--0-2046420191-1077666214=:84689
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Both Gene and Griss have made some excellent replies to this email and to the attitude that may underlie it, so I'll keep my "response to my response" much briefer than either the original post and my first reply. But I think that there are a few things in here that stand to be repeated.

And this isn't just for backcountry skiiers. Some of us out there may be into long skate tours, where, despite the groomed track, changing weather and unpredictable conditions still exist.

Chris

Me wrote:

Comments below.

Kim

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:09:24 -0800, Chris Cline wrote:

--0-1714733143-1077561139=:60387
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hi Kim-
I read thru your post with interest because I recently got myself into a
similar "crossing the line but not realizing it" situation. Like you, I
got out OK, but spent a considerable amount of time afterwards trying to
identify the points where errors in our party's judgement had "created"
the incident.

Just like I did...


I also understand that the first little bit after the
incident, you're freaked, and maybe even in a little bit of mild
post-traumatic shock as you piece it all together and make sense of it.

I actually wasn't that freaked. I replayed the incident, yes, but I
almost felt guilty as if I wasn't giving it enough seriousness. Even now,
it is a few days later and I've mostly forgotten it. Am I giving it the
attention it deserves ? It is weird...

Now I'm wondering if you're somewhat in denial about the whole thing. I would still classify an incident where your ski disappeared into a freezing void, and you would have except for luck (certainly not planning in terms of group size, staying together, etc) as "serious."


I think that the biggest error in judgement that I can see in your story
is not having the proper equipment.

Agreed. And yet except for the last section I skied without problems. I
had "submerging sessions", but other than that I was well within my
limits. I guess you can't go by "being mostly OK", you have to have
equipment for being OK even in the extreme conditions.

As Griss pointed out, being "mostly OK" is like being "sort of pregnant." You're either prepared or your aren't. In your case, given where you went (and what you knew about the route before you went), you were not prepared-- plain and simple. Your wife could have as easily wrapped herself around a tree as you nearly drowning. Look at it this way: you managed to extricate yourself from a situation in which you were not prepared.
As I read thru it, I was expecting to
hear something along the lines of hitting trees, being delayed to the
point that lack of food and adequate clothing created a situation with
hypothermia, etc.

That is the point: any of those things COULD happen on a typical ski day.
We don't carry enough gear to stay out overnight. We don't wear helmets.
We do ski on tight trails in the trees.

A good rule of thumb is that if you're wearing track
gear, at least 80% of your route should be on groomed, set tracks (spring
crust skiing notwithstanding).

That is probably a good rule of thumb.

While I totally understand the urge to
keep on keeping on on a glorious day, having difficulties with your gear
on the way up should translate into a decision at some point that you
simply don't have the right tools for the job and should turn around. It
does sound like you kept that in mind, as at least you didn't press on to
the lake and points further out, and create a situation where you had to
ski out in difficult terrain in the dark.

Agreed.


As far as maps, compasses, etc. I'm not sure that carrying (or using
these more) would have helped you as much as being totally, continually
aware of your surroundings. A map can tell you there's a creek if it
occurs to you to look for it; otherwise you're as likely to miss it on the
map as anywhere else.

Had we a *detailed* map, we could have checked the route at the last
bridge. I don't know if seeing a creek on the map would have meant much.
I guess the thing to watch is that if you see a creek on the map and you
can't physically see the creek, you are probably skiing ON IT !


A map is a thing to CHECK where you are-- it is not your primary method of gathering information about an area. For that, use your EYES/ears/ other senses. Much more immediate, and you don't have to think about stopping and getting them out of your pack. Again, you could have looked at the map and totally missed the significance of the creek, because you weren't thinking about it. And that's the point.


It sounds like you had a high level of awareness
regarding avalanches; I'd suggest that you extend that to everything else
about your surroundings. If you cross a bridge, that obviously means
there's water around somewhere- where's the creek.

Yeah.

Just keep observing
and keeping an inventory of these things. Another example of reading
terrain to stay out of trouble: Are the slopes above you made of smooth
rock layers? Afternoon glide avalanches off these rocks (which can occur
during very "low" avalanche danger relative to normal avalanche triggers)
have killed several people in Utah.

They've done that here too: a slide about 15 years ago happened really
early in the season. All the snow slid right off a layer of lush grass.
The snow didn't slide on the snow, it slid on the grass.

"Terrain traps" are also something to
avoid like the plague-- I normally think of them!
in terms
of getting caught in avalanche runout or debris in one, but after your
post, I will think of things like water and falling in holes.

Good. I'm glad this helped someone.


