 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@pam w, you can munter the risks down to almost 0 of being caught in a slide if you follow the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Mother hucker, never heard the word "munter" - googling says it's slang for "an ugly person" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@Layne, Werner Munter 3x3 Lawinen
it's a system used to evaluate go or no. Very popular in Austria and Germany
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@Layne, yep, there's a book that helps make more sense of it all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Mother hucker, I think just that basic online calculator is quite interesting and make you think a little.
I notice this in the write up on that link above:
"But what is risk reduction in dangerous avalanche terrain all about? Here, Munter warns that a goal of “zero deaths” is unachievable, as the unmanageable residual risk alone prevents this goal from being achieved. Instead, the aim is to significantly reduce avalanche accidents and the resulting number of dead and injured winter sports enthusiasts in the outdoors. Mind you, it’s not a question of minimising the absolute number, but about optimising the relationship between risk and avoidance."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
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! |
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Bruce Tremper (American avvy. Forecaster and teacher) covers the whole area of "luck and misfortune" in great detail.
I encourage all off piste skiers to read and absorb Tremper, you will not regret it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rogerdodger wrote: |
Bruce Tremper (American avvy. Forecaster and teacher) covers the whole area of "luck and misfortune" in great detail.
I encourage all off piste skiers to read and absorb Tremper, you will not regret it. |
Yes "Staying Alive in Avalanche Terrain" is excellent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
In engineering, if something is "fųckin' muntered", it is has exceeded operational tolerances and irretrievably failed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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’ve tried to think about what was known in advance of this incident, and if a reasonable risk assessment could have been made and the tragedy avoided. I’ve tried to stick only to factual, and freely available information. I am in no way trying to cast any judgement on the victims of this tragedy. My basic question is: If I had been skiing there on that day, with the available info, what choices could have sensibly and reasonably been made which would have avoided a burial.
Avalanche forecast and weather:
Meteo France Avalanche risk was 2/5
“above 2000 m, rare new slabs formed by the southwest wind. They are easily triggered and are located in the
Shaded slopes (west/north/east). Size 1 to 2 (small to medium).
The triggering of a wind slab can locally stress a persistently buried fragile underlayer and lead to a larger break: 40/80 cm.” (Meteo France Bulletin for 28/12/23)
“There’s a temporary weak layer in the snowpack which has formed particularly during the few clear nights before the snowfalls, especially on the cold high N’ish facing slopes. With densely packed windslab snow lying on top of this weak layer, this has led to some snowpack instability. Temporary weak layers will start to develop again during the next few clear nights before the snow comes again at the end of the week.” (From Henrys Avalanche Talk Snow report for the following week - 24/12/23)
Previous weather was settled with W and SW winds of 20km/h at 2000m and 30-40km/h at 3000m for the preceding 3-4 days, no new snowfall (from MeteoFrance data). There had been a series of cold nights – leading to potential facet formation as surface hoar, and depth hoar due to thin snowpack creating a high temperature gradient. There was a weak later noted in MeteoFrance forecast and on Henrys Avalanche Talk update.
There was an overnight change in the weather from the previous settled spell - stronger winds transporting more snow. Wind overnight 40-60km/h at 200m, and 50-60 at 3000m (from MeteoFrance Avalanche bulletin)
It is important to note that conditions were different on the day of incident than on the preceding few days. The principal dangers were windblown snow on that aspect and risk of full depth avalanches.
The avalanche forecast risk went from 1/5 in the previous few days to 2/5 on the day of the incident. The reason for the increase in forecast risk was due to precisely the factors which led to this slide. The previous days had little snow in the gulley, with cold nights, which causes a weak layer, which was then loaded with windslab the previous night.
It should also be noted that “moderate winds (25-40 km/hr) typically result in transport that is the most conducive to the creation of wind slabs” (https://avalanche.ca/glossary/terms/wind-transport) – These were the conditions over the preceding 24 hours, especially overnight.
It is also imperative to consider slopes above as well as slopes actually skied on. The avalanche forecast stated that slabs would be difficult to spot – The group couldn’t take for granted that they will know if they were on one, and especially if one is above, on terrain not visited or closely examined.
Observed conditions:
From the photos on pistehors.com (https://pistehors.com/JnzhsYwB1g7SdbHcmekt/two-off-piste-skiers-killed-by-avalanche-at-mont-joly) you can clearly see a thin snowpack of wind-scoured exposed areas, and the gulley where the incident occurred was filled with deeper snow. The snowpack was very thin making it ideal for depth hoar formation due to the temperature gradient. There is also clear evidence of wind-transportation of snow – look at the surface of the snow in some of the photos showing both scouring and deposition.
