Avalanche on Mount Washington

snowmonster said:

I highlighted the last sentence. Perhaps, because I'm a solo backountry traveler, I have a heightened sense of caution. Whenever there's an avalanche warning from the MWAC, I back off. Live to ski another day.

Click to expand...

There's an avalanche bulletin issued every day. The ratings vary, and they can be different from gully to gully, depending on weather patters and aspect. People climb based on their own experience level, the professional avy forecast, and their individual assessment based on the precise location of their climb. I have a great deal of respect for the snow rangers on Mt Washington and their forecasts, but many people are willing to accept the risks inherent in climbing with a forecast rating higher than "Low".

just to add David... There could be differences on one gully as well..
It's ALWAYS good to talk to the Rangers before heading up if possible..

dmc said:

just to add David... There could be differences on one gully as well..
It's ALWAYS good to talk to the Rangers before heading up if possible..

Click to expand...

That is sometimes the issue. I have been up there and have left the Harvard Cabin before it is posted for the day. Although the care taker usually has some good beta as well.

If people only went in the bc when avi danger was low, BC skiing would hardly exist.

Just because something is marked considerable, or high, doesnt mean that travel cant be done safely in certain areas.

So yeah, its more than just oh its considerable those guys = idiots.

Smellytele said:

That is sometimes the issue. I have been up there and have left the Harvard Cabin before it is posted for the day. Although the care taker usually has some good beta as well.

Click to expand...

I saw the top of lower snowfields slide on a low avi day...

AdironRider said:

Just because something is marked considerable, or high, doesnt mean that travel cant be done safely in certain areas.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Avalanche danger is always present. When it is low, any idiot can go ski/climb in relatively low danger. When it is high, you should be extra cautious, be able to assess snow stability on site, understand how the snow pack might evolve as a function of wind and sun, and, even more importantly, have the wisdom to turn back and wait another day if needs be.

No matter how much preparation or training they had, they were taking a significant risk by attempting to summit yesterday.

First, the wind was forecast in the 60-80 mph range. (I think it actually hit 90's though) Going topside in that kind of wind, especially with snow aloft is a risk. I'm not saying people can't/shouldn't risk it... but you can't deny it is a significant risk factor.

Second, they must have completely ignored the Avy Bulletin for that day to attempt a climb Central Gully in Huntington late in the day. The bulletin made clear that the avy danger was going to build during the day due to the high winds. The bulletin also made a point of explaining that long sliding falls were likely. They chose to climb through an area that was specifically identified as having a "high end of" moderate rating for avalanche and significant risk for a long sliding falls. That was a significant risk.

Yes, these folks were trained. Yes, they were prepared. But they ignored and/or chose to accept some serious risks in challenging the conditions on the mountain that day. Putting aside the entirely honorable motivation for the climb, was it a good idea?

Should people be charged when they are trained and prepared but ignore warnings or assume serious risk of requiring a rescue?

For the record, I'm against charging for rescues for other reasons, but I think this example illustrates how charging for rescues can unintentionally punish those who are prepared/trained and choose to challenge the limits of what is possible. Or at least how subjective it can be to determine who is "legitimately" pushing boundries in the eyes of authorities and who is an idiot.

noreasterbackcountry said:

For the record, I'm against charging for rescues for other reasons, but I think this example illustrates how charging for rescues can unintentionally punish those who are prepared/trained and choose to challenge the limits of what is possible. Or at least how subjective it can be to determine who is "legitimately" pushing boundries in the eyes of authorities and who is an idiot.

Click to expand...

I, again, don't think that NH authorities will charge these guys. They assess fees on a case-by-case basis and this does not fit into the category of folks that they wish to deter from going out in the first place.

thetrailboss said:

this does not fit into the category of folks that they wish to deter from going out in the first place.

Click to expand...

They seemingly ignored the avalanche bulletin and put themselves (and rescuers) at high risk. Why wouldn't they want to deter folks from climbing Mt. Washington in 90mph winds in a ravine with moderate (and climbing through the day) avalanche danger? Some might argue that is precisely the type of poor judgment the fine is meant to deter.

Moderate danger for guys this experienced is not out of the ordinary. To say that moderate with increasing danger means an absolute no go, strikes me as armchair QBing knowing the eventual outcome.

No doubt winds play a factor, but there are a lot of different facing aspects in both those ravines. Winds can change direction, loads can shift, etc.

AdironRider said:

Moderate danger for guys this experienced is not out of the ordinary. To say that moderate with increasing danger means an absolute no go, strikes me as armchair QBing knowing the eventual outcome.

No doubt winds play a factor, but there are a lot of different facing aspects in both those ravines. Winds can change direction, loads can shift, etc.

Click to expand...

+ 1

NH F&G will not charge this group because they had nothing to do with the rescue. The group was brought out by the Forest Service snow rangers on the cat with assistance by volunteers.

noreasterbackcountry said:

No matter how much preparation or training they had, they were taking a significant risk by attempting to summit yesterday.

First, the wind was forecast in the 60-80 mph range. (I think it actually hit 90's though) Going topside in that kind of wind, especially with snow aloft is a risk. I'm not saying people can't/shouldn't risk it... but you can't deny it is a significant risk factor.

Second, they must have completely ignored the Avy Bulletin for that day to attempt a climb Central Gully in Huntington late in the day. The bulletin made clear that the avy danger was going to build during the day due to the high winds. The bulletin also made a point of explaining that long sliding falls were likely. They chose to climb through an area that was specifically identified as having a "high end of" moderate rating for avalanche and significant risk for a long sliding falls. That was a significant risk.

