A "Moderate" discussion of the avalanche rating scale.

[icelanticskier]

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.

but if you read and heed the forecast (word for word) for the area that you plan on recreating in, your chances for having a fun/safe day wil be much greater than going out thinking you know enough to stay alive without following the forecast. the professionals are professionals for a reason and put out forecasts because they are about as learned as us humans can be when it comes to snow how.

had I followed the forecast and heeded the warnings of the days bulletin when I got caught, I'm 100% certain that I wouldn't have been caught. as humans we have a rebellious side, a testy side, an ego. downfalls that lead to early deaths for some.

rog

[raisingarizona13]

but if you read and heed the forecast (word for word) for the area that you plan on recreating in, your chances for having a fun/safe day wil be much greater than going out thinking you know enough to stay alive without following the forecast. the professionals are professionals for a reason and put out forecasts because they are about as learned as us humans can be when it comes to snow how.

had I followed the forecast and heeded the warnings of the days bulletin when I got caught, I'm 100% certain that I wouldn't have been caught. as humans we have a rebellious side, a testy side, an ego. downfalls that lead to early deaths for some.

rog

I completely agree but I think you missed my point. My thoughts and question's are how many people continually go out into the back country without trying to gain more knowledge and education as they do so and rely completely on forecasts? Am I wrong in thinking that that attitude and frame of thinking does not exist and is very dangerous? Most folks without a lot of experience read moderate as a green light or so it seems to me. I have even had people here in Flagstaff coming from areas with forecasts ask me how we make decisions in our back country. That has me concerned, these same people ski the bc regularly where they come from relying what sounds like completely on their local forecast ratings without too much thought otherwise.

Now with all due respect to those involved with the recent Pucker Face slide if I may I would like to use as an example. Many Jackson skiers with long time backgrounds, experience, and education would not think about skiing that face with the conditions on that day, they understand the ratings but also have long time local and other knowledge about mountain travel and conditions. Now I'm not saying this is the case in this particular incident but how many people read moderate as a green light without taking the time needed to safely navigate such problematic and dangerous terrain? Personally I think that there are lots of people going for big lines that haven't spent enough time taking things easy to learn enough about avalanches and safe travel. I know when I moved out west in the mid 90's we weren't going for things the way people are now. We took our time and out of fear, ignorance, and some good luck I got to learn quite a bit without ending up dead. Things are different now and the younger folks are trying to get after it without taking that time. It's an instant gratification culture now and with airbags and forecasts why bother taking your time and becoming better educated?

Yes, a forecast is a good base for safe travel but it's not the gospel, education and experience will go a long way before you just go out and try to jump right in to the bigger lines. And........even forecasters are not safe from the human factor, how many forecasters have been caught in slides? I bet it's quite a few.

[Hugh Conway]

How often, and how much knowledge, of a place do you have before you have enough command of factors that considerable vs. moderate has meaning in the US?

[raisingarizona13]

How often, and how much knowledge, of a place do you have before you have enough command of factors that considerable vs. moderate has meaning in the US?

I'm having a hard time translating this one, care to elaborate Hugh?

[Hugh Conway]

I'm having a hard time translating this one, care to elaborate Hugh?

CAIC has a forecast for Vail and summit county - 600+ square miles. There are similarly large forecast ranges in other regions of the country. A large range of peaks, aspects and elevations. In contrast to something Chamonix forecast which is an order of magnitude smaller in area - and has far more measurement sites and reporters. Is Colorado that homogeneous that you can make fine distinctions in that large an area? Maybe I just focus on the suggested issues like goldenboy mentioned.

[icelanticskier]

I completely agree but I think you missed my point. My thoughts and question's are how many people continually go out into the back country without trying to gain more knowledge and education as they do so and rely completely on forecasts? Am I wrong in thinking that that attitude and frame of thinking does not exist and is very dangerous? Most folks without a lot of experience read moderate as a green light or so it seems to me. I have even had people here in Flagstaff coming from areas with forecasts ask me how we make decisions in our back country. That has me concerned, these same people ski the bc regularly where they come from relying what sounds like completely on their local forecast ratings without too much thought otherwise.

