Hell of a good read
http://blog.mec.ca/2013/01/23/the-finger-of-god/
Printable View
Hell of a good read
http://blog.mec.ca/2013/01/23/the-finger-of-god/
good read and sound advice
This article and the Tunnel Creek ones referenced make for a really sobering read. It's excellent to be reminded about the pressures of group dynamics and decision making.
Thanks!
Thanks for posting. Both this and the NYT article are really good lessons and compelling reads. I just wish there was more snow science/info in both. Although its probably that no pits were dug in either article?
Good reading indeed. thanks for sharing.
eh, wouldn't have mattered. shit was gonna get skied regardless in both cases. local weather both current and past along with the daily advisory tell the tale. under 30 degrees with nothing else steeper attached and no traps woulda been the call.Quote:
Originally Posted by iscariot
when the mind(s) are set on skiing and pow fever is runnin high, digging a pit oftentimes just makes the decision to ski a slope a good 95% more probable that that slope is getting skied no matter what the pit results show.
both cases (as all do) had the new snow/slab, the sliding surface, the trigger(s), and the slope angle. don't need to dig to figure that shit out. a good bit o pole handle probing works best to feel the composition imo in most cases. low angle might not be exciting, but all woulda lived to ski another day if meadows were skipped. simple science.
rog
^^ what rog said and there's tons of articles which go deep geek into snow science. Not enough in to human factors which is what this one did
Rog nailed it. No need to make a level 1 problem into a level 2 or 3 problem.
I think I've said that twice this week. Strange things are happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Aaron_
blame it on the alchohol;)Quote:
Originally Posted by _Aaron_
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t...1/DSCN2557.jpg
helps me organize my thoughts and recall old apprenticeships.
i like skiing. ski the east, yo!:D
rog
I agree about the human factor needing more attention. I disagree about the pit stuff. No pit at all? Not looking for geeked out science, but perhaps they would have had second thoughts if a block slid a meter deep with a finger tap. Obviously there were many other warning signs, like weather, hearing activity, settling, bad vis unknown terrain speaking to unknown exposure, etc. But seeing a deep block come out with a light tap may have made it more real or woken someone up.
Either way. Good reads about really bad decision making, groupthink, and communication.
"That shit is gonna get skied not matter what" is something I've avoided skiing with (ie. I know my friends, and I know which ones get gungho, amped and all brobrahed up, so I don't tour with them, make excuses to decline etc.), and is something that I've lost too many friends to in the past. I just don't understand that bravado, particularly when you can get killed easily enough without it.
What would the snow stability tests tell you? It snowed S3+. Winds were at least light to moderate with visibility obscured the very next day. That all indicates instability. Which indicates the need to tiptoe lightly - or - as the author indicated maybe a day to sit around and drink coffee inside. There aren't any more wx or terrain details to go on.
Frankly they didn't need a pit
How many people who actually tour regularly dig pits? Sorry, don't see it happening
I agree with all you noted except that they didn't need a pit. A pit does more than just show you the pretty snowflakes and layers, it gives you time to stop, think, reconsider, breakup the pace if you've got peakfever, or breakup the dynamic if you've got a brobraher trying to call all the shots, etc... Whenever we dig, we always comment on how it really brings home the other signs. Makes it more real and outlines or impresses the real consequences of the situation. Stopping to dig a pit and discuss the snow science can change the communication and dynamic of the group. It provides an opportunity to do so. I wanted to hear about the pit or science, as they had discussed it, to see how it affected the group. Unfortunately neither group bothered to use a bit of pit time to stop the train, and possibly save lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
Consider if the writer had said, hey guys, before we head right (once out of the trees and into open terrain) let's stop and dig a pit. Could have changed the pace, fever, and dynamic.
If their goal was to go out and be retards, no matter what, then their mission wasn't a failure at all. And, in that case, maybe a pit wouldn't have brought it home for all of them. Or maybe it would have made one of them reconsider, speak up, and change the bad patterns that had developed that day in that group.
