 Poster: A snowHead
|
It's helpful to have the very low risk of being avalanched highlighted. If people had been killed in a car crash on their way to a ski resort (far more likely) we probably wouldn't know, let alone be trying to use a few bits of information to find someone to "blame". I bet that only a minority of the people skiing off piste round well known French or Austrian resorts have transceivers, and an even smaller minority would be any use in a search and rescue operation. I've done the "training" (couple of hours) and I'm sure I'd be little use. I've done "man overboard" drills in yachts, too, but in anything other than good vis and a pretty calm sea I'd struggle to get alongside a casualty, still less recover him.
Off piste skiing is a risk (so is on-piste skiing, of course) and whilst some people take bigger risks than others, most people get away with it, most of the time. As with driving. Accident research shows that the risk of collision/inattention rises rapidly after two hours behind the wheel but how many Snowheads are punctilious about regular stops, or about maintaining the recommended distance from the vehicle in front? When we fail to do so we put ourselves and others at risk.
We all take avoidable risks, all the time. Few of us have the right to sit in judgement on others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@pam w +1
Luck (good or bad) plays a far bigger part in our surviving many situations including skiing, driving, flying... than most people realise.
Sure: we can minimise and mitigate risks through planning, training, etc. but i still count my stars each day I ski!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Mother hucker wrote: |
if the trees are wide enough apart for you to freely ski through them they're not doing anything. Only trees so close together it's no fun to ski them will they act as anchors. This is what I was taught by a friend whos a high mountain guide who works for the German mountain regiment and also works for Orthovox running their courses. Do you agree @davidof? |
Yes if you can ski it an avalanche can move through it.
Some additional points though, both positive and negative
1. tree cover affects the amount of sunlight reaching the snow - not a positive or negative just that the snowpack is different
2. generally less wind in woods, so less wind blown snow... however the glades haggis trap mentions can be magnets for surface hoar as the lack of wind means it sticks around. So you can ski down through some nice stable snow in the woods, hit a clearing and that can slide. Lots of spatial variability, which makes life harder.
3. obviously any slopes above the tree line can avalanche as well - you are climbing up a nice safe forest trail, exit the woods and the slope above goes, maybe sweeping you into the trees.
4. tree wells (not so much in Europe) and risk of collision
5. the tree line is around 2200 meters in the Alps - so are the trees safer or is it just that all slopes below this altitude tend to be stabilize faster
We have a lot of tree skiing around Grenoble, I've seen avalanches in the woods but I'd say most of the accidents are in clearings in the woods or just at the tree line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@pam w, Good post - the driving analogy is a good one; I fish rivers a lot and the amount of people that get stuck in standard (non 4WD) vehicles doesn't deter them from engaging in their passion!
To my original point in terms of investment (especially in and around lift served zones) do resorts with adjacent and clearly 'dangerous' areas like this like this simply need to signpost / mark out / create more sufficient barriers to at least deter the majority? Or is it like UK councils investing in sleeping policemen in busy pedestrian areas - you need to have at least X fatalities within a given time period before they even consider implementing them . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I think there is a perception that people dying in road accidents are undertaking a necessary activity - getting from a to b. Where as snowsports participants are undertaking an unnecessary leisure activity. And the perception is that road accidents are inevitability whilst snowsports accidents aren't. I think this is a simplification though. Ultimately, we all get lax about safety, as we get lax about a lot of stuff. It's hard to be "on point", about everything, all of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
And we are all irrational and inconsistent in the way we treat risk. I know I am. I have done a LOT of driving back and forth to the Alps, often driving solo and generally doing it in one hit. I am religiously careful about stopping every two hours, and when the inevitably French overtaker cuts back into my lane RIGHT in front of me, I ease off to give a good space between us. But I spend a lot of time cruiser sailing and on routine trips with routine weather, don't wear a life jacket (though I would always wear a buoyancy aid in a dinghy, where dumpage in the sea is far more likely). I bet some of the people in this thread who are going on as though skiing off piste without a transceiver is utter madness, and hugely risky, regularly take much bigger risks without even thinking about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| Quote: |
This thread isn't very nice.
|
Nobody has said anything offensive or harmful.
