Article on Powder Addiction avalanche death, and other cat skiing issues

[SBrown]

Ahh, but for the vast, vast majority of law abiding companies those OSHA regulations do their job. There clearly needs to be a "bar" set for compliance to at least a minimum level of safety protocols and a certification of the guiding companies to ensure they are doing their due diligence. As a consumer of this service product, I would expect nothing less. This story certainly has me re-thinking about ever doing a cat skiing trip.

Eh, I don't know, I've done almost every (large) cat ski op in CO and have never had any concerns (except just the normal ones, there is always some risk). If nothing else, these outfits want to avoid getting sued, or otherwise shut down. I did a quick search on safety records but couldn't find much. You can find a list of all avy deaths on avalanche.org; look for mechanized skier/guide, although it's clunky because you can't search. (Or at least I couldn't figure it out.) This Jones Pass death had nothing to do with snow studies; it was (appeared to be) an historic storm cycle plus the familiarity trap. Not that I am excusing anything; I just don't worry much about the big operations. There are also mom n pop cat ops, not really advertised, which are a different animal. Basically, give me 50 bucks and I'll take you up a hill. Then you're on your own.

 

[François Pugh]

Meh, I am perfectly happy accepting any and all risks and responsibility for skiing where I decide to ski. I mean it's skiing, not a Disney World roller-coaster.
Now if the Cat driver were to get drunk and drive off a cliff, that would be a different story.

 

[pchewn]

I would caution against the urge to add governmental standards for safety certifications, training, processes, or procedures. One thing this does is make people more complacent that the operation is "safe" because some big brother is taking care of it for you.

There is the concept of "Safety First" (relying on training, certifications, overseer authority, etc) vs "Safety Third" (relying on the person for their own safety) is an interesting contrast.

A person driving a car with a steel spike attached to the steering wheel pointed at their chest and no seatbelt or shoulder harness will drive a lot safer than a person driving with seatbelts, anti-collision automated braking, airbags, etc. They will take care of their own personal safety by avoiding left turns, driving slower, avoiding heavy traffic, etc..... They will have a heightened awareness that driving is unsafe and take more precautions to avoid accidents. The danger with all of the "safety features" in the car is that the driver feels that having these features do not require him to drive as safe as if the features were absent. The same might occur if the Cat ski operation were "certified by XXX for safety" or "regulated under the "Commission for Cat Ski Safety by the Secretary of OSHA" or whatever.

Here's an interesting article on the concept of "Safety Third". I really like the example of some ridiculous formulated required safety steps such as:

• Wearing a life jacket in 1 foot of water
• Wearing a fall harness and 6-foot line for a 4-foot platform

Is that really where we want Cat skiing to end up?

https://www.ishn.com/articles/93505...saKfuGzk71SQcp6CP5HNNeHCbH3lNmYJwxv-q0hbs12Wk

 

[Jerez]

We skied with PA when Wolter was with them and felt quite safe. (What did we know though). When it sold I looked to go again but decided not to. Just something about the vibe that came across on their website. Maybe we were just stupid lucky.

Seems like the association that sets and looks at safety standards is a great idea. If they could get some money to put into marketing it, they could get more mebership and that imprimatur could provide idiots like me some way to assess an operator's standards.

 

[Primoz]

Absolutely safe? No. As safe as practical -- yes, it should be.
I agree with Noodler. As a customer, how would I be able to make an informed risk evaluation? (Well, other than obvious lapses that you are not going to see till you are already on the hill.) That's why we delegate to experts.

Snow is not really exact science and it's pretty much impossible to be sure of anything, regardless of experience and knowledge. This is one of reasons why someone might interpret certain signs one way, and the other might interpret them completely different way. Also experts. Not to mention, you can run set of tests on one place, yet you will still trigger avalanche 10m further, even though you just figured it out that terrain is safe.
That's reason, why I NEVER trust anyone when it comes to this. I have quite few friends with top qualifications in this business (all IFMGA guides with years of guiding in the books) and who guide pretty much every single day of the winter, yet when we go skiing together, I never trust them blindly. I do my own assessment, I check snowpack myself and I do my own homework before we go, from terrain and route checking to weather (current past and future) and snow and avi reports. I'm sure my friends have more experience, and I'm sure when being in area every single day of the winter, they have more info on snowpack development, but that doesn't mean they always make better decision. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but regardless of that, I never trust them blindly. Good thing with this is, that we are group of friends skiing together, and it's never client/guide relationship, so this might be different, and with our "setup" they are always willing to hear, discuss and respect my comments or decisions. But even if it would be the other way, I would never go somewhere without my own research, which also mean on the end, I would be responsible myself for my own moves, even if I would pay guide to guide me around. Maybe legally someone else would be responsible, but in my own mind, I'm the one making decision, good or bad one.

