Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
Randito Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:00 am
|
|
|
zephyr wrote: | I guess I thought it was "common knowledge" to stay off McClellan Butte until about July since those avalanche chutes stay loaded for so long there. Local knowledge doesn't seem to be getting passed along. We will no doubt see more of this sort of thing occurring as more new folks take to the hills. ~z
. |
The problem with such "common knowledge" is that actual avalanche danger is highly variable and only bad enough once in a while for bad things to happen. So people can snowshoe places like McClellan most of the winter without incident. But once in a while someone gets hurt or killed.
But the same is true for just about any hiking location in the Cascades and when conditions are really bad -- not even I-90 is completely safe (I've seen avalanche debris from Granite Mtn on the edge of the freeway many decades ago)
|
Back to top |
|
|
joker seeker
Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics Location: state of confusion |
|
joker
seeker
|
Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:57 pm
|
|
|
There was some interaction about the MB slide incident on WH&C FB group. One of the party members was there, afaics he was justifying his group's decisions as sound and prudent and so forth. I asked, as nicely as possible, noting that I was not there so could not judge conditions from afar etc, if in retrospect there was anything they saw before watching that snow sliding down that open gully feature that they might have used as a clue to not proceed. I mentioned that the groups I have traveled with always debrief with this question in the few cases we've had of such "near misses" and even when we hear of incidents in the same region as us on days when we were out. "No." I could not resist noting that it was a day when sun was in and out, and when the avy forecast, despite being rated as "moderate" in that zone, it did also note concerns about "solar aspects" and potential for high consequences due to depth of potential sliding layers, and while acknowledging that we all accept different risk levels, that I would personally not plan a route on such a day that had my party crossing multiple known large long slide paths which would also need to be re-crossed even if conditions were worsening during the day (i.e. due to increasing sun effect for instance).
In some other discussion on a related FB thread another party member implied that this whole crew had Avy 1 training and had done rescue practice etc. Both of these party members struck a tone of "we knew what we were doing and made good decisions." One of them implied noted that their decisions "ensured safety of the whole group" but when challenged he acknowledged that indeed they did expose each party member to real risk albeit one at a time when crossing the multiple paths. So my impression is that this was likely a group with at least some level of avalanche safety awareness, but that with perhaps a cocky attitude. I didn't get the impression that they realize or acknowledge to themselves the level of risk they were all assuming on that hike, nor that there may have been much wiser choices on that day that would nonetheless offered access to summits with great views. I think the fact of that near miss on the slope they were about to cross is a clear report back from the earth about the risk level they were assuming. I'd have been happier with the interaction if they acknowledged the risk level but stated that they were willing to accept it - that would be a different decision than I'd make but I get that some are willing to accept higher risk than I am. Oh well - hopefully they and others like them will get a bit wiser w/o being forced to by tragedy.
I've been at this stuff for a quarter century (since I took my first Avy 1 workshop; had been recreating in winter for two decades-ish before that but in the northeast where there are relatively few avy prone zones that are well known and avoidable) and the more I learn the more I realize I'll never know enough, so I opt for a wide margin of error particularly in these sort of "low/moderate probability but high consequence" hazard periods.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bernardo Member
Joined: 08 Feb 2010 Posts: 2174 | TRs | Pics Location: out and about in the world |
|
Bernardo
Member
|
Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:13 pm
|
|
|
Any way to split this thread? Nice post Joker. How would quantify the risk in a case like this?
|
Back to top |
|
|
joker seeker
Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics Location: state of confusion |
|
joker
seeker
|
Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:00 pm
|
|
|
Yes, this is a mixed post to be sure.
I don't know how to quantify it - that's part of the problem. But I do know that if I were to try to get numeric, I'd want to in essence multiply the odds of being involved in a slide with the consequence, or something to that effect. The Canadians have a checklist sort of risk assessment system that is aimed at walking one through exactly that sort of thought process. I also know that passing avalanche gullies and slopes on 3 out of 4 compass points (W, S, E) as this trail does further ups the odds, particularly on a day when solar effects are predicted to raise hazard well above that "moderate" rating.
|
Back to top |
|
|
boot up Old Not Bold Hiker
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 4745 | TRs | Pics Location: Bend Oregon |
|
boot up
Old Not Bold Hiker
|
Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:06 pm
|
|
|
joker wrote: | I'd want to in essence multiply the odds of being involved in a slide with the consequence, or something to that effect. |
That is known as a Risk Assessment Matrix. Used often in engineering.
Many articles, books, and controversy on the subject.
|
Back to top |
|
|
RumiDude Marmota olympus
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 Posts: 3589 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles |
|
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
|
Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:03 pm
|
|
|
boot up wrote: | That is known as a Risk Assessment Matrix. Used often in engineering.
Many articles, books, and controversy on the subject. |
Yes, and as you noted a lot of controversey surrounding their design and use.
Most people believe they make good decisions at the time of making them. Sometimes people do have lingering doubts that may or may not come to be true, but most think their decisions are solid. It is in hindsight after a bad outcome (or near miss so to speak) that the decision is viewed as flawed. Everything seems clear after the fact.
Most of the time poor decisions are made without any negative consequences. This serves to reinforce the poor decision making skills, encouraging more of the same. It is why after learning the "correct" way of doing things, an individual can backslide into poor practices for expedience sake. I have read such explanations right here on NWHikers, justifying things like traversing loose rock or boulders above a climbing partner or others.
Anyway, it has become a sort of hobby of mine to understand decision making and how our minds work. It is a complex subject that we have not nearly plumbed the depths of.
Rumi
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
|
Back to top |
|
|
joker seeker
Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics Location: state of confusion |
|
joker
seeker
|
Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:19 am
|
|
|
Yes, as noted I don't pretend that I can boil this down numerically. My point is more that risk of slide and the potential consequences of a slide clearly combine to create the overall hazard of traveling on a given slope.
Given the uncertainties involved, one of the most compelling bits of advice I've heard from an avalanche educator is to not assume you know it all, and therefore it is prudent to allow a wide margin of error. No, I can't quantify that either. For me, given recent conditions, that has boiled down to staying off even 30+ degree deep forest slopes that I've been skiing for almost a quarter century without ever seeing evidence of a slide even in Considerable hazard conditions, never mind known active and open slide paths. I've still managed some great skiing and know that the other steeper stuff will still be there in lower risk conditions in the future. I also know that I'm still taking non zero risk by backcountry skiing in such places at those other times.
|
Back to top |
|
|
boot up Old Not Bold Hiker
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 4745 | TRs | Pics Location: Bend Oregon |
|
boot up
Old Not Bold Hiker
|
Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:45 am
|
|
|
joker wrote: | Given the uncertainties involved, one of the most compelling bits of advice I've heard from an avalanche educator is to not assume you know it all, and therefore it is prudent to allow a wide margin of error. |
Remember "avalanche cords" in the days before beacons and all that tech stuff?
100 feet of black nylon cord, purportedly used to find the buried victim by having them trail it behind them as they cross a questionable spot.
Great advice from an avalanche class given by the experienced folks at a outdoor equipment store in Bellevue that is long gone.....
Basically they said that the cord itself would be unlikely to be much help finding a victim buried in an avalanche. Their personal opinion was that its use was to make you stop for a moment, and really consider why you were deploying the cord, and is it really worth risking your life to cross that area. If you then figure out your life is not worth one fun day of many, and you turn around, then it has done its job.
Pause and consider. That might be your best thing you can do to improve safety. Probably applicable to the original topic too.
|
Back to top |
|
|
DadFly Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2012 Posts: 402 | TRs | Pics Location: Redmond |
|
DadFly
Member
|
Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:40 pm
|
|
|
There have been two times that I was in a situation where I let "group think" over ride my personal misgivings.
One of those resulted in an avalanche burying a friend up to his waist.
The other got our leader fired for taking us out there.
Trust your gut and stand your ground.
The most common demographic for avalanche victims is
1. male,
2. age 19-25,
3. have at least level 1 Avalanche cert.
"May you live in interesting times"
"May you live in interesting times"
|
Back to top |
|
|
joker seeker
Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics Location: state of confusion |
|
joker
seeker
|
Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:02 pm
|
|
|
In the groups I most like to ski tour with, we go with the most conservative choice in the group. It's OK to discuss the contrasting opinions and see where that goes, but not OK to push push push push. The other choice would be breaking up the group because indeed no one should take a path that they don't think is OK for their own risk tolerance.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Navy salad Member
Joined: 09 Sep 2008 Posts: 1865 | TRs | Pics Location: Woodinville |
DadFly wrote: | 1. male,
2. age 19-25,
3. have at least level 1 Avalanche cert. |
Really, those who DO have level 1 avalanche training are more likely to be a victim of an avalanche than those who DON'T? Even though I can see where avy training might make someone overconfident, I would still think the increased avalanche awareness one gets from training would override the overconfidence factor.
Is there a source for this statistic (just curious)?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Malachai Constant Member
Joined: 13 Jan 2002 Posts: 16092 | TRs | Pics Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny |
Self selection, people who spend more time in avalanche areas are more likely to take a course. Probably having a beacon is a factor also.
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
|
Back to top |
|
|
Brushbuffalo Member
Joined: 17 Sep 2015 Posts: 1887 | TRs | Pics Location: there earlier, here now, somewhere later... Bellingham in between |
boot up wrote: | Remember "avalanche cords" in the days before beacons and all that tech stuff?
100 feet of black nylon cord, purportedly used to find the buried victim by having them trail it behind them as they cross a questionable spot. |
Sure do remember them, particularly in regard to one trip in MRNP.
In 1966 I snowshoed up to Panorama Point, solo, in midwinter and spent the long night in my Gerry "Yearound" tent, getting out every few hours to shovel drifting snow that threatened to collapse the tent. Concerned about all that new snow and avalanches, in the morning before heading down that treacherous open slope I tied my avalanche cord on, careful to have the little imbedded metal directional arrows on the line pointing back to me. Using that cord made me feel like a real mountaineer but unfortunately I don't think it made me think twice about being out there ....I should have put it on in the parking lot at Paradise, because then maybe I would have reconsidered what I was going to do, as "Boot Up" suggested above.
As an "invincible" 19 year old then, only later did I come to realize that should I be buried in a slide, a rescuer couldn't just come along and find the tangled cord and give it a firm shake to find me popping up out of the snow. If anything, avalanche cords, especially for soloists, would only facilitate the body recovery....maybe.
What was I thinking? ( actually, I wasn't thinking at all ).
Then again, I was 19.
Passing rocks and trees like they were standing still
Passing rocks and trees like they were standing still
|
Back to top |
|
|
pcg Member
Joined: 09 Jun 2012 Posts: 334 | TRs | Pics
|
|
pcg
Member
|
Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:11 pm
|
|
|
Also, back in the days of avalanche cord, we were taught to remove packs before crossing avalanche terrain. Now the thinking is to leave them on as they add floatation.
|
Back to top |
|
|
DadFly Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2012 Posts: 402 | TRs | Pics Location: Redmond |
|
DadFly
Member
|
Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:25 pm
|
|
|
Pro Mountain Sports in North Bend conducted the avalanche course I took. Martin the owner/operator quoted that statistic. I do not know his source.
But his point was, Plan your route carefully, be vigilant and flexible with regard to local conditions and remember that 100% of avalanche injuries are due to human error.
"May you live in interesting times"
"May you live in interesting times"
|
Back to top |
|
|
|