By the
way, if you're up above timberline in a talus area, a big hole between
boulders will mess you up just as much as a hole in a creek-- I have the
scar on my shin to prove it.

We get "tree wells" here. The snow will swirl around a short tree and not
really fill in properly. Over winter the snow covers it, but as soon as
you ski over that tree, you'll sink like a stone.

As far as "was this all this serious? am I over reacting?" Hell, yeah.
and Hell, no. a meter of rushing water going under ice is serious
business. If you never saw your ski again, where do you think you would
go?

My thoughts exactly. If I had gotten under the ice, I wouldn't be here
today.

You were very lucky, not least because you were lucky enough to
inadvertently increase your group size to be appropriate for your ski
trip.

The group size was a bonus, but I'm pretty sure that we wouldn't have
taken that trail if it was just the two of us. Yes, it was great having
Dale there !

Should you and your wife ski alone? It depends. On that trail, with that
equipment, and in those conditions, and with that particular route choice,
I'd say that "no" is a pretty obvious answer.

Hind sight is 20/20... how do we make that decision in the future ?

Learn from your mistakes.


But you could ski alone if
you made the mental decision to exercise the "bail" option at a more
conservative decision-making point.

Agreed, *IF* one is seeing and accurately accessing the risk. How often
are we missing the risk factors ? Hopefully less frequently as we get more experience and learn, but the only way to miss all of the risk factors is to stay home.

It sounds like you basically
blundered into a bad situation because you thought you were taking
everything into account and then found out that you weren't. I know this
because I'm relatively fresh from my own experience with this process.

Yep.

My guarantee: your freak-out level will decrease, and your level of
awareness will increase, and you will become a safer skiier.

Agreed.

And you will
still love the mountains, trees, sky, snow, etc.

Doubly agreed.

But you'll probably
either restrict your skiing to more "conservative" terrain (fixed tracks
and established trails),

probably not.

or get better skis and more experience in that
terrain.

I'll use different equipment AND implement some of the things I spoke of
in the article.

by the way-- I strongly suggest (if you're going to go with option B,
above), that you take an avalanche class because a) conditions change, and
b) visitor center-bound rangers may or may not be good sources of
information about avalanches.

I'm fully avalanche trained.

Also, another error I saw is that for the
area and terrain you were in, a shovel, avalanche beacon, and knowledge of
how to use the latter would have been a good thing. I've bailed on tours
just because I forgot my beacon.

I gave the beacon some thought, but about the only place we had the
potential to get caught was in a BIG runout. Under such conditions, I
doubt a beacon would have helped - you'd be dead.

These two replies are in contradiction to each other! It seems that the only outcome you're considering for getting caught in a slide runout zone is "certain death." In this case, I guess your "what's the use" attitude would be useful, and would save oh, maybe 2 pounds in your pack (and what's with your wife not being able to carry 8 pounds???). So imagine this scenario. Your wife (not you) gets caught in a runout slide, and after the search and rescue people eventually dig her out (which may take a while, because sometimes they are reluctant to put themselves in danger to dig a body out), they find out that she was likely alive for 30-60 minutes before succumbing to hypothermia and anoxia. How does that beacon and shovel decision sound now? And ask yourself if you're really "fully avalanche trained."

A shovel on the other hand might be wise for reasons other than
avalanches.

Maybe using it to knock some sense into yourself? ;- )


Having read your replies, I think you really need to re-examine your assumptions. The most dangerous assumption that we can make is that we're in control -- especially in areas with high "objective danger"-- a climbing term to note things that you can't do anything about- storms, rockfall, avalanches-- in areas where you willingly go because you want to (plain and simple- no other reason to do it.


Sorry to be so hard on you-- consider it tough love.

Chris Cline

SLC, UT





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
--0-2046420191-1077666214=:84689
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

