# Avalanche on Mount Washington



## thetrailboss (Jan 18, 2013)

The Mount Washington Observatory is reporting that there was an avalanche today in Huntington Ravine:



> We understand that there has been an avalanche in Huntington Ravine, and that the US Forest Service Snow Rangers have been deployed to assess the area. Mount Washington Observatory has not been called upon in any capacity, so unfortunately we are unable to provide any further information at this time. We join with the rest of the White Mountains community in wishing our best to all those involved.




WCAX is reporting 3 injured and that the avalanche was in Tuckerman Ravine:

http://www.wcax.com/story/20619615/3-people-injured-in-avalanche-on-mt-washington

WMTW did  not have much more info:

http://www.wmtw.com/weather/Avalanc...urt/-/8793538/18180006/-/j1ir22z/-/index.html

WMUR said the same:

http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/Se...ne/-/9857858/18179664/-/116tmrkz/-/index.html


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jan 18, 2013)

Same mixed news here this morning.News 9 wasn't sure if the avi was in Tucks or Huntington.Sounds like Huntington though as they stayed overnight in the Harvard cabin which is located at the bottom of the ravine.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 18, 2013)

Most of the climbing this time of year is done in Huntington. With the recent thaw and freeze then a few inches of snow on top (some may have blown in as well) it makes for some good avy conditions.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 18, 2013)

Huntington ravine being steep as f*ck also makes for some good avy conditions.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 18, 2013)

bdfreetuna said:


> Huntington ravine being steep as f*ck also makes for some good avy conditions.



Surprisingly, the most avi prone slopes are in the low to mid 30 degree range. I would think Huntington is steeper than that. 

Obviously not immune to them, but I remember that little factoid being the most suprising element of my avi courses.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 18, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> Surprisingly, the most avi prone slopes are in the low to mid 30 degree range. I would think Huntington is steeper than that.
> 
> Obviously not immune to them, but I remember that little factoid being the most suprising element of my avi courses.



Correct because the snow can build up on it more than when it is steep. I was actually in one in Huntington on the climb named Odell's while climbing. I was carried down about 600-800 feet. I was lucky to have been able to swim and stay on top only being buried about 3 or 4 inches under and was able to pop right out once it stopped about 100 feet above the treeline. I hit a few things on the way down and got airborne a few times but was unhurt. My climbing partner had a nasty deep bruise on his lower leg that did not fade away for about 8 months.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 18, 2013)

Smellytele said:


> Correct because the snow can build up on it more than when it is steep. I was actually in one in Huntington on the climb named Odell's while climbing. I was carried down about 600-800 feet. I was lucky to have been able to swim and stay on top only being buried about 3 or 4 inches under and was able to pop right out once it stopped about 100 feet above the treeline. I hit a few things on the way down and got airborne a few times but was unhurt. My climbing partner had a nasty deep bruise on his lower leg that did not fade away for about 8 months.



You are correct.  Very steep slopes don't get the snow loading needed for bigger slides.  

You got lucky.  How did it happen ?  I would guess it was self-triggered ?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 18, 2013)

Sad to hear that the party involved was in fact the Ascents of Honor crew:

http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/Se...ton/-/9857858/18179664/-/9lljsmz/-/index.html

These guys looked to be pretty damn prepared and knew what they were doing.  So if it could happen to them it could happen to anyone.  Glad that they are OK.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 18, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> You are correct.  Very steep slopes don't get the snow loading needed for bigger slides.
> 
> You got lucky.  How did it happen ?  I would guess it was self-triggered ?



Yes very lucky. It was basically self triggered. We had climbed the ice on the right side of Odell's. The weather got worse, we couldn't see more than 20 feet and when we got above the ice we decided to not go across the Alpine garden to head down. We decided to look for the escape hatch on the left side of Odell's. So we had to cross across the top of the climb one at a time and made it. We never found the escape hatch and down climbed the left side to the base of the ice. We started walking down the snow gully and the snow above the climb let go and came down over the climb, hit my partner first who in turn knocked me off my feet and down we went.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 18, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Sad to hear that the party involved was in fact the Ascents of Honor crew:
> 
> http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/Se...ton/-/9857858/18179664/-/9lljsmz/-/index.html
> 
> These guys looked to be pretty damn prepared and knew what they were doing.  So if it could happen to them it could happen to anyone.  Glad that they are OK.



