Backcountry Communication Tool BCP

BACKCOUNTRY COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL (BCP)

The genesis of the BCP came from belaying my six year old son at the local rock gym.  Within 10 minutes he was dialed in on the Climbers' Verbal Protocol  - " On Belay?  Belay on.  Climbing.  Climb On" , and the foundation of his climbing career is now rooted in critical communication being transmitted quickly and efficiently to avoid accidents.
So why not Backcountry travel having the same sort of Protocol to prompt us to address critical information quickly and with 100% participation by all group members?
The BCP mandates all group members communicate and provide input before any member can proceed.  The goal of the BCP is to make a habit out of good communication as well as to mandate group participation.  It addressed three vital questions:


         Hazards

What is the current Avalanche Hazard Rating and what is/are the Avalanche Problem(s) of concern?

ALL group members MUST respond andverbally state the Avalanche Hazard Rating and specific Avalanche Problem(s)


                                                                    Terrain

Is the Terrain appropriate for the Avalanche Hazard?

ALL Group members MUST verbally agree that the terrain is appropriate to for the Avalanche Hazard and Problem(s) found in the Terrain, that other concerns are identified (cliffs, terrain traps, blind spots, etc.), and that a mitigation strategy is agreed upon by all members prior to entering into the terrain.

If ANY member expresses ANY concern, ALL members MUST reach a unanimous decision prior to entering the terrain.  If no Unanimous decision can be reached, the group MUST default to a more conservative terrain option where the BCP must be used again to evaluate the Hazard, Terrain, and Consequences.

                                                                Consequences

" What are the Consequences to our party if we are involved in an avalanche in this terrain?"

ALL group members MUST verbally respond and discuss the consequences of a worst-case scenario in the chosen terrain.  There MUST be UNANIMOUS agreement that the ALL members are aware of the consequences, recognize the risk, and agree to proceed. If there is not UNANIMOUS consent, the group MUST  default to more conservative terrain option.

This BCP is intended of private parties and not guided groups, but the components of the protocol are still worth mentioning to guided clients for their own educational benefit.

I have used this with my own touring partners, as well as to avalanche course participants I have taught.  It is not cumbersome, takes very little time, and addresses critical concerns to all group members.   Since lack of effective communication is a recurring theme in avalanche accidents, the BCP could make a difference in behavior, which could have a direct correlation in the reduction of avalanche accidents due to communication issues.

Great idea. I would welcome this as a quick partner/group discussion at the top of every run.
1. Address all the discussion points during transition
2. Pole tap
3. Shred the gnar

Repeat.

Great idea.  I would welcome this as a quick partner/group discussion at the top of every run.
1. Address all the discussion points during transition
2. Pole tap
3. Shred the gnar

Repeat.

Having the discussion on the ascent is essential -- it should begin on the drive to the trailhead -- I've turned around or headed for gentler terrain plenty of times when conditions were not favorable for heading to the planned objective. There are numerous accident reports on NWAC where the avalanche was triggered during the ascent.

Agreed.

The BCP is basically just an agreement by ALL members to communicate regularly. This means before leaving, and regularly during the tour.  It is not meant to be just a once a day check.

Good point Randy. Actually, the discussion has already started.

Here.

I think these mindless protocols are the most valuable part of avalanche avoidance procedure. They don’t depend on analytical skills, that in any case, are not reliable enough to ensure safety over the course of hundreds of trips. They can ensure that everyone in the group knows the same things about the risks of the day, that the group won’t be concentrated in an exposed zone, that someone with doubts won’t be buffaloed into traveling in a zone uncomfortable to them, and that their concerns will be heard by the whole group[. This will help prevent “optimistic thinking” and “group coercion” from leading the group into trouble.

I like the idea of explicitly detailing Hazard, Terrain, and, especially, Consequence. When an error is made with Hazard, then Consequence becomes all important, as we’ve seen with catastrophic large accidents in recent years. Best to overestimate Hazard and think ahead of the consequences.

I think these mindless protocols are the most valuable part of avalanche avoidance procedure.  They don’t depend on analytical skills, that in any case, are not reliable enough to ensure safety over the course of hundreds of trips.  They can ensure that everyone in the group knows the same things about the risks of the day, that the group won’t be concentrated in an exposed zone, that someone with doubts won’t be buffaloed into traveling in a zone uncomfortable to them, and that their concerns will be heard by the whole group[.  This will help prevent “optimistic thinking” and “group coercion” from leading the group into trouble.

