Disturbing Article on Avalanche Preparedness

[Mike King]

Another great article from the Colorado Sun: https://coloradosun.com/2019/12/12/colorado-backcountry-avalanche-unprepared-skiers/

Consider subscribing to support quality independent journalism with a outdoor coverage!

 

[pais alto]

I am not surprised.

 

[Slim]

There is an article about her work in current (25th anniversary) edition of Backcountry Magazine as well.
At Bridger bowl researchers have also interviewed skiers heading out of bounds, asking about their training or decision making.

The problem with these kinds of situations is always, that many people don't know what, when and where the dangers are. You need education to teach them that, but without education they don’t know they need it, vicious circle.

This is why I think online, community, youth and free avalanche awareness classes are so important, not because they can teach you all you need to know about avalanches, but because it shows people the risks, and what they don’t know.

Let’s all donate money and/or time to the organizations providing these resources, and spread the word to our friends.


Here are some I am aware of:

Know before you go Awareness program:

https://kbyg.org/#findtalk

The Jackson Hole school program:

Avalanche Awareness at the Jackson Hole High School, International Snow Service Workshops (ISSW) Proceedings professional paper or poster talk citation record. - Montana State University Library

Each year, more young skiers, riders, and snowmobilers are accessing the backcountry. For the past 12 years, the American Avalanche Institute has been working with the Jackson Hole High School (JHHS) to provide avalanche education to the youth of Teton County, WY. The current awareness program...

arc.lib.montana.edu

KBYG online course:

https://kbyg.org/learn/

 

[KevinF]

I am not surprised.

I’m actually surprised that the “find the buried beacon” test had a pass rate as HIGH as 50%

 

[beginnerskier96]

This is why I avoid the backcountry ski areas.

 

[Tom Holtmann]

People may also be cavalier because even if you are incredibly naive or unprepared avalanche deaths are very rare. I did a quick back of the envelope calculation of the odds of dying from an avalanche in the East Vail area given the stats they reported and it was only 5 times higher than the probability of death skiing at at resort. Granted these were crude estimates but I think the fact that deadly avalanches are relatively rare may explain why some people are so woefully under prepared.

Fixed calculation - more like 40 times more dangerous on average. To emphasize this is a back of the envelope calculation.

 

[Slim]

I’m actually surprised that the “find the buried beacon” test had a pass rate as HIGH as 50%

That’s because of selection bias, she didn’t force people to do the search, so the only people who agree to do the beacon search are the people who feel they have a good chance of succes.

 

[Slim]

This is why I avoid the backcountry ski areas.

I could Interpret this many ways, can you elaborate/clarify?

 

[tball]

People may also be cavalier because even if you are incredibly naive or unprepared avalanche deaths are very rare. I did a quick back of the envelope calculation of the odds of dying from an avalanche in the East Vail area given the stats they reported and it was only 5 times higher than the probability of death skiing at at resort. Granted these were crude estimates but I think the fact that deadly avalanches are relatively rare may explain why some people are so woefully under prepared.

Please show your work. I'm not buying the risk of dying in the East Vail backcountry is only five times higher than inbounds at Vail. No way.

 

[cantunamunch]

I could Interpret this many ways, can you elaborate/clarify?

She's based in Europe - pretty much every resort is a groomer resort with occasional moguls. You have to pick a resort with known BC terrain (and hire a guide), or go on a tour. She's saying she has avoided resorts with significant BC availability/advertising/reputation.

 

[Slim]

She's based in Europe - pretty much every resort is a groomer resort with occasional moguls. You have to pick a resort with known BC terrain (and hire a guide), or go on a tour. She's saying she has avoided resorts with significant BC availability/advertising/reputation.

Aha, I didn’t know, there is a Surrey in British Columbia as well, and probably more across North America.
As far as what @beginnerskier96 meant, I’ll wait to hear from her herself. No rush, just curious.
Europe vs North America does not matter in this thread, since the article was about people skiing uncontrolled, avalanche terrain while lacking training. That scenario can play out in both continents, in North America it would be out of bounds(the case mentioned here) in Europe it could be anywhere off-piste.

 

[Tom Holtmann]

Please show your work. I'm not buying the risk of dying in the East Vail backcountry is only five times higher than inbounds at Vail. No way.

Actually now that I wrote it down it is higher than I calculated. This is a very, very rough estimate so here you go - the article reports roughly 40 years of people skiing X 100 days average per year of East Vail backcountry use X 50 average per day visit. That's your denominator. Divide 8 casualties since the 80's and you have roughly 40 deaths per million visit (.004% probability of dying each visit). The Ski Resort Association (or something like that I can't remember) reported roughly 1 death per million ski visits. So skiing EV is somewhere around 40 times more deadly. Total guesstamite. Still a very rare occurrence.

