• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Disturbing Article on Avalanche Preparedness

Primoz

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Posts
2,483
Location
Slovenia, Europe
@Tricia I can't say for US, and as we have no inbound/outbound, can't relate completely, but when just looking this from my Euro side, seeing whole bunch of people skiing off-piste in ski resorts here on deep powder days (even with avi danger up to 4... that doesn't mean I'm not skiing that, but at least I check how conditions are and if they are ok, I ski at 4, if not, then I don't ski even if it's 1) with no equipment, no knowledge and no condition awareness, I would say yes. Most of them think "I'm just 20, 50, 100m on side of piste, I reached top with lift, so there's absolutely nothing to worry about". I would say this can easily related to your "How bad could it be if I can access it from the place where I bought my lift ticket?"
Based on my experience situation is a whole lot better in real backcountry, where you need touring equipment to get to top and not lifts. Still anything but perfect, but way better then around lifts.
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
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.

I think you answered your own question in a way: you've had an experience that the vast majority of backcountry users never will. It shapes your thinking and decision making. Knowing something from experience and knowing something from conceptual teaching lead to very different emotions, thinking patterns and behaviors.

Everyone I know that has been involved with an avalanche burial as a very different sensibility about avalanche terrain than your average backcountry user.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Mike King

Mike King

AKA Habacomike
Instructor
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
3,381
Location
Louisville CO/Aspen Snowmass
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?"
Sure, that seems a pretty likely rationale. As to the statistics exercise above, the issue is that you are dealing with low probability but high consequence events. Sure, the probability of triggering an avalanche is small. And that leads to complacency -- you might have gone out in the same conditions on the same terrain and not experienced an avalanche. But that doesn't mean that it is safe, yet experience suggests nothing is going to happen. If it does, it might just be a bit of slough. Or it might just bury your leg. But it might also fully bury you, strain you through a bunch of trees, or bounce you off of rocks and cliffs.

So, don't let the small probability lull you into a sense of complacency.

Mike
 

Tom Holtmann

TomH
Skier
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Posts
196
The biggest problem with resort gates is that some skiers either explicitly or implicitly think the connection to the resort means it is safer - classic Familiarity heuristic trap.

Thinking about this I think one of the biggest issues for beginners to experts is that you are dealing with a highly complex system, with high consequences and generally low probabilities of incurring those consequences. As a result it can be extremely difficult for even the most skilled backcountry skier to know if the outcome of a particular backcountry experience (experiment really) is providing useful positive information about how to proceed safely in the backcountry or is providing dangerous seemingly useful information when in fact you just got lucky. Super subtle and difficult.

Rereading this classic is worthwhile especially since it shows how a little bit of knowledge, a lot of knowledge and no knowledge can all be dangerous but in different ways.

 
Last edited:

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,297
Location
Reno
Everyone I know that has been involved with an avalanche burial as a very different sensibility about avalanche terrain than your average backcountry user.
The "average backcountry user" should have a strong sensibility and respect for avalanche possibilities.

I recall buying beacons when we moved to Tahoe because we were planning on getting into backcountry skiing a little bit, but we never got around to taking a course in bc safety so we never went out.

I just won't do it without proper training and even then, I'm timid enough that the idea of getting into trouble scares the crap out of me.
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
The "average backcountry user" should have a strong sensibility and respect for avalanche possibilities.

I think the average backcountry skier in my experience does have a strong sensibility and respect. However, I think those who have been personally involved--especially in a full burial--have a different sensibility.

I don't think asking people who ski East Vail and then extrapolating that to the general populace of backcountry skiers is valid. East vail is easily accessible, treacherous terrain. Plenty of backcountry skiers will never ski it unless we get full green conditions (highly rare until mid-- then East vail isn't where you want to be anyhow). People skiing East Vail just aren't very...average.
 

Tom Holtmann

TomH
Skier
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Posts
196
I think the average backcountry skier in my experience does have a strong sensibility and respect. However, I think those who have been personally involved--especially in a full burial--have a different sensibility.

