What I learned in Avalanche School

I've not read any of the author's other works, but found her Newbie take on avalanche safety training refreshingly interesting
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/m...-julavits.html

An excerpt

Quote:

---

A man at the end of the table asked the class if anyone had seen the 2014 movie “Force Majeure.” I was the only person who had. Another man asked what the movie was about. I didn’t say it was about the ongoing shame and denial experienced by a husband who abandoned his wife and children during an avalanche scare. I didn’t say, “Much like this course so far, it’s a referendum on masculinity.”

---

Was just reading this.

Excellent.

Very well written and certainly illustrates the bizarre world of backcountry travel. The concept of wanting to go where the danger potentially is must look very strange to people/newbies. I ski with my wife and her friends a fair amount and yet again it makes me resolve to make sure I'm doing a good job of shutting the fuck up and listening to other people before I throw my opinion out there.

For anyone trying to get around the NYTimes paywall if you stop loading the page prior to getting the paywall alert you're able to read the entire article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John_B

For anyone trying to get around the NYTimes paywall if you stop loading the page prior to getting the paywall alert you're able to read the entire article.

---

Thx.

Link in the nyt article is also a good read From powder mag

https://storied.storied.co/human-factor-2.0/chapter-1

The NY Times was OK, thanks for that Powder Link.

good articles. had read the powder one prior which somewhat negates the "women are safer" angle but generally I agree with that.
I also can relate to the author in the NYT article who talks about going skiing with some guys that claim "she can ski it" - but can you ski it without wallowing/ endangering the situation more and can you ski it confidently enough to mitigate a potential sluffing/ slide situation?
(guys get sucked into this too for sure but seems to be more ladies)

also on the subject of force majeure - saw this movie coming out and was psyched at first for a funny ski movie with Will Farrell and Julia Louis Dreyfus but after watching the trailers it appears to be a remake of force majuere and is certain to be heavier than what I would have expected from these 2. although it looks like some funny moments "How could I run away in ski boots? Have you ever tried running in ski boots?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY5SrKf_2ic

So...why couldn’t she tell if the car was four-wheel-drive in that New York Times article?

Why does she call Cherry Bowl a “Yukon avalanche”? The people were from Yukon but cherry bowl is near Shames in BC.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plugboots

So...why couldn’t she tell if the car was four-wheel-drive in that New York Times article?

---

I think it was analogous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain

I think it was an analogous.

---

Well, duh. It was poorly written.
“Hey I know, why don’t you fly out West and take an avalanche course and write about what goes on, male egos, etc.”

Your expert halo is showing.

Interesting piece, could have been better. I found it refreshing to read something that was so blunt about the realities of backcountry travel in the winter, which I truly believe are almost universally downplayed.

I tried and quit reading it for the second time. I keep picking up this raging undertone of arrogant cynicism in the author's prose that makes me want to change browser tabs.

This is no masterpiece like Snow Fall, which is an expose of the human factor.

Edit, tried again, made it one more paragraph and nope.

Also, I was too kind. It's not an undertone. The piece reeks of the author's superiority complex:

"Here’s where my skill set came in handy. Here’s why all avalanche courses should include at least one novelist. In my head, I imagined the real “avalanche problems” on Microdot."

Yea.. only a novelist can do that. :rolleyes2 Also, who actually says things like that? Much less prints it in a national publication?

Maybe I am jaded because I run across 1 student like this every 2 or 3 classes who just effuse the attitude "I have it dialed and this class is a formality." They "know people." They did their "research" or have all the "experience" and really they wish they were teaching... so they don't learn. They consciously or subconsciously believe they are doing the class a favor by being in it and they let everyone know it. Even on the occasion one of these types of "students" is truly knowledgeable and experienced, because of their shit attitude, they interfere with the learning of others and kill the vibe. Maybe in this case they just brood and write articles later. Often these people ARE the human factor.

