# B.C. avalanche kills 2 skiers



## atr3yu (Feb 15, 2012)

B.C. avalanche kills 2 skiers - British Columbia - CBC News

This is not even an hour away from my house. Pretty scary stuff to be honest.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

Yeah I saw that on 660 news last night. Sounds like heli-skiing with 1 guide and 3-4 other people. The guide and one person were able to dig themselves out, the other two didn't make it. If the RCMP supplied photo is of the actual area, it's scarey to look at! I can see how it'd look like a perfect slope but there's clearly two distinct levels in the snow.

This reminds me of the Craig Kelly story. The guy was a very advanced backcountry rider with Avalanche training all over the place, but died in an avalanche anyway. I'd love to hit the backcountry one day but I'm starting to think the resorts with constant bombing have to be a lot safer (I know it's still possible to have an avalanche in bounds, but far less likely methinks).

Scarey shit that it happened so close to you too!


----------



## mjd (Mar 13, 2009)

that's horrible. i really feel for these ppl. 

can't help but think one reason for the high incident rate with professionals is that they are out there more than anyone else. i hope it's not $$ driving them to take folks into areas that are avy-prone. i'd like to see a study on that.


----------



## legallyillegal (Oct 6, 2008)

mjd said:


> that's horrible. i really feel for these ppl.
> 
> can't help but think one reason for the high incident rate with professionals is that they are out there more than anyone else. i hope it's not $$ driving them to take folks into areas that are avy-prone. i'd like to see a study on that.


shit happens


want to stay safe? stay home and hope a jet engine doesn't fall on you in your sleep


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

legallyillegal said:


> shit happens
> 
> want to stay safe? stay home and hope a jet engine doesn't fall on you in your sleep


Still wouldn't want to die snowboarding... You'd think paying $1500+ a day for cat/heli boarding they'd have enough resources to virtually eliminate the chances of being caught in an avalanche.

I think I get what MJD is saying. Not sure what a resort does or says to people that have booked a week of backcountry, when said backcountry is under an extreme avalanche warning. I'd be bummed if a trip got cancelled, but if I got a full refund I could at least use the time to hit a nearby resort. There was really good boarding this week all over South East BC...

That's gotta be brutal for the guide though. The safety of the people is almost 100% on his shoulders when it comes to avalanche awareness.


----------



## 2hipp4u (Dec 24, 2010)

Everything you do in life is a calculated risk, I would rather die on a mountain doing what I love then getting run over by a fucktard drunk driver.


----------



## NightRider2613 (Feb 28, 2012)

2hipp4u said:


> Everything you do in life is a calculated risk, I would rather die on a mountain doing what I love then getting run over by a fucktard drunk driver.


Agreed 100%. If I went out riding some crazy backcountry line I would be a hell of a lot happier than being an old fuck sitting in a hospital somewhere wasting away my last days eating applesauce out of a straw. That said though, I sure as hell wouldn't want to go picking a fight with an avy-prone mountain, but hey, even in everyday riding shit happens, even inbounds.


----------



## ThunderChunky (Oct 1, 2011)

How can this happen with a guide. I know avies can strike anyone, anytime. But it seems like this still shouldn't have happened. I know next to nothing about the BC though so.....:dunno:...


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

2hipp4u said:


> Everything you do in life is a calculated risk, I would rather die on a mountain doing what I love then getting run over by a fucktard drunk driver.


Yeah but I'd rather die on a mountain when I'm 70 and lived my life. I'm just imagining being 30 and riding resorts my whole life. I finally decide to splurge and bend over to pay the $1500+ for some real backcountry heli-cat stuff, and now I die for it? Fuck that!

These deaths wouldn't stop me from backcountry boarding, but they would make me seriously question continuing on a trip despite avalanche warnings for pretty much the whole province... There's calculated risk and then there's being stupid. Not sure which catagory this situation falls under.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

ThunderChunky said:


> How can this happen with a guide. I know avies can strike anyone, anytime. But it seems like this still shouldn't have happened. I know next to nothing about the BC though so.....:dunno:...