20+ years touring with more than half of those being 100+ day ski/touring seasons east/west. maybe dug 5 or 6 pits TOTAL, mostly due to boredom. daily hasty handers and my fave pole probing on every tour whether low or high danger. my shovel does get some use for digging nice little beer pits tho:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Conway
my snowgeekyness goes like this: does this slope, feel/look/smell/taste stable enough to ski based on the avy report/weather/recent snow/lack there of/terrain? fairly simple yes or no answer. then each slope gets skied in certain ways to keep penetration light throughout if a bit bridged or a bit density inverted, or skied (cut) hard at the top to see what i might break free 1st to clear the run, and then run it out once it feels good to go. not into minute details of snow/pit data. just not what interests me. just there to ski.
once a slope is skied without incident, i deem it was safe, a good run, and move on, not ever looking back or thinking, "was that the right or wrong decision?" done. move on.
rog
Group dynamics are key - trust me on this one. Choose wisely and ask a lot of questions pre-trip. And just say no to drugs. Wow.
Lately, in my desire to tour more again and the fact that old partners are not willing or able anymore I have made some interesting choices and decisions in touring partners and also have been guilty of not speaking up when I should have. I have also been guilty of few poor decisions both recently and in the past and probably was lucky a few times. No more or so I plan.
I have always been conservative in the bc and these articles and recent experiences have pushed me to some deep self-reflection and it is time to return to my way.
Poor group dynamics and poor decision making or trumps snow science each an every time. Snow science certainly has its place but is less important than these potential killers.
I agree with those that say no pit was necessary for the day discussed in the article. The group put themselves in the position they were in and they were lucky that the outcome was not worse. The choice of partners (esp. knowing the history per the author's perspective), the choice of terrain / objective for the day and not choosing a more conservative plan based on new snowfall and conditions or having the flexibility to change plans was what led to this incident.
Poor group dynamics and ego - simple. Pow fever and ego kills. Find better partners that are flexible, willing to discuss and change plans, and leave the ego at home. Easier said than done at times.
I found myself falling into this trap recently and have taken a big step back into my comfort zone. Live to ski/climb another day.
Thanks for posting.
Good point - a pit could well have prompted a conversation based on facts, and created the opportunity for people to speak up without feeling like the designated stoke assassin.Quote:
Originally Posted by iscariot
Except if the pit doesn't show any big issues...we all know it happens occasionally. Now the more aggro folks in the group are even more sure of the mission's righteousness.
Like the author sez - Better for people to speak up whenever they are sketched.
One interesting tidbit - both with this group and at Tunnel Creek, survivors were parked just above trees, not below, when they were caught. Something I'm definitely gonna start doing.
Yup. Agreed with all above.Quote:
Originally Posted by telebobski
I also noted the survivors above the trees too. I've been contemplating that too. I guess I always figured above the trees meant a high speed blunt trauma ride through the strainer if something did go above you. Seems like those above the trees were in the start zone and managed to fight it or hang on enough to stay alive. Those below had the forest flying at them. I think it depends on the terrain in general, where it starts, where others are loading slope/skiing, etc...; staying above trees may not be a golden rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by telebobski
I'm still thinking out the details on that one, it'd be good to hear others opinions on this.
Edit to add a couple basic examples that I'm thinking of...
Eg1. You're above/at treeline and a crown above you goes and you're waiting above trees.
Eg2. You're above/at treeline and the trees act as a weak point causing a start zone near you.
luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by iscariot
rog
Newton's 2nd Law: Force = Mass * AccelerationQuote:
Originally Posted by iscariot
=> Blunt Force Trauma = mass * deceleration when you hit an object exerting Force > Force(slide)
= Kg (water in mass of snow around you) * (meters/second)^2
Mass is fixed by the size of the slide, and is presumed to greatly exceed your mass.
Since acceleration (and thus Force) increases exponentially with distance as objects travel down an incline under the force of gravity, it would follow that, ceterus paribus, the closer you are to your stationary anchor, the less blunt force exerted on your skeleton when you hit it.
