An Instagram screenshot of the Sliver couloir from @ryan_burke11.
On Saturday, January 22, two skiers ascending the Sliver Couloir on Nez Perce in Grand Teton National Park were caught in sluff caused by a descending snowboarder. One skier, Michael Martin (24) of Jackson, Wyoming, fell and slid down the Sliver and over a rock band. His partner, Collin Binko (30), also of Jackson, was frayed but uninjured. Martin suffered non-life-threatening injuries but was evacuated by helicopter several hours later.
High pressure has reigned for a few weeks in much of the West. Snow conditions, generally speaking, have been stable. And with that stability, more ski lines are open for consideration: that includes the Sliver Couloir.
The accident details are unnerving and raise questions about communication, backcountry ethics, and safe travel in exposed terrain. I first learned of the incident from Jed Porter’s Instagram – Porter is a Driggs-based IFMGA guide. Porter posed some questions he has raised previously on WildSnow. His piece, “You Have to Climb What You Ski,” Or do You? was published in May 2021 – not so long ago.
The top-down, bottom-up debate was only the beginning.
A Teton-based skier and mental health counselor, Ryan Burke arrived on the accident scene approximately two hours after Martin’s fall. He had this to say about the Sliver.
“The Sliver Couloir is something that is mostly done from down-up,” said Burke on Monday morning when asked about accessing the line. “It’s kind of hard to think of it as a top-down route because you’d have to come up the East Hourglass, which has two big rock bulges on it. I’ve never heard of anyone doing the Sliver top down.”
Map screenshot from backcountryrecon.com.
For background, the East Hourglass is a more technical ski line on Nez Perce and is opposite the Sliver once you top out. The Sliver, however, splits down the East face of Nez Perce and runs roughly 1000 feet, and in low snow conditions, which the skiers experienced, a cliff band protects the runout.
The events in the Sliver are evidence of couloir congestion and the need for solid inter-group communication and discussions about dropping in on a group after you have passed them.
Sunrise on the Grand and Teewinot as Martin and Binko approach the Sliver. Photo: Michael Martin.
Saturday in the Sliver
Martin and Binko
Martin explains the day’s plan: ascend and ski the Sliver, then reascend the Sliver a second time and rap into and ski the East Hourglass. They’d stash any unneeded gear on the initial Sliver ascent in a safe spot near the couloir’s entrance.
Approx: 9:30 AM: The two decide to dig a pit and execute an ECT test to determine snow stability. “From the snow pit, we noted 6-8 inches of new snow from the storm two days prior on top of a crust layer,” wrote Martin. “We felt good about what we were seeing. The main concern at that point was the snow surface warming quickly as the line was in full sunlight.”
Binko says the pits results were, “ECTN 26 @ 30cm approx. down.”
Approx: 10:00 AM: As the two conclude their pit assay and are ready to ascend, the solo snowboarder passes by, 30 to 40 feet away, Binko estimates. There’s no verbal exchange between the groups. “There was no acknowledgment from him; he did nothing,” said Binko.
Collin Binko booting up the Sliver Couloir in Grand Teton National Park on Saturday. Photo: Michael Martin.
The snowboarder continues booting, with Martin and Binko roughly five minutes behind in his wake. Martin, Binko, and the snowboarder move at similar speeds. But the last third of the couloir, Binko notices the person out front up their pace.
“But he kept looking back at us, like gauging where we were,” said Binko. I was just like, okay, cool. He has eyes on us. We have eyes on him. Everything should be fine. I had in my mind that he is out here crushing it solo; he probably knows what’s up and just assuming that we would pull up to the top and he’d be there, already transitioned, ready to rip.”
Due to the nature of the upper couloir, where it doglegs, neither Binko nor Martin sees the snowboarder transition. Binko was 30 to 40 feet ahead of Martin, roughly 70% up the couloir. The chatter between the two assumed that the snowboarder knew they were ascending from below.
Martin recalls telling Binko, just before the snowboarder’s drop, that they were positioned in perhaps the most exposed section of the couloir. Moments later, the snowboarder, already in the fall line, came to a complete stop in what Martin describes as “a safe spot just up to the lookers right side of the slope.”
Any elusive sense of safety evaporated as Binko recalls the next time he sees the snowboarder, he’s making the cross-couloir cut.
The sluff hit the skiers at approximately 10:40 AM. Photo: Michael Martin.
Approx. 10:40 AM: The sluff begins cascading. Neither Martin nor Binko were in a spot to avoid the flowing snow. Higher up, closer to the initial snow flow, Binko kicks his feet in and assumes a self-arrest position. “I had just kicked in to pause before the snowboarder made his cut,” said Binko. “I had a good stance to begin with and then kicked in again when the sluff came. And then it came over me. It was roaring, pretty full-blown.”
Binko sees his partner hanging on momentarily, resisting the slide. He’s trying to kick in. “The slide passes me, and I look over at Mike, he hangs on, but the ground disappears below him. Then I see him get flipped backward.”