I like the idea of explicitly detailing Hazard, Terrain, and, especially, Consequence.  When an error is made with Hazard, then Consequence becomes all important, as we’ve seen with catastrophic large accidents in recent years.  Best to overestimate Hazard and think ahead of the consequences.

Well said Steve.   The term MINDLESS might be taken as offensive by some folks, but I think you mean rote, as is committed to memory.  Correct me if I am wrong, and I am sure you will.

Bottom line with this Communication Tool?  Everyone participates, everyone communicates, and everyone MUST be involved....

Quote "This BCP is intended of private parties and not guided groups, but the components of the protocol are still worth mentioning to guided clients for their own educational benefit."

Why do you exclude guided groups from this protocol?



Great question. 

Guided groups/individuals are paying for a professional to apply both the brakes and the accelerator on their day's outing.   I will never say that individuals forfeit their right to contribute to the risk management of the day, but the truth of the matter is many clients would like to defer to the experience and expertise of the guide to manage their risk. Input yes, but final decision is in the hand's of a trained professional.

Thanks for helping to dust off my avalanche awareness brain.

I guess another way to  formulate this question is to ask, When is it OK to ignore long established avalanche safety protocols?

It is apparent that you do have a communication protocol with clients during guided tours. It differs from the BCP in that (correct me of I’m wrong)  mandated input from the client is not required and all judgment is deferred to the guide. This deferment of course happens on recreational BC tours all the time.

The BCP, the protocol version for non-guided trips, requires that each member of the group present  what basically is a snow stability assessment of the proposed terrain for the day. This is done, among other reasons, because it is assumed that good communication will lead to better decision making and also discourage group members from deferring  the decision making process responsibility to just one or two  members of the group. In other words, everybody is on the same page.

This  safety protocol,  like all safety protocols is designed to reduce the probability of an accident, which is the name of the game in risk management.

1)If a guided group were to follow the same BCP protocol as non-guided groups, would there be:

A) a reduction in the probability for an accident?
an increase in the probility for an accident?
C) no difference in probability for an accident? 

2) Are there any other safety protocols that apply to non-guided groups that do not apply to guided groups? (Psychologists refer to this as the “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander bias”, OK, I made that up.)

3) Do you think that your industry would support a public agency mandated requirement that all guided trips on public land include a structured educational element that includes full participation from each member of the group?

BTW, good job with your early training efforts for future BC skiers.

Well crafted response.  I hope I do not muddy the waters.

To clarify:  I am NOT a Guide.  Period. Done.  I can speak to guiding protocols because I have been through SOME guide training, and have stayed current with guide training requirements. You mention above that ALL Risk Management judgement is deferred to the Guide.  No one can speak to all people in all situations.  As I mentioned, as a rule, people pay guide's to hit the accelerator or slam on the brakes.  Because of this, the Risk Management is OFTEN completely deferred to the Professional, but not without discussion.  The BCP works... period.  If people care, if they communicate, if they want to work as a team, then the BCP jut facilitates common sense regularly, and allows groups to stay on the same page throughout the day.

As far as answering your hypothetical questions regarding risk reduction and mandated communication protocols for guided groups, I would like to defer to a IFMGA Guide to comment. I am not ducking the question, just giving the mic to the right speaker: A professional Mountain Guide in all disciplines.

"ALL" is the word that jumps out for me, after attending the FOAC workshops last season on decision making in avalanche terrain. The best workshops were about group dynamics and human factors of risk -- social proof, halo effect, etc.

Those topics weren't in Avy I training when I took it a few years ago, but I understand they are now. So I'm taking NW Mountain School's "Avy I Refresher" 1-day course this weekend at Stevens Pass to get the updated training.

Your protocol is a good idea, and a good addition to the informal communication protocols many of us follow today, from pit-side analysis to simple phrases like "eyes on."

I think communication is key but I doubt this BCP/HTC protocol will lead to a reduction in accidents. Hazard rating is almost meaningless in an area as large as NWACs forcast area. People don't seem to be very good at reading Terrain unless they spend the bulk of their time in avalanche terrain. Most folks don't appreciate Consequences well. All of the above apply to me too.

Comparing BCP with climbing communications is interesting. Maybe there are other cultural differences between skiing and climbing that could be considered.

