8 Skiers dead after accidental Avalanche in California!

[Anonymous]

We had a friend killed in an avalanche about 15 years ago. What a way to go—if skiing is your thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, tragedy, exclamation point!

We make better decisions and are better people. Smug smile.

FAFO, the tension builds…

They’re rich, white, privileged women and bad things happened to them…yes, yes, right there, oh yeahhhhh!

It's not being smug to realize it actually doesn't take much of a brain to review weather reports before traveling and think perhaps best to not go back country skiing when the probability of major snowfall and avalanches have been predicted for a week in an area known for heavy, dangerous snowfalls. Even more important to use sound judgment when you have young children.

Unf the whole situation is congruent with that high death rate Everest year in 1998 or wherever.

The cyclone storm was on radar for coming and a bunch of people decided to still go for it during a short window. Some refused to turn back at the magic 2pm afternoon time to make it down safely in a normal day and got caught so high up no help could come until next day light.

One group aborted and didn’t try to summit. They all lived.

Half of another group went quickly, made it down.

Another group coddled some slow people and half got caught near the summit, below the summit, and that texas guy somehow made it to a small high up base camp.

I believe the Texas guy was a surgeon who lost both his hands due to frost bite. A costly error.

^ Responding my myself b/c I wanted to get it right. He was a pathologist who lost 1 hand and fingers from the other. But the interesting thing about him is after this disaster he turned his life around and no longer sought out extreme adventures. He instead prioritized his family and fixed broken relationships. That is the part that normal people can't relate to. These people actually do have messed up priorities and different values but it takes a near death experience for them to re-evaluate things.

I don't know if it was the same year but the one that got me was the guy who died on Everest who was still able to call and talk to his wife about it as he was dying.

What do you say. Really. I do not understand these people. They're not even pioneers. Thousands have done it.

That was the very experienced guide, who stayed too late at the summit to help the sickly guy make it & take selfies; the guide had the sat phone.

The wiki page on the accident is pretty comprehensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Mount_Everest_disaster

A lot of judgment around what happened. Jon Krakauer's book also does a good job of the psychology of people who do extreme sports and where they draw the lines around risk.

I saw Krakauer on the book tour right after this. He was very close to the conclusion that climbing Everest with bottled oxygen should not be allowed—it would weed out all the pikers paying $$$$$ to be able to say they had done it.

Alas, the governments controlling access to the mountain need the money from the tourist traffic, so this is not a change they will
embrace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt the survivors will offer any details that provide closure. They knew the risk, they still headed out and they died. End of story.

But maybe the guides assured them it was safe and they relied on them.

I doubt the guides said that. Most likely it was - we have to get home so let's take path B because the risk is lower not that there was no risk. The survivors might feel pressure to also change the narrative so the families can sue. So I don't know that I'd trust what they say either.

Right so they relied on guides who should have known better or taken the risk more seriously.

A Stanford grad who skis often in the back country can't read and pay attention to weather reports and think hmmmn sounds dangerous?

Stanford doesn't have classes on interpreting weather reports.

What do you mean interpreting weather reports? You have to be able to read to get into Stanford let alone graduate. The weather reports clearly stated significant avalanche risk before they left for the trip and while there. No interpretation is needed unless you’re the PP who was trolling that avalanches are new.

Those are some pretty big words.

Still trolling I see.

Fine. How about Dunning--Kruger?

+1. Many people familiar with this area and backcountry skiing having come out saying that the behavior of this group is inexplicable given the conditions and the warnings that were known.

These were wealthy, intelligent, accomplished people. They could afford to extend the trip, cancel the trip, whatever. As my husband always says when he declines trip insurance, “if we can afford to take the trip, we can afford to not take it too.”

IMO it was the group dynamic. I run in a similar circle and finding the time on 6 people's schedules? That happens like once a decade. My guess is there was a lot of pressure to not reschedule this trip. But maybe the person here saying they are a friend knows better. But I doubt this group gets together more than once per year at the most.

If this was one person's trip? Canceled, easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt the survivors will offer any details that provide closure. They knew the risk, they still headed out and they died. End of story.

But maybe the guides assured them it was safe and they relied on them.

I doubt the guides said that. Most likely it was - we have to get home so let's take path B because the risk is lower not that there was no risk. The survivors might feel pressure to also change the narrative so the families can sue. So I don't know that I'd trust what they say either.

Right so they relied on guides who should have known better or taken the risk more seriously.

A Stanford grad who skis often in the back country can't read and pay attention to weather reports and think hmmmn sounds dangerous?

Stanford doesn't have classes on interpreting weather reports.

What do you mean interpreting weather reports? You have to be able to read to get into Stanford let alone graduate. The weather reports clearly stated significant avalanche risk before they left for the trip and while there. No interpretation is needed unless you’re the PP who was trolling that avalanches are new.

