| Author |
Topic |
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
112 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 10:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sandy
People like that put the whole group at risk.
Curious to know if you ever discussed these deficiences as a group or with the individual? Group dynamics being what they are, I'm adamant that risks are discussed as a group, beforehand and continuously, so that the inevitable blaming doesn't come up if things don't go perfectly. People that are reluctant to participate in decisions due to lack of knowledge or experience should not be allowed to simply defer, as they often whine the loudest! |
|
|
 | LeeL
Advanced Member
|
 Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
2507 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 10:34 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by johngenx
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.
Splitboarders have invested a lot of money in their gear (entire board, skins, and beacon/probe/shovel). AT skiers especially the TGR sprayers have bought a pair of skins, a beacon probe and shovel. They usually have rudimentary skis that are too heavy and bindings that are quasi inbounds/touring. I view TGR sprayers with suspicion
Plus 1 for splitters - you don't spend that much without really really wanting to get out there. Desire is good
Plus 2 for splitters. They've usually spent time galumphing around in powder snow with snowshoes so that means they really really really know how to suffer. And I want that trait in a backcountry partner. It's not all roses, success and pow out there.
Plus 3 for splitters. They're almost always awesome descending in powder and variable snow so can get down and off slopes fast. And speed is your friend. |
|
|
| LeeL
Advanced Member
|
Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
2507 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 10:37 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trail Talk
quote:
Originally posted by sandy
People like that put the whole group at risk.
Curious to know if you ever discussed these deficiences as a group or with the individual? Group dynamics being what they are, I'm adamant that risks are discussed as a group, beforehand and continuously, so that the inevitable blaming doesn't come up if things don't go perfectly. People that are reluctant to participate in decisions due to lack of knowledge or experience should not be allowed to simply defer, as they often whine the loudest!
Speaking for myself I tell that person (by himself or herself - no need to embarrass them publicly) that I don't want to tour with them anymore and why. I'm not a guide. Someone wants to continually screw up - do it on their own time. There's no point in sugarcoating this. You do yourself and that person a disservice. |
Edited by - LeeL on 05/21/2012 9:30 PM |
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
797 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 11:12 AM
|
Going back to the original graphs for the hell of it: I think you're missing an x-axis. What is x?
I get the different phases (once they were made simpler)..but still...why is the risk increasing as 'mysterious x' increases within a single phase? |
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
797 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 11:18 AM
|
On a club trip...or any trip with people I don't know...my rule is to not do anything I'm wouldn't be comfortable leading myself. This way A: I'm not a liability/slow etc to people I don't know and B: I'm not putting my trust in people I don't know to be entirely competent.
With someone I know and trust I would be more likely to go (slightly) above my experience level, making sure they fully knew that I was going above my experience level into something I wouldn't necessarily lead. Unfortunately I rarely get to do trips like this. Which means I never get better. |
|
|
2421 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 12:52 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by booewen
On a club trip...or any trip with people I don't know...
The problem with club/group trips is that there are always a few people who over-estimate their abilities, so the difficulty and the pace become those of the weakest member. That's frustrating for people who are better at it, and the less able have to push to try to keep up.
It also increases risk for everyone in the group. An inexperienced person will try something they're not really capable of to try to match up with their self image or just to fit in, and when they get hurt, everybody else has to take on extra risk to do the rescue. |
|
|
| LeeL
Advanced Member
|
Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
2507 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 1:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by booewen
On a club trip...or any trip with people I don't know...my rule is to not do anything I'm wouldn't be comfortable leading myself. This way A: I'm not a liability/slow etc to people I don't know and B: I'm not putting my trust in people I don't know to be entirely competent.
With someone I know and trust I would be more likely to go (slightly) above my experience level, making sure they fully knew that I was going above my experience level into something I wouldn't necessarily lead. Unfortunately I rarely get to do trips like this. Which means I never get better.
Skip the club trips or view them as your once-a-year give back to the community by taking a n00b out (we were all n00bs once so its a good thing to do imo). Then start going with people you mesh with. It's the eternal way of the VOC, ACC and many other clubs.
You do cool trips - I've seen them and they're interesting. You owe it to yourself to do more |
|
|
Squamish, British Columbia
Canada
1008 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 1:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by peter1955
The problem with club/group trips is that there are always a few people who over-estimate their abilities
It's the dunning-kruger effect in action.