Now with all due respect to those involved with the recent Pucker Face slide if I may I would like to use as an example. Many Jackson skiers with long time backgrounds, experience, and education would not think about skiing that face with the conditions on that day, they understand the ratings but also have long time local and other knowledge about mountain travel and conditions. Now I'm not saying this is the case in this particular incident but how many people read moderate as a green light without taking the time needed to safely navigate such problematic and dangerous terrain? Personally I think that there are lots of people going for big lines that haven't spent enough time taking things easy to learn enough about avalanches and safe travel. I know when I moved out west in the mid 90's we weren't going for things the way people are now. We took our time and out of fear, ignorance, and some good luck I got to learn quite a bit without ending up dead. Things are different now and the younger folks are trying to get after it without taking that time. It's an instant gratification culture now and with airbags and forecasts why bother taking your time and becoming better educated?

Yes, a forecast is a good base for safe travel but it's not the gospel, education and experience will go a long way before you just go out and try to jump right in to the bigger lines. And........even forecasters are not safe from the human factor, how many forecasters have been caught in slides? I bet it's quite a few.

things have most certainly changed. the way the bc is approached and the way some skiers ski the bc, these days, is not much different than the way that resort skiing is approached/skied. haste/waste/rush/charge/two at a time/three at a time/just dropping and going/not carefully, thoughtfully placing turns.

it used to be about how a line was skied. now it just seems more about what line got skied. i'll stop now

rog

[DasBlunt]

but if you read and heed the forecast (word for word) for the area that you plan on recreating in, your chances for having a fun/safe day wil be much greater than going out thinking you know enough to stay alive without following the forecast. the professionals are professionals for a reason and put out forecasts because they are about as learned as us humans can be when it comes to snow how.

had I followed the forecast and heeded the warnings of the days bulletin when I got caught, I'm 100% certain that I wouldn't have been caught. as humans we have a rebellious side, a testy side, an ego. downfalls that lead to early deaths for some.

rog

Good stuff Rog, thanks for being candid. I think the judgement calls are important too.

[raisingarizona13]

CAIC has a forecast for Vail and summit county - 600+ square miles. There are similarly large forecast ranges in other regions of the country. A large range of peaks, aspects and elevations. In contrast to something Chamonix forecast which is an order of magnitude smaller in area - and has far more measurement sites and reporters. Is Colorado that homogeneous that you can make fine distinctions in that large an area? Maybe I just focus on the suggested issues like goldenboy mentioned.

Ah, ok that makes sense now. I think you are saying something like I was trying to get at, it's just a forecast and isolated instabilities will or can always be there. Well maybe not always but there are lots of things to think about and the mountains are constantly changing but if people can't see the changes and rely on a vague forecast how can they know how to adapt on their own?

[Lindahl]

Is Colorado that homogeneous that you can make fine distinctions in that large an area? Maybe I just focus on the suggested issues like goldenboy mentioned.

No. I don't have a huge amount of experience out here, but I know of several locations that can often get a drastically different snowpack than the majority of the locations in their forecast zones. There's pockets in our ranges that can sometimes have quite different orographics resulting in these differences.

[SchralphMacchio]

even forecasters are not safe from the human factor, how many forecasters have been caught in slides? I bet it's quite a few.

This point may be true, but the juxtaposition with the preceding sentence almost seems to imply that forecasts are invalid because forecasters can get caught in avalanches. Two separate issues. Decision-making might be polluted by human factors, but not forecasts. Forecasts are driven by SWAG and other accepted industry practices, and may be polluted by bad data or poor sample size against variability of the forecast area. I have a lot of respect for the job that forecasters do, and I wouldn't want to see their personal decisions lumped in against their professional work.


If you'd like some more insight on the Pucker Face slide, I've added some commentary to that thread. The Moderate rating was one of many factors but not principal. There was never an initial plan to ski Pucker. However, looking at the large number of users out of the lower and upper gates (and specifically on the Cody Peak ridgeline) on that particular day - I think it is a fair presumption that the Moderate rating was a strong factor in the overall quantity of people out in the general area on that day. Other factors such as bluebird and calm, warm weather probably had a role to play as well.

[raisingarizona13]

This point may be true, but the juxtaposition with the preceding sentence almost seems to imply that forecasts are invalid because forecasters can get caught in avalanches. Two separate issues. Decision-making might be polluted by human factors, but not forecasts. Forecasts are driven by SWAG and other accepted industry practices, and may be polluted by bad data or poor sample size against variability of the forecast area. I have a lot of respect for the job that forecasters do, and I wouldn't want to see their personal decisions lumped in against their professional work.


If you'd like some more insight on the Pucker Face slide, I've added some commentary to that thread. The Moderate rating was one of many factors but not principal. There was never an initial plan to ski Pucker. However, looking at the large number of users out of the lower and upper gates (and specifically on the Cody Peak ridgeline) on that particular day - I think it is a fair presumption that the Moderate rating was a strong factor in the overall quantity of people out in the general area on that day. Other factors such as bluebird and calm, warm weather probably had a role to play as well.

That is not what I was implying at all and I sure as hell wasn't trying to analyze your day on Cody, sorry for your loss btw. The discussions for me just brought up some thoughts I have been having, it wasn't your incident that sparked these thoughts but the conversations had possibly related to your incident. I often hear things that sound like people rely on forecasts and forecasts only without any education or a ton of experience but they are often skiing bc and I think some are going for big, heavy consequence lines. It in honesty has very little to do with the slide on Pucker and more about my own random thoughts and observations. I have nothing but absolute respect for avie forecasters, it was a truthful statement based on facts to let people be aware that they need to think more than just reading a forecast. My comments were not about you.

[SchralphMacchio]

Nothing personal taken. I was just providing clarifying comments; I had already called out in the other thread that I was involved, and made a previous comment in this thread that referenced some of the hazards called out in the Teton area forecast for 12/26.

I am opening myself up to questions, and in the other thread, fair questions are fair game. I may or may not choose to answer, or it may be too soon to answer honestly, but fair questions, especially the hard ones, are totally cool.

Back to the point of the thread:
If I had to pay for a forecast, I would certainly pay much more money to hear about the possibility of large avalanches on steep windloaded southeast faces than I would about "Small human triggered avalanches are possible in specific areas; or large human triggered avalanches in isolated areas." So it really seems that the more valuable information could be presented first.

As I said earlier - I might just start ignoring the Danger Rating and going straight to the Avalanche Problem. The rating feels like a waste of working memory - it is redundant and provides less useful information to a backcountry traveler.

[raisingarizona13]

Um.....I'm not sure you understand tho. My comments are about peoples comments that may be related but a lot have not been related to the Cody slide. It's just an observation I have made about these sorts of conversations not a direct observation connected to the tragic Pucker slide. I have no opinions or judgements about that incident and I want that to be clear. Shit happens and we all make mistakes, I'm sorry your friends mistake cost him his life but a lot of us have probably been real close to having the same thing happen to us. We are humans and we all fuck up.

The forecast is a base layer, a foundation to start with but if you don't read deeper into things and observe with your own eyes and listen to your gut the forecast can give people a false sense of security, or at least that is what I am starting to believe after reading a lot of peoples posts.

I hope you are not being too hard on yourself about this. I can't imagine what you are going through. If you need someone to talk to or whatever you can pm me. Just trying to help.

[bendtheski]

Good discussion here, and cause for some self-reflection which is also beneficial.

Unfortunately, I'm resigned to the notion that a lot of bc users will never even make it to the danger scale, let alone the problem discussion. I've been guilty of this, and basically chose to roll the dice.

OTOH, that's kind of what the human factor is all about, isn't it? Having all the facts in front of you, or none, moderate or considerable, and still, at least to some extent, rolling the dice to the degree that you're comfortable.

This has been a weird last couple of weeks, and has probably lowered my comfort level, at least in my comfort with my lack of knowledge. I'm glad threads like this exist here, and appreciate all the great input, and the job all the avy agencies and SAR groups do to help keep us safe.

[goldenboy]

I often hear things that sound like people rely on forecasts and forecasts only without any education or a ton of experience but they are often skiing bc and I think some are going for big, heavy consequence lines.

I hope my comments didn't come across this way, and I didn't really see that in other comments, but maybe you're right.

