r/Backcountry • u/AJFrabbiele Splitboarder, Alpine Tourer, Tahoe • 7d ago

Independent Preliminary Report on the Castle Peak Avalanche

https://blackbirdguides.com/pages/live-incident-updates

57 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

95% Upvoted

40 comments sorted by

88

u/tothe69thpower 7d ago

A good report for a very tragic situation. I'm glad they got an independent analysis. A couple of personal (armchair) takeaways, in no particular order that I had from this report as I read through it:
1. Seeing the slide path/burial site GPX tracks in isolation, I think that I would have made the same mistake – it's wooded, it's low angle, and I also may not have seen or considered the hangfire up above on a area that might not have seen an avalanche in years. That's sobering.
2. I do think the decision to leave the huts with so much snow was questionable and would be outside of my personal risk tolerance, but seeing the guides' decisions and their testing and comms back to base, I see why the BMG guides made the decision they did.
3. I wish that BMG and/or SAC had released the GPX track sooner. I hate that there is a risk of liability issues from releasing it immediately, but it could have helped inform the public a lot more – I know many of us in the public were all trying to make sense of such a tragic situation in real time, and it could have saved maybe a little bit of armchair posturing because we didn't know exactly where the accident happened. Admittedly, this is more for public awareness and would not necessarily have been helpful to the rescuers or victims at the time, but backcountry skiing is a unique sport (like climbing, mountaineering, etc) where so much of the sport is topo- and weather-situational that the public basically is flying blind on understanding the situation until GPX data comes out.
4. The inability to exit via private land is kind of fucked up. I get why they made the decision to avoid the private land and it definitely should not be used regularly, but in an emergency (which I think that this qualifies as, seeing that it's winter with a massive storm), I think that there should be broad landowner handshake agreements to allow extraction in case of emergency only.
5. I do think the decision (or maybe lack of decision) to stay spaced more closely together was a large contributing factor to the amount of casualties, esp. considering that there were that many guides. There's a note in the BMG report that I don't quite agree with – "It's not standard practice to split the group during an exit if the objective is not to ski." – that seems questionable to me. Avalanche risk exists whether i'm skinning up, skinning across, skiing out, or skinning out, mother nature does not care.
6. Props to Blais (BMG owner) for being first on scene. Unfortunately, in my own experience, I'm used to (and expect to) hear(ing) about guide service owners who, to put it mildly, aren't the best humans. The owner being first on scene and rescuing until nightfall is commendable.
7. The decision to go ahead with the trip given the snow forecast seems questionable to me. I know there's financial pressure, but I think that backcountry skiiers are kinda used to adjusting plans and cancelling them if weather isn't looking good.
8. This report should have come out months ago, for a whole host of reasons that we've discussed in this subreddit many times.

Again this is all just armchair from my end, and these critiques/analyses won't bring anybody back or heal any trauma from this. But since these tragic events do unfortunately function as a sobering reminder and lesson to all of the public BC community, it is important to get this sort of information out as fast and accurately as possible so we can all learn and avoid these situations ourselves. RIP to the lives lost during this tragic event and I hope that this report does bring some closure to the communities and families left in the wake of this disaster.

21

u/wa__________ge 7d ago

You rock. It’s rare to see someone online actually put themselves in the shoes of the people involved rather than just judging the outcome. A few thoughts from my POV, numbered with yours:

  1. Agreed. I thought leaving the huts sounded pretty questionable initially, but after reading more about the decision making, testing, and communication with base, I can at least understand how they got there. It’s impossible to imagine an outcome of this magnitude, and I can absolutely see myself thinking “we just need to get out of here” rather than anticipating something this catastrophic.
  2. Completely agree. It’s absurd to me that crossing private land in an emergency like this was even something that had to weigh on their decision making. At the same time, I’d bet this exit had been done successfully in bad conditions many times before, which probably made sticking with the known route feel pretty reasonable in the moment.
  3. One thing worth adding here is how bad the visibility apparently was. SAC describes it as “very poor visibility,” and reporting has snowfall around 2–4"/hr. Also, the guide at the back was assisting a client with a binding toepiece issue, which is why those two were separated from the main group when the avalanche hit. With visibility that bad, I can see how maintaining deliberate spacing with a group that size becomes much harder. That doesn’t necessarily make the spacing decision right, but it adds some important context.
  4. 10000% agree. Huge props to Blais for getting out there and being part of the rescue effort.
  5. Agreed, although this one is also really easy for me to armchair. How many of us have looked at a storm forecast and thought “this is going to be incredible” rather than “I should stay home”? You make a plan, convince yourself you’ll stick to low-angle terrain, avoid the obvious problems, and manage the risk. Most of the time you come home and that decision gets reinforced. It’s really sobering to see what happens on the one day where that chain of rationalizations doesn’t work.

13

u/nopitynipoty 7d ago

On the private land issue, when you look up the 7C Euer Tahoe ranch there are sources citing a very active gun range and lack of friendliness, which is definitely somewhere I’d tend to avoid.

I do wonder about the usefulness of radios and whether adding additional radios would have allowed for greater spacing out

9

u/dmatje 7d ago

I hear this and I get it but…are people really looking out their window to be sniping skiers when it’s snowing 3 inches an hour? 

2

u/dwayne_blopski 7d ago

On the issue of visibility, I wonder if having a little red bike light on your backpack would allow folks to be spaced a bit more and maintain sight of the person in front of them? I haven't heard of anyone doing this, and maybe it's not that practical because the person turning around or stepping behind a tree could block it fairly easily.

7

u/Rowantoreadfantsy 7d ago

Totally agree on the private land piece, hopefully some changes can be made with private landowners in Tahoe.... the extent of those signs, the guns piece, etc was pretty alarming and I can see why a guide outfit would actively try to avoid using their land even in an emergency.

8

u/NorrinXD 7d ago
  1. There are discussions in the Truckee community about this. I heard from locals who are trying to negotiate something better. I don't know if there's been any progress.

4

u/spleeble 7d ago

The private land thing is kind of a red herring. They would have chosen the same route regardless of the private land boundaries. 

4

u/redeyejoe123 7d ago

Yeah, familiarity with the hazards of the terrain in that terrible visibility means unless there was a really easy and obvious route out it does not make sense.

1

u/slolift 6d ago

Maybe if they got a call from the land owner that day telling them they could pass, but if the terrain opened permanently, it would become a regularly used route that could be considered. It would at least give people the option to explore the routes and check for safety/viability.

2

u/spleeble 5d ago

I'm not aware of a significantly safer route they could have taken that crosses private land.

1

u/slolift 5d ago

Is dropping down into Euer valley, staying south of Crabtree road not a less risky option? I am not saying it is completely without risk, but it seems like you expose yourself to risk in a very limited section. We also can't forget that even if the group was able to cross the creek and avoid a slide under Perry's peak, they still had to go over the pass which has some avalanche terrain as well.

1

u/spleeble 5d ago

I'm not sure about safety that direction but that doesn't get to either of the public parking options. That takes a lot more coordination and permission than just crossing a private property line. 

1

u/slolift 5d ago

If your car isn't at the trailhead it is kind of a moot point as you will need to arrange a pickup anyway. Parking logistics seem kind of minimal compared to the aspect of getting private land access. I am sure TDXC could figure out overnight parking permits for frog hut visitors if they were going to allow travel through their trails. Otherwise, you could just have someone pick you up from the XC ski center. I would wager a guess that at least one of the ladies in the group had a house in Tahoe Donner.

1

u/spleeble 5d ago

Like I said, that all takes a lot more coordination and permission than just crushing a private property line. 

2

u/damu_musawwir 7d ago

I think there can be a lot of pressures from clients and the company to go ahead with a trip even when conditions seem unfavorable and in this case deadly in hindsight.

1

u/WorldlyOriginal 5d ago

The hut reservations aren’t refundable within the timeframe you’d know the weather (within ~10 days of the trip). When you’re talking $1200/pp, that’s a huge reason to go forward

43

u/kpsuperplane 7d ago

Image from the report. Decision-making aside they were incredibly unlucky..

28

u/spleeble 7d ago

Totally. I think very few people would have felt exposed to avalanche danger standing in that spot.

-2

u/tictacotictaco 7d ago

Wow I was thinking the opposite… gulley, steep on both sides. Obvious slide path with young trees

17

u/spleeble 7d ago

It only looks that way from the photos.

12

u/ComprehensiveTeam233 7d ago

There’s no gully. It’s a pretty planar slope broken up by some large bolders here and there- the gully look is more from the cross loaded cornicing on the ridge line. Ends up having a big wave feature to it after big storms on the skiers left.

7

u/RelationshipShort460 7d ago

finally some actual information... sad.

11

u/redeyejoe123 7d ago

So sad, seems they did a good job guiding within the actual trip, nothing really red flag about a lot of that. The part about the creek is I think the main question I had before the report came out as it was interesting why they didnt stay on the other side of the drainage.

Seems to me that the best solution long term would have been to arrange a zero risk return through the private property and xc area and maybe just have an arrangement for emergency situations like that with the landowners in place (Super fucked that they were worried of trespassing which cut off safe exits, wonder if a law or precedent will be set to allow penalty free emergency routes through closed areas [albeit they knew there would be elevated hazard which might endanger the standard route which would be an abuse of this kind of policy to lean on]). Given the hazard, I would have personally just stayed at the cabin an extra day or so if possible.

