 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
That sounds huge / too many in the same area
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
17 folk taken, any news if this was on/close to a piste??
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@kitenski, nope it's a skitouring area - two groups (with guides) were caught while skinning up to the hut. RIP.
18 avalanche incidents in Tirol today.
High level 3, lots of people on holiday, first sunny day after snowfall (and very warm)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
BBC News just reported it as 2km wide...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
@doorman_tom, yep, one of the Austrian papers published that with the original report, then amended it to a few hundred metres. I guess others are still posting info based on the original report.
From the Tirol avalanche commission: http://lawinenwarndienst.blogspot.co.at
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@clarky999, cheers, it did seem unreal. Still a big slide unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 news about this accident is a bit conflicting. According to reports the man running the hut advised the group not to risk it. Although all were equipped with full safety equipment - the first major avalanche partially buried the victims and two further minor avalanches buried them deeper (so even airbags wouldn't of helped).
It's not clear if they set off the avalanche themselves or another group above them set off the avalanche.
http://tirol.orf.at/news/stories/2756315/
According to one source 17 ski tourers were in 2 Groups and both groups had a guide, 5 skitourers and a dog died while another 2 skitourers suffered injuries. The avalanche warning was 3 above 2300m altitude but the group organiser stated that the group were under 2300m when the avalanche occured.
http://www.gmx.at/magazine/panorama/toedliche-lawine-tirol-ermittlungen-laufen-31334926
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's such cowdoo for the group organiser to say it was level 3 and most groups go at that level ( if indeed he said it and it isn't incomplete reporting). What about assessing your local slopes and spacing out so 17 people don't get taken out in one event? I'm getting a bit angry about these group events this year because there are probably innocents going along with "experts" in the group and suffering the highest consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
My info from the ground says the slab(s) triggered on a weak layer dating from the start of the season (like the Clusaz avalanche in France last weekend) and the slope had not been extensively skied this winter. A similar avalanche problem exists across the Tyrol at altitude and probably in the Swiss and French Alps.
The slide was in all probability remote triggered - so the risk could be level 2 where you are on the ground but level 3 on the slopes above. Reports are some or all of the victims had airbags.
It is a big slide on an extensive weak layer - a feature we saw last year with a number of big avalanches across the alps that took out groups - I don't know about 2000 meters wide (or long?) but clearly it broke over a very large area and with debris 5 meters deep, so that doesn't shock me. Remember that an airbag offers less protection to a climbing skier - you have to be moving in the debris for inverse segregation to work - so being hit by a wall of snow in the runout zone doesn't give an airbag much time to be effective.
With the increasing popularity of ski touring we'll see other big accidents like this where it is next to impossible to climb with a reasonable margin of safety due to the number of groups on a given slope. The compensation is that popular routes do get some skier compaction in a normal season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, it's an interesting one, and I don't have all the info, but the latest update from the Avalanche Commission and the Alpinpolizei is that it was a remote trigger or possible natural release from above them.
The previous report also specifically stated that they had spread while skinning up the steepest part of the slope FWIW (clearly not enough though).
The biggest problem is the terrain choice. Very widespread and totally unpredictable old snow problems and weak layers - like last year, but maybe worse due to the thinner snowpack (easier to find a hotspot to trigger). Only way to manage the risk is to be really conservative in terrain choice and err hugely on the side of caution - and it's going to stay like that for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
The slide was in all probability remote triggered - so the risk could be level 2 where you are on the ground but level 3 on the slopes above. |
I should add that it is unlikely to remote trigger an avalanche at risk 2, it was just an example, but you could be below whatever altitude the bulletin gives and have someone above you trigger it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| davidof wrote: |
With the increasing popularity of ski touring we'll see other big accidents like this where it is next to impossible to climb with a reasonable margin of safety due to the number of groups on a given slope. The compensation is that popular routes do get some skier compaction in a normal season. |
Yes. Maybe I'm overreacting and I certainly don't have all the facts. Maybe people have to be able to compromise on their objectives if it appears other groups are on the same slope. In a sketchy season even more so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| davidof wrote: |
With the increasing popularity of ski touring we'll see other big accidents like this where it is next to impossible to climb with a reasonable margin of safety due to the number of groups on a given slope. The compensation is that popular routes do get some skier compaction in a normal season. |
Yes. Maybe I'm overreacting and I certainly don't have all the facts. Maybe people have to be able to compromise on their objectives if it appears other groups are on the same slope. In a sketchy season even more so. |
I don't think you are overreacting. Crowding is not a new problem on popular routes and some of the "social" sites increase the problem with lots of people doing a route "posted" the day before. There is something of a sheep effect - safety in numbers!!! (sic).
As you say, you need to sometimes compromise on objectives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, @davidof, I bailed on a tour scheduled for yesterday on a very steep (40 degree -40+kick turns couloir) with my local club, on the basis that I'd seen a fair few slides when I cycled up in that part of the world on Tues.
When I was giving my excuses as to why I was not joining them (after I met up with them after a tour on Friday) they took it not too well with, "L'Anglais what the feck does he know", type of attitude, and looking at the FB they had a great descent. check out Club Alpine Briancon FB.
But I can well see me just sticking to mellow slopes until the Spring as ever, as that's what I prefer if climbing for two to three hours.
That said I will be riding with ABS bags tomorrow off piste off the lifts - but's it's the ski touring where I feel the most vulnerable.
Right, too much red wine time for bed said Zebeddee 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