Read this Craig Kelly (snowboarder) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as I can remember, the guy was already an american avy instructor, and was studying to become a canadian instructor. He basically pioneered freeriding. He was part owner of the cat boarding centre near Fernie, BC...

Basically if anybody should have been aware, it would be him. But he died.

It's like going ice fishing in the spring after they tell you to take the huts off cause the ice is too thin. You can bring a guide with you but you might still fall through the ice.


----------



## Sick-Pow (May 5, 2008)

ThunderChunky said:


> How can this happen with a guide. I know avies can strike anyone, anytime. But it seems like this still shouldn't have happened. I know next to nothing about the BC though so.....:dunno:...


Your first thought is actually one of the first traps and mistakes of being in the back country. Heuristic traps, as in, the guide's common sense is not the final common sense. It is one part of the decision making process. You cannot solely rely on one person for guidance. If you go out with a guide like that, you are fucked.

No guide is above the mountain and the snow. No one, nor an expert has ALL the answers, nor can be right all the time. 

As Jeremy Jones says, in the backcountry " no one is above the law".

Shit happens that no one can predict. 

If someone goes out riding in the BC and thinks they will find 100% certainty, stick to ping pong in the safety of your home.


----------



## ThunderChunky (Oct 1, 2011)

Ya, I know it is unpredictable and the knowledge and skills won't go as far as chance and luck. But I'm not saying that the guide should have stopped this, I'm saying that if this was a backcountry thing set up by a company then it shouldn't have happened if the risks was high. The company should've assessed the situation and weighed the risks. Then if it was too much, cancel the trip. What I'm wondering is this just one of those freak accidents, or was the situation to risky to ride and it was pushed anyway. 

I'm by no means a backcountry guy, just thought that if a company is in charge of your trip they would assess the risks a little more heavily, but I'm not saying that's what happened. Just saying if that is what happened.


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

Condolences to the family. But it happens...infact folks pay big $ to take calculated risk. On my day of death (if could be determined) would gladly pay $1500 for a heli day...than sitting at home and calling an ambulance to go in a hospital and dying there...which would cost a whole lot more.

Another way to look at it: Riding inbounds or bc...how many times have you should or could have died or mamed yourself and didn't. I am quite frankly amazed everyday that I haven't been carried off the hill in a bucket...there have been several events that I should have been. I guess if you're going to die...you might as well be enjoying yourself or helping others to enjoy themselves.

To add riding at a hill that has significant avy/bc danger, has very easy bc access and in the past few years the folks doing the bc stuff has exploded...it is wickedly secductive...worse than sex or drugs. Evidenced from this past Wed., 20-30 minute hike from the lift...look at the lines.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

ThunderChunky said:


> Ya, I know it is unpredictable and the knowledge and skills won't go as far as chance and luck. But I'm not saying that the guide should have stopped this, I'm saying that if this was a backcountry thing set up by a company then it shouldn't have happened if the risks was high. The company should've assessed the situation and weighed the risks. Then if it was too much, cancel the trip. What I'm wondering is this just one of those freak accidents, or was the situation to risky to ride and it was pushed anyway.


Yeah this is my point too. I keep hearing about avalanche warnings for the Alberta/BC border area, and then a few days later somebody dies. I don't know if the Nelson, BC area was under a warning at the time...


----------



## Sick-Pow (May 5, 2008)

ThunderChunky said:


> Ya, I know it is unpredictable and the knowledge and skills won't go as far as chance and luck. But I'm not saying that the guide should have stopped this, I'm saying that if this was a backcountry thing set up by a company then it shouldn't have happened if the risks was high. The company should've assessed the situation and weighed the risks. Then if it was too much, cancel the trip. What I'm wondering is this just one of those freak accidents, or was the situation to risky to ride and it was pushed anyway.
> 
> I'm by no means a backcountry guy, just thought that if a company is in charge of your trip they would assess the risks a little more heavily, but I'm not saying that's what happened. Just saying if that is what happened.


Yep, they measured the risk, and they either 
a. missed something

b. got everything right, but chance caught up with them.

which equals nothing you mentioned about "Should" or "expert" or "company". If you choose to play with mother nature, you assume the risks. 

