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.