@Inboard, That is wrong in France, the 'considerable' is the official French translation of 3/5, the number is the headline in every MT Avalanche Bulletin and is advertised at every freeride point and at the bottom of the main access lifts. 3 also necessiates the hoisting of the chequered yellow and black flag, as it is 3/5 that flag should be at half mast, risk 4 should be the same flag at full mast.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
I don't ski off piste much but am beginning to cautiously do so more, just by the side etc - nothing major. But I certainly didn't really notice that the avalanche warning scale is effectively logarithmic.
So thank you to the contributors for hammering this home.
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?
@Dzmarc, How incremental do you want it to be? 76.5/100? I think the system is fine, it's down to individual perception of risk, I alluded to it earlier, if you present a lower risk profile (2/5) then people ski steeper slopes. It's incredibly sad that people lose lives, but I don't think it's down to the system/grading it's down to an individuals sensitivity to risk.
@Alex A, Every guide I have have been with has told me that you need a contingency, in your case it was a 3hr hike, but you can still post on Snowheads...
I think that it doesn't really matter how you grade things. Irrespective of the posted risk, almost every time people go out, they come home again. But in this specific case that's hardly relevant because... the person making the decision was a professional.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
@JeanPaulValley, I personally think the system works fine, but then I've read and understood it. What i'm alluding to is those that have not. The increments are irrelevant, but I think the perception of what 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, means is miss understood by a fair few. Ultimately people need to make themselves more informed, I myself do, but what I was effectively questioning was if there was a more intuitive maybe more obvious way of understanding the warnings for those who have not read and understood them properly.
Some further analysis here.http://www.henrysavalanchetalk.com/lessons-from-tignes-avalanche-accident/
That's worth reading. I have just one issue with what Chris has to say, and it is not weight that is the issue but a weak layer. Does a slab measuring 100x0.4x150 meters (say 3000 tonnes at 500g/l as this snow probably was) really care that a skier or boarder is standing on top of it? No, it doesn't! Does a remotely triggered slab have any weight on it? No it doesn't!
It is a minor point, and perhaps Chris is trying to simplify things. However what matters, and Cyril Anceau of the CRS made this point wrt to the Tignes avalanche, is something collapsing the weak layer under the slab, after that the weight of the snow itself is sufficient. No weak layer, no avalanche, even if the new snow is poorly bonded with sub layers. The weak layer is like a house of cards. Now someone on foot is more likely to punch down through the snowpack and disturb this weakness, four people on foot, following postholes and you are increasing the chance further. If the snowpack is relatively thin, say less than 50cm you can also collapse this layer just skiing or boarding over the top. Above 1500/2000 meters there is almost always a weak layer of depth hoar at the base of the snowpack, everywhere - but in a normal year it is buried deeply enough that it cannot easily be triggered. In the case of the Tignes avalanche the initial slide has taken the snow down to ground level in places but we're talking about tonnes and tonnes of snow triggering the depth hoar at the base of the snowpack.
My friend Alain Duclos illustrates what happens perfectly here:-
Now if the weak layer is just some localized hoar or facets you get a whoumph and a few cracks or a small, localize slab. If it extends over the whole face, and / or is deep you can get a very very big avalanche that can even be triggered by someone walking along a flat ridge above or in the valley below if the weak layer extends to where they are crossing. It also explains why 100 people can ski a slope and it is the 101st person who triggers the slide: either they ski over some sensitive area (thinner part of the slab) or they follow tracks and cut down to the weak layer as happened in Ste Foy a couple of years back. Good to follow the leader's tracks but not ski directly in them.
What might have saved the Tignes group? Airbags, although it was a big slide with terrain trap (as mentioned by others above) and if you are skiing a dangerous slope just because you have an airbag you are probably making a serious error of judgement. Group spacing as Chris says in the link - but on these big, open slopes we are talking about stopping a long, long way down or off to the side (look at the Ste Foy avalanche) which is not really feasible with guided groups. The Tignes instructor was already concerned about picking up a lost snowboard, having a 1km gap between the top and bottom skier would have been difficult to manage.
Of course after each of these tragedies we can go back to the avalanche bulletin and see all the clues were there. The foehn winds moving snow around, weak layers formed in the January cold, thin snow-pack with subsequent strong temperature gradients. More interestingly this snow cut from the day before the slide, taken in the Espace Killy and circulated amongst snow professionals in the area: foehn winds, blown snow, a weak layer, even some sahara sand in the snowpack. A clear warning about stability.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Fri 17-02-17 1:42; edited 2 times in total
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@davidof, fascinating and frightening in equal measure.