I don't think asking people who ski East Vail and then extrapolating that to the general populace of backcountry skiers is valid. East vail is easily accessible, treacherous terrain. Plenty of backcountry skiers will never ski it unless we get full green conditions (highly rare until mid-- then East vail isn't where you want to be anyhow). People skiing East Vail just aren't very...average.
The point of the article I attached shows even people that have "strong sensibility and respect" let that respect slip and make errors in judgement and more commonly than one might think.
 

CoPow

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Dec 14, 2019
Posts
93
Location
CO
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?"
If you don't know depth hoar, weak layers, the fact patrol are boot packing inbounds early season, etc. it looks like there is absolutely no difference between inbounds and outbounds, on the surface. So my guess is they don't even think about it and just skiing like it's inbounds without knowing they are now skiing on completely different, much more dangerous structure. Because they look the same.
 

Analisa

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Posts
982
I disagree with the attitude that significant number of backcountry travelers don't know the forecast, because the data on when fatalities happens doesn't support it. More people die in avalanches when conditions are low vs. when they're extreme because usage rates are so different at those times. Even if the article cites some troubling case studies, the patterns in fatalities suggests the majority of backcountry travelers are using some level of informed decision making. Likewise, would your attitude about the article change if the data was collected on a green day vs. orange? Simply staying home until conditions are most favorable takes little training and no money, but makes the biggest impact on your risk exposure. The higher the risk for that day, the more troubling I find the article.

Capture.PNG

Looking at the chart above, there are 2 ways to approach avalanche education:

1. Get the low hanging fruit - Over the years following accidents in WA, there are some easy ones to prevent: understanding that closed inbounds terrain is backcountry terrain. Educate kids early - even if they don't have a backcountry setup, if they're resort skiing without mom & dad, they need to know why ski boundaries exist and what the risks are crossing them. @Tricia, to your point, I think lift-accessed backcountry doesn't necessarily skew educated users' judgment beyond the familiarity & social proof heuristics, but I know friends who can't believe how lucky they were with the ropes they ducked as kids, and there have been several Tunnel Creek incidents where riders had no gear, no training, and 2 didn't even realize they were out of the resort. We've also had a run of fatalities where the backcountry traveler was solo, which makes me wonder who's friends & family weren't totally flipping out about those decisions.

2. Get the meat - the majority of fatalities are happening in considerable conditions. Backcountry travel isn't outright discouraged on the avalanche danger scale, but the description for considerable also makes it unequivocally clear that there is little margin for error. It's tricky because sometimes risky terrain is limited to certain aspects, sometimes it's across all. Sometimes it's a visually detectable problem like wind slabs where some experienced skiers will be able to read the snowpack & spot what's scoured and what's deposited, sometimes its deeply buried problems. This is where users have to build their own set of rules & decision matrices that are personal and aren't taught in class and aren't as simple as the social red-light-green-light cues you get for more dangerous or safer terrain. Without them, it's the point where FACETS seems most likely to lead people astray. I personally think that we as a backcountry community should practice getting them in writing.

I'd also add a #3 for the PNW in particular around funding and timing. Our winter snowpacks are fairly straightforward and snow bonds quickly. It's generally either an inbounds powder day or a good day to go tour. We're way underrepresented in mid-winter fatalities compared to smaller population states (who likely have fewer skiers), but make up the majority of accidents for April through June. Both of my own close calls have been outside the core forecasting time frame when daily reporting ends and 4-day outlooks without any sort of rating on the risk scale. We're also one of the earliest avalanche centers to end daily reporting in the spring. A lot can change in a forecast over that time period, and it's generally hard to decipher the magnitude of the problems they cite. But additional daily forecasts definitely depend on community monetary support.
 

