
Originally Posted by
lynchdogger
I'm not passing judgement but asking. Let me say that again, I'm not passing judgement but asking because I got nervous reading this:
"Alto's report of good conditions earlier in the week solidified the plan, but then an extreme avalanche report was issued for the volcanos and the prospects for touring partners dried up.
But my 11yro son was still up for the challenge."
What if ...? In those conditions what if? Is your son as avy savy as he is a skier? You don't owe me or anyone else an answer but what if something happened, especially to you, would your son have the mental fortitude to deal with a situation?
Ah, maybe poor wording on my part, the decision making process and responsibility was all my own. But to elaborate further, and answer, I would in no way put an 11 yr old in a situation where "what if" even comes into play.
The original "extreme" avi warning text has been lifted, but this news paper clip summed it up mostly:
Weather forecasters are telling people to stay off the higher slopes of mountains in the Cascades and Olympics through this weekend because of extreme avalanche danger.
Meteorologist Kenny Kramer with the Northwest Weather and Avalanche Center says a heavy snowfall last week and expected sunshine and warm weather will make it very dangerous above 8,000 feet. He says hikers should particularly avoid Mount Hood, Mount Rainier, Mount Adams, Mount St. Helens, Glacier Peak and Mount Baker.
A 27-year-old Olympia man is presumed dead after he was apparently caught in an avalanche Saturday on Mount Rainier. Ten other climbers were able to escape from the slide.
Our spring here in the PNW has been cooler and wetter than normal, resulting in continued snow fall above 8k, thus the issued warning in light of snow levels expected to climb to 13K. The avalanche fatality on Ranier last week occurred at 12.5K. Below 8K, temperature fluctuations have minimized snow acculumation such that in the same time 3-6 feet has come down above 10K, only 1 inch has fallen as low as 5K. This warning was specific to the volcanos, since it's pretty hard to get much above 8K in the PNW without being on one. The issuance of the warning alone was enough to make Scotmans50 lean against going (though at the last notice). I respected his decision, though I disagreed about the amount of inherent risk we would encounter along this route.
Which brings me to the point: route selection and risk minimization. Our planned choice of ski would have a high point of ~9350 ft to top out with no hang fire or slopes above. The Frying Pan Glacier itself from 7.5K to the top never exceeds a slope angle of much more than 15-20 degrees, pure meadow skipping at it's finest and near non-existant avi danger, barring a massive earthquake or volcanic eruption.
Continued route assessment. From the parking lot the first 4 miles are through forrested terrain with almost no slide paths up to 6K. My concern, regarding avalanches, was in the zone between 6.5-7.5K where the slope steepens, but also where there had been limited new accumulation and below the issued "warning zone". The concern here were step down avalanches due to cornice failure like we had observed the previous week at Naches peak:

The route we selected up the Frying Pan had no corniced slopes, and from the pictures I posted originally the rocks had already released the slough slides, some of them days earlier as the result of ski cuts. We were further able to access a low angle slope to ascend to a ridgeline and again minimize exposure by ascending a slope through the steep section that had been ski cut previously. If I hadn't been comfortable in any way this is where we would have abandoned the tour and been satisfied with just a long slog through the woods.
Thanks for your concern, I guess the way it was written it may have come off as "an extreme avi warning was issued but we ignored it" when in fact it safe travel when touring is always my primary objective.
Bookmarks