2017 Issue

32 R ecently, I took an Avalanche Level 1 course from the University of Utah. I’ve been getting into the moun- tains with increasing frequency this winter, and the instructor in a mountaineering course recommended that I get some basic avalanche knowledge. I was surprised and impressed with the content. At the same time, I couldn’t help but draw some similarities between the risk manage- ment practices that skiers and climbers use, and the pro- cess used by engineers working on complex systems called “Systems Engineering.” I use the systems engineering process in my job as a Test Engineer. I work sustaining an older weapon system for the Air Force—one that has, for the most part, worked quite well as long as anyone can remember. As a tester, my job is to verify that the system meets its own requirements, and that the process is both transparent and rigorous. I often am placed in the uncomfortable position of challenging the assumptions of engineers who have many more years of experience than me. So, too, is avalanche risk management. Without going too far into the physics of avalanches, it is important to consider variables such as terrain, snowpack, and weather. These are the objective facts, and also important are the human factors. Bruce Tremper, a local avalanche expert, estimates that 95% of the snowpack on avalanche terrain is stable. A typical backcountry traveler, knowing very little about avalanches, could ski or snowboard a particular slope nineteen times and return home safely. In that time, it would be very easy to gain confidence in one’s skill or the stability of the slope. Avalanche Risk Management Lessons Learned for Systems Engineers Aftermath of an Avalanche [Utah Avalanche Center] Scott Stebbins, BAE Systems With a mature system, testing has often been done for years with very little going wrong or even changing. Engi- neers can get complacent. I’ve heard several versions of the phrase “We have flown X times, for Y years successfully.” But catastrophic failure lurks if we are not vigilant. Instead of anecdotal evidence, avalanche professionals like to use a system, often codified in a checklist, to manage the risk of avalanches in the backcountry. Mnemonics such as ALPTRUTh and FACETS help backcountry travelers remem- ber all the relevant factors when considering terrain. Much like the avalanche professionals, engineers have developed rules that guide them while working on complex systems. The systems engineering process ensures that requirements flow from Key Performance Parameters: that the requirements are written down, approved by the appro- priate body, and are testable. The verification process must be planned using the established best practices wherever possible and followed to the letter. Even when skiers and snowshoers are educated in ad- vanced avalanche assessment, they can be tempted to rationalize violations of the avalanche safety system. The allure of sweet Utah powder, or the reluctance to turn around after so much effort can be too great. Especially if one’s peers enable bad behavior. In 2016, an experienced mountain guide and a client were caught in an avalanche while skiing in Big Cottonwood Canyon. The terrain they were skiing was rated as a considerable hazard that day, and a fatal avalanche had occurred in the same area less than a decade before. The UAC avalanche forecast for January 21st, 2016. Av- alanche centers around North America use these roses to quantify risk on different terrain. The 2016 accident