Ya, I know it is unpredictable and the knowledge and skills won't go as far as chance and luck. But I'm not saying that the guide should have stopped this, I'm saying that if this was a backcountry thing set up by a company then it shouldn't have happened if the risks was high. The company should've assessed the situation and weighed the risks. Then if it was too much, cancel the trip. What I'm wondering is this just one of those freak accidents, or was the situation to risky to ride and it was pushed anyway.
I'm by no means a backcountry guy, just thought that if a company is in charge of your trip they would assess the risks a little more heavily, but I'm not saying that's what happened. Just saying if that is what happened.
Yep, they measured the risk, and they either
a. missed something
b. got everything right, but chance caught up with them.
which equals nothing you mentioned about "Should" or "expert" or "company". If you choose to play with mother nature, you assume the risks.
What is more important, is making sure you know how to feel your own instinct, know how to pull the plug on a perfect day of pow, and remember that feeling of NOT HITTING THAT RIDGE of it does not feel right.
Jeremy Jones said they are turned back 50% of the time.
Imagine, 50% of your days on the hill, and the choices you make you cannot hit them. It is a big change from the blind security of "the company or expert will protect me".