Update 2/7/21: The CAIC has released its official report on the Ophir avalanche. You can read it here.
On Monday February 1, a group of seven skiers descended a slope in an area locally called The Nose, near Opus Hut in the San Juans. Four of the skiers were caught in an avalanche, carried and fully buried. One was recovered with minor injuries. According to the latest report from the CAIC, the three others are still buried and dangerous conditions have suspended search and rescue efforts. The slide occurred on a northeast facing slope, at approximately 11,500 feet.
If the other skiers are found dead, it will bring Colorado’s avalanche fatalities to seven total for the season, with this being the most deadly incident since five people perished in the Sheep Creek avalanche near Loveland Pass in 2013. The incident arrives after a skier died outside of Park City, Utah last week. Europe is also having a particularly dangerous season, with four skiers caught and killed in the Tyrol region of Austria just this past weekend. According to PlanetSki, the death toll across the Alps regions is 50. The heightened conditions are blamed on large amounts of snow falling on persistent weak layers, not unlike the conditions in Colorado.
I’m sure I’m not alone when I say that reading about another avalanche fatality feels like a gut punch. As soon as I heard the news of the Ophir accident, I turned to Doug and said, “it could have been us. Or our friends…” (Turns out, we do know one of the victims, though names have not yet been publicly released.) Each reported accident prompts a mixture of shock, confusion and intense sadness. We want to learn from the accidents so we don’t replicate them. We might get angry at those involved, but too often we can see ourselves making similar decisions or skiing in similar conditions. And it is truly tragic do die doing something that brings us all so much joy.
Perhaps the most frustrating thing about avalanche fatalities is how they are, for the most part, completely avoidable. We make the choice to go to these places. And this season, avalanche education is more accessible than ever. Courses are available online and in person. Free programs like Know Before You Go and brand-sponsored video series from companies like BCA are available with the click of a mouse or screen tap. On this site, we’ve made a concentrated effort to bring a full repertoire of avalanche content, from basics about gear, to decision making, to managing terrain. But, as we’ve seen in all of Colorado’s avalanche incidents this season involving experienced backcountry travelers, having information does not insulate you from danger.
Outside my office window, at 7200 feet on the edge of Colorado’s West Elk mountains, rain taps the soggy snowpack. It is 33 degrees and forecast to drop throughout the day as that rain turns to snow. On the CAIC website, the two regions that coincide here — Aspen and Gunnison — flash red. An avalanche warning is in effect until Friday. All I can say (or do) is, stay safe. Or just stay home.
Commenters: Please be constructive. No shaming.
Manasseh Franklin is a writer, editor and big fan of walking uphill. She has an MFA in creative nonfiction and environment and natural resources from the University of Wyoming and especially enjoys writing about glaciers. Find her other work in Alpinist, Adventure Journal, Rock and Ice, Aspen Sojourner, AFAR, Trail Runner and Western Confluence.
31 comments
I was shaken yesterday morning of the news of this avalanche in the San Jaun. It is the second such multi burial from the region this year. The only silver lining is that it could have been much worse, though that is cold comfort for the families of the lost. To draw broader conclusions from the accident I fear the current method of avalanche education is not ideal for skiers. I think we have adopted a “just say no”, abstinence-only, “this is your brain on drugs” strategy that has been proven to be ineffective in discouraging other high risk behaviors, like drug use. Avalanche education focuses on communicating to people all of the terrain that is off limits, rather than guiding people to safer alternatives. It is easy to identify avalanche terrain, it takes quite a bit more experience to locate terrain that is both safe and enjoyable to ski. Further, it is not really avalanches that people are interested in that sign up for avalanche education, it is safe skiing. Focusing on how and where to access safe skiing would help to reduce avalanche accidents because there would be less pressure to venture into this terrain in the first place.