Alternatively, the article reports 7 million backcountry skiers in 2016 and CAIC reports 14 Backcountry Ski deaths nationwide in 2016 which is roughly 2 per million visits US wide. So say somewhere between 2 and 100 deaths per million visits maybe? Obviously the risk in a resort is low and has low variance. BC is higher and can have very high variance depending on conditions and terrain.

 

[tball]

40 deaths per million visit (.004% probability of dying each visit). The Ski Resort Association (or something like that I can't remember) reported roughly 1 death per million ski visits. So skiing EV is somewhere around 40 times more deadly. Total guesstamite. Still a very rare occurrence.

Thanks. Forty deaths per million East Vail visit vs. one per million for in-bounds intuitively sounds closer.

But wait, there's more! Maybe even another order of magnitude.

An East Vail backcountry "visit" is a single run where a ski area visit is multiple runs. Assume ten runs per day average for a ski area visit, and that makes an East Vail backcountry run something like 400 times more deadly per run than an inbounds run.

Am I off base or missing anything with that thinking?

 

[Tom Holtmann]

Thanks. Forty deaths per million East Vail visit vs. one per million for in-bounds intuitively sounds closer.

But wait, there's more! Maybe even another order of magnitude.

An East Vail backcountry "visit" is a single run where a ski area visit is multiple runs. Assume ten runs per day average for a ski area visit, and that makes an East Vail backcountry run something like 400 times more deadly per run than an inbounds run.

Am I off base or missing anything with that thinking?

I think that is reasonable although I personally think risk per outing or day is more relevant than per run in terms of comparison. Either way the risk of being killed at EV is without a doubt real but on average still probably low which may be one reason why people think it is ok to be under prepared. Certainly not an excuse for not getting proper training.

 

[Primoz]

But wait, there's more! Maybe even another order of magnitude.
An East Vail backcountry "visit" is a single run where a ski area visit is multiple runs. Assume ten runs per day average for a ski area visit, and that makes an East Vail backcountry run something like 400 times more deadly per run than an inbounds run.
Am I off base or missing anything with that thinking?

I have no idea about "Easy Vail backcountry" but I would say this sort of things are same everywhere. And personally I don't think it's number of runs that matter but time spend in avalanche terrain. And for that single run, you spend out there quite a while. My yesterday's tour was 6h, with "only" 4 runs, something what I do with lifts in 30-40min, same pretty much fits also height meters and kilometers.
But to @Tom Holtmann original statement, I agree with him, that regardless of (lack of) preparation and knowledge, avalanche deaths are relatively rare thing. If I remember some numbers from previous years, there's some 200 death a year, worldwide. Considering you have millions of people outthere, not just skiing, but climbing, snowshoeing, motorsledging etc., statistically that's almost zero chances to die. Of course, that statistics doesn't matter anymore once you are out there triggering avalanche, and people around you don't have any idea what to do. But still, chances are pretty low you will experince that, and if you count purely on statistics, it's somehow understandable you don't give a shit about education and proper equipment/behavior in avi terrain.

 

[Yo Momma]

Having triggered a slide and having dug someone out and after scraping the frozen layer of ice off their face, really makes me wonder why anyone would venture out of bounds w/o training or a guide. Even w/ a guide you need some prior training and lots of practice as to how to handle yourself and knowing your panic limits and how your body & mind respond to an emergency situation. I think many times having a Guide, gives a false sense of overall security. Mother Nature ALWAYS wins... no matter the sport. Study, train, practice, understand your limits, and have your affairs in order for your loved ones...

 

[Analisa]

Comparing inbounds & backcountry fatality rates is moot since usage is so different. Very few backcountry fatalities happen under high or extreme conditions because even users lacking formal avy education generally at least know the color scale forecast. Meanwhile, the resorts have their busiest days when it's deep and fresh (and likely dangerous when uncontrolled), and the vast majority of resort skiers aren't skiing with avy gear or planning their routes, etc. Part of the reason the East Vail numbers look low is that most people are being somewhat careful, even if the article overall reflects some reckless behavior to improve.

I totally agree with @Slim the biggest piece the article misses is cost. Setup aside, avy gear and education are just under $1000, and most people pay for that after their skis/boots/bindings (my first setup would've looked really different if I had known the full price tag of the sport). I know a lot of people who rationalize that they only go out occasionally, go with educated partners, read Tremper's book and feel like they've done enough. I'm a huge fan of programs designed to bridge the gap between Avy Awareness and the whole enchilada of an AIARE course. SAFE AS is $149 and is taught on inbound gear and Lel brings extra rescue gear to lend out. NWAC saw that snowshoers tended to go without AIARE1, so they made a series of 5 classes, 2.5 hours each @ $15, that goes deeper into reading the forecast or using Caltopo - and also goes into what they don't teach and would require an AIARE 1 or Rescue class. I also think the "what's your budget" question from shops should include the education and safety components so that there's money reserved for them once the gear shopping is done.