For me, the forecast helps me answer the 2nd most important question of any tour- "Where are we going?" (1st being "are we skiing this?"). Sitting at home, looking at a forecast, you're far removed from the group dynamics and heuristic traps that get us in trouble because we're human. You can read a report and know damn well that death-gnar face shouldn't be on the list of things to ski. So you make a plan that's appropriate for the day. You can still bail if observations don't line up with the report, for whatever reason.

Contrast that to the "Let's just go out and see what we see" method. Now the death-gnar face looks awfully inviting, the sun is out, your group of 3 mushroomed into a bigger group and nobody wants to say, "This is a bad idea." The excuses start coming out- "I saw tracks on this last week", "that Rog dude says it's good to go after 72 hours", "Everything that slid was on an E aspect, this is more NE", "It wasn't a very clean shear when the bad layer popped out in our pit". Etc. If you've spent time out there, you've heard them all.

So that's personally how I use the report- to eliminate things before I even put my boots on and before "powder fever" or anything else you want to call it can happen. I'm still willing to adjust my plan- but only to easier terrain, not steeper, more dangerous terrain.

Yes, I realize that many places don't have a forecast or an accurate one, and then you have to figure it out on your own. But to me the forecast is an incredibly valuable tool and what I like most about it is that it can by analyzed rationally away from the temptations. But that's just what I've taken from it from my years of bc skiing.

[adrenalated]

For me, the forecast helps me answer the 2nd most important question of any tour- "Where are we going?" (1st being "are we skiing this?"). Sitting at home, looking at a forecast, you're far removed from the group dynamics and heuristic traps that get us in trouble because we're human. You can read a report and know damn well that death-gnar face shouldn't be on the list of things to ski. So you make a plan that's appropriate for the day. You can still bail if observations don't line up with the report, for whatever reason.

Contrast that to the "Let's just go out and see what we see" method. Now the death-gnar face looks awfully inviting, the sun is out, your group of 3 mushroomed into a bigger group and nobody wants to say, "This is a bad idea." The excuses start coming out- "I saw tracks on this last week", "that Rog dude says it's good to go after 72 hours", "Everything that slid was on an E aspect, this is more NE", "It wasn't a very clean shear when the bad layer popped out in our pit". Etc. If you've spent time out there, you've heard them all.

So that's personally how I use the report- to eliminate things before I even put my boots on and before "powder fever" or anything else you want to call it can happen. I'm still willing to adjust my plan- but only to easier terrain, not steeper, more dangerous terrain.

Yes, I realize that many places don't have a forecast or an accurate one, and then you have to figure it out on your own. But to me the forecast is an incredibly valuable tool and what I like most about it is that it can by analyzed rationally away from the temptations. But that's just what I've taken from it from my years of bc skiing.

Quoted because this is a great post that everyone should read. Twice.

[Name Redacted]

Yeah, well said. I use the forecast to make the go/ no go decision before I even leave the couch in the am. Everything beyond that is decision making earned from many years in the BC. I still don't know shit, but I try to know more.

[icelanticskier]

I hope my comments didn't come across this way, and I didn't really see that in other comments, but maybe you're right.

For me, the forecast helps me answer the 2nd most important question of any tour- "Where are we going?" (1st being "are we skiing this?"). Sitting at home, looking at a forecast, you're far removed from the group dynamics and heuristic traps that get us in trouble because we're human. You can read a report and know damn well that death-gnar face shouldn't be on the list of things to ski. So you make a plan that's appropriate for the day. You can still bail if observations don't line up with the report, for whatever reason.

Contrast that to the "Let's just go out and see what we see" method. Now the death-gnar face looks awfully inviting, the sun is out, your group of 3 mushroomed into a bigger group and nobody wants to say, "This is a bad idea." The excuses start coming out- "I saw tracks on this last week", "that Rog dude says it's good to go after 72 hours", "Everything that slid was on an E aspect, this is more NE", "It wasn't a very clean shear when the bad layer popped out in our pit". Etc. If you've spent time out there, you've heard them all.

So that's personally how I use the report- to eliminate things before I even put my boots on and before "powder fever" or anything else you want to call it can happen. I'm still willing to adjust my plan- but only to easier terrain, not steeper, more dangerous terrain.