Well said Sylvia and as we are challenged to process this event in the hopes of learning from the gut punching event there are the usual hindsight is 20/20 thoughts to review. What were the current conditions, why ski that aspect due to the risks, why risk ending end up at the bottom of a loaded slope or in a potential terrain trap and how does group think factor in to the decision tree? Every time I drive around the hairpin turn where the Sheep Creek event occurred I recap the decision tree of that day. None of the above Qs will bring back these adventures to their family and friends but maybe, just maybe it will prevent the next round of sadness.. Again, another sad event!
My heartfelt condolences for everyone celebrating those lost.
Weighing into the discussion of pointing people to safer terrain. Not an easy task. As most have pointed out (and my daughter learned in her avy courses) ‘ if it’s fun to ski, it’s avalanche terrain’. That’s not an absolute maxim; but pretty accurate.
Working in lodges and huts a facet of our discussion regarding ‘protecting’ or ‘guiding’ guests who have arrived self-guided is ‘don’t’. Suggestion that a certain area is safer opens one to accusations of accountability if something goes amiss. We are repeatedly told and reminded that self guided groups have opted out of localized, personalized professional services. Some groups do hire a local guide independent of the lodge operator (still considered self guided).
What we don’t refrain from though, is the everyday sharing of observations, experiences and historical culture of the area, and how the season has progressed. This beta should never be withheld and we are encouraged to be part of those conversations.
Sylvia started a great thread of discussion… how do we, as a culture, celebrate making wiser choices and exercise more discretion to choose safer terrain to honour the conditions. Skiing great snow in low angle trees doesn’t carry the same ‘wow’ factor of sending big faces, chutes, spines and pillows. There are so many factors that lead to fatal and injurious outcomes… the only one we control is that which we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Thanks all for the great observations, travel safe
Sylvia, you make a good point. But I don’t think this situation is the fault of avalanche education. If anything, it’s a cultural construct that discourages people from seeking out less exciting, mellow terrain. But there’s also a lack of information. Me and other guidebook writers have attempted to remedy this, but I can tell you from experience that here in Colorado it’s not easy finding mellow but still skiable terrain in the backcountry. As they’ll relate in any avy class, avalanche paths make good ski runs. (Edit: And it’s common even while seeking mellow terrain to end up exposing to overhead hazard, either accidentally or rolling the dice). One specific problem is that the non-avalanche lower angled slopes tend to be choked with timber, sometimes such trees are unnaturally close together, made that way by poor forestry over many years. A solution would be to allow local skier clubs to thin areas for avy-safe skiing, but getting a permit for that is difficult, and once acquired, may not allow enough cutting to really make a difference. Regarding all that, I’ve always felt that a strong organization of backcountry skiers could accomplish amazing things such as trail cutting, parking improvements and such. But what did we get over the years? Pretty much just niggle with snowmobile issues, as if snowmobiles were our problem, rather than crowded parking, lack of safe terrain, or access to terrain blocked by private land, to name a few. Lou
I would love to see more Forest Service / volunteer partnerships to intentionally (lightly) glade safe skiing areas to open up more terrain to avoid the pull of the unsafe steeps. I’ve seen northern Arizona take on forest thinning projects (yes, Arizona isn’t all desert!) to restore the forest to it’s less dense original state vs. ponderosa pine thickets that developed via forest management. The results make the forest feel more like meadows. Their motivations are to avoid catastrophic wildfire damage to towns/watersheds while restoring other natural habitats and species that can’t thrive in densely timbered areas. The natural state would look different in Colorado, but I imagine it would still be a welcome change for skiers seeking safe and skiable terrain.
“A solution would be to allow local skier clubs to thin areas for avy-safe skiing, but getting a permit for that is difficult, and once acquired, may not allow enough cutting to really make a difference.”
The Feds are doing this all over Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.
Hopefully this will be a model for the rest of the country.
