TAY reports and avy hazard, a heuristic trap?

I originally posted this on the following thread about weekend avalanches at Mt Rainier:

www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboardi...ex.php?topic=10337.0

I decided to move it here to avoid hijacking the original thread.

=============

The rash of avalanches (and close calls) at Rainier last weekend is troubling. I think it's worth reviewing the role that TAY may have played in this cycle.

A killer storm blew over Mt Rainier on Mon-Tues, June 9-10. NWAC issued a special avalanche warning on the 10th. By Thurs, June 12, the skies were clear and several glowing reports were posted about ski conditions on Mt Rainier. NWAC dropped their special avalanche warning that afternoon. From recent reports on TAY, it sounds like many skiers headed for Rainier over the weekend. Between June 14 and 16, dozens of natural and human triggered avalanches occurred on the south side of Rainier. Some close calls were described earlier in this thread.

Could it be that our ski community nearly sucker-punched itself?

I don't doubt that the ski conditions on Thurs, June 12 were as good as was reported. But things became quite dangerous by Saturday, June 14. NWAC stopped issuing regular forecasts in May, and the June 14-15 weekend hazard flew in under their radar. (You can't blame them for missing it when they're not really operating.)

I know that the June 12 trip reports influenced my trip choice for the weekend. I was originally heading east of the crest but switched to Mt Baker after I saw the favorable reports at Rainier. Baker turned out fine (the storm didn't hit there as hard as Rainier) but Rainier was another story.

I remember thinking that I shouldn't do a volcano trip on Father's day weekend after the fatal storm on June 9-10. Then I changed my mind after reading the June 12 trip reports. Was I influenced too much by a single day's reports? Maybe not, since I headed for Mt Baker instead of Mt Rainier, but I'm troubled when I think back on how strongly my plans were influenced by those reports.

Does anybody else have a similar story? Is this a subtle danger of TAY, especially when NWAC is not operating normally?

==========

Here are some related threads:

www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboardi...ex.php?topic=10291.0
www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboardi...ex.php?topic=10308.0
www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboardi...ex.php?topic=10311.0
www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboardi...ex.php?topic=10371.0

I think it was mostly my friend (who had not been reading TAY last week) who influenced me to join him for a tour up to Steamboat Prow on Sunday, but the glowing report from Wolfs and others probably influenced me a bit as I waffled between that trip or going with Silas up to ski on Kendall at the pass. The beautiful weather forecast also helped to sucker me a bit in terms of helping me opt for more of a "view tour."

I did think about the fact that we would have classic "new snow on consolidated snow" conditions, but it clearly didn't change my decision. I can't speak for others, but I do think you may be onto something. I know I felt a little better up high (where it was clearly not soggy snow) and down low (where it seemed like mostly or all older snow), but the soggier bits in the middle of the ski had me pondering my choice a little. Seeing the reports of what happened just around the corner stream in has been a tad sobering.

Thanks for the post and question Lowell.  Certainly the recent posts of good skiing conditions on the Interglacier and Mt Ruth influenced my choice for the Frying Pan this past weekend, although it was a logical choice since it is a place I often return to at this time of the year once the road opens after Memorial Day.  I found myself more concerned about the conditions once out there.  Some significant natural point releases were visible and sounds of settlement up higher on the Ohanapecosh Gl. were worrisome. I agree that glowing reports here can potentially lead one to a decision on where to go without full consideration of the hazards from recent weather. Its always helpful for those posting to include as much objective information as possible about the conditions, but in the end it is a judgement. I want to have as much information as possible and am glad to have the first hand reporting that comes from TAY. But this is a good reminder not to rely on those reports exclusively.

I am one of the guilty in posting a glowing report. Indeed, it was fantastic . . . But, I also recall that we were very wary of the warming conditions and made numerous comments to each other about the disastrous possibilities. There was one group that I believe was headed up an alternative climbing route that we could see across from Muir snowfield. I am not all that familiar with locations yet, but we could see cornices had broken loose and numerous point releases started--our statement at that time: "What are they doing over there! That is way too risky." But, alas, we did not post such thoughts or comments. It is all too easy to get suckered in to following the crowd to fantastic destinations, and to also not be the one posting--"danger, danger" in the midst of all the enthusiasm. I seem to recall several weeks ago: NWAC said, WATCH OUT!! and there was a lot of complaining afterward when the slopes remained rather benign. I guess NWAC was just a few weeks too early in their severe avalanche warning accompanying our first stretch of warm weather.