What is more important, is making sure you know how to feel your own instinct, know how to pull the plug on a perfect day of pow, and remember that feeling of NOT HITTING THAT RIDGE of it does not feel right.

Jeremy Jones said they are turned back 50% of the time.

Imagine, 50% of your days on the hill, and the choices you make you cannot hit them. It is a big change from the blind security of "the company or expert will protect me".


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

Sick-Pow said:


> b. got everything right, but chance caught up with them.


One of my pet peeves is that people don't understand statistics. "Low probability" doesn't mean "won't happen". A one percent chance means that one time out of 100, it probably WILL happen. So unless what you're doing is 100% safe, accept that sometimes things will go south.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

Donutz said:


> One of my pet peeves is that people don't understand statistics. "Low probability" doesn't mean "won't happen". A one percent chance means that one time out of 100, it probably WILL happen. So unless what you're doing is 100% safe, accept that sometimes things will go south.


Yeah I hear ya. I'm going to go back to my ice analogy. Mainly because ice conditions and snow pack conditions are weather dependant, and unpredictable, but can be checked with tools, knowledge, etc.

Every year in Ontario people head out on Lake Simcoe with their fishing huts and sleds. They have a good time all winter long, and when the spring thaw happens the warnings go out that the ice is unsafe. Stay off! But every year people fall through and drown.

Yes the ice isn't 100% safe in the middle of January, there's always the chance that you'll stand on a weak spot, a crack, or fall though somebody's hole or something. But that seems like a reasonable chance to take.

It just seems like most avalanche deaths occur during an avalanche warning period. :dunno:


----------



## ThunderChunky (Oct 1, 2011)

Donutz said:


> One of my pet peeves is that people don't understand statistics. "Low probability" doesn't mean "won't happen". A one percent chance means that one time out of 100, it probably WILL happen. So unless what you're doing is 100% safe, accept that sometimes things will go south.


I agree. That's what I'm wondering. Did they

a. Miss something

b. Something went wrong and nothing can be done


I'm just wondering which it is. I'm mot saying the guides are going to protect you either. I'm just saying that if A. is what happened then the guide shouldn't have missed something. Which I get mistakes happen, just saying that in that situation gotta be real careful and do your best to make sure you don't miss something.


----------



## ShredLife (Feb 6, 2010)

For a bunch of people with no backcountry experience, avy awareness training, or real information about what actually happened there sure is a lot of supposition and conclusion-jumping in this thread.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

ShredLife said:


> For a bunch of people with no backcountry experience, avy awareness training, or real information about what actually happened there sure is a lot of supposition and conclusion-jumping in this thread.


Okay what are your thoughts? I think we're just having a healthy discussion in here, not sure if anybody's reached any "conclusions" yet...


----------



## Sick-Pow (May 5, 2008)

poutanen said:


> Okay what are your thoughts? I think we're just having a healthy discussion in here, not sure if anybody's reached any "conclusions" yet...


These discussion are hard. No one likes to think about these things, after they happen.

The truth is NO ONE IS TO BLAME. Things happen, we have all been in situations we should not have, and shit happens. 

It seemed the wrong questions were being asked, trying to assign blame to the "GUIDE" or "company", as if they hold fault. Avalanche's happen. There is not "right or wrong", there is only "choose one thing over another", because of information, or even in the extreme example of the person who never checks snow history conditions, slope angle, or ignores obvious visible signs. All pure chance with different approaches and reactions/actions.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

Sick-Pow said:


> These discussion are hard. No one likes to think about these things, after they happen.
> 
> The truth is NO ONE IS TO BLAME. Things happen, we have all been in situations we should not have, and shit happens.
> 
> It seemed the wrong questions were being asked, trying to assign blame to the "GUIDE" or "company", as if they hold fault. Avalanche's happen. There is not "right or wrong", there is only "choose one thing over another", because of information, or even in the extreme example of the person who never checks snow history conditions, slope angle, or ignores obvious visible signs. All pure chance with different approaches and reactions/actions.