Yes, the Granite Backcountry Alliance in New Hampshire has made an enormous difference for backcountry skiers in the area. Vermont has a similar organization (RASTA). They both work with local landowners and the NFS for permission to glade in the summer months and organize work days with hundreds of skiers to help do the glading. Even on the East Coast, the alpine terrain is dangerous… an experienced skier was caught, buried, and died while skiing the Western side of Mt Washington last week and another skier came very close to dying in Tuckerman’s Ravine a few weeks before that. Having access to enjoyable skiing that isn’t in or below avalanche terrain is critical as more and more people are finding the joys of leaving the lifts behind.
Lou, maybe not the fault of, but certainly a limitation of, current avy ed standards.
First and foremost what a terrible loss – this has been on my mind since it happened . It’s that feeling that this can happen to anyone out there. Wishing peace and healing to all affected.
To Lou’s point – it’s hard to see how you could get enough thinning to really make a difference in Colorado for example – the few permits would go to locales that are closer to populated areas / I-70, and would subsequently be inundated, possibly creating a safer skiing experience, albeit one many of us would probably want to avoid. I don’t think this fixes the dearth of low-angle, skiable terrain. Nor would that change where people ski; it goes without saying many venture to big lines and steeps because they are exciting, and often untouched. You can’t create safe, steep couloirs for instance. Nature has created them to be great skiing, but they are dangerous at times.
The comparison between sex education and avalanche education is interesting – but I don’t know if I’d say avalanche education is comparable to abstinence only – there is ample literature and conversation in the culture about heuristic pitfalls, avoiding group think, to name two interrelated ones – and these topics are related directly to the activity of backcountry skiing and engaging in it safely, not safety through cessation.
I personally feel this situation doesn’t have an easy answer – it’s an amazing sport, lifestyle even – but the tragedy of avalanche deaths cannot be completely avoided as long as backcountry skiing evokes such passion and attachment. The other side of that coin is that it is also very dangerous.
The true safer alternative is the ski area. But that would be an instantly tired argument – the experience in the backcountry is just so much more special.
The limitations of the efficacy of thinning are directly related to how narrow we allow our perspective to be as users of public lands. I say this as a long-time mountain biker who spent several decades thinking of public land use almost exclusively in terms of mountain biking access. Taking up backcountry skiing has broadened my perspective a bit, as well as listening to hunters, hikers, and OHV users. The most compelling reasons for thinning over-crowded forests is not to improve backcountry skiing opportunities, but to improve the overall health & resiliency of the forest, with improved skiing as a by-product. Viewing forest management challenges on an ecosystem-wide level has better potential to create a better environment for us to recreate in, rather than viewing it through the narrow lens of our own preferred experience.
While the trope of facing off with a deadly enemy will never lack for cinematic glory, it is not an accurate reflection of what has been fueling the meteoric rise of human-powered skiing. Most of us are not earning turns out of a desire to dance with death; rather we just want a quiet walk in the woods, and few yeehaws on the way down. Moving away from the current dichotomy between Lycra-encased “fitness laps,” and dragon-chasing bro-hucking would better serve the majority of ski tourers, and allow meaningful progress in land management partnerships. I would love to see a “Euro-lite” version of ski touring, with simple huts / yurts at safe transition zones. Having a basic shelter to change over in, and have a few moments of shelter from the elements could serve winter, and summer users equally well.
Mountain biking has gone through a similar shift, away from emphasizing big backcountry rides to “get away from it all,” to smaller, more accessible loops near population centers. Ski touring would do well to imitate this pattern, by focusing on developing mellow routes with easy access, rather than insisting that all users must take the “epic” route every time.
A.K., I like what you present: forest health first. Even with that in mind there’s clearly room for a few places we simply cut and maintain ski runs, just like alpine ski areas., though of course the clearing needs to be done in a sustainable way, with care for erosion, glading and such. And in terms of prioritizing forest health, thinning and glading can be done in ways that are 100% beneficial for the choked, fire-prone unnatural forests we have in abundance.
