Avalanche:  Harsh lessons

jim_oker, I aplaud your efforts and like your approach to educating other bc users.<br><br>I would not expect a news agency to find the facts and give useful info. That would take time, and they have a deadline to meet. I imagine Paul B or another professional will come out w/ a report sooner or later. If we are lucky, (he) will post it or we will here more about it in Accidents in North Americain Mountaineering.<br><br>Saturday, I talked to a kid planning on skiing the clear-cuts on Mt. Cashmere.  I<br>cautioned him about avy conditions but he blew me off.      I wonder if<br>he was being obtuse or if he knew the area and was planning on<br>staying in barely covered clear-cuts w/o avy chutes above.<br><br>jim, I would like to hear some opening phrases you use to open the avy discusion when you encounter others in the bc.<br>

David Spring has written extensively on these topics of avi awareness, route finding, beacons, and group dynamics:<br><br> What's Wrong with Traditional Avalanche Courses?

<br><br>Thanks for the link- an interesting read. I would just like to echo one of his points about transceiver practice in a class setting. I took two of the avy classes offered at Baker last winter and in the second one (the longer, more detailed course), our last session was going through 3 example burials, on a real slope. <br><br>I know that I immediately appreciated the very distinct difference between finding a buried backpack on some gentle ground versus the potential chaos of an avalanche site. Although our group found our first "victim" within about 9 minutes, we didn't not find the second victim until about the 35th minute- and both had operating beacons. That KIA for me was certainly an eye opener and a class experience I was very thankful for..

jhamaker:<br><br>I am, perhaps, easily confused. I assumed that since you wrote so definitively in your initial post, you must have been one of those present last Saturday. I now see that this assumption was a rash one.<br><br>Since you were not present on Saturday and possessed at best "very incomplete info," why would you make categorical statements like "Mtn, Madness had no buisiness leading folks up avalanche central in Saturday's conditions...?" If your purpose is "Not to pick a fight, but to better understand the reasons behind the decision," why not ask for clarification (about, for example, "the reasons behind the decision") rather than issuing generic instructions (""Question authority...Help them revisit...Never delegate...") to those who may or may not need them? <br><br>I am sure that your stated goal, "getting people to think hard about decision making in general, and avy risk specificaly," is a noble one. However, I prefer not to be quoted out of context, and I am not comfortable with your apparent willingness to pass judgement (on me and others) without first attempting to collect a minimum of relevant information. <br><br>Thanks for listening.<br><br>Mark<br><br>

Actually, I think Saturday's accident illustrated a case where a beacon would have been a big help. I was one of the numerous rescuers out there probing all afternoon on Saturday, and there's nothing quite like being part of a line of people probing every six inches for 3 hours in a snowstorm to remind you what beacons were designed to do. <br>Yes, avalanche avoidance is better than trying to survive after the fact. I've read Spring's article and am all for classes, routefinding, humility, etc. But this was a case where a beacon might have done what it was meant to do - that is, help people find a companion quickly right after she was buried by a small slide. Would it have saved her life? Who knows, but it was a textbook case where it could have (because there were so many people around, only one person was buried, and the slide was small).

I positively concur with the last two posts. I was a member of the fully-aware and prepared ski party that broke the trail that day. As a member of Mountain Rescue I attached myself to my fellow responders and joined the probe line on Saturday afternoon.

jhamaker - regarding how I approach folks in the BC, it all depends on the situation. But a few general thoughts are that I start with curiosity rather than certainty. I also assume that they may know as much as or more than me and they may just have a different willingness to assume risk. <br><br>They may seem like they're being foolish or they may seem ignorant from outward appearance, but how can I be so sure? By inquiring, not telling. "What are you thinking about the avalanche hazard today?" "What route are you planning to use?" followed perhaps by "Wow, we're feeling a bit too cautious to do that today based on the snowpack right now." if that seems appropriate. <br><br>But to be clear, I don't get the chance to have this conversation very often, and when I do, it usually goes nowhere. Only in a few cases have people shown curiosity about how to learn more or where to go for regular avy forecasts or where to get equipment. If they don't show some curiosity or interest in talking, I'm not going to push it, as I don't know how to make that be productive. There's a great book that's relevant here called "Difficult Conversations" (subtitled something like "How to Discuss What Matters Most") - the authors make great points about how hard conversations can be when under the surface there are basic questions of competence coming up. If these aren't flushed into the open (tough to do upon casually meeting a stranger), then it's tough to make any progress.<br><br>Regarding the news media, I disagree that this is too tough for them. It would be easy enough for the Times and PI to have some standard info on file on options for learning more, how to get forecasts, and so forth - nothing that would kill a deadline. Part of their mission is public education, after all. Might even save a snowmobiler or two!<br><br>