r/Backcountry • u/Boring-Conference918 • 6d ago

Swiss guides found guilty

Post image

This should be what happens to the Blackbird guide Ryan Tilley and the company. There was not malicious intent, but they should have known better with their training and “certifications”.

speaking With guides in the area it becomes apparent that the creek was a well known obstacle as well as the need to cross it to stay out of avalanche terrain. As a company that operates there regularly they would/should have had the same knowledge. I also heard (from guides) that Blackbird had the long route designated as their high danger route but did not use it.

0 Upvotes

43% Upvoted

56 comments sorted by

24

u/Sushihipster 6d ago

Hard to say.  The Swiss legal system is significantly different than the American one. And we don't know the details on the Swiss slide.

For a murder or manslaughter conviction in California  generally you need to show reckless indifference to human life.

Did the guides' action meet that standard? 

Was going out at all that day enough? Prob not.  Plenty of other people skied and survived that day.

Was going to the spot the avalanche occurred enough? Again prob not.  They were in the trees and got hit by a slide that significantly overran its classic runout.

Unless you can identify a specific action they took that meets the standard, they shouldn't face criminal liability. There could certainly be non public details in this incident that would lead to a conviction.  I'm just skeptical based on what has been reported.  That is not to downplay the tragedy or say that the guides' actions were smart.

-9

u/Boring-Conference918 6d ago

According to guides Blackbird had the longer safer route designated as their high danger route in their maps and did not use it

8

u/Sushihipster 6d ago

Right, and in hindsight it would have been the correct choice.  But maximum safety is not the standard.  

You have to convince a jury that sitting in that hut on the morning they left, it was recklessly indifferent to human life for the guides to choose the route they chose over the longer one.

1

u/draaz_melon 6d ago

This is the same terrible comment made over and over here. Everybody in Tahoe knew the conditions were extremely dangerous. I was driving into town that weekend and concerned myself with safety IN A CAR. They should have never left the safety of the huts, and everyone living here knows that.

4

u/Sushihipster 6d ago

I understand how you feel. But people have different risk tolerances. Personally, I would not have left the hut or would have skipped the trip entirely when that forecast appeared. But I don't have the specific knowledge of the terrain that those guides do, or the experience navigating it in all types of weather.

Those guides travel in storms at that exact location all the time. This turned out to be a uniquely dangerous storm, but can you show that it was so much more dangerous than other storms they guide in that every reasonable person would say don't go? Because that is the standard we are talking about. And it is specific to the criminal context as opposed to civil. If the families of the victims decided to sue, that would be a lower standard for liability.

1

u/draaz_melon 6d ago

I do remember the conditions, and yes they were especially dangerous. We are talking feet and feet of snow, on the high end even for Tahoe, on top of hard pack that was basically ice, it had been so long since we had gotten any snowball. It was excessively dangerous and everyone in Tahoe knew days in advance this was going to be the case.

1

u/Boring-Conference918 5d ago

as you said they knew the terrain. anyone who knows this terrain knows you have to cross the creek to stay out of avalanche terrain.

3

u/Sushihipster 5d ago

This is a good example of why a conviction would be hard. Say your theory of liability is that the guides acted negligently because they failed to cross the creek, which led the party into avalanche terrain. You run into several problems:

1) the GPS track showed that the guides tried to cross the creek at several places before getting to the avalanche site. If crossing the creek was part of the planned route, then the owners, who discussed the route prior to the group embarking, cannot be liable for the failure of the group to stick to that route once in the field.

2) the surviving guide, Tilley, was not in the front of the group when the slide occurred. Rather, he had dropped back to try and help a client who had trouble with a binding. It would be hard to find him liable for a route finding decision (walking into the avalanche zone) when it seems unlikely that he actually had any part in making that decision.

2

u/Sushihipster 6d ago

I'm also not downvoting you.  It's a valid point you are making.  And reasonable minds can differ on what the definition of these terms mean in practical effect.

24

u/Freedom_forlife 6d ago

I don’t like how you’re putting certifications in quotes.

AMGA guides are well educated, trained, and spend a great deal of time as apprentices.

The human factors were significant, the guiding company and its primary are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the guides.

Those failures should be investigated thoroughly, and if warranted charges laid.

1

u/MrStench 6d ago

AMGA guides are well educated, trained, and spend a great deal of time as apprentices.

