Backcountry Communication Tool BCP

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.