Thread: Avalanche with fatalities near Stevens Pass

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.



Here is a complexity comparison of several possible course outlines:

SIMPLE:


CHALLENGING:


COMPLEX:


Analysis:




Sorry for some of the off-topic inclusions.

Sent from my Paranoid Android using TGR forums.

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.

Originally Posted by theshredder

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/techP...SSW_Chabot.pdf

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.

Originally Posted by theshredder

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!

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.)

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."

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

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...

Originally Posted by Hohes

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.

Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio

If you have the time, I highly recommend you read this:
http://www.fsavalanche.org/NAC/techP...SSW_Chabot.pdf

This was excellent. Can't believe I've never read it before. Thanks much.

Scralph - thanks for posting. Had not seen that either. Very good read.

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?

Originally Posted by CookieMonster

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.

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)?

Originally Posted by steventy

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.