| Author |
Topic |
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1606 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 7:38 PM
|
Shorter version in follow up post below.
I've been pondering risk in the mountains and trying to come up with a simple way to talk about risk when choosing partners.
I've boiled it down to a simple diagram that looks at risk in four phases based on two key transition points that are different for each person.
Read on for the explanation if you are interested.
A natural first assumption would be that risk simply increases as the difficulty of the route increases. Anyone who hasn't participated in mountaineering will likely assume that this is the form that the risk profile takes. When they see someone climbing straight up a rock wall, they will assume that's more dangerous than someone scrambling up something less vertical.
After thinking about it in more detail, I realized that your personal risk profile goes through four distinct phases and this could be captured nicely in a diagram that can be personalized to each person by setting two variables. The two variables are the level of risk at which you transition from Phase 2 to Phase 3 (at what point do you use protection if it is available) and the maximum level of risk that you are willing to accept in Phase 4 (the maximum level of risk you will take when protection isn’t an option.) Often you go through the phases sequentially but it’s possible to go directly from Phase 1 directly to Phase 4.
Your risk profile can be a contentious issue.
- When traveling in a group, it’s the issue that is most likely to cause disagreements.
- Because SAR gets called when stuff goes wrong, many people would argue that you have a responsibility to SAR to not take unnecessary risks (Phase 2) and to not push the boundaries of Phase 4. As an example, solo travel on glaciers is often criticized as irresponsible and people attempting extreme feats often receive little sympathy if they do require assistance.
When forming a group to tackle any kind of an objective in the mountains, I’d like to understand everyone’s individual risk profile (the location of their two variables) and I’d like the group to agree on a risk profile that we will use as a group and stick to it in the field.
I think it’s also a useful tool for personal decision making. I can ask myself which phase I am in at any point in time and if I am operating within my risk profile.
This isn’t a novel idea so someone must have already created a very similar diagram or process before. Has anyone seen one before? What is it called? Maybe it’s just called common sense?
Phases:
In each of the phases, it’s important to consider these variables.
Consequences:
The consequences of an accident start with injuries but quickly escalate to fatalities. Since it can’t get any worse, the magnitude of the consequences plateaus from Phase 2 to Phase 4.
Likelihood of an Accident (in the absence of protection):
The likelihood of an accident generally climbs through the four phases but it has a wide range and it will depend on the specific activity. For example, you are more likely to fall off a 5.12 than a scramble.
Ability to Protect:
It’s possible to use protection to reduce the likelihood of an accident in the first three phases. The ability to use protection tapers off in the Phase Four. It’s a stretch but I’m trying to use protection in the broadest sense of the word and it could be anything from an avalanche air-bag to trad gear on rock. I would suggest that getting an alpine start is a form of protection against wet slides. Normally you would start at 9am and the likelihood of an accident could be high. By taking a protective measure (which generally comes at a cost – in this case waking up at 3am,) you have reduced the likelihood of an accident.
Use of Available Protection:
Protection is only used in Phase Three and Phase Four.
Risk:
By combining the variables above, a value for risk can be determined.
For the mountaineer, it all boils down to two decisions:
1) At what point do I want to transition from Phase 2 to Phase 3? (When do I use protection if it is available?) Do I want to avoid Phase 2 altogether?
2) What is the maximum level of risk I am willing to accept in Phase 4? (How much risk will I accept if protection is not an option?)
Commentary on the phases:
Phase 1:
Consequences of an Accident: Injury
Likelihood of an Accident (in the absence of protection): Low
Ability to Protect Against an Accident: Yes
Use of Available Protection: No
Risk: Low
This is the entry point to mountaineering, whether it is on skis, boots, or snowshoes. In this phase, there are real consequences of something going wrong (as opposed to falling on a hiking trail) but the consequences would be broken bones instead of death. In climbing, Phase 1 would be classified as Class 3 – scrambles. Most people don’t use protection on these routes.
Phase 2:
Consequences of an Accident: Fatal
Likelihood of an Accident (in the absence of protection): Medium
Ability to Protect Against an Accident: Yes
Use of Available Protection: No
Risk: High
Towards the upper end of Phase 1, the consequences start to get more serious. At the low end of Phase 2 there are routes where the likelihood of something going wrong is slim. An example might be the Angels Landing hike in Zion National Park. I put it in Phase 2 because the consequences are fatal (people have died) but the chances are slim (most people do it without any problems.) Another example would be skiing solo in the backcountry. Phase 2 can be deceivingly dangerous because it appears to be less dangerous than Phase 3 but it’s actually more risky.
