 Poster: A snowHead
|
As most know who read the various threads in this section off piste conditions could be deemed to be at their worst for a decade!
And as you might have read on Davidof's site there are the tragic reports relating to a number of deaths this past week.
http://pistehors.com/two-dead-in-alps-avalanches-23135994.htm
Plus there are the UK Media reports a la Daily Mail of the recent Lech avalanche, where comments such as "they should never have been out there" in the first place etc etc
So where does that leave those seeking powder in these unstable times?
Down here in the Hautes Alpes (Serre Chevalier) we have had much snow accompanied by gale force winds, yesterday there was a slide on the Cucumelle which is extremely easy to access from a chair lift even though viz was so bad could not imagine people would even attempt to stray that far.
So I must admit to being fairly surprised when a guide who we know well and was with on Monday socially, texted late yesterday suggesting today would be good. He in fact suggested La Grave and possibly Italy.
Having driven and seen the conditions in Italy on both Xmas and Boxing Day I texted back saying Italy would be the better option.
And so we made a plan!
We arrived at Cesana (bottom of Sauze and Sestrierre) circa 09:00, fully equipped with necessary gear and ABS packs, just the three of us and Mathieu the guide, I was the weakest of the "clients" and knew I'd be in for a very full on day but did expect it to be mostly tree skiing.
Mathieu went to great lengths to explain the gravitas of the security situation.
We'd taken two or three lifts to get to where we were heading to, and at the top of one, Mathieu told us to wait whilst he climbed up to assess the conditions of a possible route, and then a couple of Italian instructors who just arrived started shouting at him in a very animated manner, obviously unaware he was a guide, so now the "scenario" was set for a fair part of the day!
How far do you trust your guide?
If you want to ski powder then do you have to go out in risk 4 conditions?
And what terrain should you ski, which obviously is down to trust of the guide!
I have skied with Mathieu once before and today he was very different - he was so aware/concerned re snow pack and gave very strict instructions of where to ski, where to stop and how we should ski, but at the same time doing some stuff that had me quite nervous of what might happen.
I actually stopped to take some pics in what I though was a safe area only to be bolloxed for stopping there.
So was a great day, but have to say I've never been so nervous, apart from ski touring in some very gnarly white out conditions, of skiing various lines.
And what was interesting, was that we stayed more or less in the same sector doing traverses and descents of the same bowl, doing various terrain from nice open lines to a few couliors, and we must have come across three to four other guides all with clients skiing the same area!
So the logic being that they knew where to go on a Risk 4 day where as many others would not know.
Have some good photos which I'll post later but here's a taster of Mathieu at full speed and at where I got told off for stopping 
Should also add that we started off at 09:00 and did not have a break, apart from sitting on chair lifts till 16:30 - probably initiated by me saying we were not French and did not need to stop for lunch at 12:30 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real 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?
|
What was the avi forecast and how did that relate to what you saw from the aspects and slopes you skied and those you didn't?
To answer one question, no you don't have to go out on a High risk day to ski powder but glad you had an uneventful day!
One of the 'interesting' things about skiing here is that most areas have no avi forecasting and those that do typically cover a large amount of terrain and the report is only updated every few days so can be terrifically out of date. Several homes have been evacuated in the last couple of days thanks to the avi danger created by these big storms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Simple rule - if the risk is high, don't go into avalanche terrain. Have fun riding powder on mellow slopes. Leave the steeps for another day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Weathercam, at least where you are they have avi risk at 4. Every day atm there seems to be multiple reports of avalanches and deaths, yet all of these places seem to have risk af 3. At same time we are hearing of perfect storm of brittle wind blown slabs on highly unstable base. Something not adding up
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Weathercam, You have to die from something. Old age sounds like the worst option.. Not skiing today was only a good idea if you want to die from old age with no stories or memories. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weathercam, To be honest... skiing in those conditions probably made you feel more aware of the world, and led you to value your life than anything you have done for years. I'm not saying that it is recommended to take stupid risks, but to be very, very aware, to mitigate risk factors, and then to push yourself that little bit beyond you have ever done before, all the time knowing that a mistake could kill you, that is what you will remember for the rest of your life.
Unless you die.
That is a possibility, and one that you should always evaluate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But to be honest... today I probably would have stuck to the pistes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, sounds like the sort of day when you really get to appreciate the knowledge and skills that a qualified/experienced mountain guide has.
