Brush with a smallish slide.

[Lindahl]

Posting up a stoke video with a slide in it, I'm sure there's going to be some armchair quarterbacking, so I'd like to contain it to this thread. The slide is at the end of the video. Thanks!



Despite good pit results, we went into the terrain with the expectation of high likelihood of setting a slide off. A couple of old slides were visible under the new layer of snow. The terrain is a bit complex around the cliff band. As the cliffs get bigger, the terrain directly below flattens out. The old slide nearest to the entrance had slid beyond the cliff band, due to the smaller cliffs (~5') and more sustained slope angle through the landing zone. The old slide, further out, in the region we were dropping, only slid above the cliff band.

We spent a few minutes talking about the possible slides in our line and all agreed that the biggest potential for activity was above the cliff band, stopping on the flat landing zone just below (no real concern), and at the rollover just after the landing zone. If I failed to stomp, I would backtrack across the flats to the old slide path, rather than drop the suspect rollover with no speed. Group dynamics are important, and it's critical that everyone is comfortable with the same level of risk, otherwise, you need to dial it back, even if you prefer to take more risk. Solid communication between everyone is key to negotiating the proper risk level for the group. I've had plenty of mellow days in groups that have a lower risk tolerance.

We skinned one at a time across the cliff band to our drop-in point. The old bed surface (sun crust) contained about a foot of fresh snow and was very reactive - it almost wanted to rip out just by skinning across. There was no hard slab up there, just a soft slab. Due to the reactivity, we decided to drop just before the second old slide began, rather than attempt to reach the larger cliffs on the other side.

One partner was in line with the rollover, well inside the treeline in a very safe spot (sandwiched between two large trees). The other partner was above where the cliff band started, just below a large tree, before the first old slide.

I dropped in across the old slide surface, and it held strong as I sent the cliff. The landing was stomped in the flats (where there was no slide potential), and I carried my speed across the rollover and made several turns, continuing in the direction of my safe zone. When I heard "avalanche", I cut into my safe zone and watched it ride by. I believe the slide was triggered when I made a right turn along the raised section of snow (ridge/spine of sorts).

We knew the slide potential, but with the moderate angle of the slope (slow activity), higher speed, and the good vantage points of my partners, we felt like we were mitigating the risks to a reasonable level. I'm not sure if there's much more we could have done right, but I'm all ears. However, if I had to do it over again, I'd make the same decisions, except for pulling deeper into my safe zone (it's actually better protected than it looks, due to the angling tree line). I recognize that not all would be equally comfortable in such a scenario.

[montanaskier]

just some questions....no danger of it remotely ripping out above you? No danger of it propagating further across the slope like in the Taylor Mtn slide in Jackson earlier this year? Were you ready to be buried and dug out had it ripped, you fell and couldn't ski away? Just a couple of questions and to get the discussion going.

[garuda]

Nice pillow lines and stoke. But wow, I am surprised anyone is skiing timber falls this year, or at least in winter conditions. Glad it worked out for you....I can hear the armchair QB coming now to recruit me, but that's bold however you slice it... That last bit of explanation sounds just like the guy last year that argued his fat skis and mad skillz mitigated the fact that he triggered a potentially deadly slide on 2d creek headwall and was a few sliding blocks from riding it out. We all know how well that was received!

[JoeStrummer]

I think it's charming that you care enough what a pack of internet dooshnozzles think about you that you would start 2 threads pre-emptively defending your actions.

Other than that, I have no opinion. Solid entry in the "I MEANT to do that shit!" meme.

[1000-oaks]

I offer no opinion on the avi issue, but you sir either know that area extremely well or are a ninja of tight landings.

[Lindahl]

Joe -
1) I know TGR well enough that there's definitely going to be some armchairing going on, so I figured I'd put it in the right place for people looking for that sort of thing.
2) I'd like to learn from any lessons I didn't learn on my own.
3) Some of these dooshnozzles are my friends.

Based on what me and my partners have seen out there (in the pit, that day and the huge number of days we've had back there this year), we considered the likelihood of stepdown to be extremely small. This played a large role in our decision making to take the risk of a slide.

No danger in it ripping out above me. If it had ripped above me, there wasn't enough snow to bury, nor was it going to give me a full ride down the slope (since it's flat for a while below the cliff band - hard to tell in the video, but it's about 15-20 degrees). I simply would have been pushed over the small cliff with relatively small amounts of snow landing on top of me.

No danger of it propagating further across the slope, since the old slide kept the new slide path relatively concentrated (impossible to see in the video).

If I fell after heading over the rollover, yes, I was ready to be buried/dug out. The slide path, however, appeared to be relatively short, based on recent activity in the adjacent slide path (which had more potential for a longer slide). Full burial seemed extremely unlikely. The highest probable consequences in that situation were injuries sustained going through the trees, just below where I stopped.

