 Poster: A snowHead
|
Depends where you are skiing...
It is well known the Swiss use L3/L4 in their bulletins differently from the French ?
From your own data below (thanks - very interesting!)
Over the period 1996-2006
FR CH
1: 0%, 3%
2: 8%, 29%
3: 49%, 54%
4: 38%, 12%
5: 5%, 1%
Certainly at L4 larger avalanches are more likely to happen (as the snow is widely unstable).
However even at L3, or even L2, very large avalanches can occur ?
Once a skier hits a "hot spot" then there is clear potential for it to propagate widely across the slope.
However this is almost impossible to predict or model.
Maybe I should have said that it is wrong to assume that at lower levels any resulting avalanche will be small ?
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Thu 5-02-15 13:20; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| None of this is a failsafe guarantee. None of this would stop idiots from being idiotic. But I suspect a lot of this information is already well know to resorts, in general terms as well as time specific information. Just a bit of extra effort, and perhaps a small cultural change, could make this more easily available to skiers who do want to learn a bit more about the resort they are in but aren't sure how to go about it |
My experience has been that patrollers are happy to discuss this stuff with you but you won't get a yes or no answer - it will be more like "there is wind loading on north facing slopes so avoid them." And my French is just about good enough to have the conversation in French - not much good for someone who doesn't speak the local lingo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@Arno, Likewise, I've been advised not to - but never been given a positive affirmative, nor would I expect one. There is a lot of science around this topic and also a lot of experience and sometimes a lot of guesswork - it cannot be distilled into Yes/No.
But to regulate it would be like telling teenage seasonaires not to drink or shag each other - worthless
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
yes I agree - most people I ski with seem to think nothing of skiing down anything off-piste accessible from the side of pistes. When I asked about this several years ago on a thread here, the general consensus seemed to be just because its near a piste does not mean its safe. Whenever I mention that to people I ski with they say I am being ridiculous because if everyone else does it it must be safe, but most of these people don't know anything about avalanche risk or how to assess it (or which slopes might be safe for off-piste and which not).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| ansta1 wrote: |
| under a new name wrote: |
Maybe I should amplify my opinion, based on recent observation. I don't think enough people understand the current scale - and don't dig deeper. Ergo, a better system is perhaps required.
We saw people in some very odd situations yesterday...which no scale would ever avoid, but maybe they'd think twice. |
I guess that was my reason for the original question, does the average piste based skier, who may dabble on some steeper stuff, need something clearer to aid their choice of runs.
I am not talking about a traffic light at the start of each run, just perhaps something that conveys the risk with greater clarity.
Does everyone really know the slope angle of every run they ski?, does everyone know what the off piste runs above the run they are doing is rated for in terms of avi.
. |
Surely pisted runs would not be open if there were any (non-negligible) risk from off-piste slides above? Or am I naive?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@shefmarkh, they're controlled against large avalanches that would threaten the pistes and infrastructure but that doesn't make the terrain next to the piste inherently safe. Lots of terrain is capable of producing smaller skier threatening avalanches even on short slopes directly next to the piste as several people found out last year. Plus the avalanche at the FWT event this week shows that even heavily controlled slopes can still harbor danger spots.
This is an old but powerful example, heavily tracked, right by a piste, huge avalanche:
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Thu 5-02-15 14:02; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Surely pisted runs would not be open if there were any (non-negligible) risk from off-piste slides above? Or am I naive? |
There have been plenty of incidences of slides onto a piste*. I think the argument would be that it is simply impossible to get it right 100% of the time. As in how do you define a negligible risk.
* there was an incidence when I was in La Norma, a couple of years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Layne, It's already somehow reflected in insurance policies. And there are laws in place whereby if a skier cause an avalanche by skiing on top of another skier and this other skier dies - he'll be prosecuted. The same goes for the damage of property. It's a shame that people take it lightly but I can't see how regulation may change it. In the USA it's responsibility of resorts but do we really want it here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@never summer,
| Quote: |
| @Layne, It's already somehow reflected in insurance policies. |
There have been many discussions on here regarding what constitutes following the mountain safety advice or whatever the blarney they put in the statements. It really isn't that cut and dried. But what I am suggesting could happen but don't think it will, is that they place further restrictions, maybe to have a guide, maybe to have an airbag, maybe to have undergone a certified mountain safety course.
| Quote: |
| It's a shame that people take it lightly but I can't see how regulation may change it. In the USA it's responsibility of resorts but do we really want it here? |
That's kind of my point. We can be dismissive of "the poodles" and say let them endanger their own lives but it may ultimately impact us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Depends where you are skiing...
It is well known the Swiss use L3/L4 in their bulletins differently from the French ?
|
They use the same quadrants as the French and I imagine anyone using the European scale uses the same system as the forecasters meet regularly to try and standardise their systems. The Swiss grids vary on one of the blocks, I think it is the Large/Some square which is 3 on the Swiss scale because they have some civil security legislation which means road closures etc at risk 4 and above and they don't really like doing that much.
