Anti-Stoke

I didn't want to fuck-up the positive vibes but after reading the digression in MBSC's thread i thought a little perspective was in order. so here it is in the forum nobody reads...

every year a gringo dies and another gringo suffers major-season-ending-evac-to-the-states trauma in las lenas. count on it.

unless you've put in serious miles in europe, las lenas is unlike anything you've encountered. if you are euro-savvy, subtract the avy control and rescue options. just because you can traverse to the goods from the top of the marte does not mean this is your mother's fucking apple pie.

as someone else said "don't be a lemming." the number of gringos visiting LL rises every year and i think we can expect the number of accidents to rise commensurately. don't put the tears in your mothers eyes...

There is a time and a place for everything!

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=51851

please read the articles Lee linked in this great thread. Replace Summit fever with Marte fever.

opening of marte has this feel like "jackson tram" on a powder day. charge to get your line. big difference, however, is the minimal control work in Lenas.

The front side (mercurio, eduardos, and a few others) does get attention by patrol, but it's still not uncommon to set off a slab or be involved in some good size slough. Some of those avy paths are large & in charge. The famed 'south chutes' of the marte receives little attention - Let's call them the 'fearful foursome' (human error, sin salida, frankies, exocet) those are definitely ones to cause concern- especially if they haven't been skier compacted. Last year, after not liking the ski cuts we did in Parrot Shell, Hop and I decided to climb back out and hit a differnt aspect on the front side. It just didn't feel right. So be on top of your senses in Fantasyland!

Very few places have I seen avy's rip like they do in Lenas. Though it seems more of a combo maritime/intermountain snowpack, that isn't always the case.

be careful down there - and know when to say no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=51851

please read the articles Lee linked in this great thread. Replace Summit fever with Marte fever.

---

Great points. Could also replace with "Powder lust". Hacksaw preaches upon this subject at the beginning of every season. After the first snows arrive, the stoke factor reaches an all-time high, the gears get revved up, and we all get excited to get out on the hill and make the first pow turns of the year. It is very easy to forget about safety, protocol, snowpack analysis, etc. The thoughts of skiing fresh snow seem to take over all those other important things associated with skiing the backcountry. We have all been guilty of this at one time or another.

Powder lust often claims at least one victim in Colorado every season, whether it be a sledhead, an experienced skier/boarder, a newbie, or a climber/snowshoer. I'm sure it is the same for most other states and countries. In my opinion, the most significant part of avalanche safety is a complete understanding and analysis of the situation at hand, at that particular moment.


Always remember to take a step back, assess the situation and screw your head on tightly. Look at the big picture. Don't let your mind get clouded or let that tunnel vision take over. It pisses me off when people close to me or people who I thought were good partners do stupid shit that should have been avoided and then they just shrug it off as "no big deal". We all make mistakes, but learn from them, don't shrug it off.


Here is a good point that I always like to remind myself of every once in a while:

Incorrect Assumptions

A classic perception trap is that if we believe or assume that the snowpack is stable, then we are much more likely to see signs of stability than of instability. For instance, survivors of avalanche accidents often say that, "the avalanche advisory said that the hazard was 'moderate' so we didn't expect to get caught," or "there were tracks on the slope so we assumed that it was safe. n Many travelers get positive reinforcement because they are able to travel to a given area many times with no problems. They eventually assume that the area is safe, but if the terrain is capable of producing an avalanche, then sooner or later it will and they will get surprised.

Good science is built on removing subjectivity from the observation and often requires not only blind but double-blind tests to completely remove the tester's belief from the experiment. As avalanche instructors, we must teach students to identify their assumptions and check them out.


While some accidents are the result of not recognizing potential hazard, most accidents occur because the victims either underestimate the hazard or overestimate their ability to deal with it. Victims tend to make critical decisions based on human desires and assumptions rather than upon the integration of key pieces of physical data.

I also think the problem here in LL is the clock is ticking. So, people dream of coming down here and showing up and nailing a big line. I can say from my season's here, I like to work up to it. assess the snow on a comparable exposure/slope before stepping up to a biggie. But then again, I am fortunate to be here for the season. My 6 centavos worth.

I mentioned this to MBSC the other day that and given the often random nature of international ski travel bc partner hookups:

Setting up a beacon drill is a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff, at least in part. It will be obvious people who's shit is really dialed, people who you shouldn't be out with and people who are adequate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

I mentioned this to MBSC the other day that and given the often random nature of international ski travel bc partner hookups:

Setting up a beacon drill is a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff, at least in part. It will be obvious people who's shit is really dialed, people who you shouldn't be out with and people who are adequate.

