Backcountry Communication Tool BCP

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.