The following day to the incident, the guys from Avalanche Geeks visited the site and dug a pit to see what the snow was like at 2300m on a NW aspect right at the crown wall of the avalanche in question. (https://twitter.com/avalanchegeeks/status/1740800410577977430?s=46&t=1kaMBPZvR769qDSJ741llw). They found that the weak layer that was reported was indeed present. It was also very weak – the result of an Extended Column Test was ETCP3-4 – meaning that the fracture of the weak layer propagated after 3-4 taps of the hand on the overlying snow. This demonstrated that the forecasted instability was accurate at 2300m.
The avalanched group may or may not have visited this altitude (the buried victims wear just below 2000m) and been able to dig a pit, but would have been able to dig a pit anywhere between their entry point, and 1950m (the finish point of the slide which was 400m long). However they were not carrying transceiver, probe and shovel (according to media reports) so would not have been able to dig a pit.
Location and area of the incident:
The location was in a couloir which faces WNW, with slopes on skiers Left facing NW, and on skiers Right facing W. The top of the couloir starts at about 2400, just below the North Ridge of Mont Joly – an ideal place for snow accumulation. The slope angle of the fall-line of the couloir is about 30-35 degrees, but higher up towards the top is up to 45 degrees. The left-hand wall is much steeper, at >55degrees slope angle. This creates a classic terrain trap with potentially loaded areas on a range of steep aspects above.
The Avalanche forecast showed potential for small to medium slides. These would be enough for deep burial in terrain trap.
Mitigating factors:
Even if one chooses to ski and accept the risk, the potential for disaster in the event of an avalanche can still be reduced – by wearing a transceiver, and carrying a shovel, probe and airbag. Reports suggest that the group was not carrying any of these.
The risk can also be reduced by skiing in a defensive way with only one group member exposed at any one time. I have not seen any reports which detail the group behaviour, so this is not known.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, there seemed to be multiple opportunities to identify the risks of skiing in that gulley on that day, and further opportunities to mitigate the risks, either by skiing somewhere else, or by carrying appropriate equipment.
I’ve not plugged any of this data into any of the formal avalanche risk assessment tools, but I’d hope that they came out with a similar conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Duplo, I'm not an off-piste skier, but to me your analysis seems incredibly clear and helpful, without any jumping to unverifiable conclusions or offensive inferences. Thank you. I wish I could benefit from analyses like yours and the many posts by davidof I've read, but I'm sure others will. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Wow, quite the thread. Some very good and insightful posts and some……. less so!
Some general comments:
- woe betide we end up like the US. The pistes in Europe are well marked (and the ever more prevalent “nature” pistes give a taste of unpisted snow that is avalanche controlled), if you venture off them you do so at your own risk. We should all strive for an element of personal responsibility.
- we can all make mistakes.
- I agree with some of the “luck based” comments, but from the angle that a lot of us will have made poor decisions and “got away with it”. As has been said in a few posts, avalanches are actually pretty rare, when you consider the amount of people flying around off piste in your average big euro resort. The problem with this is we might have made poor decisions, not been avalanched, and consequently assumed those decisions were good. Repeating this process may lead us to believe we are experts, when of fact we have just been lucky……. and luck runs out.
- Regardless of the conditions and situation, it is very responsible to take a group off piste unequipped when you are an instructor or guide. I had thought this kind of practice had started to die out.
- if you intend to go off piste, as a minimum make sure you have the kit and know how to use it. Even better, read, learn, quiz your guide/instructor on what there decision making process is, why you are asking this slope and not that slope etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| galpinos wrote: |
| woe betide we end up like the US. The pistes in Europe are well marked |
Have to disagree with both of these comments . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| pam w wrote: |
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. |
Actually, it does detract from the argument. Whilst, as someone said earlier, all avy gear should be viewed as an insurance policy ideally never to be used the fact is that it reduces the level of risk. So, your putative 1% risk without avy equipment becomes 0.5% risk (perhaps, I'm not making a separate argument about the level of risk change) with it. That means that instead of 1 in 100 being impacted it's 1 in 200.
Speaking personally, I choose to engage in several risky activities including off-piste skiing and motorcycle racing. Having accepted that, for me, the 'game is worth the candle' I then try and reduce the risk as far as possible so that my chances of getting to enjoy the experience without paying the price are as good as possible. So, no judgement from me on anyone since I've done more than my fair share of risky things over the years. However, I do find it tragic that people have died and, just maybe, if they'd had safety equipment they might not have done. As I said to a friend once who asked why I carried an airbag which was, clearly, a bit more faff I said '... because I'd really hate to be lying buried under the snow and wishing I'd had it with me'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
This might work (apols if posted before)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@Belch, there are signs simular to that in certain places. Where does it end in Europe imagine trying to control the whole of the 3v's, PDS, EK, 4V's etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
@ed123, .... If it's something you find particularly triggering perhaps avoid threads about avalanche deaths.
