or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Sidecountry does not exist.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sidecountry does not exist. - Page 16

post #451 of 464

The Utah Avalanche Center is having a sidecountry focus group in SLC, and there may be some candidates for it here:

 

"~~We are trying to learn more about sidecountry riding and need your help. If you are between 17 – 30 years old, sometimes use lifts to get into the backcountry, and have little or no formal avalanche training, we want you to be a part of a focus group in SLC Feb 4. This will help us learn how to make avalanche education more relevant to you and those you ride with. We'll have FREE SKULLCANDY GEAR and pizza for all who join us for 2 hours. Hit us up if you think you fit the bill, friends@utahavalanchecenter.org. PLEASE SHARE THIS with people you think might fit that description.  "

 

This is lifted from their Facebook site, but since they are urging people to share it I thought lifting the whole text was fair use.  The UAC continues to do great stuff to target avy ed in ways that speak to different user groups.

post #452 of 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tundra35 View Post
 

The Utah Avalanche Center is having a sidecountry focus group in SLC, and there may be some candidates for it here:

 

"~~We are trying to learn more about sidecountry riding and need your help. If you are between 17 – 30 years old, sometimes use lifts to get into the backcountry, and have little or no formal avalanche training, we want you to be a part of a focus group in SLC Feb 4. This will help us learn how to make avalanche education more relevant to you and those you ride with. We'll have FREE SKULLCANDY GEAR and pizza for all who join us for 2 hours. Hit us up if you think you fit the bill, friends@utahavalanchecenter.org. PLEASE SHARE THIS with people you think might fit that description.  "

 

This is lifted from their Facebook site, but since they are urging people to share it I thought lifting the whole text was fair use.  The UAC continues to do great stuff to target avy ed in ways that speak to different user groups.

 

Sounds good.

I guess Utah Avalanche Center didn't get the memo that "Sidecountry" doesn't exist.:cool

post #453 of 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post
 

 

Sounds good.

I guess Utah Avalanche Center didn't get the memo that "Sidecountry" doesn't exist.:cool

 

Except that their wording makes it crystal clear that their concern with "sidecountry" is the exact same as the people who believe we should retire the term.
post #454 of 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by anachronism View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post
 

 

Sounds good.

I guess Utah Avalanche Center didn't get the memo that "Sidecountry" doesn't exist.:cool

 

Except that their wording makes it crystal clear that their concern with "sidecountry" is the exact same as the people who believe we should retire the term.

Everyone has the same concerns.

 

You're just not going to change descriptive language that adds information for language that requires information. "Sidecountry" describes where it is and thus adds information.

 

What, will it be called "Backcountry at the side of the resort"?

"Lift-accessed Backcountry"?

Calling it something else won't change what people do.

If you go to an ocean beach and can't swim you are taking a risk wading into the water. Calling the beach something else doesn't change reality.

post #455 of 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by anachronism View Post

He was prepared but things could have gone differently for somebody that didn't know the risks? How? He triggered an avalanche but others don't know the risk? What?

I really hope that line is the news putting words into his mouth, because that is a profoundly stupid statement.

 

The fact that an avalanche happened does not by itself mean they were uninformed.

 

The risk is never zero.  Almost any slope (unless it's incredibly flat) could slide if the conditions are just right.  They had avalanche gear (including airbag packs), were skiing one at a time, and the article said they knew that slope was "questionable" and "a risk" despite seeing other tracks on it.

 

OTOH, he also admitted that in hindsight he "should've done things differently".  So... yeah.

post #456 of 464

They must value skiing very highly, more than life itself, if they evaluated the slope as 'a risk' and skied it anyway. Different strokes.

post #457 of 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post
 

The fact that an avalanche happened does not by itself mean they were uninformed.

 

The risk is never zero.  Almost any slope (unless it's incredibly flat) could slide if the conditions are just right.  They had avalanche gear (including airbag packs), were skiing one at a time, and the article said they knew that slope was "questionable" and "a risk" despite seeing other tracks on it.

 

OTOH, he also admitted that in hindsight he "should've done things differently".  So... yeah.

 

People are bad at assessing risk, even this guy with the benefit of hindsight after being caught in a slide.

 

He says that it was just random luck since there were other tracks.   True, but the odds of if it sliding were enormous.

 

Skiing that line was random luck just like Russion roulette is random luck.  Skiing inbounds is also random luck of getting caught in a slide.  The difference is there is something like a one in a 100 million to billion chance when you consider the number of inbound runs vs. the inbounds slides.

post #458 of 464

I don't think that folks are that bad at assessing risk. It is the frequently poor decision making process following the assessment that continues to amaze me.

post #459 of 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post

People are bad at assessing risk, even this guy with the benefit of hindsight after being caught in a slide.

He says that it was just random luck since there were other tracks.   True, but the odds of if it sliding were enormous.

Skiing that line was random luck just like Russion roulette is random luck.  Skiing inbounds is also random luck of getting caught in a slide.  The difference is there is something like a one in a 100 million to billion chance when you consider the number of inbound runs vs. the inbounds slides.

To me there are two questions.

First is whether they actually understood the risk they were taking. It's entirely possible these guys had terrible judgement or didn't actually understand the risk factors and are trying to justify it after the fact. But there's not really enough information here to tell either way. IMO not enough to declare that the risk of a slide was easy to determine in advance as "enormous".