Phase 3:
Consequences of an Accident: Fatal
Likelihood of an Accident (in the absence of protection): High
Ability to Protect Against an Accident: Yes
Use of Available Protection: Yes
Risk: Low
When operating in Phase 3, the mountaineer is using protection that allows them to travel safely. An example might be doing a 5.9 climb with gear or crossing a glacier on a rope team. Avalanche danger is tricky to fit into this model because the protection is less fool proof but an example might be skiing a 30 degree slope with a safe run-out on a moderate danger day with avy gear, an air-bag and partners. You can transition to Phase 3 as early as you want and skip Phase 2 completely.
Phase 4:
Consequences of an Accident: Fatal
Likelihood of an Accident (in the absence of protection): Medium to High
Ability to Protect Against an Accident: No
Use of Available Protection: No
Risk: High
Towards the end of Phase 3, protection becomes increasingly dubious. Rock turns to choss. Snow anchors can’t be trusted in the given snowpack. Ice waterfalls get so thin they may fall. An avalanche would push you over a cliff rendering beacons, shovels, and air-bags useless as forms of protection. From this point on, the participants are accepting an increasing level risk that they can’t protect against.
Two sample profiles:
Attached are two sample risk profiles. Each profile contains four transition points.
Phase 1 to Phase 2: This is the point at which a scramble becomes potentially fatal and it can’t be controlled.
Phase 2 to Phase 3: This is the point at which someone decides to rely on protection if it is available. This is a personal choice that can be controlled.
Phase 3 to Phase 4: This is the point at which protection becomes less reliable. It can’t be controlled.
End of Phase 4: This is the point at which a mountaineer decides they have exceeded their maximum level of risk in a situation where protection is not available.
Mary vs Bob:
Mary is happy to accept risk up to a certain point, whether or not protection is available. She’d prefer to carry a light bag on risky scrambles. She won’t take on the most daring mountains.
Bob is willing to accept a higher level of risk when protection is not available but he thinks it is foolish to take on any risk if protection is an option. He’s happy to move slow and place protection on any risky parts of scrambles but at the same time he’s willing to take on much larger levels of risk than Mary when there are no other options.
If Mary and Bob are going to set out on an adventure, they will need to agree on a risk profile that is a lowest-common denominator.
I’m most interested in the size of Phase 2. I’ve been surprised at how much risk people are willing to accept when protection is available.
Why do people do it?
- So they can travel quickly?
- Because dealing with protection (of any kind) is extra work?
- Protective measureless generally cost money?
- Lack of knowledge or skill?
- A higher level of personal risk tolerance?
- For the rush?
In general, does this seem like a useful framework with which to discuss risk in mountaineering?
|
Edited by - Steventy on 05/16/2012 9:13 PM
|
|
 | Dru
Mountain Grammar Police
|
 Sardonic sandbagging scoundrel, Cascade Climbers lobotomized spraymeister, space blanket flyer, new millennium vulgarian betaboy and friend to all squids
Climbing, a mountain
Canada
∞ Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 8:02 PM
|
| I think you are overthinking things. |
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1606 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 8:09 PM
|
I'm almost certainly over-explaining. On the thinking front though, it's pretty simple.
Can I get hurt of something goes wrong?
How likely is it for something to go wrong?
Are there any protective measures available?
Will I want to use the protective measures in this scenario if they are available and will I proceed if they are not available?
Answers to the questions determine your risk plot. If everyone in the group has a similar risk plot then you're well aligned.
|
Edited by - Steventy on 05/16/2012 8:10 PM |
|
|
Squamish, British Columbia
Canada
1008 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 8:11 PM
|
"The pleasure of risk is in the control needed to ride it with assurance so that what appears dangerous to the outsider is, to the participant, simply a matter of intelligence, skill, intuition, coordination... in a word, experience. Climbing in particular, is a paradoxically intellectual pastime, but with this difference: you have to think with your body. Every move has to be worked out in terms of playing chess with your body. If I make a mistake the consequences are immediate, obvious, embarrassing, and possibly painful. For a brief period I am directly responsible for my actions. In that beautiful, silent, world of mountains, it seems to me worth a little risk." — A. Alvarez
I don't personally think you can graph how a person handles risk. It's like trying to describe pain to another person. It's too subjective.
Sometimes people have off days and get wigged out easily and want to use protection, sometimes they take unnecessary risks and don't see the danger. I know I've felt both.
