Avalanche risk levels

A snowHead

Just had a brief discussion with a colleague re the current (at least European) Avi risk levels (1-5), and wondering if they need to be reviewed and amended, not sure exactly how they could be improved but as a point for discussion does the collective think they could, and if so. Any suggestions?

A snowHead

@ansta1, I think they're misleading and in the wrong direction. I don't have any suggestions though!

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

I think the big problem is not with the levels themselves but more the understanding of what they mean. Although I guess it could be argued that means there is a problem. One curious thing to me is that there appears to have been avalanches going off left, right and centre. And yet the level has been 4 from what I can make out. Why has it not been level 5. Having said that level 4 means only gentle slopes can be considered safe... Question is, do most people realise this...?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

If you read the description European avalanche levels are very clear.

The biggest error people make is forgetting that level 3 = considerable risk
It does not mean everything is OK.

Level 5 is generally only used if large scale avalanches are likely to affect towns, roads or villages.
For example the devastating avalanches in Montroc or Galtur (1999) which destroyed towns and killed people sleeping in their beds.
This is a rare occasion (maybe just once or twice every 5 years) but is required to highlight extreme snow events.
At level 5 the resort will be shut and you might not even be allowed out on the streets.

In reality level 3 is quite high up the risk scale - it is the second highest commonly used rating on the scale ?

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

@Layne, Level 5 means shut the lifts and maybe even don't let people outside so in some ways it's a bit irrelevant to decision making when heading off piste - the decision is almost made for you.
Not sure what the answer is, really. It's hard to find a balance between something relatively easy to understand without it being too crude to have any use at all

You'll need to Register first of course.

I think most people don't realise / have even looked at what the avalanche warnings actually mean.

I'll happily admit not being 100% clued up, but I think people look at the warnings and pass it off.
To many, they see the number and think ahh 3, that's only half way, i'll be fine, especially if most of their skiing is piste orientated, with out looking at to what a level 3 warning actually signifies.

May be totally wrong in my logic, but that what I feel.
Then again how do you go about changing that ... educate people??

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Sounds like we need to ditch level 5 and move the scale up so that currently we would have level 5. The lifts would be open but anything but the most benign off piste would be not advised. A 4 would be the current 3, so basically plenty of risk and go easy. 3 would become "safe". 2 & 1 can virtually be ignored. I would suggest a 3 scale system only but that may confuse matters more given the current levels. It's worth noting that there are only 3 coloured flags - orange, orange and black check, and black. And as we've ascertained you are unlikely to ever see a black flag (level 5).

After all it is free

But thinking on my proposal would go to a 3 point scale with new flags green, orange and red (which everyone is familar with) and an agreement that at what we now call level 5 the ski areas will close down. Number 3 is top of the scale, red spells danger.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

^ Avalanche bulletins are written by employed professionals (generally UIAGM guides).
As you say much of the winter level 3 will apply - because with snow lieing on the ground there is usually some risk offpiste ?
Avalanches might not happen, but there is a "considerable risk" they could.

Reducing avalanche risk to a single level / digit is however a massive over simplification.
You need to read the entire text - then understand what the finer details mean with respect to where you will be skiing.
Considering factors such as altitude / aspect / time of day <etc>
Anyone who thinks the entire mountain is "level 3" doesn't know enough to be skiing off piste safely.
All European bulletins now contain a rose, as shown below.

.

The current system is fine.
People just need to take time to read and understand it!

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

@andy, you could be right, but of course that is a counter-productive as people go out in a 3, never get a problem ('cos it is actually a 1) and then when there is a real 3 or 4 day, they get caught out. I would sincerely hope the resorts don't do this.

@Layne, in France the flags are already 3 levels. https://www.j2ski.com/ski_tips/Avalanche_Safety/Avalanche_Risk_Scale.html
I am wary in a 3, would not go off piste in a 4, so I don't trust the flags.

We could simplify the scale to 'yes/no' for those people who really can't understand the 5 levels we have now, but I suspect that anyone who can understand yes/no can also understand 5 levels with 1 minute of 'training'. The problem is all those people who follow some tracks, or go where they went yesterday before it snowed...who have no understanding, equipment or training whatsoever. Not because they are idiots or reckless, but somply because they have never come across any of these sorts of threads.

snow reports

Also : there is no level 0.