Too bad the report had no clue...
"Keith Zeier makes a practice climb at Cathedral Ledge in North Conway, Monday at Wildcat in Pinkham Notch.
Actually looks like he was at the cave on Standard at Frankenstein's as well in Crawford Notch
​


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 18, 2013)

It seems they may have been climbing Pinnacle gully. It also said the avy happened at 5pm which would be very late to be climbing up at this time of year. If I had to guess they may have been coming down Lions head when the avy occurred.


----------



## snowmonster (Jan 18, 2013)

http://m.wmur.com/news/Several-hurt...on/-/17440650/18179664/-/vt8a9oz/-/index.html

[h=1]"Several hurt in avalanche on Mt. Washington[/h]January 18, 2013 08:00 AM EST
PINKHAM NOTCH, N.H. - Several people, including a Marine who was injured in Iraq, were hurt in an 800-foot avalanche on Mt. Washington on Thursday evening, according to emergency officials.
Emergency crews from a number of towns in the Mount Washington Valley area responded after initial reports that a number of people were missing in an avalanche. Rescuers from the U.S. Forest Service were able to locate three people who had been injured, including retired Marine Sgt. Keith Zeier.
Zeier, 26, of Brooklyn, who lost his leg and suffered a severe brain injury in Iraq in 2006, was climbing Mount Washington's most difficult route to raise funds and awareness for families of Special Operations forces killed and wounded in action.
According to Zeier’s family, he suffered non-life-threatening injuries and was recovering at Androscoggin Valley Hospital in Berlin on Thursday night.
Two other hikers were also injured and initially taken to Androscoggin Valley Hospital. Their conditions were not immediately known. A hospital official said they declined comment.
Gorham EMS Director Chad Miller said the avalanche took place at about 5 p.m. and the first emergency call was received at about 7:30 p.m.
Miller said three ambulances and 12 paramedics were initially dispatched after concerns that more members of Zeier’s party were missing. The response was later scaled back.
Zeier’s family said they were concerned immediately after hearing about the avalanche.
"I've been through this before, and I just had a feeling,” said Denise Zeier, his mother.


Keith Zeier has raised over $100,000 for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation and continued to raise money with this climb.
Their team spent Wednesday night at the Harvard cabin near the base of Huntington Ravine. They were headed to the Mount Washington Observatory in the Sherman Adams Summit Building on Thursday.
Officials said dropping air temperatures and fresh snow and high winds could make the ascent challenging.
*The Mount Washington Avalanche Center had issued an avalanche warning earlier in the day."
*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 18, 2013)

Smellytele said:


> It seems they may have been climbing Pinnacle gully. It also said the avy happened at 5pm which would be very late to be climbing up at this time of year. If I had to guess they may have been coming down Lions head when the avy occurred.



I believe that they had already made it to the summit and were in fact heading down.  

And I also think that some of the confusion is due to the fact that they were probably evacuated from HoJo's while the avalanche occurred in Huntington Ravine.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 18, 2013)

Huntington is variably steep and due to it having so many different gullys, the snow does get pretty deep in the gullys. Obviously the Pinnacle cliffs aren't going to collect snow but there will be a lot of snow on the fan below it.

The Fan below the headwall is perfect avalanche angle and collects all the snow that doesn't stick to the steeper top of the ravine.

Wooden crosses placed in the ravine to indicate locations of deaths are mostly around the bottom of the fan and even down towards Harvard Cabin not up on the face.

Not a place I would personally venture until May for some gully skiing.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 18, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> I believe that they had already made it to the summit and were in fact heading down.
> 
> And I also think that some of the confusion is due to the fact that they were probably evacuated from HoJo's while the avalanche occurred in Huntington Ravine.




