Missing Skier Found Dead In NH After Being Buried By Avalanche

[DayTrip]

The avalanche forecast for Mount Washington was "Low" on all aspects on Monday, February 1, the day of the Mr. Forgay's fatal incident. It is important to note that Low does not equal none, nor does it mean that one can fail to make assessments, however, I would not classify it as "bad conditions."

Ammonoosuc Ravine is a 3,000'-3,400' descent. It may be the most sustained-pitch descent in the Northeast and is definitely one of the premier ski lines east of the Rockies. For those of use who ski throughout the Presidentials, Ammo Ravine is considered a classic line.

Maybe I'm confusing the days. I don't generally check the forecast for this so when warnings make there way in front of me via Instagram, blogs, etc I usually take note that it is probably dangerous up there, more so than normal because it's reaching me without effort. There had been several days with a "high" rating and as I mentioned the MWOBS even had an avalanche warning to start their high summits forecast one day recently. Apparently that was after the 1st. I know conditions can change rapidly from day to day and I've obviously blended several days of data in my head out of chronological order. Saw "skiier fatality" + "avalanche warning on MWOBS forecast" + "avalanche warnings on MWAV" and my mind connected the dots.

I wasn't necessarily implying he went up there on purpose knowing conditions were dangerous but more expressing the thought that a tragedy like this wasn't surprising given the warnings I'd been seeing. As I'm re-reading this I don't know that it makes sense but hopefully you get what I mean.

EDIT: Apparently 2/2 and 2/3 were the days that were "High" and "Considerable" on the MWAC site and I saw the article about the fatality on 2/4. Not sure at what point and why it went from Low to High during that 24 hour period or how that all ties in with the time line of this skier and his run, etc. As many have noted this guy knew what he was doing and how to read the conditions.

 

[ChrisB]

The avalanche forecast for Mount Washington was "Low" on all aspects on Monday, February 1, the day of the Mr. Forgay's fatal incident. It is important to note that Low does not equal none, nor does it mean that one can fail to make assessments, however, I would not classify it as "bad conditions."

Ammonoosuc Ravine is a 3,000'-3,400' descent. It may be the most sustained-pitch descent in the Northeast and is definitely one of the premier ski lines east of the Rockies. For those of use who ski throughout the Presidentials, Ammo Ravine is considered a classic line.

I am still confused about the use of a transceiver when solo. What is the point/benefit of having it if there is no one else around to respond?

Did he think/hope there might be others up there doing that line that day?

 

[JoshandBaron]

I am still confused about the use of a transceiver when solo. What is the point/benefit of having it if there is no one else around to respond?

Did he think/hope there might be others up there doing that line that day?

It probably never left his kit regardless of party size.

 

[Mike P.]

A rating of Low still allows for human triggered avalanches, we don't know if Ian triggered it or not though.

My question would be more about where the rating was intended and if you are skiing in Ammo Ravine, King Ravine or Monroe Brook, can you really put much stock in the reports meant for Huntington and Tuckerman Ravine? You need a slope and then layers that don't adhere and the top layer(s) sliding off the lower levels, often caused by standing walking or skiing at the breaking point. Tuckerman Ravine is prone to avalanches due to the slope and the snow load due to winds scouring the Alpine Zone and (often not always) with NW winds, the deposit zone is Tuckerman. If the wind is from the Northeast or East, Tuckerman isn't the Ravine that gets all the snow, it's the Western facing slopes.

In addition, if Tucks & Washington are in the clouds over several mornings with bright sunlight in late afternoon when the Headwall would be in the shade, the surface of the two ravines would be different and when new snow is added to those surfaces, they will act differently when loaded. Based on topography, I'm thinking the upper slopes of the Ammo drainage gets more sunlight than the Tuckerman headwall so melting and re-freezing and sun-cupping is more likely on the upper Ammo than it on the main Headwall on Tuckerman. (Other parts of the wall on the ball as you get closer to Lion's Head or Boott Spur will also get different amounts of sun than the back wall.)

Can a Tuckerman Ravine avalanche forecast carry much validity for ravines that other than being on the same mountain, do not share many similarities, (U-shape Vs. V-shape, east facing, west facing) You wouldn't use them when the difference is mileage, ie., for Katahdin or the ADK's. (Does the ADK put on a forecast? I'm thinking no, unless they know conditions are ripe for slides which do occur on Wright's and they do ski on those slopes too. Does using them other than Tucks, Huntington and the Gulf of Slides?

I think it's hard for hikers to relate to this hazard. It would be akin to soil dropping from the ski, if it came with rain, trails would have a layer of mud on them, then dry soil might fall on the mud and if the mud was frozen when the last soil fell on it, that soil would only hide slippery mud. (Like walking on any icy trail that has a light coating of snow on top that is just deep enough to hide the ice.)

 

[TEO]

I am still confused about the use of a transceiver when solo. What is the point/benefit of having it if there is no one else around to respond?

Did he think/hope there might be others up there doing that line that day?

He certainly would not have counted on there being other people around, but wearing a transceiver could help if others with transceivers saw his incident, although given the depth of burial, I think that that is highly unlikely. It would also allow him to help out with a search in the event that he was in the vicinity of one. And, as it turned out, it aided in body recovery. While it may be a morbid reason to wear one, it is a practical, reasonable reason. As JoshandBaron pointed out, it may have never left his kit. Most skiers experienced in skiing avalanche terrain make it a habit to wear a transceiver every time they're in avalanche terrain.

My question would be more about where the rating was intended and if you are skiing in Ammo Ravine, King Ravine or Monroe Brook, can you really put much stock in the reports meant for Huntington and Tuckerman Ravine?

Several years ago the Mount Washington Avalanche Center expanded their forecast area to include the entire Presidential Range, which was a long overdue. (It may have coincided with the change in leadership.)

That said prior to the change, the forecasts for Tuckerman and Huntington, through extrapolation, were one of a number of tools that we would use to evaluate the potential hazards in the other drainages of the range.

 

[ChrisB]

He certainly would not have counted on there being other people around, but wearing a transceiver could help if others with transceivers saw his incident, although given the depth of burial, I think that that is highly unlikely. It would also allow him to help out with a search in the event that he was in the vicinity of one. And, as it turned out, it aided in body recovery. While it may be a morbid reason to wear one, it is a practical, reasonable reason. As JoshandBaron pointed out, it may have never left his kit. Most skiers experienced in skiing avalanche terrain make it a habit to wear a transceiver every time they're in avalanche terrain.



Several years ago the Mount Washington Avalanche Center expanded their forecast area to include the entire Presidential Range, which was a long overdue. (It may have coincided with the change in leadership.)

That said prior to the change, the forecasts for Tuckerman and Huntington, through extrapolation, were one of a number of tools that we would use to evaluate the potential hazards in the other drainages of the range.

Right. We will never know how he sized up the danger of his line. If he ascended the Ammo trail as most do I would guess he never dug pits and did shear tests, etc. on the slope to be skied.

The generalized nature of terrain forecasts probably increase the importance of localized avi evaluation and testing.

 

[Mike P.]

Several years ago the Mount Washington Avalanche Center expanded their forecast area to include the entire Presidential Range, which was a long overdue. (It may have coincided with the change in leadership.)

That said prior to the change, the forecasts for Tuckerman and Huntington, through extrapolation, were one of a number of tools that we would use to evaluate the potential hazards in the other drainages of the range.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the update, just got back from the MWAC, While more detailed and I see some other locations where observations are done, Do we know if those were all from Snow Rangers or were some just observations from experienced skiers and hikers? In comparing the old Vs new (it's not really geared to where I will be this year and the last few years) The old seemed, as you pointed out, more specific to Tucks and Huntington, and was very specific. The new seems more general to me and educational so that users would look at the data almost like how we use the weather. Here is the info and what you could see, keep your eyes open and stay alert. It probably coincides that OUAT, Tucks and Huntington were backcountry. Technically they still are, but years ago, people rarely ventured past Gulf of Slides, now people are going everywhere.

It was interesting to see that the MWAC has rescues and avalanches not mentioned in the F&G website.

 

[thebigmo13]

I am still confused about the use of a transceiver when solo. What is the point/benefit of having it if there is no one else around to respond?

Did he think/hope there might be others up there doing that line that day?

I often wear my transceiver while solo. My reasons are twofold:
1) It's small, doesn't weigh much, and go with the thought "why not?" I certainly don't rely on someone else to rescue me if I am traveling solo, but in more popular areas like Mt Washington, there is always the chance.
2) I can help with a rescue if I have my beacon. See a slide, flip to search, assist if feasible.

 

[Mike P.]

I often wear my transceiver while solo. My reasons are twofold:
1) It's small, doesn't weigh much, and go with the thought "why not?" I certainly don't rely on someone else to rescue me if I am traveling solo, but in more popular areas like Mt Washington, there is always the chance.
2) I can help with a rescue if I have my beacon. See a slide, flip to search, assist if feasible.

Those are great reasons, thanks!

 

[ChrisB]

Those are great reasons, thanks!

A question for you back country skiers:

Do you folks regularly dig pits or perform other avi tests in the field when you ski?

Do most east coast BC skiers take avi courses?

I’m just curious. Thanks.

 

[skiguy]

A question for you back country skiers:

Do you folks regularly dig pits or perform other avi tests in the field when you ski?

Do most east coast BC skiers take avi courses?

I’m just curious. Thanks.

Yes to all of the above.

 

[skiguy]

The avalanche forecast for Mount Washington was "Low" on all aspects on Monday, February 1, the day of the Mr. Forgay's fatal incident. It is important to note that Low does not equal none, nor does it mean that one can fail to make assessments, however, I would not classify it as "bad conditions."

Ammonoosuc Ravine is a 3,000'-3,400' descent. It may be the most sustained-pitch descent in the Northeast and is definitely one of the premier ski lines east of the Rockies. For those of use who ski throughout the Presidentials, Ammo Ravine is considered a classic line.

Local knowledge goes a long way. IMO it is important to realize that even a forecast of "LOW Avalanche "danger does not mean a blanket carte blanche. There will always be areas of concerns or pockets where increased dangers lie. Anyone whether skier, hiker or climber can benefit from avalanche training. If you go out in Winter in the Mountains understanding the snow pack and it's evolvement is essential to one's survival. There have been Avalanches in the Whites in locations that many would intuitively think could never happen. One that comes to mind was the time I believe it was late 80's or early 90's when the area above The Raymond Path between Lowe's Path and the Perch let go and covered the trail with all kinds of debris. Another area that many would not believe lets go and could potentially be very destructive to human life is The East Snow Fields of the Mt. Washington Summit Cone. These are both areas that are subject to hiker traffic. You don't need to be a skier to gain from the knowledge that Avy training will give you. Also not to mention you may not be the victim but a witness even from some one not in your party. To know what to do in that situation could save someone else's life. Take an Avalanche Training course. It could save your live or someone you know or do not know.

 

[TCD]

Regarding the discussion of risk: Of course there is risk associated with various outdoor activities. There is risk in hiking, or simply in crossing the street. I sometimes climb rock without a rope, for example. This is an extremely high risk.

If I get hurt hiking and cannot continue, I can call for rescue. If I am properly prepared, I can wait for that rescue to show up. It does not matter if someone else is there when the event occurs. So while there is risk, I can be mitigate it by myself. The presence of others does not affect the outcome.

If I fall rock climbing while unroped, I splat on the ground. Again, it does not matter if someone else is there watching; the presence of others does not affect the outcome.

Avy risk is QUALITATIVELY different. If I get buried in an avalanche, other people might be able to dig me out in the very short time period where I might survive. So for this specific risk, the presence of others has a huge effect on the outcome.

So comparing the risk of traveling alone in avy terrain to the risks in other "solo" outdoor activities is invalid. Choosing to travel alone in avy terrain amplifies the risk to a huge extent, not seen in other activities, because of the difference made by prompt rescue by people who are right there when the event happens.

 

[TEO]

Choosing to travel alone in avy terrain amplifies the risk to a huge extent, not seen in other activities, because of the difference made by prompt rescue by people who are right there when the event happens.

I agree. However, I would not agree with your earlier statement that a lack of a partner in avy terrain means that you are "de facto unprepared," just as I would not call free-soloing, "climbing unprepared."

 

[Mike P.]

I agree. However, I would not agree with your earlier statement that a lack of a partner in avy terrain means that you are "de facto unprepared," just as I would not call free-soloing, "climbing unprepared."

I would think that this would depend on one's perspective. For those of us doing it, we've rationalized the risk to an acceptable level in our minds. To those working SAR and the friends and family left after a fatality, I imagine, not so much.

If you did it with your spouse/Mom or Dad, kids, for years but went solo afterwards, they might understand it, however others who don't hike/ski/climb, they only say things like, he (or she) died doing what they loved, the outdoor equivalent to thoughts and prayers.

 

[bignslow]

A few resources for people who want to take the first step towards avalanche awareness.

* KBYG Classes and Videos - A lot of the avy centers (USFS sponsored) out here have put together training materials for first-time backcountry travelers to understand some of the risks and dangers of travelling in avy terrain. It doesn't go deep into beacon use, rescue technique, or making qualitative assessments (AIARE classes). https://kbyg.org/
* Slope angle - 30-60 degrees is the dangerous terrain for avys (more shallow and it can't slide, more steep and it can't bond to form a dangerous slab). Caltopo has an easily enabled layer for visualizing slope angle overlaid on your base map of choice: https://caltopo.com/l/E978
* Sobering statistic - 25+% of avy fatalities are from trauma during the slide, so if you get caught, even if you get rescued 'in time' your odds of survival are already less than 75%

 

[dave.m]

A question for you back country skiers:

Do you folks regularly dig pits or perform other avi tests in the field when you ski?
Do most east coast BC skiers take avi courses?

Depends on what you mean by "backcountry skiing".

IMO, there are 3 general kinds of backcountry skiing here in New England...

1) Rugged cross-country skiing
2) Skiing for turns in the woods and glades
3) Skiing for turns in chutes, gullies, ravines and snowfields.

As Skiguy correctly notes, avalanches can and have happened in the woods under the right conditions. It is possible to be hiking along a trail or fleeing from a cabin (Wileys) and get crushed. But this is like talking about lightening strikes. A backcountry skier can drive their avalanche risk to practically zero by simply staying in the woods.

The chutes, gullies, ravines and snowfields are another matter completely. These slide on a regular basis. I view the chutes, gullies, slide paths and such as sort of the free climbing of the gravity sports. In the forward to his book "Chuting Gallery", Andrew McLean noted that he wrote the book for young men with a death wish. And many of these places have other dangers beyond avalanches. Many of these places are really "no fall" zones. I recall an interview with Dickie Hall who noted the the first time he skied on of the steep lines near Tucks (Dodge's Drop, IIRC) he had to ski around some roped up ice climbers who were ascending the same route he was skiing down.

I completely understand the understand the appeal of these chutes and what might lure a solo skier to drop in. I skied Gulf of Slides once, and that single run is like a fresh memory - every single turn.

I would hazard a guess that in terms of skier hours, that the percentage of New England backcountry skiing done in the chutes, gullies, ravines and snowfields makes up less than 1/3rd of the activity. Even counting the hordes at Tucks in the Spring. That's just a guess but it's not an entirely uneducated guess. There are an awful lot of people skiing in the woods and along trails every weekend.