He says Martin struggled to get on his stomach. But at one point, his skis, secure in an A-frame, dig into the slope and decelerate him, ripping the side of his pack out. Then Martin disappears in a mass of moving snow out of sight around a corner.
This image of the Sliver Couloir shows the snowboarder stopped above Collin Binko after the slide. Photo: Chase Rumholz.
“I saw the sluff wash over Collin, and as it approached me, I dug my ice axe and crampons as deep as I could and tried to brace against the slope,” relayed Martin. “What was under my feet gave out, and that’s what started the ride. In my attempt to self-arrest, I caught my crampon’s front points and got flipped out of the snow.”
Fighting to remain on top of the sliding surface, Martin attempts to self-arrest in spots and protect his face and head when the axe could not find purchase. “I was trying to stop before the exit cliff but was disoriented enough that I had no clue where I was. My helmet got pretty banged up on the ride down, and I was a couple of inches underneath the snow surface when it started to slow down on the apron. I fought to get to the top and rose to snow surface right when it came to a stop.”
A clean shot of the Sliver. Photo: Michael Martin.
Post-Slide
Binko clings to a firm bed surface. He chooses not to transition into skis and downclimbs.
“I just started downclimbing as fast as I could and looked up at the snowboarder who was just standing there at the end of his cut,” said Binko. “I yelled, ‘do you have eyes on him? Do you have eyes on him?’ And he just stood there.”
According to Binko, the snowboarder snapped to and replied, “no.”
Martin says two minutes after the slide, the snowboarder was first on the scene. Blinko arrives a few minutes later and performs an initial assessment ruling out head-neck-spine injuries. There were, however, abrasions on Martin’s elbows and forearms and reduced mobility in his right ankle, knee, and hip. Post-assessment, Binko, and Martin traverse the apron to access dry clothes and their extra gear.
A photo taken after the slide on the Sliver Couloir shows the debris field. Photo: Chase Rumholz.
Four other skiers in a different group witnessed Martin’s slide -one member began melting snow for water, offering a puffy and dry socks. They bandage any wounds and continue to assess any potential injuries. (Both Martin and Binko are Wilderness First Responder (WFR) certified.
11:18 AM: An inReach is activated. According to Martin, this is when he believes the snowboarder that triggered the slide departs.
Search and Rescue communicates with an individual from the group of four skiers on a cell phone; they found a location with adequate cell service. Burke and his partner arrive as the four skiers who happened upon the scene begin to leave. The Burke party supports Martin as he hobbles to a suitable flat spot below the apron where a helicopter can land.
1:30 PM: After an initial pass, the heli picks Martin up and flies him to Windy Pass. Burke’s party skis out of the canyon with Binko.
Martin says the hospital visit reveals a chip fracture along with a sprain in his right ankle and a strained LCL in his knee.
“Looking back on the incident with Collin, we both feel like we were making good decisions and in the right mindset for the day,” explained Martin. “We had both felt really good, were moving great, and were having a really good open dialog through the day. We both agree that the only thing we would have changed would be saying something to the solo snowboarder when we were finishing up our snow assessment.”
Part of Burke’s Instagram story. Screenshot @ryan_burke11.
From Burke’s Eyes
Earlier in the morning, while the two skiers and snowboarder were ascending the Sliver, Burke and a partner were across the valley, atop Shadow Peak. They intend to climb the Sliver too, top out, and then ski the East Hourglass, that technical ski line involving a rap-in accessed atop the Sliver.
On his approach to the Sliver, Burke snaps a photograph, which he later includes in his own Instagram story about the incident. “I took that as we were going to go to do the same run as the two skiers, we’re going to the East Hourglass, which means you repel down the backside of this Sliver,” said Ryan. “So I took that photo on our way across, not knowing what happened yet.”
Near the entrance to the Sliver, Burke’s party encounters the ski party of four.
“The quick synopsis is we have to kind of ski down to an indentation to get up to the Sliver,” said Burke. “We met a party of four there; they filled us in on the situation a little bit. They were the ones that had called for a rescue. They had already made sure that the two skiers that were involved in the actual slide were okay, and then they descended as a group because they were getting cold, I believe.”
Burke’s group ascends to the two skiers involved with the slide and wait for the rescue chopper.
“We then were able to go up to the two skiers and hear more and realized that it had been a kind of a solo snowboarder that had descended above them, as they were approaching up and created kind of a slough kind of avalanche which took the second skier off of his feet. The first skier was closer [to the snowboarder] and just didn’t have as much power in his slide. Keep in mind, as one commenter to Porter’s post noted, the Sliver traditionally is a bottom-up line.
“Jed’s post was a great starting discussion point for this particular incident,” said Burke. “But, top-down isn’t quite as much of a possibility. It’s one of the couloirs that gets so done. And I talked to Adam Wirth in the parking lot, and he said one day he saw 27 people ski the Sliver Couloir in one day, and, you know, it’s wild numbers. [The Sliver] is so close to that moderate kind of run. On most days, however, you do see two or three groups in it.”
Colin Blinko skiinng up the apron of the Sliver Couloir. Photo: Michael Martin.