Another good mountaineering quote is:
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." — Evan Hardin. |
|
|
|
Kootenay Bud
2695 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 8:43 PM
|
I'm pretty much rendered speechless - an unusual occurrence. That's all so complicated I can't really even begin to understand it, much less use it as a discussion point with partners. Maybe I've fallen and hit my head too many times.
I think this diagram is much more useful:
When difficulty exceeds skill you get an epic or clusterfuck, when skill exceeds difficulty you get bored, when difficulty and skill coincide you're having fun. |
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1606 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 8:58 PM
|
Graph haters....
The summary is this:
Between scrambling and rock climbing (or other types of mountaineering activities,) there is a region of controllable risk that often goes uncontrolled. The consequences are high but many people choose to not take reasonable protective measures that are available.
In my experience with partners, the boundaries of that region can vary dramatically from person to person (and as Leigh pointed out, from day to day.) That's the region that is most commonly debated and that's the region where people appear to most commonly get themselves in trouble.
It's not as simple as just talking about risk tolerance because there are two types of risk that people take on:
1) Risk when there are protective measures available (like driving without a seatbelt)
2) Risk when there are no protective measures available |
|
|
Finally stopping that crazy suffering that is ice, climbing to concentrate on great ski tours!
3505 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 9:02 PM
|
Holy shit. I have four university degrees including two graduate degrees and I was lost pretty early there. Maybe all that edu-ma-cation made me stupid instead of smart?
I do find unroped fourth class terrain the scariest thing I've ever done... |
|
|
 Best grilled cheese maker ever
Whitehorse, YUKON
Canada
2148 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 9:04 PM
|
| WAIT. WHAT? |
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1606 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 9:12 PM
|
Fair enough. A shorter version.
As a mountaineer, you will always be operating in one of four phases.
Phase 1: You're not going to die if you fall and you don't use available protective measures (such as a rope.)
Phase 2: You will die if you fall but you still don't use available protective measures.
Phase 3: You will die if you fall and you use available protective measures.
Phase 3: You will die if you fall and protective measures are increasingly unreliable.
This isn't necessarily intuitive and it creates a risk profile that gets higher at first, then decreases and then increases again.
When talking about risk tolerance, you really need to identify two key points:
First: At which point do you transition from Phase 2 to Phase 3. In other words, when do you decide to use protection if it is available?
Second: If protection isn't available, what is your highest level of risk tolerance?
Behaviour from person to person can vary dramatically as shown by a simple diagram. The same diagram can be used to discuss plans for a trip.
   |
|
|
Burnaby, BC
Canada
1294 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 9:13 PM
|
Fear is a separate thing altogether. Can't really quantify it.
Technical skill and difficulty you can.
People sometimes do weird stuff to manage fear - I know I do. Never tried charting it, though. |
|
|
|
Kootenay Bud
2695 Posts |
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1606 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 9:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sandy
Does individual skill enter into your risk profile? Seems to me risk is highly related to skill level. Unfortunately, too many people have inaccurate assessments of their own skill level (usually assessing their ability as better than it is rather than worse).
Did you read Ueli Steck's interview:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/If_I_don_t_take_myself_out_of_this_game_I_will_die.html?cid=32576118
Great interview.
I think that individual skill would work into "likekihood of an accident" which would ultimately contribute to the level of the risk. It's a good point though because that is different for each person.
"
Likelihood of an Accident (in the absence of protection):
The likelihood of an accident generally climbs through the four phases but it has a wide range and it will depend on the specific activity. For example, you are more likely to fall off a 5.12 than a scramble."
|
|
|
|
canine loving, machete-toting bushwhacking lake seeker, Indiana Jones hat-wearing off-road 4x4 guru
Surrey Hole, BC
Canada
6784 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 9:30 PM
|
plenty of things we have no control over, large branch strikes you in the back while on a simple walk.
Rock fall on a class 2 scramble, which could be fatal.
Ask FB about slipping and busting up a limb on a simple hike.
Being out with partners who have all the best gear and no clue how to use it, its endless, no graph can be established. |
|
|
| LeeL
Advanced Member
|
Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
2506 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 9:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sandy
Does individual skill enter into your risk profile? Seems to me risk is highly related to skill level. Unfortunately, too many people have inaccurate assessments of their own skill level (usually assessing their ability as better than it is rather than worse).
We need zoflier here to tell us that using the 10 essentials is all that matter and micro-parsing Steventy's charts for boolean regression eigen dynamics.
Women tend to underestimate their skills. Men tend to overestimate their skills.