It's in these sort of conditions (for me anyway) that a guide in invaluable. As the risk goes up I know my ability to read the snowpack/terrain becomes insufficient and it's time to get a professional in (same as DIY really - will tackle most things but there is always a point when it's best to call in a tradesman).
| Quote: |
How far do you trust your guide?
|
IMO this is the million dollar question. Blind trust - No, it's got to be a personal assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The guides ought to know the local snow pack and should know where to go when conditions are risky. In Canada it's rare that it's so risky that nothing at all is ridable. Sometimes it happens, but not often, and that would be at the top of the scale. More usually you'll end up riding safer slopes in safer ways. Personally I'm fairly often scared by avalanche risk, but to me that's the same as being scared by the objective danger of any sport: it keeps me alert; it doesn't necessarily mean I should not be there.
I would expect to discuss the conditions and the risks with the guide so I'm able to remain responsible for my own safety whilst improving my own skills.
The Daily Mail is a despicable rag with a shameful history. I'd avoid buying it, as it only encourages them and may distort your world view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
The idea that local knowledge/guide will keep you safe is a good one in theory, though it is worth bearing in mind that a reasonable amount of incidents over the last few years have involved guides on their local patch. Lionel who was killed yesterday behind Courchevel on the way up to the refuge he guardiens(ed) knew the area as well or better than anybody, was an ex-pisteur, current avalanche dog handler (and dog handler tranier)...
Skiing in Courchevel yesterday I saw slabs that had come out on places where I don't remember (or very rarely in 15 years) seeing slides.
Is it reasonable to ski off piste on risk 4 days? Possibly, depending on terrain choice. Alain Duclos has some very interesting ideas on this - google alain duclos prezi and you will find...will look them out later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, as offpisteskiing points out: many of the recent avalanche disasters have involved groups with a guide.
Every time you ski off piste there is a significant risk, which is why you take the kit.
Every time i ride my bike to work there is a significant risk.
The question is how much risk is worth it.
To me, if the level of risk is making you nervous rather than excited, then you should do something else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB Ski, think your post pretty well encapsulates the theory I was sort of getting at in my OP.
I've been using guides since way back in 97 and I've been in some pretty scary situations, but there was something weird about yesterday, think it's the hype that's been going on?
One's thing for sure I would never use a guide I do not personally know, have heard horror stories from mates on long weekends to Chamonix and the like.
For sure we could have gone out yesterday into terrain I know here but unfortunately transpires that someone was killed on the Cucumelle yesterday, however don't know exactly where.
Shallow slopes and trees on days like yesterday, with nothing above you, I'll get the photos up soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Were the Avi risks the same in La Grave and Sestrierre - I think your guide probably choose the right resort - do you think he really would have done La Grave
I probably wouldn't go out with a guide on a high risk day - if pre-booked I would have a long discussion and if they convince me I would request some very tame runs or change the day from a guiding day to something like a mountain skills day. If I am not happy with the situation then I am not going to get anything out of the day
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Weathercam, avalanche was just to the right of the Vallons chair as you ascend, so to the skier's left. So very easily accessible by all. We were on the lift at 1.45 and there were quite a few Dads and children skiing there. No-one with avvie gear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Hells Bells, how high up is the big question, did they hike up and then traverse or just traverse from the chair.
Ironically my Mrs and a couple of friends were doing that in the morning
If you can keep the traverse all the way at a safe level then its possible to ski the trees and come in over Frejus rather than come out on the piste.
Johnor, guide did suggest La Grave, but I had seen the previous two days how much snow had fallen on the Italian side, and also how windy it had been at altitude here, and then far windier at La Grave, so in fact it was my suggestion to go to Italy.
And not being a knob, I have skied LG a lot and do not need a guide to do the main routes, only the gnarly ones and they currently do not have enough snow, and it's only just about possible to get back to P1 if you don't mind trashing your skis 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Weathercam, traverse from the chair from what Jules was told this morning. No hiking involved. Avalanche happened in one of the gullies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Hells Bells, that is quite scary, so much snow must have been dumped on the top of those gullies (you see under the chair) with the wind from the previous day, and as you know some of them do have pretty steep faces, though in that terrain you would think it to be pretty innocuous and dare I say it "safe" ?
Just goes to show................
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Weathercam, exactly, we will all have skied in there at some point. Scary cracks right across the face under the Cibouit chairlift too. Just waiting to slide. And there were still people trying to ski it, despite being shouted at by lifties at the top not to go there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Another relevant question: if you're uncomfortable with what your guide is suggesting do you raise the issue and risk putting the whole party on edge or do you just go with the flow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bottom line is there is always somewhere safe to ski off piste, even on risk 5 days. Guides are real experts but I think its good for the clients to be able to think critically about situations. Clients have died in avalanches when with a guide. Seems like there is a lot of instability in the snowpack throughout the alps, with a weak faceted layer on north facing slopes under the new snow. Check out this avalanche on the north facing slopes above cham yesterday. https://www.facebook.com/chamoniarde. Not sure if it was caused by a serac or a spontaneous slab but it went huge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More pictures from yesterday and more of a blog report 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.
|
The issue for me in this situation (and I am surprised it has not been picked up by anybody) is whether this guide once driving over to Italy still qualified as a "local" guide? How familiar was he with the terrain, the snowpack composition there, wind direction over the last few days, any recent avy activity etc etc? Did he speak to other local guides and get an update on the routes he planned to ski with you?