Reflection
This much is clear, the ski theater in which some operate has a limited carrying capacity for ascenders and descenders. And the margins, once at capacity, are razor-thin.
In communication later on Monday, Porter added a salient point regarding general awareness and norms in some ranges mountains.
“The Sliver, it’s true, can’t be done ‘top down,'” wrote Porter. “That makes consideration of who’s above even more important. Fact is, though, very few ski lines in the Tetons are like the Sliver. Most can be done top down, but that message isn’t getting out there very well. I skied a serious line yesterday, accessed with easy, safe skinning, that had a boot track in it. The Sliver will always have this issue and traffic will be limited accordingly. Management of the hazard will always require case-by-case communications in these few bottom-up-only lines. In these busier and busier times, ski defensively.”
Wise words, “ski defensively.”
“Mike and I have both talked about the same thing,” said Binko. And the answer to what went wrong begins with not making contact with the snowboarder. “I could have said, at some point, when he passed us around the start of the booter or, near the top, like, ‘Hey, you’re gonna wait for us?’ Or, ‘hey, can you wait till we are in a safe zone before you descend?”
Binko went on to say this: “The biggest takeaway is not to assume, just because someone’s in a certain place or going after a certain line, that they have the foresight to know what their actions could cause. We spend so much time looking at the snowpack and looking at X, Y, and Z. I just botched the human factor. I should have yelled up at that dude. I’m better than that. I should have known that, okay, this guy passed this on the booter. How do I mitigate that risk?”
Postscript notes: Both Binko and Martin brought emergency gear to sit through a rough night in the event of difficulties in the East Hourglass. They each carried a belay jacket, extra food and water, a bivy bag, and a space blanket.
Jason Albert comes to WildSnow from Bend, Oregon. After growing up on the East Coast, he migrated from Montana to Colorado and settled in Oregon. Simple pleasures are quiet and long days touring. His gray hair might stem from his first Grand Traverse in 2000 when rented leather boots and 210cm skis were not the speed weapons he had hoped for. Jason survived the transition from free-heel kool-aid drinker to faster and lighter (think AT), and safer, are better.
57 comments
Thanks Jason, for getting on this so promptly. My level of knowledge of the Sliver event was never anything more than “rumor” level. I’m infinitely better informed by this article than I was prior. But the matter is serious enough to deserve prompt response, regardless of the actual details. On that note, info is trickling out on a similar event, the same day, in the GT’s Ford Couloir. See jhavalanche.org for a photo and allusion to the slide’s skier trigger origin. Rumors (there I go again…) suggest that there was a party below during that slide too. Yowza. We’re getting real, real close to the edge these days. We like “the edge”, with good reason. But when the edge is honed by manageable matters like community behavior, is that really the blade we want to be juggling?
All I can say is that in the Alps, this situation would be ripe for criminal and/or civil prosecution.
Jeff, can you please explain? From everything I’ve seen in the alps I would have to say you are wrong. But I am interested perhaps I am wrong?
He’s wrong, though it has changed a bit lately. They believe in personal responsibility.
He’s not wrong. They believe in the personal choice to kill or harm yourself, but not others. A husband was convicted of manslaughter when his wife (and touring partner) was killed in an avalanche not wearing a beacon. Because he was the more experienced partner, it was ruled that he should have known better and was therefore responsible for her death.
This comment is unrelated to this particular instance.
I truly miss the days of being in the backcountry where most of the time the only other people out there besides yourself were with you.
I’m in South Central AK .
Me too. Skiing in America is garbage any more, whether it’s touring or riding a corporate mountain, ugh.
Jeff, I am interested to hear more on this take. I had almost the opposite reaction- but have only a few weeks of experience in the alps to draw from.. my take was that despite disagreeing strongly with the actions of the snowboarder as depicted above, ultimately the decision to start up a line with a party above puts the lower party at the mercy of the upper party (especially if there is no communication). It seemed to me that in the alps the ethic was along the lines of “if you aren’t first, either deal with being skied on top of or try again tomorrow…” Martin describes the line being in full Sun and a warming surface- wet avalanches were certainly a concern on the day in question. Is it the upper party’s responsibility to wait for an slower ascending party even as conditions deteriorate and potentially increase the risk of the upper party?
It seems like communication could have helped avoid this specific instance, but in the broader ethical conversation this incident (and other near missed around the Tetons this winter) has stirred, I think it’s important to have a community consensus on who has the right of way in these scenarios.
It’s easy to have these hypothetical conversations/play out scenarios in our heads, but it is sobering to hear about incidents when these ethics get put to the test. Very relieved to hear that everyone in the situation is okay.
