Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 80
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    LV-426
    Posts
    21,123
    Heard blasting last night around 9 pm on Mt Rose. Unusual to have that going on at night. Highway was reportedly closed due to mudslide. Don't know if closure and blasting were connected.
    Quote Originally Posted by powder11 View Post
    if you have to resort to taking advice from the nitwits on this forum, then you're doomed.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,378
    Quote Originally Posted by bodywhomper View Post
    (I know you can look up the archived advisories), it was "moderate" that day because that persistent layer became active again the previous day. The reports back then came out later in the morning than they do now. The prior day was "low" and that layer was described as requiring a very large weight to be activated, more than the weight of a person or snowmachine.
    The web archives stop at late 2009, after the incident date. Brandon or Andy may have access to the report.

    Regarding Low/moderate, etc ... NA Danger Rating does not apply to "extreme terrain." I think Treth's chute could qualify for "extreme terrain" due to slope angle, rocks, micro-topography, etc.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,963
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    The web archives stop at late 2009, after the incident date. Brandon or Andy may have access to the report.

    Regarding Low/moderate, etc ... NA Danger Rating does not apply to "extreme terrain." I think Treth's chute could qualify for "extreme terrain" due to slope angle, rocks, micro-topography, etc.
    http://www.sierraavalanchecenter.org...s_per_page=100

  4. #54
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Truckee & Nor Cal
    Posts
    15,620
    Considerable rating today instead of high. Which I understand... but kind of don't like. They do mention it returns to a high rating this evening.

    Anxious to see some pit profiles today and if all the rain did its work on that PWL. If not, I guess we're hoping the weight of another 4-8 feet of snow this week will either cause it to consolidate or fail? It would be nice to get back to some semblance of a Tahoe snowpack...

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,378

    Central/Northern Sierra Nevada, January 2017 Avalanche Cycles

    Thanks for posting. I confused advisory archive with incident archive, which stops in late 2009.

    It's really good to look at that advisory from 2/21/2009 in retrospect! We DID have a DPS problem on NCF at that time - I didn't remember it being so deeply buried!

    Two thoughts:

    (1) I believe current reporting guidelines do suggest removal of DPS problem from the list once it is very highly unlikely to trigger, probably only under a giant load like a cornice or in extreme terrain, to avoid message fatigue. I should check with our forecasters, but I think the idea is that certain problems are so rare and difficult to forecast (such as glide avalanches for example) that they shouldn't be forecasted. Take that with a huge giant fat grain of salt since I'm neither L3 nor a forecaster.

    (2) The fact that PS and DPS problems are responsible for ~90% of fatalities but ~30% of occurrences, in fatal accidents,** (Logan, Green: http://esavalanche.org/content/mammo...patrol-results) continues to speak, to me, to a shift in education and bulletin format. NA danger rating is much less relevant, and its sad because it's often the biggest thing occupying people's working memory and/or justification for terrain selection.

    **
    The dataset for this analysis included all ava- lanche fatalities that occurred in Colorado between October 1, 1998 and September 30, 2013, ava- lanche years 1999 through 2013 (Jamieson et al. 2010). There were 80 separate accidents, with 133 people caught and 89 killed.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by NakedShorts View Post
    This AM when we drove past the skiers heading up WH/ PH it was raining at 830. Every skier had a hurried sense about them. Again it was raining. (I knew it would be also raining on me at the resort before my day began)

    Is the point to go in the BC with this mental breakdown or to be relaxed?

    You will find me in the resort most often and my church is the mountains. I enjoy the peacefulness of the BC. It is odd to me though to go into the wilderness and put myself in harms way with the largest rain event in a decade scheduled for the entire day and next day followed by snow and cold for the next week. If something bad happened it would be worse than normal. We all make choices, I skied and got some fun turns and real wet. I saw my entire front yard collapse while snow blowing this week. I have had my life saved from burial. I just wanted to share the emotions I noticed this AM was more Race than Pace. The mood at the resort was surprisingly light considering we were all dripping wet.
    Spot on.

    I'm 65; I'd like to still be skiing in the backcountry at 70, 75, . . .

    I don't pass judgment on other people's risk tolerance. My tolerance, and my avy management skills, are limited. But I find I'm happy to get out on untouched snow even if I never get to 30 degrees steep--or get any turns at all.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    ... continues to speak, to me, to a shift in education and bulletin format. NA danger rating is much less relevant
    If you're willing to write stuff like this then you might need a refresher on how public avalanche forecasting actually works. I've been a member of this board for 8+ years now, which is almost a decade, and here I am still writing the same posts over and over and over.

    * Backcountry avalanche forecasting is not the same as public avalanche forecasting.
    * The public avalanche bulletin does not apply at the slope scale.
    * You should never use the public avalanche bulletin to forecast avalanches for a specific slope.
    * Depending on the size of the forecast region, the public avalanche bulletin may need extensive augmentation with local information.
    * Local avalanche danger can vary widely with space and time.

    I even wrote an entire blog post about this back in 2009(!)

    http://avalanchesafety.blogspot.com/...ting-size.html

    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    ... continues to speak, to me, to a shift in education
    I think you're confusing your personal feelings about what happened to you and your friends with how to correctly use the public avalanche bulletin. There are no avalanche forecasters anywhere in North America who believe that the public avalanche bulletin should be used to make go/no decisions for specific slopes. To my knowledge, this is in fact taught at every avalanche safety course in North America.

    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    NA danger rating is much less relevant
    It's only less relevant if you don't have a good understanding of how to correctly apply the public avalanche bulletin, ex: if you mistakenly believe the public avalanche bulletin applies at the slope scale. I've already explained why this is wrong. No one in the avalanche community believes that you should use the public avalanche bulletin to assess snow safety for individual slopes. The thing is that we can't actually stop people from doing this, we can only teach them that it's a very bad idea. Do people listen to this advice? Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.

    ***

    Let's take a look at the language for CONSIDERABLE from the North American Public Avalanche Danger Scale:

    * "Natural avalanches possible; human-triggered avalanches likely. "
    * "Small avalanches in many areas; or large avalanches in specific areas; or very large avalanches in isolated areas."

    Now let's take a look at the language from the incident report:

    "The forecast for the morning was considerable with the highest danger being the wind slabs and new snow that we had received over the two days before. We had a late start to the morning, and by the time we arrived it appeared that several people had skied Hourglass. We decided to take the dogs for a ski tour up to the ridge above fireplug and if the snow pit looked good we would ski it. On the hike up everything felt very stable , no whomphing and probing the snow with the ski pole showed no obvious weak layers in the new snow. Upon arrival at the top we removed skins and dug a pit on the slope we were intending to ski. "

    This incident report contains a description of a backcountry ski outing that is a nearly perfect example of what NOT to do. It also very neatly highlights the root of all accidents: perception of instability did not match reality. Despite your remarks about the "NA danger rating being less relevant", the danger rating ( CONSIDERABLE ) issued for that day actually matched reality pretty closely, and from the account written by the skier, the danger rating was completely ignored. The skier who was involved clearly did not think human triggered avalanches were likely, despite being warned by the bulletin, and despite having his own concerns about avalanches in storm snow and/or wind-transported snow.

    If a shift is needed, it needs to involve backcountry skiers choking back their egos and being realistic about their level of skill.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Truckee & Nor Cal
    Posts
    15,620
    Quote Originally Posted by CookieMonster View Post
    The skier who was involved clearly did not think human triggered avalanches were likely, despite being warned by the bulletin
    I'm not sure I agree with that part. I think the skier did think it was likely (in general) when he set out for the day after reading the bulletin, but had a confidence shift based on his pit results and the heuristic trap of seeing those tracks on Hourglass. If it had a been a moderate rating and not considerable, I think the decision to ski that slope would have been a little more understandable. Obviously the mistake had already been made before they even started skinning with the idea that local observations could override the advisory probabilities.

    I'd be curious what the skier in question would have to say about that, as there's a good chance he's reading this (and if so, good on you for posting up to SAC!)

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    First post-rain SAC observation is in...
    More detailed information about the snowpack:
    Limited evidence of instability observed this morning on Hidden Peak. New snow amounts on top of rain wetted snow and forming rain crust ranged from 5 cm (~2 in) at 6,600' up to 12 cm (~5 in) at 9,000'. Above 7,500' the rain crust had become skier supportable, below 7,500' it had not. Blowing snow existed near and above treeline but wind slab formation along the summit ridge was no more than 10 cm (~4 in). Only minor cracking with no significant propagation observed.

