8 Skiers dead after accidental Avalanche in California!

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Thanks for posting. This is a fascinating article. The comments at the end are worth a read.

There was no pressure from guests to stay or go. The decision to go and the path taken was made
in a back room meeting by guides on the phone with the home office.

There were two groups of guests. There were the 8 women who were highly proficient back country skiers. The women were friends.

The second group was 3 solo men who were all back country novice level and knew they needed guides.

Each group had two male guides. The womens group and their guides were typically in the front as the women were more proficient.
One of the males talks about being embarrassed that he kept falling down.

On the last day the two groups operated as one group but the solo men were at the rear with one male guide following.

I don't think the solo men would have spoken up about staying or going. The two men interviewed both said they were less skilled and knew they needed guides in the back country.






Still no explanation as to why the proficient, skilled women skiers ignored weather warnings and went on with their plans. Guides didn't force them to go on the trip.

They relied on the guides. It’s really gross that people feel such a need to villainize these dead women.


+1

Standard DCUM victim blaming. So gross.



Especially when women are involved.


Yes. It is gross how many posts make a point of saying the women skiers. They could just type the skiers. But they go out of their way to emphasize the women did'nt watch the weather beforehand, the women didn't cancel, there must have been 1-2 alpha women. Their sex had nothing to do with it, except that it's used when assigning blame to part of the group. The full group was 4 guides, 3 independent people who signed up individually, and 8 people who were linked in a group. Emphasizing over and over the women is blantant misogyny.

Also - they had a gorgeous day skiing the day before. The tour company said the trip was still on.

There's a lot in the NYT article about group think and how these large high death events happen psychologically. Most of those elements were present in this situation, and none of those elements involve the sex of the victim.

If you cannot talk about this story without talking about "women skiers" as opposed to just "skiers," you are part of the problem.


The group that planned a trip together was comprised of women. Consequently, the friends group is described as a group of women skiers. Get over it.


Also, in the article recently posted the male survivors were at the back of the pack. So the women, out in front, with the guides likely caused the avalanche.


What difference does that make? The women outnumbered the men guests. It’s not rocket science. One man in the back had trouble with his skis, the other man couldn’t keep up, and a male guide stayed back with them.

And this is another demonstration that the guides were making poor decisions. These skiers did not belong on this trip. In a weird trick of fate their incompetence saved them from the guides and because of that they were able to save a few people. Blaming any of the skiers is just ridiculous, you hire guides for their expertise and experience. That they retreated to a closed door meeting and issued a decision clearly shows that the guides were in charge. And reading the article we can see multiple failure points by the guides. It’s very apparent that most of the posters in this thread have no back country or similar experiences. Just like you rely on your pilot to fly, or your captain to safely pilot the boat, you rely on your guides.

To the point of the storm, back country skiers ski in storms. A storm does not mean you need to stay inside.

I hope we will get a thorough review of everything that happened from Outside. NYT was a decent article but there will be much more to learn. My husband was a backcountry skier, ice climber, rock climber, scuba diver and more. He was also SAR. These stories hit him hard, bringing back the memories of missions that became recoveries. My heart goes out to the victims, their families, the survivors and that includes the surviving guide. They will live the rest of their life knowing that they failed the people who trusted them.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:One of the survivors in the NYT article said that he didn’t think to question the guides because he felt they were the experts and everyone just went along with the plan. Stop trying to blame the victims.


The guides were not with them when they left their homes to go on their planned trip. Supposedly, they were experienced skiers who could read and understand weather forecasts of heavy snow and the potential for avalances. Stop trying to blame the guides for the consequences of the women's decision to embark on such a trip.


You're disgusting.

It's ultimately up to the guide to gauge the safety.



+1 The guides should have erred on the side of safety and delayed the return trip. They could have stayed in the huts another night.


The skiers should have erred on the side of safety and stayed home. Instead, risk takers find someone else to blame for their decisions; and there are always salivating attorneys looking to sue someone.


The guides made the final decision to go.

It’s disgusting how much you want to blame these women.