@lampbus,

You know it makes sense.

@Layne, that's essentially the spinal tap theory! "But this one goes to 6. That means it's one better than the old system".

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

@Layne - my guess is you are too stupid / lazy / dumb to read the entire forecast properly ?

A snowHead

@Layne, I don't like the RAG idea because red implies "don't go off piste at all" and green implies "do go". In fact all levels imply "go but take appropriate precautions"

I agree with @Haggis_Trap - there is plenty of information out there. Plenty enough for me to feel like I can make informed decisions. I am not on the ground year round and haven't done years of training so I can't make as intelligent decisions as the professionals, so I try to err on the side of caution. You do need to engage with it a little and exercise your brain - but if you can't do that for a life and death situation, I'm not sure what can help you

A snowHead

[quote="Layne"]@lampbus,

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

@Haggis_Trap, nice insult. But it's not me triggering all the avi's and it's not me who raised the subject. I am just joining the discussion as posed by the OP

You said earlier:

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

@Arno,

You'll need to Register first of course.

@scski,

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Bl@@dy @ansta1, always getting me in trouble Skullie

After all it is free

The only thing I would change is to introduce a Level 0 - which means no risk (ie no or a dusting of snow). This would have the psychological effect of pushing 3 beyond the middle. If the Flag system (AIUI) is used correctly in France then at levels 1 and 3 the respective yellow and chequered flag should be at 'half mast', at 2 and 4 they should be fully hoisted. That said wherever there is a flag in Tignes there is a detailed avalanche report - if you are going by a flag alone you probably need some off piste instruction.

There is still an 'Interpreting the Avalanche Bulletin' webinar on Henry's Avalanche Talks.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

@Layne, the problem with introducing a 'simpler' system that dose not have the level 4 or level 5, is that it has to be clearly a different system. If I saw this new 'risk level', I would have to be sure which system it was in. Perhaps it would have to be in A,B,C or some such clearly different naming. I would then have to remember the ins and outs of two systems.

The problem is not with the number of levels in the established system or the detail in the reports, but simply that 95% of skiers on dangerous slopes do not even know there is a danger there. They are un-aware. They don't know what they don't know. Unknown Unknowns.

The best we can do is point out that there is more to skiing a bit of off piste than having the balls for it, and then making information easily available.

Hmm, easily available. Perhaps you are right, it needs an easy lead in, but come on, five levels, 1 is be careful, 2 is risky so look about you, 3 is get some gear and training, 4 is stay on open pistes and 5, stay in the hotel and hope it doesn't come your way.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

As an English speaker (with a smattering of German), I have been looking for user friendly Android App for French avalanche reports. I use one for Switzerland, and another for Austria, but I have yet to find one for France.

These are very useful as they format just the data I need, whereas the French websites I have found are tricky to navigate on a tiny mobile screen, with limited data (roaming) and speed - I don't need to know if it is raining in Paris thank you.

This sort of resource is ideal for spreading information to the point of use, and getting the learning curve flattened for all those learners out there.

There are a couple of threads with useful resources somewhere on Snowheads, but either they have not been updated or there is still no similar service in France ?

snow reports

@Layne, sorry if that was a bit abrasive but you did raise the points that:

1. the 5 level rating is not fit for purpose - I don't really agree with this but people do need to understand its limitations. and the 5 level rating is not the only thing available - it is part of a broader system which includes the rose (which you have dismissed as not helpful rolling eyes

) and avalanche reports posted at lift stations/tourist offices/ resort websites of every resort I have ever looked at (I have only looked at resorts I visit so this is not a full survey)
and
2. that a RAG system could replace it - I don't agree with that for the reasons stated in my post

My point is that there is information out there; it is adequate for people to make decisions, but it does require some effort to understand that info and turn it into a "go" or "no go" decision at the top of the slope. If people don't want to engage at that level, I suppose you could boil it down to very simple instructions - eg don't ski anything more than 20 degrees today or overlooked by anything more than 20 degrees. But again, that is something which would often be such an oversimplification that many people will ignore it

as to the point about "go but take adequate precautions" - the hint is in "adequate precautions". On a level 2 day, you have reasonably free reign; on a level 4 day you stick to only the safest slopes. Maybe have a read about Munter's Risk Reduction Method to give a bit more context - summary from our very own Davidof here:

http://pistehors.com/news/ski/comments/avalanche-risk-reduction-methods/

You know it makes sense.

