Human Factor Key In Avalanche Fatalities | WeatherBug
Main Menu
Responsive menu icon

Human Factor Key In Avalanche Fatalities

May 7, 2017
By The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Montana has seen more people die in avalanches over the last decade than any other state, with the exception of Colorado.

Jordy Hendrikx, director of the Snow and Avalanche Laboratory at Montana State University and an associate professor of earth sciences, is trying to figure out how to reduce the risks for backcountry skiers, snowboarders and snowmobilers.

Traditional avalanche safety training has focused on things like snowpack information and avalanche forecasts, how to use avalanche beacons and how to dig snow pits to see if underlying layers of snow are unstable.

But Hendrikx and other researchers have realized that they also need to educate backcountry users about the human side – the unconscious factors that go into decision-making, which can make the difference between life and death.

That insight and MSU’s research were highlighted by the New York Times in the Dec. 29 science article, “Searching for the Human Factor in Deadly Avalanches” .

Hendrikx and Jerry Johnson, a political science professor and avid outdoorsman, started the Tracks Project several years ago to learn more about how backcountry skiers and snowmobilers make decisions.

So far about 800 volunteers have reported to the Tracks Project on 5,000 backcountry trips, via smartphone apps and follow-up surveys. Hendrikx said this week he is looking for more volunteers, especially snowmobilers.

In the past decade, avalanches have claimed 38 lives in Montana, second only to Colorado with 63 deaths, he said. Montanans like to get outside, and the state is a popular destination for snowmobilers, especially those looking for steep terrain. Cooke City, he said, is a virtual Disneyland for snowmobilers.

As the popularity of backcountry recreation has increased, fatalities have increased, according to Colorado Avalanche Information Center statistics.

Twenty years ago, the 10-year average for people dying in avalanches was 22 a year. Today the average is 26 deaths. January and February are the deadliest months.

One event that sparked Hendrikx’s interest in avalanches was the death of two buddies in his native New Zealand. And two years ago, one of his MSU snow science students, 23-year-old Olivia Buchanan, died while skiing in Colorado (a tragic story examined in Powder Magazine’s article “The Human Factor 2.0”).

“I’ve been on an avalanche rescue team, a hasty team,” Hendrikx said. “I’ve been caught in a small avalanche myself. Unfortunately the only rescues I’ve been involved in resulted in fatalities. It’s very real to me.”

About 90 percent of fatal avalanches are triggered by the people who end up being killed, Hendricks said.

“Avalanches aren’t just random acts of nature,” he stressed.

The person who skis or snowmobiles on a steep slope or a slope with a weak layer of snow is more likely to release an avalanche.

To be safer, people can avoid steep terrain. They can educate themselves about avalanche safety. They can get the latest avalanche forecasts — the Gallatin National Forest Avalanche Center does a “fantastic” job, Hendrikx said. Avalanche forecasts in general are accurate about 80 percent of the time.

But it turns out, he said, “a lot of people who are dying have some information already.”

Hendrikx said he realized that more research on snow crystals might save a couple lives. But looking into human decision-making could save many more.

He cited as an example a group of buddies who went skiing in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, a couple years ago. They headed into the backcountry and reached the only slope in the area that hadn’t already had an avalanche.

Evidence of recent avalanches is the single best sign that conditions are unstable and unsafe, Hendrikx said. But by the time the whole group met up, the discussion had shifted away from whether or not it was safe, to enthusiasm for skiing. No one challenged the groupthink.

“It was, ‘This looks great, let’s ski it,’” Hendrikx said. “The group dynamics and consensus outweighed the physical factors. We see it time and time again. People ignore the physical clues when the group has made a decision.”

One person was killed in that avalanche.

Sometimes the smartest thing for a group to do is to stop, dig a snow pit and have a discussion focusing on the actual conditions that day.

“Stopping and knowing what’s under your feet is always important,” Hendrikx said. “Slow things down. Make a rational decision.”

The best decision may be “we can wait,” he said. “There are going to be days we can ski that amazing line and days we can’t. We’ve got to learn to be patient.”

MSU’s research follows a path first laid out in 2002 by Utah avalanche researcher and engineer Ian McCammon, who analyzed more than 700 U.S. avalanches and 500 fatalities over three decades.

McCammon wrote that backcountry users’ judgment may be blurred and influenced more by their internal motivations than actual conditions.

Looking at fatalities, he found that skiers took more risks when they were familiar with a route. They took more risks when they were eager to be the first to make tracks on fresh powder. People took more risks to impress or win approval from peers. Parties of men took more risks when there were women in the group.

People made riskier decisions when committed to a goal or a plan – such as reaching a summit. They took more risks when there was an “expert” in the group to whom everyone deferred. And people took more risks when they were with others.

Hendrikx said if he was teaching an avalanche safety class to 18-year-old high school guys, he’d spend more time talking about group decision making than he would with a class of 40-year-old mothers, who are less likely to take risks than young men.

While McCammon focused on what can be learned from fatalities, the Tracks Project is focusing on what can be learned from people who use the backcountry safely, said professor Johnson.

“They’re doing what they should be doing,” Johnson said. Often researchers look at failures – people killed by grizzlies or fires or avalanches. But in this case, they’re focusing more on the successes.

“From an education standpoint,” Johnson said, “we want to emulate success.”

Johnson said he is working with a medical student to study stress and decision-making.

“MSU is at the center of snow and avalanche science for the U.S. and has few peers globally,” Johnson said. “It is something the university should be very proud of.”

The Tracks Project is interested in getting information from more backcountry users — especially snowmobilers, Hendrikx said. Volunteers can sign up online (www.montana.edu/snowscience/tracks).

Where skiers may cover five, 10 or 20 miles a day, snowmobilers may cover 50 or 60 miles, he said. Skiers may interact each day with three or four features — slopes or terrain with different levels of avalanche risk — while snowmobilers can encounter 50 to 100 unique features, with changing levels of stability. The more slopes people touch, the greater their chances of an avalanche.

Snowmobilers also are at greater risk because they’re out of sight of each other more often, Hendrikx added. Skiers usually are within 100 or 200 feet of companions, so if there’s an avalanche, rescuers are close by.

Snowmobilers, however, may be out of sight of their companions for six or seven minutes at a time. If there’s an avalanche, five or six minutes may tick off the clock before friends realize someone is missing.

“If they don’t die from trauma, you really need to uncover somebody in 15 to 18 minutes,” Hendrikx said. That isn’t easy, even with an avalanche beacon. “Digging takes a surprisingly long time.”

The good news, Hendrikx said, is that most people who go into the backcountry come out safely.

“That means we can go into this environment and be safe,” he said. “But we need to know what we’re doing. A lot of people are making good decisions.”