It's being reported that authorities are opening a manslaughter investigation, so they clearly think there may be some fault. |
That is standard after an accident in France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
That is standard after an accident in France
|
Ah yes, I thought that was the case - and I believe it was said earlier in the thread, too. Doesn't stop people here concluding that a crime had been committed though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
It’s interesting to see people’s views on the comparisons with other risk taking activities
For instance the driving one - yes I’m sure many of us take risks and fail to observe all the recommended precautions re rest, distance, etc on the motorway… but how many drive the motorway without a seat belt? THAT to me would be the obvious equivalent of off piste without avi gear
Or to make an analogy with healthcare (my thing) - it’s acknowledged that much human error will occur, all activity is minorities and mistakes looked at and lessons (hopefully) learned, generally without great blame being attached to simple human frailty. But we have a category called “never events” - examples might be cutting off the wrong leg or leaving some scissors in an abdomen - these are things that would never happen if the basic routine requirements of safety procedures and the minimum acceptable level of competence are applied - they stil do happen, and then you might be looking at negligence charges etc… again to me THAT is the level of going off piste without avi gear… absolutely so for a qualified guide or off piste instructor
I don’t see how this terrain. An be looked at as anything but “proper” off piste ?with all that entails) by anyone with any knowledge or guide / instructor, or indeed experienced skier
It is all very tragic and o feel deeply for the families involved, but setting aside the masses there is to say about pre analysis and avalanche avoidance, I can’t help but think there was a failure of competence at a most basic level in going on to this terrain without basic avi safety gear, and woe betide any guide or instructor if they were actually actually engaged in that capacity for the party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pam w wrote: |
It's helpful to have the very low risk of being avalanched highlighted. If people had been killed in a car crash on their way to a ski resort (far more likely) we probably wouldn't know, let alone be trying to use a few bits of information to find someone to "blame". I bet that only a minority of the people skiing off piste round well known French or Austrian resorts have transceivers, and an even smaller minority would be any use in a search and rescue operation. I've done the "training" (couple of hours) and I'm sure I'd be little use. I've done "man overboard" drills in yachts, too, but in anything other than good vis and a pretty calm sea I'd struggle to get alongside a casualty, still less recover him.
Off piste skiing is a risk (so is on-piste skiing, of course) and whilst some people take bigger risks than others, most people get away with it, most of the time. As with driving. Accident research shows that the risk of collision/inattention rises rapidly after two hours behind the wheel but how many Snowheads are punctilious about regular stops, or about maintaining the recommended distance from the vehicle in front? When we fail to do so we put ourselves and others at risk.
We all take avoidable risks, all the time. Few of us have the right to sit in judgement on others. |
I think we need to be careful about stating that avalanche risk is low when off piste skiing. It CAN be low if caution and good risk mitigation practices are deployed but is not without. It easy to interpret LOW FREQUENCY OF DEATH as evidence of LOW RISK without considering EXPOSURE- the number of times people are at risk from avalanches. Indeed this cognitive error is one reason some off piste skiers are not really aware of the risks they take when skiing in genuine avalanche terrain (like for example a gulley terrain trap below a 40 degree slope).