I think that there is a continuing, serious problem with folks thinking that they can judge avi conditions from day-old Internet information -- TAY or NWAC.

The conditions on Sunday in the Nisqually Basin were staggering. I could count 12-15 large slides, on all aspects. We watched a big rope team of climbers head up between two massive wet slides at 2pm, under blazing bright sun, on a slope that was identical to the slides around them. Scary.

It is certainly easy to get sucked into sweet TRs and want to do the same.

I'm much less experienced than most of the posters here. And my decision to head to Paradise Saturday was at least somewhat influenced by the glowing reports from earlier in the week. But I didn't take the glowing reports as evidence that it would be safe. Instead I took them as evidence that surface conditions could be very nice. I was hearing "These are far from typical mid-June snow conditions" - with both positive and potential negative implications.

As I said in my TR post, we do have a special thing about skiing the Nisqually Chute around Fathers' Day. So we were certainly aiming for that.

By 10 AM, we could already see one significant slab across the Nisqually Basin - similar altitude and exposure to the line we were hoping to ski. That started our discussion about whether our objective was safe. We were clear about two things: We wouldn't ski the chute if it hadn't been safely skied by someone else first (in general, I'm more into "second tracks" than first). And we said we'd dig a pit regardless (even if someone else skied the chute safely before us).

But the call wasn't even close. When we arrived near the top of the chute, a scary-looking slide had already been triggered. We dug our pit - but only so we could gain some experience recognizing dangerous conditions.

I'm glad my 15-yr old son saw all this happen. In general, he's all about the steeps. But he was very clear about what he thought was safe on Saturday. His call: "Nothing over 30 degrees is safe today. Let's ski the low-angle route down the snowfield and find some jumps to mess around on down near the bottom." I'm also making sure he reads all of these threads.

Lowell, I agree with your assessment. The trip reports of some of the fine skiing being had had me" frothing at the mouth" to get out there and not miss out on the action.

I am definitely guilty of planning my trips based upon the TR's of others and frequently find myself in the mindset , " they had no problems " so I should have no problems regarding avy danger.

Thanks for making me think about it and I guess the lesson I'm taking out of this is that I should base my risk assessment on the actual conditions on the ground and in the sky and not on what others have done.

I think that there is a continuing, serious problem with folks thinking that they can judge avi conditions from day-old Internet information -- TAY or NWAC.

Caveat: I haven't got much avy experience, but lack of experience has never stopped me from trying to sound educated in the past, so why start now?

That's hitting the nail on the head. I know many of you have Tremper's "Staying Alive in Avalanche Terrain," so I'll just point to Figure 10-4 (p 260) and assume you're following along. When we rely on information collected from home, we're relying on 1-2 day old information -- and therefore our assessment is really an assessment of what the risk was YESTERDAY. When conditions change rapidly, it's very important to reassess frequently. In all conditions it's important to make one's own assessments.

Watching threads here, reading books, and learning from other avy education resources, I'm absolutely astonished to discover one fact -- in virtually every accident, at least one person had vocalized concern prior to the accident. Even in the climber's death on Muir last week, one member of the party of four had stayed home due to concerns about the weather. Rule #1 in the mountains - if one member of the party thinks it's unsafe, it's unsafe.

My decisions were more influenced by the good weather window, which was apparently preceded by a couple days of on/off sun breaks. Several of the reports indicated melt freeze metamorphism. And indeed there was, but it just wasn't enough, for long enough. Sometimes spring dumps bond fairly well to the underlying consolidated layer, of course timing is a critical issue especially with June sun; and such dumps should be given time to settle. Even with high avi conditions, one can mitigate the danger by choice of slope angle/aspect etc... With the lack of NWAC, one has to go out and poke around. I was perhaps a little too ambitious last weekend with Rainier, but one can easily sit in an armchair all season analyze, and be critical of other peoples adventures, with 20/20 hindsight. I definitely could have set out a little earlier, I remmember a TR last month of some folks who skied the Kautz while an avalanche warning was in effect with FRZ levels above 14k. They did leave at 11pm but they also cut some big lanches. I thought there was enough M/F and acceptable FRZ levels this time to justify a later start, although looking back, I was clearly wrong.
I was thinking in an avi mind set throughout my trip. I knew when I got out of my car, and stomped the snow in the Paradise parking lot, that there would be considerable avi potential. The Thumb was the riskiest  slope, the upper mountain was too cold for wet slides, and the danger could be avoided, controlled lower down on the Wilson. The Thumb does not receive sun until mid-morning, so it had a little less time to bake in morning sun, it is also surrounded by rock walls, which with the sun of previous days allowed the snow to cook more with thermal radiation, emitted by the rock walls, allowing for faster metamorphism than other slopes.