I think it's the inner safety jerk coming out in me asking all the questions. At work I'm a safety guy, and we're always speculating about why things happen. The current theory is that everything is preventable and there is no such thing as an "accident" although the real world certainly doesn't seem to agree with that theory.

In the early 90's we had the stupid worker theory, where they basically blamed all accidents on a workers poor behavior. After that there was a period where it was all managements "fault" (although we don't actually find fault or blame in safety, we look for immediate causes and basic causes).

So looking at this incident here: the immediate cause that somebody was buried in an avalanche was that they were snowboarding where an avalanche happened. The basic or root cause of that is where it gets complex. Again there are multiple causation theories which basically say that no one specific event or person caused the accident or allowed it to happen, but several things contributed.

1) In this case I would say (potentially) proceeding into the backcountry under an avalanche warning could have been a basic cause (again, I'm not 100% sure if the area they were in was under a warning)

2) The guide may have made a mistake when assessing the conditions, may have not assessed the right area, number of areas, etc.

3) The group may have strayed away from the guide, or taken a wrong turn

I guess what I have trouble accepting is that this kind of this "just happens". Bastard children just happen, getting killed in an avalanche doesn't just happen. I don't want to promote assigning blame, but I think it's healthy to debate the possible basic causes of an incident to see if there's a way of preventing it from happening in the future.


----------



## Sick-Pow (May 5, 2008)

Cool dude^^^^ healthy debate is good...I agree.

I like too think in "what ifs" too, but in avalanche terrain, there is no law of truth, or blame, or ay of that, there is only the one law, that the only way to be 100% , is to NOT be in the BC at all.

Once I can accept that fact, then I can be clear minded to make the best decisions I can. If others are with me with the same mind set, then we can all prepare the best we can with that knowledge in mind.

One of the worst accidents this year happened with a huge group of pro skiers/ pro skier judges, expert Backcountry slayers of pow, up in WA. Armchair quarterbacking is tempting, but makes no sense no matter the end conclusion of blame. 

If you really think about what Jeremy Jones says when he says "no one is above the law", it makes great sense.


----------



## ShredLife (Feb 6, 2010)

Nowhere in that article did it say that it was a snowboarder. Although statistically likely, nowhere did it say that they triggered it. Avalanches can occur naturally.
That article gives virtually no information at all on what actually happened. I'm not absolving the guide of responsibility, but the fact is that we don't know what happened here. 

Nowhere does it say anything about an avalanche warning, and even then there is plenty of ways to find things that are safe to ride even in the periods of the highest avy danger.

If you want to be perfectly safe from avalanches then don't go into uncontrolled terrain period. Even then you still aren't perfectly safe. 

Yes the guide is responsible for the group's safety, but he could have made what all the signs say are right decisions and still get caught up. Maybe he didn't - but we don't have the story here.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

Sick-Pow said:


> Cool dude^^^^ healthy debate is good...I agree.
> 
> I like too think in "what ifs" too, but in avalanche terrain, there is no law of truth, or blame, or any of that, there is only the one law, that the only way to be 100% , is to NOT be in the BC at all.


Yeah I think the same way during the summer when Kayak season is going on. If I roll and knock myself out upside down, I better hope there's someone on the rivers edge to save me! But I still do it. I think I know what you're saying, there's a certain point where you say to yourself that you've taken all the necessary steps to comfortably give it a go, and if your number still comes up, so be it?!?

That said, when they put out river warnings due to the spring flood, I'm going to stay off the river! 

Cheers,
Aaron


----------



## Sick-Pow (May 5, 2008)

poutanen said:


> Yeah I think the same way during the summer when Kayak season is going on. If I roll and knock myself out upside down, I better hope there's someone on the rivers edge to save me! But I still do it.
> 
> I think I know what you're saying, there's a certain point where you say to yourself that you've taken all the necessary steps to comfortably give it a go, and if your number still comes up, so be it?!?
> 
> ...


_Caution is good in any form of water, being air breathing anima_ls. Glad to hear you are aware. We have years of amazing water levels here in CO.