Maybe I'm just overly sensitive to what bothers me as an educator, but after 10 years of doing it, this personality type is a rather easy spot. /rant

It’s unrealistic to expect to learn anything significant from an article written by a novice for a general audience, but it was interesting to have my daily practice considered from a neurotic outsider’s perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kootenayskier

It’s unrealistic to expect to learn anything significant from an article written by a novice for a general audience, but it was interesting to have my daily practice considered from a neurotic outsider’s perspective

---

Well put

"from a neurotic outsider's perspective"

... but one who thinks she is neither neurotic nor an outsider, but feels the need to repeatedly goes on at length (unconvincingly) as to why she is neither. This while also expounding on why she is so great at understanding the issue in a way "other" insiders can't because they just don't have her skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

"Here’s where my skill set came in handy. Here’s why all avalanche courses should include at least one novelist. In my head, I imagined the real “avalanche problems” on Microdot."

---

Can’t believe this made the final edit

I was surprised to start reading and find the hatcher pass accident. Somehow that is now a case study used in avalanche education. Did not really read the rest of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Often these people ARE the human factor.

---

Precisely.

And this graph:
Attachment 308766
Why not add: “Pecked to death by ducks.”?

Not sure what that graph actually means.

Is that the likelihood of being caught in an avalanche? Cause it certainly does not represent the possible outcome when you are actually caught in an avalanche.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plugboots

“Pecked to death by ducks.”?

---

Floaty little bastards.

Damn tasty though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunion 2020

Not sure what that graph actually means.

Is that the likelihood of being caught in an avalanche? Cause it certainly does not represent the possible outcome when you are actually caught in an avalanche.

---

probably just avalanche as a % of total mortality in US adults or something I would guess, which is obviously not super useful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Floaty little bastards.

Damn tasty though.

---

[quote = Buster] Bacon of the bird world [/quote]

Sorry. That graph was from the David Page Powder article. I’m gonna blame Pinot noir.

Thanks for the Powder link; great piece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

[...] Maybe I am jaded because I run across 1 student like this every 2 or 3 classes who just effuse the attitude "I have it dialed and this class is a formality." They "know people." They did their "research" or have all the "experience" and really they wish they were teaching... so they don't learn. They consciously or subconsciously believe they are doing the class a favor by being in it and they let everyone know it. Even on the occasion one of these types of "students" is truly knowledgeable and experienced, because of their shit attitude, they interfere with the learning of others and kill the vibe. Maybe in this case they just brood and write articles later. Often these people ARE the human factor.

Maybe I'm just overly sensitive to what bothers me as an educator, but after 10 years of doing it, this personality type is a rather easy spot. /rant [...]

---

Thanks for posting this -- I too found this article interesting, but only for the insight into the perspective of a nightmare of a student for any fellow course instructor.

That Powder Mag article is good stuff.

yad think a novelist would know much like the river
no man/woman ever stands on the exact same slope twice
for the slope and snowpack are never the same
nor is the man/women
when you learn thing
can be as important as how
and they'll give you the cert even if your just there
for a shitty article in a shitty fish wrap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Floaty little bastards.

Damn tasty though.

---

They do serve a purpose.

Attachment 309049

It's pretty funny to see everyone getting all worked up when someone points out the needless exposure to risk that many of us choose to expose ourselves too. We've all been lucky many more times than we've been right, it's just that some of us aren't willing to admit it.

IMO, if you're not at least occasionally framing these choices in a fatalistic way, you're being dishonest with yourself and those you care about/who care about you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glademaster

It's pretty funny to see everyone getting all worked up when someone points out the needless exposure to risk that many of us choose to expose ourselves too. We've all been lucky many more times than we've been right, it's just that some of us aren't willing to admit it.

IMO, if you're not at least occasionally framing these choices in a fatalistic way, you're being dishonest with yourself and those you care about/who care about you.

