Multiburial skills? 18+ caught, 6 dead, 5 injured in 7 accidents in 7 days

[summit]

thing about them medical certs
them fuckers alway make ya prove competence
where as avvy the just want the $$ i guess

No avalanche class has to have formal evaluation or testing to meet guidelines until you hit Pro 1.

A 4 hour CPR course has minimum competency and a test and it expires after 2-3 years without a refresher.

WFR? You better believe you can fail the course via practical or written assessment... but then again a WFR is more hours than Avalanche Rec 1 + Rescue + Rec 2 and as a certification it requires a refresher or expires after 3 years.

My Level 1 and AvRescue actually has a graded written test and field competencies... but it is a rarity...

A lot of people's "Safe Zones" aren't very safe at all.

True Safe Zones vs "safer zones" is a running theme of my entire course... sorry I don't mean this to be about what I teach but I keep reflecting on what I see and how I can change what I do personally, professionally, and educationally.

[adrenalated]

Learn Micro-Strip and/or 3-Circle... these are absolutely necessary backup tools.

The whole thing is a great list, but this is the one I need to focus on. I'm familiar with both methods but not competent enough at either for them to be useful in a real situation. This is probably the single greatest hole in my avalanche rescue abilities.

As others have said, preventing multiple people from getting caught is certainly one of those easier said than done things. That was the main thing I took away from the Sheep Creek accident. That group WAS traveling one at a time, from safe zone to safe zone, problem was they underestimated the potential size of an avalanche and thus picked a safe zone that actually wasn't. It was eye-opening for me at the time because I realized how many times I had made that exact mistake.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

The whole thing is a great list, but this is the one I need to focus on. I'm familiar with both methods but not competent enough at either for them to be useful in a real situation. This is probably the single greatest hole in my avalanche rescue abilities.

As others have said, preventing multiple people from getting caught is certainly one of those easier said than done things. That was the main thing I took away from the Sheep Creek accident. That group WAS traveling one at a time, from safe zone to safe zone, problem was they underestimated the potential size of an avalanche and thus picked a safe zone that actually wasn't. It was eye-opening for me at the time because I realized how many times I had made that exact mistake.

I think you might want to revisit the accident report on Sheep Creek. Nothing about what they were doing was safe travel practice. Spacing out on a slope that is suspect isn't safe travel practice. One at a time means one person exposed to the hazard, period. An island of trees on an avalanche slope isn't a safe zone. Of course there are exception but when you start splitting hairs bad shit happens.

[adrenalated]

I think you might want to revisit the accident report on Sheep Creek. Nothing about what they were doing was safe travel practice. Spacing out on a slope that is suspect isn't safe travel practice. One at a time means one person exposed to the hazard, period. An island of trees on an avalanche slope isn't a safe zone. Of course there are exception but when you start splitting hairs bad shit happens.

You're right that they were spaced out, not traveling strictly one at a time, my apologies for mis-remembering.

That said, they DID think the stand of trees was a safe zone, and was out of the avalanche path. I'm not saying I would have made that exact mistake on that exact slope. I am saying that they had a safe zone, that they thought would be safe, and it wasn't. I have made that mistake too, but thankfully nothing slid when I made that mistake.

[summit]

If you go back to 99-00 it was over 50% of incidents. The next season <40%. Fatal accidents are probably a poor lens to gaze at avalanches through.

It is the only clear lens, even if it is a narrow view.

I'm well aware that nonfatals are often not reported if they don't require SAR.

[PNWbrit]

preventing multiple people from getting caught is certainly one of those easier said than done things. That was the main thing I took away from the Sheep Creek accident. That group WAS traveling one at a time, from safe zone to safe zone, problem was they underestimated the potential size of an avalanche and thus picked a safe zone that actually wasn't.

I think you might want to revisit the accident report on Sheep Creek. Nothing about what they were doing was safe travel practice. Spacing out on a slope that is suspect isn't safe travel practice. One at a time means one person exposed to the hazard, period. An island of trees on an avalanche slope isn't a safe zone. Of course there are exception but when you start splitting hairs bad shit happens.

Yep....

It is rare that we have as clear of evidence of a deep-persistent avalanche problem as we did the week leading up to this accident. Some of the group likely drove by fresh evidence of the problem in Straight Creek on their way to Saturday's event. Before their tour, the group read about the conditions in the avalanche bulletin and identified deep-persistent slabs as the primary avalanche problem. They selected terrain that was less likely to produce a deep-slab avalanche, but to get there they traveled through a dangerous area. At least 3 members of the group reached the "island of safety" they had identified, only to be subsequently caught and buried in the avalanche.

It is easy to underestimate the consequences of getting caught in a deep-persistent slab avalanche, because these slides are often much bigger than most of the avalanches witnessed by backcountry recreationalists. Deep-persistent slabs do not form every year, like storm and wind slab avalanches. The only effective travel technique for this avalanche problem is to avoid areas where deep slabs might release, or if the risk is deemed acceptable, expose a single group member to the danger. Spreading out often does not mitigate the risk to the group because these avalanches are always large and destructive.

[Name Redacted]

And for the record, the season leading up to that accident seemed very similar to this season.

[summit]

And for the record, the season leading up to that accident seemed very similar to this season.

Agreed

[Hacksaw]

Agreed

Yup....

[cmcrawfo]

That's because people have been trained to be stupid and unaware. Folks jump through the hoops when it comes to avalanche education and it seems like most of them don't even understand what's going on.

Even the "pros" fall victim to poor group management and poor selection of safe zones .... see the thread about the Guides out of Golden.

Decision making is super complex, and humans are not that great at it most of the time.... "hope for the best, prepare for the worst"