 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Any link?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
sorry no link as it is in the SCGB magazine
a group skiing with a rep in Whistler- in bounds but unpisted- avalanche- rep partially buried (hand out only) and just above a cliff. A number of others also caught but not buried (this bit is a bit vague).
Changes to skiing in North America- booking with rep only plus transceiver / shovel and probe for any group skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| ed123 wrote: |
...A number of others also caught but not buried (this bit is a bit vague).
Changes to skiing in North America- booking with rep only plus transceiver / shovel and probe for any group skiing. |
That last paragraph is a bit too vague/unclear to comment. SCGB rep/group? Changes to resort policy or SCGB policy? Rep's only has kit or whole group?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
sorry about that- no everyone needs them for skiing with SCGB rep. (in NA).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Sounds like this event but this was from last season...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Richard_Sideways wrote: |
| Sounds like this event but this was from last season... |
Ski and Board is never really about current events, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's in a more recent edition, especially given they only publish a couple of issues in off-season.
Anyway, now we now what's being referred to (and thanks for that) I'm still no wiser to what the OP is asking or saying. On-snow leading by SCGB reps is no longer done within Europe ( more's the pity, we used to really enjoy it, but we've now 'retired' as reps and left the club altogether) and the policies for North America are designed around their inbounds/out of bounds approach. Sounds like nothing was done incorrectly here, but of course it serves to remind that avalanches can happen even within controlled areas, sometimes even onto or across pistes. Nothing new about that though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Richard_Sideways, thanks, interesting
Not sure what we are being asked to opine on 
Sapphire bowl is definitely one of the more gnarly bits of terrain inbounds at WB (pretty steep, big, feels quite remote even though it is inbounds) but it sounds like the rep managed the situation reasonably- he’d be entitled to assume that the chance of an avalanche would be extremely low
It looks like there were a few inbounds incidents around that time. I wonder if there was something funky in the snowpack and whether WB patrol have reviewed their own protocols after this
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Hi- thanks for finding the link to another account - which is near identical to that in S&B.
I guess I was quite surprised to hear that there had been an inbounds avalanche. But on reflection I suppose also perhaps that would be part of the risk in a resort managed in that fashion. Neither article mentions what the posted avalanche risk had been. But given that there had been snowfall and also that unpisted terrain was being skied- I guess the ambiguous level 3.
Another point for discussion would be snowheads views on carrying avalanche gear in North American resorts as a matter of routine. The S&B article referred to this 'not being the culture in NA).
I was asking about people's thoughts in general- not making a snide point about SCGB. I'm a member and have skied with groups on and off piste on many occasions. (But I guess that since this is snowheads there could be sensitivity, that said I do think that there are all sorts of problems with SCGB- but they are irrelevant to this).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ed123, not sure the usual risk scale really works for inbounds - it will be bombed, checked out in person by patrol etc with the aim of reducing risk to a minimum
I have skied inbounds at WB with and without the kit. It really depends on what I have with me. It’s a personal decision and I certainly don’t think there should be any compulsion to do so.
I’m pretty ambivalent about SCGB and leaders but it sounds like they just got very unlucky here. No criticism on them. Maybe some criticism on the resort’s decision to open the run but even that’s a bit of a stretch without knowing more about the circumstances
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| ed123 wrote: |
I guess I was quite surprised to hear that there had been an inbounds avalanche. But on reflection I suppose also perhaps that would be part of the risk in a resort managed in that fashion. Neither article mentions what the posted avalanche risk had been. But given that there had been snowfall and also that unpisted terrain was being skied- I guess the ambiguous level 3. |
Inbound avalanche is indeed rare. But not never.
The avalanche potential level is irrelevant. The slope would have been cut/bombed before declared “open”. So the risk of avalanche would be no different regardless whatever the scale in nearby slopes outside the boundry.
Bear in mind avalanche “level” is location specific. So technically, it only apply to backcountry, not to inbound areas.
| Quote: |
Another point for discussion would be snowheads views on carrying avalanche gear in North American resorts as a matter of routine. The S&B article referred to this 'not being the culture in NA).
|
Maybe rally car drivers have a “culture” of wearing helmets and harness. City drivers don’t share that “culture”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| ed123 wrote: |
| Neither article mentions what the posted avalanche risk had been. But given that there had been snowfall and also that unpisted terrain was being skied- I guess the ambiguous level 3. |
Ambiguous? Not at all. It means there is considerable risk of avalanche. As an SCGB rep for twenty-odd years we were constantly retrained on avalanche risks, but just because we were allowed to lead off-piste on a risk-3 day but not a 4 does not in any measure imply that it's going to be safe to do so.
| abc wrote: |
| Inbound avalanche is indeed rare. But not never. |
And as I said earlier, they can and do occur in controlled areas in European resorts as well.