---

Shit, and all this time I thought you could tell who knew their shit and who didn't by what ski town they live in, how fat their skis were, and how much chest beating they could do on the chair ride up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iskibc

Shit, and all this time I thought you could tell who knew their shit and who didn't by what ski town they live in, how fat their skis were, and how much chest beating they could do on the chair ride up.

---

Oh...that totally works too.

If you're from vail and ski on Snow Rangers and have manfur showing through the top of your coat = you know what's up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

Oh...that totally works too.

If you're from vail and ski on Snow Rangers and have manfur showing through the top of your coat = you know what's up

---

I see guys in Whistler who are convinced they can ski out of a slide or plain just dont care about the outcome. they will ski anything, anytime. some of these guys are pro skiers. be responsible for your own safety and dont rely on what other people are doing to justify doing something stupid.

A lot of times I'm more interested in a new partner's "exceptiable level of risk," then how well dialed in they are with their transceiver. It can be hard to figure this out. But, I usually talk with them about their experience and background. I also ask about if they have had any car accidents. Getting a chance to drive with them gives me an idea about their "situtaional awareness." If the guy drives twice through a yellow traffic light, I start to really question if I want to ski with this guy.

"Powder Lust," has gotten more people killed I think then any other factor. Iskibc, really nails down a lot of what I usually preach about "Powder Lust."

Powder or rather untracked lines have gotten to be harder and harder to find. This competition for untracked lines has gotten folks into a lot of trouble because they have focused more on skiing the untracked line, then if the untracked line is actually stable (example: Berthoud Pass avalanche accident Nov. 5th, 2005). And when you head off on the "ski trip of a lifetime," to places like LL there's extra pressure/temptation. Folks want to come home with big stories and photos of skiing the big goods. Add in the factor that they have limited time at the location and there's more pressure/temptation. This is why folks start taking more risk then what they might do at home. The main thing is to not fall to such pressures or temptations

There is a time and place to skiing big untracked lines. Its a matter of timing.

Cheers,
Halsted

Halstead,

I was going to post something about % of avalanche victims who die from blunt trauma and how the experience or otherwise of your partner and their abilty with a beacon should not be important in your go/no-go decision.

You've just touched on this but since you're around perhaps you could expand on it?

I really like the idea of observing their driving skills as an indicator of risk taking, etc.

Good one Halsted. Thanks. Your input here is greatly appreciated and I hope you continue to be of help to our community.

I am always amazed at how those first few days of the season can be some of the most dangerous days of the year. It's almost like people don't have their "avalanche thinking caps" on and are only focused on skiing fresh powder. Stand in the Berthoud Pass parking lot or Loveland pass pullout on any given October-November morning and this will be quite evident. I've had friends tell me that avalanche gear is not needed those first few dumps because it's too shallow to slide. Bullshit! If it's deep enough to ski, then it's deep enough to slide. I've seen slides run on a 12" base or less many times over the years. Take for instance the avalanche that claimed the death of a couple of climbers a few years back on La Plata Peak. There was barely enough snow on the south side of the mountain to ski. I'm sure the thought process of "It's not deep enough...." was running through their minds at some point in the decision-making process.

Proof once again of why Hacksaw is DA MAN. Even if he is retarr'd. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iskibc

Stand in the Berthoud Pass parking lot or Loveland pass pullout on any given October-November morning and this will be quite evident. I've had friends tell me that avalanche gear is not needed those first few dumps because it's too shallow to slide.

---

While I agree at least in part with that...those two places in particular are such shit shows every day that there's something else clearly at work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

Proof once again of why Hacksaw is DA MAN. Even if he is retarr'd. ;)

---

Ah, its great to know that I have friends..... How about "snownerd," rather then "retarr'd." ;) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hacksaw

A lot of times I'm more interested in a new partner's "exceptiable level of risk," then how well dialed in they are with their transceiver. It can be hard to figure this out. But, I usually talk with them about their experience and background. I also ask about if they have had any car accidents. Getting a chance to drive with them gives me an idea about their "situtaional awareness." If the guy drives twice through a yellow traffic light, I start to really question if I want to ski with this guy.[snip]...

---

The car accidents/seeing them drive Q is a great thought. The thing is, I think most people hooking up with a random partner are very hesitant to quiz as to experience and sense of risk perception and risk tolerance. It can feel awkward, and for many people could also mean that there might be a couple days where you just don't partner up. And, the less a base of experience someone has themselves, the more hesitant they're going to be to question or decline a partner when in fact in some ways they should be choosier.