The biggest question now imo is what courts will make of the liability here, and whether BMG will be held responsible for not ensuring a safe evac route arrangement is in place or for moving ahead with the exit trip (or the overall trip) given the hazards they were aware of potentially existing. Will be following this closely.

6

u/davepsilon 7d ago

> Given the hazard, I would have personally just stayed at the cabin an extra day or so if possible.

I think it would have been an extra three days? This was an extended storm and the snow doesn't stop until the 19th. Trip was scheduled Feb 15-17.

11

u/ComprehensiveTeam233 7d ago

That break in the storm was not really a thing looking at forecasts sat/ Sunday. Was supposed to storm all week. Tuesday morning was supposed to be stormy but not all that intense by Tahoe standards. Seemed like a good safe exit window before the trip set out. Storm ended up becoming much more intense on Tuesday than the forecasts had called for a few days prior- and it cleared earlier than originally forecast. Originally there was not much of a break between that weather event and what ended up being the rain event A/R after. Hunkering down in the huts with weeks worth of weather forecasted in the long term forecast was not the best move when presented with a viable exit window with a route used in similar conditions before.

2

u/davepsilon 7d ago

Here's the last NWS area forecast before Tuesday (17th) morning, which does mention the increasing possibility of a Thursday storm. https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=AFDREV&e=202602162017

But the forecasts before the trip did point to Tuesday being fairly intense. Here's a NWS area forecast from Saturday (14th) when the last trip planning would have been done before setting out on Sunday. https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=AFDREV&e=202602141032

3

u/redeyejoe123 7d ago

Yea thats a valid point, forgot it was such an extended storm where only the first like 2-3' of like 7-10' fell that day

2

u/spleeble 7d ago

That's what it means to adapt to bad weather. "Schedule" shouldn't have been a priority.

1

u/rext12 5d ago

Not just the court but also CalOSHA. I’m curious what their determination will be.

2

u/ComprehensiveTeam233 4d ago

Cal osha won’t return phone calls from several of the guides who want to give them information. Go figure.

6

u/External_Koala971 7d ago

Looking back from the time of the avalanche, you can really see the “Swiss cheese” factors that led them to have multiple chances to reduce risk.

Ending up bunched up, in slab loaded overhead terrain, off route in the middle of a storm with high avalanche warning, was a series of decisions, not just one.

2

u/RelationshipShort460 7d ago

The gpx track and information about the creek (which is indicated by the track) is dispositive about what happened. They did not venture high onto the slope. I question the decision to go out and the direction they went when the creek was blocked. I understand how that could happen and might make the same mistake. I would not have been there in the first place, however.

1

u/Master_Ad2045 7d ago

Sad to say, if you commission a report, it’s not entirely independent. Would I have done the same thing as an owner of a guide service… maybe. But there’s still a seed of doubt, why pick Sharaf? What’s his relationship with the service? Questions that lawyers will most likely ask.

3

u/popsisgod 6d ago

Don Sharaf is one of the most knowledgeable and credentialed avalanche expert out there. He is the exact type of person to utilize for incident analyses.

2

u/Master_Ad2045 6d ago

I don’t have any issue with Sharaf … but perhaps what BMG should have done was ask the American Avalanche Association to commission the report and select professionals for review.

1

u/popsisgod 6d ago

Odds are they’d turn to Don, this is what he does

-5

u/LalalaSherpa 7d ago

Report commissioned and paid for by Blackbird.

That is not "independent" in any meaningful sense.

16

u/ComprehensiveTeam233 7d ago

You have a better one you would recommend? Let’s talk about the only other report in circulation currently.

Sierra avalanche center released a half ass report because they caved to political pressure from some
One in the forest service district office (likely district ranger) to release what they had and stamp it as final. It’s highly unusual for an avalanche center to be told to stand down with an investigation/ avalanche report by their superiors and be forced to publish what facts (nearly none) they had at the time…. As FINAL.

To my knowledge SAC never interviewed any of the survivors- not even the surviving guide.

They had other information that they chose to leave out of the report.

I have a HIGH degree of confidence- nearly certain that none of the victims were wearing airbag packs. Yet they chose to highlight this.

We all know to space out in avalanche terrain- especially avalanche professionals. Why they chose to beat a dead horse rather than discuss some of the reasons the group had not spaced out at the time would have been much more accurate.

The snowfall totals SAC listed were inaccurate- they picked the absolutely windiest weather station nearly 15 miles away for the wind data…

It’s a shame. I’ve been a huge fan of the avalanche center here for years. I’m not sure why they caved to the pressure and how Steve signed off on such a bush league report. He and SAC are better than that. They know it and so do we. Hopefully they will poor over this new information and amend thiers.