Yes, I realize that many places don't have a forecast or an accurate one, and then you have to figure it out on your own. But to me the forecast is an incredibly valuable tool and what I like most about it is that it can by analyzed rationally away from the temptations. But that's just what I've taken from it from my years of bc skiing.

Well said. Just to be clear on "my 72 hour rule", that is just an idea to chill the fuck out and wait for a current touchy snowpack to heal a bit before venturing out into avy terrain. Wasn't meant to be an exact number. Different snowpacks take different lengths of time to heal for use before the next event. That is all.

Rog

[SterlingSpikeDancer]

So, would the forecast be easier to understand/utilize if there were essentially two columns? One for the "chance" of a natural slide occurring and one for the "chance" of setting off a slide in a given zone, maybe? I realize that this cumulative information is available on the site, but incorporating that type of a two tiered system in an easier place may help users for the "go/no go" call from the couch that was mentioned earlier. Just a suggestion from someone who does go out gates, but doesn't earn turns in the bc.

[Foggy_Goggles]

I haven't read this whole thread but I will. I'll good to see and honest discussion between people that have both wisdom and experience. I just read the forecast discussion at CAIC. I know we are at Considerable now, but the point remains. Digest all the information available to you and proceed cautiously:

Thursday, January 9, 2014 at 11:49 AM Issued by: Brian Lazar
Statewide Weather Forecast
We've got a decent storm rolling our way, and we're likely to pick up some significant new snow by tomorrow morning. It's unfortunately going to arrive with lots of wind, so you can expect a fresh round of new Wind Slabs. Given the strength of the winds, I wouldn't be surprised to see the slabs form well down in the start zones and into the trees. This new load will also test the persistent weak layers in the top meter of the snowpack. This is why I bumped the danger to CONSIDERABLE even below treeline for tomorrow.

Larger Persistent Slabs will become easier to trigger tomorrow with the new load The last round of wind-loading last weekend was alone enough to get some of these thing to break naturally. Tomorrow will be a repeat, and some natural avalanches breaking on persistent weak layers are likely. The danger is CONSIDERABLE (Level 3), but big destructive slides avalanches will be easier to trigger for the next couple days. That's saying something given that they haven't been all that hard to trigger this week as it is.

The problematic layers are surface hoar, buried near surface facets, and crust/facet combinations buried about 2 to 3 feet deep. These layers are still well within the depth range common for skier triggering (20 to 100 cm deep). The trend over the last 10-12 days is producing the largest avalanches we've seen so far this season (D2.5-D3) in the Vail/Summit and Front Range zones. There are still lots of the slabs sitting out there waiting for a person to tip the balance.

On wind scoured and south-facing slopes, the snowpack is generally thinner, so there are lots of trigger points, or localized shallow spots in the snowpack. With a couple more loading events, (like the one starting now) these slabs will become stiffer and more continuous, yet the weak layers will still be right in prime trigger zone.

So, across the deeper parts of the zone and in more wind-loaded areas, we are transitioning from a Persistent Slab problem to a Deep Persistent Slab problem. This is a scary transition, where pretty big avalanche are still possible to trigger in more than just isolated locations. I'm really worried about the next couple weeks, as small loading events, and lack of obvious signs of instability can lure people into terrain capable of producing big avalanche like the fatal slide from yesterday. These weak layers demand respect and caution. Do not poke the lion.

[raisingarizona13]

I hope my comments didn't come across this way, and I didn't really see that in other comments, but maybe you're right.

For me, the forecast helps me answer the 2nd most important question of any tour- "Where are we going?" (1st being "are we skiing this?"). Sitting at home, looking at a forecast, you're far removed from the group dynamics and heuristic traps that get us in trouble because we're human. You can read a report and know damn well that death-gnar face shouldn't be on the list of things to ski. So you make a plan that's appropriate for the day. You can still bail if observations don't line up with the report, for whatever reason.

Contrast that to the "Let's just go out and see what we see" method. Now the death-gnar face looks awfully inviting, the sun is out, your group of 3 mushroomed into a bigger group and nobody wants to say, "This is a bad idea." The excuses start coming out- "I saw tracks on this last week", "that Rog dude says it's good to go after 72 hours", "Everything that slid was on an E aspect, this is more NE", "It wasn't a very clean shear when the bad layer popped out in our pit". Etc. If you've spent time out there, you've heard them all.