Club trips are a good way to network though so they are worthwhile for that. I've met at least one person per club trip that I've been on that I've subsequently gelled with and have hiked with again. |
|
|
2421 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 2:15 PM
|
The Outdoor Council of Canada (Albi Sole at the University of Calgary) has an interesting matrix on risk assessment for climbers and hikers. If you really want to follow up on this, you could contact him.
It's copyrighted so I don't want to be sending it out publicly without his permission. I will send his email via PM. |
|
|
Finally stopping that crazy suffering that is ice, climbing to concentrate on great ski tours!
3509 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 2:18 PM
|
When I first decided to take up technical travel (glaciers, rock, ice, etc) I joined some clubs to meet people and find out what I didn't know. Sounds nuts, but it's true. You have to figure out what skills you don't have and the knowledge you're lacking.
I went out on beginner trips and tried to spend every moment learning as much as possible. My problem, of course, was that I wasn't aware of many of the hazards. I had read as much as possible prior to trips, and I had been traveling for a long time in the wilderness, so just being out there wasn't an issue.
I meet many new people that have their ego riding out in front of them, leading them into trouble. They don't like to admit that they might not know something, or lack the ability to do a task. I also meet folks that just plain aren't interested in learning and simply follow along, never really learning much. They have their own agenda, and you're just a cog in their wheel to notching some mark on some list.
For me, I have worked hard to find partners that I am compatible with. This is not just in terms of raw ability, but many factors:
1. If I can't spend a few days hunkered in a tent with you, then I probably won't want to spend other time with you. Personal compatibility is important.
2. If you're reckless in a way that I'm not, well, that seem obvious. We all have differing personal views of risk tolerance, so it's not a judgement. I just need to be out with partners that are similar to me, maybe a bit farther along the scale just to push me a bit.
3. I like going out with people that are more skilled and/or experienced than me. I love it when there is someone that I can learn from as we go.
4. Be fit. I can't count how many times someone told me how crazy fit they were only to have them fold up in no time. It seems an inverse relationship. The fitter you tell me you are, the less so you will be. I'm not expecting everyone to be Ueli Steck, but a reasonable level of fitness really makes mountain trips go much better. |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 2:55 PM
|
I just can't imagine meeting someone random go with with mountaineering, or why anyone would.
When I meet someone new, whether in person, on a forum, a club, or whatever, I'll go out with them on something easy and interesting, which is usually a good way to figure out compatibility and accuracy of representation. I don't go on any trip that challenges me in any way with people I don't trust.
And I only go out with people on challenging trips on the basis that anyone can pull the plug at any time, and the group will turn back. After the trip, we can decide that our risk levels are too far apart, and maybe we shouldn't be out together. but while we're on the way, anyone can pull if they need to.
With that, if I have a completion goal, I will only plan such a trip with people I've been out with enough to know our risk comfort levels and abilities are sufficiently similar to enable success and enjoyment.
It's not a bad metric, and seems fairly comprehensible (though I get lost in some of the protection mentions), I just don't see why anybody goes anywhere on even slightly risky trips while relying on others to self-represent their skills, abilities, and comfort zones. |
Edited by - Rachelo on 05/17/2012 2:56 PM |
|
|
|
Kootenay Bud
2695 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 4:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by LeeL
quote:
Originally posted by Trail Talk
quote:
Originally posted by sandy
People like that put the whole group at risk.
Curious to know if you ever discussed these deficiences as a group or with the individual? Group dynamics being what they are, I'm adamant that risks are discussed as a group, beforehand and continuously, so that the inevitable blaming doesn't come up if things don't go perfectly. People that are reluctant to participate in decisions due to lack of knowledge or experience should not be allowed to simply defer, as they often whine the loudest!
Speaking for myself I tell that person (by himself or herself - no need to embarrass them publicly) that I don't want to tour with them anymore and why. I'm not a guide. Someone wants to continually fuck up - do it on their own time. There's no point in sugarcoating this. You do yourself and that person a disservice.
Oh yes, multiple times trying multiple tacks, but some people really just don't want to admit what they don't know. Ego, I guess. Plus, I'm a sucker for a sob story. Eventually, I cut this person loose, I was tired of being an unpaid guide - particularly as I am not trained as a guide. Can't tell you what a relief it was in the end.
