View Full Version : Avalanche with fatalities near Stevens Pass
steventy
02-19-2012, 04:11 PM
"SEATTLE — Authorities are now saying three people are dead and as many as eight are missing after an avalanche near a Washington state ski resort."
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120219/washington-state-avalanche-120219/
3 dead and up to 8 missing.
Vibes and condolences to the friends and family.
Edit:
Apparently the 8 others are accounted for.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/19/us/washington-avalanche-deaths/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Also, discussion has already started on a different thread:
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/239338-This-sounds-very-bad
Jethro
02-19-2012, 05:00 PM
deleted my post
DropCliffsNotBombs
02-19-2012, 08:16 PM
I am really getting sick of losing friends in slides!... Jim Jack was one of the coolest skiers (and dudes) ever.
Vibes to all affected. The losses this season are horrible.
PLEASE everybody take an extra caution pill before going out to play - the mountain will likely still be there (even our PNW volcanos) next time you want to go.
yonskion
02-20-2012, 05:26 PM
Holy Cow!!!
RIP Jonny Brenen
That is certainly not the way I wanted to hear your name or see your face on TV after all these years.......
Rest in Peace
neufox47
02-20-2012, 07:11 PM
Has the official incident report from xxxx been issued yet? Searching keeps leading me to excellent resources like cnn and msn...
jumpturn
02-20-2012, 07:46 PM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017551390_avalanche20m.html
Originally published February 19, 2012 at 3:51 PM | Page modified February 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM
Four dead in avalanches at Stevens and Snoqualmie passes
Three experienced skiers and a snowboarder were killed in separate avalanches around noon Sunday — one in an out-of-bounds area at the Stevens Pass ski resort and the other in or near an out-of-bounds area at Alpental near Snoqualmie Pass.
By Brian M. Rosenthal, Craig Welch, Mike Lindblom and Lark Turner
Seattle Times staff reporters
STEVENS PASS — Her buddy shouted "Avalanche!" but when things started sliding, it felt to professional skier Elyse Saugstad like just a tiny rush of loose snow beneath her skis.
In an instant the weight and pressure grew so immense that she rocketed down the slope, banging into trees and rolling upside down.
"The next thing I knew I was taking more than a 2,000-foot ride down an avalanche, tumbling and turning and tossing the entire way," Saugstad said Sunday.
She came to rest cemented in snow with her face exposed. The slide would kill three of her friends.
Three expert skiers, including the director of marketing services for the Stevens Pass ski resort and a widely known judge of competitive freeskiing events, died after being swept downslope and buried by the state's deadliest avalanche in years Sunday around noon.
Less than an hour earlier, a snowboarder died in an unrelated slide that swept him off a cliff near The Summit at Snoqualmie.
The skiers and the snowboarder had been in out-of-bounds areas bordering the resorts. High avalanche warnings had been issued for some areas Sunday.
The first avalanche struck about 11:30 a.m. at Alpental, one of four areas at The Summit at Snoqualmie resort. The King County Sheriff's Office said the snowboarder triggered the avalanche, which swept him about 500 feet over a cliff.
The snowboarder was a 41-year-old Seattle man whose name has not been released.
The second avalanche swept through a group of 15 skiers at Stevens Pass just after noon in an ungroomed, out-of-bounds area.
Families confirmed that among the dead are Chris Rudolph, 30, the marketing director for Stevens; and Jim Jack, 46, of Leavenworth, the freeskiing judge.
The name of the third victim had not been confirmed Sunday night.
Most people in the group were local Stevens Pass skiers who have traveled through the backcountry valley many times before, said Megan Michelson, freeskiing editor for ESPN, who was part of the outing.
She, Saugstad and the victims were part of a group of eight friends who had hiked over to Tunnel Creek from the Seventh Heaven chairlift in the southwest corner of the resort, said Nathan Amisson, who works at Stevens Pass and knew some in the group.
Other people in separate groups were also skiing nearby.
Fracture opens in snow
Saugstad said her group had been following backcountry protocol all morning — each skied with a buddy, and they crossed treacherous slopes one at a time.
During a run around noon, some of the group already had started skiing down, going one by one before meeting up near the trees. Saugstad had skied a few hundred feet when her ski partner shouted.
It wasn't clear where the slide started, but it appeared to come through the woods — an unusual but not unheard-of event, she said. It quickly pummeled them.
"The run funnels you into a creek, which is very narrow and tight, and we got ripped through the trees," Saugstad said.
Some skiers already had descended into the wooded area, but most were above in the open snow, Michelson said. One skier passed through, leading to a 3-foot fracture in the snow.
"It didn't look bad from our perspective," said Michelson, who was standing above the slope waiting for her turn to ski across. But then it grew into a massive snowslide that rushed down the mountain.
One man kept his head above the snow by clinging to a tree. Saugstad, who skis frequently in Europe, where inflatable emergency air bags are popular in the backcountry, opened hers. It allowed her to stay largely on the slide's surface.
The three who died ended up buried deep, one landing just a few feet from Saugstad, who couldn't move but survived because her head and hands were above the snow.
"There was a shock factor," she said. "I tried to remain calm, tried not to freak out. I finally thought to yell 'help' and it was just magically then that the first guy showed up."
Right after the slide, Michelson skied back and forth, using her snow beacon to detect the emergency beacons of other skiers, she said. Others in the group were digging and trying to save people.
Those not hit by the avalanche dug their friends out, but efforts to save them through CPR failed.