First off I cant imagine the horror of being peeled off a slope and feeling myself slide uncontrollably towards the bottom. This was a really tragic event and I’m sure will affect the participants for a long time thankfully they seem to be physically ok. In terms of the article though I feel like the language in this piece demonizes the solo snowboarder when he was never reached for comment on the episode (I swear I’m not the solo snowboarder). There’s a quote in here “There was no acknowledgment from him; he did nothing,”, as the snowboarder passes the other group. This means that this party also did nothing and did not acknowledge the solo snowboarder, which is stated later on. Now I certainly do not condone snowboarding, but phrasing it this way is not exactly fair and balanced between the two parties. We cant all be waiting at the top of every line for every party to finish climbing. Sometimes its too cold out, other times I need to go to work, often the snow is getting too warm. The point is we do not know what was on this person’s mind and giving him the benefit of the doubt and using objective language is the proper way to document it. I like the idea of skiing/climbing defensively, perhaps the proper call was for the other party to bail/wait for him to complete the line even if that is unsatisfying.
Thanks, Stephen for the comment. I discussed with the two skiers and Ryan that the intent of this piece was not to shame the snowboarder, but to report what went down. I’m glad to reach out to the snowboarder, I do not have his name or contact. Maybe this was a bad call, hindsight 20/20, but in writing the story, I left out details that certainly would have made the snowboarder look worse. Again, my intent here was to inform folks so this does not happen; not demonize the snowboarder. Ryan, Michael, Collin, and I realize this person must feel horrible. I do think Collin and Michael acknowledge they should have done their part to communicate with the snowboarder – if that does not come across, that is on me. In my conversations with them, they certainly were thoughtful and mindful of their roles in mitigating risks and, like we all do, making mistakes.
Thanks for writing it up! This is a really important conversation.
Well in all these comments it makes me wonder if any are like me, 70s 80s alpine rock climber/ 90s 2000s Telemark ski mountaineer / 2010s on backcountry slider? When we did an alpine or rock route we didn’t let people pass us because they were faster or some conditions excuse. We got their first and only jackasses would poach it sending rocks down on our unhelmeted heads. When we did telemark ski mountaineering routes we rarely saw others skiers. Now if I see someone climbing to ride a route I go somewhere else. Simple as that, no communication needed. Its unclear if these guys were acting like they were doing this route or looking like snow scientists at the base there to check it out not check it off. If they were already climbing the chute the snowboarder hurt them. If they were not obviously going up to do it they got themselves hurt by the snowboarder.
The fact that the snowboarder avalanched someone off and then didn’t stick around to help and injured person is plenty of reason in itself to shame them. If someone caused injuries in a hit-and-run car accident would you be saying “we should give them the benefit of the doubt”? I think not.
The snowboarder bailed the scene of an accident that he had triggered (note that I avoid “caused”) before he knew that everybody was safe. Internal injuries can take longer than that to manifest, and there also could have been shock/hypothermia/etc at play, etc.
The reason his perspective can’t be represented in the article is because of his appalling POST-accident behavior. He deserves the demonization and then some.
Super interesting case, thank you for the write-up! What a tragic event, I’m happy to hear the skier is OK. That fall could easily have been deadly, and I can’t imagine how terrifying it must have been while it was happening.
I agree that the account perhaps overly demonizes the solo snowboarder (I also promise I’m not the solo snowboarder); especially given the comment about warming snow conditions, and the resulting slide that occurred, it is reasonable to assume the snowboarder’s assessment was that the line was increasing in danger of a wet-loose, and so felt compelled to descend.
Despite the obvious retrospective failure of the two parties to communicate, I’m left wondering how we as a community can devise a policy that allows us to better predict each other’s behavior. What if the two parties hadn’t even seen each other, or seen each other but had no opportunity to communicate? What if the conditions deteriorate rapidly such that one party must trade off their own safety against another’s? Seems like there is no good answer except the standard “you are at the mercy of any party above you.” Given this, and the mantra of “skiing defensively,” perhaps the correct thing to do was to bail on the line because a snowboarder was above, as someone else suggested? For some reason, I’m left unsatisfied with that conclusion, but can’t come up with a better one.
In addition, time to add “what if a party above us acts recklessly” to my group safety discussion checklist :/
I’m glad nobody died, what a scary event. It seems to me the real story here is how 2 parties in a sketchy backcountry area can pass within snowball throwing distance without speaking, and think that’s normal. When you’re writing about “community’ behavior, it’s pretty clear that whatever sort of “community” exists there is a bit toxic. To not briefly speak with a soloist heading up the same route is a ridiculous mistake.
Agree 100% with this. Communicating with other parties on the same line or even zone, depending om the circumstance, should be mandatory as popular zones become increasingly crowded. As this story depicts it, it sounds like the solo snowboarder was being standoffish and a bit aggressive, but ultimately communication is the responsibility of both parties. I have made the same mistake before, with less severe consequences; I don’t think shaming anybody in this situation is very productive. But it does indicate that general attitudes towards communication between parties and even (gasp) collaborating on some elements of terrain management should be a bigger piece of the conversation about winter backcountry safety.