Sorry, I didn't have much time to write yesterday........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Halstead,

I was going to post something about % of avalanche victims who die from blunt trauma and how the experience or otherwise of your partner and their abilty with a beacon should not be important in your go/no-go decision.

You've just touched on this but since you're around perhaps you could expand on it?

---

Well, depending upon who's study data you look at, approximately 20-22% die from blunt trauma (hitting trees, rocks, go off cliffs, etc....) and approximately 75% die of asphyxia. The remaining percentages are death from , heart attack, drowning, hypothermea, etc.... So, you can see that most folks survive the ride in the avalanche. But later die of asphyxia under the debris, after the avalanche has come to a stop.

The distressing thing is that once your buried you can't normally dig yourself out. Now remember that brain damage starts to happen around 6-8 minutes when your oxygen deprived.

The survival stats (Tremper's book = Staying Alive in Avalanche Terrain) show that if your recovered (i.e. dug-out) by your partners within 15 minutes you have a 92% chance of survival. But, after 15 minutes your chances of survival drop-off quickly (27% chance of survival at 35 minutes).

Survival stats are thrown around in some avalanche courses. I don't use them much in my courses, because I don't want people making life or potentally death decisions based on some stat they heard in an avalanche course. But, there are some numbers that we all need to keep in mind when it comes to avalanches. Numbers like how long will it take you to find your buried parter with your transceiver? And how long will it take to dig down and get your partners airway opened and cleared? I can't give you exact times that these will take to accomplish. But, you should be thinking less then 12-15 minutes would be your goal. That's why having backcountry partners who are well trained and practiced with their rescue equipment is VERY important.

If your serious about backcountry skiing/boarding you practice A LOT with your transceiver. Don't rely on that you have the, "latest newest, hotest tecno-digital transceiver." When the shit hits the fan, excellent transceiver skills are more important. So, each time you practice with your transceiver you improve your skills with your transceiver. Think of it this way: When you started skiing you sucked. The more your skied the better "skilled" you became.

The one thing that worries me a lot, is that I see/hear people putting too much faith in their equipment (transceiver, shovel , prob, Avalung, Avalanche Airbag, etc...) when it comes to avalanches. The fact is, you should buy this equipment, but you should think of it as a insurence policy. A policy you hope to never really use......

Your "avalanche educated brain," is the most important thing you can have in the backcountry. The idea is that your avalanche education should keep you from getting into trouble in the first place. And this starts with changing your thinking. There is a time (snow and weather conditions) and place (terrain) when you can ski big lines. Sometimes the snow stablity just isn't right, and you have to backoff. The problem is that a lot of human factors come into play and cause folks not to backoff. Even when conditions clearly are unstable. I believe its better to backoff and comeback another day, then push it and pay the ultimate price....

I have been on a body recovery where the avalanche victim was less then 18" buried, and the slope that got him was less the 50 vertical feet tall. That's one end of the spectrum. At the other end, I have a friend that survived a super avalanche monster = avalanche fell 4,000'+ vertical, came over a mile across the glacier, hit him, stripped him of skis, pack, gloves, gatiers, hat, glasses and left him buried to his neck. He survived and only had minor injuries. From my experience all avalanches are potental killers.

Its been a very long time, since I've ever thought that I could survive an avalanche. I was on the team that rescued a backcountry skier in Herman Gulch a few years ago. The skier had been quickly dugout by his partners from a partial burial. But, he had been beaten up very badly in the avalanche. When we loaded him on the helicopter, he had no feeling from his chest down. Today he's able to walk with a walker, drive a car with hand controls and done the sit-ski handiecaped deal. Not only did his life drasticly change, but so have the lives of his friends and family. All too often I think , we forget what the exstended outcomes might be if we have an accident. There's a bigger picture involved with backcountry skiing, then just terrain, weather and snowpack....

Ok, I'm starting to ramble.....:rolleyes:

Cheers,
Halsted Morris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ctarmchair

The car accidents/seeing them drive Q is a great thought. The thing is, I think most people hooking up with a random partner are very hesitant to quiz as to experience and sense of risk perception and risk tolerance. It can feel awkward, and for many people could also mean that there might be a couple days where you just don't partner up. And, the less a base of experience someone has themselves, the more hesitant they're going to be to question or decline a partner when in fact in some ways they should be choosier.

