Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,037

    Avalanche Accidents by hazard rating

    X-Posted in slide zone,

    I was looking for a stat that would correlate the relative or absolute number of avalanche accidents during various levels of foretasted hazard.

    i.e.

    7 accidents at moderate
    23 at considerable
    15 at high

    over the past so many years.

    I'm not sure if this stat exists. My best guess is this might be in the avalanche handbook by P. A. Schaerer and Peter Schaerer , I don't have my info nearby me for the summer. Any help would be appreciated.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Eagle County
    Posts
    12,609
    interesting stat for sure and i have no idea, my guess would be that far more deaths occur on days of moderate or maybe considerable.
    ROLL TIDE ROLL

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    north of north
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by montanaskier View Post
    interesting stat for sure and i have no idea, my guess would be that far more deaths occur on days of moderate or maybe considerable.
    I agree. It's just a shot in the dark but I would say it falls on a bell curve with moderate and considerable at the top. When the rating is low, obviously slides are less prone to happen, and when the rating's extreme I think people generally take that to heart and try to stay safe. Good luck anyways
    Sunday ends with her head in a pillow, ass in the air with me pounding her from behind. Life is good.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by montanaskier View Post
    interesting stat for sure and i have no idea, my guess would be that far more deaths occur on days of moderate or maybe considerable.
    I know I've seen it a few places and I believe it echos your thoughts, based on a variety of reasons. It would be interesting to see if someone has reduced it to compensate for the greater number of days each season where we are at considerable as opposed to extreme and so forth. I wish it was possible to actually see the percentages per participant each day, but there is now way to obtain that data.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    19,147
    I've seen the stat, but can't remember where. Probably a year-end summary from the CAIC. Hacksaw might know.
    Is it radix panax notoginseng? - splat
    This is like hanging yourself but the rope breaks. - DTM
    Dude Listen to mtm. He's a marriage counselor at burning man. - subtle plague

  6. #6
    Hugh Conway Guest
    http://wa.slf.ch/index.php?id=5333

    deaths only. any incident statistic would be suspicious due to underreporting of nonfatal incidents

    a useless statistic

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,393
    IF you can work with Euro stats, Werner Munter and the swiss avy forecast centre (SLF) have tonnes of data.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Conway View Post
    http://wa.slf.ch/index.php?id=5333

    deaths only. any incident statistic would be suspicious due to underreporting of nonfatal incidents

    a useless statistic
    Yeah, looking for deaths, that's an awesome page, I may end up using those stats ( and the years before it). Thanks for the link.

    Ideally however, North American stats would be used if anyone has the info.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Ootarded
    Posts
    4,054
    I'm reasonably certain Ian McCammon has that data as part of his "Heuristics" series of ISSW manuscripts, but his published data is not broken down by rating.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    470
    My preference would be to end the emphasis on "hazard" rating. The terms are relative to the point of being almost meaningless at times.
    If it snows six inches and the wind blows, the "hazard" will often jump to considerable even though the pre-existing snow was stable, without weak layering. Managing the subjective "hazard" can be accomplished, for the most part, by ski cuts.
    If it snows the same six inches with wind on a snow cover already burdened with load or persistent weak layering, the same "considerable" hazard rating is given even though conditions are much different and difficult to manage. The "hazard" and consequences of that hazard are greater even though the labeling remains unchanged.
    Same with the compilation of statistics.
    Looking at ten year period examples:
    The eighties, for example, had low fatality rates, but the avi centers were lobbying for more money to keep those figures low.
    The nineties, fatalities rose, even with better funding, so damn, we need increased funds because people are dying.
    Weather and snow are the decision makers and recreators should learn how to manage based on those changes, not whatever someone decides the hazard is.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by wra View Post
    My preference would be to end the emphasis on "hazard" rating. The terms are relative to the point of being almost meaningless at times.
    If it snows six inches and the wind blows, the "hazard" will often jump to considerable even though the pre-existing snow was stable, without weak layering. Managing the subjective "hazard" can be accomplished, for the most part, by ski cuts.
    If it snows the same six inches with wind on a snow cover already burdened with load or persistent weak layering, the same "considerable" hazard rating is given even though conditions are much different and difficult to manage. The "hazard" and consequences of that hazard are greater even though the labeling remains unchanged.
    Same with the compilation of statistics.
    Looking at ten year period examples:
    The eighties, for example, had low fatality rates, but the avi centers were lobbying for more money to keep those figures low.
    The nineties, fatalities rose, even with better funding, so damn, we need increased funds because people are dying.
    Weather and snow are the decision makers and recreators should learn how to manage based on those changes, not whatever someone decides the hazard is.
    The stats are going to be used in a paper that relates to extreme hazard days. If there is ever a use to the hazard rating it would be on days like those where pretty much everywhere is a bad place to be. Its also those days where its important to reach recreators who don't have a very good understanding of snow safety and may only travel in places that are "safe" on the vast majority of days. The only chance at communicating with them may be some contact through an avalanche warning or some other posting.