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
"Indeed this cognitive error is one reason some off piste skiers are not really aware of the risks they take when skiing in genuine avalanche terrain (like for example a gulley terrain trap below a 40 degree slope)"
I think 'some' is too narrow a band - I'd state 'most' don't hence why I believe resorts per se should control these zones more effectively (akin to the US) to at least mitigate some future errors of judgement . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
I love the US set up and have skied there every year except one since 2000, predominantly on the in resort off piste. But that comes at an immense price - the lift pass costs have become truly insane, rapidly making skiing a “one percenter” activity as far as non- locals go. I’m on an Ikon pass this season 
And whilst I’m sure there are large profits being made, the obvious reason for the difference to Europe is the absolute army of staff they have to mitigate risk, patrol, etc. You can be way out from any piste (5-10x the distance in the accident of this thread) and randomly bump in to patrollers. At the end of each day all the masses of hectares of inbound off piste at the likes of Aspen/Snowmass/Brek/Jackson/ Alta/ etc etc is carefully patrolled and every morning it is assessed, bombed, etc, then patrolled in the day That costs $$$ and everywhere is swarming with staff
By contrast I was in Cham on the Grands Montets with good pre Xmas conditions a couple of weeks ago - there was one staff per lift, never saw a patroller or safety guy in 4 days, the Retour lift and vast area it serves were closed… not for conditions which were clearly great, but as more than one local confirmed, basically because they couldn’t / wouldn’t deploy the extra staff needed at this time of year
Don’t get me wrong, I love the Alps, if I’ve got a suitably experienced partner I’d rather be on Alpine off piste or touring terrain than the somewhat sanitised in resort US experience… but the challenges inherent in the alpine and glaciated terrain and the sheer scale would to my mind make it near impossible to provide the typical Colorado / Utah set up in Europe at a vaguely affordable price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Luck (good or bad) plays a far bigger part in our surviving many situations including skiing, driving, flying... than most people realise.
|
Yes Boeing have just announced they are sacking their engineers. They will be replaced with an elite team of shamans to bless aircraft with good luck.
I've read enough avy reports to know it's a tiny tiny minority where no mistakes were made and people were just "unlucky". In most cases big mistakes are made. That's just reality.
But I guess whatever helps you sleep at night. Life is easier when everything is out our control so we can just blame fate or bad luck. Some of us would rather educate ourselves with appropriate training and make safe decisions drastically reducing risk.
| Quote: |
but how many drive the motorway without a seat belt? THAT to me would be the obvious equivalent of off piste without avi gear
|
It's a good analogy. I think those of us that actually ski off-piste would think of both being equally stupid.
| Quote: |
do resorts with adjacent and clearly 'dangerous' areas like this like this simply need to signpost / mark out / create more sufficient barriers to at least deter the majority?
|
Thing is people just ignore them. Look at the lake Louise avy last season. At the end of the day people have to take some responsibility for their actions. It's a slippery slope. More people die in n America in tree wells and collisions, but there is nobody suggesting we need to set speed limits and put barriers around glades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Belch wrote: |
"
...I think 'some' is too narrow a band - I'd state 'most' don't hence why I believe resorts per se should control these zones more effectively (akin to the US) to at least mitigate some future errors of judgement . . . |
Euro resorts do mark/secure areas safe from avy danger... they call those areas pistes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
If I were making decisions in an Alpine ski resort I would not go near any suggestion that we should take responsibility for keeping skiers safe outside our pistes.
And despite some of the arguments above, I am not convinced that off piste skiing is a very high risk business. I suspect that on Snowheads we get to hear about most avalanche deaths in Europe (and quite a few elsewhere). Sure, if you are daft, the risks are higher, just as the risks of driving are higher if you are drugged or drunk and drive too fast on bald tyres.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Let's not slide into pearl-clutching hysteria.
The average skier's chance of perishing in an avalanche worldwide is around 0.0003%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| But I guess whatever helps you sleep at night. Life is easier when everything is out our control so we can just blame fate or bad luck. Some of us would rather educate ourselves with appropriate training and make safe decisions drastically reducing risk. |
Haven't you looked at that quote the wrong way round? i.e the luck is how many have survived skiing off piste despite having made numerous mistakes. I doubt anyone on here can say that they've made 100% correct decisions when it comes to off piste skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Of course a lot of avalanche deaths are due to some miscalculation (on somebody's part, not necessarily the dead person's). So are a lot of driving deaths. So what? Loads of people go off-piste without avi gear. Loads of people drive without due care and attention.