@Layne,
From a quick look at the flag, if it is yellow I can see that the avi risk is low (1/2), if it is chequered I will want to get more advice/info before I head off-piste. If it is black, I should not even be outside. This is something that can be seen from chair or some distance without having to get right up close to the board.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

A snowHead

In risk assessments you use the combination of likeliness with other factors, maybe we could use a scale:

1) Understand avalanches , what causes them and what to look for.
2) Understand the risks of avalanches and have some knowledge of the above.
3) Know they are dangerous.
4) I'll be alright.
5) WHATEVER.

Multiply these by the avalanche warning and if its over 10, don't go out.

A snowHead

@blahblahblah, Interesting.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

I try to keep the following rough rule in my head (simplification of Munter scale)
Obviously remembering that the level changes with aspect, as shown on the rose.

Level 1 / 2 = slopes > 40/45+ degrees
Level 3 = slopes > 30 degrees maybe ok (with caution!)
Level 4 = slopes < 30 degrees
Level 5 = stay at home.

Level 4 is easy to assess (stay off the steeps) and Level 1/2 is easy too (very stable).
Level 3 is much trickier to make a logical judgement.....
It is also when most accidents tend to occur.

Now imagine there is 99% chance of the slope being "safe" at level 3 ?
Most of them time when you ski it nothing will happen ?
However if you ski 100 such slopes over a period of 2 or 3 seasons then law of probability suggests eventually one of them will slide.
Which is why you need to consider the terrain and likely consequences should that happen....
Tricky stuff to get right all of the time!

One thing to remember with the avalanche rose is that it is a measure of risk.
There are no guarantees a specific slope is safe, or not.
Level 3 = considerable risk.
Just because you skied a slope and nothing happened doesn't always mean it was a good decision.
... or that you will always get away it every single time.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

@Haggis_Trap, not far off my thought process, although I tend to wimp out at the 45 degree mark for reasons other than avalanche danger.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

The problem that I see right now is the type of risk, rather than the amount.

Normally l3 is quite manageable - a result of new snow or wind loading, which normally isn't too hard to identify and avoid as necessary.

Right now we're dealing with deep instabilities that are much much harder to predict, plus the risk of small wind pockets releasing and stepping down to the deeper instabilities, resulting in much larger avalanches.

I don't see any need to change the scale though; I think it works pretty well as it is. If you're not prepared to educate yourself enough to work with it, then go hire a guide or stick to the pistes.

You'll need to Register first of course.

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.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

The best Avalanche information dissemination I have seen was in Gulmarg where the Avalanche briefings were posted in every hotel and all around the resort. They included the risks on all the aspects of the compass above and below the tree line. This was backed up with a weekly briefing by the head of the ski patrol to anyone who wanted to attend - the meetings were always packed. All of this was supplemented with videos and reports posted on line showing stuff like snow profiles. The point is that the head of the ski patrol did everything humanly possible to make sure that everyone going on the mountain (which is all off piste) was armed with all the current information to stay as safe as possible. The small number of accidents during his time suggest that he had the right idea.
As a punter one can't help feeling that in Europe we are given over simplified information, unless you are prepared to dig for it and there are vested interests that want to keep it that way. I have no evidence for this its just a gut feeling.
The way to save lives is to get as much information as possible out in the public domain using all the modern information tools available such as you tube, Facebook, etc. Most big ski lifts have powder skiing videos showing in the waiting areas. Far better to give a daily briefing from the ski patrol telling them what to avoid and why.
Grades are pretty meaningless to me, but details such as "wind slab on unstable base on North facing stopes" for example is easy to understand and a video showing this even better.

After all it is free

@BertieG, good points, interesting.

@BertieG, agree that resorts could / should do more, although that would mean more detailed info rather than simplified info.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

I find risk levels fairly clear and not misleading in the slightest. There are also avalanche bulletins that are worth consulting that give regional information and past and present weather observations. Safety courses are provided on requests. Bulletins for those without Internet are available in most resorts at the Information desks, but you can also bring horse to water as they say - if people don't read them, they don't read them. I don't believe changing the scale will reduce the number of avalanche deaths, better awareness may though.

Help!!

Avalanche risk levels

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste