Is education an adequate antidote to back-country risk-taking?

[nay]

When I took the course my instructor brought up the question “were we good, or were we lucky?”. Basically did we make questionable decisions and get away with it, or did we actually make good decisions.

Great question that really leaves you thinking on a debrief.

We heard something of the same thing, maybe that is a common refrain.

One of the instructors told a story where he says “out of deference to the others in the group who have kids, I went first.” That can be left hanging in the air.

They also talked about skiing off of road passes and specifically mentioned Berthoud where you can be instantly in 40° terrain. Think about the assessment problems where access is from a road above if you are relying on observations for safety assessment.

I took these screen shots about a week ago off Instagram posted by Freeskier magazine. @crgildart I think this gets to the point of your question. By using the tools available such as current avy conditions reports, CalTopo, Gaia, and Google Earth, you route plan to travel and ski in a relative safe zone. Going more times to mellow places where you don’t spend time in or under avalanche terrain doesn’t increase risk.

The problem is that 30-45° is the most common avalanche slope pitch and also the pitch expert skiers tend to prefer. Which is why “what do we want to ski” placed against “what should we ski” is really difficult in a continental climate (Colorado) until spring when the snowpack goes isothermic. Less so in maritime climates, etc.

 

[crgildart]

^^^OK so folks will be dropping dead from heart attacks pushing through and post holing in deep snow on flat pitch rather than getting buried actually skiing and surfing down places steep enough to actually need to turn?

 

[nay]

^^^OK so folks will be dropping dead from heart attacks pushing through and post holing in deep snow on flat pitch rather than getting buried actually skiing and surfing down places steep enough to actually need to turn?

Edit: just changed my response to this entirely. I don’t have any perspective outside of the training and field application yet and I’m trying to respond only from that perspective. I 100% intend to tour based on the skills I have now - that was the point to be fully educated first.

Is 20-30° pitch powder fun to ski? Answering “no” might well inform a decision to get into back country skiing if you live a climate with persistent risk. Of course, bigger lines open up when the snowpack goes isothermal in spring.

But that is very much the point of the education. There’s no particular reason to know anything but rescue technique if you are going to blatantly choose risky terrain. In which case, take the course and then follow up with the supplemental one day rescue course. It’s pretty sobering to even just do simulated extractions.

 

[nay]

Here’s an example that points out the greater problem may not be “deep in the backcountry” but rather “right out of town”. Rakkup is a backcountry guide resource, and on January 31st posted this of a skier hucking the cornice into Red Lady Bowl, which is the prominent face of Mt Emmons right outside of Crested Butte.

They note “taking advantage of low risk conditions”, but the rating was moderate and the only thing that had changed in the problem writeup was avalanche size potential was lower. No change to the persistent weak layers, of course. On that day, observations by CBAC noted wind loading.

On Jan 19th a skier triggered a large avalanche breaking down to the known problem layers.

So the problem statement hasn’t changed except there isn’t mention of large avalanches (still slab and wind slab) but it is safe to huck a large cornice adjacent to a recent large slide on the same persistent weak layers, during a wind loading event.

We have class 1 risk information here that aligns with our problem statement. So go big?

 

[dbostedo]

...but it is safe to huck a large cornice adjacent to a recent large slide on the same persistent weak layers, during a wind loading event.

I'm not quite following.... is that a question? Or are you saying it WAS actually safe in this case?

 

[nay]

Here’s an example. Rakkup is a backcountry guide resource, and on January 31st posts this:

I'm not quite following.... is that a question? Or are you saying it WAS actually safe in this case?

Recent large slide adjacent to this route on the same face. Hucking a large cornice, which load under their lips and can break in large chunks setting off a slide below, active wind loading, avalanche problem type is slab and wind slab, slope pitch in the upper 30’s up top. So...is hucking the cornice consistent with the problem statement, or being up there at all?

