Our Approach to Backcountry Safety by Chad Brackelsberg
With the dangerous start to the Wasatch winter, our touring group has spent a lot of time talking about what has happened and what we think will happen over the next several weeks. As we discussed this, I thought it would be good to document some of our processes around decision making.
With the first snow each winter,
our touring group starts to get excited for winter. We get out during the early snow so that we
can get a feeling for what that snow is doing.
At this point of the season, we are interested in things like how much
there is, where it is, any faceting that may have started, slides that are
already occurring existing snow structure, any week layers that are present of
are forming, and other factors. This
information becomes very useful as some of the basis for our snowpack
evaluations later in the season. We also
use these early season days to do a lot of beacon drills since it is harder to
spend time doing drills once there is great powder. By the time winter is really here, we feel
comfortable with our gear and understand what the snow against the ground is
doing.
Our group considers ourselves fairly
risk adverse. We all enjoy skiing big,
steep lines, but we are also happy meadow skipping. We will ski tour on most all days, but make
conservative choices of locations based on a variety of information including
·
Other
conditions posted from people who skied the previous day(s) (TGR and Tele Tipsforums, Bob Athey and others)
·
A significant
amount of discussion within our group
Within our group, several of us are
very interested in the snow science factor.
Because of this, we spend a significant amount of time digging pits
and talking about the snow and snow
structure, what has been happening, what we think will happen, and dozens of
other topics that have tendencies of driving people less ‘snow geeky’
crazy. We feel that it is because of
these continual discussions that we are able to make good decisions, stay out
of trouble, and maintain good group dynamics (we are usually all on the same
page since we spend so much time discussing these item).
For the past 3 years, the Utah
Avalanche Center has put on the Utah Snow and Avalanche Workshop (USAW). As part of the UAC Observer Program, we are
able to attend the morning professional session as well as the afternoon public
session. The UAC does a great job of
putting together a full day of workshops bringing together professional
experience, new research, and presentations from accident survivors. This workshop is a great early season
refresher for our group and is a chance for us to learn about some of the
latest snow/avalanche research that is taking place.
Each year, Ian McCammon presents
information from his research (which is based on his analysis of existing
data). Ian typically focuses his
research on looking at creating processes that the ‘average’ backcountry user
can incorporate into their backcountry decision making. Ian has presented to key concepts
1)
Analysis of 5
structural parameters in the snowpack to determine a relationship between these
parameters and human triggered avalanches.
2)
Introduction
of ALPTRUTh and FACETS to analyze Situational
Awareness and Psychological Distractions.
Our group uses both of these
methods as part of our backcountry decision making. In this discussion, we will focus on how we
use ALPTRUTh and FACETS methods as part of our decision making.
ALPTRUTh - Situational Awareness
Avalanches in
last 48 hours
Loading from
new snow, wind, etc
Known
avalanche Path
Terrain Traps
Overall
avalanche Rating
Unstable snow
signs (cracking, whoomphing, etc)
Thawing (warm
snow on top)
Our touring
group has always informally used the ALPTRUTh scale. This winter, we have decided to start
formalizing our use of the scale. We
each have a laminated copy of the ALPTRUTh scale below in our cars and we use
it as part of our discussion as we drive to the trailhead each morning and on
our ski approach. To use the ALPTRUTh scale
in your evaluation (either before you start skiing or during your approach),
you assign 1 point to each of the factors that exist in the area you will be
skiing. Ian’s research has found that ~98%
of accidents had a rating of 3 or higher and ~92% of accidents had a 4 or higher. There was also a
surprisingly high percentage of accidents that had a rating of 5 of
higher. Our group considers any rating
of 3 or higher to be a reason for careful analysis of the decisions we will be
making. The use of ALPTRUTh is just 1 of
your decision criteria you should use to make your decisions.
Notes
·
The ALPTRUTh scale
incorporates what are considered the standard avalanche red flags: recent
avalanches, heavy snowfall, wind loading, cracking, collapsing, and rapid
warming.
·
Ian’s data
used for his study was from 622 recreational avalanche accidents (fatalities
and not) involving 1,180 individuals in the US between 1972 and 2001.
Printable
table we use for ALPTRUTh analysis
FACETS - Psychological Distractions
Familiarity (with terrain, location, etc.)
Acceptance (not wanting to stand out in group, etc.)
Commitment (we
came here to ski this so we have to)
Expert Halo
(not speaking up when feeling other people know more)
Tracks (fresh
line syndrome)
Scarcity (we
may never be able to ski this spot again)
To incorporate Psychological
Distractions into your decision making, use the FACETS acronym. The psychological distractions are more
subjective, but should be used as you are making your decisions to help ensure
your decisions are not being adversely impacted by these distractions. Most people have been in a situation where
they are talking themselves into skiing a particular
line. This is a perfect example of a
psychological distraction. There is
something telling you that you should not ski the line and you are telling
yourself why it is ok. You should pay
attention to make sure that you are not getting impacted by these psychological
distractions while you make decisions.
Self (or group) Analysis of Decision Making
You can use
the ALPTRUTh and FACETS Scale together to help determine patterns that you (or
your group) may have in their decision making.
To perform this analysis, look at 5 or more days (the more the better)
that you skied and felt things were not perfect (bad decisions, close calls, group
dynamic issues, etc.). For each day, add
up your ALPTRUTh score and plot that with a dot next to each of the FACETS
components that existed. Do this for
each of your days and you will create a scatter plot. Most people (groups) will start to see a
pattern over time. This pattern makes
you aware of which psychological distractions that you are most influenced by.
Printable
table we use for ALPTRUTh/FACETS graph
References
The Role of Training in
Recreational Avalanche Accidents in the United States
Ian McCammon
Proceedings of the International
Snow Science Workshop,
October 2–6, 2000, Big Sky,
Montana, pp. 37 – 45.
Evidence of heuristic traps in
recreational avalanche accidents
Ian McCammon
Presented at the International
Snow Science Workshop,
Penticton,
British Columbia, Sept. 30 – Oct 4, 2002.
Heuristic Traps in Recreational
Avalanche Accidents: Evidence and Implications
Ian McCammon
Avalanche News, No. 68, Spring 2004
A
Field Method For Identifying Structural Weaknesses in
the Snowpack
Ian
McCammon and Jurg Schweizer
Presented at the International
Snow Science Workshop,
Penticton,
British Columbia, Sept. 30 – Oct 4, 2002.
Use discount code MattHartCE to get 10% off SFH Omega 3 Oil
0 comments:
Post a Comment