So that's personally how I use the report- to eliminate things before I even put my boots on and before "powder fever" or anything else you want to call it can happen. I'm still willing to adjust my plan- but only to easier terrain, not steeper, more dangerous terrain.

Yes, I realize that many places don't have a forecast or an accurate one, and then you have to figure it out on your own. But to me the forecast is an incredibly valuable tool and what I like most about it is that it can by analyzed rationally away from the temptations. But that's just what I've taken from it from my years of bc skiing.

Oh no, it's actually a thought I have developed from other sources outside of TGR but there have been enough instances that I believe there are quite a few out there. A forecast is a base for sure, who wouldn't use it if it's available but how many folks could dig a pit, look at the layers and form an educated opinion of what they feel is safe to ski? I bet there is a lot out there that can't and that's ok for a little while, we all start somewhere but I think there are quite a few that continue to go out without ever really trying to learn more and rely completely on a forecast. This just seems a little dangerous to me.

And I just checked out the Crested Butte Avalanche Page, you guys deal with some serious conditions up there. I was surprised by how many listed human triggered slides there were this season already. Pretty scary stuff.

[goldenboy]

And I just checked out the Crested Butte Avalanche Page, you guys deal with some serious conditions up there. I was surprised by how many listed human triggered slides there were this season already. Pretty scary stuff.

It's an interesting zone, for sure. There is a small article in TAR about the Irwin catskiing operation that describes our zone as having somewhat intermountain characteristics due to the heavy snowfall amounts that often exceed little cottonwood.

But if you saw a lot of reports, part of that is that the Crested Butte zone gets the most reports in CO. Even though we only have 2,000 or so residents, we had more obs than the front range with all the denver skiers.

[off-topic]

[newbreak]

I've always liked the quote "If I told you there was a considerable chance you'd get shot if you walked into a bar, would you go in? What if I told you there was a moderate chance?"

It's 4am and I wake up - this is the first thing I am thinking about this morning. I think I could (should?) rationalize it, FWIW, this way:

If you walked into a bar and on the way to the bar stool there was a moderate chance of falling through a trap door and either getting beat by baseball bats on the way down or suffocating from a lack of air after falling --- you would probably want to know what trap doors look like, how to spot them in low light, when a carpet is over them & and how to avoid them...before even heading in. i bet you'd look closer at what your path to the bar stool looked like.

If there was a considerable chance of this happening, would you go into the bar at all?

Keep in mind this could apply to all Bars in general, or specific, maybe "seedy" Bars that perhaps have a history of people falling into trap doors and dying. I guess it depends on your risk tolerance and how much you really want and need that beer.

[raisingarizona13]

It's 4am and I wake up - this is the first thing I am thinking about this morning. I think I could (should?) rationalize it, FWIW, this way:

If you walked into a bar and on the way to the bar stool there was a moderate chance of falling through a trap door and either getting beat by baseball bats on the way down or suffocating from a lack of air after falling --- you would probably want to know what trap doors look like, how to spot them in low light, when a carpet is over them & and how to avoid them...before even heading in. i bet you'd look closer at what your path to the bar stool looked like.

If there was a considerable chance of this happening, would you go into the bar at all?

Keep in mind this could apply to all Bars in general, or specific, maybe "seedy" Bars that perhaps have a history of people falling into trap doors and dying. I guess it depends on your risk tolerance and how much you really want and need that beer.

Luckily in a lot of towns there are many bars to choose from, there are more suspect and often more dangerous ones and there are ones that are relatively safe in contrast. So you can go out and have that/those beers without walking out onto a trap door.

[SchralphMacchio]

The problem is that you are blinded to the trap door by all the hot chicks (or guys) and your buddy's enthusiasm for going out to get digits.

Furthermore, some bars, in isolated areas, especially the ones with really hot chicks (or guys) have a *moderate* chance for significant and huge traps that will crush you into a pulp.

Bottom line (as I had to painfully learn): Respect persistent slab problems regardless of the danger rating. A 2" windslab problem can just as well be rated "moderate" on the danger scale as a 5' deep persistent slab. Which problem is more concerning with respect to terrain selection?