They did not make the summit per the report mand nothing about going to Hojo's.  

from the above report:
“Unfortunately our summit bid was unsuccessful. As we approached the top of Huntington Ravine, a slab avalanche broke loose and swept three of our climbers down to the bottom of the ravine. They were injured, but able to slowly make their way to rescuers, who assisted them off the mountain. The other nine climbers were able to descend and walk out of the ravine on their own power. While this is certainly not the outcome we had hoped for, we are thankful that all in our party are safely off the mountain.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 18, 2013)

Puck it said:


> They did not make the summit per the report mand nothing about going to Hojo's.
> 
> from the above report:
> “Unfortunately our summit bid was unsuccessful. As we approached the top of Huntington Ravine, a slab avalanche broke loose and swept three of our climbers down to the bottom of the ravine. They were injured, but able to slowly make their way to rescuers, who assisted them off the mountain. The other nine climbers were able to descend and walk out of the ravine on their own power. While this is certainly not the outcome we had hoped for, we are thankful that all in our party are safely off the mountain.



Wow. So at 5pm they were still on their way up? Yikes. And I misspoke--they stayed at Harvard Cabin at Huntington Ravine.  Good catch there.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jan 18, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Wow. So at 5pm they were still on their way up? Yikes. And I misspoke--they stayed at Harvard Cabin at Huntington Ravine.  Good catch there.


See post #2


----------



## Cannonball (Jan 18, 2013)

Just curious about folk's perception of this in light of that multi-rant about skiers lost in Killington slackountry.  Are clueless "Joeys" who wander out of bounds without a plan more or less responsible for their rescue than experienced climbers with bad-ass backgrounds who are climbing late in the day during avi warnings?


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 18, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> Just curious about folk's perception of this in light of that multi-rant about skiers lost in Killington slackountry.  Are clueless "Joeys" who wander out of bounds without a plan more or less responsible for their rescue than experienced climbers with bad-ass backgrounds who are climbing late in the day during avi warnings?



No, not with the criteria you just gave.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 18, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> Just curious about folk's perception of this in light of that multi-rant about skiers lost in Killington slackountry. Are clueless "Joeys" who wander out of bounds without a plan more or less responsible for their rescue than experienced climbers with bad-ass backgrounds who are climbing late in the day during avi warnings?



This is a good point and one I almost raised.  

I would expect that, on review, the NH Fish and Game Department to not levy fines or rescue costs on these folks because they had trained for the climb, had safety equipment, knew what they were doing, and were caught in a bad situation.  The purpose of the regulation is to deter folks who are not prepared for wilderness dangers from going out in the first place.  Specifically, folks who go hiking up Mount Washington with only a bottle of water and a cell phone.  

The key question, as you said, was if these folks knew of the advisory considering that they were at Harvard Cabin the night before.  But also if they took any other steps based on the advisory.


----------



## David Metsky (Jan 18, 2013)

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.


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".


----------



## dmc (Jan 18, 2013)

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..


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 18, 2013)

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..



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.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 18, 2013)

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.


----------



## dmc (Jan 18, 2013)

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.



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


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 18, 2013)

AdironRider said:


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



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.


----------



## noreasterbackcountry (Jan 18, 2013)

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.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 18, 2013)

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.



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.


----------



## noreasterbackcountry (Jan 18, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


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



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.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 18, 2013)

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.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 18, 2013)

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.



+ 1


----------



## Gnarcissaro (Jan 18, 2013)

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.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jan 19, 2013)

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.*
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 19, 2013)

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.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jan 21, 2013)

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?


----------



## David Metsky (Jan 21, 2013)

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.


----------



## noreasterbackcountry (Jan 21, 2013)

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.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jan 21, 2013)

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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## noreasterbackcountry (Jan 21, 2013)

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.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jan 21, 2013)

noreasterbackcountry said:


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



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.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 21, 2013)

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.


I'm not sure you understood the context of my reference on the MMQB comment. It is definitely NOT MMQB'ing to point out the risk factors and try to learn from them. It IS MMQB'ing to say those guys shouldn't have been up there because if there hadn't been an incident, no one would be taking issue with it. There are many folks on T4T that hike and ski in moderate and even "upper moderate" warning levels. I am only suggesting we should look at the facts for a lesson and not say they are idiots for going up there.

The interesting comment I saw on T4T was Lftgly commenting on their climbing habits and that they didn't make good decisions in that sense and I find that commentary far more appropriate than saying they had no business climbing at all because it was upper moderate... which folks often go up there in and don't face consequences. 