From personal experience, many years ago I did a SCGB Freshtracks holiday in VdI where they brought in several Chamonix based guides to lead us. I remember skiing with one of them looking at the map every 10mins clearly not knowing where we were going and finally getting lost. Not a good feeling - not for the guide nor for the client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowman, familiarity is one of the heuristic traps that can get you into trouble, local knowledge is great for knowing what might be in good condition not really for assessing avi conditions. It's precisely in the current more unusual conditions where people get caught out on slopes that 'never slide'. That said your points about weather and the like are good ones.
Was the weather bad when the guide got lost!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
snowman +1 - I don't want to cast aspersions, but my first thought on reading Weathercam's post was whether guide knew enough about the local conditions in Italy to be skiing there. I do know that guides move between resorts fairly regularly in the season with guests, but I just have no idea how much of 'guiding' is experience and theory, and how much is local knowledge?
altis, there's only one answer to that question: you should always raise the issue. It's pretty well documented that groups can take poor decisions that individual members of the group disagree with and which in hindsight turn out to be a bad move. There was a feature in the NY Times about the fatal Steven's Pass avalanche in 11/12, which is long but really worth a read if you've not read it before...it's pretty harrowing and sobering.
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/#/?part=tunnel-creek
“If it was up to me, I would never have gone backcountry skiing with 12 people,” Michelson, the ESPN journalist, said. “That’s just way too many. But there were sort of the social dynamics of that — where I didn’t want to be the one to say, you know, ‘Hey, this is too big a group and we shouldn’t be doing this.’ I was invited by someone else, so I didn’t want to stand up and cause a fuss. And not to play the gender card, but there were 2 girls and 10 guys, and I didn’t want to be the whiny female figure, you know? So I just followed along.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowman, I wouldn't expect local knowledge to necessarily be safer, that's all. Lots of guides lead trips to places where they aren't local after all and local guides still get caught out at home. It's about changes to risk tolerance depending on the familiarity of where you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
snowman, ChrisWo, look at a map, see where Briancon is relative to Sestrierre and the like...........
Mathieu has been skiing this area* since he was a kid..........it's what all the local guides are like (that I trust) around here!
To spell it out, Montgenevre is 10km from Serre, Italy is one km further and then as for La Grave, which is in fact further away than Italy, he knows that as a local guide (which he is) as a guide should!
As I sort of alluded to earlier in this thread, I would choose my guides very carefully based on local experience, that said I've been five times up to the Artic (Lyngen Sail & ski) with said same guides who were not exactly local
* probably a good 75km area of intense local knowledge
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Weathercam, point taken, so your trip to Italy still counts as local for Mathieu. And on your trips up to the Arctic you're using a non-local guide. I'd still be interested to know to what extent people care about local knowledge - as meh says, it's not necessarily true that local knowledge makes you safer, but it sort of feels like it should do (intuitively).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
As ever altitude, terrain and aspect are more important than the headline number.
Even when the risk is just 2 or 3, let alone 4.
A good mountain guide / off piste skier should be able to work with these factors.
Those rightly as mentioned above local knowledge and familiarity can also be a trap.
Heading to this part of the alps for new year, and slightly nervous about the snowpack...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Ok first off, risk 5 days principally concern the risk to infrastructure, buildings and roads and is a warning aimed at the authorities to close roads with known avalanche paths, evacuate buildings etc. It means that avalanches will happen on known avalanche paths. In a normal year you only get a few risk 5 days in a year and then not over all ranges.
That means for us skiers, snowshoers etc the risk levels are really 1-4/4. So risk 3 and 4 are in the upper half of the risk levels and should be treated with the appropriate caution that implies.
To add to what Haggis Trap says, a risk 4 day is one where skier triggered avalanches are probable over a wide range/all slope aspects. Depending on how the snowpack has evolved this could be above a given altitude. You may get risk 2 to 2200meters, risk 4 above. You can decide to ski below 2200 meters (but the snow quality may be poor) or ski non-avalanche prone terrain above, which will principally mean slopes less than 30 degrees which are not threatened by slopes above. It means keeping out of big alpine valleys where a remote triggered avalanche could overwhelm a group on what seems like flat, safe terrain. You can, more or less, apply these principals anywhere in the world.