Michelson said Sunday night she felt shaken by the tragedy. But she had collected her thoughts well enough to report via ESPN.com and to describe the avalanche in detail later in a phone interview.
"We assume a risk"
"Obviously, it was a backcountry area. It was well-trafficked. Obviously, we assume a risk when you ski in the backcountry," she said, stressing that all the skiers were experienced and well-equipped. "It was a great loss."
The area at Stevens Pass is "out of bounds," meaning that it is not part of the resort. While it is not illegal to be there, those who choose to enter it do so at their own risk, said John Gifford, general manager of the resort.
It's a popular spot for backcountry skiing, but it's dangerous — one person died there in an avalanche last year, Gifford said.
Sunday's avalanche swept the skiers about 2,000 vertical feet, said Deputy Chris Bedker of the King County Sheriff's Office. The avalanche was some 200 yards wide and 20 feet deep, officials said.
"It's nature," said Katie Larson, spokeswoman for King County Sheriff's Office. "I don't want to make it seem trite, but sometimes nature is bigger than we are."
Rudolph lived in Leavenworth, Chelan County. He was an experienced skier who loved the mountains, said his father, Ross Rudolph, of Tahoe City, Calif.
"Chris was just the most wonderful son in the world, and we loved him so deeply," he said. "Our hearts are just broken."
Jack was head judge of the Subaru Freeskiing World Tour and of the International Freeskiers Association. His father, Norman Jack, said his son started skiing when he was 5 years old.
"He loved everyone, and everyone loved him," Jack said. "He had friends all over the world."
The ski resort remained open Sunday and planned to reopen Monday.
Carried over cliff
The earlier avalanche at Alpental, a drive of about 90 miles from Stevens Pass but just 20 or so miles as the crow flies, came as the snowboarder was with friends in an out-of-bounds area. The friends quickly called for help, but rescue workers were unable to find the snowboarder until an hour and a half later.
By the time they reached him, the snowboarder was unconscious and could not be revived.
An initial report said the snowboarder was underneath the cliff when he became buried in snow, but Snoqualmie Pass Fire and Rescue Chief Jay Wiseman later clarified that he was carried over the cliff by the avalanche.
The Northwest Weather and Avalanche Center hadn't heard many reports of avalanches in the Cascades through the week, but with 18 inches of fresh snow, the danger grew through the holiday weekend, said avalanche meteorologist Garth Ferber.
By Sunday morning, however, danger was high on north- and northwest-facing slopes above 5,000 feet.
Staff reporter Amy Martinez contributed to this report.
Lark Turner: 206-464-2761 or lturner@seattletimes.com
Brian M. Rosenthal: 206-464-3195 or brosenthal@seattletimes.com
jumpturn
02-20-2012, 08:10 PM
1XS1RfJEIP8
LeeLau
02-21-2012, 08:43 AM
"when things started sliding, it felt to professional skier Elyse Saugstad like just a tiny rush of loose snow beneath her skis.
In an instant the weight and pressure grew so immense that she rocketed down the slope"
Deja vu - that's how my involvement went- not much warning
AK47bp
02-21-2012, 03:00 PM
I find myself at times feeling safe in the bc because I see ski tracks. What the hell is wrong with me? If the slab at Stevens held 12 skiers instead of 3 before it broke and they all made it without incident and someone like myself saw 12 tracks on that slope I wouldn't of thought twice about ripping it. deep down we want to believe its safe so our minds justify the risk and assume that the people that created the tracks before me knew what they were doing so "I'm good". Anyone else have this happen? I'm somewhat new to bc skiing so not sure if this is normal
neufox47
02-23-2012, 03:16 PM
I find myself at times feeling safe in the bc because I see ski tracks. What the hell is wrong with me? If the slab at Stevens held 12 skiers instead of 3 before it broke and they all made it without incident and someone like myself saw 12 tracks on that slope I wouldn't of thought twice about ripping it. deep down we want to believe its safe so our minds justify the risk and assume that the people that created the tracks before me knew what they were doing so "I'm good". Anyone else have this happen? I'm somewhat new to bc skiing so not sure if this is normal
I'm no expert on avy's, but start reading man / take a class. How to Stay Alive in Avalanche Terrain is a good start. I'm reminded of the old cover on the aforementioned book that showed several (I want to say 10+) tracks ending at a crown, as in the 11th or 14th person triggered a big class 3 slide. At least thats what it looks like in my mind.
Clownshoe
02-24-2012, 12:32 AM
I find myself at times feeling safe in the bc because I see ski tracks
20 years into my career and this is still the hardest lesson to learn. I always try to remind myself, but I think this trap is one we all fall prey to.
JoeStrummer
02-24-2012, 08:36 AM
I find myself at times feeling safe in the bc because I see ski tracks. What the hell is wrong with me? If the slab at Stevens held 12 skiers instead of 3 before it broke and they all made it without incident and someone like myself saw 12 tracks on that slope I wouldn't of thought twice about ripping it. deep down we want to believe its safe so our minds justify the risk and assume that the people that created the tracks before me knew what they were doing so "I'm good". Anyone else have this happen? I'm somewhat new to bc skiing so not sure if this is normal
If you are a human being with a pre-frontal cortex, this is entirely normal and the result of tens of thousands of years of decision-making. The human brain will always seek to confirm what it believes to be true and organizes all available data to that end. It is what has allowed the human animal to endure. To confirm that the fruit is safe to eat, or the predator is gone, or the enemy has retreated. Or in this case, that the slope is safe to ski.