After all it is free
After all it is free
@davidof, Cheers.
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.
@davidof,
Thanks for the comments.
If the nature of a guided group means you cannot space out appropriately then surely the terrain simply is not suitable for a guided group?
But it does seem that all that is second order - the avalanche report and the nature of the slope simply meant it was not a reasonable route for a guided group that day.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@jedster, some reports said they had already skied the same slope earlier that day, also reading Henrys report says the favoured slope is further over, less steep without the terrain trap so perhaps they were heading there?
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
thanks @davidof, interesting piece, i was interested in the outcome of the Ste Foy as a couple of friends are going out there tomorrow, googled and found this http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/horror-moment-avalanche-swallows-up-4983804 probably covered before but everyone survived if not battered. Looks horrendous, the mirror video also has louder sound where you can hear the slide. Nasty stuff
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.
Back on Tignes, why have the resort (question not blame) not continued the avalanche barriers all the way across the slope rather than changing the town defence strategy to terrain trap?
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@JeanPaulValley, yeah good point. I didn't really go into the detail of that day, but lets just say we should never have been down that itinerary in the first place. 55 degrees in places and climbing out could have been avoided by not doing the route at all. But I hear you and you are very true, that at least he got me out safe. Did I tell you I had to carry his skis?!
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Quote:
the avalanche report and the nature of the slope simply meant it was not a reasonable route for a guided group that day.
Yeah. If you were applying something like the reduction method then you would not have taken that route. Admittedly, the reduction method works largely by keeping you off steeper north facing slopes on high risk days but there we are. So from a purely personal perspective, I would not have made that terrain choice. That gives me no comfort whatsoever because after some careful thought, if a guide had suggested it, I think I could have gone along with it - and so potentially falling into a fatal heuristic trap.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
davidof wrote:
That's worth reading. I have just one issue with what Chris has to say, and it is not weight that is the issue but a weak layer. Does a slab measuring 100x0.4x150 meters (say 3000 tonnes at 500g/l as this snow probably was) really care that a skier or boarder is standing on top of it? No, it doesn't! Does a remotely triggered slab have any weight on it? No it doesn't!
It is a minor point, and perhaps Chris is trying to simplify things. However what matters, and Cyril Anceau of the CRS made this point wrt to the Tignes avalanche, is something collapsing the weak layer under the slab, after that the weight of the snow itself is sufficient. No weak layer, no avalanche, even if the new snow is poorly bonded with sub layers. The weak layer is like a house of cards. Now someone on foot is more likely to punch down through the snowpack and disturb this weakness, four people on foot, following postholes and you are increasing the chance further. If the snowpack is relatively thin, say less than 50cm you can also collapse this layer just skiing or boarding over the top. Above 1500/2000 meters there is almost always a weak layer of depth hoar at the base of the snowpack, everywhere - but in a normal year it is buried deeply enough that it cannot easily be triggered. In the case of the Tignes avalanche the initial slide has taken the snow down to ground level in places but we're talking about tonnes and tonnes of snow triggering the depth hoar at the base of the snowpack.
Great post davidof, does this go someway to explaining how they had skied the slope earlier in the morning fine but on this occasion, they disturbed the weak layer?
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
I was "Spring" ski touring up in the Galibier sector today and as I was climbing up could see skiers coming down a steep face (in good powder has to be said), back of Pic Blanc Galibier and then three more climbing up.
As you can see from the pics, very fresh tracks with only those guys having skied it, as maybe more aware people know the history of that face which claimed two lives back in 2015 and it regularly goes.
I was quite relieved to watch them all get down ok, but was chatting to the owner of the restaurant at the Lautaret afterwards and he like me said he'd go nowhere near it at the moment, and I'm not too sure if I'll ever do it again.
Also has to be said that the three that did it were not locals (53 plates), and did not have a guide.
But now how many touring up there will be tempted by seeing those tracks?
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
How steep is that slope @weathercam?
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?
@Alex A, he sounds like a proper tool. Golden rule of the Midi IMO is "never go down the North face" unless, of course, you want steep scrambles and 45% plus...