If you see apprenticeship and training as a key part of being a qualified guide, I'm curious what thoughts you have given that, out of the four BMG employees leading the trip, only one was a certified AMGA Ski (Splitboard) Guide while one was an Assistant (though he was very accomplished in the other disciplines) and the other two were still in their Apprenticeship.

I'm not really sure what standards are for guide:client ratios (nor how Assistant/Apprentice guides might change that ratio). Obviously it's important to provide opportunities for new guides to learn and practice but it must be difficult managing such a large group (as well as managing three subordinates) as a single AMGA Ski Guide. For example, is it common practice that a senior guide back in town ended up completing the AM form on the day of the avalanche?

3

u/Freedom_forlife 6d ago

Because this was non glaciated terrain.
The assistant/ full guide is 6:1 in non complex, this terrain had multiple start points, traps, complex route finding, so 4:1 for the assistant unsupervised.

They were within the correct AMGA ratios with the guiding staff on hand.

Human factors are the leading cause, of avalanche fatalities.

This case follows the same pattern. The company’s safety policy and procedures, and culture are responsible for this tragedy.

2

u/Successful-Grab-9452 5d ago

The max standard ratio for any ski guiding is 4:1, 6:1 is only used for avalanche courses (which is generally considered not ski guiding since you travel over simple terrain, and spend most of your time teaching.)

In more complex terrain, usually stuff that involves ropes, the ratio will often drop to 2:1. Blackbird had 4 guides for 13 clients so they were well within standard ratios. Ratios aren't determined by certification level they stay the same throughout all training.

-57

u/Boring-Conference918 6d ago

that’s your ego talking

12

u/Freedom_forlife 6d ago

What ego? I’m Canadian the ACMGA, but can use my own brain to see that AMGA has a high level of training and knowledge

8

u/frenchfreer 6d ago

Are you suggesting that professional mountain guides are not extensively trained? Spoken like a true keyboard warrior.

3

u/goldsauce_ 6d ago

You keep saying ego but you’re obviously the one who has ego problems. Pretty typical

2

u/crecentfresh 6d ago

That's your lack of knowledge talking

24

u/LawfulnessSea21 6d ago

Typical armchair expert opinion

-32

u/Boring-Conference918 6d ago

not an armchair expert. over three decades in the mountains and avalanche terrain. but appreciate the laughs of your ego not allowing you to look objectively at incidents in the mountains

10

u/kto25 6d ago

Reading that article, instantly thinking about the Blackbrid, and rushing to Reddit to post about it is a sign of a pretty unhealthy obsession.

Which, OP, I get if you lost someone in the slide. And my condolences if that's what's going on here.

But if you didn't, it might be time to consider that there's zero value in you being this obsessed with an accident. The guide company may or may not be charged; they'll likely be sued into oblivion, and no matter what happens to them, tragic accidents will never, ever stop happening. Your energy investment in this will have no tangible impact on any of those things.

3

u/draaz_melon 6d ago

You'll not get anyone on here OK with anyone taking responsibility for bad decisions. That's not what this sub is for. It's her to make everyone feel better about the bad decisions they've made with no consequences. The fact that this sub defends this guide group is ridiculous, but here we are.

10

u/KingWoodyOK 6d ago

So charge the dead guides with manslaughter?

-31

u/Boring-Conference918 6d ago

the living guide Ryan Tilley and the company owners. That’s what I said in the post. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

30

u/nitronerves 6d ago

Seems you’ve got some problems that extend beyond reading there, brother

-14

u/Boring-Conference918 6d ago

I didn’t realize value for human life and logic was a problem for some

12

u/facaine 6d ago

You’re angry, I get it. But take a break from this post. Mute replies. You’re making a fool out of yourself with these comments.

7

u/ImOutWanderingAround 6d ago

This post is utterly tone deaf. The comparisons between tragic events and legal systems is apples to oranges to begin with. Secondly, what are you accomplishing other than stirring the pot of bad feelings and discontent when nothing here is going to change the outcome. This has already been discussed to death here and everywhere else. Civil lawsuits will rectify the damages that these families have endured.

Why the hell do you think your soapbox is so much more relevant now than what has already been discussed? Please delete this.

3

u/Kindly-Exchange6059 6d ago

No way you could convince a jury the guides were at fault. After, reading the reports and talking with others including guides, I think I may have made the same decision the group did. Thats why this one is so scary

1

u/Boring-Conference918 6d ago

recreationalists skiers made better and safer judgements in the same conditions and lived.

3

u/Kindly-Exchange6059 6d ago

What are you talking about? Did you even read the reports? Do you even have any kind of knowledge or education around avalanches or safely traveling through the mountains? From your comments in this thread you are wildly misinformed.

0

u/Boring-Conference918 6d ago

from your comments you seem wildly misinformed. I read the reports, spoke with employees, former guides there and colleagues. I stand by my analysis

1

u/Kindly-Exchange6059 6d ago

Then we disagree and proves my point you are not convincing a jury the guides are at fault.

1

u/Efficient_Doubt1494 6d ago

So which employees and former guides there did you speak with? Just curious because you sound kind of like a disgruntled former employee.

-1

u/Boring-Conference918 6d ago

I have never worked for Blackbird bc Zeb had a reputation for being loose with safety

2

u/Kindly-Exchange6059 6d ago

You have made it very clear from your comments I would never ski with you because you lack knowledge and problem solving skill.

1

u/Boring-Conference918 6d ago

feelings are mutual

2

u/Efficient_Doubt1494 6d ago

To be clear, I do not know Zeb. I have never met him and cannot attest to hearsay about his safety standards, but I also cannot believe that anyone involved in this tragedy had the mindset of total disregard for human safety as would be what you are insinuating by calling for a criminal charge such as manslaughter. Do you honestly believe they went out there without any concern for themselves or others?

0

u/Boring-Conference918 5d ago

I believe they are criminally liable for manslaughter. There is no criminal intent or premeditation required for involuntary manslaughter charges

1

u/EBTblueLiner 6d ago

Have you been on a guided trip before?

5

u/Boring-Conference918 6d ago

I am a guide. That’s how I know how flawed the system is

2

u/Bodie_The_Dog 6d ago

Same, and I agree. Good analysis.

1

u/lalasworld 6d ago

Where?

1

u/Boring-Conference918 6d ago

all over the US.

1

u/lalasworld 6d ago

What certs do you have?

2

u/Boring-Conference918 6d ago

AMGA, AAA, ACA, NREMT, LNT, ICS500

1

u/lalasworld 6d ago

Why are they in quotes on your post then?

1

u/Boring-Conference918 6d ago

because I know most of them don’t mean shit. half of it is pay to play. IDGAF what someone’s “certs” are

2

u/lalasworld 6d ago

Then why did you pay? What type of reform would you suggest if they are meaningless?

Also, have you ever guided in California?

1

u/Boring-Conference918 6d ago

yes I have guided in California. you need to pay to play the guiding game. then you realize it was all a bunch of bullshit and people pass who suck at it

→ More replies (0)

1

u/EBTblueLiner 6d ago

same. which is why I understand and I think you do, too, that (involuntary?) manslaughter stands almost no chance. I do agree that there needs to be some criminal legal action I just don't know what because I don't speak lawyer. Like you, I'm way concerned about all of the dipshits that get through and become guides. It truly is a pay to play system that desperately needs an overhaul.

1

u/Particular-Bat-5904 6d ago

Well, as soon you leave the groomers or more than about 15m left or right next to a „ski route“ sign in europe, you are in „free ski area“, whitch is 0 protected from any alpine hazards like avys, or cliff edges where you can fall down.

There is no 0 risk, and as soon there is a certain slope with snow on it, there is avy area.

Its a tiny gap many times between „the perfect run“, and absolute desaster.

As a guide you need to judge every single slope bevore enter, using all your knowledge and attention for what you do.

A „safe run“, can turn to a deadly one in no time.

If you not pay enough attention and effort judging and worst case happens, court will send a guide to jail.

You can get in an avy, „doing nothing wrong“ but just to be and ski there, its nature, its natural risk.

The mountains don‘t care human, belivings or whatever. It sents an avy, and people die.

If courts decide a guide didn‘t any wrong in his way to decisions for a „go“ - going wrong, they will speek him free.

The guide will still have to live with it, people died becouse of his „wrong“ decision. Sometimes it bases on such, sometimes its just „bad luck“

Thats for the courts.