The question posed is a good reminder to keep on your toes.
There are so many tours out there now that there is access.
As we all know this season has been unseasonably cooler than most others. So upper mountain activities above 7000 feet are going to be a little slower to go through the spring cycle than past years. I have been surprised at reports of the Inter Glacier being so stable, it is perennially mushy this time of year due to the more Northerly aspect and elevation. I want to do Ruth or Inter Glacier, but I have not heard about the typical slide activity from other reports that are usual for this time of year. So is it a positive use of TAY reports? ???
At least I'm still out there, on the lower elevation slopes where I have seen, mostly a solid base and a few small sluff slides.
I am not surprised of what I am hearing about avalanches up higher, what I am surprised about are the decisions to subject oneself into that type of terrain. And in some cases actively go into a red zone knowing the danger and potentially subjecting others below to your decisions.

I passed up climbing a slope that would lead to nearly the top of Governors Ridge, because of the warm weather and one cornice exposure. I thought of ways to get around the problem, but in the end passed to do other stuff. There were two other old tracks in the chute, who felt more comfortable than I did about that.

Maybe I'm to conservative, but I'll stick to the steep chutes on lower elevation stuff until things settle out, but then there are the crevasses later. I think it is good to read the reports and get a plan, but ultimately it takes going out to the field to test the conditions, and realistically knowing that there is a cycle process and what stage it is in combined with current weather helps dramatically. Not relying on a trip report that is a day old, and others risks are subjective to yours.

From the other thread...

Lowell,  I thought I'd respond since Kyle and I were looking at Baker (Easton glcr.) as early as the 8 & 9 because the forecast then said sunny all weekend.  We were a bit worried about too much sun on a S exposure so we kept an eye on freezing levels, which appeared to be just shy of where things climbed to in May.  After hearing a report of rain at 6100' from Thursday, and checking the weather and seeing partly sunny Saturday with clearing Friday, we decided to set it in stone and try for it.  We had a great weather window (which sounds like you guys hit really nicely too - we contemplated going up Sherman - next time).  As far as I knew, with the recent storm as of the beginning of last week, and a warming cycle, we were thinking not to drop too far in to the C-S cascades.  So this time I guess the answer is no to using tr's to persuade us.

However, we do use tr's on here frequently to gauge other trips we've gone on, gain a feel for the conditions there, and I feel that you're on to something in saying that it could possibly be a danger for this community to use TAY as they might NWAC.  This was one time it wasn't such an influence, but it definitely has been.

After reading back through my original post, I wanted to add that we also based our decision on the fact that Baker hadn't gotten very many sunbreaks, therefore hopefully preserving the conditions - possibly another false sense of security.  After reading the reports from Rainier this last warming cycle though, we lucked out on our weather window.  As Sunday proved, there was some mass warming on Baker Sunday after it heated a bit on Saturday.  One death was reported and scary enough, it was about a football field from where we were camped, only the following day after we departed.  I feel that it is also important to note that once at the top of Baker, one skier said he heard whompfing on the Roman Wall.  I know my ambition to ski the R.W. in primo conditions, and then actually booting up it and analyzing the pack and the weather hel;ped me to easily (and ignorantly) overlook his warning.  Another climber warned us on the way up how notorious the RW was for slides and then we saw minimal sluff as we skied down (about 2 pm).  However, I do not think I would have skied it on Sunday - especially with the danger of the crevasses right at the bottom of the wall, and one gradually opening crack in the middle.

I use trip reports as one more piece of data in planning a tour, and the up to date info about access and snow conditions is often very helpful. I think this is useful as long as one recognizes the limitations and does not use them as substitute for their own judgement in the field. It's worth pointing out that most avalanche centers similarly rely on second hand reports to make their assessments, including NWAC. I used the reports on Thursday to help pick a tour for Sunday, but ended up bailing half way because I didn't like the soft snow.