Again nobody is being particularly nasty, saying anything mean, or making light of what is a very sad event. |
Here's a nasty thing @boarder2020
If you don't want people to call you out in internet forums for being a lady's front bottom, stop posting things that make you sound like a lady's front bottom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@ed123, the quote you posted is not at all nasty. It's just factual good advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| galpinos wrote: |
- woe betide we end up like the US. |
In what way (that is relevant to this discussion)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@boarder2020, How interesting.
Some things for you to reflect on.
I've just dipped into snowheads a couple of times over the last few weeks after a good absence.
Your posts do stand out.
About others: Denigrating of the achievements of others, likewise of other's troubles and tragedies, with a complete lack of empathy or ability to put yourself in the minds of others, or think about what others think of you.
About yourself: Hubristic and supremely confident in your own abilities and judgements.
I'm guessing that in snowsports (and probably in lots of other outdoor pursuits) your are technically very proficient, strong and for your age have a lot of experience. I don't think you are very old. I'd be surprised if you have turned 30, if you have- my word.
Also that you had all sorts of problems at school, were accused of bullying others possibly physically, almost certainly emotionally, this may or may not have stuck. Your parent((s) see below) almost certainly knew this was all likely to be true- but turned up screaming blue murder and your undoubted innocence. Even though they knew exactly what you were like at home. Rude, obnoxious, entitled, demanding, denigrating- especially of your mum.
If you do have a job it will be one of many, you are never content with any position- too demeaning and not commensurate with your talents and anyway the bosses are fools.
I'm sure you have absolutely no trouble getting women. Sticking with them and how you treat them will be another matter.
Daddy probably left mummy when you were just about pubescent, this isn't an excuse by the way. If he didn't then maybe this is just what you are like, but it won't change either way. This is just a usual part of the story and who knows if it is a contributory factor.
You come across as a garden variety middle class narcissist.
Now the irony. The way you go about denigrating other and the things you pick out for ridicule, for example the observations by some in this thread that they might have skied exactly the same lines and their concern that they too might have died, and your certainty that this is a mistake you are so sure you'd never ever make yourself. Well- that lack of humility and sense of superiority, the inability to think how you might be wrong, now that's a big risk factor for all sorts of problems.
Then there is your own happiness. I suppose when things are great they are great. Until you come across others who don't share your view of yourself (which will be quite common). We are all fools, teeney weeney insignificant mites. At times you will get enraged, you will certainly enrage others (if your personality away from the keyboard is as it is here- looks like it). If you do at some point seek help (which will only be when someone else makes you- if you ever do get a proper job it will be after some sort of meltdown)- then the therapist(s) will experience total misery. You'll belittle them in sessions, determine that they too are fools and (hopefully for them) demand to move on to someone better- but nobody will be good enough, because you are so wonderfully special.
You will be unable to resit replying- who knows what nonsense will come out next? At a guess- Utter dangly bits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread’s taken an unnecessarily personal and nasty turn.
I thought all opinions and insights were welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@Duplo, great post, thank you for taking the time to pull that together
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ed123, that that post of yours is frankly bizarre. If you had any skills in making those kind of psychological assessments you would knowit is deeply inappropriate to attempt it in this way. I think your post is way more out of order than anything else in this thread. Like I say - very odd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| jedster wrote: |
| @ed123, that that post of yours is frankly bizarre. If you had any skills in making those kind of psychological assessments you would knowit is deeply inappropriate to attempt it in this way. I think your post is way more out of order than anything else in this thread. Like I say - very odd. |
Bullying. Because someone disagreed with their view of avalanche risks and blame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ed123, WOW. My uneducated amature nut nurse take on this. Just use the block button.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Wow, people have died and we resort to this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Thanks @Hurtle and @jedster for the kind feedback.
I'm certainly no expert. I've only done a little off-piste skiing without an instructor or guide present, and a small amount of avalanche training. I would very definitely place myself in the novice category of off-piste skier. I do try to understand the decision making process though so that I can get better and safer myself.
In this case I really just wanted to know what information was available for decision making prior to the fact. Of course, I've not considered the human element at all. I have no idea what the group dynamics were like in this case. I do know that I am often reluctant to speak up, and am prone to following the group. So I can't say that I'd have faired any better sadly. Sobering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@Duplo, This is just hypothetical speculation but....