The underlined could be a very dangerous mentality for your partners... because you become complacent with a "finality". I would personally confront you with that summary. Nothing personal of course. Strategy to stay alive is more important than anything else, is my summary and objective. If I know there might be the slightest issue with an area I am not familiar with, I will be more cautious, even if all the signs are showing "green light". An example of strategy being more important than just letting it go, even though I "know" or feel certain about a theory (green light). The opposite is also true, like; I am super familiar with an area, and let it go with a party run with 3 dudes....not good for some peoples stomach's or comfort level. Finding partners can be hard. Dogs are good.


I guess I take it much further to stay alive. I have a family, and I personally will use more instinct and tools ( airbag, Avalung) seem no brainers to me. Personal limits are important to understand, and group dynamics are always changing.

Inherant risk is big in many endeavors....just a job choice, or life choice comes with more risk than being buried by snow.


Tough subject, regardless skier or boarder. Glad to see civility prevailing.

rock on, 
Matt in Colorado


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

More on the subject...

Fourth special avalanche warning - 660News


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

There is a concept called "free will" and thus you cannot control human behavior. Sure you can do factor analysis, statistical analysis, probability, risk assessments and all sorts of fancy shit...but predicting human behavior on any one/single event/decision is not possible.


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

Also brings up the ethical question of what extent society has the right to dictate an individual's behaviour, even potentially self-destructive behaviour. That's the type of debate you could go around and around on forever and never reach a consensus.


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

Donutz said:


> Also brings up the ethical question of what extent society has the right to dictate an individual's behaviour, even potentially self-destructive behaviour. That's the type of debate you could go around and around on forever and never reach a consensus.



yup, there are mental health commitment laws, drunk driving laws, gun laws, helmet laws,...we need bc and avalanche laws that only avalanches can take out douchebags :laugh:


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Sick-Pow said:


> These discussion are hard. No one likes to think about these things, after they happen.
> 
> The truth is NO ONE IS TO BLAME. Things happen, we have all been in situations we should not have, and shit happens.
> 
> It seemed the wrong questions were being asked, trying to assign blame to the "GUIDE" or "company", as if they hold fault. Avalanche's happen. There is not "right or wrong", there is only "choose one thing over another", because of information, or even in the extreme example of the person who never checks snow history conditions, slope angle, or ignores obvious visible signs. All pure chance with different approaches and reactions/actions.


I sort of disagree with this statement. Every recreational avalanche accident I have seen had it's warning signs. Obvious or not so obvious. There has yet to be a final report that I have read that didn't include the clues that were missed. Including the Craig Kelly accident. That said, most of the guiding accidents, were very small clues that were fairly easy to miss. Do I think they should be held accountable for the accident? Only if they were blatantly reckless with their decision making. Otherwise these accidents should be analyzed to the nth degree to point out dangers that were missed so that others may avoid that same mistake when they come across it. 

These accidents should remind everyone that avalanches just don't care if you are a beginner or avalanche god. They have taken out guides, experienced backcountry vets, pros, n00bs, and people within ski area boundaries this season. If you are going out on a hill in the west you are in avalanche terrain. Regardless if it is controlled by ski patrol or not.


----------



## Sick-Pow (May 5, 2008)

killclimbz said:


> I sort of disagree with this statement. Every recreational avalanche accident I have seen had it's warning signs. Obvious or not so obvious. There has yet to be a final report that I have read that didn't include the clues that were missed. Including the Craig Kelly accident. That said, most of the guiding accidents, were very small clues that were fairly easy to miss. Do I think they should be held accountable for the accident? Only if they were blatantly reckless with their decision making. Otherwise these accidents should be analyzed to the nth degree to point out dangers that were missed so that others may avoid that same mistake when they come across it.
> 
> These accidents should remind everyone that avalanches just don't care if you are a beginner or avalanche god. They have taken out guides, experienced backcountry vets, pros, n00bs, and people within ski area boundaries this season. If you are going out on a hill in the west you are in avalanche terrain. Regardless if it is controlled by ski patrol or not.