  12. #12
    Hugh Conway Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by cmor View Post
    The stats are going to be used in a paper that relates to extreme hazard days. If there is ever a use to the hazard rating it would be on days like those where pretty much everywhere is a bad place to be. Its also those days where its important to reach recreators who don't have a very good understanding of snow safety and may only travel in places that are "safe" on the vast majority of days. The only chance at communicating with them may be some contact through an avalanche warning or some other posting.
    A worthy cause but how do you reach the people who haven't been reached yet?

    Perhaps it's too soon but look at the fatality on Mt. Rainier in June - weather forecasts are ominipresent, Paradise is well signed.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Conway View Post
    A worthy cause but how do you reach the people who haven't been reached yet?

    Perhaps it's too soon but look at the fatality on Mt. Rainier in June - weather forecasts are ominipresent, Paradise is well signed.
    Well the focus is actually looking at decision making in groups who went out during an extreme hazard day, both before and during their trip. I was interested in the percentage of accidents that happen on extreme hazard days. One point being looked at is how to better convey the information, not how to reach people but give people already being reached a greater understanding of the danger on poor stability days. Especially those without much training. If there is any interest here I'll post a copy when its done.

    In regards to reach those who aren't being reached, I think the montana forecast center is at the forefront of ideas. They do a lot of snowmobile work, which is a large neglected contigent, youtube videos, podcasts, and use common language that won't turn people away. You won't ever reach everyone, but there's always room for improvement. It's not an area to become complacent in.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Eagle County
    Posts
    12,609
    the Gallatin center up in MT does do a very nice job.
    ROLL TIDE ROLL

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,071
    Quote Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark View Post
    I've seen the stat, but can't remember where. Probably a year-end summary from the CAIC. Hacksaw might know.
    I think that there is a study out there about this. I can't remember exactly which ISSW it may bhave been at.

    At the momment I don't have time to dig around for it, I'm working on my ISSW poster. And my avy stats guy is out of touch today. I'll try and get back to you later.

    Halsted
    "True love is much easier to find with a helicopter"

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,124
    Quote Originally Posted by wra View Post
    My preference would be to end the emphasis on "hazard" rating. The terms are relative to the point of being almost meaningless at times.
    If it snows six inches and the wind blows, the "hazard" will often jump to considerable even though the pre-existing snow was stable, without weak layering. Managing the subjective "hazard" can be accomplished, for the most part, by ski cuts.
    If it snows the same six inches with wind on a snow cover already burdened with load or persistent weak layering, the same "considerable" hazard rating is given even though conditions are much different and difficult to manage. The "hazard" and consequences of that hazard are greater even though the labeling remains unchanged.
    Same with the compilation of statistics.
    Looking at ten year period examples:
    The eighties, for example, had low fatality rates, but the avi centers were lobbying for more money to keep those figures low.
    The nineties, fatalities rose, even with better funding, so damn, we need increased funds because people are dying.
    Weather and snow are the decision makers and recreators should learn how to manage based on those changes, not whatever someone decides the hazard is.