I've never seen a woods skier dig a snowpit nor do I know of woods skiers who routinely carry beacons/shovels unless they just keep them in their winter pack as a matter of routine.

The springtime hordes in Tucks is another thing to consider. I'll wager that fewer than 1 in 1000 carry a beacon and fewer still dig pits. A good bit of this can be somewhat excused if you buy the argument that pits tell you less in known, well-consolidated conditions. From what I've seen in the years I used to ski Tucks, the spring time slides I've seen were all surface sloughs, not slab avalanches caused by unstable layer deep under the surface. And then again, one can argue about whether or not Tucks is backcountry or side country.


In terms of the risk, I'll contrast it to rather seemingly mundane "cross-country" skiing.



This little stroll in park shot was taken while skiing the Upper Nanamacomuk a few years ago. It's a beautiful rolling XC ski trail that ambles down from Lilly Pond to Bear Notch Road while following the north side of the Swift. And that's the rub...

A simple leg injury would leave you stranded on the wrong side of a river a good 3-5 miles from any entry point.

Is it rational to ski the Upper Nana solo? Couldn't something like a Spot or InReach call in the rescue if you need it?

@DougPaul's terrible injury on the equally tame and much closer Livermore Road suggests otherwise. Doug had a satellite phone in his pack but reported here that he was in so much pain, he was unable to get his pack off to get out his parka or his phone. Had one more stray solo skier not been behind him on the loop, Doug may well have not made it through that night.

My long-winded point here is that solo winter travel is inherently risky to begin with, particularly when you're in remote places off of high volume routes. A simple twist of an ankle or busted binding (see the recent TR from Belvidere VT) can be a game changer.

 

[peakbagger]

In the past I have gotten the impression that there is a fringe of backcountry skiing culture that tends to adhere to a modified Fight Club approach. First thing about extreme ravine skiing is don't talk about it until the days session is over. I realize there is a long term effort to bring in avalanche safety and training but I wonder if there is an old guard that just gets up in the morning, looks at the conditions and just goes?. There have been occasional references by RMC winter caretakers over the years that they keep an eye on the ravines for solo skiers who get in trouble. A local outfitter made a comment in an interview that he had a list of rarely skied spots all over the area that might only be suitable every 20 years. I think he had skied many and also had gotten info from others, my guess is pits were not dug and beacons were not carried.

 

[Mike P.]

"In the forward to his book "Chuting Gallery", Andrew McLean noted that he wrote the book for young men with a death wish. And many of these places have other dangers beyond avalanches. Many of these places are really "no fall" zones. I recall an interview with Dickie Hall who noted the the first time he skied on of the steep lines near Tucks (Dodge's Drop, IIRC) he had to ski around some roped up ice climbers who were ascending the same route he was skiing down."

That's an image that I'd love to see.

 

[DougPaul]

@DougPaul's terrible injury on the equally tame and much closer Livermore Road suggests otherwise. Doug had a satellite phone in his pack but reported here that he was in so much pain, he was unable to get his pack off to get out his parka or his phone. Had one more stray solo skier not been behind him on the loop, Doug may well have not made it through that night.

A few corrections:
I wasn't in pain, but I knew my femur was broken. I was working on getting my pack off when another solo skier arrived. (I would have been able to get it off.) He helped stabilize me (pad under me, down jacket on etc). Only had a cellphone, but I was able to connect. If the cellphone had not worked, I believe I would have been able to wait for him to ski out and summon help. If the cellphone had not worked and no one had come by, I might not have made it. (It would have been a reasonably pleasant night by winter standards.)

The accident was the result of my ski catching on a blowdown hidden in the snow--something that can occur almost anywhere below T-line. I wasn't going very fast either. A type 1) situation...

Doug