The problem, as always, is that the mountain doesn't give a shit about your pre-frontal cortex.
AK47bp
02-24-2012, 01:12 PM
If you are a human being with a pre-frontal cortex, this is entirely normal and the result of tens of thousands of years of decision-making. The human brain will always seek to confirm what it believes to be true and organizes all available data to that end. It is what has allowed the human animal to endure. To confirm that the fruit is safe to eat, or the predator is gone, or the enemy has retreated. Or in this case, that the slope is safe to ski.
The problem, as always, is that the mountain doesn't give a shit about your pre-frontal cortex.
You hit the nail on the head, just something we have to consider as the human condition. I am more aware of it and hopefully that may prevent some stupid decisions....doubt it.
auvgeek
02-24-2012, 03:46 PM
Has the official incident report from xxxx been issued yet? Searching keeps leading me to excellent resources like cnn and msn... Not that I'm aware of. When released, it should be posted here: http://www.nwac.us/accidents/
wooley12
02-24-2012, 07:30 PM
Waiting to read the report myself. Spoke with some locals that are tuned in to the weather history there and I'm interested to see if the report jibes with what they said would have kept them out of the extreme back country.
MagnificentUnicorn
02-26-2012, 07:30 AM
Preliminary report up. click auvgeeks link.
PowerWhore7
02-26-2012, 08:16 AM
With all due respect to the deceased and their families, I need to ask a couple of questions so this doesn’t happen to me. I am a BC jong, and I am in total shock over the amount of avy deaths in this bleak snowfall season. I understand the PNW has been getting hammered and the pass area had just gotten 26” of fresh with heavy winds & a considerable avy danger (level 3?). So my first question is...
1.Why go out when the danger is considerable, the definitions below sound pretty serious.
Natural avalanches possible. Human triggered avalanches probable.
Unstable slabs probable on steep terrain.
Be increasingly cautious in steeper terrain.
2.Why didn’t anyone dig a pit to check the snowpack? Is pit digging mainly a jong thing? (I wouldn’t think so)
3.Out of all of those experienced BC skiers how come not one person thought it was bad idea? Peer pressure?
I could see if we got a big dump here in CA, everyone would be throwing caution to wind and going out no matter what because of the meager snowfall this season, but the PNW has plenty of snow. So why the rush to get into the BC, why not just ride the lifts until things settle down and become safer?
RIP to all involved and +++vibes to the families, this too shall pass...
icelanticskier
02-26-2012, 08:59 AM
nothing wrong with going out on considerable/high danger days. those ratings mean there is amazing snow to be had and very few folks willing to break trail and snoop around. terrain management is paramount meaning low angle slopes, including all terrain above/below/to the sides has to be taken into account to stay safe.
considerable/high days generally aren't rocket science as you can be pretty sure that shit will go if yer not mindful of yer surroundings at all times.
dig a pit? what good does that do, especially if it only tells most folks what they don't want to hear and have pretty much made up their mind to ski that slope anyways?
funny game ain't it?
rog
skifishbum
02-26-2012, 09:18 AM
there are perhaps a dozen people who can truthfully answer your questions pertaining to the events that day
and a whole lot of roj armchair experts
not everyone is williing to share their mistakes/experiences with this or any community
in my limited experiences the larger the group or touring party
they more complex and uncertain the dynamics of that group becomes.
icelanticskier
02-26-2012, 10:36 AM
in my limited experiences
in one little mountain range. but, being the wannabe mayor of tgr gives you all the street cred don't it sfb? but the butthurt will continue.........hey if i were a still a pivot skiddin gaperboy after what? 13 years now in the wasatch?, i'd be pretty damn butthurt too.:)
rog
SchralphMacchio
02-26-2012, 09:26 PM
Can you two at least quit the name-dropping thrunting or take it elsewhere?
And please don't quote out of context rog, because what you left out was this,
the larger the group or touring party the more complex and uncertain the dynamics of that group becomes.
And I'd be hard-pressed to find a single mountain guide that would speak to the contrary. 15 people is a LOT of people to manage, no matter how strong of skiers, and many guide outfits might have 3 guides for a group that big. Feel free to call me out on that, as a guess based on "my limited experiences," and guiding is not one of those experiences.
Anyways, I looked over the prelim report. Slope angle was stated at 42 degrees, but the Google Earth image shows some possible convexity? Plus I have a hard time referring to anything in a steep location with well defined avalanche chutes as a "meadow" (as referred to in the prelim report). I'm really curious to see the terrain profile of the main chute, and specifically to know more about the starting zone for that slide. I've not skied that part of Stevens, but I have been near there and I know that the trees around 7th Heaven can be very steep - I recall eyeballing 50+ degrees in some places (or maybe that's just my eyes bugging out). I'd be hard pressed to call trees in that area a "safe zone" when looking at it from a slope angle and "avalanche terrain rules" perspective.
BUT when looking at it from a familiarity perspective, I can see how most locals who ski that area often might not ever see fractures propagate into the trees, reinforcing a heuristic trap of complacency. And we all know what complacency can do.
This is not intended to be a high holy statement either - I've had my fair share of complacent near calls as well. I'm just trying to understand some of the factors that went into this incident:
-deciding to leave controlled terrain in those conditions
-extremely large group size, especially in those conditions
-perceived safe zone in avalanche terrain
in one little mountain range. but, being the wannabe mayor of tgr gives you all the street cred don't it sfb? but the butthurt will continue.........hey if i were a still a pivot skiddin gaperboy after what? 13 years now in the wasatch?, i'd be pretty damn butthurt too.:)
rog
I don't get this. If I want to tour around in the BCC back Country Skifishbum would be at the TOP of my list of who to have along.
I suspect many feel the same.
I would like to get more insight into this incident. Why?
The Duke of Hurl
02-27-2012, 06:16 AM
Here's the report.
http://www.nwac.us/media/uploads/documents/accidents/2011_2012/Preliminary_Tunnel_Creek_Avalanche_Accident_2-29-2012.pdf
This comment stands out for me,
“…cold temperatures should slow stabilization of existing wind slabs and help maintain the threat of further human triggered avalanche activity, especially on previously wind loaded terrain showing no evidence of recent avalanche activity”
icelanticskier
02-27-2012, 06:47 AM
Can you two at least quit the name-dropping thrunting or take it elsewhere?
hey if he's gonna constantly zing me, i'm gonna zing back. for fun. he zinged me above ^^^^^^. "it's what we do":biggrin:
And please don't quote out of context rog, because what you left out was this,
what i left out had nothing to do with my zing.
carry on.
rog
jserra17
03-05-2012, 07:58 AM
nothing wrong with going out on considerable/high danger days. those ratings mean there is amazing snow to be had and very few folks willing to break trail and snoop around. terrain management is paramount meaning low angle slopes, including all terrain above/below/to the sides has to be taken into account to stay safe.
considerable/high days generally aren't rocket science as you can be pretty sure that shit will go if yer not mindful of yer surroundings at all times.
dig a pit? what good does that do, especially if it only tells most folks what they don't want to hear and have pretty much made up their mind to ski that slope anyways?
funny game ain't it?
rog
Sorry ROG, I think you are flat out wrong. Nothing wrong with going out on considerable/high danger days? Those ratings don't necessarily indicate that there is great snow to be had. If you subtract out all of the terrain you need to avoid, there may be very little left available. If you know what you are doing AND can maintain the discipline required for safe decision making, safe skiing may be available on "Considerable" days, but none of us can honestly make that claim when conditions dictate a "High" danger forecast. Your disregard for digging a snow pit is troubling. I don't want to insult you, but that attitude suggests a lack of training or inability to maintain discipline in decision making. Take an Avalanche Level 2 course - its where serious analysis of snow begins. You and your partners may all live a lot longer for the effort.
LeeLau
03-05-2012, 08:26 AM
FWIW in the SW BC area considerable/high ratings make up 65-70% of forecasted days this season. Historically they run approx 60% of all days.
In AST 1 and AST 2 emphasis is switching from snow science to mitigating risk through terrain.
Just passing on observations
jserra17
03-05-2012, 09:03 AM
Sorry - I am in U.S.; I need to be more clear. Avalanche Level 2 course in U.S. is similar to Canadian Level 1.
JoeStrummer
03-05-2012, 09:16 AM
Far be it from me to agree with Rog but if I never went out in Considerable conditions I would rarely leave my house. And I seldom dig pits, either. And I think of myself as a competent and safe backcountry skier.
bodywhomper
03-05-2012, 09:25 AM
the course that i took in the u.s.a. did not reward me with a certified piece of paper. it was 3 days long, the hazard ranged from moderate (uac may someday call it "moderate x") to high, we intentionally set off avalanches, mitigated vulnerability through terrain management, skied slopes greater than 35*, toured in 3 different areas, and dug a total of 1 pit.
icelanticskier
03-05-2012, 12:21 PM
Sorry ROG, I think you are flat out wrong. Nothing wrong with going out on considerable/high danger days? Those ratings don't necessarily indicate that there is great snow to be had. If you subtract out all of the terrain you need to avoid, there may be very little left available. If you know what you are doing AND can maintain the discipline required for safe decision making, safe skiing may be available on "Considerable" days, but none of us can honestly make that claim when conditions dictate a "High" danger forecast. Your disregard for digging a snow pit is troubling. I don't want to insult you, but that attitude suggests a lack of training or inability to maintain discipline in decision making. Take an Avalanche Level 2 course - its where serious analysis of snow begins. You and your partners may all live a lot longer for the effort.
i do things the way i do them, you do things the way you do them. i'm still alive, so are you. the goal is to keep it that way. i don't go skiing cuz i wanna study snow down to the last snowflake, i'm there to be out in nature and ski. i tour on high days in terrain that allows me to do so safely. simple.
high days are great for learning. high days are great for having places to yerself. high days usually do mean great snow for skiing.
plenty of terrain to ski on high days east and west from my experience. not the gnar but pretty fucking good skiing imo.
my digging is lots of handers along the way as well as a ton of pole probing. works for me.
have a nice day
rog
icelanticskier
03-05-2012, 02:48 PM
pnw, it's mtns and general snowpack are ruler imo. haven't spent as much time there, but some. like the higher h20 content of the snow. takes a lot less of it at a time to give a great bouncy ride over old surfaces. similar to high nh and our maritime-ish snowpack.
rog
LeeLau
03-05-2012, 05:16 PM
Sorry - I am in U.S.; I need to be more clear. Avalanche Level 2 course in U.S. is similar to Canadian Level 1.