    I really respect your opinions on avalanches, hazard, route finding, etc. But I have to ask - You seemed a lot less anti-forecast center before you stopped working for the UAC. Do you really think they are as worthless as you make them out to be here, or does your (apparently) less-than-amicable separation from the UAC have anything to do with it? I really mean no disrespect, it just seems that maybe you let a personal conflict overshadow reason on this point.
    I also think your opinion on this subject may be influenced by the fact that you probably know as much or more than the guys at the UAC. Thus, you either read their detailed forecast and say "duh" or read it and say "I think you got it wrong on X . . . "
    I agree that just going by the hazard rating issued by the forecast center is stupid. I realize that there is a certain ambiguity and a certain amount of subjectivity to their analysis. I am moderately educated on avalanches and have a fair amount of experience. But, whenever I go out (and many days when I do not) I like to read the UAC forecast.
    For one, it provides a good general overview of conditions. I am a weekend (more if I'm lucky) warrior, and I often like to get the opinion of someone who has been observing all week (I read your reports as much as I read theirs). For two, I accept that those guys (and you) do know more than I do, and I like to compare their analysis to my own. Sometimes I learn that there was some factor I was not considering (sometime, rarely, I think they missed something).
    I look at their detailed forecasts. But I also consider their overall rating. Generally, I draw a line at 'considerable' and just go to the resort. Maybe that's being overly simplistic, but I just think that moderate and low danger days give me a greater margin of error when making my analysis and decisions.
    My point is that I think hazard rating, while not the end all and be all, serve a good purpose, and I don't think that avalanche forecast centers are out there just gobbling up public dollars trying to justify their existence.
    Have you ever thought about trying to charge for full reports on your site? Or, have you ever thought about giving guided tours with avalance education thrown in? Though I am scared to guide myself on considerable danger days, I would pay money to have you guide me on a considerable danger day or two and show me how you make your decisions, routes chosen, what concerns you, the tests you conduct, etc.

  17. #17
    Hugh Conway Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by skiski View Post
    I agree that just going by the hazard rating issued by the forecast center is stupid.
    It may be but where do people start? Not everyone is going to become an avalanche guru, not everyone wants to become one, especially since the end of training in the US is aimed at professionals. Since the US has a fairly crappy guiding system in terms of product and number relative to Europe the beginner gets to a) find a freind locally (hard) or b) strike out on their own. If b) a forecast is the logical place

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Conway View Post
    It may be but where do people start? Not everyone is going to become an avalanche guru, not everyone wants to become one, especially since the end of training in the US is aimed at professionals. Since the US has a fairly crappy guiding system in terms of product and number relative to Europe the beginner gets to a) find a freind locally (hard) or b) strike out on their own. If b) a forecast is the logical place
    I meant that relying solely on their forecast is a bad idea. I think anyone who goes out should read the forecast, but should also take a class, go with knowledgeable friends, or, at least, read a book before going out.
    I think it's a bad move to just read the forecast and say "moderate danger, let's go skiing," and then not think about where you're going, or the specific dangers that are present. Granted, for someone who knows absolutely nothing other than the english language, reading the forecast is better than nothing. At least the terms "high" and "extreme" danger sound less inviting than the terms "low" and "moderate" danger and someone would hopefully be inclined to go to a resort if the report said "high" or "extreme".

Similar Threads

  1. Tahoe Avy Courses
    By nate in forum General Ski / Snowboard Discussion
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11-03-2017, 12:57 AM
  2. Avalanche Accidents by hazard rating
    By cmor in forum The Slide Zone
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-11-2008, 03:37 PM
  3. Northwest Weather & Avalanche Center needs funding
    By cascadianwarrior in forum The Slide Zone
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-13-2008, 05:03 PM
  4. Seattle Times article about PNW avalanche conditions
    By ~mikey b in forum The Slide Zone
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-04-2008, 06:08 PM
  5. Backcountry / Avalanche Awareness Lectures - Helpful or Not?
    By Skis4Fun in forum General Ski / Snowboard Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-28-2006, 08:28 PM

Posting Permissions

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