Scotland may be different, I'd be interested in any information you have to share about their forecasting. Certainly the bulletins are well presented given they probably don't have the resources of the French and certainly not the Swiss.
Anyway the fact remains that the size of avalanches is taken into account in the forecast risk level used in Switzerland and France. Henry made this exact point with respect to the Foglietta avalanche.
BTW I thank Cécile Coleau of Meteo France who went through in detail how MF do their forecasts and some of the issues in standardizing even within French departments let alone with other countries. We have specifically discussed the Swiss case of level 3 and level 4 days and this is probably well known because I've talked about it in the past.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Thu 5-02-15 14:39; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
The biggest error people make is forgetting that level 3 = considerable risk
It does not mean everything is OK |
100% Correct
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Thu 5-02-15 14:40; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Thu 5-02-15 15:07; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
Scotland may be different, I'd be interested in any information you have to share about their forecasting. Certainly the bulletins are well presented given they probably don't have the resources of the French and certainly not the Swiss.
. |
Scotlands avalanche forecast service is very good. They use the european scale - so the main difference is that we never get Cat 5 in Scotland (because there are no towns affected by avalanche paths). It operated out of Glenmore lodge at Aviemore and is headed up by Mark Diggins - who trains the British and Swedish mountain guides in avalanche safety.
They have 5 different areas (Glencoe, Lochaber, Creag Megaidh, Cairngorms, Glenshee) plus a trial running in Torridon.
Bulletins / blogs are published daily along with pit profiles.
Though as you say the SLF in Davos are the world leaders at avalanche forecasting and research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| meh wrote: |
| @shefmarkh, they're controlled against large avalanches that would threaten the pistes and infrastructure but that doesn't make the terrain next to the piste inherently safe. ] |
Yes thats why I don't ski to the side of piste....but most people I know do, and think its safe because they see lots of tracks and everyone else doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
-------
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Thu 5-02-15 16:25; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| never summer wrote: |
| @Layne, But whose fault is this lack of understanding? Certainly not the resorts as they don't hide any information and education is available. It's the same with understanding of most things - people either try to educate themselves or they don't. It's a problem but it's not for resorts to solve it beyond of what they already do. |
They may not hide information, but there are big variations in the amount and visibility of information on display. For instance up at Flegere they often post the snowpack chart to supplement the Avi report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Layne wrote: |
| shefmarkh wrote: |
| meh wrote: |
| @shefmarkh, they're controlled against large avalanches that would threaten the pistes and infrastructure but that doesn't make the terrain next to the piste inherently safe. ] |
Yes thats why I don't ski to the side of piste....but most people I know do, and think its safe because they see lots of tracks and everyone else doing it. |
To be fair, and at the risk of attracting more vitriol, there is a lot of safe piste side or in between piste stuff. Safe taken in the context as we've already ascertained, that nothing is entirely safe. Note also that I am not saying the reason these people are doing it is correct. But if you want to ski unpisted terrain but without going to far off the beaten track there are plenty of places to do it. To me skiing is constantly about risk assessment, whatever I am doing. |
I dunno what you're trying to add there? All you're doing is muddying the waters by using the term safe to mean something different than it normally does.
There is generally speaking lots of terrain that is low risk, particularly if it matches piste gradients but it can be peppered with high risk spots. The important point is to be able to identify the risks and avoid them. I'd suggest most people skiing off piste in the manner that shefmarkh means don't have the knowledge to do so. You can't assess a risk you don't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| I dunno what you're trying to add there? |
Duly removed. I shan't comment further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Scotlands avalanche forecast service is very good. |
I think the bulletins are excellent for giving a rapid overview of the risks. It is a dangerous environment with the winds you get up there and respect to anyone who skis the Scottish backcountry.
Simon's point at the top of the thread about getting rid of the 1-5 rating is very pertinent given the risk really increases very rapidly as you move from one level to the next.
I would change the flags used in resort. They are not well understood. There have been suggestions including pictograms that could be used but the three levels used in resort probably reflect the reality on the ground quite well. Lower risk, High risk, no off piste. In France fatalities at risk 1 and 2 are pretty rare so dabbling in between the pistes skiing or doing some itineary is relatively safe at those levels and an airbag will probably save you from the kind of avalanches you are likely to get caught in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Arno wrote: |
| My experience has been that patrollers are happy to discuss this stuff with you but you won't get a yes or no answer - it will be more like "there is wind loading on north facing slopes so avoid them." And my French is just about good enough to have the conversation in French - not much good for someone who doesn't speak the local lingo. |
Agreed, and all I'm suggesting is that this type of local information is provided on a more systematic basis (perhaps in other languages in addition to French) referencing the official bulletin in a local context. Obviously, "yes, it's safe" and "no, it's not safe" type of advice will not be given, so individual skiers will still have to exercise personal responsibility in what they choose to ski, but hopefully they will have the benefit of local information from very experienced pisteurs to help them make better decisions (or at the least realise that they should be thinking about these kinds of decisions rather than just blindly following tracks...).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
My opinion is that the flags and avalanche levels are just a "summary" / "headline"....
They are useful to catch peoples attention or to focus their mind a little.
Would you read a newspaper if the front page didn't have a headline to attract your attention ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah that's a super smart idea. Could very easily make that as an app or whatever too. Use geo data and people could practice on their own mountains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@stanton, lucky chap...what risk level was posted and what assessment had he done ? (I don't speak dutch)
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
If it's not a useful indication and much more detail is required what is the point?
|
that really is a rather daft remark. I am not an off piste skier but using the analogy of a shipping forecast, if I see that strong winds (6 or over) are forecast for my sea area, I dig a lot deeper into the available information in order to decide when and where (if anywhere) it might be safe to go sailing. One aspect of a mountain might be quite safe, when another aspect (same gradient) could be dodgy. I might happily sail in a force 6 under the lee of a peninsular but not if the same wind is blowing over a big stretch of water onto a lee shore.
I would advise anybody who didn't even know what a lee shore was to stay at home with a book in a force 6 and anyone who can't make sense of those "avalanche rose" diagrams should probably do the same when the avalanche risk is 3.
I gather that most avalanche deaths occur at level 3. Like most lifeboat call outs don't happen in a Force 9 because all but the most experienced and able sailors are in port reading their books. Or more likely in a bar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Free riders avi scale
5. Movie making time
4. Powder day
3. You'll need to look for it
2. Rubbish
1. Mountain bike season.
On a more serious note, I think the scale is fine but I think the full avi report needs a wider promulgation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
the full avi report needs a wider promulgation.
|
I guess it needs a bit of training to understand it, and use it correctly. As does the shipping forecast. Somebody who CBA to put in the effort should probably stay on the piste, or use a guide who not only knows exactly how to understand the reports but has extensive local knowledge of specific hazards, too. Even when I had a lesson off piste with an instructor (not a guide) and only on easy pitches (the only ones I can do) he pointed out a wind-loaded slope and explained the difference.
Also had a fascinating lecture about avalanches in Les Deux Alpes. So, whilst I still don't know enough to ski safely off piste, I do know that I don't know!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I don't really think that anyone can't find the avalanche conditions in their area. This seems obvious: any rational person who "could not find" the risk level would simply not take the risk.
People don't die because they can't find out the risks, they die because they simply don't care. It's the same with other "adventure" sports, or even driving: it's a human thing.
That's not so bad, is it? In this case this risk is predominantly on the foolish people themselves. Like climbing in the Alps in the summer: lots of people die, but they don't generally hurt anyone else. So it's better than driving, where the stupid driver endangers everyone else. I can't see why I'd wring my hands about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
What I find interesting is the notion that individually we are all prepared to accept, or even seek out a certain level of risk. Further, that in a given scenario where we have reduced the risk in one area say with an airbag, we are happy to increase it in another to get back to our "acceptable" risk level. Add to that in common with other adventure sports, climbing, biking etc many are happy to accept ever higher amounts of risk.
All this however falls over if the individual isn't able to quantify the risk, then it's just another idiot riding his luck. Problem is it's a hard thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
^ as human beings we are all fundamentally shite at quantify-ing risk ?
as soon you accept this then you become a safer person to ski with ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
MY view is that the current system is fine for those that understand it; BUT for those that don't they see 3/5 as the "middle" and so "should" be OK.
If the scale was 1-10 and current "3" was 7 on the scale, then people might get a better idea of the risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
^ the risk levels are actually irrelevant (just a headline figure)
for any avalanche bulletin to be useful you need to be able to take time to read, interpret and understand the finer details (aspect, altitude, wind direction etc)
this should be the key message ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
But not all areas make the finer details available. For example, St Anton has some great boards on the mountain effectively showing the rose detail - aspect, altitude, morning and afternoon risk etc. PdS on the other hand has an illuminated number from 1-5 in a few places. No further detail!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ do they have google in the PdS ? 
I am almost certain the full bulletin will be posted at the bottom of lifts / tourist office / ski patrol etc.
There are no excuses or reasons not to read it if you are going off piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ They very well might, but as with many French resorts, finding the information in English is a struggle. Given the detail contained in the report, an 'official' English version would be helpful.
Of course, why should they bother ? It's not like they are in the tourist industry and their paying clients can all speak French.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
^ many, but not all, resorts do translate into English.
if they don't then use google translate and look at the rose (which pictorially has much of the information).
imagine the french publishing their avalanche bulletins in their own national language
no doubt it should also be translated into german, spanish, russian, dutch, swedish, italian, norwegian too ?
at the end of the day it is your life that depends on it - so you need to take responsibility.
... rather expect others to hold your hand.
| Quote: |
| It's not like they are in the tourist industry and their paying clients can all speak French..... |
Your lift pass is to use the secured pistes ?
of course you can venture elsewhere - however the alpine ethos is that you do so at your own risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excuse my ignorance, but where would you expect to see this rose? Is it published online everyday or do they stick a copy up somewhere.?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