I recall at least two occasions in Engelberg where avalanches partially covered pistes, one of which was such that they spent a good hour or more probing just to make sure nobody had got caught. They hadn't, but there was enough snow on the piste to have buried someone if they had.
And there was an avalanche death on-piste in Crans Montana just a couple of years ago that made the headlines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Maybe rally car drivers have a “culture” of wearing helmets and harness. City drivers don’t share that “culture”.
|
That's an interesting analogy - Racing culture does indeed promote safety, but outside of those competitive scenarios, it skews safety awareness somewhat. So i'd pose the opposite in this scenario - PERHAPS (massive caveat there) as we are probably talking about Europeans here the in-bound free-ride culture in North America MAY have contributed towards a little complacency, and the article suggests that of an unspecified size group, only 3 people were carrying full kit, and 2 were well versed in snowpack assessment and avalanche training. Maybe the 'Expert Fallacy' came into play a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
Ambiguous? Not at all. |
and just to compliment what you say, for skiers the avalanche scale is 1 to 4 (5 concerns risk to infrastructure, roads etc) so 4 and 5 for skiers are the same level of probability of avalanches, just the size or risk of non skier triggered avalanches that is greater.
Risk 1 and 2 are in the lower end of the scale; I would say a risk 2 following strong winds is something you want to be careful about. especially wrt to any break from risk 2 to 3 due to altitude. Lots of people see risk 2 and ignore that it is risk 3 above a certain altitude and end up triggering an avalanche at that altitude - or someone higher up triggers one that hits you lower down.
Risk 3 and 4 are in the upper end of the scale and require careful management. The difference between 3 and 4 are the range of slopes affected. A knowledgable skier should be able to navigate relatively safely at risk 3 having taken into account the bulletin. At risk 4 the danger is generalized and local knowledge applies - slopes that don't avalanche or very careful reading of the bulletin.
On the last point, even at risk 4 avalanches are relatively rare, so was it your skill that meant you didn't trigger a slide or luck? As I said to a snowhead earlier in the season, the graveyards of the alps are full of avalanche experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Richard_Sideways wrote: |
| Quote: |
Maybe rally car drivers have a “culture” of wearing helmets and harness. City drivers don’t share that “culture”.
|
That's an interesting analogy - Racing culture does indeed promote safety, but outside of those competitive scenarios, it skews safety awareness somewhat. So i'd pose the opposite in this scenario - PERHAPS (massive caveat there) as we are probably talking about Europeans here the in-bound free-ride culture in North America MAY have contributed towards a little complacency, and the article suggests that of an unspecified size group, only 3 people were carrying full kit, and 2 were well versed in snowpack assessment and avalanche training. Maybe the 'Expert Fallacy' came into play a bit. |
In theory an inbounds skier’s mindset shouldn’t matter. The thinking and safety work is supposed to have been done for them
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Presumably "ski and board" is a print magazine - it shows how far most of us have come from print media that they publish such old news, and how confusing it is when that's re-posted electronically. Perhaps one should write a letter with a quill pen to the editor rather than discussing ancient history here? 
I'm not sure precisely where they were, but I'd expect a lot of people to be heading that way. The Pique article quotes the lucky chap: "The difference maker and reason I am here: training and equipment", although he didn't inflate his airbag and they would not need transceivers to locate a visible victim. They didn't mention even needing shovels to free up his airway. Whatever, it sounds like they did a good job once things went haywire. I would always worry with a "led" group that if they all need to be competent enough to save their leader, who's most at risk. It sounds like they did a good job on that.
I don't really think the discussion about carrying gear fits with this - these guys were carrying gear.
If you're a Tour Operator and your people get into the Pique because they're in a slide, you'd want them to be carrying all the toys: that's a good decision.
Personally I'd carry a transceiver if I wanted to join the crowds where they were, and if there weren't crowds I'd maybe want to wonder why.
| Quote: |
| In theory an inbounds skier’s mindset shouldn’t matter. The thinking and safety work is supposed to have been done for them |
Most people can easily tell the difference between different bits of in-bounds off-piste at Whistler.
Some are no more risky than the pistes they're next to. Others, like I think where these guys were, are obviously more risky, which is why they were geared up.
People adjust their behaviour to match the risk.