Yes, these folks were trained. Yes, they were prepared. But they ignored and/or chose to accept some serious risks in challenging the conditions on the mountain that day. Putting aside the entirely honorable motivation for the climb, was it a good idea?

Should people be charged when they are trained and prepared but ignore warnings or assume serious risk of requiring a rescue?

For the record, I'm against charging for rescues for other reasons, but I think this example illustrates how charging for rescues can unintentionally punish those who are prepared/trained and choose to challenge the limits of what is possible. Or at least how subjective it can be to determine who is "legitimately" pushing boundries in the eyes of authorities and who is an idiot.

Click to expand...

says BC ski blog guy.

heuristics are a funny thing.

hopefully no one is dumb enough to drive in a snow storm. some pretty serious consequences could be lurking.

I agree. Calling this team out is Monday Morning QB'ing. We weren't there, we don't know what type of assessments they made, the risk was moderate not high or extreme. Thousands of people across the world go into terrain with moderate avalanche warnings every single day. They make their decisions. If we set the bar there for unacceptable risk then the recreation industry might as well stop selling avalanche gear and teaching courses on safe travel in avalanche terrain.

Everyone has different risk tolerances. And lest we forget about the mental factor that every single one of us is susceptible to: it becomes progressively more difficult from a mental perspective to turn around once we are close to achieving a goal even when warning signs are present. I don't think the argument can be made that these teams were not prepared. Did they use poor decision making? Seems so given the results. Is it excessive risk or negligent? No more than thousands of other people that make a "go" decision in the same conditions but don't suffer consequences and enjoy incident free recreation.

For DMC and Rivercoil.Curious why T4T never mentions these incidents on the website.I recall a few incidents last year where I looked there for more info and nothing was posted.Is this the protocol for T4T?

There are two threads on T4T about the avy:
http://www.timefortuckerman.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15212
http://www.timefortuckerman.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15215

Avy incidents and rescues are pretty common discussion points on T4T.

I don't think it is "Monday morning quarterbacking" to point out when there are dangers that were significant and easily recognizable and those dangers went largely ignored and led to the end result.

Not all signs that tell you not to do something are made of paper and wood.

The folks here seem to think the risks weren't all that apparent, or at least are no more significant than those regularly managed by thousands of climbers. The folks over at T4T seem to think that the risks were pretty apparent and that nobody should have been taking a slow group that size through that ravine on that day.

The fact that the consensus on T4T seems largely at odds with the comments here just underlines my point about the subjective nature of the determination at to whether such a trip is a noble challenge of the possible or simply a foolhearty and irresponsible mistake. There are reasonable and thoughtful people here who have expressed opinions entirely at odds with some folks I also find pretty reasonable and thoughtful over there.

noreasterbackcountry said:

I don't think it is "Monday morning quarterbacking" to point out when there are dangers that were significant and easily recognizable and those dangers went largely ignored and led to the end result.

Not all signs that tell you not to do something are made of paper and wood.

The folks here seem to think the risks weren't all that apparent, or at least are no more significant than those regularly managed by thousands of climbers. The folks over at T4T seem to think that the risks were pretty apparent and that nobody should have been taking a slow group that size through that ravine on that day.

The fact that the consensus on T4T seems largely at odds with the comments here just underlines my point about the subjective nature of the determination at to whether such a trip is a noble challenge of the possible or simply a foolhearty and irresponsible mistake. There are reasonable and thoughtful people here who have expressed opinions entirely at odds with some folks I also find pretty reasonable and thoughtful over there.

Click to expand...

So what did you learn that has really changed the way you go assessing your perception of your activities? I would gather not much since you have reached the above conclusions.

I fully understand the post hoc assessment and analysis. But a majority of the time it just inflates your/mine/human heuristics.

Personally, I find 20/20 hindsight vision about other people 1 step from useless. And I wonder if it doesn't create more trouble than its worth. Everyone sits around nodding how they wouldn't have done this or that, how they would never be so compromised, would never ignore warning signs, etc.

more time spent focusing on others and less time prescribing the same scrutiny to our own processes.

I learned what heuristics means. :grin:

But seriously, I think that incident reports can be like you described: self-congratulatory exercises, like rubber necking on the highway- when looked at superficially "See what happens when you climb Mt. Washington in winter"

I think the more useful exercise comes with using the incident reports along with self-reflection: looking at what identifiable dangers were avoidable, and what, in your own experience, you can change to avoid or be more conscious of those dangers.

For example, in my own personal reflection I would take away:

1. Be more conscious of climbing above/below other climbers
2. Turn-around time set by the professionals up there is 2:30... Keep that in mind.
3. Train more with the avy gear
4. Be sure to read the avy forecasts when I know I'm going up there

5. And most importantly: be ready to say no when the signs are telling you no.

That last one is probably the most important.

Maybe you're right though. Maybe in the end we all end up ignoring the signs at one point or another and jump all over incidents like this to say: "Hey I never would have done that!" to make ourselves feel safer.

noreasterbackcountry said:

And most importantly: be ready to say no when the signs are telling you no.

Click to expand...

not exactly a strong point for the goal oriented individuals who tend to take up extreme situations or have had experiences that continue to support their decision processes.

we are all telling ourselves good stories. it might be good practice to tell them from a variety of perspectives.