 Poster: A snowHead
|
4 people are dead. This is not the right place to be shouting about them being Idiots. Remember that relatives of the deceased might read this thread.
There is a snow and avalanche thread to discuss the circumstances of the incident for the armchair experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Risk 3 for the area where the incident occurred on Sunday. Same risk over the border in the Mont Blanc range (risk 3 above 2000 meters, risk 2 below). Perfectly acceptable conditions for people to be skiing off piste. As Jbob commented all wearing beacons and the two London based skiers equipped with airbags which were actuated.
Looks as if the slide may have been triggered from below by the skiers in the Spanish couloir, the slope broke to the top of the ridge and mobilized a significant amount of snow. Not an ideal situation for avalanche airbags.
The season has been quite late to start in Italy (as is the case in France) and the cold, dry weather in January has created some weak layers in the snowpack. Significant fresh snow, frequently wind loaded, has fallen on this and created some more or less critical avalanche situation.
Sympathies with the family and friends of the victims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| sherman-maeir wrote: |
4 people are dead. This is not the right place to be shouting about them being Idiots. Remember that relatives of the deceased might read this thread.
There is a snow and avalanche thread to discuss the circumstances of the incident for the armchair experts. |
Erm no-one has shouted about the victims being idiots. More the wider unthinking population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@davidof,
| Quote: |
Risk 3 for the area where the incident occurred on Sunday. Same risk over the border in the Mont Blanc range (risk 3 above 2000 meters, risk 2 below). Perfectly acceptable conditions for people to be skiing off piste.
|
I agree with that. Although I have to say that my personal risk appetite (as a husband and father) would have precluded skiing truly steep terrain that is a natural avalanche path and a terrain trap at risk 3 (which I think is fair summary of the situation) unless guided by a professional I really trust. And even then...
That is a personal choice though.
I spent all weekend skiing off piste at Les Contamines. Risk was high on Saturday and we were very circumspect about gradient and terrain (traps and slopes above us). Risk fell substantially to 2/3 on Saturday (3 was S facing above 2000m) so we enjoyed a bit more freedom especially by keeping off the 3 elevations. The other factor was poor visibility which kept us from heading too far afield. Even then I once found myself in slightly the wrong place - a bit of side stepping and traversing with ABS handle attached to avoid a gulley that was steeper than I intended and with a hazardous run out (turning off a bit early in the fog). This weekend's conditions needed a degree of caution I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| jedster wrote: |
| I have to say that my personal risk appetite (as a husband and father) would have precluded skiing truly steep terrain that is a natural avalanche path and a terrain trap at risk 3 (which I think is fair summary of the situation) |
I haven't seen the detailed bulletin (and we don't know if the victims consulted it either). Steep sided, steep couloirs can be a good plan when the avalanche risk is high as they auto-purge during snowfall and don't build up weak layers providing they don't have a funnel entrance that can avalanche.
In this case it looks more like a gulley with some avalanche prone sidewalls, so yes, you'd want to be sure about the stability of the slopes above given you've no chance of escape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ulmerhutte wrote: |
| bambionskiis wrote: |
| I'm a slow and steady easy red skier. The closest I get to off-piste is if I fall over on the side of a run. My questions is, in the past, have many people died/been seriously injured by avalanche whilst skiing on groomed runs? I always hear of off-piste skiers being affected but just wondered what the liklihood is otherwise. |
I cannot find comparable stats for Europe, but for USA, the NSAA data states that 53 million ski days were recorded last winter and 10 ski deaths from avalanches. Yes, those stats do not differentiate between on & off piste activity, but in raw numbers, that is 1 death per 5 million ski days. I would therefore suggest the likelihood is minuscule.
In the above context, what is “acceptable risk” mentioned by some of the posters above?
Dated article, but interesting read: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7961412_The_Impact_of_Avalanche_Transceivers_on_Mortality_from_Avalanche_Accidents
| Quote: |
| Rapid extrication is the most important determinant of survival in avalanche victims. To facilitate rapid localization of avalanche victims by uninjured companions, avalanche transceivers are widely used during off-piste and backcountry activities. Despite their widespread use, the influence of transceivers on survival probability in avalanche accidents is controversial. The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the influence of transceivers on the mortality of avalanche victims. There were 194 accidents in Austria from 1994 to 2003, involving 278 totally buried victims, which were analyzed. Avalanche transceivers were used by 156 (56%) victims and were associated with a significant reduction in median burial time from 102 to 20 min (p < 0.001), as well as a significant reduction in mortality from 68.0% to 53.8% (p = 0.011). This reduction was due to a decrease in mortality during backcountry activities involving ski tourers in free alpine areas (from 78.9% to 50.4%, p < 0.001). Transceivers did not reduce mortality during off-piste activities beside or near organized ski slopes (67.7% with versus 58.5% without transceiver, not significant). Mortality of persons using a transceiver is significantly higher if burial depth exceeds 1.5 m. Despite a significant reduction, mortality still exceeds 50% even with the use of transceivers. Therefore, in addition to the use of emergency equipment like transceivers, avalanche avoidance measures are critically important. The fairly modest influence of the use of transceivers on survival probability may be due to the highly efficient mountain rescue service in the Austrian Alps. In remote areas the reduction in mortality will probably be far more pronounced. |
|
Thanks ulmerhut for this - really interesting. Thanks also to the others who responded. I was hoping on-piste avalanche deaths were indeed a rare occurrence and it would appear they are - thankfully. Sympathies to all caught up in them - they sound a nightmare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is an article in today's Times, where the families pay tribute.
It sounds like they were experienced skiers/mountaineers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| T Bar wrote: |
There is an article in today's Times, where the families pay tribute.
It sounds like they were experienced skiers/mountaineers. |
Doesn’t seem to have stopped every report I’ve read about the incident in the “quality” papers (Times and Telegraph) endlessly repeating family comments that the male victim always carried a collapsible shovel to “dig himself out”  .
I assume that shows the lack of understanding of the person whose comment was reported, rather than the understanding of the victim...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