The climbing community, in general, works with a large degree of agreement as to what the hazards are and how to mitigate them. The common form of communication is essentially an extension of such general agreement. In climbing, it is considered poor form to dump lose rock on other parties.

The ski community operates with far less conformity to behavior in hazardous terrain. The huge range of route choices seen in popular areas illustrates the different ambitions, culture, and skills among groups of skiers.

In years past when only a handful of skiers were out in the backcountry, there was plenty of fresh snow and the landscape could absorb the differing takes on route choice with minimal threat to other parties' safety and impact on available fresh snow. This is no longer the norm.

While a great deal of emphasis is placed on ensuring a safe descent, the up-route needs to be considered as something other than an impediment to the next gravity dance. A good skin track or up-route climbs at an efficient angle for even weaker skiers, avoids hazardous terrain as much as possible, and does not cross potential downhill terrain unless there are no other options. Even more importantly, a good up-route should not expose other parties to slide risk. Once other parties are in the immediate area and potentially exposed to your route choices, your willingness to exposure yourself to risk should not be the basis for route choice and you should default to a more conservative choices.

Perhaps by beginning to use BCP we can begin the process of sharing an increasingly crowded backcountry by having a shared language. While there are all types of climbers, we all speak a similar language in regards to basic safety protocols.

I think communication is key but I doubt this BCP/HTC protocol will lead to a reduction in accidents. Hazard rating is almost meaningless in an area as large as NWACs forcast area. People don't seem to be very good at reading Terrain unless they spend the bulk of their time in avalanche terrain. Most folks don't appreciate Consequences well. All of the above apply to me too.

Simple enough to try don't you think?

The BCP is designed to provoke conversation and to address critical information in a group environment where everybody is mandated to participate.  The goal is to prevent accidents before they happen by going through a simple checklist before, during, and even AFTER a tour.  This process alone is educational, and does not need to pretend to be something it isn't:  An avalanche Class.

Comparing BCP with climbing communications is interesting.  Maybe there are other cultural differences between skiing and climbing that could be considered.   

The climbing community, in general, works with a large degree of agreement as to what the hazards are and how to mitigate them.  The common form of communication is essentially an extension of such general agreement.  In climbing, it is considered poor form to dump lose rock on other parties.

The ski community operates with far less conformity to behavior in hazardous terrain.  The huge range of route choices seen in popular areas illustrates the different ambitions, culture, and skills among groups of skiers. 

In years past when only a handful of skiers were out in the backcountry, there was plenty of fresh snow and the landscape could absorb the differing takes on route choice with minimal threat to other parties' safety and impact on available fresh snow.  This is no longer the norm.

While a great deal of emphasis is placed on ensuring a safe descent, the up-route needs to be considered as something other than an impediment to the next gravity dance.  A good skin track or up-route climbs at an efficient angle for even weaker skiers, avoids hazardous terrain as much as possible, and does not cross potential downhill terrain unless there are no other options.  Even more importantly, a good up-route should not expose other parties to slide risk.  Once other parties are in the immediate area and potentially exposed to your route choices, your willingness to exposure yourself to risk should not be the basis for route choice and you should default to a more conservative choices.

Perhaps by beginning to use BCP we can begin the process of sharing an increasingly crowded backcountry by having a shared language.  While there are all types of climbers, we all speak a similar language in regards to basic safety protocols.     

All great points Todd, and I agree with the BCP as a starting point for basic safety protocols. This tool should be looked at like putting on your seatbelt; a simple activity that you don't even think about that increases your chance of survival by making it a habit.

Simple enough to try don't you think?

The BCP is designed to provoke conversation and to address critical information in a group environment where everybody is mandated to participate.  The goal is to prevent accidents before they happen by going through a simple checklist before, during, and even AFTER a tour.  This process alone is educational, and does not need to pretend to be something it isn't:  An avalanche Class.

Sure, but people are already encouraged to communicate. People will always defer to others with more experience or familiarity with a given area. Folks will agree, following your protocol, just because they don't know how to or aren't comfortable with making these decisions. This could put them at risk.

I ski with people who are very experienced and we all discuss the plan and decide on what we will do together.

Sometimes I ski with folks who don't want to make these decisions and put their trust in me. In these cases I try and plan according to the ability and comfort level of the "weakest" member/s of the group.