I had an "incident" a couple of weeks ago, having to traverse/skin across a 40% slope that consisted of ice bonded to grass, I slipped and went for a bit of a slide. The guide was pretty blase about it "you might have brown pants but nobody would have got killed"
My overriding reaction to this is that I am very surprised that the Lavachet wall is not avalanche controlled. I perfectly aware that when a skier is off piste he is at his own risk, and that part of the mountain is very much off the edge of the piste map; that's not my point.
However, it's very bad PR for a resort for people to die within sight of the bars in town, so it surprises me that they don't put more effort into controlling known dangerous areas like that. After all, a ski resort is just like any other holiday resort and giving potential customers the idea that you can die in the village of Tignes is just poor PR.
I'm thinking more of the signs they post on lift queues, which still use the grading system. I know they put the text there, but how easy is it for people who don't understand it to just go ... 'oh its only 3/5 today, it will be fine.'
Those sort of uninformed decisions cause accidents, even if its not on the day they made that decision, as they could easily build up a self confidence which could lead to a future accident.
I totally agree. I've been with mates who have said exactly that... "It's only a 3. You coming?"
If you look at a different way, it becomes a whole different scale: 1= 20% of the terrain is at high risk, 2= 40% of the terrain is at high risk, 3= 60%..... etc. This mindset starts to make you a lot more picky about where you are happy to go.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@Weathercam, i once had a discussion with Chris Davenport on it, in the context of a general discussion on educating young people on backcountry/offpiste safety. He acknowledged that you couldn't possibly stop all people doing things that were beyond sensible margins of risk, you just had to provide as much resource and guidance as possible.
Incidentally he said his overriding skiing ambition was not anything especially gnarly but to "be" Klaus Obermeyer, of the eponymous clothing brand who was still skiing at 96.
After all it is free
After all it is free
davidof wrote:
Good to follow the leader's tracks but not ski directly in them.
Was just wondering if it was better to traverse above or below the original track. Whether traversing below would reduce the chance of triggering the snow above you.
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.
@Weathercam,
Glad to hear you are on the move again.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
bar shaker wrote:
Dzmarc wrote:
@Inboard, very true.
I'm thinking more of the signs they post on lift queues, which still use the grading system. I know they put the text there, but how easy is it for people who don't understand it to just go ... 'oh its only 3/5 today, it will be fine.'
Those sort of uninformed decisions cause accidents, even if its not on the day they made that decision, as they could easily build up a self confidence which could lead to a future accident.
I totally agree. I've been with mates who have said exactly that... "It's only a 3. You coming?"
If you look at a different way, it becomes a whole different scale: 1= 20% of the terrain is at high risk, 2= 40% of the terrain is at high risk, 3= 60%..... etc. This mindset starts to make you a lot more picky about where you are happy to go.
I think the real problem is that the scale doesn't really get used to its full extent. 1 is rarely seen in conjunction with easily accessible freshish snow in any major resort, 5 usually the lifts are closed for the day. So most days are a 2 or 3 with the odd very heavy snowfall/wind day getting to a 4. I think there is a certain psychology that says "well 2 is fine so 3 is just a bit more, we'll watch out" If the culture was 2- go,3 -no go as a default maybe people would think a bit harder.
But its all pretty moot when so many of the incidents do involve very experienced instructors or guides (as I believe some of the incidents in Lech have been). Maybe there is also a need for pros to say "I won't take your money today because I don't don't think it's safe to deliver the experience you are looking for" or punters to say "We're happy with mellow we really don't need the steep & deep experience".
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
James the Last wrote:
My overriding reaction to this is that I am very surprised that the Lavachet wall is not avalanche controlled. I perfectly aware that when a skier is off piste he is at his own risk, and that part of the mountain is very much off the edge of the piste map; that's not my point.
However, it's very bad PR for a resort for people to die within sight of the bars in town, so it surprises me that they don't put more effort into controlling known dangerous areas like that. After all, a ski resort is just like any other holiday resort and giving potential customers the idea that you can die in the village of Tignes is just poor PR.
The Wall is just one tiny part of the non piste terrain in EK that is next to civilisation. It would be impossible to control it, so they don't, but they do tell you that they don't. In some areas, they have put up fences that you need to climb over or go around to access the off piste beyond them.
It all comes back to off piste being off piste.
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.
James the Last wrote:
... However, it's very bad PR for a resort for people to die within sight of the bars in town, so it surprises me that they don't put more effort into controlling known dangerous areas ...
Not sure this is entirely practical. Any resort's first priority after a big dump is to get the pistes open - and even this can often require closing higher parts of the area while slopes above pistes are cleared. And next, particularly in a season like this, is to collect and redistribute snow in the hope of making it last the season.
If they also had to clear significant slopes that don't impact pistes - which could conceivably be more than as much again, even just for areas close to / within sight of the resort - it would take considerably longer. And given that slopes close to resort are likely to be served by resort level lifts, and that off-piste skiers can traverse in from any direction, they probably wouldn't be able to open any lifts until they had finished.
Quite apart from the fact that you don't know in advance exactly how the snow pack will develop - so you might clear a slope that a few weeks later would have been excellent off-piste.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@Dave of the Marmottes, you make an excellent point. There have been many high levels meetings (apparently) in recent years amongst the Chamonix guides arguing heatedly (apparently) over the constraints of client demand, clientgeld and safety.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
I have a question and excuse my ignorance or if it's been mentioned above. But peaks like the one in question would it not make sense to ring fence the top slope with avalanche gates? Thus stopping any large slabs falling down
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
I think the real problem is that the scale doesn't really get used to its full extent. 1 is rarely seen in conjunction with easily accessible freshish snow in any major resort, 5 usually the lifts are closed for the day. So most days are a 2 or 3 with the odd very heavy snowfall/wind day getting to a 4. I think there is a certain psychology that says "well 2 is fine so 3 is just a bit more, we'll watch out" If the culture was 2- go,3 -no go as a default maybe people would think a bit harder.
But its all pretty moot when so many of the incidents do involve very experienced instructors or guides (as I believe some of the incidents in Lech have been). Maybe there is also a need for pros to say "I won't take your money today because I don't don't think it's safe to deliver the experience you are looking for" or punters to say "We're happy with mellow we really don't need the steep & deep experience".
It is the case that some avi forecasts are in a more informative format than others and I believe that France, given it's tourist clients could publish in other languages and a better format.
But as you say when experienced guides are being taken you have to wonder.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
DanFuller wrote:
I have a question and excuse my ignorance or if it's been mentioned above. But peaks like the one in question would it not make sense to ring fence the top slope with avalanche gates? Thus stopping any large slabs falling down
You'd get below those fences... and then you're on unsupported slope.
Rather like some politics, I think you can't protect people from themselves. In other places they use law to stop people from riding on some slopes, but even that is to stop them endangering others. Go into the back country and you can kill yourself in lots of ways.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
I have to admit, the local avi forecasts here in the Salzburb region give a lot of info to think about...
Fresh snowdrifts
Afternoon
Morning
Some new fallen snow (5-15 cm) and strong W/NW wind creating new, small snowdrifts today, especially near ridgelines. They will bond poorly with the snow base, in some cases be triggerable by minimum additional loading. Poor visibility makes on-site assessment hard.
Avalanche Danger
The avalanche danger will rise to MODERATE widespread today.
New fallen snow and strong W/N winds will give rise to new snowdrift patches on east and south-facing slopes, as well as in gullies and bowls in all aspects The shallow drifts can often be triggered by the weight of one sole skier. Danger of falling in steep terrain; in steep gullies there is enough snow to completely bury a person
The old-snow problem persists: some danger zones focus on north-facing slopes above 2100m, Caution in extremely steep, shady terrain behind protruberances, on ridgeline slopes and particularly in rocky, shallow-snow zones, where (primarily by large additional loading) a slab avalanche can be triggered. It is not impossible that it would then fracture down to deeper layers inside the snowpack, especially between 2000 and 2800m on W-N-E slopes in the Hohe Tauern and grassy mountains of the Upper Pinzgau in particular.
Snow Layering
The new fallen and newly drifted snow was deposited on top of melt-freeze crusts on sunny slopes, generally capable of bearing loads; in foehn-exposed regions atop wind crusts capable of bearing loads; on shady slopes atop well settled, often wind-compacted powder with some surface hoar.
Potential fracture points only on north-facing slopes. Partly beneath the thin, foehn-created drifts from Monday and Tuesday, partly inside the snowpack beneath older snowdrift accumulations lying atop loosely-packed layers. Deep down inside the snowpack are other potential fracture points from January which are particularly threatening in the Hohe Tauern and the western grassy mountains.
Alpine Weather Forecast (ZAMG Salzburg)
Today, Friday, visibility will swiftly deteriorate during the morning, clouds and fog move in from the northwest, intermittent snowfall. By Saturday morning 5-15 cm of fresh fallen snow expected. Brisk to strong-velocity W/N winds. Temperatures will drop. At 2000m: -6 degrees; at 3000m_ -12 degrees.
Tomorrow, Saturday, clouds and fog will block the sun until midday, possible light snowfall in the afternoon. As of midday, visibility will improve, the sun come through. In the Nockberge, sunshine starting in the morning. The initially strong NW/NE winds will slacken off. At 2000m: -7 degrees; at 3000: -12 degrees.
Short Term Development
Little change
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?
Over in the Val d'Aran they looked at their forecasting and produced a short paper:
^^ But to follow on, in reference to the incident, it's all a bit mute.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
. Maybe there is also a need for pros to say "I won't take your money today because I don't don't think it's safe to deliver the experience you are looking for" or punters to say "We're happy with mellow we really don't need the steep & deep experience".
Actually, one of my mates makes a point of saying to any guide we ski with "look we have wife and kids at home, we're out to have a good day but not take unnecessary risks, don't feel you need to push it". I've always thought it a bit unnecessary but the more I think about it the more it I might just help the guide with his own heuristics.
My overriding reaction to this is that I am very surprised that the Lavachet wall is not avalanche controlled. I perfectly aware that when a skier is off piste he is at his own risk, and that part of the mountain is very much off the edge of the piste map; that's not my point..
The more I think about this incident the more I wonder do we need to move to an american model of avalanche patrolling at least parts of off piste. I mean look at the amount of posts on this thread? Granted snowheads are probably the top 5 per cent of skiers generally but there's obviously a huge and growing interest in skiing off piste. How many vids do you see online of people skiing pistes nowadays? Its not what skiers aspire to.
People are going to keep dying. And people are going to keep going off piste. Should we be doing something about it? Should a resort go out on a limb and go for the market and say we're going to blast off piste to make it safer for our skiers?
What would it cost? How many of us would be willing to pay say a 20 euro premium on our ski pass for increased levels of safety? I would.
I should say i've never skied the states but from what I understand they blast off piste within bounds.
Any stats on respective levels of within bounds deaths in the states?
And any stats on percentage of fatalities who are in the company of mountain professionals at the time of death? Because we often instinctively point fingers and presume that people up and that's why they died and I lived (I call it Victor syndrome - like Victor book for boys, everyone else dies, I live, I'm the hero). But I'd guesstimate at least half the reports of fatalities I read are people with guides. Before I read this thread I wouldn't even have considered the difference between a mountain guide and an off piste guide.I can't say that those people have done anything wrong - they've acknowledged they're out of their depth and have paid not inconsiderable amounts to engage local expertise. And they've died doing it.
I mean if you remove ski tourers from the stats how many fatalities are with paid guides and how many are Joe public off the side of the piste underestimating risk level 3?
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@8611, Resorts in the US are a lot smaller.
After all it is free
After all it is free
8611 wrote:
I should say i've never skied the states but from what I understand they blast off piste within bounds.
They bomb the shit out of everything. Safer that way
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.
Thornyhill wrote:
8611 wrote:
I should say i've never skied the states but from what I understand they blast off piste within bounds.
They bomb the shit out of everything. Safer that way
a Trumpism
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
What are the risks of being caught in an avi?
How many people off piste a year in the Alps and how many get caught? Seriously injured? Die?
How does this compare to Horse riding? Rugby? Scuba diving?
How many off piste skiers die driving to the mountains each year?
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
he sounds like a proper tool. Golden rule of the Midi IMO is "never go down the North face" unless, of course, you want steep scrambles and 45% plus...
up and that's why they died and I lived (I call it Victor syndrome - like Victor book for boys, everyone else dies, I live, I'm the hero). But I'd guesstimate at least half the reports of fatalities I read are people with guides. Before I read this thread I wouldn't even have considered the difference between a mountain guide and an off piste guide.I can't say that those people have done anything wrong - they've acknowledged they're out of their depth and have paid not inconsiderable amounts to engage local expertise. And they've died doing it.