Gotcha. CAA 1 is definitely more of an observers course and for people on the professional track though. I'm not convinced that moving recreationals over to snow science makes a lot of sense but on that there's definitely lots of debate
wooley12
03-05-2012, 05:32 PM
My mentor in PNW back country travel has gone out when conditions are extreme to watch it all come down. The conditions dictated the route. The mountains will tell you where it is safe to go if you listen. If you go where you want without listening, you may get dope slapped to death.
neck beard
03-05-2012, 06:07 PM
With High danger rating at tree line, I walked around all day yesterday in the gloom hail and then light rain and triggered perhaps 15 Size 1 avalanches and a Size 2 all for educational purposes comparing aspect and slope angles and shape with respect to reactivity. The skiing was rubbish, but the mountains where not. I was not once at risk and would not have missed it for anything.
I'm not convinced that moving recreationals over to snow science makes a lot of sense but on that there's definitely lots of debate
Little off-topic, but when I teach the AST1 I spend not so long in a snowpit with my students - as per the prescribed curriculum. My students are attentive and engaged all day, however the moment my snow saw comes out, the cameras rapidly appear, the videos whirl up, the Gropro's start to flash red lights and even one guy took out a hand held tape recorder. It is strange how much emotional attachment there is to stability tests. My opinion is that it makes people feel clever, and look clever amongst their peers, when they perform them. On the other hand, very few people notice the incremental subtleties of good backcountry travel habits and on-the-fly terrain + snow character assessment. And humans being Human, we generally want to be regarded for our tangible displays of savvy in complex places such as "the backcountry", so at the entry level where ego is stronger, we attach ourselves to the tangible and obvious things that make us look and feel expert-like in the eyes of others who's approval we want.
LeeLau
03-05-2012, 06:33 PM
Interesting digressions
My mentor in PNW back country travel has gone out when conditions are extreme to watch it all come down. The conditions dictated the route. The mountains will tell you where it is safe to go if you listen. If you go where you want without listening, you may get dope slapped to death.
I've been encouraged by various mentors and more experienced people to go out in extreme and high conditions if only to observe and to see why stability is poor. And I've done so and hopefully learned. In fact many people more experienced than myself do so. But its hard to get around all the "oh my god you are suicidal to go out when its EXTREME" rhetoric so its not something that myself or other people will get into. It's too hard to get around preconceived biases.
Little off-topic, but when I teach the AST1 I spend not so long in a snowpit with my students - as per the prescribed curriculum. My students are attentive and engaged all day, however the moment my snow saw comes out, the cameras rapidly appear, the videos whirl up, the Gropro's start to flash red lights and even one guy took out a hand held tape recorder. It is strange how much emotional attachment there is to stability tests. My opinion is that it makes people feel clever, and look clever amongst their peers, when they perform them. On the other hand, very few people notice the incremental subtleties of good backcountry travel habits and on-the-fly terrain + snow character assessment. And humans being Human, we generally want to be regarded for our tangible displays of savvy in complex places such as "the backcountry", so at the entry level where ego is stronger, we attach ourselves to the tangible and obvious things that make us look and feel expert-like in the eyes of others who's approval we want.
Not off-topic at all. I feel fully engaged when I'm in situations where stability is poor and I have to think ahead three, four steps. Now, I do not teach classes but am in a position where at the start of the year I frequently take out beginners and act the part of mentor (Sharon does the same). It's good for me to refresh but also a good karma thing. After all someone thought me once. I tell the newbs I am taking out to read Tremper in advance so we are past the theory and hopefully they already have some knowledge so they can absorb the practical aspect of ski touring and assessing stability. Occasionally I go out with beginner Alpine Club of Canada groups too.
Fwiw I see the distinct majority of newbs stay as terminal newbs. Some stay that way because they don't get out much. Some are just very cautious; overly cautious to the point that I'm convinced they are in paralysis by analysis mode (too bad because to me that takes a lot of the fun out of skiing). Many are like your students. If I may make some assumptions, they want a definite answer. To quantify what is hard to quantify. They have a hard time with the answer many teachers give "It depends". Perhaps not realizing that is not waffling but a truism.
To me, the newbs who then go on to acquire useful knowledge will understand that it does truly depend not just on externalities (slope angle, wind speed, snow depth, quality of shear etc) but their own subjective mutable qualities (the individual's risk tolerance, their skiing or snowboarding ability, their fitness level, their ability to select partners and ability to make group decisions). But then you are teaching people within a strict curriculum and with such limited time it is so hard to touch on all of this. But that's why, to me, ski touring is fun. There is so much to learn and so many ways to push yourself to learn. Like the course developers I think that overemphasis on snow science tends to lead to overconfidence and that recreational users are best taught how to assess danger through a more holistic approach with an emphasis on terrain
I'm rambling now, but that's why Lindahls thread and the responses are interesting. He has a risk tolerance that is beyond my comprehension. If he has no dependents and his death does not result in risk or injury to potential rescuers, intellectually I'd say that's his choice how he wants to end his life and wonder even why he asked this question of a bunch of anonymous people on the Internet? What's interesting though must be the challenge of teaching someone like that basic snow stability.
Typed too much. Thanks for the comments though
neck beard
03-05-2012, 06:57 PM
As much as I try to novate focus from pit stability tests to the more holistic [terrain character] + [snow conditions] as a rule based system of assessment, I still strongly encourage shovels to come out very often but only briefly. I encourage this a way of understanding snow hardness by layer, how it correlates with the weather, how it correlates with the way its feels to ski, and how it relates to the avalanche bulletin for the day at that altitude and aspect. And probably most important, to see and respect how it changes spatially.