+1 Women, being the weaker sex, should never be accountable for their decisions.


They didn’t make the decision, twat.


Really? Did someone force them to go on this trip?


Inconvenient truth for judgmental twats: Guides are responsible for the group’s safety.



Pretty sure 100% of companies that run these kinds of trips have waivers.

Does that actually, legally, mean anything? Possibly not, but guides are actually not responsible.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:One of the survivors in the NYT article said that he didn’t think to question the guides because he felt they were the experts and everyone just went along with the plan. Stop trying to blame the victims.


The guides were not with them when they left their homes to go on their planned trip. Supposedly, they were experienced skiers who could read and understand weather forecasts of heavy snow and the potential for avalances. Stop trying to blame the guides for the consequences of the women's decision to embark on such a trip.


You're disgusting.

It's ultimately up to the guide to gauge the safety.



+1 The guides should have erred on the side of safety and delayed the return trip. They could have stayed in the huts another night.


The skiers should have erred on the side of safety and stayed home. Instead, risk takers find someone else to blame for their decisions; and there are always salivating attorneys looking to sue someone.


The guides made the final decision to go.

It’s disgusting how much you want to blame these women.


+1 Women, being the weaker sex, should never be accountable for their decisions.


They didn’t make the decision, twat.


Really? Did someone force them to go on this trip?


Inconvenient truth for judgmental twats: Guides are responsible for the group’s safety.



Pretty sure 100% of companies that run these kinds of trips have waivers.

Does that actually, legally, mean anything? Possibly not, but guides are actually not responsible.


That’s literally their job.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:One of the survivors in the NYT article said that he didn’t think to question the guides because he felt they were the experts and everyone just went along with the plan. Stop trying to blame the victims.


The guides were not with them when they left their homes to go on their planned trip. Supposedly, they were experienced skiers who could read and understand weather forecasts of heavy snow and the potential for avalances. Stop trying to blame the guides for the consequences of the women's decision to embark on such a trip.


You're disgusting.

It's ultimately up to the guide to gauge the safety.



+1 The guides should have erred on the side of safety and delayed the return trip. They could have stayed in the huts another night.


The skiers should have erred on the side of safety and stayed home. Instead, risk takers find someone else to blame for their decisions; and there are always salivating attorneys looking to sue someone.


The guides made the final decision to go.

It’s disgusting how much you want to blame these women.


+1 Women, being the weaker sex, should never be accountable for their decisions.


They didn’t make the decision, twat.


Really? Did someone force them to go on this trip?


Inconvenient truth for judgmental twats: Guides are responsible for the group’s safety.



Inconvenient truth for you and others who don't like to be held accountable for their decisions. People are responsible for their choices and consequences when they choose to take part in risky adventures. Of course, they or their survivors can sue and perhaps get money for their legal efforts. Doesn't change the possibility of a deadly outcome.
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:One of the survivors in the NYT article said that he didn’t think to question the guides because he felt they were the experts and everyone just went along with the plan. Stop trying to blame the victims.


The guides were not with them when they left their homes to go on their planned trip. Supposedly, they were experienced skiers who could read and understand weather forecasts of heavy snow and the potential for avalances. Stop trying to blame the guides for the consequences of the women's decision to embark on such a trip.


You're disgusting.

It's ultimately up to the guide to gauge the safety.



+1 The guides should have erred on the side of safety and delayed the return trip. They could have stayed in the huts another night.


The skiers should have erred on the side of safety and stayed home. Instead, risk takers find someone else to blame for their decisions; and there are always salivating attorneys looking to sue someone.


The guides made the final decision to go.

It’s disgusting how much you want to blame these women.


+1 Women, being the weaker sex, should never be accountable for their decisions.


They didn’t make the decision, twat.


Really? Did someone force them to go on this trip?


Inconvenient truth for judgmental twats: Guides are responsible for the group’s safety.



Pretty sure 100% of companies that run these kinds of trips have waivers.

Does that actually, legally, mean anything? Possibly not, but guides are actually not responsible.


That’s literally their job.