These types of situations are very problematic. 15 years ago, it would not have mattered, as there would have been no such “traffic”. Now, we as backcountry riders have to at least attempt to come to some kind of consensus on to handle ourselves in an ever more populated mountain environment. With hindsight, in this situation, it appears obvious to me that when the snowboarder passed the skiers, there should have been a discussion between the two parties, and an agreement made of some sort: what that agreement might have been we can now only speculate on, but we can hope that such an agreement would have been one that would have avoided the accident. It is clear to me that dropping in while others are climbing in this case posed a very obvious threat to those below, but I would not place any blame here on that: the blame is on both parties to have not communicated directly during the climb.
If I had been in the second group on the way up, I would have either come to an agreement with the passing snowboarder, or, given that the passing snowboarder was faster, I would have given up on the line that day-not wanting to be in a very exposed spot if the snowboarder had chosen to descend while my party was still climbing. To me, in the mountains, often speed in these types of situations grants a certain degree of “right of way”, after all, what if conditions are deteriorating (like warming) and one is waiting at the top to descend while another party is in the line, having made the mistake of being too late for conditions on the day? That is a tough situation to be in for the faster party, especially in a line where there is no other way down: wait for the party below to top out, and risk a wet slide, or try to descend safely with the hope that “nothing will go wrong”?
As an older rider, these days I choose to travel farther out to avoid crowds as often as reasonable, as I often do not feel safe in the backcountry in crowded areas-it seems like the explosion in popularity of backcountry skiing in the US also means there can be conflicts, and conflicts can compromise safety in an already dangerous sport.
excellent analysis, especially the part about going farther out, starting earlier, etc. difficult to expect others to follow the rules when, clearly, they aren’t even established and probably never will be, given the insane number of permutations. when there aren’t others around, all of it goes away.
It seems prudent to establish an ethic identifying that the first party to start up the couloir has right of way. Simple. Effective. Later parties should ask permission to ascend above prior parties. As far as top down lines, for very crowded ski lines alternating days of the week could be suggested (by word of mouth or other) with the most popular route choice having 4 days.
I read your comment yesterday and thought I’d reflect on it a bit before opining. While I totally agree about increased coordination and communication being a key to a functioning more populous backcountry. I do take issue with your proposed couloir right of way ethic. It would exist to the detriment of the more fit exclusively, which I don’t claim to be. This concept also does not accommodate the varying risk acceptance levels for various groups.
My proposed counter solution follows: I have a group of friends who regularly leave a BCA link at the trailhead with a sign for following groups to call in and share their goal destination. This obviously occurs at the risk of their radio, but I believe like beacon checkers exist at busy entrances perhaps a radio permanently stationed nearby would be of assistance. Realistically, this hearkens back to the article related to monitorable channels for particular zones and the importance of medium range communicability between groups. Suggesting in popular areas radios are a must.
indeed, as someone that moves about 4x faster than others, i hate this ethic. i see people with 40 pounds of stuff in their packs – their style is fine for them – but i hate it. i wanna move fast and get out. slowness kills and forcing everyone to be slow seems like a terrible idea.
As an experienced and fit skier that carries minimal equipment too, I would suggest being the first person to an objective if you want to “move fast and get out”. How did the people with 40# packs get out in front you if you really are 4x faster? I agree that speed and efficiency is the ideal but slower people are not forcing anyone to be slow and generally not killing anyone except maybe themselves. I completely support an individual skiing any line in any condition that they are up for but personally choose to step back if I can’t move around others without undue jeopardy.
Lack of communication between the two groups is obviously the main culprit here and I think both groups share that blame equally. It seems assumptions were made on both sides.
I’m trying to put myself in the shoes of the solo snowboarder and I assume they were also aware of the fact the Sliver was in full sun and time was of the essence and that was likely the main motivation for dropping when they did. Clearly the snowboarder was looking back down the booter to assess the time gap as well and how much they’d have to wait for the skiers to reach the top, all while the solar warming was ongoing. If the skiers were only 70% of the way up then that strikes me as more than 5 minutes to the top. It seems the snowboarder made a very hasty transition to downhill mode after the booter on purpose, and I don’t think that wasn’t out of malice.
Also, the skiers point out they saw the snowboarder stop in the fall line and in sight, before continuing down. I assume the snowboarder stopped on purpose so that the skiers were aware they had transitioned and was about to ride the line. It appears that another assumption was made that since the skiers didn’t yell for them to stop that they felt they must be in a safe enough spot for the snowboarder to pass.
Again, clearly too many assumptions going on in a situation that could have very much been avoided by a 1 minute conversation and I’m just glad the incident didn’t ended worse.
This situation is only going to become more common, so I think the main thing we can do culturally from a backcountry community is communicate more and be open as open to changing our plans due to human factors as we are with weather and snow conditions.
If I am going up a couloir and someone is above me then I am the one at risk to their decision making. This means I need to be defensive for the safety of my party and if I haven’t communicated with the person above me, then I need to assume they won’t necessarily be making their decisions with me in mind and it’s probably time to bail.
Communication between parties or no communication between parties, it is truly bad form to drop in on the ascending party in such a narrow slot, and then having kicked off sluff that took out one of the ascending party, not stay behind to assist in some way. If the snowboarder had taken a tumble and become injured, it seems likely that the two skiers would have abandoned their plans and descended to assist.