Children maybe think in simplistic terms like those you're proposing, but that's why adults are mostly in charge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| phil_w wrote: |
| "The difference maker and reason I am here: training and equipment", although he didn't inflate his airbag and they would not need transceivers to locate a visible victim. They didn't mention even needing shovels to free up his airway. . |
Indeed. Equipment and training seems to play no real part. Everyone was visible on the surface from a fairly small slide and the leader got lucky he wasn't take over cliffs - which might have happened if he'd inflated his airbag. (I'm basing this of the Pique article)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@phil_w, thanks for the rather snotty comment. Do really think many inbounds skiers at WB carry avalanche kit? The resort certainly doesn’t encourage it as far as I can see. However, as soon as you try to buy an out of bounds ticket you have to fill out a questionnaire about understanding risks, carrying kit etc
I’d agree that Sapphire Bowl is one of the riskier places to go but that’s more because one of the entrances is a bit exposed IIRC and it’s pretty steep
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Avalanche rescue kits is for when your judgement on snow stability got it wrong. Simple.
So, you can choose to bring it or not depending on how much confidence (or the lack of) you have on the WB ski patrol.
Alternatively, you can do your own assessment instead of relying on the ski patrol.
But when a group follows a resort rep or guide without doing on the spot assessment, they’re already delegated that to the leader. How much do they know of their leaders knowledge to overwrite that of ski patrol?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
This is a remarkable and eye opening story. Ryan (the rep) has provided an excellent account which we can all learn from.
It is important to note that even the most experienced and trained get surprised - sadly it seems almost anything over 30' with snow on it can go. Tune in to Henry's avalanche talks if you doubt this. For me ABS Back pack and full kit essential ... And being careful, skiing with people who are trained and take care.
In terms of the headline story, had these conditions existed anywhere except in bounds USA (wind, fresh snow, steeps, cliffs) many more precautions would have been taken, odd that it is just not thought necessary in the US. Perhaps climate change will affect this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gemstone bowls are acknowledged by all who know Whistler as not risk free given the terrain, navigational challenges from above and things like convexities. I know one former snowhead who was a ski coach there who got partially buried in a self-inititated slide there. He got a sorry from ski patrol but also clearly they emphasised they can't release every pocket while running a route.
Don't think the pround Canuckistanis would be happy at the implication that WB has been annexed to the US despite Vail. Most sane people who ski the spicier terrain seem to pack anyway as they're just as likely to be taking an outside lap.
I might not be skiing with the full trinity every day when I ski inbounds in North America but I do choose to beep on big days and have ridden lifts where ski patrol institute no beep/no buddy = no ride rules. I've also released pockets early on powder days while doing cuts. I'm not desperate to get first into steep and deep runs these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pisteoff wrote: |
In terms of the headline story, had these conditions existed anywhere except in bounds USA (wind, fresh snow, steeps, cliffs) many more precautions would have been taken, odd that it is just not thought necessary in the US. |
Is what I thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| ed123 wrote: |
| .. Is what I thought. |
What, you both thought Canada was in the US?
| Quote: |
| ...many more precautions would have been taken, odd that it is just not thought necessary in the US. |
Which precautions precisely did you have in mind and in which countries for what reason? You sound like you've strong views on how Canadian resorts should be run, and I'd like to understand the basis for those views. Specifics please, related to this incident as per your comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@phil-w - don't be silly. I think pisteoff gave a good, concise and comprehensive explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
| Which precautions precisely did you have in mind and in which countries for what reason? |
- as described by @offpiste: equipment carried by all and expectation regards skills of all (but can't comment on the latter in this incident because D/K exactly).
| Quote: |
| You sound like you've strong views on how Canadian resorts should be run, and I'd like to understand the basis for those views. Specifics please, related to this incident as per your comments. |
Not on how the resorts are run per se. Perhaps more on expectations / actions of skiers in different types of terrain (as described by @offpiste). A number of European resorts have "freeride" areas where I think it is more likely that users will be so equipped and there can be signage to that effect, but generally there is no requirement for the same (but see below regards some areas in Italy).
There are of course multiple posts regards carrying avalanche equipment when off piste (in it's absolutely most extensive definition- i.e. an inch over the markers) in European resorts, I get that there is a difference between this and Canada- although it looks like "off-piste" in Italy can include patches between runs which are obviously avalanche controlled as per the runs they adjoin and in some areas of Italy there are requirements to carry avalanche equipment and a phone.