 

[Tom Holtmann]

Comparing inbounds & backcountry fatality rates is moot since usage is so different. Very few backcountry fatalities happen under high or extreme conditions because even users lacking formal avy education generally at least know the color scale forecast. Meanwhile, the resorts have their busiest days when it's deep and fresh (and likely dangerous when uncontrolled), and the vast majority of resort skiers aren't skiing with avy gear or planning their routes, etc. Part of the reason the East Vail numbers look low is that most people are being somewhat careful, even if the article overall reflects some reckless behavior to improve.

I totally agree with @Slim the biggest piece the article misses is cost. Setup aside, avy gear and education are just under $1000, and most people pay for that after their skis/boots/bindings (my first setup would've looked really different if I had known the full price tag of the sport). I know a lot of people who rationalize that they only go out occasionally, go with educated partners, read Tremper's book and feel like they've done enough. I'm a huge fan of programs designed to bridge the gap between Avy Awareness and the whole enchilada of an AIARE course. SAFE AS is $149 and is taught on inbound gear and Lel brings extra rescue gear to lend out. NWAC saw that snowshoers tended to go without AIARE1, so they made a series of 5 classes, 2.5 hours each @ $15, that goes deeper into reading the forecast or using Caltopo - and also goes into what they don't teach and would require an AIARE 1 or Rescue class. I also think the "what's your budget" question from shops should include the education and safety components so that there's money reserved for them once the gear shopping is done.

An interesting addition to the series of questions at the gate would be tell me what the current avalanche forecast is - my guess is that lots of people wouldn't know. Knowing that alone (and using that information properly) is probably the most useful single thing a BC skier can know. I think false sense of security because serious avi accidents are relatively low, equipment cost, naivete, putting trust in relatively untrained partners ect are all reasons that backcountry skiers can be more vulnerable than they should be. By the way the inbound death rate of less than 1 per million includes almost no avi deaths but is largely made up of other types of accidents like trees, tree wells, collisions ect. It is just an obvious relative risk comparison when talking about BC risk.

Actually, the majority of backcountry avi deaths are when it has either freshly snowed (or wind loading conditions which is really same thing) and when the avi rating is considerable and above so I think the assumption that people are being "careful" in EV or other popular areas may not be true for a significant number of travelers (of course not all).

 

[Tricia]

Comparing inbounds & backcountry fatality rates is moot since usage is so different. Very few backcountry fatalities happen under high or extreme conditions because even users lacking formal avy education generally at least know the color scale forecast. Meanwhile, the resorts have their busiest days when it's deep and fresh (and likely dangerous when uncontrolled), and the vast majority of resort skiers aren't skiing with avy gear or planning their routes, etc. Part of the reason the East Vail numbers look low is that most people are being somewhat careful, even if the article overall reflects some reckless behavior to improve.

I totally agree with @Slim the biggest piece the article misses is cost. Setup aside, avy gear and education are just under $1000, and most people pay for that after their skis/boots/bindings (my first setup would've looked really different if I had known the full price tag of the sport). I know a lot of people who rationalize that they only go out occasionally, go with educated partners, read Tremper's book and feel like they've done enough. I'm a huge fan of programs designed to bridge the gap between Avy Awareness and the whole enchilada of an AIARE course. SAFE AS is $149 and is taught on inbound gear and Lel brings extra rescue gear to lend out. NWAC saw that snowshoers tended to go without AIARE1, so they made a series of 5 classes, 2.5 hours each @ $15, that goes deeper into reading the forecast or using Caltopo - and also goes into what they don't teach and would require an AIARE 1 or Rescue class. I also think the "what's your budget" question from shops should include the education and safety components so that there's money reserved for them once the gear shopping is done.

This is worth re-reading.

Early snow, cold temps, adds to avalanche danger. Great article in the Colorado Sun.

“Rotten” snow layer causes rare in-bounds avalanche at Steamboat that buries man — and it's just the beginning

A rare in-bounds slide at Steamboat ski area on Sunday caught several skiers by surprise, completely burying a 21-year-snowboarder and partially burying another. The group was in an open area when the avalanche released in closed terrain above them, sweeping nearby skiers off their feet...

coloradosun.com

I was coming over here to the Backcountry section to post this from the Colorado thread.
Add this to the snowboarder who triggered an avalanche that took his life near Canyons/PC, UT, and the female backcountry skier who died last week in Colorado and its a lot of early season reminder that early season conditions are just as important to watch as mid/late season conditions.

On another site, someone was saying, "Wow its too early in the season for this kind of avalanche activity."
But I'm reminded of Jamie Pierre's tragic incident in November 2011

If there's enough snow to be in the backcountry, there's enough snow to trigger an avalanche.

 

[Tricia]

Question: (this is based on unsubstantiated speculation)
Do you think the unpreparedness of certain skiers who enter the backcountry through an inbounds gate at a resort is based on the concept that..."How bad could it be if I can access it from the place where I bought my lift ticket?"