Thanks Jason for opening up this discussion, but with any “Monday morning quarterbacking” by commenters afterward there is always going to be assumptions and guesses that can’t be avoided. Collin and Michael were considerate enough to share their perspective on the incident, knowing assumptions and finger-pointing would happen. For that, I applaud them for taking the emotional risk for the betterment of the community. Coming upon the incident firsthand, my first reaction was “why didn’t the person responsible for the slide stay around to help with the evac?” Obviously, no harm was intended but an accident did occur. I can only imagine that he wanted to avoid what is happening now, which is judgment towards anyone involved in what was a shitty situation. My main focus in this comment is to say that the hazard level was “low” this past Saturday and the only objective danger was a slough avalanche when the first party skied, otherwise you could have held a wedding rehearsal dinner in there and been fine. Real-time pictures of the incident show that Collin and Michael were about 10 minutes from the top when the incident occurred and the snowboarder made a giant turn in the widest part of the couloir literally ten feet above them causing the slide. Waiting for others to ascend was the right choice, from what I gathered the solo snowboarder moved past them quickly while they were digging a pit and choose to ascend to the top quickly, knowing they would be ascending right after. The high alpine isn’t a place where the first person to start up the booter wins and all others be damned. Collin and Michael have admitted to communication being lost somewhere along the way, but if the same thing happened to me, I would assume that the person knew what they were doing and would take my safety into consideration and I would ascend right behind him. It was a cold morning, wet slab avalanches were not going to happen past the new six inches of snow. I was planning on ascending nearly two hours later and if the slough had cleared I could have ascended at 5 pm and been fine. Bottom line: shit happens and we can all learn from it. Pointing fingers from the sidelines doesn’t help. A lack of social and emotional intelligence in the backcountry community is what got us into this abrasive situation in the park currently with crowded slopes and bad attitudes, please try to not make the same mistake again or we will be hearing about a death the next time something like this happens.
About fifteen years ago after hiking the easy way up to a favorite BC bowl along a ridgeline that ran up, at the top as I was transitioning to ski down I noticed a group of four below and hiking up the bowl in a long traverse, It was obvious they did not know the easy and safe way up. I thought about dropping in anyway but with a good foot of fresh and the steepness of the upper section I knew it would be wrong, so I waited a good twenty minutes for them to get near the top just below my spot. I thought they might say thanks for waiting but they seemed all focused on transitioning so I dropped in and took first tracks in the waiting snow and knew I had done the right thing. I thought they were pretty stupid to come up the way they did.
Whether on the river or on the mountain, you know you’re in JH when the other guy doesn’t say hi.
Having lived in Telluride years ago, I hear ya Garrett.
Amen. It’s the cutoff for places I like to live versus those I don’t: does the other driver acknowledge you when you wave? Sadly, it’s a dying habit in formerly small towns across the country, corona-refugee resettlement gentrification perhaps. The localism snarls in JH and Telluride aren’t exactly the small settled towns I’m referencing either.
It looks like he didn’t even make it to the top before starting down!
Imagine if that snowboarder was 30min ahead and all you saw was a couloir with a boot pack. What do you do?
Yeah. From a straight technical perspective, does it really matter what the trigger was? Maybe one of the sacred park bighorns appear, and kick off the slough instead. Anything skier triggered could theoretically happen naturally.
I appreciate those involved sharing the experience, thank you.
Thank you for such extensive documentation of this incident.
Every interparty involvement is a call to action for us to find ways to coordinate between unrelated parties in the backcountry. These events will only grow in frequency until we figure out how to work together.
I’ve added this incident to my ongoing log of interparty incidents found here: https://www.kendallpeak.org/kendall-peak/repository-of-inter-party-avalanche-involvements
This supplements the catalog and analysis published here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10668 (Submitted to ISSW 2020, which is now ISSW 2023 🙂 )
If WildSnow readers are aware of North American interparty incidents or significant near-misses not cataloged above, please get in touch.
If you’re a researcher interested in pursuing similar work in Europe, please reach out, too. Europe’s population density and history is still an untapped resource for understanding interparty avalanche involvements.
So it seems having radios and pre-determined channels for specific zones could easily help people avoid situations like this. They are readily available and inexpensive, and already standard equipment for many backcountry travelers.
Still, it’s basic, one party would have to speak with the other. Even if you have technology to assist – if one does not speak and/or listen, the tech will not help. Speak, people !
In general, I don’t think being the first one up a booter gives you the right to have a line to yourself, but following another party up a bootback does mean that you accept the risk that the parties above you create. While there are always sections where there’s nowhere to realistically hide, if you’re booting up a coulior you should be sticking to safe zones to the extent possible whether there’s another party above you or not.
People dropping in on other parties should ideally wait for them to top out or get to a safe zone, but there’s a limit to how much patience we should reasonably expect. I’ve seen parties take two hours to boot five hundred feet, and I’m sorry, but I’m not waiting for a party like that to top out. When you do ski, you should make an effort to let the parties below get into a safe zone (and not go out of your way to make a big turn right above them…).