If there is an objective 1% risk in some activity undertaken by 100 people, one of them will die. The rest were lucky.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
That does make it sound all very like a game of Russian roulette that we should be fatalistic about, when in fact it is possible to take many steps to greatly reduce the risk, not remove it of course, going off piste will always carry some risk of avalanche (and crevasse, serac or rockfall, tree bole, etc, etc)
But just as we wear seatbelts to drive and improved on that with airbags over time and advances in tech, as we count instruments in and out of a surgical operation, as air traffic control has evolved disaster by disaster, we have developed an advanced system of risk mitigation for skiing of piste - the availability of and ability to interpret forecasts to know when and where to go and not to go, on the go assessments and pits, skiing one by one when required and ropes when required, carrying a transveiver each and probe and shovel AT ALL TIMES (and being trained to in se them), crevasse rescue gear where appropriate, and more recently many (myself included) carrying airbags. All of those precautions are as straight forward “no brainers” as wearing a seatbelt or buddy checking your climbing knot as far as I’m concerned. Missing out on any is making the activity more dangerous, and in the case of the basic avi gear inexcusably so IMHO. It might still have a Russian roulette element but you’ve halved or more the number of bullets
*and yes I know about “risk homeostasis”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
But none of that detracts from the argument that where there is an accurately assessed 1% risk and 100 equally well equipped and trained people set off, 1 will end up dead and the others can count themselves lucky (though of course they won't, they'll put it down to their good judgement). There is a Russian roulette element, like it or not. And a basic human assumption that accidents happen to other people.
Unless it rains on 5% of the occasions when forecasters say there is only a 5% chance of rain, then they've got it wrong. If that turns out to be the day of your well-planned wedding, you'll be calling them all sorts of names.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| adithorp wrote: |
| Belch wrote: |
"
...I think 'some' is too narrow a band - I'd state 'most' don't hence why I believe resorts per se should control these zones more effectively (akin to the US) to at least mitigate some future errors of judgement . . . |
Euro resorts do mark/secure areas safe from avy danger... they call those areas pistes. |
Your kind of missing my point - the pavement (piste) is an obvious pedestrian area at the side of a road; a 2yr old could still chose to walk in the road itself (off piste/side country) 'unsupervised'. . . . . .I'm not suggesting resorts take responsibility per se but perhaps adapt a smattering of the US model with CLEARER signage and comms & better education (digital piste maps etc); especially in 'obvious' side country areas like this that are effectively lift served and adjacent to formally controlled zones. This should become even more prevalent after a specific incident (like this one) and remain in place thereafter . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess resorts would carry some legal liability, if they embarked on that kind of signage, suggesting that some places are more "off piste" than others. I can see why they absolutely wouldn't go down that route. After all, there are always plenty of idiots who will even ski pistes which are clearly closed. Which, incidentally, invalidates most insurance policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pam w wrote: |
| I guess resorts would carry some legal liability, if they embarked on that kind of signage, suggesting that some places are more "off piste" than others. I can see why they absolutely wouldn't go down that route. After all, there are always plenty of idiots who will even ski pistes which are clearly closed. Which, incidentally, invalidates most insurance policies. |
I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure they could clearly negate responsibility on the signage itself; a bit like the small print in Sainsburys carparks these days! Again I clearly remember side country runs in the US with 'obvious' Skull & Crossbone markings on them specifically designed to put fear into the irresponsible and make it obvious that one would be taking any risk into their own hands . . .appreciate there will always be idiots that know better however surely potentially saving a single life is better than not really bothering at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
https://www.avalanches.org/fatalities/
This website lists every avalanche fatality in Europe in recent seasons. It breaks them down into activity and has a very brief description. To actually understand what happened you need a more thorough report. For the French ones, if you Google them you can almost always find a fairly accurate location and a better report, many on Davidof's Pistehors website. I went through all of last year's French fatalities for off piste skiing as opposed to back country skiing. If we go with this definition of sidecountry, from an open piste or lift to a piste or lift with no hiking and with the ability to simply traverse back to an open piste for at least 75% of the route then it looks like there were no side country avalanche deaths in France last year. Its not 100% clear where the 19/01 Aiguille Grive avalanche occurred but it is most likely that this was in the hike to couloirs. While the case that this thread is about might not quite pass my test for sidecountry it does stand out from last year's deaths in terms of ease of access, proximity to the pistes, lack of fresh snow, and the fact that it was likely tracked out although this hasn't been definitively confirmed. This is why it feels unlucky, huge numbers of people ski sidecountry in France per year without avalanche gear including on days with much more widely unstable snowpack and in a whole year no deaths were recorded (of course, it is not impossible that some people were buried but rescued due to having the correct gear). It is also why I am still of the opinion that it is not irresponsible to ski most sidecountry routes on low risk days with no gear. Obviously the threat of wet slides on warm days can negate the safety typically provided by a route being tracked out and having been tracked out following every new snowfall. When I have more time I may go through the previous years as well, I probably will find some sidecountry deaths but it would surprise me if I find any that occurred on tracked out terrain (not including wet slides)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
Yep. I don't think anyone trying to justify being in avalanche terrain without equipment has ever done any kind of course training.
|
The clever thing is to be in off-piste territory that is not avalanche terrain. And there's plenty of it.
The group in this incident had no off-piste kit. And the 'instructor'/'guide' was not caught. Did the 'guide' even suggest they go in the fatally-off-piste direction? Any guide/instructor whom I can think of with whom I would ski again would say "that's steep above, and any idiot could go in there and set off an avalanche above us that could kill you." In my opinion the French law that puts the responsibility on the idiot above is excusing the lower-down victim and making the next victim more likely. Put the blame on the dead person who didn't look up and you save lives.
Yes, you're innocent, but you're still dead. Yippee.
I pointed out earlier in this thread that people who are too powerful in their everyday lives are more likely to be the ones caught in an avalanche. I happened to be at the Fleet Air Arm Museum in Yeovil this week, and saw this sign on the interior of a helicopter that reminds those who are very senior of rank that their heads are just as likely to be removed as those who are more junior, and reminds everybody that those who are senior of rank are more likely to make an error of judgement. "Passengers, IRRESPECTIVE OF RANK, are not to alight from or board a helicopter without first obtaining clearance from the crew that they are clear to do so."
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| pam w wrote: |
If there is an objective 1% risk in some activity undertaken by 100 people, one of them will die. The rest were lucky..... |
Yes, & if you roll six dice you’re guaranteed to get exactly one 1, one 2, one 3, one 4, one 5 and one 6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I pointed out earlier in this thread that people who are too powerful in their everyday lives are more likely to be the ones caught in an avalanche
|
@James the Last, did you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@holidayloverxx, I think he made the disgraceful suggestion that because the woman who died was a senior and powerful person, she might have "bullied" the instructor (sic) into acting against his better judgement. How he decided that she was "too" powerful, goodness only knows. But it was just part and parcel of the blizzard of guesswork and assertion which characterised some contributions to this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@pam w, exactly. And he didn't point out 'that people who are too powerful in their everyday lives are more likely to be the ones caught in an avalanche'. Another unevidenced assertion
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Thu 4-01-24 10:30; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| holidayloverxx wrote: |
| Quote: |
I pointed out earlier in this thread that people who are too powerful in their everyday lives are more likely to be the ones caught in an avalanche
|
@James the Last, did you? |
I take it you were being sarcastic. Three times now. What a.... can't find a polite word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@holidayloverxx, sorry, crossed with yours
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| James the Last wrote: |
Yes, you're innocent, but you're still dead. Yippee.