There are lots of limitations to using online or second hand reports about snow conditions. Other then timeliness, most come from quasi anonymous sources that may have a very different experience level (that miss judge snow conditions) or risk tolerance. One party willing to accept a lot of risk might say "Dude, it was was fine we shredded it" while another might say "It was super sketchy, we high tailed it out of there" when confronted with the same snow conditions. I also think there is a significant sampling bias in the trip reports posted and the content included. No one wants to post a report that says they turned around because they thought the snow was unsafe. When mistakes do happen, many people are reluctant to admit them in a public forum. So the trip reports that do get posted may make conditions seem better then they actually are.

A good proportion of my posts are about turning around or changing plans because of my safety concerns. But I don't tend to have much to contribute in the way of epic exploits. As a 50 year old of moderate ability, about all I've got to offer is caution.

But I certainly agree that reports from yesterday (whether celebratory or cautionary) are often not very relevant.

I just wanted to add to my first reply. Echoing what a few others have said, I believe that its is my own responsibility to take all the info at my disposal and make a call on safety. I do not believe that Wolfs, Teleskichica, or others should necessarily done anything differently in their posts from last week. And I believe that on net, TAY provides us all with fantastic information and discussion which should help us all make decisions that lead us to be both more save and have more fun! I think the point regarding any heursitic trap is to be aware of its potential influence on our personal decision processes, which hopefully allows us to calibrate the trap out a bit.

Greg, I've read plenty of reports about turning around.  I was too quick with my word choice before and re-reading it now can how that isn't what I said.  I do think that these types of trips are less likely to be posted though and try to keep this in mind when reading TAY.

I was really meaning to agree with your point - that we want to encourage reports about "what I didn't do" as well as reports about "what I did". Greg

No one wants to post that they turned around, cause no one wants to turn around!

That said, &lt;A HREF="www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboardi...topic=10314.0">my post from last week re Worm Flows</A> felt like A) a disappointment to turn around when folks were summiting and skiing down all around me, and B) the smartest thing to do based on what I could feel and hear going on under my feet.

I posted expeditiously as soon as I got home because I felt it likely some of the folks from TAY were likely headed that direction the coming saturday and sunday and this was the most expeditious way to get the word out. Not that it was unsafe period, as based on other TR's posted here over the next few days, but that there were conditions that gave me pause mid climb up specific to my route and conditions at that point.

So, heuristic traps? Well, don't take the internet for gospel, right? At the same time, first person accounts of routes you'll be using are highly useful, given a solid base of knowledge to build on once you are out there, and a ability to seperate your goals from your hazards...

I will say candidly that much of my backcountry education has come via cringing at stuff I did in the past once I knew better.

God (or whoever) looks out for fools, drunks , and early 20's passholders at Baker during the 98-99 season. Guess which category I lived thru? St Helens was the first time I called a hazard in the face of alot of contradictory input (others climbing and descending), went with MY gut, and got a real visceral affirmation that was the right thing to do, summit or no summt.

So its a win. Read for background, put your take once you're out at the foreground.

Can I pose a different form of the same question?

Does anyone here believe that reading trip reports results in an inability to objectively assess risk in the field?

If you feel your ability to objectively assess risk was compromised by reading a trip report, were you aware of it at the time?

Does anyone here believe that reading trip reports results in an inability to objectively assess risk in the field?

My answer is "no." But I still think Lowell's question is worth pondering, as I don't think this is a black-and-white sort of business. It's more of the classic "slippery slope" with a potential mix of additive "traps" including how a party thinks once a goal is set. It's always good to be aware of all the influences on our decision-making.

The original question asks, more or less, if the trip reports, especially trip reports with lots of positive language, foster "monkey see, monkey do" behaviour, thereby compromising objective thinking. Are trip reports inspirational/aspirational? Of course. That's the nature of "stoke", if you will. However inspiration by itself does not constitute a perceptual trap. To answer the original question you have to determine whether or not beautiful photographs and positive descriptions of skiers descending the incredible terrain on Mt. Rainier compromise an individual's ability to think objectively, i.e. to select terrain objectively, to assess in-field conditions objectively, etc. It's just my two cents.