If as a family group you're recommended an instructor and you have a great time with him. Then you use that same instructor over many years because he's really friendly, helps you all improve, takes you to great restaurants and down fantastic runs. At some point he introduces you to off piste skiing but he assures you, its all safe and he wont take you anywhere dangerous. Then you wouldn't necessarily know any better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Group dynamics definitely play a role. The situation described by @adithorp isoften termed the "expert halo". It doesn't just apply to those with no off piste experience either, even more experienced people can succumb to it.
If the group think the leader (could be a guide or just someone perceived to have more experience) knows more than them they may be unlikely to question decisions. Or in some cases just generally switch off -"well I don't need to worry about assessing avalanche danger or checking the forecast, the guide will take care of that".
On the flip side though, sometimes there is someone in the group with more expertise, and their input may indeed be more valuable.
It's further complicated by the fact we have different risk tolerances. What might be a go with one person in the group is a turn around for another. Also the leader/guide is often chosen for their familiarity of the area - which can provide valuable experience but may also create complacency ("well I've skied this slope many times on a 3/5 day and its never slid before so it will be ok").
So yes lots to think about, and that's before we even consider the many other human factors that influence decision making. Arguably the group dynamics and human factors are often a little less black and white than the actual avalanche forecasting/risk assessment!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Thanks @boarder2020, I knew there was a term for it but couldn't bring it to mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I went to one of Henry's Avalanche Talks a few years ago. He agreed it was helpful when clients say "look we are just out to have a good day out, don't feel obliged to take risks to find us fresh powder" because even experts like him are not completely immune from psychological pressure interfering with risk assessment.
It made me think that you should never switch off from avalanche risk because you are with someone more qualified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| rambotion wrote: |
| 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've information online on every fatal avalanche for the last 20 years if anyone wants to go through them all. Most of the time I've got the altitude, slope aspect and snow information. However to save everyone the effort some main takeouts.
i. Nearly all avalanche fatalitites are caused by slab type avalanches. In most cases triggered by the group.
ii. The vast majority of victims are male, middle aged and local although more youngsters in recent years with the increasing popularity of ski touring.
-> you can divide this group into:
1. the unlucky few - just bad luck
2. the weekend warriors - frequently middle aged blokes doing something like IT or accountancy or some other boring job in one of the alpine towns and looking for adventure
3. the semi-pros: researchers, teachers, lecturers, students, skiers with a lot of free time
4. the pros
iii. Ski touring is much riskier than off piste skiing
iv. most of the variation between seasons is down to weather: PWLs, bad weather at weekends keeping ski tourers at home etc
If you look an average (French) winter season then probably 30 days are reasonably safe, 30 days are marginal and 30 days are dangerous. People in group 3 and 4 are skiing a lot and when you start doing more than 30 days per season and if you really don't want to do the same "safe" tours you really do start playing Russian roulette with live rounds. You see quite a few fatalities in the 60 days plus per year skiers who are going out in all conditions and we are talking about skiers who are experienced and mitigate the risks, especially pros.
Group 2: a bit time crunched to weekends so may go out in marginal conditions, not necessarily that knowledgable about avalanches even if they've skied a lot. As people have said on snowheads, frequently, with hindsight, their route looks like a bad choice. An analysis of the ANENA database showed there were frequently red flags that were ignored.
Remember that most ski tours or off piste skiing happens without any issues. There are around 25 avalanche fatalities in a season. Perhaps 250 incidents where skiers are buried or partially buried by snow, perhaps half with injuries where there is outside rescue. Maybe a dozen ski tours with fatalities out of 250,000 ski tours per season. So a 1 in 20,000 chance of being involved in a fatal slide, not necessarily one that kills you. Perhaps a 1 in 50,000 chance of being killed ski touring on average.
I have done a lot of annual analysis, this one from 2016/17 is typical
https://pistehors.com/25224232/review-of-french-avalanche-incidents-2016-17
| Quote: |
According to the French National Association of Snow and Avalanche Studies (ANENA) skiers are still ignoring “orange” and “red” lights that should have given them pause for thought. In all the fatal incidents the starting point of the avalanche was over 35°. The avalanche risk was 3/5 (Considerable) or 4/5 (High) in 7 of the 13 incidents. In 9 of the incidents the characteristics of the start zone in terms of orientation and or altitude were mentioned in the avalanche bulletin. In 11 incidents the avalanche was following fresh snowfall or wind. In 8 cases the attitude of participants was noteworthy, 3 were alone and in 5 other incidents there was no or little group spacing. In 8 incidents terrain traps (no run out, cliffs) were critical.
While ski tourers almost always have avalanche rescue gear: beacons, shovels and probes this is far from the case for off-piste skiers. For example the three Dutch snowboarders buried at Valfréjus which necessitated a huge search and rescue operation over several days. In 4 cases out of 9 where the victim was completely buried the lack of avalanche beacon resulted in an extended recovery time. The majority of victims were local and experienced. Five of the fatal incidents were off piste skiing, 8 ski touring continuing the trend towards ski touring as the major cause of fatal avalanche fatalities. A number of the accidents were climbing (either on skis or on foot) and ski tourers are particularly vulnerable due to the length of exposure. Route choice is primordial to ensure safety.
Of particular note are the number of mountain professionals involved. 10 of the 45 incidents reported to the ANENA involved mountain professionals and 6 out of the 13 incidents where there were fatalities involved professionals. In total five ski instructors and two high mountain guides were killed (out of 22 fatalities). Three of the four major incidents involved guides and/or ski instructors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@davidof, good post, all makes a lot of sense. Would push back a bit on your use on the stats. E.g.
| Quote: |
Perhaps a 1 in 50,000 chance of being killed ski touring on average.
|
I don't dispute the numbers, I'm just not sure sure they are particularly helpful. They perpetuate the "well you'd have to be unlucky to die in an avalanche so don't worry about minimising risks" and "people that die in avalanches are just unlucky" ideas.
If you go out on a 4/5 day the risk is obviously a lot higher than 1 in 50,000 for instance.
But I get the point you are trying to make.
| Quote: |
winter season then probably 30 days are reasonably safe, 30 days are marginal and 30 days are dangerous.
|
Sounds about right. When I was doing jan-march in Canada I'd usually end up doing about 10-15 days backcountry per winter. That's as someone who's pretty risk averse and cautious. Plus there were days where touring would have been safe but bad weather or lack of partners meant I stuck to the resort. Although we typically had at least some pwl issues in winter (typical continental snowpack), so the ratio of safe to dangerous would tend to be a lot lower in spring after some melt freeze cycles.
I do think the inbounds off piste style resorts in Canada made it much easier to be conservative. I could still get my fix of steep off-piste runs without needing to venture somewhere not avy controlled. Also following a storm we'd spend a few days milking the inbounds powder (typically resorts open terrain in stages over a few days following a storm, plus a bit of local knowledge knowing where the hidden stashes are) before even thinking about backcountry, by which time risk was usually getting lower.
| Quote: |
Of particular note are the number of mountain professionals involved.
|
Some of this can certainly be explained simply be increased time spent in avalanche terrain and having to go out on riskier days, those of us who's income doesn't depend on it can decide to pass on.
Of course you can speculate about the human elements. Are guides working in an area more likely to be complacent due to familiarity? Do guides feel pressure to take clients to certain terrain? I've heard plenty of heliskiers and catskiers moan about the terrain being too mellow.
It's certainly not as bad as Nepal where guides receive large summit bonuses and kickbacks from Heli rescues!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Of course you can speculate about the human elements. Are guides working in an area more likely to be complacent due to familiarity? Do guides feel pressure to take clients to certain terrain? I've heard plenty of heliskiers and catskiers moan about the terrain being too mellow.
|
That's the sort of thing I was referring to above and I think it IS an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@davidof,
Thanks - that's great food for thought.
One implication seems important - perhaps should be obvious but the evidence is that it isn't - ADJUST YOUR PLANS TO THE CONDITIONS. If you are planning to go skiing this week or weekend DO NOT have a fixed idea of your objective but wait and see what the conditions are and enjoy some skiing that fits those conditions. That might mean lift served rather than touring, it might mean religiously staying below 25 degrees, it might mean sticking to pistes. Relax and enjoy what is safely available. There will be other times to ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I've nothing to add to the comments, all interesting and give different perspectives. It is not an exact science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
They perpetuate the "well you'd have to be unlucky to die in an avalanche so don't worry about minimising risks" and "people that die in avalanches are just unlucky" ideas.
|
I trust you're not attributing those to me. My point was that of the skiers who take on the same risks (whether they be infinitesimal or significant) most will be lucky. The ones who take dodgy routes (and there are plenty of them) and come home unscathed are luckier than those who take small, accurately calculated, low risks and enjoy their day. The people who have carefully looked at the risk, decided rightly that it's small, but come unstuck are the unluckiest. The people unwilling to take any risk at all probably stay home and are careful with their step ladders. They certainly wouldn't ski on a quiet blue piste on a nice day.
Given the number of people out taking significant risks, only a small proportion - thankfully - will be buried.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
maybe you are projecting a little too much though. C+ could do better 