You can Google this. Avalanches are in the waivers...they are not responsible for anything at all. They are also an act of God. I really, really doubt a judge is going to find fault given how much media and press was out there on this storm.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My heart aches for all the lives lost and their families. I hope that strict safety laws are put in place to prevent such accidents.

What laws, exactly, do you think would have prevented this? They might try to prove criminal negligence by the guides, but that law already exists.


+1. You can't keep people from venturing into the wilderness.


Actually, there is one law that many people think would help. Guide pay would be required to be not dependent on tips - the cost of the trip would have to cover full guide compensation as well as enough additional to effectively cover trip cancellation insurance. That way, should the guide company cancel the trip for a safety/weather related reason, the guide and the company are still paid and clients are mostly whole by the travel insurance.

The financial incentives are very misaligned at this point and clients are not paying the true cost to operate the business. There is huge pressure to continue with a trip in dangerous conditions, as we saw.


Wow—that is a great idea. And in orientation to the problem, remarkably similar to the conversation about Everest. The natural conditions cannot be controlled—all that may help are some disincentives to bad risk-taking by humans.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My heart aches for all the lives lost and their families. I hope that strict safety laws are put in place to prevent such accidents.

What laws, exactly, do you think would have prevented this? They might try to prove criminal negligence by the guides, but that law already exists.


+1. You can't keep people from venturing into the wilderness.


Actually, there is one law that many people think would help. Guide pay would be required to be not dependent on tips - the cost of the trip would have to cover full guide compensation as well as enough additional to effectively cover trip cancellation insurance. That way, should the guide company cancel the trip for a safety/weather related reason, the guide and the company are still paid and clients are mostly whole by the travel insurance.

The financial incentives are very misaligned at this point and clients are not paying the true cost to operate the business. There is huge pressure to continue with a trip in dangerous conditions, as we saw.


Wow—that is a great idea. And in orientation to the problem, remarkably similar to the conversation about Everest. The natural conditions cannot be controlled—all that may help are some disincentives to bad risk-taking by humans.


+1
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:One of the survivors in the NYT article said that he didn’t think to question the guides because he felt they were the experts and everyone just went along with the plan. Stop trying to blame the victims.


The guides were not with them when they left their homes to go on their planned trip. Supposedly, they were experienced skiers who could read and understand weather forecasts of heavy snow and the potential for avalances. Stop trying to blame the guides for the consequences of the women's decision to embark on such a trip.


You're disgusting.

It's ultimately up to the guide to gauge the safety.



+1 The guides should have erred on the side of safety and delayed the return trip. They could have stayed in the huts another night.


The skiers should have erred on the side of safety and stayed home. Instead, risk takers find someone else to blame for their decisions; and there are always salivating attorneys looking to sue someone.


The guides made the final decision to go.

It’s disgusting how much you want to blame these women.


+1 Women, being the weaker sex, should never be accountable for their decisions.


They didn’t make the decision, twat.


Really? Did someone force them to go on this trip?


Inconvenient truth for judgmental twats: Guides are responsible for the group’s safety.



Inconvenient truth for you and others who don't like to be held accountable for their decisions. People are responsible for their choices and consequences when they choose to take part in risky adventures. Of course, they or their survivors can sue and perhaps get money for their legal efforts. Doesn't change the possibility of a deadly outcome.


The guides made the final decision on safety. It’s literally their job.

I DGAF who can sue who. Our country is overly litigious.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:One of the survivors in the NYT article said that he didn’t think to question the guides because he felt they were the experts and everyone just went along with the plan. Stop trying to blame the victims.


The guides were not with them when they left their homes to go on their planned trip. Supposedly, they were experienced skiers who could read and understand weather forecasts of heavy snow and the potential for avalances. Stop trying to blame the guides for the consequences of the women's decision to embark on such a trip.


You're disgusting.

It's ultimately up to the guide to gauge the safety.



+1 The guides should have erred on the side of safety and delayed the return trip. They could have stayed in the huts another night.