I guess you could ask the same about any heuristic trap. I don't see it as a black-and-white sort of deal.

I think the rash of incidents last weekend had more to due with" Blue Sky Syndrome" rather than a lot of glowing Trip Reports, which is pf course another trap.

On a glorious day like last weekend after such a long spell of bad weather, people where determined to get out and enjoy it. People get goal orientated on days like that and the bright sunshine and general feeling of well being that conditions like that promote makes you feel that nothing bad is going to happen.

Hey Scotsman -- I kinda like your signature in this context! :

Hey Scotsman -- I kinda like your signature in this context!   :

My point exactly! ;D

The original question asks, more or less, if the trip reports, especially trip reports with lots of positive language, foster "monkey see, monkey do" behaviour, thereby compromising objective thinking.

That wasn't really my concern. It was more a question of choosing goals based on limited information. In this case, the June 12 reports were fine in describing the skiing conditions at that time. But the conditions changed a lot by the weekend, and I think you'd have to be pretty sharp to predict what happened. It's unusual for conditions to deteriorate so much this time of year during fair weather. I guess that's because it's unusual to get such a severe storm in June.

If you could have predicted what happened or detected the hazard once you were out there, then bravo to you. I don't know if I would have. Here's an email I sent on Friday morning after reading the June 12 reports. My plans did a complete turnaround that day.

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:41:02 -0700
From: Lowell Skoog
Subject: Second thoughts...

Okay, now I'm having second thoughts. A couple of TAY postings report good snow conditions at Mt Rainier. I thought it would be mushy there. This is making me think again about the Mt Baker ski orbit. The weather sounds good for it. I'd be open to either a one or two-day trip on that one. Two days would be pretty casual. If done as a one-day trip, Sunday would work better for me. My thought was to tag Sherman Peak as a high point. Let me know if that sounds interesting or if you have knowledge of Mt Baker snow conditions.

Black Peak would still be a good alternative.

--Lowell

Maybe I'm a fool. But I'm a fool who thinks acknowledging foolishness is the first step toward becoming smarter.

Scroll to the bottom to avoid going through the mumble jumble I call my thought process...

I don't know if this goes along the same lines as what Lowell originally posted, but I for one am notorious for last minute plans.  We try to make plans about a week in advance, but when weather changes and good reports are listed from elsewhere, our plans have been known to change very last minute.  Obviously, this is using our limited information to chose our goal/destination.  Lowell, I saw your e-mail was on Friday.  I think for me the dilemma in this is trying to be well-prepared (which I think also constitutes advance planning) and making the best possible decision at that point in time (sometimes split-second decision making).  I'm not talking about advance planning such as in packing (I think everyone who has done enough trips can throw together their pack last minute if need be).  But in studying a route.  I like to go over a route over and over, even if it's easy, for similar reasons that an actor might go over and over their script.  To sum what I'm trying to say: Since sometimes current weather/forecasts or other variables call for last minute changes to our mountaineering plans, I often will use TAY as a resource to gather last minute information for a last second decision.  Although in trying to avoid these possible hazardous conditions, am I being hazardous by using TAY to gather my info for the last minute decision?  I'm being rhetorical, but feel free to criticize.

Although in trying to avoid these possible hazardous conditions, am I being hazardous by using TAY to gather my info for the last minute decision?

The only person whose judgment I'm wondering about is myself. I'm pondering to what degree I might have fallen into a heuristic trap. And I'm inviting others to play along. The web is good for that. Certainly you should gather information from everywhere you can.

Lowell - your quoted email brings up the same thing I saw in my own case, which is reconsidering plans based on reading that things were not as gloppy as expected (I could quote one of my emails questioning Interglacier based on the new snow, followed by another recanting based on the reports). Having enjoyed firm smooth fresh spring snow before, my plans took a 180. I supposed I could at this point take a reductionist approach and say that this simply helped set a plan for a destination, and to the extent there were heuristic traps they were more in the form of goal orientation (however that goal was set) and "bluebird syndrome." But in any case I appreciate you prod to ponder this question.

Thanks Jim.

Had there been no significant avalanche cycle over the weekend and no close calls, there'd be nothing to talk about. But when I read about all the excitement at Rainier, it really made me stop and think, since reports from Rainier were what swung my decision.