic avalanching, to reach potential victims in debris from a historic slide! Everyone talked about Peak 1 which slide from it's NE face, but there's multiple zones, and the Tenmile Peak/Peak 1 drainage partially slid historically riding hundreds of feet up a ridge wiping out old growth and clearing out a partially grown older path. Nobody mentions that but we could see it. We thought about it a lot after 1 and Royal slid with someone soloing J chute on 3/7 while the rescue on Jones was underway: https://www.instagram.com/p/BuuinCFFoc5/ and then J slid that night reshaping the trees in the runout so it is no longer a J.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick

I this case IMO the approach road that they use as well as this run are exposed to multiple slide paths from above. Typically it’s not a problem because the exposure is remote as this path infrequently slides and other exposures are south/SW facing and don’t often offer a threat.

---

Indeed. Henderson control teams knocked down huge slides following. PA didn't think of that on the way in on 3/7 (or did they?). I wonder if anyone was shivering thinking about it on the way back out to meet the ambulance after what had happened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mall walker

Sure, but this doesn't mean he's wrong. The fact that some recreational bc skiers ski terrain they feel/judge to be safe while being ignorant of what is above them is orthogonal to the proposition that one can safely ski in the bc even on the highest of danger days.

---

I didn't say he was wrong. In fact, in my subsequent post I explicitly said he's right. But let's be clear, the guide that died surely thought he was setting up somewhere safe too. It's a nice pithy statement that it's all about not being ignorant of what's above you. But the point is that it can be difficult to evaluate, more difficult than "experts" might be willing to admit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Or one could ski an avalanche chute solo on a black day cuz... human factors: https://www.instagram.com/p/BuuinCFFoc5/

---

Wow, that guy. He's like the anti vaxer of avy avoidance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcski

Wow, that guy. He's like the anti vaxer of avy avoidance

---

He's a "sponsored pro skier" and an "ambassador of BC skiing" according to him... I really like your description, sums it up without profanity.

In an avi class that I took a while ago, we watched a short video, shot mostly in CO, I think, multiple slides going big. Almost all the slides overtook the camera person, several were avi pros (if I remember correctly), and most or all died. Part of OAG’s point in showing the film was about how easy it can be to underestimate the hazard when things are going BIG.

Another example is people getting pulled off flat or nearly flat ridgelines relatively far away from the edge when the slope below rips due to the cohesion of the slab.

In the Tahoe area, there are some areas that are typically judged as safe, but were created by a historic recurrence avi, like the open areas on trimmer peak. Same with some areas of the Sherwins zone in mammoth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trogdortheburninator

Here is a quick map of the new pk 1 (or peak 0.5) path. Also called the original Ironing Board.
Attachment 273709

---

Thanks for that.

There are two other Ironing Boards in the immediate area, one just N of Grizzly going W, the other farther down in Atlantic Bowl on LP near the natural pipe.