The guy at Tunnel Creek wedged himself between two trees just before the cloud hit, so his force against the snow = Mass (two trees+guy) *0. Same situation with the author's buddy.
Variables...
Size of slide; bigger = more Mass to resist - both for you and your anchor. Put another way, all bets are off if your anchor, or your connection to it, fails. Then, the blunt force = mass(slide) *'acceleration(you)
Density of snow when you get hit - it may be 5% water, 95% air at rest, but the friction of the slide makes it more dense. There's also the force of the air being pushed ahead by the oncoming snow to consider. Finally, as the density increases, the bonds between water molecules strengthen and the effective area of the slide exerting force on you increases even more, causing an exponential increase in force.
Density of anchors above you - these will reduce both mass and acceleration of the snow
[/Newton]
No such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by icelanticskier
In a situation where a party proceeds in the face of multiple naturals, "group dynamics" is too polite a term. What they had was a bunch of guys scared of being thought to be wimps. In a situation like that one compares the absolute certainty of being thought a wimp by three other guys if he begs off, versus the likelihood that they'll be ok if they go on, even if things are very sketchy. In that setting it takes a lot more courage to be the one who says no than it does to keep going, more courage than most men, especially young men, have.
don't be so sure. you been caught yet? lemmeno how it works out for ya ;) more exhilarating than any amusement ride.........and it's virtually free.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by iscariot
rog
Still has nothing to do with luck, and everything to do with physics.Quote:
Originally Posted by icelanticskier
Scary "exhilerating" ride, yes.
good luck with that;)Quote:
Originally Posted by iscariot
actually wasn't so scary.Quote:
Scary "exhilerating" ride, yes.
rog
Obviously you're cooler than everyone on TGR. Such an awesome skier and back country guru that you know everything and are unquestionably infallible. You can merely "sense" the snow from thousands of miles away, and "know" exactly what's going on and where to ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by icelanticskier
Way to go.
Rog is obviously too old to learn any new tricks...
Any worthwhile discussion from those of us that would actually like to contribute solutions, and learn from others mistakes?
LULZ...........Quote:
Originally Posted by iscariot
rog
Hate to tell ya roje but, stumbling across a wind drift doesn't make you a 25 year old avalanche expert, even if you are 40.
:eek:
BTW, snowpits are for learning history not for deciding to ski a hill or not. If you're not digging you don't know. :nonono2:
oh bob^^^^^^^^^:rolleyes2. skiing the same 3 or 4 drainages day after day year after year for what? 35+ years now should tell you plenty of history about your snowpack. you still don't know? all them years of the blissful valley inversions killed too many brain cells i guess...
rog
So what you're saying is that any advice you give is only valid in the 3 or 4 drainages that you know so well...and not really practically applicable to anyone else who skis anywhere else. Good to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by icelanticskier
Ski the East! :rolleyes2
I know, I know...
Quote:
Originally Posted by icelanticskier
you've got it all figured out now don't you........Quote:
Originally Posted by iscariot
go back to page 1 and get a clue there einstein.
rog
Actually I don't have it all figured out, thus being open to discussion and learning. You, on the otherhand, have been spouting like you have it all figured out, and have lost the ability to discuss and learn. Old dog, new tricks. Have a nice life cocooned in your immutable knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by icelanticskier
i don't have jack shit figured out in the grand scheme. what i have figured out is what has worked for me thus far, and what hasn't in the way i approach the mtns i've recreated in in all their moods and temperments. you asked what others thought about which could be safer, standing above or below a tree(s) when shit hits the fan. well, i told you what i thought in one single simple word. you didn't agree, which is cool, and i didn't agree back. we move on. all i know is when i got caught and dragged for a long ways, i did everything not "by the book". face down, hands out and forward, breast stroke, not backstroke. staying calm, going with the flow, keeping my airway clear, and fighting when i felt it was a fight worth fighting was probably what saved my life and allowed me to ski away completely unscathed, not even a scratch or a bruise. luck? a good part of it was. how i handled it and chose where i did to stop in the slide path to stay clear from things that woulda maybe torn me to shreds was some quick thinking and something i thought about before i dropped in.Quote:
Originally Posted by iscariot
and about that bit i wrote about not being scared wasn't to be cocky or brag or anything. you mentioned it musta been scary and i simply told you it wasn't. i was speaking truth. wasn't scared during, after, or the next day when i went back up to re-visit the scene to reflect on mistakes made and put into memory the things i'd like to avoid in the future.