Here’s a vid of a cornice break on much more significant terrain. Watch until the slomo at the end.

 

[crgildart]

Is 20-30° pitch powder fun to ski? Answering “no” might well inform a decision to get into back country skiing if you live a climate with persistent risk. Of course, bigger lines open up when the snowpack goes isothermal in spring.

In more than a foot of powder. especially on the heavy side.. not really. That's the problem/dilemma. Hardpack or a few inches of fresh and 20*-30* is hella fun. Add a bunch of snow where you have to straightline it to keep moving and not get stuck and I'll pass.

 

[dbostedo]

Here’s an example. Rakkup is a backcountry guide resource, and on January 31st posts this:








Recent large slide adjacent to this route on the same face. Hucking a large cornice, which load under their lips and can break in large chunks setting off a slide below, active wind loading, avalanche problem type is slab and wind slab, slope pitch in the upper 30’s up top. So...is hucking the cornice consistent with the problem statement, or being up there at all?

Here’s a vid of a cornice break on much more significant terrain. Watch until the slomo at the end.

Now you've lost me more. I watched that video and read everything... but I don't get what you're saying. What is the problem statement? And what is safe behavior and what isn't based on that info? Was the skier who hucked the cornice being unsafe? Were all the skiers who left tracks in the adjacent area to the slide being unsafe?

 

[nay]

Now you've lost me more. I watched that video and read everything... but I don't get what you're saying. What is the problem statement? And what is safe behavior and what isn't based on that info? Was the skier who hucked the cornice being unsafe? Were all the skiers who left tracks in the adjacent area to the slide being unsafe?

Here is the planning section of the AIARE decision making guide. “Identify the avalanche hazard and location.”

The advisory’s key message on Jan 31st: danger is persistent slab and wind slab avalanche, with faceted layers formed on Dec 24th and Jan 9th. Danger not specifically focused on any aspect of the compass (such as east faces).

Weather forecast discussion: wind loading potential. Red Lady Bowl faces S to E. Any potential thermal impact?

Other known data points: Recent slide activity, location and type: large skier triggered step down (started at a shallower layer and stepped down to lower layers as it progressed) avalanche in the bowl on Jan 19th.

Somebody in your group wants to ski Red Lady Bowl and set up a cornice huck shoot. From the local guide book.

What is your response to that suggestion on terrain choice for this day? That isn’t a loaded question. You’ve written down a problem statement like I did above, you know the access route and terrain, including cornice prevalence and wind forecast. Your team is hoping to post that Instagram shot that I posted above and, quite likely, “not ski something lame.” Now what?

 

[nay]

In more than a foot of powder. especially on the heavy side.. not really. That's the problem/dilemma. Hardpack or a few inches of fresh and 20*-30* is hella fun. Add a bunch of snow where you have to straightline it to keep moving and not get stuck and I'll pass.

Exactly.

What do I want to ski?
What is the problem statement?
What should we ski?

Heavy and deep low angle? I’ll pass and ski the resort. A foot of right side up fluff at 28° that we can lap until we are dead? Let’s goooooooo!!!!

Anybody who skis high alpine on-resort terrain should not have any difficulty assessing where the good snow is most likely to be. It’s literally what we do every day we ski assessing wind load, surface impact from wind and sun, terrain aspect, etc. The only difference is the resort is avalanche controlled (which does not mean safe).

 

[dbostedo]

Now what?

If it's me, I ski only the sub-30 degree terrain.... but that's me, who hasn't taken an avy class, or any other training, and has read the Tremper book which isn't nearly enough to understand what's safe and what isn't. I would assume wind-loaded, over 30 degree slopes are a bad idea though.

 

[Mike King]

Now you've lost me more. I watched that video and read everything... but I don't get what you're saying. What is the problem statement? And what is safe behavior and what isn't based on that info? Was the skier who hucked the cornice being unsafe? Were all the skiers who left tracks in the adjacent area to the slide being unsafe?

I think what @nay is alluding to is that dropping into that bowl, next to an overhanging cornice, with an avalanche that showed that the slope was unstable and with little that had changed in terms of the snowpack itself, was probably not "low risk" conditions. I suspect he was also questioning whether a guide app that purportedly helps folks to make reasoned decisions should be advocating such decisions given the avalanche report, the current snowpack, the line choice, etc.

See post above.

 

[nay]

I think what @nay is alluding to is that dropping into that bowl, next to an overhanging cornice, with an avalanche that showed that the slope was unstable and with little that had changed in terms of the snowpack itself, was probably not "low risk" conditions. I suspect he was also questioning whether a guide app that purportedly helps folks to make reasoned decisions should be advocating such decisions given the avalanche report, the current snowpack, the line choice, etc.

See post above.

Yes, exactly. The education quite frankly reaches an opposite conclusion. However, these lines are being skied regularly.

I also prepaid for a local backcountry guidebook expecting something of a “how to avoid dangerous local terrain” guide and not an extreme descent guidebook in avalanche terrain. To wit:

Literally nothing in this book has less than a 3 out of 5 rating in terrain challenge and complexity for avalanche risk, including the 3 rating where we went on our second tour (Coney’s).

If this is worth $7.99 of curiosity, the digital version can be acquired through Rakkup.

Backcountry Skiing: Crested Butte, Colorado Guidebook

Crested Butte, Colorado's Backcountry Skiing Crested Butte Guidebook by Andy Sovick for use in rakkup iOS & Android apps.

rakkup.com

 

[dbostedo]

I asked a hundred different ways about decision making to break foundational risk rules, and I got nowhere but smiles. That part is on us.

Interesting, I think, that they said that with a guide, you "may come home alive". Keeps the emphasis on the danger.

 

[cantunamunch]

Interesting, I think, that they said that with a guide, you "may come home alive". Keeps the emphasis on the danger.

And, on a lighter note:

 

[nay]

Interesting, I think, that they said that with a guide, you "may come home alive". Keeps the emphasis on the danger.

My class was through Irwin Guides, so clearly we’re all onboard with guided tours . Or just do their “Eleven” cat skiing up in Irwin, where they avy control the cat terrai

Obviously for followers of the CO weather thread, I totally geek out on this kind of stuff. I’m probably lucky in that my terrain preference is single black diamond (or the double black is not because of exposure).

I hate exposure. On skis, behind the wheel of a 4x4, on a mountain bike, hiking. I’m not looking at my guidebook wondering how soon I can face navigating the rock band 100 yards off the summit of Teocalli at a 45° pitch, knowing that same feature is also a thermal trigger potential for wet slides in spring. The long flank route at lower pitch, however, looks incredible.

So I shrug a bit at this idea that everything has to be so extreme, while also wondering exactly how you reconcile that kind of risk when the education screams “don’t do it (before spring)”.

 

[nay]

I wanted to totally change my last post, but I ran out of edit time. So here is v2.

Interesting, I think, that they said that with a guide, you "may come home alive". Keeps the emphasis on the danger.

Better than “may”: likely to

Of course, Lou Dawson (of Wildsnow.com) is quoted as follows:

“This is the kind of publication that helps you arrive cold as an out-of-towner, find the “skinners” and have at it while pounding fluffy Colorado pow and laughing at the over-priced ski lifts.”

This sounds quite merry and is certainly true, although I noted to the group while being lead skinner that I was simply following the skin track, and the skin track is the first person after a storm’s idea of “the trail”. We went over 30° twice while ascending.

Somewhere in here is the idea that the rules that are supposed to apply to all of us can be reasonably broken by some of us (for example, Rakkup). If not true, then why have a guidebook for skiing “in prime avalanche terrain” that implores education that in turn says “you can’t safely ski that (until spring)”?

Doesn’t this just leave us with Indiana Jones?