I'm just making the argument that people do dangerous things themselves but then call out other people for doing the same sort of dangerous things and the only difference is one person paid the price and the other didn't. I don't think it is appropriate to judge other people's risk tolerance, that argument is very difficult to make because you are making an absolute argument about a topic that is a sliding scale on a personal level.


----------



## David Metsky (Jan 21, 2013)

noreasterbackcountry said:


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


Like continuing up to halfway point on North Tripyramid in prime avy conditions with no gear and no avy assessment?


----------



## abc (Jan 21, 2013)

noreasterbackcountry said:


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





kingdom-tele said:


> 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.


Sadly, the more "extreme situation" which many experienced folks found themselves in carries more consequences. So ironically, these people also need to be able to say no and turn back just as much as anyone else!



> 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.


Not just FEEL SAFER. But BE SAFER by learning from the mistake of other! (and yes, wishing we would NEVER have done that if we were put in the same situation)


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 21, 2013)

I'm reading up on the new details being discussed today on T4T. Seems like the group made a lot of bad decisions and went in with the wrong mind set. I'm still not going to question the groups "go" decision but based on the information being reported by local experts, it does seem like the group could have been better prepared and were too focused on their goal rather than staying safe. Definitely some big eye openers in that T4T thread. But I'll again fall back on the issue of judgment as we've all done something really stupid in the BC. Hopefully education can come of this without attacking the individuals.


----------



## noreasterbackcountry (Jan 21, 2013)

David Metsky said:


> Like continuing up to halfway point on North Tripyramid in prime avy conditions with no gear and no avy assessment?



<==   Still working on number 5.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jan 21, 2013)

abc said:


> Sadly, the more "extreme situation" which many experienced folks found themselves in carries more consequences. So ironically, these people also need to be able to say no and turn back just as much as anyone else!
> 
> 
> Not just FEEL SAFER. But BE SAFER by learning from the mistake of other! (and yes, wishing we would NEVER have done that if we were put in the same situation)




useless in this context IMO.  

placing the microscope over this event and coming up with a list of details that would have led to your more perfect outcome does very little to clarify our own individual weaknesses. It is comical though, how much better people that have yet to experience a humbling moment are at finding the err in others. 

stay out there long enough. its coming.

what are people saying if this group makes it, videos the ascent, represents the spirit and determination they are proud to support, inspires god who knows, and comes away confirming their risk assessment skills and talent. kind of sounds like something that could make money, someone should get on that.


----------



## abc (Jan 21, 2013)

kingdom-tele said:


> what are people saying if this group makes it, videos the ascent, represents the spirit and determination they are proud to support, inspires god who knows, and comes away confirming their risk assessment skills and talent. kind of sounds like something that could make money, someone should get on that.


Very little chance of that. 

According to the time line in the report and the other group's observation, they were moving slowly and so far behind schedule they were not very likely to have gotten to the top in daylight. 

[edit]I didn't realize their plan includes climbing in the dark to ths summit and overnighting in the observatory...


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 21, 2013)

any photos of the slide?


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jan 22, 2013)

abc said:


> Very little chance of that.
> 
> According to the time line in the report and the other group's observation, they were moving slowly and so far behind schedule they were not very likely to have gotten to the top in daylight.
> 
> [*edit]I didn't realize* their plan includes climbing in the dark to ths summit and overnighting in the observatory...



imagine all the other minutiae people don't know that led to their choices.

eyeballing a complex process and focusing on all the things that we already know we wouldn't do doesn't, in itself make us safer. we are notoriously bad with perception and collecting information from the environment. seeking details that are blatantly obvious, while great for ego, is lazy, worse, it isn't to far from its cousin complacency.

I always thought it would be interesting to hear, read, etc expert perspectives on successful endeavors, where they felt anxious in their decision making, how they would make adjustments, etc. Ed Viesturs tells a story about climbing K2, they made it, but it was hairy, instead of focusing on the accomplishment of an amazing climb he walks away shattered because of the choices that were made. To me that is an expert and demonstrates the skill people should focus on. I would assume, like most complex things, it isn't the obvious dangers that will get us, so why spend so much time on it. just my opinion. to each their own.

be safe everyone.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jan 22, 2013)

David Metsky said:


> There are two threads on T4T about the avy:
> Avy incidents and rescues are pretty common discussion points on T4T.



My bad David.I've been looking in the recent trail report forum and not general discussion.


----------



## Gnarcissaro (Jan 22, 2013)

The USFS Snow Rangers have come out with their analysis. 

http://www.mountwashingtonavalanchecenter.org/01-17-2013-avalanche-accident-in-central-gully/


----------



## abc (Jan 22, 2013)

Interesting read, the Snow Rangers analysis. 



> On a one-way trip, deciding to turn around and descend is a very difficult decision to make.


I found this statement strike a particular chord. Not so much for the climbing party but form us skiers. Many of bc ski trips are loop trips where the uphill climbing path is different from the downhill ski path. So it's much harder to define a 'turn around' point.


----------



## Abubob (Jan 22, 2013)

My own take on this is that these folks, while taking safety seriously, were not afraid of an extremely challenging situation. Here you have an expedition that includes a former Marine with half a leg removed, not afraid of any sort of challenge at all and willing to take risks - all the while fully trained and experienced. From my perspective these folks knew what they were getting into and took every precaution - short of calling it off. Seems a lot of Alpinists are like that. To them bad weather and dicey - heck - dangerous conditions are part of the experience. People think I'm crazy for hiking in winter up the Tucks trail or up Cardigan. While these folks seem, to many of us, to be taking undue risks its all part of the game plan. More power to them.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 22, 2013)

Abubob said:


> My own take on this is that these folks, while taking safety seriously, were not afraid of an extremely challenging situation. Here you have an expedition that includes a former Marine with half a leg removed, not afraid of any sort of challenge at all and willing to take risks - all the while fully trained and experienced. From my perspective these folks knew what they were getting into and took every precaution - short of calling it off. Seems a lot of Alpinists are like that. To them bad weather and dicey - heck - dangerous conditions are part of the experience. People think I'm crazy for hiking in winter up the Tucks trail or up Cardigan. While these folks seem, to many of us, to be taking undue risks its all part of the game plan. More power to them.



I do not agree - they did somethings that trained people would not and should not do. 3 people roped together in an avy area without placing protection. Not saying I am an expert but I have done many climbs in Huntington and other mountains around New England and the US. I have made mistakes yes and have been lucky on more than one occasion. They may have been unlucky but we can still learn from them and them from themselves. I have back off climbs when I have had people above me climbing in unsafe manners. You can only protect yourself so much when others are climbing near you. These people did not protect themselves at all except for the false sense of security of roping up to each other without placing protection. I could go in but all has been said within  The USFS Snow Rangers analysis


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 22, 2013)

What exactly are you referencing in placing protection? 

I have been in several situations where Ive roped up to my ski partners but nothing like being on belay or what have you. Its pretty common IME.


----------



## polski (Jan 22, 2013)

Abubob said:


> My own take on this is that these folks, while taking safety seriously, were not afraid of an extremely challenging situation. Here you have an expedition that includes a former Marine with half a leg removed, not afraid of any sort of challenge at all and willing to take risks



Too much so, indisputably in this case, given the outcome. 



> - all the while fully trained and experienced.


I have read elsewhere that the group leader with extensive mountaineering experience including seven Everest expeditions had no experience whatsover on MTW; in fact the day before the avy the group disregarded directions they got on mountain and got lost heading to Harvard Cabin, finally admitting their mistake only when they arrived at Hermit Lake.



> From my perspective these folks knew what they were getting into



If you mean getting into an avalanche that could well have killed a whole bunch of them, then I'd agree.



> and took every precaution



They didn't even carry shovels/beacons/probes! Now the USFS report acknowledges that avy accidents in Huntington often do not involve burials, but still. And among other things, allowing the lead climber to climb through a knee- to thigh-deep soft slab on a steep slope was the opposite of "taking every precaution."



> - short of calling it off. Seems a lot of Alpinists are like that. To them bad weather and dicey - heck - dangerous conditions are part of the experience.



That part is all well and good.



> People think I'm crazy for hiking in winter up the Tucks trail or up Cardigan. While these folks seem, to many of us, to be taking undue risks its all part of the game plan. More power to them.