The skiers should have erred on the side of safety and stayed home. Instead, risk takers find someone else to blame for their decisions; and there are always salivating attorneys looking to sue someone.


The guides made the final decision to go.

It’s disgusting how much you want to blame these women.


+1 Women, being the weaker sex, should never be accountable for their decisions.


They didn’t make the decision, twat.


Really? Did someone force them to go on this trip?


Inconvenient truth for judgmental twats: Guides are responsible for the group’s safety.



Inconvenient truth for you and others who don't like to be held accountable for their decisions. People are responsible for their choices and consequences when they choose to take part in risky adventures. Of course, they or their survivors can sue and perhaps get money for their legal efforts. Doesn't change the possibility of a deadly outcome.


+1 hard fact of life
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My heart aches for all the lives lost and their families. I hope that strict safety laws are put in place to prevent such accidents.

What laws, exactly, do you think would have prevented this? They might try to prove criminal negligence by the guides, but that law already exists.


+1. You can't keep people from venturing into the wilderness.


Actually, there is one law that many people think would help. Guide pay would be required to be not dependent on tips - the cost of the trip would have to cover full guide compensation as well as enough additional to effectively cover trip cancellation insurance. That way, should the guide company cancel the trip for a safety/weather related reason, the guide and the company are still paid and clients are mostly whole by the travel insurance.

The financial incentives are very misaligned at this point and clients are not paying the true cost to operate the business. There is huge pressure to continue with a trip in dangerous conditions, as we saw.


Wow—that is a great idea. And in orientation to the problem, remarkably similar to the conversation about Everest. The natural conditions cannot be controlled—all that may help are some disincentives to bad risk-taking by humans.


Or maybe the pay is tied to bringing everyone safely back again. You don't get paid before the trip, but after.
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:One of the survivors in the NYT article said that he didn’t think to question the guides because he felt they were the experts and everyone just went along with the plan. Stop trying to blame the victims.


The guides were not with them when they left their homes to go on their planned trip. Supposedly, they were experienced skiers who could read and understand weather forecasts of heavy snow and the potential for avalances. Stop trying to blame the guides for the consequences of the women's decision to embark on such a trip.


You're disgusting.

It's ultimately up to the guide to gauge the safety.



+1 The guides should have erred on the side of safety and delayed the return trip. They could have stayed in the huts another night.


The skiers should have erred on the side of safety and stayed home. Instead, risk takers find someone else to blame for their decisions; and there are always salivating attorneys looking to sue someone.


The guides made the final decision to go.

It’s disgusting how much you want to blame these women.


+1 Women, being the weaker sex, should never be accountable for their decisions.


They didn’t make the decision, twat.


Really? Did someone force them to go on this trip?


Inconvenient truth for judgmental twats: Guides are responsible for the group’s safety.



Inconvenient truth for you and others who don't like to be held accountable for their decisions. People are responsible for their choices and consequences when they choose to take part in risky adventures. Of course, they or their survivors can sue and perhaps get money for their legal efforts. Doesn't change the possibility of a deadly outcome.


The guides made the final decision on safety. It’s literally their job.

I DGAF who can sue who. Our country is overly litigious.


Unfortunately, Mother Nature DGAF either.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:[mastodon]
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Reports are that I-80 was closed that whole day so even if they made it to their cars they wouldn’t have been able to go home.

They should have stayed in the huts (or not gone altogether.) Very bad decision-making all around.


That's the part I don't get about the NYTimes article and the guides taking the route taking them to their cars rather than other totally safe routes because yes, they'd not have been able to drive anywhere once they got there, the cars would have been at least totally covered in snow even with roads open.


Perhaps the guides did not know the road was closed.

Anyone who knows the area knows that the pass closes in that kind of weather.


Which they should have anticipated right? It’s strange they had no safe plan B.
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: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.


Thanks for posting. This is a fascinating article. The comments at the end are worth a read.

There was no pressure from guests to stay or go. The decision to go and the path taken was made
in a back room meeting by guides on the phone with the home office.

There were two groups of guests. There were the 8 women who were highly proficient back country skiers. The women were friends.