Second is, assuming they did understand the risk, were they really dumb to do it anyway. That's a really subjective decision. You might think a 1% chance of the slope letting go is unacceptable even with all the latest safety gear. Others might not. As long as they're not endangering anyone else it's their call.

People die skiing inbounds too. You want zero risk, stay at home.
post #460 of 464

The decision making of the group that was killed at Loveland Pass area last year was.....poor.

That from people like Lou Dawson if you read between the lines.

Had they been crossing that slope 50 yards to their left over the creek, they would've been ok. Among other issues.

 

Now those people had just been at an Avalanche conference and some presented material!

There's reasons for it. It's better to understand why well informed, educated people make these poor decisions than to say they were stupid. Saying they were stupid, uneducated, means it won't happen to you since you won't be like them.

That's incorrect, it can happen to you and there are reasons why.

 

That was what the Heuristic Traps article I posted back a few pages is about. One is probably better off learning about that then digging snow pits etc and feeling like one needs more technical knowledge. It's not the lack of technical knowledge that's killing people, it's the lack of knowledge of how humans make decisions that's killing people. Without that you think you're different and it won't happen to you. As long as there is a supply of young males hitting the backcountry/sidecountry/frontcountry this will likely continue.  Women may be catching up also, I don't know.

 

Changing a name in a dictionary won't do a thing.

post #461 of 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Now those people had just been at an Avalanche conference and some presented material!
There's reasons for it. It's better to understand why well informed, educated people make these poor decisions than to say they were stupid. Saying they were stupid, uneducated, means it won't happen to you since you won't be like them.
That's incorrect, it can happen to you and there are reasons why.

I agree. However, I think part of the process is for the party to acknowledge their own errors, which is why I have trouble with the "I knew the risks." statement above. He would not have been on that slope if he thought it would slide. The fact that he was on it and it slid means that he failed his risk assessment. He got caught in a slide, I don't see how thing would have gone differently for somebody else "that didn't know the risks"- unless he honestly thinks that he was at no risk of getting buried/injured/killed by dropping the cliff back into the slide. That is the part of the statement I find stupid.

I don't think he is stupid guy, and he acknowledges he made mistakes, and at least the news article isn't going along the lines of many that say "but his airbag/beacon SAVED HIS LIFE" with zero acknowledgement of the Avy 1 lesson that you have profoundly screwed up if you have to rely on beacon/probe/shovel etc. to keep you alive.
post #462 of 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post


To me there are two questions.

First is whether they actually understood the risk they were taking. It's entirely possible these guys had terrible judgement or didn't actually understand the risk factors and are trying to justify it after the fact. But there's not really enough information here to tell either way. IMO not enough to declare that the risk of a slide was easy to determine in advance as "enormous".

Second is, assuming they did understand the risk, were they really dumb to do it anyway. That's a really subjective decision. You might think a 1% chance of the slope letting go is unacceptable even with all the latest safety gear. Others might not. As long as they're not endangering anyone else it's their call.

People die skiing inbounds too. You want zero risk, stay at home.

 

 

There is risk and then there is RISK.

 

The signs seemed pretty evident to most people that the area was not an especially smart place to be with the hazard rating being what it was and the number of other large slides reported.

 

And yet a Go decision was reached, a large avalanche was released and someone died.

 

Which incident am I talking about?

post #463 of 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunion View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post


To me there are two questions.

First is whether they actually understood the risk they were taking. It's entirely possible these guys had terrible judgement or didn't actually understand the risk factors and are trying to justify it after the fact. But there's not really enough information here to tell either way. IMO not enough to declare that the risk of a slide was easy to determine in advance as "enormous".

Second is, assuming they did understand the risk, were they really dumb to do it anyway. That's a really subjective decision. You might think a 1% chance of the slope letting go is unacceptable even with all the latest safety gear. Others might not. As long as they're not endangering anyone else it's their call.

People die skiing inbounds too. You want zero risk, stay at home.

 

 

There is risk and then there is RISK.

 

The signs seemed pretty evident to most people that the area was not an especially smart place to be with the hazard rating being what it was and the number of other large slides reported.

 

And yet a Go decision was reached, a large avalanche was released and someone died.

 

Which incident am I talking about?

 

Well many would fit that description but that sounds a lot like Sheep Creek at Loveland Pass 2013 . 5 killed, 1 rescued.

On Sheep Creek:

Quote: Lou Dawson
While we of course cannot know the final truth, I’d caution any readers to not dismiss this as normal human error. Instead, what we appear to have had is some kind of very unusual event wherein a group of six backcountry skiers and snowboarders, all of whom had been exposed to basic avalanche safety concepts and several of whom were well educated either formally or informally, ignored or forgot basic safety protocols.
 
(Please note, I’ve edited the preceding a bit as I’d initially made it appear we knew the group had a high incidence of formal avalanche education, while it’s more likely it was a mixed group in terms of training.)
 
post #464 of 464

Apropos to this topic Marc Peruzzi posted this ditty at Mountain Magazine;

http://www.mountainonline.com/way-ski-now/

 

He touches the bases covered in the previous pages here, tho I have not read every post, maybe this has already  been offered here.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Sidecountry does not exist.