Trying to apply a protocol to something like this, that is very subjective, might be impossible in the grand scheme.

The only thing that we can objectively agree on is terrain, and even then a lot of people don't have a good handle on what is safe. Add in snowpack variability and consequences and it's too complex for a lot of people to even want to think about. Just my opinion.

I think this is an interesting discussion and heads in the direction that the next breakthrough in avy safety will likely come from: communication and group dynamics. All too often it's groups who should and do know better that get caught simply because they were all thinking the same thing, just no one verbalized it for a variety of reasons.

One variation on this theme that I'm curious to hear others thoughts on:

It's my understanding that in the military, so long as there's adequate time to make a decision, the junior most officer in the group says what they think should happen, then the next in line and so on until everyone has had their say. The highest ranking, or in our case most experienced person goes last. This can help eliminate "yes" men (and women) from leadership who just agree with whatever the boss says. I think that's something that could easily be applied in a touring scenario with a mixed experience level or even among experienced and frequent partners.

If nothing else, looking at it from a qualitative and quantitative analysis standpoint; one person doing dozens of hand and pole tests on the uptrack gives you great and often more useful info than digging a full on pit might. Why not multiply that effect and get insights from everyone in the group, things observed during those tests, windloading they noticed, etc. Granted you all took the same uptrack but you all had a different experience during that journey.

The same is true in the big picture sense in that everyone comes at the avy dynamic from a different perspective and regardless of how we might all deny it, there are factors that effect the lens we see risk through; do you have a family, do you have insurance, does everyone have avy tools and skills, do you have an airbag, what's the runout like, what's a rescue like from here, etc. If only one person in the group is doing the talking and decision making you defer to that person. They might alter their view a bit to accommodate yours but we'd be better off having an open discussion, regardless of ability, experience and rank in the party. It would help to keep all of us alive and I think really speed up the learning curve for the newer, less experienced members of the group.

We all intend to have these conversations and sometimes do but often the tour and drive up is filled with catching up on life, talking sports, whatever. Building in a "forced" conversation to me makes a lot of sense. Climbing has done a great job in that nearly regardless of experience level it's still acceptable for the biggest noob in the world to ask the most experienced guide in the world if he's doubled back on his harness, tied in properly and on belay. A simple version of that for ski touring would be pretty cool in my view.

Maybe as a party you agree to spend 20 minutes on the drive up chatting about the avy situation. Then at each transition you're going to spend five minutes (once everyone is actually ready) discussing what you've observed. You go through a simple checklist and apply that data to your next uptrack or descent.

-Ryan

Sure, but people are already encouraged to communicate. People will always defer to others with more experience or familiarity with a given area. Folks will agree, following your protocol, just because they don't know how to or aren't comfortable with making these decisions. This could put them at risk.

I ski with people who are very experienced and we all discuss the plan and decide on what we will do together.

Sometimes I ski with folks who don't want to make these decisions and put their trust in me. In these cases I try and plan according to the ability and comfort level of the "weakest" member/s of the group.

Trying to apply a protocol to something like this, that is very subjective, might be impossible in the grand scheme.

The only thing that we can objectively agree on is terrain, and even then a lot of people don't have a good handle on what is safe. Add in snowpack variability and consequences and it's too complex for a lot of people to even want to think about. Just my opinion.

You argue that Backcountry skiing/riding is has too many subjective variables for a Communication Protocol to work.  By stating that, you are arguing for the specific need to institute a Communication Protocol to mitigate this inherent subjectivity.  Hazard is NOT subjective, nor is Consequence. Just because you cannot extrapolate an NWAC  Regional fx for a specific  terrain feature does not mean one cannot ascertain the general Hazard and avalanche problem(s) found in that  piece of terrain.
My point in introducing this protocol is to get people to communicate as individuals in a group environment.  You mention that people are already encouraged to communicate.  Encouragement is not enough.  There must be a mandate that EVERYONE is involved in all parts of every conversation.

If one does not agree to be an active participant in all decisions surrounding their own
safety in the backcountry, then there is a word for those individuals:  Clients.

I'm about as anti- "protocol" as anyone, but having this kind of focused communication, where everyone in the group agrees to participate, would be very helpful.  And it would probably have saved the life of at least one friend of mine.   

