Probabilities and the Math of Travel in Avalanche Terrain

[skifishbum]

We're up to 4 or 5 inbounds non
Avalanche deaths in UT resorts
this season.
Why don't this odd morbid infatuations with
Avvy deaths extend to other aspects of
An inherently risky activity ?

[peace_coast]

Because we're all experts in our own minds, and think that we are too good, too cautious, know our limits, so we couldn't die in a crash.

We obsess over avalanche deaths because there's a delusion shared by a lot of b/c skiers that only people that don't know what they're doing, or are too agressive, or are too prone to risky behavior die in avalanches. And we don't want to be one of those people. We think that given the right skills, mindset, and attitude, avalanches are completely avoidable and you can remove yourself from the risk pool. Truth is avy victims range from your highly educated, risk-averse smelly tele meadowskipper that makes a bad call and strays onto a rollover in a touchy CO snowpack, to joe blow from philly that heads out the gate and has no idea what the fuck an avalanche even is, to extreme bro brahs pushing the limits in 55 degree chutes in cham after it dumps. Death doesn't discriminate. You only hear about the avalanche experts and sponsored athletes dying in slides because they're the ones people know, but go read a few years of the CAIC incident log and you'll see that it's all types.

[skifishbum]

nailed it
sadly i think fuckin up early in your bc career is one of the best things
being blessed w/ a solid snowpack and the ability to get after objectives and positively reinforce a expertise that may or may not be all that
the worst.

[Harry]

sadly i think fuckin up early in your bc career is one of the best things

I was in a big avy when I was big into mountaineering. I quit climbing and took up skiing (inbounds). My risk profile took a 180 on that day.

[whipski]

So if I've skied out of 4 avalanches can I statistically let er rip for the next decade or so as I have satisfied the requirements the equation?

[smitchell333]

http://www.ucalgary.ca/asarc/files/a...9_Jamieson.pdf

Finally got around to reading this paper estimating the odds of dying. I like that it factors in the relative avalanche danger rating, number of avy trigger zones traveled, and not just odds of triggering something but something fatally large to give a probability of death rather than my hodge podge two step odds of triggering and then odds of death separately.






I plugged in my same ballpark numbers for days out. At moderate or lower danger skiing for 500 days with the odds of dying in an avy and the 1/20000 odds one would have a 2% chance of dying in an avy.

At Considerable danger for 500 days and 5 or fewer trigger points skied @ 1/3000 chance of dying one in any day would have a 15% chance of dying in an avalanche

At High Danger for 500 days and 5 or fewer trigger points @ 1/1000 chance of dying in any day one would have a 39% chance of dying in an avy.

Actually paints a pretty rosy picture of a life of skiing at moderate or lower danger.

[whipski]

I'll take that as a go!

[YoEddy]

Um, so in looking at that graph I was wondering what "Ski 1 day (Munter)" meant?

Googled it and found this:
Munter. Most often used to describe an incredibly unattractive female who you wouldn't touch with a shitty stick.

So as long as I stick to my M.O., and avoid the munters on any given day I'm golden.

[totaliboard]

Munter was probably the name of the dude that made the graph

[klar]

This is Werner Munter.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Munter

He is the super popstar of probabilistic risk management and the reason nobody digs pits in europe Without having read the paper, I am guessing "skiing one day (Munter)" refers to skiing one day at a risk level that is acceptable according to his reduction method, i.e. <1.