[Lindahl]

Nice pillow lines and stoke. But wow, I am surprised anyone is skiing timber falls this year, or at least in winter conditions. Glad it worked out for you....I can hear the armchair QB coming now to recruit me, but that's bold however you slice it... That last bit of explanation sounds just like the guy last year that argued his fat skis and mad skillz mitigated the fact that he triggered a potentially deadly slide on 2d creek headwall and was a few sliding blocks from riding it out. We all know how well that was received!

Big difference in both snow and terrain, which really changes things.

[homemadesalsa]

I think you are using the nuances of these two questions:

"How detectable is the problem?"

"How manageable is the problem?"

These questions derive from the UAC, now commonly accepted, 7 common problems scheme. Basically they are short cuts to looking at what is the problem/ where is the problem/ what size& likelihood of triggering this problem?

The Taylor slide caught the ski cutter by surprise because he underestimated the size of the problem/ overestimated its manageability. It sounds to me like you and your buddies actually had a pretty good handle on the two main questions. So there is my armchair QB.

[dos bolsas]

Despite good pit results, we went into the terrain with the expectation of high likelihood of setting a slide off.

What exact did your "pit" results yield?






Anyone can dig a pit. Knowing what you're looking at is a different deal.

[icelanticskier]

holy shit, 3+ fucking minutes of throwing yer meat off a bunch of drops in the woods leading up to a "slide" that entrained less snow than a gust of wind hitting a small patch of quakies after an inch o new overnight.

dood, turn that vid into a, "look at me" TR so that we can laugh somewhere else would ya?

rog

[Lindahl]

What exact did your "pit" results yield?

Couldnt get any CT fracture or collapse, just slowly compacted till I got close to the depth hoar. Looking at the layers, fresh snow, on top of soft slab on top of surface hoar (possibly more than one, but hard to spot w/o fracture), on top of harder soft slab, on top of about 6-8" of sugar, most of which was somewhat refrozen and compressed. DH crystals are getting pretty small. Based on weather watching, we knew a suncrust or two was mixed in there around the surface hoar with likely some soft slab in between, but we didnt see it because our pit was on a less representative slope (shaded some by trees). The buried suncrust was our biggest concern, since we knew it was there, but wasnt in our pit. We learned more about it from a hasty pit once I had started skinning out on top of the band, and especially when I got onto the first old slide. Don't take notes, and this was two weeks ago, so I don't remember the exact thicknesses, other than the depth hoar being significantly less than I've seen in pits in prior weeks (though in other areas).

[dos bolsas]

CT fracture,collapse,depth hoar,layers,fresh snow,slab,surface hoar,harder soft slab,sugar,refrozen,compressed,DH crystals,weather,suncrust,surface hoar,soft slab,shaded,trees,buried suncrust,knew it was there but wasnt,hasty,slide,thicknesses,depth hoar.

or you could have just said, "I dug a hole but didn't know what it meant"



way to spew.

[natew08]

You ride that slide into the trees your day is not ending well at all.

[Lindahl]

or you could have just said, "I dug a hole but didn't know what it meant"

Your endless amount of bullshit trolling is pretty comical.

The CT showed a non reactive surface hoar layer and confirmed our assumption that stepdown to the sugar was very unlikely (based on recent activity there and elsewhere). Looking at the depth hoar layer kind of explained why, compaction, smaller crystals, and even what appeared to be refreezing. Looking at the layers also told us we weren't likely dealing with a hard slab.

I'm not sure how you get "didn't know what it meant" from that. Care to explain, or is this just more trolling? (didnt sound like it when you first asked the question)

[Lindahl]

You ride that slide into the trees your day is not ending well at all.

Yeah. Like I said, that was our highest probable consequences. It then came down to probability. Given the moderate angle, and composition of the snowpack, it was going to be slower moving. As long as I stayed ahead of it and didn't fall, I felt comfortable with the odds. The way I ski, in general, I have the same consequences for falling - impact with trees/rocks. I saw this as really just another way for it to happen, taking the same risk I usually take, but in a slightly different way.

[natew08]

Just out of curiosity what do you think happens if you are caught in that slide? From what I can see that slide pushes you at a rather high rate of speed into trees. The deposition being deep enough to bury you ~1m at least.

[time2clmb]

What exactly are you trying to accomplish by posting this? It doesn't seem that you're looking for feedback as you have already justified away all of the hazards and slide potential as it seems that you're already under the impression that you did everything right by not falling and out running the slide???? Not flaming you or anything just curious.

[Lindahl]

Nate, are you sure about that? The visible deposition looks like less than 1m deep to me, and let alone not enough to bury someone 1m deep. I only see partial burial, given the amount of snow and terrain.

