8 Skiers dead after accidental Avalanche in California!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

Thank you to that PP for the gift link. It was a beautifully written article.

+1 Yes, and blame the guides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

Blaming others when these folks are supposed to be highly intelligent, well-trained skiers with years of epertise and skiing opportunities. Didn't take the time to read weather reports? File lawsuits instead, of course.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

Blaming others when these folks are supposed to be highly intelligent, well-trained skiers with years of epertise and skiing opportunities. Didn't take the time to read weather reports? File lawsuits instead, of course.

See the excerpt from above. The guided picked a path that was "known" to be safe because it hadn't had avalanches in the past and was only 20 degrees instead of 30 degrees or greater, which poses an avalanche risk.

https://avalanche.org/avalanche-encyclopedia/terrain/slope-characteristics/slope-angle/

Someone should probably measure the "safe" slope again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

Thank you to that PP for the gift link. It was a beautifully written article.

+1. Interactive features were a plus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

Blaming others when these folks are supposed to be highly intelligent, well-trained skiers with years of epertise and skiing opportunities. Didn't take the time to read weather reports? File lawsuits instead, of course.

See the excerpt from above. The guided picked a path that was "known" to be safe because it hadn't had avalanches in the past and was only 20 degrees instead of 30 degrees or greater, which poses an avalanche risk.

https://avalanche.org/avalanche-encyclopedia/terrain/slope-characteristics/slope-angle/

Someone should probably measure the "safe" slope again.

+1 And they should never have embarked on that ski trip when extremely severe weather and the probability of avalances had been predicted for a week. Foolhardy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

Blaming others when these folks are supposed to be highly intelligent, well-trained skiers with years of epertise and skiing opportunities. Didn't take the time to read weather reports? File lawsuits instead, of course.

See the excerpt from above. The guided picked a path that was "known" to be safe because it hadn't had avalanches in the past and was only 20 degrees instead of 30 degrees or greater, which poses an avalanche risk.

https://avalanche.org/avalanche-encyclopedia/terrain/slope-characteristics/slope-angle/

Someone should probably measure the "safe" slope again.

It was below a steeper slope, which is where the avalanche started.

There are still unknowns why they decided to go out in the storm at all. Aside from avalanche risk, there are a lot of risks of being in a white out, especially with mixed abilities and experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

Blaming others when these folks are supposed to be highly intelligent, well-trained skiers with years of epertise and skiing opportunities. Didn't take the time to read weather reports? File lawsuits instead, of course.

See the excerpt from above. The guided picked a path that was "known" to be safe because it hadn't had avalanches in the past and was only 20 degrees instead of 30 degrees or greater, which poses an avalanche risk.

https://avalanche.org/avalanche-encyclopedia/terrain/slope-characteristics/slope-angle/

Someone should probably measure the "safe" slope again.

It was below a steeper slope, which is where the avalanche started.

There are still unknowns why they decided to go out in the storm at all. Aside from avalanche risk, there are a lot of risks of being in a white out, especially with mixed abilities and experience.

I guess some were unclear how gravity works. It is still just a theory.

[Anonymous]

The article was well-done. I’m confused why they didn’t take one of the flat routes south from the huts and then message the backcountry headquarters that they needed a ride over to where the cars were parked.

[Anonymous]

The NYTimes article is interesting bc it’s based on the two men survivors who signed up for the group tour individually. It’s not like they had friends die or know family members seeking answers or prevention. The two women survivors are mum, as are the two guide survivors.

That said, according to the two men, nothing was up for discussion— not the Monday trail circle or the Tuesday early return or its route. The guides met with themselves over breakfast, decided, then told both groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NYTimes article is interesting bc it’s based on the two men survivors who signed up for the group tour individually. It’s not like they had friends die or know family members seeking answers or prevention. The two women survivors are mum, as are the two guide survivors.

That said, according to the two men, nothing was up for discussion— not the Monday trail circle or the Tuesday early return or its route. The guides met with themselves over breakfast, decided, then told both groups.

Those two men were outsiders and had no idea who was actually pulling the strings. My guess is there was at least 1-3 alpha women in the group calling the shots. That's why everyone else is quiet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article was well-done. I’m confused why they didn’t take one of the flat routes south from the huts and then message the backcountry headquarters that they needed a ride over to where the cars were parked.

Even if they made it to the cars, they would have been driving in a blizzard. I also heard that the interstate was closed (not sure if that’s true for that specific day).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NYTimes article is interesting bc it’s based on the two men survivors who signed up for the group tour individually. It’s not like they had friends die or know family members seeking answers or prevention. The two women survivors are mum, as are the two guide survivors.

That said, according to the two men, nothing was up for discussion— not the Monday trail circle or the Tuesday early return or its route. The guides met with themselves over breakfast, decided, then told both groups.

The discussion with a resounding "No" that should have occurred would have taken place before the women even left for such a risky back country skiing trip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYTimes article is interesting bc it’s based on the two men survivors who signed up for the group tour individually. It’s not like they had friends die or know family members seeking answers or prevention. The two women survivors are mum, as are the two guide survivors.

That said, according to the two men, nothing was up for discussion— not the Monday trail circle or the Tuesday early return or its route. The guides met with themselves over breakfast, decided, then told both groups.

Those two men were outsiders and had no idea who was actually pulling the strings. My guess is there was at least 1-3 alpha women in the group calling the shots. That's why everyone else is quiet.

Could be, or could not be. We don’t know. Regardless, I don’t believe anyone is criminally negligent. These are tragic accidents. Lapses in judgment, poor choices, group think under stressful conditions. Hindsight is 20/20.

I am sure the survivor families will sue, people always sue….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

Blaming others when these folks are supposed to be highly intelligent, well-trained skiers with years of epertise and skiing opportunities. Didn't take the time to read weather reports? File lawsuits instead, of course.

See the excerpt from above. The guided picked a path that was "known" to be safe because it hadn't had avalanches in the past and was only 20 degrees instead of 30 degrees or greater, which poses an avalanche risk.

https://avalanche.org/avalanche-encyclopedia/terrain/slope-characteristics/slope-angle/

Someone should probably measure the "safe" slope again.

The slope they were on was safe, but higher above it was the slope that had the avalanche.

Nothing is simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYTimes article is interesting bc it’s based on the two men survivors who signed up for the group tour individually. It’s not like they had friends die or know family members seeking answers or prevention. The two women survivors are mum, as are the two guide survivors.

That said, according to the two men, nothing was up for discussion— not the Monday trail circle or the Tuesday early return or its route. The guides met with themselves over breakfast, decided, then told both groups.

Those two men were outsiders and had no idea who was actually pulling the strings. My guess is there was at least 1-3 alpha women in the group calling the shots. That's why everyone else is quiet.

Of course, blame the victims.

If I was on a professionally led trip, I would rather have decisions made by local guides than amateur consensus.