I think the specific situation here revolves around two questions:
1) Was the snowboarder trying to snake the skiers? (The piece implies the answer is yes, which would more or less negate the fact that he was higher on the bootpack)
2) Would it have been unsafe for the snowboarder to wait? (These comments imply the answer is no)
Whether or not the snowboarder had a right to drop in on the other party, the fact that he didn’t stick around very long is to care for those caught in an avalanche he triggered is pretty damning.
So sketchy – dude coulda waited 10 mins but instead dropped in and almost killed two people. I can’t imagine defending that behavior. I can see how the skiers would assume that the snowboarder had even one single brain cell but guess you can’t assume anything anymore and need to explicitly discuss your plan with anyone intent on skiing the same line.
Accidents happen, and people do make mistakes. An enhancement to radio use would be a hailing channel, similar to Channel 16 on marine vhf radios. You monitor the hailing frequency, and use another channel for conversing. ‘Maydays’ (and ‘Pan Pans’) are announced on 16. Users then agree to converse on another channel keeping 16 clear for other hails or emergency. ‘Dropping’ (in Silver Couloir) ‘, and ‘Exposed’ (in Siilver) could serve to reduce accidents.
Wasn’t there a similar accident in Teluride on “Heaven’s Eleven,” a few years back? And that is why folks down there started to use the BCA radios?
The fact that the snowboarder has not offered any insight regarding his decision making process is curious. The fact that he left the injured skier while others that were not involved stayed to assist is interesting as well. I’m not sure what the current ethic is but for me it is first team on the line should have it until they are out of it. I completely understand that skiing can be a dangerous undertaking but this incident seems to have been mostly avoidable. Incidents like this often bring unwanted attention from land managers and it is safe to say that this rarely leads to more freedom.
This is such a weird story, mostly because I can’t imagine having another group (or solo snowboarder/skier) pass me without having a conversation. JH is a weird place. Beyond that, this is a perfect use case for skiers using designated common radio channels for communication. Telluride was one of the first, but other areas also have common channels.
A couple of days ago we topped out on an untracked bowl 10 minutes before another party. We were transitioning 100 yards away, so we couldn’t communicate directly, but we put our radios on the common Crested Butte channel (7-0) and the other group had done the same. That meant we were able to let the other party know we were about to drop in and also that we were planning to take a hard traverse to the right at the bottom of the bowl to begin a second ascent to another part of the mountain for our second lap to the valley floor. The other group said they planned to ski fall line all the way to the valley. Done. Easy. No problems. No one sloughed anyone out.
This is a culture issue not a tools issue. While the suggestions of a staged radio, hailing channels, etc. are great – if people won’t talk in person when they are 30 feet from one another (the simplest solution) there is no way they will use hailing channels or other technology based tools (more complex solutions). While the report makes it sound like the snowboarder was at fault, the skiers could have easily asked as he passed “hey what’s your plan? how do we make sure we stay out of each other’s way?” Or even a “hey how ya doing?”
Establishing community consensus on etiquette is worthwhile. But at the end of the day, human behavior is difficult to control. Maybe the most simple question to ask? Am I willing to accept this risk, or would it be better to avoid this additional risk by skiing somewhere else.
Interesting story. My thoughts.. I never entered a couloir like that with others in it to avoid just this type of chaos. Few things worried me more than someone or groups skiing down on me in avalanche terrain either in a couloir or big slope. Reading further it seems like multiple groups are actually quite common in that feature, which to me, has a definite lack of safe spots.
This situation is bound to happen here in WA at busy places such as Snoqualmie pass and the Baker BC, where I see people pass each other with only side-eye all the time (guilty at least once or twice). I cannot imagine doing the same in a steep line with a cliff at the bottom. Unfortunately it reinforces some stereotypes I have about gnarly guys who like to ride solo. I like skiing with snowboarders.
Radios can probably help, but are not a panacea. We should encourage adoption of radio protocols but not rely on them. In this case radios may or may not have helped as the two parties were within voice range not long before the accident but did not make an effort to communicate according to the incident summary above.
A few analogies to other situations to think about:
1) Turn signals on your car. We’re all required to have them, and to use them to signal our intentions when changing lanes or making turns. But many people don’t use turn signals, and not out of ignorance. Also, just because someone has their right turn signal blinking doesn’t mean they won’t go straight or turn left instead.
2) Marine VHF radios. This is probably the closest analogy. Professional mariners (guides, rangers, patrollers in our context) generally monitor the hailing channels at all times, but recreational users often do not monitor or respond to hailings (if they even have a working VHF on board). In busy ports the hailing chatter alone can be nearly constant even when following protocols. This has been the case for decades. The system does improve safety, but you always have to assume that other vessels didn’t hear or understand you, and it takes a fair amount of mental energy to monitor the comings and goings of other vessels which can cause unintended consequences. AIS, which broadcasts your position and velocity to others automatically, is a big improvement in terms of keeping track of other vessels. Perhaps AIS technology could be replicated for skiers (inReach integrated with walkie-talkie), but I think there would be a lot of resistance to automatically sharing your location with strangers (or the government) in the backcountry.