 

[Noodler]

Snow is not really exact science and it's pretty much impossible to be sure of anything, regardless of experience and knowledge. This is one of reasons why someone might interpret certain signs one way, and the other might interpret them completely different way. Also experts. Not to mention, you can run set of tests on one place, yet you will still trigger avalanche 10m further, even though you just figured it out that terrain is safe.
That's reason, why I NEVER trust anyone when it comes to this. I have quite few friends with top qualifications in this business (all IFMGA guides with years of guiding in the books) and who guide pretty much every single day of the winter, yet when we go skiing together, I never trust them blindly. I do my own assessment, I check snowpack myself and I do my own homework before we go, from terrain and route checking to weather (current past and future) and snow and avi reports. I'm sure my friends have more experience, and I'm sure when being in area every single day of the winter, they have more info on snowpack development, but that doesn't mean they always make better decision. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but regardless of that, I never trust them blindly. Good thing with this is, that we are group of friends skiing together, and it's never client/guide relationship, so this might be different, and with our "setup" they are always willing to hear, discuss and respect my comments or decisions. But even if it would be the other way, I would never go somewhere without my own research, which also mean on the end, I would be responsible myself for my own moves, even if I would pay guide to guide me around. Maybe legally someone else would be responsible, but in my own mind, I'm the one making decision, good or bad one.

That's great for you, but what about the folks who don't have the ability to do these safety check for themselves? I would guess that the vast majority of skiers who use cat skiing operations are not highly skilled backcountry skiers. They're trusting these operators to provide them with a safe skiing experience. That's the point of this thread.

 

[Primoz]

Personally I think everyone should have at least some skill before venturing into backcountry... alone or guided. I'm not saying I'm right, but I think backcountry, especially in tricky conditions, is not really place to go without experiences, and/or to start learning basics. So yes, even if going with cat ski operations, personally I would still check and not just go. And as I wrote, there's no 100% safety no matter how great you are. First, snow is unpredictable, and second, people make mistakes. No matter what kind of rules you would set for guides or companies, it's impossible to have totally safe operations, which brings us back to, you should know enough to make decisions about your own life.

 

[Mike King]

I assume you do understand the problem of putting the onus of validating safety protocols being followed by the operator on the consumer. I wouldn't even know what to ask beyond the most basic safety concerns. This is why you need an agency that thinks through this stuff, assesses the best practices, and then develops and enforces the safety practice policies. I'm certainly not a "big government" proponent, but government is supposed to be "by the people, for the people" and is here to help us with situations just like this. I'm not saying that this would be the perfect solution, but this story shows that we clearly need something more. It would be great if the operators would be all in on the new program that was setup, but the story clearly states that isn't the case. That is really disappointing, but there may be other reasons why it hasn't been adopted widely.

Yes, you do have a point. But here’s something else to consider: when you are in the backcountry, you are an integral part of the risk management apparatus. You should not rely solely on the guide to make appropprivate decisions for you or the group. There’s a problem in snow risk management where everyone defers to the expert. Experts need to be questioned, decisions should be examined.

so, I’d argue before venturing into the backcountry, even with a commercial venture, you have some responsibility to become somewhat educated so you are aware of the risks, the methods to mitigate them, and can be at least an somewhat informed participant in decision making.

 

[chilehed]

The issue with the car analogy is that cars have way more safety features to save help save you from your own bad decisions.

Just as we have them in skiing today compared to fifty years ago. Those features can't turn a bad decision into a not bad decision.