I could not disagree more strongly with this. There's a difference between managing risk and taking undue risk (i.e. NOT managing risk). I'd say "more power to them" only if they had summited safely; otherwise you're encouraging bad behavior, with potentially very serious consequences for others. By their actions they posed grave risk to themselves and also put rescuers into a risky situation.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 22, 2013)

polski said:


> Too much so, indisputably in this case, given the outcome.
> 
> 
> I have read elsewhere that the group leader with extensive mountaineering experience including seven Everest expeditions had no experience whatsover on MTW; in fact the day before the avy the group disregarded directions they got on mountain and got lost heading to Harvard Cabin, finally admitting their mistake only when they arrived at Hermit Lake.
> ...



Have you taken an avi class?


----------



## Abubob (Jan 22, 2013)

Smellytele said:


> I do not agree - they did somethings that trained people would not and should not do. 3 people roped together in an avy area without placing protection. Not saying I am an expert but I have done many climbs in Huntington and other mountains around New England and the US. I have made mistakes yes and have been lucky on more than one occasion. They may have been unlucky but we can still learn from them and them from themselves. I have back off climbs when I have had people above me climbing in unsafe manners. You can only protect yourself so much when others are climbing near you. These people did not protect themselves at all except for the false sense of security of roping up to each other without placing protection. I could go in but all has been said within  The USFS Snow Rangers analysis



I disagree too. These quotes from the Avi Center report tell me these guys know what they were about.



> *They had been training for the climb* in the days preceding the event, which included ice climbing in Crawford Notch. The group was organized with a variety of experience and skills, from novice to experienced mountaineers.





> Before departing, a USFS Snow Ranger arrived and talked with the group about weather and avalanche conditions. *Despite this discussion and warnings* about increasing avalanche danger through the day and that Moderate avalanche danger means that “human triggered avalanches are possible,” *the group decided to stick with their plan*.





> After the accident happened, the three teams remaining on the route took a quick inventory of who was present. It quickly became apparent that one rope team, including the lead guide, had been swept down off the route below all the others. At this time, the remaining members of the group reorganized and began to descend on rappel. At all times, *all members of the descending party were either clipped into a rock or ice anchor or were actively on rappel*.


I note here that they had the ability and skill to clip in on descent so if not clipped in on ascent they did so purposely. While it does say "at all times" I'm not sure it means on ascent or not.



> This group was heavily invested in success in many ways. They were organized as a charity for a very worthwhile cause. The team members had all donated significant amounts of time. The climb was being filmed by a professional filmmaker for a documentary. There was a strong media campaign to draw attention to the climb…these all increase the level of commitment beyond what might be normal for a purely recreational climb.


This last quote here says it all for me. This was all highly organized but ultimately a FAIL. Can't wait to see the vid!


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 22, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> What exactly are you referencing in placing protection?
> 
> I have been in several situations where Ive roped up to my ski partners but nothing like being on belay or what have you. Its pretty common IME.



You do not need to belay but place pieces of pro between the lead climb and the last climber. When The middle climber gets to the pro he then clips around the pro and proceeds. The third removes the pro after the lead climber has placed another piece of pro. It is called simuclimb. without pro climbing roped in avy conditions is not wise especially with others climbing below you.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 22, 2013)

Smellytele said:


> You do not need to belay but place pieces of pro between the lead climb and the last climber. When The middle climber gets to the pro he then clips around the pro and proceeds. The third removes the pro after the lead climber has placed another piece of pro. It is called simuclimb. without pro climbing roped in avy conditions is not wise especially with others climbing below you.



Gotcha, know what you mean. 

I thought about it some more and the times Ive been roped up like I described were in pretty different situations than these guys. 

Catching up on the T4T thread, opening my eyes a little bit. I still dont think they made the wrong call on an attempt that day in moderate to increasing danger, I do that myself pretty regularly, but I think these guys had a bit of summit fever as well that could have affected their decision making.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 22, 2013)

I just read the report....*here it is if the previous link does not work.*

All I can say is that it is pretty eye opening and really made me rethink my initial thoughts about this situation.


----------



## polski (Jan 24, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> Have you taken an avi class?


Not yet - I will be taking AIARE level I in a little more than a month. Been reading up in advance of that, particularly on human factors/heuristics, as that seems to be critical in so many accidents. I'm certainly no expert but the fact pattern in this case just seems to scream "trouble waiting to happen."


----------



## timm (Jan 24, 2013)

T4T thread is definitely worth reading


----------