DIVBoth Gene and Griss have made some excellent replies to this email and to the attitude that may underlie it, so I'll keep my "response to my response" much briefer than either the original post and my first reply.  But I think that there are a few things in here that stand to be repeated./DIV
DIV /DIV
DIVAnd this isn't just for backcountry skiiers.  Some of us out there may be into long skate tours, where, despite the groomed track, changing weather and unpredictable conditions still exist./DIV
DIV /DIV
DIVChrisBRBRBIMe >/I/B wrote:/DIV
BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"
PComments below. BRBRKim BRBROn Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:09:24 -0800, Chris Cline wrote:BRBR> --0-1714733143-1077561139=:60387BR> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-asciiBR> BR> Hi Kim-BR> I read thru your post with interest because I recently got myself into aBR> similar "crossing the line but not realizing it" situation. Like you, IBR> got out OK, but spent a considerable amount of time afterwards trying toBR> identify the points where errors in our party's judgement had "created"BR> the incident. BRBRJust like I did... BRBRBRI also understand that the first little bit after theBR> incident, you're freaked, and maybe even in a little bit of mildBR> post-traumatic shock as you piece it all together and make sense of it.BRBRI actually wasn't that freaked. I replayed the incident, yes, but IBRalmost felt guilty as if I wasn't giving it enough seriousness. Even now,BRit is a few days later and I'!
ve mostly
forgotten it. Am I giving it theBRattention it deserves ? It is weird... BRBREMNow I'm wondering if you're somewhat in denial about the whole thing.  I would still classify an incident where your ski disappeared into a freezing void, and you would have except for luck (certainly not planning in terms of group size, staying together, etc) as "serious."/EM/PEM/EM
PBR> I think that the biggest error in judgement that I can see in your storyBR> is not having the proper equipment. BRBRAgreed. And yet except for the last section I skied without problems. IBRhad "submerging sessions", but other than that I was well within myBRlimits. I guess you can't go by "being mostly OK", you have to haveBRequipment for being OK even in the extreme conditions. BRBREMAs Griss pointed out, being "mostly OK" is like being "sort of pregnant."  You're either prepared or your aren't.  In your case, given where you went (and what you knew about the route before you went), you were not prepared-- plain and simple.  Your wife could have as easily wrapped herself around a tree as you nearly drowning.  Look at it this way:  you managed to extricate yourself from a situation in which you were not prepared./EMBRAs I read thru it, I was expecting toBR> hear something along the lines of hitting trees, bei!
ng
delayed to theBR> point that lack of food and adequate clothing created a situation withBR> hypothermia, etc. BRBRThat is the point: any of those things COULD happen on a typical ski day. BRWe don't carry enough gear to stay out overnight. We don't wear helmets. BRWe do ski on tight trails in the trees. BRBRA good rule of thumb is that if you're wearing trackBR> gear, at least 80% of your route should be on groomed, set tracks (springBR> crust skiing notwithstanding). BRBRThat is probably a good rule of thumb. BRBRWhile I totally understand the urge toBR> keep on keeping on on a glorious day, having difficulties with your gearBR> on the way up should translate into a decision at some point that youBR> simply don't have the right tools for the job and should turn around. ItBR> does sound like you kept that in mind, as at least you didn't press on toBR> the lake and points further out, and create a situation whe!
re you
had toBR> ski out in difficult terrain in the dark.BRBRAgreed. BRBRBR> As far as maps, compasses, etc. I'm not sure that carrying (or usingBR> these more) would have helped you as much as being totally, continuallyBR> aware of your surroundings. A map can tell you there's a creek if itBR> occurs to you to look for it; otherwise you're as likely to miss it on theBR> map as anywhere else. BRBRHad we a *detailed* map, we could have checked the route at the lastBRbridge. I don't know if seeing a creek on the map would have meant much. BRI guess the thing to watch is that if you see a creek on the map and youBRcan't physically see the creek, you are probably skiing ON IT ! BR/P
PEMA map is a thing to CHECK where you are-- it is not your primary method of gathering information about an area.  For that, use your EYES/ears/ other senses.  Much more immediate, and you don't have to think about stopping and getting them out of your pack.  Again, you could have looked at the map and totally missed the significance of the creek, because you weren't thinking about it.  And that's the point./EM/PEM/EM
PBRIt sounds like you had a high level of awarenessBR> regarding avalanches; I'd suggest that you extend that to everything elseBR> about your surroundings. If you cross a bridge, that obviously meansBR> there's water around somewhere- where's the creek. BRBRYeah. BRBRJust keep observingBR> and keeping an inventory of these things. Another example of readingBR> terrain to stay out of trouble: Are the slopes above you made of smoothBR> rock layers? Afternoon glide avalanches off these rocks (which can occurBR> during very "low" avalanche danger relative to normal avalanche triggers)BR> have killed several people in Utah. BRBRThey've done that here too: a slide about 15 years ago happened reallyBRearly in the season. All the snow slid right off a layer of lush grass. BRThe snow didn't slide on the snow, it slid on the grass. BRBR"Terrain traps" are also something toBR> avoid like the plague-- I normally think!
