A "Moderate" discussion of the avalanche rating scale.

[klar]

european scale for comparison: http://www.slf.ch/schneeinfo/zusatzi...uropa/index_EN

seems a little more detailed than the version posted above.

[bendtheski]

This article regarding "lessons" (or lack thereof) in the Pucker face fatality mentions that the that evening the author read a report that the Bridger-Teton Avalanche Center intended to reduce the backcountry danger rating from high to moderate for Dec. 26.

It goes to say that this, along with numerous other factors influenced their decision to ride a slope that was better left alone. Read down to "ski guys" comment at the end.

http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/f...5eb4ffb9c.html

__________________________________________________ _______________________________________

"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule" -AC

Thanks for linking that.

I think there might be some value in detailing the actual mechanics of the victim's death, at the right time, in the right thread. It's very sobering to read.

Maybe there's no way to accurately convey the shock, confusion, helplessness, and dismay associated with seeing a friend, or anyone for that matter being swept away, struggling to locate them, performing CPR to no avail, and witnessing their broken, lifeless bodies. I think though, that if we took the time to truly contemplate that as one of several possible outcomes based on our decisions, we might see a shift in the decisions being made, and the outcome. Maybe not; maybe that's something people have to witness firsthand to be able to wrap their brains around.

Sorry for the drift.

[Bunion 2020]

Maybe there's no way to accurately convey the shock, confusion, helplessness, and dismay associated with seeing a friend, or anyone for that matter being swept away, struggling to locate them, performing CPR to no avail, and witnessing their broken, lifeless bodies. I think though, that if we took the time to truly contemplate that as one of several possible outcomes based on our decisions, we might see a shift in the decisions being made, and the outcome. Maybe not; maybe that's something people have to witness firsthand to be able to wrap their brains around.

Sorry for the drift.

No apologies needed, excellent drift.

There are so many ski runs that are priceless it is difficult to decide if one in particular is worth the risks of dismemberment or death. Most people standing at the top of a shot don't factor that into their decision making.

[Lindahl]

I don't have a problem with the word Moderate, though X-Moderate wouldn't be a bad thing. My problem, for the Summit zone, was that I was hearing about avalanche activity quite a bit, but was seeing the danger sitting at moderate. Referencing the below:

Lately there have been more Avy obs in the last week, and incredibly huge avalanches occurring lately (look at today's report and the monster that went on Jones Pass). The recent jump to Considerable is warranted based on the obs coming in.

I think this may have played a role in the problem I felt I was seeing - there might have been not enough reporting going on. As more and more people get into the backcountry, maybe the level of reporting hasn't gone up in stride? If avalanches or activity is common, but people aren't reporting them, you get inaccurate ratings.

In the Front Range, the likelihood of triggering a Persistent Slab is “possible.” Likelihood is a combination of sensitivity to triggering and spatial distribution. The sensitivity is stubborn--not out of the question, but not easy, and signs of instability are not obvious or everywhere. You have to find the land mine. The spatial distribution of the Persistent Slabs is specific. Although on most aspects, it is not every slope. Most of the avalanches have started on very steep slopes, steeper than about 35 degrees. Size is easier—large (D2) and heading towards very large (D3). Treatment is even easier—“Dangerous avalanche conditions…cautious route finding and conservative decision making” certainly apply to this problem. The Travel Advice and Size and Distribution carry the most weight today, and we end up at a CONSIDERABLE danger.

I felt that this has been existing for a long time and a moderate rating in the Summit zone was never really warranted.

Something else to think about:

Terrain people desire to ski these days tends to be riddled with landmines and complex slab depth diversity. As this happens, the likelihood of stepping on a landmine goes up. More and more people are skiing in the backcountry on rockier, steeper and fluted terrain. Should the avalanche rating be biased towards higher danger because of this? The actual likelihood of a human triggering an avalanche is certainly going up over time with this terrain trend, but the natural acitivity is not! This difference/trend/change is something quite tricky and perhaps means we should be looking closely at adjusting forecasts, ratings or definitions. I feel it is quite possible these days to see natural activity as unlikely, while at the same time seeing human triggered activity as likely. There is no danger rating that can be associated with this condition.

[DasBlunt]

Terrain people desire to ski these days tends to be riddled with landmines and complex slab depth diversity. As this happens, the likelihood of stepping on a landmine goes up. More and more people are skiing in the backcountry on rockier, steeper and fluted terrain. Should the avalanche rating be biased towards higher danger because of this? The actual likelihood of a human triggering an avalanche is certainly going up over time with this terrain trend, but the natural acitivity is not! This difference/trend/change is something quite tricky and perhaps means we should be looking closely at adjusting forecasts, ratings or definitions. I feel it is quite possible these days to see natural activity as unlikely, while at the same time seeing human triggered activity as likely. There is no danger rating that can be associated with this condition.