A note from Europe:
In large parts of the Alps (all of France, all of Switzerland except for Tessin, with Wallis particularly concerned, most of Austria on the northern side of the main alpine ridge, even parts of the fairly low Bavarian Alps) we are dealing with several persistent weak layers in the snowpack. One at the very bottom of the snowpack after the precocious snowfall in late September, limited to cold aspects at higher elevations, one, more massive and ubiqitous, created by 14 days of extremely (in alpine terms 🙂 ) cold and dry conditions in late December/early January.
A number of accidents involved distance triggering from low-angle slopes. The situation is extremely dangerous, yet often without the typical signs of elevated avalanche danger. The fact that in many alpine countries the lifts are not open (Germany, Italy, France), thus pushing large numbers of inexperienced skiers into the backcountry and conducing experienced skiers to seek out more solitary, i.e. more dangerous objectives, doesn’t help either.
Below two links to illustrate the current situation:
Tirol/Austria:
https://www.lukasruetz.at/2021/02/heimtueckische-lawinensituation-zahlreiche-lawinenunfaelle-im-sellrain-02-02-2021/
Col du Lautaret/France:
http://www.data-avalanche.org/avalanche/1612104703786
Lenka K.
Thanks for weighing in on the scene in the Alps, Lenka.
Sorry, but how do you know they “triggered an avalanche while descending”? I think that’s a bit presumptuous and a premature conclusion. Maybe they had already descended the slope safely when a natural slide caught them in a very bad location. Or maybe not, but I feel you should respectfully refrain from telling their story until the survivors share the facts.
“Maybe they had already descended the slope safely when a natural slide caught them in a very bad location.”
Part of descending safely is being out of the runout area.
One if the key points of avalanche education is learning that those runouts are quite long.
If you get buried at the bottom you are, ipso facto, not safe.
Fair criticism Mike. It’s been edited.
Good attention to detail Mike, but let’s note the CAIC report does say they triggered the avalanche, though it doesn’t clarify whether they were descending or were already in the runout (though as Tuck points out, if they were in the runout they were still “descending” in the broader sense of the term) One would assume CAIC somehow verified their reporting, but hard to know. When they do their final report that’ll be the source for the facts. And as to Tuck, indeed, almost any avalanche accident involves an ipso facto, default, bad location or poor decision, and the words “bad and poor” don’t reflect on people’s character, but rather nothing more than human foibles. If we seek to learn from these events, and do so in writing, we have to use vocabulary. Though we also must do so with as much sensitivity as we can muster. I appreciate everyone’s efforts to be civil here, and think that overall we do a pretty good job. Thanks everyone for that. Lou
I skied the line directly down the Nose when I was up there with a press trip group a few years ago. When I first heard about this, I assumed the recent skiers were on that line, but they were to lookers right on a more mellow slope, and got caught at or near the bottom of the Nose avy path, according to the CAIC annotated image. I recall thinking “this could be a hairy place” when we were crossing the drainage at the bottom of the Nose, but it was a stable day and I was okay with what we were doing. So sorry these recent guys were there in obviously much worse conditions, huge condolences from the Dawson household. Lou
https://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/acc/acc_report.php?accfm=rep&acc_id=770&view=public
And now in NH as well: https://www.necn.com/news/local/backcountry-skier-killed-in-mt-washington-avalanche/2398534/
It seems to me that in the past 5 or so years SW Montana has been getting an early blast of snow in or around October, followed by a long period of facet-building high pressure. This results in a very persistent weak layer at the ground. I *think* Montana has historically straddled the line between a maritime and intercontinental snowpack but we sure seem to be trending toward intercontinental during the past decade or so. This year may be the worst. I wonder if climate change is to blame and if this is something that we’ll need to deal with for a loooong time to come here and in other areas that used to see more stable conditions.