Injuries sustained moving through those trees (one large, the rest are about 4' tall at most) at that speed seem to be broken bones at worst (a freak worse injury is possible, though unlikely). Like taking a tumble into the trees off one of the pillow lines, or landing on a downed log/stump. Heck, a buddy of mine just recently snagged a snow snake and tumbled into a tree, snapping his femur. Maybe I'm wrong, though?

T2C, anythings up for discussion. If there's something I missed, a wrong assumption (like Nate suggests), or something else I should have observed or looked for, I'd like to know. Its also a place for concerned family and friends to read about our decision making process and ask questions (like montanaskier) - even if they don't have an account here, they can still read it (like my uncle, who's a bc guide and avy instructor and probably has some valuable input).

[dos bolsas]

Nate, are you sure about that? The visible deposition looks like less than 1m deep to me (more like 1'), and let alone not enough to bury someone 1m deep. I only see partial burial, given the amount of snow and terrain.

Injuries sustained moving through those trees at that speed seem to be broken bones at worst (a freak worse injury is possible, though unlikely). Like taking a tumble into the trees off one of the pillow lines, or landing on a downed log/stump. Heck, a buddy of mine just recently snagged a snow snake and tumbled into a tree, snapping his femur. Maybe I'm wrong, though?

T2C, anythings up for discussion. If there's something I missed, a wrong assumption (like Nate suggests), or something else I should have observed or looked for, I'd like to know. Its also a place for concerned family and friends to read about our decision making process and ask questions (like montanaskier) - even if they don't have an account here, they can still read it (like my uncle, who's a bc guide and avy instructor and probably has some valuable input).

thanks for proving my point better i evar could have.



how does someone acheive your level avalanche awareness?
i bet its an Avie 2 with years of experience (ie less than 2) in the vast wilderness known as the Vail sidecountry.

[Lindahl]

thanks for proving my point better i evar could have.

How about providing some value, rather than just hate?

[dos bolsas]

How about providing some value, rather than just hate?

how about answering the question above, so we can all learn?


and this isn't about hate, although i'm sure its easier for you to think about it in those terms.

[Lindahl]

how about answering the question above, so we can all learn?

Avy 1 in WA (want to take a class out here though)
2 years in the CO backcountry.
3 years in the CO sidecountry.
A few 'learning' trips a year over 10 years in the Cascades with my uncle.
Try to read as many accident reports and case studies as I can.

If its not hate, whats with the persistent insults? Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

[natew08]

I think you are seriously underestimating the power of the slide in the video. It's a bit hard to tell from the video and the way it's edited, but the trees that the slide is running into are significantly buried and the slide hadn't even stopped when you cut the video. You are making a ton of very poor assumptions about the survivability of that slide. Here is a very good example of just how small a slide can be to still bury you:
http://www.nwac.us/media/uploads/doc...avy_report.pdf

If you crash going off that drop the entire force of that slide rolls right over the top of you and you are driven into the trees. Not only that after you hang up on a tree there is a significant amount of snow that is going to pass over you. What happens when snow is traveling past you and you are hung up on a tree? Very very bad stuff - stuff like arms and legs getting torn off.
http://www.nwac.us/media/uploads/doc...ary_3-5-11.pdf

Skier 1 was found alive on the surface of the snow but succumbed shortly. Fatal injuries were suffered
from the slide through sparse trees, much of which were old standing burned trees. One leg was
dismembered and unable to be located, along with one ski. One ski was found at the approximate point of
rest of the injured party with the bindings ripped from the skis. The other leg appeared to have suffered
significant fractures, as well

In short, if you are caught in that slide there is a very good chance you die.

[dino]

2 years in the CO backcountry.

Is that counting this year?

Generally speaking if you evaluate a slope with consequences and then ski it and trigger a slide, you fucked up.

To put up a post saying you did everything right without acknowledging the above says it all.

This is like looking at a gun with one bullet, pointing it at your head, pulling the trigger, firing a blank, and then congratulating yourself on your evaluation of the risk (only a 1 in 6 chance!).

The comfort level you have with this level of risk = you will be a CAIC headline.

Honestly I hope not, but that's my take.

What's your "bc guide" Uncle's take on your decision making?

Not hating, but you put this up for feedback and that's my reaction to this.

[natew08]

You are significantly underestimating the amount of snow required to bury a skier:
http://www.nwac.us/media/uploads/doc...avy_report.pdf

You are also significantly underestimating the injuries that can happen to you if you are dragged through trees.
http://www.nwac.us/media/uploads/doc...ary_3-5-11.pdf

The video pretty clearly shows the trees getting significantly buried, and you don't really even have a good shot of the main deposition area or even wait for the avalanche to stop moving. You say this was a soft slab, but there were pretty decently large chunks of cohesive now in the video. Your odds of surviving that slide without significant and serious injury or death are slim.