That gives us a 99.999967 chance of a guide dying in a mountain incident on any day of the season
With odds like that I'm sticking to Austrian guides
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Steilhang, Careful, I'm in Austria
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?
Hi sah, I castigate myself rather than you... I'm quite aware of how easily any subtleties are lost on the interweb. And, on reflection, even as a light-hearted comment I can see that it could be inappropriate gven recent events.
As to the 'sticky' question, I think we should not underestimate the value of a thread such as this in raising people's awareness. It will get significant footfall from a wider audience than full-on touring and off-piste afficionados. And - as is most apparent - it stimulates questioning and discussion that is absent from bulletins, however complete and correct they may be.
Now the risk. Let's run with a few of those figures: 1600 guides and 100 guiding days. But say only 4 end in tragedy. So of a total of 160,000 guiding days in a season 4 have a poor result. A 1 in 40,000 chance of a guide death on any given day trip. In micromorts that's 25 I think (someone please check the arithmetic - mine is hopeless!).
My own current dose of daily micromorts (on account of advanced years) is about 50. That's to say, I have a 50 in a million chance of dying today, just from natural causes and going about my normal business. If I decide on going off-piste skiing with a guide (assuming that in an accident where the guide dies, everyone else dies too) I guess I have extended my risk of dying that day by 50%. That is significant, but bear in mind it has gone from 50 in a million to 75 in a million.
Let me put that another way: for every guide that dies guiding on the mountain, two of his colleagues die asleep in bed / in a car crash / falling down the stairs / using a kitchen knife carelessly... Wow, it's a dangerous world!
In a guided group that gets avalanched, does everyone perish? Let's estimate 20% perish. My risk of dying with a guide now resets to 55 micromorts - which includes the 50 I can do nothing about.
There remains a minor flaw: where members of the party die but the guide does not, we haven't the data to re-work the calcs. But if we did, I doubt we would end up in a different ball park.
I'm going to ski off piste at St Anton in a bit under 3 weeks - the first few days without a guide. Does anyone know what longer term avalanche conditions are there? Has there been the same long period without new snow?
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
snowball, On arriving it is well worth having a word with some of the pisteurs at the top of lifts near to the off piste areas. They often have very up to date info and I've always found them happy to chat for 5 mins about the snowpack stability and any localised problems.
I'm going to ski off piste at St Anton in a bit under 3 weeks - the first few days without a guide. Does anyone know what longer term avalanche conditions are there? Has there been the same long period without new snow?
It's impossible to predict 3 weeks out, your best bet is to sign up to the daily bulletins by email at http://lawine.tirol.gv.at/ you can then keep an eye on the conditions as they evolve.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Quote:
Let me put that another way: for every guide that dies guiding on the mountain, two of his colleagues die asleep in bed / in a car crash / falling down the stairs / using a kitchen knife carelessly... Wow, it's a dangerous world!
Are you saying that one-third of guides die on the mountain?
Surely that's a hugely significant figure? You make light of it and, of course, in the long run we're all dead, so it's a 100% dangerous world. But the number of guides who die working in the mountains is still significant in "occupational health" terms. In Britain there are 0.5 fatalities annually per 100,000 workers. http://www.theguardian.com/news/2013/oct/30/occupational-hazards-health-and-safety-death-statistics
After all it is free
After all it is free
pam w, If a guide spends approx a quarter of their lives up in the mountains then that should be taken into account regarding the general figures for accidents due to falls and trips in general life. It may lower the percentage slightly. In my old industry the figure was 39 deaths annually per 100,000 workers for construction, motorways are a lot more dangerous than that average.
But yeah, mountains are pretty dangerous places too, lots more fun 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.
pam w, that calculation is only for days on where guides lead off piste groups. So using the same assumptions you could say most guides who die on a day they lead an off piste group won't die from an avalanche (two in three not, one in three from avalanches).
But not every day is an off piste group.
Taking into account the rest of the year that data comes out as nearer 1 in 8 deaths of active guides in a year will be avalanches and the rest will other causes.
I guess most guides retire at some point so the true figure should be lower, assuming all those input numbers are correct.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
snowball wrote:
I'm going to ski off piste at St Anton in a bit under 3 weeks - the first few days without a guide. Does anyone know what longer term avalanche conditions are there? Has there been the same long period without new snow?
Yes. At least here around Innsbruck, it's weird; as well as myself, lots of friends have observed some pretty dodgy stuff going on.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
James the Last wrote:
Interesting though. Last year the worry was snow falling onto unfrozen ground in early December. "Nobody knows what will happen as we've never had so much snow like this before." This year the worry is snow falling on frozen ground. I think that proves there's always something to worry about.
It's (around here anyway) not so much snow falling on frozen ground that's caused issues, it's some snow falling, then sticking around for 3 weeks of very cold weather with no new snow.
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.
peanuthead wrote:
Would be fantastic to see this thread as an ongoing thread on snowpack similar to the weather outlook thread, maybe made into a sticky
Problem is it would be nowhere near specific enough. Rather than even particular regions of the Alps, you have to think about valleys, aspects, altitudes, mountains, faces and even more local features. Far too broad for one thread, would be better off in each of the specific snow conditions threads.
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
Note a spokesman for the high mountain police rescue services based in Briançon agrees that the avalanche bulletin is somewhat at odds with the situation on the ground at the moment.
Worth noting that the two avalanches in the Isere (where the plurality of recent snow fell) were on south facing slopes. One at least a wet snow slide from a high slope that caught a group on low angled terrain. The group were on this slope because the bulletin had warned of the dangers on north facing slopes.
In the Isere we had quite a bit of fresh above 1600m, about 30cm with a fair bit of snow transport, where I was from NW->SE (incidentally at least one of the avalanches was on a SE slope today) which had cross loaded couloirs with up to 60cm of fresh snow which was fairly dense. Places like the Savoie, just 30km away from the spot in the video, hardly received any fresh snow, as a consequence you only see an avalanche risk of 1 or 2.
snowball, On arriving it is well worth having a word with some of the pisteurs at the top of lifts near to the off piste areas. They often have very up to date info and I've always found them happy to chat for 5 mins about the snowpack stability and any localised problems.
Yes, if they speak English or French - I don't speak German.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
pam w wrote:
Are you saying that one-third of guides die on the mountain?
No, not quite but looks like you are paying attention! I'm saying that the risk of a 50-something active guide dying in an avalanche is about half the risk of him dying anyway, from something else. The majority of 50-something guides don't die at all though. Not in the mountains nor in their sleep / nor from running with scissors / etc / etc. The majority live until their retirement and then start popping off at an alarming rate once they reach old age.
Here's another shot at it: the risk of this much malilgned guide dying OFF the mountain is very very small.
The risk of a same guide dying ON the mountain is very very small + 50%
Quote:
You make light of it
I don't, in the sense of imagining it's funny, not at all; but I do in the sense that you can't work through the numbers and explain them without taking a bit of a step back.
Quote:
and of course, in the long run we're all dead
Yup... that's the point. And as we age, the risk of dying 'anyway' rises exponentially. And the older we get, the added risk of dying from doing something perceived as dangerous, gets relatively smaller.
But the stat you quote is interesting too: a 1 in 200,000 chance of a worker dying - if that is from occupational accident / disease then it would suggest that as an occupation guiding is 5 times risker than an average job.
That's still on Davidof's 'softened' figures - remember I trimmed annual guide in-mountain deaths to 4, leading to a 1 in 40,000 chance of dying in any given year. The main thing with these kinds of workings is not the actual number though, but the number of noughts on the end of it.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
bobski62, When I mentioned my old industry, the employees who actually worked on motorway maintenance on our area numbered approx 350, plus 120 incident support workers. In a six year period 5 deaths occurred due to road traffic collisions. Now that is pretty damn dangerous odds. Makes working in the mountains appear very safe.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Hi Avalanche Poodle, both your construction figures and the motorway ones made me sit up in my seat! They are probably a better way to set things in perspective. But I think we are both agreed, and all these numbers and Pam's do look consistent.
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?
bobski62, Yup, the motorway hard shoulder is the most dangerous working environment in the mainland UK (fishing at sea beats it). And both myself and my teams spent quite a bit of time out there, we've almost all had near misses with wandering HGVs taking off wing mirrors etc.
My dad worked for the AA from the age of 15 (messenger boy on bike), except for the war years, and retired as Road Services Manager for the Midlands. He had to attend, more than once, funerals for patrols killed on the hard shoulder of motorways whilst helping members.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
May have boobed, pam w, on that last calc - if the Guardian figure is annual (rather than normalised to a daily risk exposure). Let me read the full article and see how they have derived. But may have to leave that a few days as Christmas is coming early to the bobski household - and today is Christmas Eve and therefore manic... Been great discussing this with you and Avalanche Poodle, and what a pleasure to have a level-headed debate on such a tricky subject.
Sensible discussion on sHs. Must be Xmas Yup, it's been an interesting thread.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
We're kinda going off topic though. We can agonize for pages regarding risk of a guide dying but we all accept it will be substantially higher on unstable snowpack day versus stable.
So back on topic: how is the present situation evolving?
After all it is free
After all it is free
peanuthead, actually I don't accept that. I expect the guide to choose suitable terrain to mitigate the increased risk.
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.
Here in Serre Chevalier we had quite a mini dump (40-50cm) last Thursday that seemed to be very localised (Montgenevre and La Grave only had 10cm).
Theory here is that as snow cover was not at all good this now might provide a good base for the Xmas day dump if that materialises, as it seems to be consolidating well with the milder temps.
Have a guide mate round for drinks tomorrow so will get his view on things!
Game plan is to possibly pencil him in for Sat* or Sun, or into next week once we see what happens over Christmas and how conditions stabilise.
*just seen more heavy snow forecast for Sat - could make for an interesting transfer day!
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Weathercam wrote:
Theory here is that as snow cover was not at all good this now might provide a good base for the Xmas day dump if that materialises, as it seems to be consolidating well with the milder temps.
Of the 40 sets of explosives/gazex set off by the Serre Chevalier piste patrol over the last 2 days as part of the PIDA 90% gave positive results (slab triggered) which is quite unusual.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
davidof, where did you get that detail please?
That also might explain why NONE of the top sectors are open
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.
Weathercam wrote:
davidof, where did you get that detail please?
That also might explain why NONE of the top sectors are open
From one of the piste patrol.
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
Just got back from an avalanche course in Tignes run with 3 respected guides, all of whom commented on the depth hoar being potentially dangerous for the rest of the season...... We dug a few pits and it was there on all of them!
I was in Lake Louise 13 years ago, most of the good slopes/bowls were still closed in March, I dug a big pit on one of these and found around 30cm of depth hoar down to the ground this late in the season, obviously this was still extremely dangerous.......
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
KenX, who did you do the course with ?
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Jim Kerr, Roland Stieger and Kathy Murphy, on a refresher course with SCGB.........
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
bobski62 wrote:
... if the Guardian figure is annual (rather than normalised to a daily risk exposure).
I'm not sure quite where your source data come from, but I think you are calculating the risk per day, where as the Grauniad are talking about the annual death rate. It's not clear to me either if they have separated out incidents directly related to the work, or if they're bundling all risks in there. Or if you are. As the guides in your example only work 100/365 days, you'd also have that factor to contend with at least. The devil is often in the detail.
I'm not sure precisely what you're trying to demonstrate, but it seems likely that working in the mountains is probably more risky than desk jobs, but the risk difference may not be significant. The benefits of being physically fit may even outweigh or balance the risks. Your micromort numbers would need to reflect the health gains too. The numbers you're coming out with sound reasonable in my slightly drunk state and without checking them. Neither I nor the people taking these risks think they're significant.
The media confuse how "interesting" a death is with how likely it is. The less likely a fatality is, the more interesting they find it. Hence their world view is distorted. For example, when my mate dies in a Scottish avalanche, it's news which is worthy of TV documentaries. Yet if he'd died driving up there, it's not news worthy at all. His parents get interviewed, but they don't interview the parents of the people they pull daily out of wrecked cars and ask them how they feel about the fact that their kids chose to drive. The less likely death is given greater exposure because it's less common, not because they activity is inherently high risk.
But the good news is that most people make rational assessments, even with the media pushing for irrationality. We do walk in the mountains, and we know instinctively that it's not dangerous or stupid. Most people I know do sports which the media would consider "dangerous", and I've lost a mate or two to interesting things. On the other hand I've lost far more to boring stuff like car crashes, Cancer and Heart Disease (even though my mates are way fitter than average).
The media like stories which read: "stupid person dies". They do not like saying "we all die sometime, this person died having fun". So they will take "facts" like "avalanche warning", and ignore the fact that it was minimal. They want you to be either stupid or brave. What they won't report is that shit sometimes just happens.
--
By the way the risk here is 5/7, so pretty stable (1 is foolhardy and dangerous here). I'm not in Europe.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
I see avalanche risk in Tignes put up to 3 but not aware any snow has fallen. I wonder is this in anticipation of snow today or maybe field tests have shown underlying faceted layer to be as precarious as davidof suspected
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?
peanuthead wrote:
I see avalanche risk in Tignes put up to 3 but not aware any snow has fallen. I wonder is this in anticipation of snow today or maybe field tests have shown underlying faceted layer to be as precarious as davidof suspected
Yes, the 5cm of fresh can blow into a 20cm slab... not that big but in some areas there is more snow that can be moved. I can visibly see the snow being stripped from south and west facing slopes outside my window today as I work and piling up in the bowls (well those crystals which fall to earth and don't just melt in the air).
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
KenX, was that the holiday Gillie was on? She was supposed to be going with me to St Anton 10 days from now to ski off piste.
After all it is free
After all it is free
To indicate the power of wind in slab formation we've had about 5cm of new snow over the last week in Tignes and yet the avalanche risk has gone from 1->3 today as we had a foehn yesterday. Andreas Bjorklund remote trigged this slab yesterday, it is only about 20cm deep but they are very very sensitive (more a collapse of the weak layer but with more snow it would have run).
If you get further fresh snow on top then things will be very sketchy. In the Belledonne, with 30cm of moveable snow the avy risk is 4 above 2000 meters today.
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, that's a sobering photo.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
I gather St Anton didn't get any of the new snow (none since the 14th) so I'm getting anxious about our off piste holiday on all fronts.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
