Operational Meetings

Snow Avalanche Risk Management Framework. Adapted from Technical Aspects of Snow Avalanche Risk Management─Resources and Guidelines for Avalanche Practitioners in Canada (C. Campbell, S. Conger, B. Gould, P. Haegeli, B.Jamieson, & G. Statham Eds.). Revelstoke, BC, Canada: Canadian Avalanche Association 2016.

Photos: (T) Sean Zimmerman-Wall (B) Margaret Wheeler Farmer

Communication and teamwork are integral parts of a successful risk management program. In avalanche operations, it is standard procedure to start the day with a ‘morning meeting’ and end the day with an afternoon debrief, or review of the day. These meetings are the foundation for daily risk management decisions. For the purposes of the PRO 2, we are reframing these as Pre-Trip and Post Trip Collaborations. This is due in part to the underlying thread of the course being a learning environment where contributions from each team member are essential. Less focus is given to a top-down transference of information or having to be an expert facilitator of discussions.

In the morning meeting, participants review data and information, evaluate the hazard, produce a forecast, and determine the appropriate risk treatment for the day. The afternoon meeting is a review of the day’s events, an evaluation of the accuracy of the forecast and the effectiveness of the day’s risk treatment plan, as well as a chance to review any changes that happened during the day, and any factors that may affect the next day’s plans. The afternoon assessment is often referred to as a nowcast.

All avalanche risk management operations use some form of daily meetings in their program. The format varies depending on the needs and the goals of the program. In avalanche instruction, for example, the morning meeting may be as simple as the instructors getting together to review the avalanche and weather forecasts, fill out their field books and discuss trip plan options and learning objectives. A ski patrol morning meeting will include a discussion of weather factors and avalanche hazard, as well as mitigation plans if needed. A ski guiding operation will focus on the day’s avalanche concerns and weather factors in the context of terrain selection. Many of these groups will have a ‘run list’ (also referred to as terrain coding) where each potential run or area will be categorized as open or closed to skiing that day. Other facets of the operation, like gathering of data to support forecasting and future terrain selection will also be addressed, along with the risks and risk treatment associated with those activities.

There are several elements of these meetings that are common across all operations. These are an organized format for the discussion, a communication strategy, often called the ‘rules of engagement’, and documentation.

Meeting Format

In order to have a focused meeting, a format must be established and adhered to. This can take the form of discussing and filling out a forecast worksheet, run list, or a hazard evaluation format like the CMAH, or another system developed by the operation. It is critical that the format is repeatable, and provides a framework for discussion that meets the needs of the risk management plan.

Time management is of equal importance to the content of the meeting. An effective and efficient group completes the hazard assessment component in less than half the time allotted so adequate time is available for evaluation of the risk and development of a mitigation and operations plan.

A leader will be appointed to lead the meeting and keep it on track. This can be a specific appointed person, like the snow safety or patrol director at a ski area, a lead guide in a mechanized operation; or can be a rotating role filled by different people on different days.

Communication Strategy -“Rules of Engagement”

The rules of engagement are a set of protocols that are designed to help to reduce bias and improve decision making. Research shows that small groups make better decisions than individuals. The rules of engagement require that all participants in the meeting have and express their opinion. Different individuals with different experience sets will often evaluate risk differently. An example is a guides meeting where veterans and new guides are sharing opinions. The veterans have a lot of experience to draw on, which can help them interpret and apply data, but also encourages shortcuts in decision making and can lead to heuristic traps. Newer guides will tend to lean on analysis and data in their decision making rather than experience, which adds dimension to the discussion, and reduces bias. Under the rules of engagement tasks and responsibilities are delegated. Having a leader is one task, but adding someone as a devil’s advocate can help the group examine the problems in a different way. Sometimes different participants may lead different parts of the meeting to add new perspectives. In addition to requiring and respecting opinions, all participants have a veto, and all group decisions require consensus.

Documentation

A transparent, repeatable and documented decision making process is foundational to avalanche risk management. This can be accomplished through meeting forms, forecast worksheets, InfoEx or similar platforms, taking notes, field book entries, etc. Documentation provides a record that can be examined and evaluated by outside parties. It can help to shield operations from liability, and demonstrates the professionalism and thoroughness of the team. By its nature, avalanche forecasting is an inexact science, with unpredictable factors and uncertainty inherent in the process. Good documentation of the decision-making process as well as the data and information used to arrive at conclusions, provides the basis for future monitoring and review. Errors or omissions can be corrected and assumptions challenged at the next meeting, allowing the team to continually improve forecast accuracy and improve risk treatment.

Confidence Rating InfoEx Advisory Group.pdf

Confidence in Avalanche Forecasting

InfoEx Advisory Group 2015

Forecaster Confidence and Acknowledging Uncertainty

In group discussions, you can add resolution to your hazard and risk assessments by qualifying a forecast, or a nowcast, with a confidence statement. The data and information available can be of differing persuasiveness (strength) and variable quality and quantity (weight). Identifying gaps in the dataset and the source of those gaps is an important step in stating confidence and managing uncertainty.

Uncertainty within risk management paradigms is defined as "the state, even partial, of deficiency of information related to understanding or knowledge of an event, its consequence, or likelihood" (TASARM, 2016). As forecasters, you must acknowledge the uncertainty and identify its source.

Natural uncertainty and knowledge source uncertainty should both be considered in your assessments. Natural uncertainty is exemplified by weather and snowpack variables that cannot be reduced. Knowledge source uncertainty, such as the existence of a weak layer and its spatial distribution and sensitivity to triggering can be identified and reduced. A qualitative or quantitative assessment of uncertainty can be applied depending on the resolution needed. Further reading on uncertainty can be found in Chapter 3 of TASARM.

The corresponding document from the InfoEx Advisory Group provides a tutorial on using confidence statements to qualify a forecast. Considered alongside the information in the TASARM, you can begin to assimilate these definitions into your vocabulary in an effort to promote consistency of language used during team discussions.

The following video by Dr. Bruce Jamieson brings together the elements presented in the Forecaster Confidence article and from the TASARM Chapter 3-Uncertainty.

Back

Page updated

Report abuse