Basically I say to touch the snow a lot, but don't get all hung up on the various technically standardised stability tests. And so then follows the occasional look of disappointment.
wooley12
03-05-2012, 07:29 PM
There is a difference in going out to "see" and going out to "ski". As I read this thread from the perspective of my accumulated years I am struck by the the fact that I am in the middle of mounting 10 year old Look P10's on 15 y o skis to play with tomorrow without (gasp) a release test. The boys on Epic would see me as a foolish risk taker but I'm not stupid and will ease into it with no heroics planned. I look both ways even when I have the green light because I was T boned once with the right of way. I ski without a pro mount because I started on non releasable skis and still have my knees. Experience can kill or lull. That's the way it is.
jserra17
03-06-2012, 10:34 PM
i do things the way i do them, you do things the way you do them. i'm still alive, so are you. the goal is to keep it that way. i don't go skiing cuz i wanna study snow down to the last snowflake, i'm there to be out in nature and ski. i tour on high days in terrain that allows me to do so safely. simple.
high days are great for learning. high days are great for having places to yerself. high days usually do mean great snow for skiing.
plenty of terrain to ski on high days east and west from my experience. not the gnar but pretty fucking good skiing imo.
my digging is lots of handers along the way as well as a ton of pole probing. works for me.
have a nice day
rog
Three reasons to possibly change your mind...
1. You will probably end up skiing more terrain, not less. About 2/3 of the time when I am surprised by what I find, it's more stable than I'd imagined.
2. You don't have to study the crystals to do a quick, but valid analysis (less than 10 minutes), but if you choose to, the crystal structures are pretty cool under a loupe - another amazing aspect of nature.
3. You sound like you get out a lot. People tend to emulate people like you and it might save the life of someone who follows your example.
You too, have a nice day. Many thousands of them.
Peace.
icelanticskier
03-07-2012, 04:22 AM
Three reasons to possibly change your mind...
1. You will probably end up skiing more terrain, not less. About 2/3 of the time when I am surprised by what I find, it's more stable than I'd imagined.
2. You don't have to study the crystals to do a quick, but valid analysis (less than 10 minutes), but if you choose to, the crystal structures are pretty cool under a loupe - another amazing aspect of nature.
3. You sound like you get out a lot. People tend to emulate people like you and it might save the life of someone who follows your example.
You too, have a nice day. Many thousands of them.
Peace.
thanx j. good things to think about fer sure.
be safe
rog
skifishbum
03-07-2012, 06:33 AM
the course that i took in the u.s.a. did not reward me with a certified piece of paper. it was 3 days long, the hazard ranged from moderate (uac may someday call it "moderate x") to high, we intentionally set off avalanches, mitigated vulnerability through terrain management, skied slopes greater than 35*, toured in 3 different areas, and dug a total of 1 pit.
You took a 3 day course with no cert? Who taught this?
I took a 3 dday avvy 2 from the fuac/uac but hell i can't find my cert.
Now takin a semester long snow science class 1 night of class and field day a week.
this class for pretty much the same $$$$ is like 100x the knowledge of the aiire or whatever but has no cert.
IMO the whole certified avvy course/class is totally overpriced and just a good old boys network/club speil/scam.
There are plenty of more than qualified people who can teach a thing or two but don't want to pay and jump through the certfication hoops.
I hope more programs like the u of u's become available
knowledge is knowledge and a piece of paper is just that.
Emulate ROJ?
bwwwwwwwaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh
icelanticskier
03-07-2012, 06:48 AM
bwaaaaaaah what? that class sounds pretty good SFB. just don't ferget to show up, eh?;)
rog
bodywhomper
03-07-2012, 11:32 AM
You took a 3 day course with no cert? Who taught this?
I took a 3 dday avvy 2 from the fuac/uac but hell i can't find my cert.
Now takin a semester long snow science class 1 night of class and field day a week.
this class for pretty much the same $$$$ is like 100x the knowledge of the aiire or whatever but has no cert.
IMO the whole certified avvy course/class is totally overpriced and just a good old boys network/club speil/scam.
There are plenty of more than qualified people who can teach a thing or two but don't want to pay and jump through the certfication hoops.
I hope more programs like the u of u's become available
knowledge is knowledge and a piece of paper is just that.
i did fuac, too. great course, imho. my understanding is that it's not done anymore, which is too bad. it didn't include a piece of paper as far as i remember, which was fine with me. i learned a lot and saw a lot. for me, that particular session focused on terrain management, identifying problem, forecasting problem, and managing problem.
the point in my post, though, was that the focus of at least some courses (or former courses) in the US are not about snow science, mucking around in pits, and stability tests, and that the course encouraged exploration on a "high" day w/ focus on terrain management. there was also an open discussion about developing our own forecast of the risk based on our own observations as some of the instructors did not fully concur with the hazard rating for one of the days.
the u of u course sounds cool. as some have pointed out in that canyons thread, it would be useful to teach an age appropriate avi coursework in public schools in mountain regions.
cheers
summit
03-07-2012, 12:18 PM
Interesting discussions in this thread! I would looooove to be able to teach a course that was longer than 3 or 4 days and well spread out with the ability to get students to go out and do things between class, to actually go and read relevant materials, etc.