I think patrols setting off charges, and things sliding big, could play into a rating associated with this condition, along with the data from slides happening from skiers. Maybe more cooperation between CAIC and resort patrol? Do they even have the time as mostly they are doctors anyways?

[Crampedon]

I think patrols setting off charges, and things sliding big, could play into a rating associated with this condition, along with the data from slides happening from skiers. Maybe more cooperation between CAIC and resort patrol? Do they even have the time as mostly they are doctors anyways?

The avalanche mitigation "doctors" at high-altitude, avi prone resorts that require daily control work be a first resource for CAIC as they are on the ground at sunrise digging pits and assessing stability in the forecast zones. That said I have no idea if they report back and forth…

If not maybe PHQ's can start sending an email to CAIC with a recommendation on a daily basis.

[skifishbum]

how did people ever survive before authorities gave us a one word descriptor
to guide us and our decisions?

[newbreak]

The avalanche mitigation "doctors" at high-altitude, avi prone resorts that require daily control work be a first resource for CAIC as they are on the ground at sunrise digging pits and assessing stability in the forecast zones. That said I have no idea if they report back and forth…

If not maybe PHQ's can start sending an email to CAIC with a recommendation on a daily basis.

It's s good idea but there are maybe 15 or so ski resorts in CO that have hi altitude mitigation going on, so that is 15 unique sample points across 75000 sq km of forecast area. If it does happen, that's great but it's a tiny dataset to rely on...and also why CAIC really relies on our (all of us BC skiers & riders) field observations to get the forecasts more on target.

[newbreak]

how did people ever survive before authorities gave us a one word descriptor
to guide us and our decisions?

Luck and respect for mountains.

[skifishbum]

well given my choice of those two and a one word descriptor of something as complex as snow stablity
I'm rowin class 1's like they were 5's
why is ons dog your avatar?

[newbreak]

why is ons dog your avatar?

I have no idea. The app gave it to me. and now it has been updated...

[Telemarketeer]

I think patrols setting off charges, and things sliding big, could play into a rating associated with this condition, along with the data from slides happening from skiers. Maybe more cooperation between CAIC and resort patrol? Do they even have the time as mostly they are doctors anyways?

So, many CAIC forecasters are either retired from patrol or actively working on patrols around the state and you think that they don't communicate?

A quote from today's report:

Recent reports from local ski areas and helicopter pilots describe large destructive avalanches propagating across multiple start zones and stepping down to the ground, clearing out the entire seasons snowpack.

[DasBlunt]

So, many CAIC forecasters are either retired from patrol or actively working on patrols around the state and you think that they don't communicate?

A quote from today's report:

The possibility of under reporting and land mines was the tangent I was replying to. To answer your question; I don't know.

[BFD]

So if avalanches are being remotely triggered and stepping down and causing additional avalanches could conditions still be moderate? To use the Rog analogy. I think it is more like yea I could get a bloody nose but never expect to get totally knocked out.

[totaliboard]

Moderate, like any other word, doesnt mean shit. It's a hint. An arrow in your quiver. Ive been blessed with a miraculous second chance after a slide some years ago. I'm fully and constantly aware of the danger now as it is tattooed onto my consciousness. Ill go out on a high danger day or a low danger day. Problem's never getting into the river, its trying to swim out.

[goldenboy]

How important is that one word, anyway? In a well-crafted avalanche advisory, the danger rating is something that I barely even notice. It's the type of problems and the types of things to look for that are of interest to me. A really good one will even remind you of dangers that have little to do with the snowpack. Yesterday, for instance, the bulletin talked about the very cold temps and how that might rush your decision. It's the little things like that that can help the decision making process before you're standing on top of something in -20 windchills saying "Screw it, I'm cold, I'm dropping".

Then again, people have short attention spans these days. Full sentences are so hard to read.

[icelanticskier]

How important is that one word, anyway?

wull uh:

Then again, people have short attention spans these days. Full sentences are so hard to read.

truth. maybe the 5 ratings should be, probably live, could die, likely die, will die, dead.

rog

[Telemarketeer]

How important is that one word, anyway? In a well-crafted avalanche advisory, the danger rating is something that I barely even notice. It's the type of problems and the types of things to look for that are of interest to me. A really good one will even remind you of dangers that have little to do with the snowpack. Yesterday, for instance, the bulletin talked about the very cold temps and how that might rush your decision. It's the little things like that that can help the decision making process before you're standing on top of something in -20 windchills saying "Screw it, I'm cold, I'm dropping".