The second group was 3 solo men who were all back country novice level and knew they needed guides.

Each group had two male guides. The womens group and their guides were typically in the front as the women were more proficient.
One of the males talks about being embarrassed that he kept falling down.

On the last day the two groups operated as one group but the solo men were at the rear with one male guide following.

I don't think the solo men would have spoken up about staying or going. The two men interviewed both said they were less skilled and knew they needed guides in the back country.






Still no explanation as to why the proficient, skilled women skiers ignored weather warnings and went on with their plans. Guides didn't force them to go on the trip.

They relied on the guides. It’s really gross that people feel such a need to villainize these dead women.


+1

Standard DCUM victim blaming. So gross.



Especially when women are involved.


Yes. It is gross how many posts make a point of saying the women skiers. They could just type the skiers. But they go out of their way to emphasize the women did'nt watch the weather beforehand, the women didn't cancel, there must have been 1-2 alpha women. Their sex had nothing to do with it, except that it's used when assigning blame to part of the group. The full group was 4 guides, 3 independent people who signed up individually, and 8 people who were linked in a group. Emphasizing over and over the women is blantant misogyny.

Also - they had a gorgeous day skiing the day before. The tour company said the trip was still on.

There's a lot in the NYT article about group think and how these large high death events happen psychologically. Most of those elements were present in this situation, and none of those elements involve the sex of the victim.

If you cannot talk about this story without talking about "women skiers" as opposed to just "skiers," you are part of the problem.


The group that planned a trip together was comprised of women. Consequently, the friends group is described as a group of women skiers. Get over it.


Also, in the article recently posted the male survivors were at the back of the pack. So the women, out in front, with the guides likely caused the avalanche.


What difference does that make? The women outnumbered the men guests. It’s not rocket science. One man in the back had trouble with his skis, the other man couldn’t keep up, and a male guide stayed back with them.

And this is another demonstration that the guides were making poor decisions. These skiers did not belong on this trip. In a weird trick of fate their incompetence saved them from the guides and because of that they were able to save a few people. Blaming any of the skiers is just ridiculous, you hire guides for their expertise and experience. That they retreated to a closed door meeting and issued a decision clearly shows that the guides were in charge. And reading the article we can see multiple failure points by the guides. It’s very apparent that most of the posters in this thread have no back country or similar experiences. Just like you rely on your pilot to fly, or your captain to safely pilot the boat, you rely on your guides.

To the point of the storm, back country skiers ski in storms. A storm does not mean you need to stay inside.

I hope we will get a thorough review of everything that happened from Outside. NYT was a decent article but there will be much more to learn. My husband was a backcountry skier, ice climber, rock climber, scuba diver and more. He was also SAR. These stories hit him hard, bringing back the memories of missions that became recoveries. My heart goes out to the victims, their families, the survivors and that includes the surviving guide. They will live the rest of their life knowing that they failed the people who trusted them.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.

I agree with you. There has been some sentiment in this thread that you never ski in a storm, and that has been one of the many accusations used to blame the dead women. I was not asserting that this group should have skied in this storm, just pointing out that some storms are safe for experienced skiers. We have both grown near and in the high mountains, and my family has had a cabin in the Rockies for five generations. The guides were responsible for this tragedy.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:One of the survivors in the NYT article said that he didn’t think to question the guides because he felt they were the experts and everyone just went along with the plan. Stop trying to blame the victims.


The guides were not with them when they left their homes to go on their planned trip. Supposedly, they were experienced skiers who could read and understand weather forecasts of heavy snow and the potential for avalances. Stop trying to blame the guides for the consequences of the women's decision to embark on such a trip.


You're disgusting.

It's ultimately up to the guide to gauge the safety.



+1 The guides should have erred on the side of safety and delayed the return trip. They could have stayed in the huts another night.


The skiers should have erred on the side of safety and stayed home. Instead, risk takers find someone else to blame for their decisions; and there are always salivating attorneys looking to sue someone.


The guides made the final decision to go.

It’s disgusting how much you want to blame these women.