The Breadth of Field Snow Science Observation and Application
Pits are wonderful. I'm a geek. I love them. That said, more hasty pits and hand pits are better than one data pit etc etc because you increase your sample size to combat spatial variability on both the small and large scale. How information from pits becomes useful is dependent on the skill level, experience, education, and goals of the practitioner:
I've written on this subject in Slide Zone with regard to what the recreationist with a Level 1 should be doing with pits, reasons to say no: looking to see if the pack is worse than forecasted or if some unknown danger exists plus improving their understanding of the processes at work in the snowpack.
People who are out very often who have more experience and better understanding can do the above with perhaps a little better discrimination by using more pits to form generalizations of the snowpack as it varies between elevations, aspects, angles, mountains, ranges, etc. This sort of information can allow so called "now-casting."
More experience, education, and frequent observation by the professional combined with interprofessional communication and review can allow advanced practitioners to forecast.
Obviously, my little summary here is quite anemic and leaves out many factors involved, but I thought it would break things down as I hear many voices in this thread talking about each of these levels either from the user or the instructor standpoint.
High Days
Traveling on high days can be extremely educational, however, doing so requires excellent discipline and a very skilled eye for terrain management. There are plenty of people who have been out on high days and either gotten away with it or have been surprised that what they thought was safe travel was not. That is NOT the type of surprise one wants. Often skiing is not possible on high days, at least not what the TGR crowd normally seeks to ski, but often there is something low angle if the snow cooperates (this is more true now with fatter skis that let us maintain speed and float in deep/variable low angle snow that would have stopped us dead in our tracks with 60 or 80mm waists).
I love it when an avalanche class occurs during a high day because I can see/show people things that we'd otherwise only be able to talk about. Still, I have my slopemeter out a lot more as the danger goes up because I cannot allow the margin of error that my eyes create when judging angles (and there is still a margin of error with a slope meter!) The difference between 27 and 29 can be a fatal difference some days.
CookieMonster
03-07-2012, 01:37 PM
I like to tour on High days, but it depends on the type of "stability problem". Some stability problems are more manageable than others. Individual psychological factors also come into play: am I hungover? Am I in the doghouse? Tired? In the mood to say yes? In the mood to say no?
* Snow science is super fun and interesting, but it's very important to develop an integrated mental model of the physical processes at work in the mountains if you prefer the science route.
* This means learning and understanding the relationship between snowpack -and- terrain -and- weather.
* Understanding the factors in isolation isn't good enough if because the connections between factors can be just as revealing.
* Steep + 40cm new + right side up + crystal branch loss is very different from steep + 40cm new + distinct layers in the new + zero branch loss.
The thing about learning anything is that there are many rabbit holes.
* Once you learn snow metamorphism, you have to be able to connect it to weather and terrain.
* Once you learn terrain, you have to be able to connect it to weather and snowpack.
* Understanding the connections between factors requires a lot of work, even if it's fun.
Here's a model of topics that myself and some other folks have been working on. It's based on analysing themes/details from the literature and to be fair I should disclose that it also uses computational linguistics. This theoretical learning model turns the avalanche triangle into a snowflake and has other points as well.
http://i.imgur.com/80GH2.png
Here is a complexity comparison of several possible course outlines:
SIMPLE:
http://i.imgur.com/Ym5tM.png
CHALLENGING:
http://i.imgur.com/4RZZj.png
COMPLEX:
http://i.imgur.com/VCcVl.png
Analysis:
http://i.imgur.com/Y2MEd.png
Sorry for some of the off-topic inclusions.
Sent from my Paranoid Android using TGR forums.
theshredder
03-07-2012, 08:49 PM
How does one even learn what a whoomph sounds like without breaking trail on high days.
The other day, I hear the rumble starting where I'm standing and moving up hill into the trees quite a distance. And fast. Lots of tree bomb all over at the same instant. It was awesome.
We weren't worried about a step down into the lower snowpack so we ripped the chutes, got some faceshots and managed some sluff. is what it is
Edit: The place I was at gets skiied a lot though so it pretty much never slides big anymore... There's risk but if you don't get out there how do you even learn anything. That graph with accidents vs experience was interesting. gonna keep that one in mind.
SchralphMacchio
03-07-2012, 09:27 PM
The other day, I hear the rumble starting where I'm standing and moving up hill into the trees quite a distance. And fast. Lots of tree bomb all over at the same instant. It was awesome.
We weren't worried about a step down into the lower snowpack so we ripped the chutes, got some faceshots and managed some sluff. is what it is
Edit: The place I was at gets skiied a lot though so it pretty much never slides big anymore...
If you have the time, I highly recommend you read this:
http://www.fsavalanche.org/NAC/techPages/articles/10_ISSW_Chabot.pdf
theshredder
03-07-2012, 09:39 PM
Just skimmed through it and that terrain is huge compared to what I was talking about. But I'll read it. People have died and I don't want to minimize the dangers. The point I was trying to make is that there are safe fun places to hit on high days and I think high days are part of the learning curve.
Point taken though.
SchralphMacchio
03-07-2012, 10:07 PM
The point I was trying to make is that there are safe fun places to hit on high days and I think high days are part of the learning curve.
Point taken though.
I wasn't intending to be judgmental. Just trying to help share some information and also dispel the myth that frequent skier travel inherently makes a given area safe or keeps it from going big. "It depends" is usually the answer, and learning to use information we have available (weather reports, avalanche advisories) is a big part of the game.