Those are some pretty big words.

Still trolling I see.

Fine. How about Dunning--Kruger?

+1. Many people familiar with this area and backcountry skiing having come out saying that the behavior of this group is inexplicable given the conditions and the warnings that were known.

These were wealthy, intelligent, accomplished people. They could afford to extend the trip, cancel the trip, whatever. As my husband always says when he declines trip insurance, “if we can afford to take the trip, we can afford to not take it too.”

IMO it was the group dynamic. I run in a similar circle and finding the time on 6 people's schedules? That happens like once a decade. My guess is there was a lot of pressure to not reschedule this trip. But maybe the person here saying they are a friend knows better. But I doubt this group gets together more than once per year at the most.

If this was one person's trip? Canceled, easy.

Well, the scheduling issue has become much easier.

[Anonymous]

The entitled mentality of skiers who hire private guides is something I can’t explain. The guides are paid to cater to their every whim and stroke their egos. This combined with the allure of powder after the worst snow drought in history led to some devastating mistakes.

[Anonymous]

This trip was about $1200 per person. That isn’t even that much money. If they had the weekend blocked off they could have easily pivoted to something else last minute.

[Anonymous]

What is an ACCIDENTAL avalanche?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

So you never drive a car, or ride in one? If you do and die in an accident—as happens each and every day in this country to 110-120 people (NHTSA and CDC data)—then you died a preventable death that didn’t have to happen.

You know this argument is not in good faith because there are daily things we do that are part of life and risk is involved in almost anything (crossing a street, walking, literally leaving the house, sending your kid to school), but as a parent (mom or dad) you don’t need to go swimming in an ocean with a recent shark sighting, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, etc. but to your point, I do avoid driving as much as possible for many reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt the survivors will offer any details that provide closure. They knew the risk, they still headed out and they died. End of story.

But maybe the guides assured them it was safe and they relied on them.

I doubt the guides said that. Most likely it was - we have to get home so let's take path B because the risk is lower not that there was no risk. The survivors might feel pressure to also change the narrative so the families can sue. So I don't know that I'd trust what they say either.

Right so they relied on guides who should have known better or taken the risk more seriously.

A Stanford grad who skis often in the back country can't read and pay attention to weather reports and think hmmmn sounds dangerous?

Stanford doesn't have classes on interpreting weather reports.

What do you mean interpreting weather reports? You have to be able to read to get into Stanford let alone graduate. The weather reports clearly stated significant avalanche risk before they left for the trip and while there. No interpretation is needed unless you’re the PP who was trolling that avalanches are new.

Those are some pretty big words.

Still trolling I see.

Fine. How about Dunning--Kruger?

+1. Many people familiar with this area and backcountry skiing having come out saying that the behavior of this group is inexplicable given the conditions and the warnings that were known.

These were wealthy, intelligent, accomplished people. They could afford to extend the trip, cancel the trip, whatever. As my husband always says when he declines trip insurance, “if we can afford to take the trip, we can afford to not take it too.”

IMO it was the group dynamic. I run in a similar circle and finding the time on 6 people's schedules? That happens like once a decade. My guess is there was a lot of pressure to not reschedule this trip. But maybe the person here saying they are a friend knows better. But I doubt this group gets together more than once per year at the most.

If this was one person's trip? Canceled, easy.

If the avalanche warning came a week prior, a different and safer activity could be scheduled for the same time period, and reschedule thie backcountry trip for next year.

It probably was groupthink, no one wants to be the wimp and say let’s back out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, tragedy, exclamation point!

We make better decisions and are better people. Smug smile.

FAFO, the tension builds…

They’re rich, white, privileged women and bad things happened to them…yes, yes, right there, oh yeahhhhh!

It's not being smug to realize it actually doesn't take much of a brain to review weather reports before traveling and think perhaps best to not go back country skiing when the probability of major snowfall and avalanches have been predicted for a week in an area known for heavy, dangerous snowfalls. Even more important to use sound judgment when you have young children.

Unf the whole situation is congruent with that high death rate Everest year in 1998 or wherever.

The cyclone storm was on radar for coming and a bunch of people decided to still go for it during a short window. Some refused to turn back at the magic 2pm afternoon time to make it down safely in a normal day and got caught so high up no help could come until next day light.

One group aborted and didn’t try to summit. They all lived.

Half of another group went quickly, made it down.

Another group coddled some slow people and half got caught near the summit, below the summit, and that texas guy somehow made it to a small high up base camp.

I believe the Texas guy was a surgeon who lost both his hands due to frost bite. A costly error.

^ Responding my myself b/c I wanted to get it right. He was a pathologist who lost 1 hand and fingers from the other. But the interesting thing about him is after this disaster he turned his life around and no longer sought out extreme adventures. He instead prioritized his family and fixed broken relationships. That is the part that normal people can't relate to. These people actually do have messed up priorities and different values but it takes a near death experience for them to re-evaluate things.

