Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: "moderate"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,167

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    321
    Good post. Enjoy the mtns an be safe out there.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using TGR Forums

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    west tetons
    Posts
    2,090
    Yes, incredibly well-written, especially his discussion of dealing with uncertainty. I excerpted that last part to accompany the MWAC season summary in The Avalanche Review.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,167
    ya, uncertainty. quite the adventure

    always enjoy chris's point of view. the daily advisories of his, jeff's, and the others really give a good daily picture of what's going on and how things are stacking up. whether yer heading out or not on a given day it's always good learning/awareness to read the daily advisory for yer local area or for where yer headed months out. any ammo is good ammo.

    rog

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,547
    ain't that the truth without the fluff.
    b
    .

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    the Low Sierra
    Posts
    17,818
    UAC blog

    http://utahavalanchecenter.org/blog-...danger-ratings

    and from a recent Vancouver Sun article citing Bruce Tremper of the UAC

    "Forty-seven per cent of avalanche deaths occur when conditions are reported as "considerable." Most weekend warrior backcountry skiers back off on their plans in avalanche danger points to high and extreme zones, but “considerable” conditions are harder to predict, and where almost half of all avalanche deaths occur. While the majority of ski tours that take place under these conditions will have a happy outcome, skills such as safe route-finding, keeping a handle on group dynamics, and knowing how to undertake a rescue and find buried victims is of paramount importance."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,167
    moderate is the true voodoo, imo. under the moderate rating, a bc user may get away with a lot, but if shit hits the fan, it can often hit huge. "moderate" is a much more mistaken/underestimated danger rating title. it should be changed, imo.

    rog

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,547
    i'm thinking 'wary' to replace 'moderate'.
    b
    .

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by icelanticskier View Post
    moderate is the true voodoo, imo. under the moderate rating, a bc user may get away with a lot, but if shit hits the fan, it can often hit huge. "moderate" is a much more mistaken/underestimated danger rating title. it should be changed, imo.

    rog
    not trying to start an argument. what would you change it to? given your position on the word moderate, how do you feel about the use of the word considerable? how would you portray the low probability/high consequence that comes with the territory of conditions currently described as "moderate" using just one word?.
    this is a topic of conversation for many forecasting and education programs and any dialogue is good!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,167
    Quote Originally Posted by camlax View Post
    not trying to start an argument. what would you change it to? given your position on the word moderate, how do you feel about the use of the word considerable? how would you portray the low probability/high consequence that comes with the territory of conditions currently described as "moderate" using just one word?.
    this is a topic of conversation for many forecasting and education programs and any dialogue is good!
    well I do like a number scale, like 1-5. the word considerable to me means that there is a considerable chance of human triggered avalanches. pretty straight forward, less straight forward than low/high/extreme. i'd like to see the rating of moderate change to caution. even tho low doesn't mean no and you should always use caution, but caution is easy for most folks to understand. folks are used to seeing caution signs of all kinds in every day life.

    rog

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    notsnowyvale
    Posts
    154
    I think that the problem is that the danger rating remains mainly a mix of probability and consequences, which may not be all that helpful if conditions don't really allow you to assess the risks of a given slope. The Hardesty blog Mike posted is really about this- not all moderate is the same.

    I also found this really interesting: http://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-scie...W-2006-004.pdf
    That paper breaks down fatal accidents vs. forecast stats by region, and the differences between regions, especially considerable vs. moderate being more deadly are pretty dramatic.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    50 miles E of Paradise
    Posts
    15,565
    I guess I don't see the problem with the existing scale. Ya just gotta think about what each level means.

    Considerable = expect "small avalanches in many areas, large avalanches in specific areas or very large avalanches in isolated areas. Natural avalanches possible, human triggered slides likely". That means p>=.50 that I or somebody else in the neighborhood is gonna trigger a slide. And I prefer to stay away from all avis, so that means "many" areas are OOB for me.

    Moderate means to expect "small slides in specific areas, large Avis in isolated areas. Natural slides unlikely, human-triggered slides possible".