It's a really good article; I recommend reading it on the can or before you go to bed. It's an incident I call a "free lesson" - no one hurt, no one killed, but some pretty good lessons to be taken. Keep on exploring and stay safe!
theshredder
03-07-2012, 10:34 PM
I'd be more worried about that particular slide after heavy wet snow or really warm sunny weather. wow. Geeze if anyone had been on that slope they probably wouldn't have made it. (as it says.)
neufox47
03-08-2012, 03:34 PM
Thanks for posting that Shralpmacchio, I'd never seen it.
"Even with the massive avalanche clearly evident, people continued skiing adjacent terrain that did not slide in the days following the avalanche. For some people, no amount of avalanche education or in-your-face evidence will dissuade them from their powder turns or the certainty of their belief that they know exactly what is going on in the snowpack."
LeeLau
03-08-2012, 04:11 PM
Another nice quote from the piece from MT
"However, much to our amazement, there is a sizable population that cannot or will not be reached. Even with the massive avalanche clearly evident, people continued skiing adjacent terrain that did not slide in the days following the avalanche. For some people, no amount of avalanche education or in-your-face evidence will dissuade them from their powder turns or the certainty of their belief that they know exactly what is going on in the snowpack. We need to realize that these people exist, but our time, our energies and our message will only reach those members of the public who are willing to listen."
Coming to that realization may be sad but is ultimately a good way to relieve frustration
neck beard
03-08-2012, 04:21 PM
Good read, Schralp. Thank you for posting it. Not only was it interesting, but it left me with a lingering sense of the value of a community of like minded people who communicate on the same terms all centered around an area of terrain [kind of made me envious].
C.Monster - I glanced only very quickly at first since terms such as "Information Philosophy Map" tend to put me off. I then took the time to read the images and you are certainly onto something with course curriculum complexity and the educational levels at which they are best aimed. Could say more...
CookieMonster
03-08-2012, 09:37 PM
Good read, Schralp. Thank you for posting it. Not only was in interesting, but it left me with a lingering sense of the value of a community of like minded people who communicate on the same terms all centered around an area of terrain [kind of made me envious].
C.Monster - I glanced only very quickly at first since terms such as "Information Philosophy Map" tend to put me off. I then took the time to read the images and you are certainly onto something with course curriculum complexity and the educational levels at which they are best aimed. Could say more...
Thanks Hohes.
I should have mentioned that it was heavily redacted. It sounds a lot less pretentious with complete subject headings. Without redactions the headings read like "Mountain Guides Inc. Avalanche Course Philosophy - Information Map 1". Info map is just pretentious jargon for "outline".
Feel free to say more if you're inclined... criticism welcomed.
Sent from my Paranoid Android using TGR forums.
auvgeek
03-09-2012, 11:23 AM
If you have the time, I highly recommend you read this:
http://www.fsavalanche.org/NAC/techPages/articles/10_ISSW_Chabot.pdf This was excellent. Can't believe I've never read it before. Thanks much.
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
03-09-2012, 02:27 PM
Scralph - thanks for posting. Had not seen that either. Very good read.
jserra17
03-09-2012, 08:58 PM
Thumbs up, a good read. Raises important questions about open gates and side country. The BB Ski Patrol and Avalanche Center were issuing appropriate warnings, but can you blame people for wanting to ski terrain that is so accessible, especially with so many others skiing it? We teach people to access stability, manage terrain and ski/ride strategically, but who wouldn't feel like a geek digging a pit on a heavily trafficked slope? And managing terrain and skiing strategically quickly become meaningless with so many others on slope.
Perhaps posting the current stability rating at the gate?
steventy
03-13-2012, 09:06 PM
Here's a model of topics that myself and some other folks have been working on. It's based on analysing themes/details from the literature and to be fair I should disclose that it also uses computational linguistics. This theoretical learning model turns the avalanche triangle into a snowflake and has other points as well.
http://i.imgur.com/80GH2.png
I like it. It's challenging to make that kind of a diagram because some categories will deserve four subsections and others will only deserve two subsections.
Did you consider changing "Angle" to "Angles" - that would capture the slope angle as well as an analysis of slope shape.
The labels in the Weather circle seem a little confusing. I'd be interested to know what the explanation is for each label.
Why not call "motion", wind to simplify comprehension? Is there another kind of motion I am missing?
What is "mountains" - just an acknowledgement of the rapidly changing conditions (spatially and temporally) in the mountains?
I assume that the "air" category would include ambient temperature and cloud cover (and indirectly, solar radiation)?
CookieMonster
03-14-2012, 02:15 PM
I like it. It's challenging to make that kind of a diagram because some categories will deserve four subsections and others will only deserve two subsections.
Did you consider changing "Angle" to "Angles" - that would capture the slope angle as well as an analysis of slope shape.
The labels in the Weather circle seem a little confusing. I'd be interested to know what the explanation is for each label.
Why not call "motion", wind to simplify comprehension? Is there another kind of motion I am missing?
What is "mountains" - just an acknowledgement of the rapidly changing conditions (spatially and temporally) in the mountains?
I assume that the "air" category would include ambient temperature and cloud cover (and indirectly, solar radiation)?
Thanks for the comments. You've correctly identified the challenges! Your suggestions are great and not something I've heard before. I'll incorporate them and post a new version
The integrated nature of factors is supposed to make it easier to see the connections between factors and their relationship to our perception and decisions. I suppose "weather" could be explained more clearly.
The "Weather" section is supposed to list the factors that create mountain weather "trends". I'm definitely open to other suggestions: "wind" is great...
Sent from my Paranoid Android using TGR forums.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.