Risk 3 gives you more wiggle room, in winter it will be cold, north facing slopes where you get the main danger of skier triggered slides but the principal of 30 degrees applies on those slopes.
You can add into the mix known trigger points: convex slopes, clearings in woods, isolated rock outcrops, trees, terrain traps if you must cross risky terrain. You can ski 1 by 1 where the slope is doubtful, ski cut etc. There is a whole toolbox to manage risk if you have to.
Local knowledge, maybe "lore" is a better term means that locals have never seen a certain slope avalanche. Beware of this. On risk 4 days there is a mountain opposite that everyone skis because "it never avalanches". That is not entirely true. The main route is safe but there are slopes in the 30-35 degree range just off the main path that slide. People skis these "exotic slopes" when the main route gets skied out and they are full of terrain traps. Anyway a good guide or off piste instructor may know of these routes all over the alps. They tend to get around a great deal
Of course the big issue with low angled routes is that if there is a lot of fresh snow they are not fun to ski.
Taking the photo above
you would want to be careful about the convex rollover in the foreground (but any slab would be small) and the big shaded slope behind but the skier should be ok where he is. If the guide has skied the slope first and you follow his tracks you are also reducing the risk of spatial variability... that is the slope next to his tracks should be similar in stability but that may not be the case for slopes further away. Guides have used this principal for years although there are counter arguments. There is a good video of skiers "snow farming" where the 5 or 6th skier triggers the slope. As for couloirs, the couloirs themselves tend to purge during snowstorms as they collect a lot of snow so are less dangerous than big open slopes on a risk 4 day. Beware the exit... best to ski directly in the line of the couloir and not traverse off and beware funnels into couloirs or more open couloirs which may have slabs on the banks.
All of what I've said above is difficult to put into practice. Take the Celliers avalanche this week in the Savoie. Two experienced skiers climbed the combe de Bridan which is reputedly not that avalanche prone[1] to the Pic de Lachat, a good plan in principal. They then saw perfect powder in the north bowl of the Pic de Lachat and thought they could always U-turn and climb out if the conditions seemed dangerous (!!!). The bowl had a lot of snow with slopes over 30 degrees but they found a ridgeline that seemed safe. However to exit the bowl they had to ski along a small valley with a stream still flowing at the bottom which meant they had to ski someway up on the bank. They then skied another steep, wind loaded slope. So far, so lucky.
At this point they decided to climb back to the combe de Bridan to ski down to Celliers. As the descent seemed safe they thought this would be ok (but an ascending ski tourer is at 3 times the risk of a descending skier). They were following their descent tracks as close as possible. In the small valley they heard a whoumph but couldn't see anything from where they were. After a few seconds the tail skier saw a slab break above her, a small avalanche just 25cm deep at the crown. She was buried under 170cm of snow! A 25cm deep slide is the kind of thing you could get on a risk 2 or even risk 1 day.
As a final thought, avalanches are fortunately rare. Never attribute to skill what is really just luck. One day your luck will run out.
[1] Pierre Chapoutot (you can google him) was killed by an avalanche in this bowl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Obviously a guide will not ski the same things on a high risk day as on a lower risk day. The guide is risking his life every day so obviously has a vested interest in keeping the risk low.
I have often skied with guides on high risk days. One time we had been skiing very particular parts of a slope several times (as in your example). After a while some other people arrived and prepared to ski a part we had not skied which looked much the same to me. The guide said "They shouldn't be there: watch carefully, we may have to rescue them". The slope went and they just managed to stay out of the avalanche though they were quite shocked!.
To put 30º in context, the slope in the OP's photo looks about 10-15º (ie, like the indoor snow domes such as Hemel, which is 15º in the top half and 10º the bottom half)
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Sun 29-12-13 18:56; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
davidof, a very informative post, as ever. Thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
interesting reading - many thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You must know some stuff for yourself. It's your life it is always your decision to go or not to go. Get some avalanche training. Lots of places do it. Henrys avalanche talk is a good place to start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DeliciousMountain, ever heard the phrase a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing ?
Guides with years of experience get taken out unfortunately every year.
A couple of hours on YouTube or looking at Henry's avalanche and the like is not going to be the answer.
My knowledge is not too bad after a fair number of years, that said, before it became apparent that conditions would be as dangerous as they are, a good three or four months ago I signed up for a fairly intensive week long avalanche course in La Grave next week that many would be guides do, but even having completed that it will not cover all eventualities that one will come across!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
but an ascending ski tourer is at 3 times the risk of a descending skier)
|
A very useful fact to keep in mind..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
but an ascending ski tourer is at 3 times the risk of a descending skier)
|
The guys on skitour would (and do) argue quite the opposite though (Crazy lift-riding infidels are the only ones who get caught...)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