I tend to trust splitboarders much more than skiers and telemarkers. |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
1461 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 10:35 PM
|
The biggest issue that I have with this theory is that it assumes that risk can somehow be quantified in a meaningful way on the fly. There is often a major disconnect between perceived risk and some kind of statistical evaluation of risk, since it is inherently random in nature. For that matter, difficulty is really quite qualitative and dependent on many things.
I work more with a go/no go system. When discussing a route with a partner we plan out key decision points and discuss possible scenarios with possible outcomes. At any point either partner can pull the plug. This includes falling upward as Mark Twight likes to call it which I have resorted to a few times. I think that a general discussion of a specific route will tell you a lot more about a person's tendencies than a graph. For example, I will run out routes where I'm comfortable with the climbing style and sew the crap out of less secure climbs. Phase 2 will have a broad spectrum of values rendering it meaningless without very specific context.
The hardest decisions for me involve committing to falling up. Two ropes can allow for a rappel but can also result in so much fatigue that success becomes improbable. I tend to only do so if the hard parts can be aided.
I'm guessing that the motivation is to come up with a system for finding good partners over the Internet or from big clubs. The best approach I've found is to do feeling out trips that are low risk. It doesn't take long to figure out compatibility issues just from talking and watching. |
|
|
Finally stopping that crazy suffering that is ice, climbing to concentrate on great ski tours!
3505 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 05:54 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by LeeL
[quote]Originally posted by sandy
Women tend to underestimate their skills. Men tend to overestimate their skills.
I tend to trust splitboarders much more than skiers and telemarkers.
I agree, but I'm curious about the splitboarder thing.
I am an odd duck in that I tend to underestimate my capability on technical terrain. I put too much pro in and stuff like that. |
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
111 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 06:39 AM
|
| I applaud your efforts, thanks for bringing us in on the discussion! I'm just wondering if the first step should be a seperation of the risk factors invovled into "subjective" and "objective". Making decisions based on feelings of risk, without this preliminary assessment, doesn't really provide a common point of reference between two people IMHO. Your thoughts? |
|
|
vancouver, bc
Canada
987 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 08:06 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by LeeL
quote:
Originally posted by sandy
Does individual skill enter into your risk profile? Seems to me risk is highly related to skill level. Unfortunately, too many people have inaccurate assessments of their own skill level (usually assessing their ability as better than it is rather than worse).
We need zoflier here to tell us that using the 10 essentials is all that matter and micro-parsing Steventy's charts for boolean regression eigen dynamics.
Women tend to underestimate their skills. Men tend to overestimate their skills.
I tend to trust splitboarders much more than skiers and telemarkers.
Well its settled then, splitboarding for the win!
All jokes aside, not enough can be said for well matched partners with similar objectives, skills and risk propensity, anything other then that leads to a compromised trip, which can still be fun, but rarely as successful or rewarding.
Still I'm often happy to compromise my objectives to share the adventure with some good company. Its not always about peakbagging and the steepest and deepest.., Man it must be spring, I'm turning soft (Blackcomb inbounds corn harvest surrounded by babes in bikinis has that effect:) |
|
|
|
Kootenay Bud
2695 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 08:08 AM
|
Individual skill however, can affect the entire group. There's a few people I can think of who continually overestimate their ability and jeopardize the safety of the whole group. This becomes even more of a hazard when you are a long way from anywhere, where even a simple sprained ankle can turn into an epic.
I had one partner, who I've since ditched, who fell constantly on snow climbs, but couldn't self arrest - and, obviously, had no self-belay. It made doing glacier climbs with steep snow but open crevasses where you need to rope up impossible. Too slow to protect the route the whole way in case of a fall, but too dodgy to rope up with someone who at any minute was going to peel off and go for an uncontrolled glissade.
People like that put the whole group at risk.
|
|
|
681 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 09:01 AM
|
| Risk ? whats that? ya gotta get to the top!! & preferably near dark ,gotta get home Sunday morning, you might miss the city. |
|
|
Hope, BC
Canada
7098 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 09:37 AM
|
I am not a climber whatsoever, or even did much scrambling so my opnion doesn't mean much but I will say it anyways :P.
It doesn't matter how good you are at climbing, mistakes can happen to the most perfect human being. Taking the proper safety measures "in case", regardless of how good someone is, shows good skill I would assume. You shouldn't put yourself in a mistakable area without the right gear and safety precautions. Your risk of death is highly deminished if you have proper judgement of possible death I would assume, considering worst case scenarios. I am no mountain climber, but being a safe climber I would assume is a smart and good climber. It seems proper assessment is key. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
A framework for discussing mountaineering risk