Check out this video from a few weeks ago; https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=flanders+mountain+avalanche+video&docid=608004672046891707&mid=CA8C24BD3FEE2431FAC7CA8C24BD3FEE2431FAC7&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
It was 30 degrees at the steepest point and barely looks steep enough to slide from the perspective of the video. I heard second hand that the skier in the video was very understandably shaken to the core. Can you imaging turning around to admire your tracks and seeing this?
Scary video of the Flanders Mountain avalanche. The triggering point was way down the slope, apparently in low-angle terrain. This is exactly what we’ve been seeing in Europe. Wisely, the uphill track was set further from the avy path still and the persistent weak layer either absent at the foot of the avy path, or covered with enough snow to prevent triggering.
What this avalanche shows as well: in avalanche terrain, it is essential to be skiing one-by-one, if possible fast, not stopping and picking a really safe spot for regrouping. So the group involved did a lot of things right, IMHO.
Regarding the Flanders (southwest Montana) remote trigger slide, the GNFAC visited the site and measured 35 degree slope angle at the start zone and an average slope angle of 33. The “30 degrees” came from the party who triggered the slide. They THOUGHT they were skiing safe terrain. Caltopo shading also shows mid 30’s but, of course, a real field measurement is best.
And if that remote trigger wasn’t large enough, take a look at this one in the Southern Madison Range (Ernest Miller Ridge). Very scary.
https://www.mtavalanche.com/node/23991
Very frightening, but the follow up visit from the local avalanche agency says the slope rolls over to 35 degrees. In CO, I would not ski that slope mid winter.
Yesterday, here in the Anchorage AK Chugach Front Range ..
https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2021/02/04/3-dead-after-bear-mountain-avalanche-troopers-say/
Excuse me, this event occurred out above Chugiak AK about a 1/2 hr north of Anchorage in the Chugach Mtns.
CNFAIC Preliminary accident report of the above mentioned, lots of photos at the bottom of report.
https://www.cnfaic.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Bear-Point-Avalanche-Preliminary-Report.pdf
Just the Facts.
The group involved in the North San Juan avalanche made bad choices.
The snowpack prior to the event was a multi layered stack of cards with at least three different failure layers. The snow pack had been locked up in cold temperatures for close to two months. On the day of the slide the temperature went above freezing at 9:00 A.M. and stayed above till sunset. This obviously put a huge amount of stress on underlying weak layers as the surface creep accelerated.
The line they did ski is called the “Nostril”, the “Nose” is the descending ridge to the skiers right. The Nostril is not over 30 degrees and exiting to the skiers left at the bottom is the safest way out of the exposed runout. The terrain surrounding the pitch is over 30 degrees and conditions were sympathetically unstable on the day of the slide. Skiing the Nostril was not a safe decision on that day.
After skiing the Nostril the group leader dropped into the gorge at the bottom and began descending, the other victims followed. The fourth skier was hesitant and shouted to the third skier in to get off of the steep side hill of the gorge. When the third skier moved the slide above was triggered sympathetically from the gorge. The fourth skier activated his airbag pack and was double ejected out of his skis and buried shallow. The remainder of the group rescued the fourth skier.
This group had the skills to recognize the current hazard and the slope angle. In the moment, bad choices were made unfortunately.
It sounds like staying out of the gorge would have been the best way to stay safe. As BK says, exiting to skier’s left would have been the way to go.
Facts allow us to analyze events with simplicity and without emotion. Both incidents in the Ophir Pass area resulted in failure to enact basic avalanche terrain protocol.
1. Avoid exposure while ascending
2. Avoid terrain traps
3. Expose one skier at a time to any potential hazard
.
Mid-winter skiing has always had far higher risks associated with it. than spring touring. Powder is a powerful attractant, but when the cornometer kicks in, good fun can be had…
… there are other decision matrices that can be deployed.
Good re-hash of CAIC report:
https://coloradosun.com/2021/02/08/ophir-pass-avalanche-dead-colorado-report/
Thanks for posting this link, good to read an accurate and sober public media report, properly annotated for a change.
Comments are closed.