now what's this newton/physics/laws blah blah blah?(not poking fun here really). lets here it. from anyone.
rog
Not my wish to be thread police but respectfully...
Rog - would it really hurt you not to be so snarky and know-it-all in the responses? You know I agree with you 99% of the time but as one fellow practical tourer to another, lets make these learning experiences and keep the snark to other forums... Pretty please?
Iscariot
Don't get me wrong but it's like you're asking questions you already know the answers to. Don't take this the wrong way but the whole thing about pits being a time to ask questions and ponder is just stupid. If your group needs the crutch of a pit to start discussion then something is wrong; either with you or your group. You asked it and that's my honest answer.
Your question about needing a pit is flabbergasting given the situation described in the above article. This forum is about asking questions and I know the viscerality of my response may tend to dissuade asking questions. But you;re asking questions and you're getting answers (although they are from Rog admittedly and he's not holding back on the snark) but try to cut through his BS and see what he's saying.
FYI there's a thread about Pits and Snow Science and when they're useful and its here
The question about standing above or below a tree - well you already know the answer and this is it depends. To give a better answer, if I'm in tree-lined chute and I have to wait, by habit I stand above trees and I plant one ski against the uphill part of a tree but the better answer is I try to stand way the hell away from any place where I think I have to worry about bracing against trees.
And as for part about being scared during an avalanche which has nothing whatsoever to do with thread but insofar as I can tell is about dickwaving. I felt regret but wasn't scared. Perhaps others get scared. I don't know.
LL i will do my best to keep the snark to myself. not being scared is not dickwaving imo. it is what it is. some folks may find it scary. others don't. i know a coupla guys that've been caught more than once and just keep on keepin on in avy terrain. like it's no big deal. to each their own.
peace:)
rog
With regard to my close crew, no a pit isn't a crutch to encourage communication. We already have a system, and discuss it often to find gaps etc...
When stepping into a crew that you haven't been with for a long time, or just plain don't know very well, then a discussion about open communication before the tour is standard procedure for me, and a pit to discuss things helps if I feel that someone isn't speaking up.
Sometimes confronting the timid (or someone who perceives themselves as the weak link, less knowledgeable, over cautious killjoy, etc.) only makes them shrink back further; where diging a pit takes the pressure and focus off, and can allow others to join in a conversation. Conversely it can force you to take a breather if someone is too jacked up, domineering, or has peak fever. Like I said, particularly for new/unfamiliar groups, or group members. Which it seems existed in both cases.
I have a few different semi-regular crews, some all male, some mixed, and some where I'm the only male. The group dynamic/communication differences are staggaring, but we work on it, and digging a pit can be a useful tool for both understanding snow, and opening up the group. The only consistancies are you and your practices. I guess I like to use everything available to me if and when I need it. YYMV.
Group dynamics is why I like to drive... I tend to be conservative, if someone in the group makes me feel uncomfortable I say, giv'r.
If you need a ride home, make sure you're back at the car the same time as me.
Lol. I drive almost every time, but haven't used that one. Noted for future use.Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingnow
how many folks make up a "crew"? i'm a big fan of touring with no more than 3 folks total including myself. the more potentially dangerous the conditions/hazard, i prefer to be with just one other person or solo. the more folks that make up a touring party just opens up more chances for shit to go wrong imo. whether gear related, injuries from folks not paying attention, or poor or confusing communication.Quote:
Originally Posted by iscariot
rog
if i ever thought i'd ever have to say that^^to a touring partner, they wouldn't be a touring partner.Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingnow
rog