I'm really not looking for some kind of forum spat about it. I can see exactly why the group skied as they did at the time. A point worth thinking about is the new requirement from SCGB regards the manner in which the same terrain is skied by SCGB groups in future. If SCGB didn't think there were issues as described by @offpiste then there would be no change.
I think I need to clarify as few people here are SCGB members- Following this incident the SCGB radically changed their requirements for everyone skiing unpisted terrain with SCGB groups in North America carrying avalanche kit following review by their UIAGM advisor. Unfortunately I have misplaced my magazine- perhaps someone could post what the new rules are? Needless to say there is nothing I can find in the SCGB website about this- including the online articles from Ski and Board.- There is a brief account in the SCGB App- "All days apart from Sunday and Wednesday will require members to carry a transciever and backpack with a shovel and probe for off-piste riding as per updated Club policy. ..group sizes now operate at a reduced number"
@phil-w Perhaps you could put your thoughts why there should be no change? SCGB would not have implemented changes to their rules if their perception had been that there had been no issue. Really- that isn't some sort of trolling challenge. I'm genuinely interested in this. In my professional life I deal with objective vs subjective risk all the time. What people do regards risk always exists in a cultural context (like it or not- it just does- for what it's worth I really don't like this. If anyone is interested then there is an excellent book by David Speigelhalter about this sort of thing- 'The Chronicles of Norm', or for anyone geeky enough 'Risk' by John Adams or 'Taking account of Societal Concerns about Risk' as well as the classic 'Prospect Theory- an Understanding of Decision Under Risk'). The objective risk of skiing this terrain was no different pre and post the incident in question. The SCGB requirements changed after it. There was no change in the previously known objective risk, following this incident a (radical) change in the requirements for risk mitigation (but interestingly not an absolute prohibition- which I am pleased about). But why? Thoughts about the cultural (subjective) aspects of risk management? A reappraisal of the subjective risk (for example risk appetite of SCGB leaders and groups / the organisation itself). Or a re-appraisal of the objective risk of skiing this terrain regardless of subjective issues and the local culture of North America where the new SCGB rules are not usually followed by almost everyone who skis in-bounds. But obviously all these factors are probably in the mix to some extent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@ed123, A well thought through and balanced post. There has clearly been policy changes in SCGB - have a look at the Whistler Facebook group for a perspective on this. https://www.facebook.com/groups/SCGBWhistler/
One thing I am troubled by in the SCGB advice / policy - which is different Europe to NA - is the advice on leadership off piste. Reps training is very clear, you MUST have leadership off piste, yet this is being 'fudged' in the advice and support of reps because of the paradox with the French decision that SCGB reps are 'professional' so cannot lead anywhere without breaching national laws on qualifications. In other words SCGB is behaving as if more concerned with its own liability than protection of reps and the safety of groups. I think legally this 'qualifications issue' is trumped by the duty of care and established practice that all groups off piste have a 'leader' (the most experienced by default) - so that if you have an accident off piste (especially an avalanche) reps will be going to jail if they try to claim they had nothing to do with the management of the group or/and the group behaved dangerously.
Off piste groups MUST have clear leadership for safety, that is well established. The reps course includes explicit leadership training and avalanche training for this reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| ...many more precautions would have been taken, odd that it is just not thought necessary in the US. |
Which precautions precisely did you have in mind and in which countries for what reason? You sound like you've strong views on how Canadian resorts should be run, and I'd like to understand the basis for those views. Specifics please, related to this incident as per your comments.[/quote]
Sorry, yes, very silly to suggest Whistler was in the USA. North America I should have said.
The point I was making was that in my experience - which includes a US avalanche qualification but is very Europe focussed - would suggest there were many many serious warning signs and as a consequence behaviours needed to mitigate/minimise risk. In the specific incident reported the rep is to be applauded, and the group - nevertheless groups like theirs behave differently to how they would have behaved in Europe. I was observing that this seems odd. I have heard talk of different type of snowpack and patrol "safeguarding" of off piste however we can perhaps reflect whether it is (still) appropriate to take less precautions than in Europe off piste. For example we are taught that snow pack and avalanche risk is a result of the build up of snow, weather and temperature patterns etc, and that we should study the local knowledge. ... and not take risks - which is very different from the default NA position of if its in bounds and not closed its OK. This then implies less care on route selection, group management etc than in Europe.
I guess my observation was reflecting perhaps we need to go further now in North America to adopt more European type risk management, partly perhaps as a result of climate change affecting underlying snow conditions (so the risky weak layers, wind loading etc we see in Europe are reflected more in-bounds in NA than historically.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