I think it's difficult, egos being what they are, for most people to admit they don't know stuff. As humans, our first reaction almost always seems to be a defensive knee jerk one. |
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
112 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 5:29 PM
|
Related to risk assessment (I think), was a disturbing story in the last summer's issue of ACC Alpine Gazette as told by a Canadian physician/climber who returned to Everest for a 2nd attempt. Apparently his 1st attempt was thwarted by a medical emergency that he felt obliged to assist with. On his 2nd trip, he passed by a distressed climber not far from Camp 3 but unable to walk. He pressed on only to abandoned his climb later. On the way down he passed by the same climber now dead. I thought it bizarre that he stopped to take the guy's pulse just to be sure, when he could have benefitted from some attention earlier. Although his adventure was meticulously documented, the Japanese climber that perished was not named (Hiroshi Ogasawara FWIW). The physician's team also lost one of their own to HACE while descending after a successful summit, but he was not involved having already returned to camp.
For me this story demonstrated the fluid nature of risk assessment at many levels; personal, team, and bystanders. It also illustrates the struggle between risk assessment vs fixation on the objective. A tragedy all around... |
Edited by - Trail Talk on 05/17/2012 5:31 PM |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
1461 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 5:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by booewen
Going back to the original graphs for the hell of it: I think you're missing an x-axis. What is x?
I get the different phases (once they were made simpler)..but still...why is the risk increasing as 'mysterious x' increases within a single phase?
I believe the x-axis is difficulty. The drop at the end of phase 2 is where the use of protection begins. |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
343 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 7:34 PM
|
| what is to the right of Phase 4? (I'm not planning to go there any time soon, just curious) |
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1607 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 7:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by timv
what is to the right of Phase 4? (I'm not planning to go there any time soon, just curious)
That's where you aren't willing to go because it exceeds your personal risk tolerance and no protective measures are available to lower the risk.
Example:
If someone decides to free solo a climb where protection would have been an option, then they are operating in Phase 2.
If someone decides to do the same climb with gear, then they are operating in Phase 3.
If someone decides to free solo a climb where protection is impossible, then they are operating in Phase 4.
|
|
|
Burnaby, BC
Canada
667 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 7:50 PM
|
Wow what a useless thread! thanks Steventy for the useless info. I saw one person post a few interesting and insightful quotes.
Over all. Common sense made complicated. |
|
|
| LeeL
Advanced Member
|
Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
2507 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 8:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by MatthewBaldwin
Wow what a useless thread! thanks Steventy for the useless info. I saw one person post a few interesting and insightful quotes.
Over all. Common sense made complicated.
You usually don't come across as an asshole. What makes today different?
Steventy the discussion was useful even if you made me pull out old Linear Algebra textbooks |
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1607 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 8:29 PM
|
Some excellent points have been raised in this thread. They have been very helpful.
Here is the question that I was really trying to drive at:
“How much optional risk am I willing to accept?”
It’s also the area where I see the largest variation between partners.
You might have two people of equal skill that have the same upper level of risk tolerance.
However, one person will have a very low tolerance for optional risk. They are more than happy to start earlier in the day and carry a heavy bag full of gear if it means eliminating elements of risk that are within their control.
The other person looks at risk in a much simpler way. As long as they are below their personal risk tolerance, they are happy to continue.
The framework was a rough first attempt at providing a diagram for facilitating that discussion and the feedback clearly indicates that it was too convoluted to be useful.
|
|
|
Vancouver
1820 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 8:30 PM
|
An impressive piece of thinking that I'd only make myself look stupid by trying to criticize or add to it.
But this came to mind as I read it:
My sudden encounter with a cougar on a trail last fall. And a couple of weeks ago, I got injured more badly than anything that's happened to me in the mountains, while out for an easy 2-hour walk on a simple trail on Salt Spring Island. I slipped on a rock on a downhill section, and pitched forward downhill at high speed onto more rocks, crashing and bouncing on them until eventually coming to a stop by hitting my head on a rock. An inventory racked up 12 separate injuries.
The point being that an incident serious enough to be life-changing can pop out of the blue at you no matter how carefully you try to control the risks. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
A framework for discussing mountaineering risk