 

[Jerez]

I agree with @Noodler insofar as the point of hiring a guide to go off piste in Europe or buying a seat on a cat or heli is to have someone with greater expertise and understanding of that terrain and snowpack assess the risk and make decisions. That doesn't mean that you ignore your own intuition or go blindly. But to put the onus on the client to do indepth analysis or research is not viable. Most will not have the background to properly interpret what they see or read.

 

[SBrown]

I like to do my research before I go. It isn't a guarantee, but you can find reports of accidents. You can look up their guides. Search for trip reports on forums. That sort of thing. What do they say, google is your friend?

 

[James]

Well, the gist of the OP article, seems to be that the original Cat operation was highly focused on snow safety. This included paying someone $5k/month to do full time forecasting and assess local routes.

When it was sold, the new owner said screw that! It involved having people do it part time. Frankly, the article is somewhat incomplete and a mess. The inference is that safety suffered, but there’s not huge evidence it actually did. I don’t know.
The actual incident - they just shouldn’t have been crossing that slope at that time. I guess.

 

[SBrown]

Well, the gist of the OP article, seems to be that the original Cat operation was highly focused on snow safety. This included paying someone $5k/month to do full time forecasting and assess local routes.

When it was sold, the new owner said screw that! It involved having people do it part time. Frankly, the article is somewhat incomplete and a mess. The inference is that safety suffered, but there’s not huge evidence it actually did. I don’t know.
The actual incident - they just shouldn’t have been crossing that slope at that time. I guess.

RIght. This wasn't a day with a tricky snowpack. It wasn't subtle. Anyone with a third grade education could have read the forecast that day. You didn't need a snow safety expert with a master's in meteorology making decisions.

 

[scott43]

People make bad decisions even with great experience and knowledge. Why do people continue their summit attempt on Everest after the cutoff time? Temptation and a poor sense of risk. Or just willful ignorance.

 

[James]

People make bad decisions even with great experience and knowledge. Why do people continue their summit attempt on Everest after the cutoff time? Temptation and a poor sense of risk. Or just willful ignorance.

Plus at that altitude they’re just...dumb. And ridiculously tired. If they’re not 100% committed to a cutoff before they go, I think they enter the Russian Roulette phase.

 

[Rod9301]

The fact that you schedule a backcountry cat or heli trip a long time in advance (and non-refundably) works directly against how you would want to structure things for maximum safety.

Exactly.

Many times guides know there's a weak, faceted layer below the powder, but they have clients that day that booked a long time in advance, send are spending a lot of money.

This kind of risk, deep buried weak layer cannot be mitigated unless you ski 20 degree terrain, and clients don't want that.

You could mitigate wind slabs, but deep instabilities skills not be skied.

 

[jmeb]

I agree with @Noodler insofar as the point of hiring a guide to go off piste in Europe or buying a seat on a cat or heli is to have someone with greater expertise and understanding of that terrain and snowpack assess the risk and make decisions. That doesn't mean that you ignore your own intuition or go blindly. But to put the onus on the client to do indepth analysis or research is not viable. Most will not have the background to properly interpret what they see or read.

As someone who has been that client and one with enough training to have spidey senses -- boy is it darn hard to turn off those thoughts. After the first day with my guide he had to pull me aside to remind me we are in his snowpack, not mine and that I needed to trust him more. Still lost sleep on the last night knowing we we were skiing serious avalanche terrain the following day.

 

[James]

As someone who has been that client and one with enough training to have spidey senses -- boy is it darn hard to turn off those thoughts. After the first day with my guide he had to pull me aside to remind me we are in his snowpack, not mine and that I needed to trust him more. Still lost sleep on the last night knowing we we were skiing serious avalanche terrain the following day.

Europe?

 

[SBrown]

Exactly.

Many times guides know there's a weak, faceted layer below the powder, but they have clients that day that booked a long time in advance, send are spending a lot of money.

This kind of risk, deep buried weak layer cannot be mitigated unless you ski 20 degree terrain, and clients don't want that.

You could mitigate wind slabs, but deep instabilities skills not be skied.

Actually, it sounds like this IS what they did that day ... they only "forgot" once and ended up doing it under a steeper path.

 

[jmeb]

Europe?

Yes. With a guide who lived in Alps for 20 years but was a native to shit CO snowpack.