---

Nobody is infallible, and discussions about luck, control, and fate eventually lead to a realization (or irrational denial) that free will itself is a just a useful illusion, but IMO the purpose of examining the thought processes that go into managing risk in inherently risky situations is to manage risks more skillfully, because that in itself is feels deeply engaging and satisfying. Whether being aware of the relevant heuristics actually reduces risk (statistically no, personally?) is a more complicated discussion.

Overall I like reading avalanche related stories whether they’re about learning about them, accidents and the story behind them, whatever. I usually learn something. I even learned something from the NYT article. Nonetheless, she lost me when she couldn’t figure out if the rental was AWD. I know. That’s me.

Her not figuring out the car was an unintentional metaphor for the whole thing.

This quote from the article is worth considering. "Then Ryan revealed a second twist: By entering the storefront two hours earlier, by taking an avalanche-safety course, we had statistically increased our chances of being killed in an avalanche. We were more likely to die now than we were at 8 a.m."

That might be expressed another way: the stated purpose of an avalanche course is to make you less likely to die in an avalanche; the actual purpose is to make you more comfortable about skiing in avalanche-prone conditions.

The split in Recreational VS Professional avi courses is designed to address that and from my experiences very few instructors try and teach people to be more comfortable and for good reasons.

Because unless you have a lot of experience you will suck badly at forecasting for stability and the only way to obtain that experience.... Yadda Yadda Yadda.

Even then with a fair amount of experience a small error may kill you as shown by that Powder article. And unfortunately you could go your entire skiing life making small errors that under the right conditions would be fatal except that the dominoes never quite stack the right way, ergo you are skilled at traveling in avalanche prone terrain. Or maybe just plain lucky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

This quote from the article is worth considering. "Then Ryan revealed a second twist: By entering the storefront two hours earlier, by taking an avalanche-safety course, we had statistically increased our chances of being killed in an avalanche. We were more likely to die now than we were at 8 a.m."

That might be expressed another way: the stated purpose of an avalanche course is to make you less likely to die in an avalanche; the actual purpose is to make you more comfortable about skiing in avalanche-prone conditions.

---

There was a failure to contextualize this oft misapplied statistic for the author. Or she simply didn't listen when the instructors gave the context.

People who take avalanche classes are typically low experience and low knowledge folks looking to get into more risky terrain, or to be smarter about managing their current risk. So they want some knowledge, they take a class, and good for them!

The purpose of the avalanche safety course is to help manage risk by making better decisions about choosing and traveling through terrain, plus how to manage a group and a rescue. A 3 or 4 day course can give knowledge, methodology, and basic skills, but not experience.

So is there a cause and effect relationship between avalanche training and avalanche accidents as the author silently implies? Is the content learned what gets people killed? No, and the study addressing this didn't reach that conclusions either. Also, the original statistic is well out of date versus new teaching emphasis on human factors. But those referencing the study often suggest the avalanche course is the cause, implicitly or explicitly, and almost always for dramatic effect.

But the author unwittingly got it right: the correlation would apply to anyone who had come to the class, already at 2 hours in, irrespective of what they learned.

I always tell my students that if they've come through class confident in their judgement of avalanche phenomenon and decision making, then they are on the path to becoming a statistic. The trick is to be conservative and have a good mentor to contextualize knowledge, practice skillsets, and cement good practices. This allows experience to build up without overconfidence or overexposure, if there is honest feedback.

The other thing the author got kinda right was that if you are a mistake based learner, the avalanche problem is a very rough teacher. What she didn't quite nail is the issue of people getting away with their mistakes most of the time, until they don't. Negative feedback for bad decisions is rare in the avalanche world. That is why we operate with best practices and good heuristics (as opposed to traps). But, you can (and must) learn from these mistakes-without-consequences (also known as getting lucky) if you actively and critically analyze your decisions and apply lessons to the future. We all make these mistakes, but learning requires a good partner and a tradition of debriefing each day. I did this today with a new touring partner in Bear Creek. A good debrief recognizes what you did right and what you can improve on.