Then again, people have short attention spans these days. Full sentences are so hard to read.

tl;dr

That's pretty much my point. I was calling the CAIC back in the nineties when it was just a recording and before they revamped the scale. We paid attention to the danger scale but it wasn't the end all be all, I mainly wanted to hear about snowfall totals and avy obs. Once the website was introduced, and you could read the report over and over and see the danger rose, it definitely made on improvement on the transfer of knowledge and understanding of the bigger picture.

I don't care about the word, but some people, who maybe haven't been using the report as long, or maybe just read what the danger rating is, might be lead into a false sense of security I guess. As I said in my OP, their are different "Tiers" of users. Maybe some snowshoers going out for the day just see the word "moderate" and figure everything is good to go. But I think the CAIC and overall education of BC users has improved by leaps and bounds the last few years as funding has gotten better due to more users. More people are taking avy classes than ever before and getting at least somewhat educated rather than the old way of just going out and learning from your mistakes (me). I guess the point is, the more educated people out there, the less the rating matters.

[Lindahl]

That single word still contains useful information - the likelihood. In an avalanche forecast there isn't often much else that speaks to the likelihood. That single word tells you how much activity is being reported/seen (and must be considered in that context). If you're out there most days, that single word is less useful, of course, since you know what activity is occurring in your own narrower area. Add that with local weather knowledge and an educated person should be able to come up with an idea of how the likelihood is changing. This is especially important for areas with special orographics such as Irwin (or Wolf Creek Pass), as the local danger can be quite different - and perhaps why the word is less important to you?

[Lindahl]

truth. maybe the 5 ratings should be, probably live, could die, likely die, will die, dead.

Can't believe I'm saying this, but good stuff. Hah

[hortence]

So if avalanches are being remotely triggered and stepping down and causing additional avalanches could conditions still be moderate? To use the Rog analogy. I think it is more like yea I could get a bloody nose but never expect to get totally knocked out.

But this analogy misunderstands the word "moderate" and the difference between the likelihood of something happening versus the severity of the event if it does. Just like with a .38 bullet, once the trigger is pulled; you don't care if the changes of that happening were 'moderate' or 'considerable', you're just hoping you can dodge it.

Originally Posted by skifishbum View Post
how did people ever survive before authorities gave us a one word descriptor
to guide us and our decisions?

Simple, fewer people skiing and they didn't get into that type of terrain anywhere near as often.

[goldenboy]

That single word still contains useful information - the likelihood. In an avalanche forecast there isn't often much else that speaks to the likelihood.

In most newer forecasts, the likelihood is also covered under "avalanche problems". If I was going the short attention span route, I'd pay more attention to those pictographs than the rating.

Let's say you have a "considerable" day when the main problem is storm snow. Small predictable pockets are easy to trigger. It's considerable due to the higher likelihood of slides.

Let's say you have a "moderate" day. It's been days since the last snowfall and only a couple of slides have been reported in the past week. The slides that did go, however, went far larger and more unexpectedly than thought. It's moderate because of the smaller likelihood of slides.

I'd personally be more comfortable on the considerable day above than the moderate one. Which is why I would consider that one word to be unimportant, overall.

[BFD]

the point I was trying to bring up is. I think there is a tendency to equate moderate with possibly less destructive avalanches. A shallow snowpack being rated moderate even though the structure of the snowpack indicates human triggered avalanches are likely.

[SchralphMacchio]

I'm starting to think that, to a backcountry skier, it's more important to skip the Danger Scale and go straight to the Avalanche Problem classification.

"Moderate" doesn't actually give much actionable information, other than to say, "read the rest of the forecast details." To a skier, there is a huge difference between small avalanches and large avalanches - but I'm not sure there is a huge difference between "specific" and "isolated" areas (as defined by the Danger Scale).

The avalanche problem classification gives an indication of the destructive potential, what aspects and types of terrain to avoid. Isn't this information more relevant to trip planning?

It's also much easier to remember "Moderate" before, or instead of, remembering: "SE windslabs on huge scary persistent slab" ... but "Moderate" doesn't tell me what to ski or avoid. It's almost like a waste of space in my working memory.

For the record, I don't recall anyone in our group on 12/26 saying out loud "it's okay because it's moderate" - but I also don't think we were focused enough on the reality of a step-down 4' hard slab, one that was specifically called out in the forecast.

[raisingarizona13]

how did people ever survive before authorities gave us a one word descriptor
to guide us and our decisions?

This has been basically my thoughts. These discussions have me wondering how many people just rely on forecasts instead of getting educated and paying attention to the conditions on there own to better understand the packs they are playing on. Forecasts are just a base and shouldn't be read as gospel. If you plan on spending a life time of enjoying back country skiing you might want to be able to make judgement calls without using a forecast.