I don't know if it was the same year but the one that got me was the guy who died on Everest who was still able to call and talk to his wife about it as he was dying.

What do you say. Really. I do not understand these people. They're not even pioneers. Thousands have done it.

That was the very experienced guide, who stayed too late at the summit to help the sickly guy make it & take selfies; the guide had the sat phone.

The wiki page on the accident is pretty comprehensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Mount_Everest_disaster

A lot of judgment around what happened. Jon Krakauer's book also does a good job of the psychology of people who do extreme sports and where they draw the lines around risk.

I saw Krakauer on the book tour right after this. He was very close to the conclusion that climbing Everest with bottled oxygen should not be allowed—it would weed out all the pikers paying $$$$$ to be able to say they had done it.

Alas, the governments controlling access to the mountain need the money from the tourist traffic, so this is not a change they will
embrace.

Makes sense to forbid.

All the sherpas shlepping the tanks up and down wouldn’t be at increased risk either.

[Anonymous]

https://www.npr.org/2026/02/21/nx-s1-5722357/skiers-recovered-identified-california-avalanche-tahoe

So at least half the group had either relocated to live at the ski area or had a second home at the ski area. These were not novices to the area or to the risk of avalanches. This whole story is just so peculiar. I hope eventually we know how this unfolded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is an ACCIDENTAL avalanche?

An avalanche caused by gravity, as opposed to man-made? That would be my guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, tragedy, exclamation point!

We make better decisions and are better people. Smug smile.

FAFO, the tension builds…

They’re rich, white, privileged women and bad things happened to them…yes, yes, right there, oh yeahhhhh!

It's not being smug to realize it actually doesn't take much of a brain to review weather reports before traveling and think perhaps best to not go back country skiing when the probability of major snowfall and avalanches have been predicted for a week in an area known for heavy, dangerous snowfalls. Even more important to use sound judgment when you have young children.

Unf the whole situation is congruent with that high death rate Everest year in 1998 or wherever.

The cyclone storm was on radar for coming and a bunch of people decided to still go for it during a short window. Some refused to turn back at the magic 2pm afternoon time to make it down safely in a normal day and got caught so high up no help could come until next day light.

One group aborted and didn’t try to summit. They all lived.

Half of another group went quickly, made it down.

Another group coddled some slow people and half got caught near the summit, below the summit, and that texas guy somehow made it to a small high up base camp.

I believe the Texas guy was a surgeon who lost both his hands due to frost bite. A costly error.

^ Responding my myself b/c I wanted to get it right. He was a pathologist who lost 1 hand and fingers from the other. But the interesting thing about him is after this disaster he turned his life around and no longer sought out extreme adventures. He instead prioritized his family and fixed broken relationships. That is the part that normal people can't relate to. These people actually do have messed up priorities and different values but it takes a near death experience for them to re-evaluate things.

I don't know if it was the same year but the one that got me was the guy who died on Everest who was still able to call and talk to his wife about it as he was dying.

What do you say. Really. I do not understand these people. They're not even pioneers. Thousands have done it.

That was the very experienced guide, who stayed too late at the summit to help the sickly guy make it & take selfies; the guide had the sat phone.

The wiki page on the accident is pretty comprehensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Mount_Everest_disaster

A lot of judgment around what happened. Jon Krakauer's book also does a good job of the psychology of people who do extreme sports and where they draw the lines around risk.

I saw Krakauer on the book tour right after this. He was very close to the conclusion that climbing Everest with bottled oxygen should not be allowed—it would weed out all the pikers paying $$$$$ to be able to say they had done it.

Alas, the governments controlling access to the mountain need the money from the tourist traffic, so this is not a change they will
embrace.

Makes sense to forbid.

All the sherpas shlepping the tanks up and down wouldn’t be at increased risk either.

That’s correct (and something Krakauer discusses in the book and IRL)—but it’s an income source for them, so this is a complicated thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is an ACCIDENTAL avalanche?

An avalanche caused by gravity, as opposed to man-made? That would be my guess.

Also those purposely triggered.

Explosive triggers are commonly used for avalanche mitigation and snowpack testing by ski areas, highway departments, railways, and mines. While there are many ways to initiate avalanches with explosives, delivery methods generally consist of either hand placement or remote placement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.npr.org/2026/02/21/nx-s1-5722357/skiers-recovered-identified-california-avalanche-tahoe

So at least half the group had either relocated to live at the ski area or had a second home at the ski area. These were not novices to the area or to the risk of avalanches. This whole story is just so peculiar. I hope eventually we know how this unfolded.

Guarantee it was the clients anxious to get home. Kids, husbands, jobs, pets, etc. They thought they had a safe window to get out, no one wants to hunker down for 2 extra days.