    At noted lat/long (8,250', NE aspect) very wet snow comprised the top 120 cm (~4 ft) of the snowpack with free water visible to the naked eye coming out of the snowpit wall. Moist snow existed deeper, all the way down to the Dec 15 rain crust 180 cm (~6 ft) below the snow surface. Old Dec 15 near crust facets on top of the Dec 15 rain crust had become moist and easily formed a hard snowball.
    http://www.sierraavalanchecenter.org...ns-hidden-peak
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Truckee & Nor Cal
    Posts
    15,620
    Sounds like we may have gotten what we wanted out of the rain. Latest forecast runs are making this storm more compact (i.e. same precip, shorter storm period), which is gonna be nuts if it holds. High end is currently showing 4 feet of snow for Tuesday alone.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,963
    Four feet of cold snow plus high wind on supportable new rain crust, we shall see how this sets up.....

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,378
    CookieMonster,

    I did not make clear the implications of my very opinionated comments about educational updates as separate from update in bulletin format. With respect to what I had in mind from an educational point of view, I'd say that PS and DPS problems are grossly disrespected by many people I have met in the recreational community (yes myself included) and if problem character is found to have an incredible correlation with loss of life in fatal accidents (with more research from different regions, etc), then I think that is important to emphasize in training.

    We should talk offline about bulletin applications & format ... it's a severe thread drift, for one, and for two it starts unraveling a giant can of worms when it comes to various aspects of what you and I are seeing in recreational BC skiing right now, and we may be seeing different things, or seeing the same things with different takes. I appreciate the link to your blog. Let's talk offline via email/phone about your opinions about what we / the recreational community isn't getting.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    ^^^ I don't think "grossly disrespected" is the right term. I'd go with "very poorly understood" coupled with "hard to understand" due to hard to observe. Which is in itself understandable because, at least in a number of parts of the country, it's not that common.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    8,296
    Quote Originally Posted by LightRanger View Post
    ^^^ I don't think "grossly disrespected" is the right term. I'd go with "very poorly understood" coupled with "hard to understand" due to hard to observe. Which is in itself understandable because, at least in a number of parts of the country, it's not that common.
    I think grossly disrespected is fair, given the lack of respect I see for PS and DPS problems in the state where they probably occur most regularly (CO).

    I agree that a majority of backcountry travelers think and look mostly at the danger rating, and I would agree with SM that the danger rating isn't necessarily the most important part of the avalanche bulletin. I personally focus more on the specific avalanche problems and their expected size and distribution as that information will guide my terrain selection, objectives, observation plan, and management strategy more than the overall danger rating.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    Heh. I guess I'm projecting then.

    And/or my friends are nerds and we actually talk about snowpack issues rather than just the rating.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Truckee & Nor Cal
    Posts
    15,620
    I suspect there are a lot of BC users out there - probably more so in maritime snowpacks like the Sierra - who simply look at the bulletin without reading the details (or they read the details and basically ignore them and focus on the rating) and go:

    Low - Sweet, let's ski anywhere.
    Moderate - Let's ski everything but the steepest terrain.
    Considerable - Stick to mellower slopes and the trees.

    I mean, go to any web site these days and read the inane comments and realize that some of these people are in the backcountry. They aren't discussing the nuances of a snow-pack on a ski forum or reading the avalanche journal. Or watch the exit gates at a lot of resorts and the sheer number of people who aren't even carrying packs or a beacon. Of course when they get slid everyone says they were experienced backcountry skiers just to be nice.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    cb, co
    Posts
    5,034
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    I think grossly disrespected is fair, given the lack of respect I see for PS and DPS problems in the state where they probably occur most regularly (CO).

    I agree that a majority of backcountry travelers think and look mostly at the danger rating, and I would agree with SM that the danger rating isn't necessarily the most important part of the avalanche bulletin. I personally focus more on the specific avalanche problems and their expected size and distribution as that information will guide my terrain selection, objectives, observation plan, and management strategy more than the overall danger rating.
    I've often thought that ditching the rating all together wouldn't be a bad thing. Sure, it screws the "I go snowshoeing once a year" crowd, but it might actually make other backcountry users think a bit. And I hate that all the good stuff has been buried in a secondary "forecast discussion" tab, rather than in the main forecast (I believe that is all avy centers- I could be wrong on that, though.)