---

Yea, hooking up with a random partner and not getting time to check them out makes it difficult. The only other thing I can tell you is, "start small." The TGR moive guys talk about "playing mini-golf," when the go into a new area to shoot a film. Basiclly, they start with skiing the small stuff. They dig a lot of pits, do a lot of ski cuts, drop some cornices to get handle on the snowpack. Basiclly, their starting small before sticking their necks out. So, with a new partner start off with some fairly safe terrain. Chack out how they ski a line. Do they just rip strait down, or do they spend a little time checking things out. Do they follow the standard backcountry safety protocols always or just when you remind them....... :eek: :eek:

Cheers,
Halsted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hacksaw

The TGR moive guys talk about "playing mini-golf," when the go into a new area to shoot a film. Basiclly, they start with skiing the small stuff. They dig a lot of pits, do a lot of ski cuts, drop some cornices to get handle on the snowpack. Basiclly, their starting small before sticking their necks out.

---

Great comments and discussion. When Tyrone & I were hanging out with Owens in AK, we were talking about how the snow pack just didn't cooperate the time they were there. A lot of lines never went down, had lots of down time. Perhaps Owens could elaborate more?

maybe i'm old school, but regardless of conditions & snow pack- if you're taking a line, ski one at a time. it's the simplest rule out there, but yet so many people don't do it- more so on the coastal snowpacks as many people are skiing with a false sense of security. Seen this happen countless times in Lenas, too. Immediate red flag to me to get the F outta there and find another line away from those people.

Well, judging by what has happened with the last 7 days of big weather (snow and huge wind), and tomorrows forecast of clear weather, there will be some cases of the Las Leñas decision making processes put to the test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hacksaw

The one thing that worries me a lot, is that I see/hear people putting too much faith in their equipment (transceiver, shovel , prob, Avalung, Avalanche Airbag, etc...) when it comes to avalanches. The fact is, you should buy this equipment, but you should think of it as a insurence policy. A policy you hope to never really use......

---

I just got the 1980-86 edition ofThe Snowy Torrents in the mail yesterday (side note - why are these books so hard to find??). I'm only about 20 cases into it, but it's surprising how many cases end with "victim died of a broken neck and was likely dead before the slide came to a stop". When I first started skiing b/c I (along with everyone I skied with) naively believed that as long as I had my transciever and shovel that everything was going to be ok - in the freak chance that I went for a ride, my friends would just dig me out. Never mind that we never practiced with our beacons (which back then were way more difficult to figure out than the new transcievers). Luckily we never had to find out first hand how proficient we were.
Although it's not the safest way to learn, I think getting the living shit scared out of you is the best teacher - nothing like cold sweat and uncontollable trembling to drive a point home.
I bought an Avalung II a few months back. It should work great as long as I can get the mouthpiece in my mouth in time and as long as it stays in my mouth and as long as the whole thing doesn't get ripped off my body and as long as I survive long enough to feebly suck air out of it. As you said, hopefully I'll never have to find out how well it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

I just got the 1980-86 edition ofThe Snowy Torrents in the mail yesterday (side note - why are these books so hard to find??). (snip)

---

The 1980-86 edition of the Snowy Torrents, is the most up to date of the Snowy Torrents. The next edition of the Snow Torrents is currently being worked on. The 80-86' edition, was published/printed through the Colorado Geological Survey. It has not been reprinted and it was printed in a "limited" run. That's why its currently hard to find. The Snowy Torrents is a very valuable text, to study about how folks have avalanche accidents. If you come across any more copies buy them. Give them to your backcountry partners.....

Its great to hear Jer that you have come to realize that you can't just rely on equipment alone to keep you out of trouble in the backcountry. Obviously, more folks need to come to this realization.

Cheers,
Halsted

I am waiting for Z to come over to this thread we can discuss further!

Good discussion everyone.

The beacons become a bit of a joke here in Chamonix, because you see completely inexperienced people throwing down hair-raisingly avalanche prone slopes thinking their beacon will save the day. You can't ride a bus here without overhearing some seasoneers talk about a recent and/or pending avalanche transciever purchase/use. ("Wow Jon, high any danger today, ehh?" / "Yeah, do you have your beacon turned on?" / "Yeah of course" / "Good." sigh of relief)

Gear and knowledge are obviously important, but human factors are the biggest danger, and inexperience the second biggest. I was lucky in Las Lenas to link up with three very experienced snowboarders but the things we saw happening in the other "teams" was pretty shocking. Even in our own team, we often made bad decisions based on powder lust.

Stay safe!

Attachment 15246

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hacksaw

The 1980-86 edition of the Snowy Torrents, is the most up to date of the Snowy Torrents. The next edition of the Snow Torrents is currently being worked on. The 80-86' edition, was published/printed through the Colorado Geological Survey. It has not been reprinted and it was printed in a "limited" run. That's why its currently hard to find.