True experience is a series of non-fatal mistakes from which you learn and improve and a series of good practices recognized and reinforced. Now, think about this definition, and think about what "false experience" must entail: mental traps, "knowing what cannot be known," taking no-consequence results as positive reinforcement... we all know BC riders with a lot of years under their belt whose decision-making is overly guided by the false experience profile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Floaty little bastards.

Damn tasty though.

---

chickens of the sea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

There was a failure to contextualize this oft misapplied statistic for the author. Or she simply didn't listen when the instructors gave the context.[...]

---

Pretty much the only helpful aspect of her article have been your posts -- much appreciated!
(And too bad the NYT doesn't see fit to publish anything from you instead.)

It was interesting to see the experience through someone who didn't have the mindset to do much with the backcountry travel education ( and admittedly disclosed same). It's also a good reminder that backcountry skiing is not for everyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

There was a failure to contextualize this oft misapplied statistic for the author. Or she simply didn't listen when the instructors gave the context.

People who take avalanche classes are typically low experience and low knowledge folks looking to get into more risky terrain, or to be smarter about managing their current risk. So they want some knowledge, they take a class, and good for them!

The purpose of the avalanche safety course is to help manage risk by making better decisions about choosing and traveling through terrain, plus how to manage a group and a rescue. A 3 or 4 day course can give knowledge, methodology, and basic skills, but not experience.

So is there a cause and effect relationship between avalanche training and avalanche accidents as the author silently implies? Is the content learned what gets people killed? No, and the study addressing this didn't reach that conclusions either. Also, the original statistic is well out of date versus new teaching emphasis on human factors. But those referencing the study often suggest the avalanche course is the cause, implicitly or explicitly, and almost always for dramatic effect.

But the author unwittingly got it right: the correlation would apply to anyone who had come to the class, already at 2 hours in, irrespective of what they learned.

I always tell my students that if they've come through class confident in their judgement of avalanche phenomenon and decision making, then they are on the path to becoming a statistic. The trick is to be conservative and have a good mentor to contextualize knowledge, practice skillsets, and cement good practices. This allows experience to build up without overconfidence or overexposure, if there is honest feedback.

The other thing the author got kinda right was that if you are a mistake based learner, the avalanche problem is a very rough teacher. What she didn't quite nail is the issue of people getting away with their mistakes most of the time, until they don't. Negative feedback for bad decisions is rare in the avalanche world. That is why we operate with best practices and good heuristics (as opposed to traps). But, you can (and must) learn from these mistakes-without-consequences (also known as getting lucky) if you actively and critically analyze your decisions and apply lessons to the future. We all make these mistakes, but learning requires a good partner and a tradition of debriefing each day. I did this today with a new touring partner in Bear Creek. A good debrief recognizes what you did right and what you can improve on.

True experience is a series of non-fatal mistakes from which you learn and improve and a series of good practices recognized and reinforced. Now, think about this definition, and think about what "false experience" must entail: mental traps, "knowing what cannot be known," taking no-consequence results as positive reinforcement... we all know BC riders with a lot of years under their belt whose decision-making is overly guided by the false experience profile.

---

Great stuff.

On the issue of feedback, I’ve always made a point of getting up close and personal to the hazards. Obviously not an effective strategy with Low Probability / High Consequence scenarios, but in my neighbourhood where storm slabs are the more usual issue, I’ve internalized most of what I know about terrain and stability from endlessly goofing around in low consequence terrain on high hazard days.

The problem with heuristics is that just being aware of them isn’t enough to escape their effects (I recall Daniel Kahneman acknowledging this in recent interview). The key is to establish and follow simple “rules” that limit their impact, such as: Starting early, no more than 4 in the group, and avoiding other groups.

Militaries, and industries would call your "rules" SOPs. And decades of scientific study have shown they work.