Appropriate discussion around mountaineering accidents

[Monster5]

Since non-technical accidents are often a result of a series of actions and decisions, analysis is worthwhile only when first hand accounts are available.
Since we rarely have first hand accounts, most analysis is crockery and makes belittling assumptions on the decision-making capabilities of the victim.
This forum analyzes the heck out of third hand snippets to come up with simplistic generalities that are utterly crap with respect to ability to influence future action (except by avoidance).
And I would certainly extend that criticism to ANAM based on several first hand incidents where their analysis was crockery.

[Scott P]

I respected Steve a lot, but I guess I have a different approach if I ever die in the mountains.

If I ever die in the mountains, anyone on this forum who wants to can analyze it all they want. You may learn something or may not, but it won't bother me when I'm dead and it doesn't bother me now to think that people might do it if I'm killed. Of course that is only my own wishes and not anyone else's.

[Jorts]

Using the internet to "understand risks and consequences" versus actually being in an accident.

HAHAHAH

Objective hazards often play a bigger role in accidents than any of us care to admit. Accident analysis gives us a sense of control over future decision making for avoidance of a similar fate. And that illusion of control gives us comfort.

The source of most accidents has occurred before so much of the "analysis" is futile. Here are common causes and contributing factors (a mix of things within and without our control):

Weather
Rushing/Summit Fever
Exhaustion
Loose rock/rock fall
Exceeding abilities
Off route
Exposure to the elements
Inappropriate/lack of gear
Medical event (e.g. HAPE)

More unusual accident causes and compounding factors that might elicit more thoughtful analysis:
Misuse/failing of gear (e.g. protection ripping out, self-arrest failure)
Wildlife
Poor Signage
14ers.com message boards giving questionable beta

It's true that some of the common causes lead to accidents in unusual ways (e.g. hands frostbitten, so unable to scramble effectively, so fell) but even then, the fundamentals rarely change, as anyone who has read ANAM for a few consecutive years can attest to. Accidents often contain nuance but frequently the accident analysis does seem unnecessarily circular and pointless. Free message board though until Bill locks the thread.

[RobLowe]

Since non-technical accidents are often a result of a series of actions and decisions, analysis is worthwhile only when first hand accounts are available.
Since we rarely have first hand accounts, most analysis is crockery and makes belittling assumptions on the decision-making capabilities of the victim.

+1.

[JaredJohnson]

As a nerd, I was a bit fascinated by the question of what conclusions can be drawn from the data that provided in the poll results. It's a bit funky because it doesn't say how many people actually responded or what were each respondent's combination of answers; and clearly some folks were trolling or confused given they came out against even the most benign forms of communication. So one might guess that the number of serious respondents coincides roughly with the number of people who were against personal insults and disrespect. I took the opportunity to pointlessly exercise my rusty javascript skills and produce some conclusions that everyone had already guessed - https://gist.github.com/jaredj/61c7ecb4 ... 4570acc97b

Current results in my humble interpretation:

> pollguesses([5,5,5,14,38,20,36,71]);
probably 5 but as many as 15 respondents were confused or just want to watch the world burn
66-71 respondents were probably serious
20%-30% of respondents want discussion/debate only for people directly involved (niceties for everyone else)
46%-58% of respondents want to put a stop to speculation
42%-54% of respondents consider speculation to be an appropriate exercise

These proportions looked pretty similar when half as many people had responded so I'm guessing they'll look pretty similar indefinitely.

In other worse, as some already pointed out, this is a contentious issue and people are split down the middle, with probably a slim majority against speculation.

At least the endless fruitless debate is happening in a separate thread now (:

[Guabell]

The discussion regarding Mr. Jacobs’ death has been very helpful to a lot of us already. It informs the readers of the importance of checking the weather, being prepared for bad and changing conditions. The discussion regarding the route has been very informative (e.g. speculation about the false keyhole and the likelihood of losing the tail and missing the bullseye). I’ll use this information in the future. Note that these discussions have helped me and my friends be much more cautious in making commitments when facing deteriorating conditions. Case in fact- two friends decided NOT to climb Longs Peak on Friday due to the weather forecast… knowing that wind, ice and snow were likely and how that can change the mountain rapidly.

[rijaca]

99% of accident "analysis" on this forum is a thinly disguised attempt to convince oneself that "it won't happen to me because I'm smarter."

Modern mountaineering safety practices are very well established, and if an accident was caused by something preventable, chances are you already know that you should be following whatever the best practice is in that scenario.

Since non-technical accidents are often a result of a series of actions and decisions, analysis is worthwhile only when first hand accounts are available.
Since we rarely have first hand accounts, most analysis is crockery and makes belittling assumptions on the decision-making capabilities of the victim.
This forum analyzes the heck out of third hand snippets to come up with simplistic generalities that are utterly crap with respect to ability to influence future action (except by avoidance).
And I would certainly extend that criticism to ANAM based on several first hand incidents where their analysis was crockery.

Yep.

The discussion regarding Mr. Jacobs’ death has been very helpful to a lot of us already. It informs the readers of the importance of checking the weather, being prepared for bad and changing conditions. The discussion regarding the route has been very informative (e.g. speculation about the false keyhole and the likelihood of losing the tail and missing the bullseye).

I would argue that you should already know the importance of checking the weather and being prepared for bad and changing conditions without having to read about an accident. And I'm having a hard time comprehending why some have a problem understanding mountaineering risk and consequences .

[Cide]

The discussion regarding Mr. Jacobs’ death has been very helpful to a lot of us already. It informs the readers of the importance of checking the weather, being prepared for bad and changing conditions. The discussion regarding the route has been very informative (e.g. speculation about the false keyhole and the likelihood of losing the tail and missing the bullseye). I’ll use this information in the future. Note that these discussions have helped me and my friends be much more cautious in making commitments when facing deteriorating conditions. Case in fact- two friends decided NOT to climb Longs Peak on Friday due to the weather forecast… knowing that wind, ice and snow were likely and how that can change the mountain rapidly.

Exactly! In EMS we analyze and do case reviews of all the critical calls where learning can be achieved by all. Our last one was how a terminal head bleed mimics STEMIs.
Analyzing information is never bad. Talking about critical accidents is not disrespectful and analyzing what information is available helps us all critically think. Critical incidents reinforce why we prepare the way we do, choose on-route the way we do, etc. Completely accurate or not, did it make you think? Great.

I can't imagine working in my field and having the boss tell me that analyzing past outcomes from past calls will just breed complacency and isn't even 100% accurate so why even bother talking about it. The whole hush-hush culture exhibited in a lot of forum posts is very strange to me.

[disentangled]

I would argue that you should already know the importance of checking the weather and being prepared for bad and changing conditions without having to read about an accident. And I'm having a hard time comprehending why some have a problem understanding mountaineering risk and consequences .

This is entirely the perspective of someone with the arrogance of "experience".

[Tim A]

[/quote]
I would argue that you should already know the importance of checking the weather and being prepared for bad and changing conditions without having to read about an accident. And I'm having a hard time comprehending why some have a problem understanding mountaineering risk and consequences .
[/quote]



Two queries from the other thread that attempt to come off as harmless but more than likely would make surviving family feel worse when read or spoken to their face:

1. ‘All due respect to the recently deceased, but.... (proceed to claim getting off-route in that area is not possible or possible only for the unintelligent.’

2. ‘Didn’t the forecast call for it to be messy up there?’


Do some of us attend funerals for people killed on motorcycles and ask the family if they were wearing a helmet? So that we can learn from the mistakes and know better about wearing helmets when riding? Or just wonder out loud about wearing helmets while moving through the food line at the reception? Same for people who die of heart disease? ‘I’m so sorry for your loss. Did she ever try dieting?’

[HikerGuy]

I want to know what the Baron (Baron Von Bergshrund) thinks about all of this. He shall have final say.

[12ersRule]

I would argue that you should already know the importance of checking the weather and being prepared for bad and changing conditions without having to read about an accident. And I'm having a hard time comprehending why some have a problem understanding mountaineering risk and consequences .

This is entirely the perspective of someone with the arrogance of "experience".

Ricky's a cocky S.O.B because of his experience.