of
them!BR> in termsBR> of getting caught in avalanche runout or debris in one, but after yourBR> post, I will think of things like water and falling in holes. BRBRGood. I'm glad this helped someone. BRBRBRBy theBR> way, if you're up above timberline in a talus area, a big hole betweenBR> boulders will mess you up just as much as a hole in a creek-- I have theBR> scar on my shin to prove it.BRBRWe get "tree wells" here. The snow will swirl around a short tree and notBRreally fill in properly. Over winter the snow covers it, but as soon asBRyou ski over that tree, you'll sink like a stone. BRBR> As far as "was this all this serious? am I over reacting?" Hell, yeah.BR> and Hell, no. a meter of rushing water going under ice is seriousBR> business. If you never saw your ski again, where do you think you wouldBR> go? BRBRMy thoughts exactly. If I had gotten under the ice, I wouldn't be hereBRtoday. BRBR!
You were
very lucky, not least because you were lucky enough toBR> inadvertently increase your group size to be appropriate for your skiBR> trip.BRBRThe group size was a bonus, but I'm pretty sure that we wouldn't haveBRtaken that trail if it was just the two of us. Yes, it was great havingBRDale there !BRBR> Should you and your wife ski alone? It depends. On that trail, with thatBR> equipment, and in those conditions, and with that particular route choice,BR> I'd say that "no" is a pretty obvious answer.BRBRHind sight is 20/20... how do we make that decision in the future ?/P
PEMLearn from your mistakes./EMBRBRBRBut you could ski alone ifBR> you made the mental decision to exercise the "bail" option at a moreBR> conservative decision-making point. BRBRAgreed, *IF* one is seeing and accurately accessing the risk. How oftenBRare we missing the risk factors ?  EMHopefully less frequently as we get more experience and learn, but the only way to miss all of the risk factors is to stay home./EMBRBRIt sounds like you basicallyBR> blundered into a bad situation because you thought you were takingBR> everything into account and then found out that you weren't. I know thisBR> because I'm relatively fresh from my own experience with this process.BRBRYep. BRBR> My guarantee: your freak-out level will decrease, and your level ofBR> awareness will increase, and you will become a safer skiier.BRBRAgreed.BRBRAnd you willBR> still love the mountains, trees, sky, snow, etc. BRB!
RDoubly
agreed. BRBRBut you'll probablyBR> either restrict your skiing to more "conservative" terrain (fixed tracksBR> and established trails),BRBRprobably not. BRBRor get better skis and more experience in thatBR> terrain.BRBRI'll use different equipment AND implement some of the things I spoke ofBRin the article.BRBR> by the way-- I strongly suggest (if you're going to go with option B,BR> above), that you take an avalanche class because a) conditions change, andBR> b) visitor center-bound rangers may or may not be good sources ofBR> information about avalanches. BRBRI'm fully avalanche trained.BRBRAlso, another error I saw is that for theBR> area and terrain you were in, a shovel, avalanche beacon, and knowledge ofBR> how to use the latter would have been a good thing. I've bailed on toursBR> just because I forgot my beacon.BRBRI gave the beacon some thought, but about the only place we had theBR!
potential
to get caught was in a BIG runout. Under such conditions, IBRdoubt a beacon would have helped - you'd be dead. /P
PEMThese two replies are in contradiction to each other!  It seems that the only outcome you're considering for getting caught in a slide runout zone is "certain death."  In this case, I guess your "what's the use" attitude would be useful, and would save oh, maybe 2 pounds in your pack (and what's with your wife not being able to carry 8 pounds???).  So imagine this scenario.  Your wife (not you) gets caught in a runout slide, and after the search and rescue people eventually dig her out (which may take a while, because sometimes they are reluctant to put themselves in danger to dig a body out), they find out that she was likely alive for 30-60 minutes before succumbing to hypothermia and anoxia.  How does that beacon and shovel decision sound now?  And ask yourself if you're really "fully avalanche trained."/EMBRBRA shovel on the other hand might be wise for reasons other thanBRavalanches. /P
PEMMaybe using it to knock some sense into yourself? ;- )/EM/P
PBRHaving read your replies, I think you really need to re-examine your assumptions.  The most dangerous assumption that we can make is that we're in control -- especially in areas with high "objective danger"-- a climbing term to note things that you can't do anything about- storms, rockfall, avalanches-- in areas where you willingly go because you want to (plain and simple- no other reason to do it.BR/P
PSorry to be so hard on you-- consider it tough love.  /P
PChris Cline/P
PSLC, UTBRBRBR/P/BLOCKQUOTEphr SIZE=1
Do you Yahoo!?br
a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailtag_us/*http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools?tool=1"Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard/a - Read only the mail you want./a
--0-2046420191-1077666214=:84689--