DP. Yes the guides are to blame, but so are the women. If you choose to do engage in a high risk sport like backcountry skiing or boating then you need to understand that “guides” are often poorly trained high school grads, not experts, and not necessarily even that good at decisionmaking or assessing risk. They have a narrow range of skill and that’s it. It is extremely foolish to put your trust in them except for very rote things.
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:
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.


Thanks for posting. This is a fascinating article. The comments at the end are worth a read.

There was no pressure from guests to stay or go. The decision to go and the path taken was made
in a back room meeting by guides on the phone with the home office.

There were two groups of guests. There were the 8 women who were highly proficient back country skiers. The women were friends.

The second group was 3 solo men who were all back country novice level and knew they needed guides.

Each group had two male guides. The womens group and their guides were typically in the front as the women were more proficient.
One of the males talks about being embarrassed that he kept falling down.

On the last day the two groups operated as one group but the solo men were at the rear with one male guide following.

I don't think the solo men would have spoken up about staying or going. The two men interviewed both said they were less skilled and knew they needed guides in the back country.






Still no explanation as to why the proficient, skilled women skiers ignored weather warnings and went on with their plans. Guides didn't force them to go on the trip.

They relied on the guides. It’s really gross that people feel such a need to villainize these dead women.


+1

Standard DCUM victim blaming. So gross.



Especially when women are involved.


Yes. It is gross how many posts make a point of saying the women skiers. They could just type the skiers. But they go out of their way to emphasize the women did'nt watch the weather beforehand, the women didn't cancel, there must have been 1-2 alpha women. Their sex had nothing to do with it, except that it's used when assigning blame to part of the group. The full group was 4 guides, 3 independent people who signed up individually, and 8 people who were linked in a group. Emphasizing over and over the women is blantant misogyny.

Also - they had a gorgeous day skiing the day before. The tour company said the trip was still on.

There's a lot in the NYT article about group think and how these large high death events happen psychologically. Most of those elements were present in this situation, and none of those elements involve the sex of the victim.

If you cannot talk about this story without talking about "women skiers" as opposed to just "skiers," you are part of the problem.


The group that planned a trip together was comprised of women. Consequently, the friends group is described as a group of women skiers. Get over it.


Also, in the article recently posted the male survivors were at the back of the pack. So the women, out in front, with the guides likely caused the avalanche.


What difference does that make? The women outnumbered the men guests. It’s not rocket science. One man in the back had trouble with his skis, the other man couldn’t keep up, and a male guide stayed back with them.

And this is another demonstration that the guides were making poor decisions. These skiers did not belong on this trip. In a weird trick of fate their incompetence saved them from the guides and because of that they were able to save a few people. Blaming any of the skiers is just ridiculous, you hire guides for their expertise and experience. That they retreated to a closed door meeting and issued a decision clearly shows that the guides were in charge. And reading the article we can see multiple failure points by the guides. It’s very apparent that most of the posters in this thread have no back country or similar experiences. Just like you rely on your pilot to fly, or your captain to safely pilot the boat, you rely on your guides.

To the point of the storm, back country skiers ski in storms. A storm does not mean you need to stay inside.

I hope we will get a thorough review of everything that happened from Outside. NYT was a decent article but there will be much more to learn. My husband was a backcountry skier, ice climber, rock climber, scuba diver and more. He was also SAR. These stories hit him hard, bringing back the memories of missions that became recoveries. My heart goes out to the victims, their families, the survivors and that includes the surviving guide. They will live the rest of their life knowing that they failed the people who trusted them.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.

I agree with you. There has been some sentiment in this thread that you never ski in a storm, and that has been one of the many accusations used to blame the dead women. I was not asserting that this group should have skied in this storm, just pointing out that some storms are safe for experienced skiers. We have both grown near and in the high mountains, and my family has had a cabin in the Rockies for five generations. The guides were responsible for this tragedy.


Are you saying better skiers could have outskiied an avalanche?
post reply Forum Index » Off-Topic
Message Quick Reply
Go to: