 Poster: A snowHead
|
davidof, keenly observed!
Yes, our base is Termignon again for w/c 14 April. We've a big group (7!) and some are less experienced tourers so we're likely to stick somewhere around La Femma. At least we're assured of a good cheeseboard!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Woosh wrote: |
| I think a lot of people have taken extra care this winter due to the weak layer from December. I skied in Val d'annivers and the mountain guide we had said a lot of lines that are skied a lot during a normal season had been left empty the whole season. But skiing across a huge avalanche that had taken the whole side from the top down to the Lac de Moiry the previous week was sobering. Luckily, the people who had released was on top of the mountain and were unharmed. Still, such a scary season and as davidof says, care should still be taken. |
Whoa sounds major- when was that ? Do you know what avalanche conditions were that day?
That's an amazing route but I didn't think so steep to be high risk for such a major slide. It's a long way down
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Here is food for thought though: should we really be taking extra care 'because its a really dangerous winter' (overall season stats yet to confirm this), or to put it another way (and more to the point) should we allow ourselves to take less care, just because a winter is considered 'safe' or 'normal' (and I know of enough fatal avalanches in 'normal' years to not consider any winter 'normal' personally...)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
Whoa sounds major- when was that ? Do you know what avalanche conditions were that day?
That's an amazing route but I didn't think so steep to be high risk for such a major slide. It's a long way down
|
I skied in Val d'annivers in the beginning of March. The week before I was in Verbier and assuming same avalanche conditions, it was 3 in the beginning of the previous week and 2 in the middle and 3 again towards the end. So I would assume it was 3 when it was released.
The avalanche was released on the top of the mountain almost straight up from the dam wall and debris all the way down to the lake. I would guess it was 50 m - 75 m wide and half a meter deep. If someone would have been caught in it, it would have been a miracle to survive it.
When all that has been said, it was one of the most amazing scenic routes I have skied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Woosh, was that on the "opposite" side to the off piste run down to the dam from Zinal? If so that often goes as it's steep and gets the sun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Nope, from top of Zinal, and skiers left. A little left from the normal run, but still one of the normal runs down to the dam from what I understood. So the ones who had released it probably skied down to the freeride zone and hiked a little to get over the top where they had released it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
offpisteskiing,
| Quote: |
Here is food for thought though: should we really be taking extra care 'because its a really dangerous winter' (overall season stats yet to confirm this),
|
IMO, yes. Just the same as if I see the temp is down at -2 when I cycle to work or when the weatherman tells me it's very windy on the roads and I am driving. Or I get a bullletin from the police to say there has been a spate of burglaries and I am extra vigilant. It doesn't mean I am not careful or vigilant normally but given I know there are is increased risk it would be foolish not to pay heed. Basically there is a general overriding observation that can be built into the way I go about my business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will be open to correction on this point, but my understanding is danger is not over yet; as snowpack thins the buried weak layer which is still there will be prone to reactivation (+/- triggered by a late dump). So continued caution required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Layne, but to rephrase my question above (since you only quote half of it), do you consider risk level 3 to be more dangerous this year than risk level 3 on other more 'normal' years?
This is certainly the impression I get from the skiing public in general, and it concerns me because in that case people aren't taking enough care in years which aren't 'obviously' dangerous...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I imagine the risk levels posted by the areas factor in this years known 'hoar' layer.
So to me it's more about the judgements you make yourself when on the hill. If you are risk assessing a situation you would look at all the normal factors and then add in the acknowledged instability this year. So what might pass your personal test as ok to proceed any other year may not this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| midgetbiker wrote: |
| I imagine the risk levels posted by the areas factor in this years known 'hoar' layer. |
Yes, obviously...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
offpisteskiing,
| Quote: |
| Layne, but to rephrase my question above (since you only quote half of it), do you consider risk level 3 to be more dangerous this year than risk level 3 on other more 'normal' years? |
No but IMO that's not a sensible question, your previous one was better 
| Quote: |
| This is certainly the impression I get from the skiing public in general, and it concerns me because in that case people aren't taking enough care in years which aren't 'obviously' dangerous... |
Well, for me I am glad people have taken extra care because I got the impression earlier in the year people weren't paying heed to the warnings. I am not sure people take more than a passing interest in the risk level. It is but a generalisation. Has been noted on here level 2 still carries plenty of risk, if you are on the wrong slope at the wrong time.
There is no wrong or right in this... we're just discussing human nature, inability to process information, etc... Not that there is anything wrong in such discussion. Anyway that's just my 2p worth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| offpisteskiing wrote: |
| midgetbiker wrote: |
| I imagine the risk levels posted by the areas factor in this years known 'hoar' layer. |
Yes, obviously... |
Obviously & precisely; so a level3 (for example) this year is no riskier than a level3 any other year, it is just that a level3 status will be triggered by a lesser set of new circumstances than in another year (because this year there is the existing predisposition to slip).
Which brings me back to: When making your own decisions about a situation then, yes, you should factor in that this is a 'bad' year, as you too need to allow for the predisposition that exists.
All of which does not mean that I don't take the risk lightly in any other year just because it is not labelled as 'bad'.
Having said all of the above I suspect others do (take the risk too lightly) and so I probably agree with the point your OP may have been trying to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| offpisteskiing wrote: |
Layne, but to rephrase my question above (since you only quote half of it), do you consider risk level 3 to be more dangerous this year than risk level 3 on other more 'normal' years?
This is certainly the impression I get from the skiing public in general, and it concerns me because in that case people aren't taking enough care in years which aren't 'obviously' dangerous... |
I think the issue is that the "skiing public" haven't given much of a thought to risk levels at all, and if they do they often consider 3 to be somewhat average risk so a kind of green light so saying that the conditions are particularly dangerous at a certain moment - that was the big weak hoar layer in early December followed by fresh snow - at least catches the interest of the general skiing public and maybe gets them thinking long term about avalanche risk and the conditions that lead to that risk or at the very least looking at the avalanche bulletin in resort and making informed decisions. Finally it looks like the number of fatal incidents is going to be lower than average for this season in France (in a normal year the majority of incidents are clustered from Dec-Mar), higher in Switzerland but with a lot of the incidents occurring in December.
| Quote: |
| I will be open to correction on this point, but my understanding is danger is not over yet; as snowpack thins the buried weak layer which is still there will be prone to reactivation (+/- triggered by a late dump). So continued caution required. |
Which ties in nicely with Simon's point - that you need to be careful all the time... and that also related to the incident where Sylvain died that I posted above: http://pistehors.com/an-ordinary-day-23252218.htm
They passed what they thought was the principal danger of their descent and let their guard down on a gentle tree covered slope. It should be noted, and this is important for any airbag users, that Sylvain had not attached the crotch strap to his bag. The Canadian avalanche association recently highlighted the importance of this in protecting airbag users.
and how about this quote from Bruce Tremper on wearing an airbag
| Quote: |
| “I only us it on the dangerous days. Then I have to think, well if it’s dangerous, why am I going there. So, that’s a better choice, I think, is to say, hm, if I’m bringing my airbag backpack today maybe I should go there. So that’s a better way to think about it.” – Bruce Tremper |
so he only takes his Airbag when he thinks he might get caught in an avalanche; sounds similar to what Simon is questioning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Level 3 is halfway on the scale so naturally seems like an average kind of risk. Most people will just look at the nice convenient risk 1 - 5 and if it's 3 or less go for it. I'm guilty to some degree of that myself. The devil is in the detail - in this case reading the local avi reports, if they are available in a language you understand and if you have a fair bit of knowledge to understand them - which you should if you want to reduce your daily risk. But how much knowledge is actually useful to you. none, then you are a probably a plonker, a little bit and you 'think' you understand (still not useful), a bit more knowledge and you start to realise you don't actually understand that much at all, even more and maybe you get over-confident or actually good at it. Personally I understand some of the science, done a few courses (too many years ago), keep read up on assessing avi risk and safe travel, group dynamics and line selection etc but I'm aware there's lots I don't understand and I just don't have enough on mountain experience and formal training.
Bottom line in my view is a simple 1 to 5 scale just hides the important details, used as one bit of data in context is okay but by itself leaves you exposed. Yesterday where I was skiing was a general 3 but as is quite normal the risk changed with altitude, exposure, angle. time of day etc.
Here's the direct link to the crotch strap article. Hmmm, maybe I should dig mine out (actually forgot I had one) like many people I know with ABS bags it's not used, as too much faff when mainly doing lift served off piste (I like to take my bag off on the lift)
http://snowbrains.com/one-airbag-feature-dont-know-will-save-life/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Quite sobering reading the weekly avi round up. including 2 dead on piste in Sochi day after the paralympics finished. http://snowbrains.com/weekend-avalanche-news-2/
Would be nice if snowheads could take a feed like this but then again would be nice if the forum did many things better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| waynos wrote: |
| Level 3 is halfway on the scale so naturally seems like an average kind of risk. Most people will just look at the nice convenient risk 1 - 5 and if it's 3 or less go for it. I'm guilty to some degree of that myself./ |
A common fallacy.
Level 3 if you read the formal description = considerable risk
Dont forget level 5 is rarely used and is used specifically to mean danger to towns, road & railways (This may only happen once every 3->4 years). Therefore level 3 = 75% on the scale of normally used 1->4 levels.
Offpisteskiing is well placed to comment, and makes a very good point.
This winter clearly had a well publicised and long lasting weak layer which formed in late December.
Whilst the layer may indeed still exist in certain areas the winter 2013/14 (as a whole) doesn't seem to have been exceptional ?
Davidof's stats would back this assertion up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Haggis_Trap, I do get the fact level 3 is considerable - I was making the point that the scale for 1 - 5 to those that don't understand the meaning of the risk levels may assume 3 is in the middle so seems kind of okay - which I think is what davidof said as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Been with a guide all week who I know well and is well respected etc etc
Back on the week long Euro avalanche course I was on in January he was asked what would it take to lessen the impact of the weak layer.
Back then he said lots of snow, but in regular snow falls and not a few major dumps.
Asked him again last night about that "layer", and he referred back to what he said in Jan and what indeed we have had this season.
However he stressed that when things warm up later and snow consolidates more and warms up then that layer will produce slides on N facing slopes.
We are in a fantastic area, best ever in France I've experienced, so much potential, skinning up yesterday we were chatting away having taken a lift (which this week are 50% off) just looking around and I asked him out of ten what would he give this area, an 11 out of 10 
Will do more of a report laters but pics from yesterday here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Weathercam, please don't put any long reports or pictures on this thread. It makes it harder to read the parts you want on your phone. Maybe confine them to the serre chavalier thread
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Weathercam, Looks great. Can you recommend the guide, and if so, what's his name?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the end the French season will probably come in with below average fatalities but there has been a nasty cluster of incidents on the French/Italian border close to the village of Bessans with six deaths since the start of May in five incidents. Some information here:-
http://pistehors.com/ski-tourer-in-critical-condition-after-savoie-avalanche-23321638.htm
amongst the deaths, Mario Monaco, one of the big beasts of Italian steep skiing. He joins a couple of other big names this season, Emmanuel Cabau, who many of you will know from his ski touring guides and Italian guide Simona Hosquet.
Note that the Haute-Maurienne area around Bessans is a favourite spring ski touring sector so will concentrate a lot of touring activity in May.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidof, that's sad to hear.
Would you mind summarizing what happened this season in the Alps, to briefly explain how the dangerous initial conditions came about and also how they seemingly stabilized? (Or perhaps there's a similar summary elsewhere that you could point us to.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Wow man, avalance should be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pyremaniac:
Heavy November snowfall gave widespread but thin early season snow cover.
Cold and clear weather in December lead to the formation of depth hoar in this thin snowpack. Depth hoar formation is reduced or stopped as the snowpack becomes thicker and/or weather becomes milder. Because there was good but thin cover in most places followed by an extended spell of cold, dry weather, more depth hoar formed this season than is normal. Depth hoar is a weak layer which forms at the bottom of the snowpack. It is persistent and only really removed by avalanche purging, by heavy rain or in the spring thaw (either by wet snow purging or by repeated freeze/thaw cycles).
Very dangerous avalanche conditions were predicted when new snow arrived. However, early January saw a spell of mild weather, with some rain, then new snow falling slowly, but steadily. This meant that some of the depth hoar in the snowpack was removed by the mild/wet weather. The steady snowfall also meant that off-piste skiing was limited due to the bad weather. New snow eventually built-up to a point where it insulated the weak depth-hoar layer from the weight & impact of people skiing on the top. January was therefore not as dangerous as many expected.
Intermittent but steady new snowfall continued through February. The situation remained more or less unchanged, but some areas (especially high, shady, north-facing slopes) which had retained a large amount of depth hoar became over-loaded by the weight of the snowpack above and full-depth avalanches resulted.
March & April were generally mild and dry. The deeply-buried weak layer eventually reared its head again as the snowpack warmed and melted, leading to full-depth wet-snow avalanches in many areas.
That's my summary anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| stevomcd wrote: |
That's my summary anyway. |
Thanks Steve 
We can argue why the Haute Maurienne saw a lot of activity in May and not other areas that are well skied at that time such as the Mont Blanc Range or the Ecrins - both of which also had warnings of considerable avalanche danger earlier in the month. We must be talking so many imponderables - the historic of the snow pack along with marginal differences in snow, wind etc along with the ambitions of the people skiing in the area at the time that it will remain beyond our ability to forecast precisely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Thanks a lot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