Sure they should be analyzed, but they rarely do outside only showing that some signs were missed, or the risks were too high etc. Avalanche reports skim the surface many times.

Bottom line is IMO we take chance being in the BC, and there is no way to just assign blatant blame to one party because they were "in charge", like blaming patrol, or the guide, or a company. This seemed to be happening in this thread.

No one is above the law.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

And I agree with that. I also think that most avalanche centers do a pretty good job of recording the facts. Almost all of CAIC's reports have details as to what went wrong. A few reports don't have a lot of info, mostly because there was no one else around except the victim. Sometimes the surviving members of the party are unwilling to talk which leaves a report lacking information. Still, almost every season I pick up a pearl of good information to be wary of from a report about someone other group's tragedy. 

I don't know what this heli ski operation was doing so I am not passing judgement either way.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

killclimbz said:


> Otherwise these accidents should be analyzed to the nth degree to point out dangers that were missed so that others may avoid that same mistake when they come across it.


Yeah this is sort of my point to. Hell I spend my day job analyzing work accidents and near misses to the Nth degree to help prevent the same thing from happening again, or worse. The big difference is that we can be fined if we don't analyze a work accident, while some people are suggesting that it's going too far to analyze an avalanche death.

Yes mother nature can catch up with you, but I think it's healthy to try to learn from the unfortunate mistakes of others. And yes, dying in an avalanche is an unfortunate mistake because there's always the option to NOT go at all. Again, not trying to blame any one person or party, just saying it doesn't hurt to armchair analyze these incidents.


----------



## Intheshit (Jan 8, 2012)

i know i get pretty mad when someone is SUPPOSED to be watching my back and I get injured because of it, or when some dumbass goes out of his way to injure me.

but then again, were I anywhere near a big mountain I would be well aware that it was a life and death situation and that it could easily happen and that no one was going to save me from my fate, should an accident happen.

i feel for the deceased , this type of shit is damaging to those who survive as well. nobody @ fault.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

Some more relevant news...

Search resumes for possible victims following Panorama slide - 660News

The article's a little unclear but it sounds like they were out of bounds at Panorama.


----------



## ThunderChunky (Oct 1, 2011)

So.....does anyone know what actually happened?


----------



## legallyillegal (Oct 6, 2008)

ThunderChunky said:


> So.....does anyone know what actually happened?


heliskiers waiting with their guide to be picked up when a slide is released above them

the woman had won the trip through a contest


----------



## ThunderChunky (Oct 1, 2011)

How did it release? Not triggered immediately by them then, right?


----------



## Casual (Feb 9, 2011)

poutanen said:


> Some more relevant news...
> 
> Search resumes for possible victims following Panorama slide - 660News
> 
> The article's a little unclear but it sounds like they were out of bounds at Panorama.


This is crazy - at 7 AM that morning I was deciding whether I wanted to ride panorama for a second day. My GF didn't want to so I was going to go ride the Taynton bowl and upper mountain, since there was only 2cm of snow I decided not to go and I just went and rode park at Fairmont's crappy little hill. 

All the reports say they were out of bounds, so I have to imagine they kept hiking around the bowl past the OB line to get some fresh lines, stupid move! Nonetheless its kinda crazy that I was just about in that same bowl. The difference is... I would have stayed in bounds.


----------



## nscullion001 (Dec 26, 2010)

I have a friend who is working in Panorama this winter, he was riding the exact same area 40 minutes before this happened, emailed me today pretty shaken up and counting his blessings he wasnt caught up in it.

It happened in an out of bounds area called Jesse's monster which is beside the Taynton Bowl.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

Casual said:


> All the reports say they were out of bounds, so I have to imagine they kept hiking around the bowl past the OB line to get some fresh lines, stupid move! Nonetheless its kinda crazy that I was just about in that same bowl. The difference is... I would have stayed in bounds.


Yeah this just makes me want to obey the signs even more! I saw the aftermath of a large avalanche in the Cedar bowl in Fernie, and I'm glad that they control things as well as they do. It was right in the middle of one of my favourite lines!


----------