|
This post on a thread reporting and discussing the circumstances of the tragic death of a mother and her son is disgraceful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| rambotion wrote: |
https://www.avalanches.org/fatalities/
This website lists every avalanche fatality in Europe in recent seasons. It breaks them down into activity and has a very brief description. To actually understand what happened you need a more thorough report. For the French ones, if you Google them you can almost always find a fairly accurate location and a better report, many on Davidof's Pistehors website. I went through all of last year's French fatalities for off piste skiing as opposed to back country skiing. If we go with this definition of sidecountry, from an open piste or lift to a piste or lift with no hiking and with the ability to simply traverse back to an open piste for at least 75% of the route then it looks like there were no side country avalanche deaths in France last year. Its not 100% clear where the 19/01 Aiguille Grive avalanche occurred but it is most likely that this was in the hike to couloirs. While the case that this thread is about might not quite pass my test for sidecountry it does stand out from last year's deaths in terms of ease of access, proximity to the pistes, lack of fresh snow, and the fact that it was likely tracked out although this hasn't been definitively confirmed. This is why it feels unlucky, huge numbers of people ski sidecountry in France per year without avalanche gear including on days with much more widely unstable snowpack and in a whole year no deaths were recorded (of course, it is not impossible that some people were buried but rescued due to having the correct gear). It is also why I am still of the opinion that it is not irresponsible to ski most sidecountry routes on low risk days with no gear. Obviously the threat of wet slides on warm days can negate the safety typically provided by a route being tracked out and having been tracked out following every new snowfall. When I have more time I may go through the previous years as well, I probably will find some sidecountry deaths but it would surprise me if I find any that occurred on tracked out terrain (not including wet slides) |
That would definitely be worth a thread of its own if you did go back further. If you defined side-piste even more tightly as any off-piste route where you could traverse back to a piste 100% of the time then you might even find zero avalanche deaths over a long period if you put in some extra conditions like not being threatened from above, the run not being closed etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@hold_my_biere, agreed, an interesting analysis for someone that way inclined. However they would need to drop your condition of "not being threatened from above" since the whole point is to see if appropriately defined "side piste" is lower risk precisely because the operators have already made that judgement when deciding if the adjacent pistes are safe to open.
(Plus you would end up with a circular argument: by definition anywhere an avalanche did occur was threatened from above, and if you exclude all actual avalanches from the data then it is hardly surprising you would find no avalanche deaths in the remainder).
In the case of the recent tragedy, I haven't been up there myself for a couple of years so I can't be absolutely sure there was a barrier (maybe a single rope) directing skiers not to head right from the top of the lift but I rather expect there was. With no piste either above, below or immediately alongside it wouldn't satisfy any definition of "side piste". By contrast one of the linked photos at the top of this thread showed evidence of tracks running down from the zig-zag red run off the lift downwards to (presumably) the piste leading to the bottom of the lift, that would be "side piste".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| j b wrote: |
@hold_my_biere, agreed, an interesting analysis for someone that way inclined. However they would need to drop your condition of "not being threatened from above" since the whole point is to see if appropriately defined "side piste" is lower risk precisely because the operators have already made that judgement when deciding if the adjacent pistes are safe to open.
(Plus you would end up with a circular argument: by definition anywhere an avalanche did occur was threatened from above, and if you exclude all actual avalanches from the data then it is hardly surprising you would find no avalanche deaths in the remainder).
In the case of the recent tragedy, I haven't been up there myself for a couple of years so I can't be absolutely sure there was a barrier (maybe a single rope) directing skiers not to head right from the top of the lift but I rather expect there was. With no piste either above, below or immediately alongside it wouldn't satisfy any definition of "side piste". By contrast one of the linked photos at the top of this thread showed evidence of tracks running down from the zig-zag red run off the lift downwards to (presumably) the piste leading to the bottom of the lift, that would be "side piste". |
Sorry, it would be better to phrase it "no snow above you that you couldn't ski by traversing from an open piste". I fully agree this particular incident isn't side-piste by any reasonable definition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| holidayloverxx wrote: |
| @pam w, exactly. And he didn't point out 'that people who are too powerful in their everyday lives are more likely to be the ones caught in an avalanche'. Another unevidenced assertion |
They are more likely to exert pressure to do unsafe things such as ski slopes that are avalanche prone. That is a well-understood phenomenon, adequately covered in the literature. Consequently, they are statistically more likely to be involved in an avalanche. Whether that occurred here is unknown, but an investigation into the avalanche that didn't examine this possibility would be inadequate. Rasing it as a potential factor is IMHO reasonable.