You argue that Backcountry skiing/riding is has too many subjective variables for a Communication Protocol to work.  By stating that, you are arguing for the specific need to institute a Communication Protocol to mitigate this inherent subjectivity.  Hazard is NOT subjective, nor is Consequence. Just because you cannot extrapolate an NWAC  Regional fx for a specific  terrain feature does not mean one cannot ascertain the general Hazard and avalanche problem(s) found in that  piece of terrain.
My point in introducing this protocol is to get people to communicate as individuals in a group environent.  You mention that people are already encouraged to communicate.  Encouragement is not enough.  There must be a mandate that EVERYONE is involved in all parts of every conversation.

If one does not agree to be an active participant in all decisions surrounding their own
safety in the backcountry, then there is a word for those individuals:  Clients.

In the area where I spend most of my time, east of Blewett, the regional forecast is almost meaningless and that area is included in the forecast. I'm perfectly capable of ascertaining what terrain is safe/safer and what the consequences are of skiing a given line. I'm also comfortable assessing the hazard without consulting NWAC because I spend over a 100 days a season in this terrain.

Using language like MANDATE and MUST will turn a lot of people away from what most people consider a fun pastime. If you feel so strongly about this mandate would you also require a special license for folks to travel in the backcountry during winter? Do we really need more rules/laws for a recreational activity?

I say people are encouraged, that is about the best you can do short of making it a law that you MUST follow a given bc protocol. You can talk about a MANDATE all you want but you won't be able to MAKE most bc users follow your protocol.

Even if you were able to MAKE people follow your MANDATE there would still be accidents because we are human and all of us are fallible. We need to acknowledge that accidents happen and will always happen because they are a normal part of any system. We can encourage people to get educated and make good decisions but we can't MANDATE that everyone follow your protocol without creating some useless and unnecessary law and a huge mess of bureaucracy for licensing and enforcment to go along with it.

I agree with your sentiment about communication, it's the MANDATE that everyone MUST follow that I think is like tilting at windmills.

Do we really need more rules/laws for a recreational activity?

Well, we might at some point as things get more crowded and parties begin to injure other parties due to poor communication and route decisions...

... what is happening in one area is not representational of all areas. Some locations are getting much busier than others rapidly.

In the area where I spend most of my time, east of Blewett, the regional forecast is almost meaningless and that area is included in the forecast. I'm perfectly capable of ascertaining what terrain is safe/safer and what the consequences are of skiing a given line. I'm also comfortable assessing the hazard without consulting NWAC because I spend over a 100 days a season in this terrain.

Using language like MANDATE and MUST will turn a lot of people away from what most people consider a fun pastime. If you feel so strongly about this mandate would you also require a special license for folks to travel in the backcountry during winter? Do we really need more rules/laws for a recreational activity?

I say people are encouraged, that is about the best you can do short of making it a law that you MUST follow a given bc protocol. You can talk about a MANDATE all you want but you won't be able to MAKE most bc users follow your protocol.

Even if you were able to MAKE people follow your MANDATE there would still be accidents because we are human and all of us are fallible. We need to acknowledge that accidents happen and will always happen because they are a normal part of any system. We can encourage people to get educated and make good decisions but we can't MANDATE that everyone follow your protocol without creating some useless and unnecessary law and a huge mess of bureaucracy for licensing and enforcment to go along with it.

I agree with your sentiment about communication, it's the MANDATE that everyone MUST follow that I think is like tilting at windmills.

I agree that the language (mandate, must) is a huge turn off.  It certainly had that effect on me, originally.  What I think he/she meant was that within a given group, all members agree to participate in using this system.

I know that I've been in groups where the communication/non-communication dynamics have been frightening.  It would've been good to have some agreement on how we were going to approach decision-making.

I agree that the language (mandate, must) is a huge turn off.  It certainly had that effect on me, originally.  What I think he/she meant was that within a given group, all members agree to participate in using this system.

I know that I've been in groups where the communication/non-communication dynamics have been frightening.  It would've been good to have some agreement on how we were going to approach decision-making.

Yup,

My concern is that all individuals agree when they are in a group to communicate openly and honestly about hazards, terrain, and consequences.

A protocol, by definition, is rigid in it's implementation in order to minimize subjective influence. Once you start sanding down the edges of any formal protocol (pre-flight checklists, surgical pre-op checklists, etc.)  You run the very real risk of diluting the effectiveness of the system.   