Tom Holtmann

TomH
Skier
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Posts
196
I disagree with the attitude that significant number of backcountry travelers don't know the forecast, because the data on when fatalities happens doesn't support it. More people die in avalanches when conditions are low vs. when they're extreme because usage rates are so different at those times. Even if the article cites some troubling case studies, the patterns in fatalities suggests the majority of backcountry travelers are using some level of informed decision making. Likewise, would your attitude about the article change if the data was collected on a green day vs. orange? Simply staying home until conditions are most favorable takes little training and no money, but makes the biggest impact on your risk exposure. The higher the risk for that day, the more troubling I find the article.

View attachment 87644

Looking at the chart above, there are 2 ways to approach avalanche education:

1. Get the low hanging fruit - Over the years following accidents in WA, there are some easy ones to prevent: understanding that closed inbounds terrain is backcountry terrain. Educate kids early - even if they don't have a backcountry setup, if they're resort skiing without mom & dad, they need to know why ski boundaries exist and what the risks are crossing them. @Tricia, to your point, I think lift-accessed backcountry doesn't necessarily skew educated users' judgment beyond the familiarity & social proof heuristics, but I know friends who can't believe how lucky they were with the ropes they ducked as kids, and there have been several Tunnel Creek incidents where riders had no gear, no training, and 2 didn't even realize they were out of the resort. We've also had a run of fatalities where the backcountry traveler was solo, which makes me wonder who's friends & family weren't totally flipping out about those decisions.

2. Get the meat - the majority of fatalities are happening in considerable conditions. Backcountry travel isn't outright discouraged on the avalanche danger scale, but the description for considerable also makes it unequivocally clear that there is little margin for error. It's tricky because sometimes risky terrain is limited to certain aspects, sometimes it's across all. Sometimes it's a visually detectable problem like wind slabs where some experienced skiers will be able to read the snowpack & spot what's scoured and what's deposited, sometimes its deeply buried problems. This is where users have to build their own set of rules & decision matrices that are personal and aren't taught in class and aren't as simple as the social red-light-green-light cues you get for more dangerous or safer terrain. Without them, it's the point where FACETS seems most likely to lead people astray. I personally think that we as a backcountry community should practice getting them in writing.

I'd also add a #3 for the PNW in particular around funding and timing. Our winter snowpacks are fairly straightforward and snow bonds quickly. It's generally either an inbounds powder day or a good day to go tour. We're way underrepresented in mid-winter fatalities compared to smaller population states (who likely have fewer skiers), but make up the majority of accidents for April through June. Both of my own close calls have been outside the core forecasting time frame when daily reporting ends and 4-day outlooks without any sort of rating on the risk scale. We're also one of the earliest avalanche centers to end daily reporting in the spring. A lot can change in a forecast over that time period, and it's generally hard to decipher the magnitude of the problems they cite. But additional daily forecasts definitely depend on community monetary support.
As far as #2 goes it would be interesting to know if your "average" backcountry traveler actually is aware of the level of danger during a considerable danger scale and the level of training or experience needed to travel safely in this condition level. Considerable can be fairly common and one wonders if it can start to mean "average" or normal to less experienced travelers. When you say "get them in writing" are you refering to FACETS or an individuals rules/decision matrix?
 

Analisa

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Posts
982
As far as #2 goes it would be interesting to know if your "average" backcountry traveler actually is aware of the level of danger during a considerable danger scale and the level of training or experience needed to travel safely in this condition level. Considerable can be fairly common and one wonders if it can start to mean "average" or normal to less experienced travelers. When you say "get them in writing" are you refering to FACETS or an individuals rules/decision matrix?

Yes, I think they know. If the average person didn't, fatalities under those ratings wouldn't be so low. According to the NWAC study, over half have some sort of avalanche training. If you're concerned enough about avalanches to show up for a class, I'd imagine you'd put in the effort to check the app or website.

Definitely agree considerable gets underestimated because it's assumed the scale is linear. Utah has a great illustration that it's not.

And by "getting it in writing," yes I meant individual decision trees. Super easy to buck your standards if they don't exist.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
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.
I disagree. Comparing inbounds & backcountry fatality rates is necessary and extremely useful.

When you are standing at a gate that says "You Can Die," it's good to have an idea of your odds of dying this run by exiting the gate vs. staying in the ski area.

Going out the gate is the critical decision point, not education or gear. So many recent avalanche fatalities have been backcountry experts with all the training and equipment imaginable. Of course, if you are going into the backcountry, you should have the education and gear, but that will never keep you as safe as deciding to stay inbounds.

As for East Vail backcountry, I don't recall hearing of anyone dying in adjacent Mongolia bowl vs. the eight deaths of those who choose to exit the ski area through the backcountry gate there. Orders of magnitude more skiers and riders have stayed in bounds there and lived vs. exited and died. It's important for folks to know those statistics.
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,297
Location
Reno
I disagree with the attitude that significant number of backcountry travelers don't know the forecast, because the data on when fatalities happens doesn't support it.
I hope I didn't come across as having such an attitude about this.
:huh:

I'm just saddened and shocked when we have pros in this aspect of the sport become victims, like the Stevens Pass incident and the Loveland Pass incident. These were some of the best of the best.
 

Analisa

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Posts
982
@Tricia - not at all. It was just stated several times and, lacking data, it’s conjecture on my side as well. I think it also depends on whether we’re talking backcountry skiers or backcountry travelers. I was part of NWAC’s study and they post up at the Alpental backcountry entrance and counts anyone, whether they’re snowshoeing, skiing, ice climbing, or walking the .1 miles of road. Education and rescue gear aren’t very popular among hikers and WA makes up the majority of hiker avalanche fatalities over the past 10 years. The ski community sets more of an expectation (and given the equipment and lift tickets to learn, are also more likely to have the means).
 

Analisa

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Posts
982
@tball, sure for deciding whether to backcountry ski or not, but if you are a backcountry skier - which most of us on a backcountry thread are - the data isn't super helpful. In the majority of zones, data like that doesn't exist. It's skewed by travel patterns (no one has ever died on the Hanging Glacier Headwall outside Baker Ski Area, but an avalanche would likely send you into a crevasse, over a cliff, or both). And I think, most importantly, there are 100 other variables more useful for making risk management decisions.

@Tom Holtmann - the digital versions come out at the end of the season - generally around late April/May.
 

pais alto

me encanta el país alto
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2015
Posts
1,937
Location
@tball, sure for deciding whether to backcountry ski or not, but if you are a backcountry skier - which most of us on a backcountry thread are - the data isn't super helpful. In the majority of zones, data like that doesn't exist. It's skewed by travel patterns (no one has ever died on the Hanging Glacier Headwall outside Baker Ski Area, but an avalanche would likely send you into a crevasse, over a cliff, or both). And I think, most importantly, there are 100 other variables more useful for making risk management decisions.
Despite his requests for info and action, @tball is not a backcountry skier, which might help to gauge responses.
…This story tells all you need to know about why I and many others don't ski in the backcountry:
https://coloradosun.com/2018/10/12/...ry-day-i-will-do-whatever-it-takes-i-have-to/
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
^^^ Yep, I've made no secret where I'm coming from. That article highlights the reason I rarely ski in the backcountry. It's very much worth a read for those thinking about it.

I jumped in this thread when the risk of dying in the backcountry was grossly underestimated. Like by an order of magnitude or two!

There are many reading this who are just getting into the backcountry or may be considering it.

I hope they understand that buying a beacon, probe, and shovel, and getting educated only mitigates a portion of the risks. Doing so is far from sufficient based on all the well-equipped backcountry expert fatalities, yet the article in the OP highlights how few are even taking those basic steps.

Which comes around to my other motivation. I've been open that I feel that easy to access backcountry honey pots like East Vail Chutes, Berthoud Pass, and Loveland Passe should be brought in bounds and controlled from both a public safety and a highest and best use perspective. The article in the OP makes a pretty good case for that, in my view.
 

pais alto

me encanta el país alto
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2015
Posts
1,937
Location
^ Perhaps if you started a thread that was along the lines of “You should not ski in the backcountry!” to address your concerns then the people that wanted to discuss how to do it safely could without getting sidetracked.
 

Sponsor

Top