All we know is that they ventured off-piste without avalanche safety gear, which is reckless behaviour. The reports suggest that it took three hours to recover the bodies which would almost certainly have been drastically reduced if the entire party was carrying avalanche safety gear and knew how to use it.
As I have said previously every avalanche death I read about those involved have done something that I consider to be mind-blowingly stupid. This incident is no exception they skied off-piste without appropriate safety gear. Do stupid things, win stupid prizes. It IMHO does nobody any favours to brush over this. You perpetuate the myth that it's just bad luck and thus don't change people's behaviour.
I imagine the survivors are right now going through survivor guilt, and it's hard to have sympathy for them. That's why having a large metal shovel in my backpack and a probe is absolutely for me contrary to other posts in this thread. Should I ever be caught in an incident where I am called on to help in a rescue I want to be clear in my mind I did the absolute best I could to help rescue them. There is a substantial increase in suicide rates among survivors of these sorts of incidents and I am dammed if I am going to join those statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
There is a Russian roulette element, like it or not.
|
Simply not true. There have been tremendous improvements in snow science, forecasting, equipment, etc. It's in no way comparable to putting a loaded gun to your head.
I'd argue it's as safe as you want to make it. Show me a group skiing on a 1/5 risk day, carrying equipment, digging pits, avoiding problems mentioned in the avy reports that died in an avalanche. You will be hard pressed to find any.
Which is why your statistics don't make sense. You can't compare overall risk when two different groups do completely different things. Wether that's because they have different risk tolerance, or simply one group don't have the training to make good decisions.
I'm back in kyrgyzstan later this month. Current snowpack is very high risk (buried facet layer). It could be very dangerous. Or I can basically remove all risk by sticking to slopes less than 30degrees, with no overhead danger.
Backcountry skiing is only like russian roulette if you have zero clue what you are doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Risk statistics, to make any sense, need to reflect a whole lot of factors. But I contend that my analogy with risk of rainfall makes perfect sense. If the forecasters have it right, 1 of the couples who have their wedding on a day with a 1% risk of mid day precipitation will get rained on, and the other 99 will get lucky. An analysis of the cause of fatal RTAs would probably demonstrate that most are down somebody making a dangerous or careless decision. But not necessarily the person who ends up dead.
The risks are mostly low (especially in the UK where road safety is good) but only an idiot would claim that his own training and foresight can make him immune to those risks. Likewise there is a clear risk of serious injury, or even death, skiing ON piste, even for those who ski sensibly and defensively. To put yourself into some kind of sacrosanct group to whom it can never happen might be comforting but it's not rational.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On any exam one person will finish bottom and one top. Why bother revising, just hope you get lucky. Because statistics... 
The rain analogy makes no sense as we have zero control over the weather.
You simply can't assume when 100 groups go out skiing in the morning they all have equal risk, and the only thing that separates those that do or don't get caught in an avalanche is luck. You severely underestimate just how predictable avalanches are, and how much we can do to mitigate being in one.
Go find a 25degree slope with no overhead danger. Every morning check the avy report is 2 or lower, and dig a pit just to be sure. You could ski it everyday for the rest of your life and there is basically zero risk.
I'm not saying it could never happen to me. I'm saying if it does I've made a big mistake to be in that situation. As I've said before go look at all the avalanche fatality reports, you won't find one where there were no mistakes, often the mistakes are rather big!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