I realize the MUST and ALL can be intrusive and threatening... Hell, I am a commercial fisherman and the last thing I want is for someone to tell me where to fish and how to catch them, but I do perform safety drills for my crew, I do take safety training on a regular basis, and I do keep my Captain's license current. 
Do I have to?  No... but it is best practice of my industry and it does increase the chances that I can go out, catch fish, and come back again... safely.

Looking back on 35 years of climbing and BC skiing, I have seen use grow exponentially.   Bacause of this there is a very real need to educate a new and inexperienced skiers and riders in how to effectively communicate in a group and to make certain that all members are aware of the risks, accept  the risks inherent in the terrain, and have considered the consequences of their decisions.

Yup,

My concern is that all individuals agree when they are in a group to communicate openly and honestly about hazards, terrain, and consequences.

A protocol, by definition, is rigid in it's implementation in order to minimize subjective influence. Once you start sanding down the edges of any formal protocol (pre-flight checklists, surgical pre-op checklists, etc.)  You run the very real risk of diluting the effectiveness of the system.   

I realize the MUST and ALL can be intrusive and threatening... Hell, I am a commercial fisherman and the last thing I want is for someone to tell me where to fish and how to catch them, but I do perform safety drills for my crew, I do take safety training on a regular basis, and I do keep my Captain's license current. 
Do I have to?  No... but it is best practice of my industry and it does increase the chances that I can go out, catch fish, and come back again... safely.

Looking back on 35 years of climbing and BC skiing, I have seen use grow exponentially.   Bacause of this there is a very real need to educate a new and inexperienced skiers and riders in how to effectively communicate in a group and to make certain that all members are aware of the risks, accept  the risks inherent in the terrain, and have considered the consequences of their decisions.

A protocol like you propose is not like a preflight or pre op checklist. I've been involved with both in my life and you are dealing with equipment and fact, not opinion or guesses like a forecast or hazard on any given slope or aspect. If you were to equate pre flight or pre op checklists with bc travel it would be beacon, shovel and probe, skins, possibly airbag and avalung. The discussion can begin before, during and after but it's not like a checklist it's a conversation.

The last paragraph in this quoted post sounds like what I think, I wish people would be more aware and really take the time to discuss this and learn. I think the best thing right now it the phrase "terrain appropriate for the conditions" and start gathering information for your day. Some folks will take bigger risks and some will meadow skip happily and be totally safe from avalanches, others will be somewhere in between.

A protocol like you propose is not like a preflight or pre op checklist. I've been involved with both in my life and you are dealing with equipment and fact, not opinion or guesses like a forecast or hazard on any given slope or aspect. If you were to equate pre flight or pre op checklists with bc travel it would be beacon, shovel and probe, skins, possibly airbag and avalung. The discussion can begin before, during and after but it's not like a checklist it's a conversation.

The last paragraph in this quoted post sounds like what I think, I wish people would be more aware and really take the time to discuss this and learn. I think the best thing right now it the phrase "terrain appropriate for the conditions" and start gathering information for your day. Some folks will take bigger risks and some will meadow skip happily and be totally safe from avalanches, others will be somewhere in between.

Thank-you for taking the time to post your thoughts and words regarding the BCP. I appreciate your honesty and your openness to discussing this topic in a way that is respectful to any and all viewpoints. I hope that others are spurred on by your efforts and take the time to voice their own opinions and thoughts on the subject. The more people that comment, the more chance there is of something useful coming out of the discussion.

Cheers,
MJ

Communication is an actual discipline that most of us don't practice enough of(myself included) and it is the basis for all accidents. Good communication in a complex environment requires a checklist to make sure everyone's relevant observations of the current avi/snopx/Wx are heard and used to determine what the risk and consequence are for the current tour plan. Any tool that eases this communication can help lower the chance of any accident, read Checklist Manifesto to understand this phenomena.

As for meaningless forecasts for East of Blewett, it is simply a tool, an objective tool to communicate a range forecast. Valley and slope hazards are up to the individual to determine if they are consistent with the forecast.

If one does not like to have a scripted conversation then write your own words to address the group, foster an open risk dialogue and allow everyone veto power. The BCP covers the pertinent points to shape it to fit your tribe. Bagging on communication protocols simply implied you are an independent thinker who prefers to choose your own words, just make sure you use them before entering terrain with significant hazard.