Back Country Safety: Ideas for solo travel

This quote brings up an interesting question for me.
To what degree do we justify exposing ourselves to greater risk based on our perceived ability to handle a slide if it occurs? 
You say you are not amping up the risk, but I would disagree. By exposing yourself to slopes that are more likely to slide, you are by definition exposing yourself to more risk. You or your partners may be able to deal with the consequences, but that does not affect the risk. The outcomes of getting caught in a side are highly variable and difficult to predict, so we have to assume getting caught in a slide will result in a  medical emergency. Getting caught in a slide is not an option.

Is it appropriate to ski a slope just because you know your partner can find 3 beacons in under 5 minutes? Does it matter that you have partners, shovel, beacon, probe if you blow your knee in a slide and are 5 miles from the road? If you had an airbag, would you ski an even greater array of slopes?

However, people do get caught in slides, remain uninjured and their partners are able to rescue them. Airbags do prevent people from getting buried. So the rescue gear/ training does work, it's just not 100% effective.

Again, the question is to what DEGREE does the ability to handle an avalanche incident affect your decision making and risk exposure?

Discuss.

This is one of the phenomena that prompted me to start the thread on skiing in groups. Yes, the quoted logic increases exposure to/risk of accidents. Is this increase acceptable given the safety margin provided by skiing in a group of physically fit, well-trained, and competent search-and-rescue/first aid/evacuation specialists with all the equipment? I know that some of the EMT/S&R/Avalanche instructors I have had would say no--most rate the chance of a successful outcome in a serious incident as low. Is it an absolute no? That judgement can only be made by the individuals involved; in every endeavor we all have to weigh risk-taking against potential costs and potential benefits to ourselves and our groups; I hope most of us also consider the risks to innocent bystanders and S&R people as well.

5) Don't do any ski cutting.  In my opinion, one should only be doing this when someone is watching, and on small enough slopes that if it goes wrong, I've got competent companion rescue in reserve.  You never know when ski cutting if its going to break out below you, at your skis, or above you.

7) ...'any snowpit is statistically insignificant'.  Numerous studies have been done, including by Bruce Jamieson, recognizing the variability of the snowpack, often within very small distances apart; one pit designates stability, the next right next to it designates instability.  In my opinion, a snowpit's indication of poor stability will deter me from skiing it; a positive result will mean nothing unless all other observations and forecasts support it.

I normally do not tour solo, but this rule number 5 stuck out to me as sensible and something I wont forget if I find myself touring solo. Rule # 7 solidifies my thoughts as well specifically the last sentence. Thank you for sharing this, it's always positive to read something in a thread like this that increases your awareness. kudos for starting this thread...

This quote brings up an interesting question for me.
To what degree do we justify exposing ourselves to greater risk based on our perceived ability to handle a slide if it occurs? 
You say you are not amping up the risk, but I would disagree. By exposing yourself to slopes that are more likely to slide, you are by definition exposing yourself to more risk. You or your partners may be able to deal with the consequences, but that does not affect the risk. The outcomes of getting caught in a side are highly variable and difficult to predict, so we have to assume getting caught in a slide will result in a  medical emergency. Getting caught in a slide is not an option.

Is it appropriate to ski a slope just because you know your partner can find 3 beacons in under 5 minutes? Does it matter that you have partners, shovel, beacon, probe if you blow your knee in a slide and are 5 miles from the road? If you had an airbag, would you ski an even greater array of slopes?

However, people do get caught in slides, remain uninjured and their partners are able to rescue them. Airbags do prevent people from getting buried. So the rescue gear/ training does work, it's just not 100% effective.

Again, the question is to what DEGREE does the ability to handle an avalanche incident affect your decision making and risk exposure?

Discuss.

When I read this, I thought. "wow! you have a good point here". I think we all may be somewhat guilty of increasing the risk level we are willing to take if there is a group. You bring up a good point when one considers that in actuality, (from what I have read) most avalanche deaths actually occur from blunt force trauma of being pummeled in the slide, not from suffocation...at least I assume this to be the case in big slides.

Do we take too many risks as a result of actually having partners and "help" right there?

To be honest, I think I must admit that I am very guilty of accepting too much risk as a result of this "false sense of security" I may get from riding with a group.

As I noted on page 1:

I suppose that I'm with you on having a different threshhold on avie hazard level when solo. But if I'm not willing to do it solo, I'm not sure doing it with my pals watching from a safe viewing spot is a whole lot better.

My first repsonse was going to be "I have the same threshhold whether solo or in a group," but I pondered that and realized that there are likely some boundary cases where I've gone a different way with a group than I would have if solo. I am not justifying this as logical, mind you, merely stating it as factual. This is part of that group dynamic thing mentioned on the skiing in groups thread (I still find that the net of skiing in the right small groups to be positive). If there is a large delta between what you are willing to do solo and what you do in a group in regard to avie slopes, it's probably worth pondering the situation a bit more deeply.

You or your partners may be able to deal with the consequences, but that does not affect the risk. .....Getting caught in a slide is not an option.

Again, the question is to what DEGREE does the ability to handle an avalanche incident affect your decision making and risk exposure?

interesting observation here based on this thread one might say that the danger of touring solo can at times equal the danger of large groups! (specifically poor group dynamics) Otters question above is very important and I would think play a huge part in touring solo. If I ever tour solo I will keep this question on replay in my head. for now, I prefer a partner or 2.

My thoughts on BC travel or solo:

Safety equipment is not just for you and your partners, it is for any incident that you happen to be present for. If someone nearby is buried, you can perform a rescue provided you have the gear, good practice for everyone to follow and lots of documented history to support this.

Human factors are the leading cause of accidents due to judgment impaired by a number of emotional responses, so solo trips have a leaner safety dialogue, whereas groups must work harder to maintain a robust safety conversation to avoid the safety in numbers courage.

Professionals make good decisions when they maintain their safety protocols, which are ingrained as good bc behavior. They still get caught when they take short cuts in their decision making.

There are no short cuts to good decision making in the backcountry, if you choose to take them then you should consider what you will not be able to do safely when you do. The best safety measure is to have a continuous conversation about who, what , where and when of your tour and and respect those who do not feel comfortable when they speak up.

Just say'n....Happy new year!