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    138
    Was fortunate enough to ski a lap with a gentleman from ESavalanche center and we talked about exactly this. Things are simply too complex especially mid winter in an area as large as the Easter Sierra to just assign a number and have folks make good decisions based solely on this. Its unfair to the forecasters and a disservice to the people who dont take the time to read more than just the days danger rating. Thus they have chosen not to issue a numerical danger rating or really much more than a discussion of the hazards and what is currently happening in the pack. To me this seems like a better overall model even here in Tahoe.

    Quote Originally Posted by goldenboy View Post
    I've often thought that ditching the rating all together wouldn't be a bad thing. Sure, it screws the "I go snowshoeing once a year" crowd, but it might actually make other backcountry users think a bit. And I hate that all the good stuff has been buried in a secondary "forecast discussion" tab, rather than in the main forecast (I believe that is all avy centers- I could be wrong on that, though.)

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,378
    ^ Regarding ESAC, just so you understand: they are free to do that because they are no longer a USFS Forecast center.
    The USFS Forecast centers, you will notice, have the same bulletin format.

    Every year at CAW (California Snow and Avalanche Workshop), Brandon Schwarz and others clarify that the forecast operations are run from USFS while the fundraising and outreach operations are run from SAC non-profit.

    We really are drifting off the current problem and cycles going on in Tahoe and the Eastside, so perhaps this discussion merits bumping an old thread or a new thread. Of course, if optimistic hopes are true, we may no longer be seeing this specific problem this season, so who cares what we talk about </smug comment> ... however it's too soon to tell. This is an interesting season and we have a lot more of it left.

    Anyways, back to DPS. Facets above 12/15 raincrust are thought to be widely rainsoaked across the region, but only 1 single Ob is in, and if there's anything this thread has taught us about 1 single ob ... also, don't forget about 12/9 crust or basal facets. In the eastside, basal facets on Nov. raincrust may also still be an issue.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    138
    Yep. Understood. Just pointing out that I agree with what GB said and maybe its worth the discussion for the centers operated by USFS. Not that my opinion counts for anything anyhow.

    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    ^ Regarding ESAC, just so you understand: they are free to do that because they are no longer a USFS Forecast center.
    The USFS Forecast centers, you will notice, have the same bulletin format.

    Every year at CAW (California Snow and Avalanche Workshop), Brandon Schwarz and others clarify that the forecast operations are run from USFS while the fundraising and outreach operations are run from SAC non-profit.

    We really are drifting off the current problem and cycles going on in Tahoe and the Eastside, so perhaps this discussion merits bumping an old thread or a new thread. Of course, if optimistic hopes are true, we may no longer be seeing this specific problem this season ... however it's too soon to tell. This is an interesting season and we have a lot more of it left.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,378
    Quote Originally Posted by somethingclever... View Post
    Not that my opinion counts for anything anyhow.
    It DOES count. You're a user. A forecast is a product. I'm a product manager (in a different industry). USFS provides products and services for public recreation on USFS land. Get it?
    See new thread started by Cookie Monster in Slide Zone:
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...-Instabilities
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,963
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    Anyways, back to DPS. Facets above 12/15 raincrust are thought to be widely rainsoaked across the region, but only 1 single Ob is in, and if there's anything this thread has taught us about 1 single ob ... also, don't forget about 12/9 crust or basal facets. In the eastside, basal facets on Nov. raincrust may also still be an issue.
    It'll be interesting to see how this turns out for us.

    I remember many moons ago, wow spent a lot of time observing wet basal facets that stayed wet for a long time. He picked a lot of brains on ttips trying to gain knowledge from that collective because it was a very rare condition in the wasatch. I can't remember what exactly was learned or how he interpreted or managed the hazard that season.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    ^^^ Interesting. Stayed that warm down close to the ground? What's a "long time"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,963
    I can't remember.It felt like over a month.I'm not sure if he's on this board anymore to ask.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    Pretty sure he was wra, right? I still see him post from time to time. Certainly in the last year.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •