 Poster: A snowHead
|
clarky999, actually 1 cm off the piste can potentially put you in as much as danger as 1 m off the piste as being on the piste. Avalanches can not only occur onto piste but onto you tucked up in bed in your chalet in the middle of town.
I have said repeatedly there're always exceptions, just extraordinarily rarely (so rarely that when they occur they get plastered over the internet like they're going out of fashion). Point is that there is a very simple general rule: the further you are from a piste, the further you are from avalanche control. Of course if you think avalanche control is a myth or just a made up excuse to blow snow up for lulz then I'd understand your position. The size and spread of an avalanche is very difficult to estimate accurately. No one would pretend they can control to within a short distance like several metres. And even if they were arrogant enough to think they could, unless they were also crazy, they'd want the mother of safety margins. Every time. Your life and their livelihood and liberty would depend on it. At a guess probably not until you are on average hundreds of metres away from a piste are you guaranteed to be totally free from the risk that where you are skiing might not be just exactly as outrageously dangerous or nursery-slope safe as nature had always intended.
patricksh, I guess you know there're cliffs right at the edge of many runs in many resorts, not just Tignes. As skiing 1m beyond the piste markers in these places would require skills of levitation, this practise would involve significant risk though avalanches at least would be of secondary concern!
I'm not advocating skiing next to the piste in daft places. I'm just saying that if you see a tame patch of snow next to your favourite blue run that is begging for it, the chances are hugely remote that you and the hundreds of other blissfully ignorant people who will ski it the same morning will be caught in an avalanche. No point quoting exceptions at me like immediately off the piste the gradient is completely different from on the adjacent piste or it could be a glacier run with hidden crevasses or I know one where there's always this huge icicle dangling just off piste ready to impale some unsuspecting innocent. I've already said that the main dangers just off piste are terrain and surface prep (lack of), and the OP was asking about avvy safety of, I'm pretty sure, skiing off-piste by the piste where it looks invitingly the same as on the piste just unpisted, not of skiing off-piste by the piste where it doesn't even look like a distant relation much less a scene from Candide Thovex's latest flick. Fact remains that if it looks reasonably safe to the average intermediate holiday skier, even if the avvy trained amongst us could come up with a list of unhelpful characteristics, chances are nevertheless extremely low that that skier will be caught in an avalanche.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Reading a thread likes this make me suspect that some people think an avalanche is something that happens above you and "takes you out". Massive releases from distant slopes that hit a piste or off piste area can happen, but they are rare (and if those conditions prevail whole mountains will be closed and the risk will be 5/5). The main avalanche risk to any off piste skier is triggering an avalanche themselves. Virtually all victims in a slide either caused the slide or were in the same group as the person that caused the slide. Even a small slope with fresh snow on it can be a serious risk if it's steep enough, the nature of the slopes above is largely irrelevant.
Knowing that a slope a few metres away is safe is of no relevance - the slope you are on right now is what matters. If you are off the side of a piste and there is no piste below you then the slope you are on may not be controlled, and unless you know otherwise you should assume it is not controlled.
To address some of slikedges specific points:
| Quote: |
Point is that there is a very simple general rule: the further you are from a piste, the further you are from avalanche control.
|
Distance really has nothing to do with it The location you are at is either controlled or it is not. A slab of snow on a slope has no idea that there is a piste a few metres away. Sure, if there are slopes below then it will be made safe (or the run will have been closed), but if not, then no control is ever promised. I agree that if you are close to a piste then you benefit from control of large slopes above, but as I said above that's really not the problem.
| Quote: |
if you see a tame patch of snow next to your favourite blue run that is begging for it, the chances are hugely remote that you and the hundreds of other blissfully ignorant people who will ski it the same morning will be caught in an avalanche
|
Agree. And the same goes for a tame 20 degree slope miles from anywhere, so long as it is not threatened by a steeper slope. It is the tameness of the slope that makes it safe. An uncontrolled 35 degree slope just off the side of a piste could be very dangerous after a 50cm dump.
| Quote: |
the main dangers just off piste are terrain and surface prep (lack of),
|
Terrain, yes. "surface prep"? I assume you mean that a slope is safer because if has traffic on it? Not so much. True, traffic throughout a season prevents the build up of latent instabilities (i.e. depth hoar). It will make no difference to the risk during or after a heavy storm, a soft slab or a wind slab can form on any bed surface, having heavy traffic before the storm will make no difference here. Also, in warm conditions when full depth wet slides can happen the traffic makes no difference (even pistes can slide in these condition in extreme cases).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
Reading a thread likes this make me suspect that some people think an avalanche is something that happens above you and "takes you out". Massive releases from distant slopes that hit a piste or off piste area can happen, but they are rare (and if those conditions prevail whole mountains will be closed and the risk will be 5/5).
|
I'm not going to disagree that the main risk is from a self-triggered slide, that's quite well documented, but exposure from above can be a very big deal. For instance this week I've seen MANY large slides from steep slopes higher up run onto more mellow and very tempting areas (that are fairly frequently skied) below - and the avi risk is 1, rising to 2 in the afternoon.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Mon 4-03-13 13:20; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
I'm not advocating skiing next to the piste in daft places. I'm just saying that if you see a tame patch of snow next to your favourite blue run that is begging for it, the chances are hugely remote that you and the hundreds of other blissfully ignorant people who will ski it the same morning will be caught in an avalanche. No point quoting exceptions at me like immediately off the piste the gradient is completely different from on the adjacent piste or it could be a glacier run with hidden crevasses or I know one where there's always this huge icicle dangling just off piste ready to impale some unsuspecting innocent. I've already said that the main dangers just off piste are terrain and surface prep (lack of), and the OP was asking about avvy safety of, I'm pretty sure, skiing off-piste by the piste where it looks invitingly the same as on the piste just unpisted, not of skiing off-piste by the piste where it doesn't even look like a distant relation much less a scene from Candide Thovex's latest flick.
|
With qualifications like that, of course you're completely right - I'm not disputing that. There were no qualifications in the OP though, we don't know which slopes the OP had in mind, and I just don't think it's right to say 'offpiste next to a piste is safe,' as by implication people will read that is if there was an 'all' in front of it. The exceptions are important, and not all that uncommon! Lots of pistes are protected by berms to direct avalanches away, or 'moats' the to halt a slide/prevent it from flowing over the piste - don't have to stray far to get into a pretty bad place. The point is, the skier has to exhibit some amount of judgement, no matter close to a piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
Lots of pistes are protected by berms to direct avalanches away, or 'moats' the to halt a slide/prevent it from flowing over the piste
|
Yeah... I saw they have built these along side Steisbachtal in St Anton. Perfect terrain traps if you are on the uphill side of them 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Over a certain angle, there's is no way to tell from the surface of a slope whether it will avalance or not. Some you can tell are more likely to than others, that's all.
I'd disagree that:
| Quote: |
the nature of the slopes above is largely irrelevant.
|
for a number of reasons, e.g., if the upper slope above is wooded it's much less likley to avalance, if it's a cliff, then the amount of snow on the slope is very likely to be greater than otherwise. Wind exposed upper slopes vs non-exposed makes a difference too. We all know the convex vs. concave theory so in that context the shape of the 'top' slope is all that matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RattytheSnowRat wrote: |
Over a certain angle, there's is no way to tell from the surface of a slope whether it will avalance or not. Some you can tell are more likely to than others, that's all.
I'd disagree that:
| Quote: |
the nature of the slopes above is largely irrelevant.
|
for a number of reasons, e.g., if the upper slope above is wooded it's much less likley to avalance, if it's a cliff, then the amount of snow on the slope is very likely to be greater than otherwise. Wind exposed upper slopes vs non-exposed makes a difference too. We all know the convex vs. concave theory so in that context the shape of the 'top' slope is all that matters. |
I think you miss my point. And you quote me out of context. You are welcome to disagree, but in the context of victim triggered avalanches you are incorrect.
Most of the avalanche risk is nothing to do with the slopes above you because you have no effect on those slopes, it is the slope you are on that matters. If the slope you are on has a slab over a weak layer then your effect may indeed extend a few metres above you (in extreme case maybe even tens of metres, but that is very rare). So I don't mean you have no effect up hill, you most certainly do, but it is only uphill on your current slope, and only if a very well bonded slab exists that can transfer your weight to a fracture point. If there is a convexity or any other weakness on the slope then you can remote trigger in this way. In fact in almost all videos I've seen of slab slides the slab fractures just above the victim, very rarely it breaks exactly beneath the skiers feet. I think this is because the combined weight of the skier and the snow generates enough tension to fracture at the weakness. The weakness does not need to be a convexity by the way, it could be a buried rock causing a localized fracture point (because the depth at that point is less the slab could be weaker or there could be depth hoar formation in a localized area), or a tree. Slabs fractures can rip between trees so wooded slopes do not provide added safety unless they are extremely densely wooded.
Of course if you are below an unstable slope and someone triggers a slide then you are in trouble, but in most cases (in the order of 90%) people die because they trigger a slide on the slope they are on. Of course you need to be aware of dangerous slopes above you; as I said, in high risk cases slopes can spontaneously release. As Clarky999 has pointed out there are spontaneous wet slides happening now too (statistically less dangerous, but they can still cause harm), but in general the slides that kill the most are triggered by the victim. Of course you need to be aware of what is above you, I wouldn't ski below a steep slope on an exposed aspect if the risk was high, and I'd be wary of being below south facing slopes in warm weather.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| sah wrote: |
To address some of slikedges specific points:
| Quote: |
Point is that there is a very simple general rule: the further you are from a piste, the further you are from avalanche control.
|
Distance really has nothing to do with it The location you are at is either controlled or it is not. A slab of snow on a slope has no idea that there is a piste a few metres away. Sure, if there are slopes below then it will be made safe (or the run will have been closed), but if not, then no control is ever promised. I agree that if you are close to a piste then you benefit from control of large slopes above, but as I said above that's really not the problem. |
You come across as very keen to be contrary. In the same breath you say that "distance really has nothing to do with it" and that you "agree that if you are close to a piste then you benefit from control...". So has it or hasn't it got nothing to do with it? Predictably I disagree with you that distance has nothing to do with it whilst simultaneously agreeing with you that it does have something to do with it. 
| sah wrote: |
| Quote: |
if you see a tame patch of snow next to your favourite blue run that is begging for it, the chances are hugely remote that you and the hundreds of other blissfully ignorant people who will ski it the same morning will be caught in an avalanche
|
Agree. And the same goes for a tame 20 degree slope miles from anywhere, so long as it is not threatened by a steeper slope. It is the tameness of the slope that makes it safe. An uncontrolled 35 degree slope just off the side of a piste could be very dangerous after a 50cm dump.
|
No, in the case I refer to it's not the tameness of the slope that makes it safe next to the piste. The tame 20 deg slope next to your favourite blue has had slopes above it avvy controlled if necessary. The tame 20 deg slope miles from anywhere hasn't. It is the avvy control that is the difference and that makes the former safe. The tameness is present in both situations and does not represent a difference between them. In the case you refer to, as with admin's black runs (see above), the pitch of the slope makes it dangerous in and of itself. That isn't of course where blue run dabblers ski side-of-piste and between piste. A majority of holiday skiers find black runs a bit of a challenge and really aren't looking to go off piste any steeper than 25 deg much less 35 deg, in other words, where we see the masses of off piste dabblers isn't on avvy terrain.
| sah wrote: |
| Quote: |
the main dangers just off piste are terrain and surface prep (lack of),
|
Terrain, yes. "surface prep"? I assume you mean that a slope is safer because if has traffic on it? Not so much. True, traffic throughout a season prevents the build up of latent instabilities (i.e. depth hoar). It will make no difference to the risk during or after a heavy storm, a soft slab or a wind slab can form on any bed surface, having heavy traffic before the storm will make no difference here. Also, in warm conditions when full depth wet slides can happen the traffic makes no difference (even pistes can slide in these condition in extreme cases). |
Surface prep is a term that refers to filling in hollows, clipping off humps, plucking out boulders and stumps etc that is done on piste to stop people breaking skis and legs on them as they slide down.
| sah wrote: |
Reading a thread likes this make me suspect that some people think an avalanche is something that happens above you and "takes you out". Massive releases from distant slopes that hit a piste or off piste area can happen, but they are rare (and if those conditions prevail whole mountains will be closed and the risk will be 5/5). The main avalanche risk to any off piste skier is triggering an avalanche themselves. Virtually all victims in a slide either caused the slide or were in the same group as the person that caused the slide. Even a small slope with fresh snow on it can be a serious risk if it's steep enough, the nature of the slopes above is largely irrelevant.
Knowing that a slope a few metres away is safe is of no relevance - the slope you are on right now is what matters. If you are off the side of a piste and there is no piste below you then the slope you are on may not be controlled, and unless you know otherwise you should assume it is not controlled. |
| slikedges wrote: |
| In any case, unsurprisingly the casual side-of-piste dabblers naturally stay away from blacks and their verges anyway. |
Hmmm. I think a lot of the disconnect may be down to this. Obviously setting off the avalanche is indeed the main concern when skiing (proper) off piste, but maybe experienced off piste skiers reading this thread should remind themselves that most side-of-piste and between piste dabbling is engaged in by holiday skiers who aren't very confident on steep piste (which really isn't ever that steep!) not to mention steep off piste! In other words they don't generally ski terrain that is likely to slide due to their skiing it. When I think about it, my statements are with reference to this main herd of skiers, including the assumption that they are in large majority going to be skiing slopes that are not inherently avvy slopes, but haven't made this explicit. For them their concerns are avvys from above (which are very unlikely to happen close to the piste), but arguably should be terrain and surface prep once beyond piste markers. Anyway, perhaps I should be saying "as long as you are skiing on a shallow slope, further away from a piste = more dangerous".
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 can only reiterate that if you do not understand the risks you are exposing yourself -and more importantly others -to by skiing off piste and have to ask questions then you are being pretty reckless. In France. Art 223-1 of the Penal Code (The Act of exposing others to immediate risk of death or injury through the deliberate breach of a particular requirement of safety...) can be punished by a year in the pokey or EUR15,000 fine. This is not just a theoretical law either. In 1997 2 snowboarders got stung for 6k and 8k respectively (ouch) for riding on a closed black run which had pisteurs working below. The tool who got fined 8k rode it TWICE! (Source ANENA, Grenoble)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