---

You can still order 80-86 from the CO Geological Survey
http://dnr.state.co.us/geostore/Prod...roductid=SP-39
the older versions are available from the usual online used book sellers, at increasingly exorbitant prices (www.bookfinder.com is my favorite engine for those)

The easy access is likely to increase the tendency to go for it when if you had to hike for it you may be less likely to jump in.

I find it helpful for decision making to think about backcountry descents in terms of several important factors and apply a Green-yellow-Red in to each factor:

1) Group - experience, egos, size of group/# rescuers etc
2) Snowpack - stability and quality
3) Terrain - exposure, terrain traps, coverage, etc.
4) Other (weather, rescue difficulty, time of day, etc)

When you rate each factor and look at the picture overall I find it often helps clarify the real relative level of risk. One or even two reds/yellows doesnt mean no-go, it just means you better be aware of the increased risk.

For example in the situation in question LL I'd rate the situation as follows (of course I wasnt there so its only my guess)

1) Group - yellow/red - MBSC didnt know these people and therefore didnt know their experience level. Were they going to ski above her and kick a slide? Did they know how to rescue? Were they competent skiers on this typ of slope? Was their decision making good?

2) Snowpack - Red - 3 feet of new snow - unless it was exceptionally stable I'd call it higher on the danger scale simply b/c of the volume of new snow. Most avalanches happen in the first 24-48 hours after snowfall.

3) Terrain - Red - deathfall likely here - either from fall or avalanche. Right at the ski area, but high on the exposure factor.

4) Other - Green - dont see any other factors.

Three reds - that probably means no-go for me, but then again its everyone's own decision based on comfort with risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cj001f

You can still order 80-86 from the CO Geological Survey
http://dnr.state.co.us/geostore/Prod...roductid=SP-39
the older versions are available from the usual online used book sellers, at increasingly exorbitant prices (www.bookfinder.com is my favorite engine for those)

---

Thanks for the link! Just ordered a copy. Looking forward to the updated version too.

I've gotten the chance to finger through this book and I must say that there is a wealth of helpful information in there. I think you can learn more from this publication than most 'basic' avalanche books. Really good resource.

Smitchell333,

I like your method. Similar to the bulls eye method, but pretty much covers everything.

Good discussion everyone. This is what a forum is about.

I highly reccomend The Snowy Torrents, probably the best resource I own for avies. Because I tend to learn better by example, I learned a lot more from it than I did from Snow Sense. I usually reread it in the fall, just to remind myself of the mistakes that can be made. The internet is full of accident reports as well, and the last 10 years or so of avalanche accidents are all detailed on the CAIC website, in the same style as Snowy Torrents.

Thanks for all the input, especially Hacksaw. Another text of case studies worth mentioning is Avalanche Accidents in Canada Vol.4, available through the CAA, www.avalanche.ca. There are previous volumes out there, but this one should suffice, and with any luck Vol.5 will appear in the not too distant future.

"The one thing that worries me a lot, is that I see/hear people putting too much faith in their equipment (transceiver, shovel , prob, Avalung, Avalanche Airbag, etc...) when it comes to avalanches. The fact is, you should buy this equipment, but you should think of it as a insurence policy. A policy you hope to never really use......"

Thats one thing mum drilled into us was, say you arrive at a slope and you are having thoughts about it, ask "if I didn't have a beacon, would I cross it?" that and "the slope that never slides, can and will when conditions are right, that will be the slope that will kill you" that second one was a bed time story in my house i remember being shit scared of the hill the school was on for a while due to that one, but then I was like 9 at the time, scared the shit out of me! I still can't ride a bike to this day (i'm 25) without shoes that cover my toes thanks to mum's horror stories from A&E of kids getting toes ripped off on random parts of their norco. Thanks mum. Horror instilled from an early age, if I had to live thru that, so are my kids "i think tonight a story from avalanche accidents in Canada Vol 4 no, we are not reading winnie the pooh".

When I came to Fernie in Dec last year, before the lifts open I couldn't get over how many people which where hiking with no pack, heading to easter bowl or boom. In the happy house of hippies we have a rule if you can't find a beacon in training in under 5 minutes, your kitchen bitch and we'll be home at this time and you better have a hot meal on the table ready for us! last winter a friend wanted me to go on a tour out to lost boys, he had just got a beacon (2 days old) no training, no experience in BC and got up set when he was told "like fucking hell, I am". Some time I think you can't be scared of hurting feelings, you not 100% happy with how someone reads the slope, say something. If they can't wait for the slowest, make them pull their head in and wait. I'm a bit blunt but yeah it's better to stand up and say something then living with what if's. They'll get over it one day, if not, too bad.