3) Regarding the disagreement over who has right of way, surfers have a long established set of “rules” regarding who gets to surf which wave, nominally to enhance safety but also to maintain the social pecking order. Priority varies depending on where you catch the wave, equipment (shortboard, longboard, SUP, or *gasp* kayak), how many years you’ve been surfing that break, where you went to high school, your skill level, how much others in the lineup like/hate you, etc. Although in many cases the rules are clear, there are grey zones along the boundary and the result can be deflated tires or even fisticuffs for those who are perceived to break the rules. The US Coast Guard stays the heck away from this can of worms. We aren’t there yet in the BC ski community, but I fear this is where we’re headed as the number of skiers grows and the snow shrinks. We already have the localism component activated.
As an avid surfer and backcountry skier… let’s hope backcountry skiing never adopts the lineup social pecking order.
snowboards- the gift that keeps on giving.
That fact that the rider above made the turn above the climbers below after both parties were stopped and within eyesight is the tragedy of this scenario in my opinion. Some quick, simple communication like “CAN YOU GET SAFE?” from above would have been best, but a “HOLD ON! LET US GET TO A SAFE SPOT!” (from the photo it looked like there was a rock outcropping to duck behind if climbing past was not a timely enough option) or some other signal (arms / axes in an X overhead and hand gestures to where your going to move) from below could changed the day for everyone.
The whole story is pretty good evidence that the guy with the gun (rider above) is coming from a different place of knowledge, etiquette, risk tolerance than the climbers below and quick input from those in the firing-line would be totally appropriate and beneficial to all, even if it went unheeded, in which case this would not be nearly as long of a discussion.
If i drop on top of others and i sluff the line out on them then its all on me. I, being the instigating force.
I have been in similar situations in the past. Stopped and yelled down that i will be gentle and please be aware as their may be movement. Duck in if u can etc.
Its really about awareness and courtacy. Although comp for the clean line often leaves courtacy out of the picture. I was taught a long time ago by those who were savvy way back then that there are certain rules.
Guy who nreaks the most trail gets first tracks.
Learn fallline and keep it there to the floor, especially when stacking lines.
Followers make the skin track better, not worse and so on. Im grateful for their tough guidance.
Conditions this day were a few inches of snow on a firm crust / bed surface. First day after a small storm. It was obvious that any rider would trigger a slide / sluff in these conditions in steep terrain.
When someone passes you or is above you in a run it is up to you to turn around or get to a safe spot. Or at least talk with them and make a plan. If you don’t you are signing up for the potential consequences. You can not expect anyone to wait for you to get up there. The snowboarder may have felt like things were warming up and they had to get out right away. They were on top and there is no reason they should put their own safety in jeopardy to wait for a group who could have turned around but didn’t. The people below had a long time to get out of the way when the border passed them on the uphill there was no question a sluff or avalanche would occur.
Jeff, I would love to hear more details on this being a criminal offense in Europe. I see things like this happen weekly when I am spring skiing in Chamonix. They seem to be under the impression that the person coming up from below is basically signing a waiver and agreeing to the risk.
Yes, I agree. Radios and dedicated channels are prudent in popular areas and should become part of local ethics.
It seems though that the first party right of way is pretty much how things work now. If I start up a couloir and want to pass a group I am morally obligated to communicate before passing not just because of potential avalanche hazard but because I, in the eyes of those whom I am about to pass, am a bumbling idiot who may do any number of ridiculously stupid acts which may endanger the lives of said group. People do dumb things all the time in the back country, not least of which is getting over their heads in a couloir.
The communication errors in the story were not equal and opposite. The snowboarder had a moral obligation to communicate with the ski group before passing. The ski group made a bad decision not to communicate with the snowboarder and it bit them. But they were not in the wrong, in a moral sense.
What happened to common courtesies? When climbing the Lowe Route in the Lone Peak Cirque, if we came upon another party en route, shouldn’t we wait for them to at least the clear the pitch before starting? Or go climb another route? But what do I know, grumpy-old-men come from a different world,
50 years of backcountry skiing has taught this grumpy graybeard to NEVER knowingly drop in on a lower party on a face or especially in a couloir. Ever.
I don’t disagree at all Keith. But just for the sake of playing devils advocate, my corollary to your statement would be to NEVER assume that someone above you, that you haven’t communicated with, is going to follow the same behavior you would or take your safety into consideration.
I’ve learned in my experience (albeit 20 years less than you) that I can predict another groups behavior far worse than that of the weather or snowpack.
The snowboarder is a total idiot. Where is the common sense? Why not wait like 10 mins so you aren’t making turns above another party? Was he that dialed with his avie assessment that he would ride a line like that solo, or just foolhardy? If he is riding terrain like that above another party, my guess is the latter. JH is a weird place. What was once a great place for serious athletes is a total socioeconomically stratified kook-fest. No thank you.
Comments are closed.