    The advisory usually tells you the "specific" areas/aspects with higher risk, so mitigation there isn't too tough to figure out. Then use snow sense to deal with the "isolated"areas and the micro space of the "here and now"

    All that said, comparing the deaths by region/danger level for CAIC and UAC is interesting. My quick skim didn't uncover any good reasons though. A function of some big incidents in CO during "moderate" conditions? Too many Coloradicals ignoring warnings about specific areas? Less snow sense than Utards?
    More homogeneous conditions in Utah?
    Last edited by TBS; 11-14-2013 at 07:52 PM. Reason: Fix def of moderate

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,572
    Quote Originally Posted by telebobski View Post
    I guess I don't see the problem with the existing scale. Ya just gotta think about what each level means.

    Considerable = expect "small avalanches in many areas, large avalanches in specific areas or very large avalanches in isolated areas. Natural avalanches possible, human triggered slides likely". That means p>=.50 that I or somebody else in the neighborhood is gonna trigger a slide. And I prefer to stay away from all avis, so that means "many" areas are OOB for me.

    Moderate means to expect "small slides in specific areas, large Avis in isolated areas. Natural and human-triggered slides unlikely".

    The advisory usually tells you the "specific" areas/aspects with higher risk, so mitigation there isn't too tough to figure out. Then use snow sense to deal with the "isolated"areas and the micro space of the "here and now"

    All that said, comparing the deaths by region/danger level for CAIC and UAC is interesting. My quick skim didn't uncover any good reasons though. A function of some big incidents in CO during "moderate" conditions? Too many Coloradicals ignoring warnings about specific areas? Less snow sense than Utards?
    More homogeneous conditions in Utah?
    The distributions are indeed very interesting, and surprisingly different. UAC with the highest concentration on High days, BT on Considerable, CAIC on Moderate. I'd tend to ascribe the Colorado moderate concentration to their poor snowpack tendency and the resulting high spatial variabilty, ie. weak pockets existing on even moderate days. Maybe Utah skiers ski on High days more than anyone else, and Teton skiers treat Considerable like Moderate (which jives with my observations here).

    The National distributions are interesting as well, with Canada and France being very similar, the Swiss having the highest Considerable grouping but the lowest at High, and the US the most broadly distributed. No idea as to what that means.

    It'd be great to see this updated with another 10 year study as this one is now 7 years old.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,167
    Quote Originally Posted by telebobski View Post
    MODERATE = Natural SLIDES UNLIKELY and human-triggered slides POSSIBLE.
    FIFY^^^^^^^^^

    rog

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    10,732
    Quote Originally Posted by NatEE View Post
    I think that the problem is that the danger rating remains mainly a mix of probability and consequences, which may not be all that helpful if conditions don't really allow you to assess the risks of a given slope. The Hardesty blog Mike posted is really about this- not all moderate is the same.

    I also found this really interesting: http://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-scie...W-2006-004.pdf
    That paper breaks down fatal accidents vs. forecast stats by region, and the differences between regions, especially considerable vs. moderate being more deadly are pretty dramatic.
    I'd like to see a scale that shows probability and consequence, but I know people want a single number / word to dumb it down. Sometimes this info is in the discussion, sometimes not.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    I'd like to see a scale that shows probability and consequence, but I know people want a single number / word to dumb it down. Sometimes this info is in the discussion, sometimes not.
    You mean separately? As in:

    Probability is Moderate
    Consequences are High

    That's interesting. I think it would likely lead to changes in behavior. On a day forecasted as above, I'd expect people to pay more attention to route selection and potential trigger points to avoid being caught in that unlikely, but potentially very big slide.

    On the other hand if the forecast is:

    Probability is High
    Consequences are Moderate

    I envision the 20 year old with an airbag thinking he's badass enough to deal with a moderate slide. He'll either ski out of it, or just inflate his bag and ride it out.

    Perhaps it would make sense to never post the consequences as being lower than the probability?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    50 miles E of Paradise
    Posts
    15,565
    Quote Originally Posted by icelanticskier View Post
    FIFY^^^^^^^^^

    rog
    D'oh! Post first get blitzed later.
    Edited above to correct

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,167
    Quote Originally Posted by telebobski View Post
    D'oh! Post first get blitzed later.
    Edited above to correct
    just lookin out for ya!

    rog

Posting Permissions

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