@pam w, It's a good point. One guide that gave a presentation recently (and I've been out with him before, and would again), demonstrated how he uses the Reduction Method to initially assess a slope, and then amends this based on the avalanche report info that day (there is an explanation and diagram about halfway down this page: https://about.fatmap.com/journal-digest/how-act-in-an-avalanche-situation ). There is no truly risk-free area, but he reckoned that it could be reduced to roughly the same as a car accident – an acceptable risk.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@pam w, it's definitely less dangerous then sleeping, considering majority of people die in sleep On more serious side, I'm sure there's plenty of statistical data showing how much chances you have to die or to get injured in certain sport, including freeride and/or ski touring. But yeah even without this, it is dangerous. When you start doing stupid things, it gets even more dangerous. But just looking at avi danger scale and saying "it's 5, I'm not going anywhere" or on the other side "it's 1, it's safe and I can do whatever I want" is not the way to go. I can ski in backcountry and being perfectly safe when avi danger is 4 or 5, or on the other side, you can easily get killed, when avi danger is 1. I never understood, how people can underestimate 3, and dismiss it the way like "it's middle, so it's good", but reading just this thread makes me realize, it's not so uncommon. @Bergsteiger278, has point, and maybe 3 in German really sounds worse then it does in English (at least for me "erheblich" does sound "worse" then "considerable", but I'm not native speaker not in German and not in English, so it can also be influenced by my German and/or English knowledge and perception)
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?
@davidof, but where exactly was it, were they on the North or South side of the ridge as risk on S side was minimal*.
I can't find the detail, as it was the Dauphine was initially reporting it the Aiguillette du Chardonet which is up near Mont Blanc.
If it was the S side it could have been a cornice, as the winds have been blowing N/NW these past ten days, but the cornice and below could well have been loaded both sides, either way very bad luck to be in that place for it to go, especially with a guide, I was only up there a month or so ago touring.
Unfortunately as often happens in the holiday's people are here for their week and will go touring regardless of the conditions, good or bad and the guides have their work cut out to deliver the goods
* I actually went up yesterday exploring / sussing out the snow pack potential on the South side up to the Col du Granon 2,413m and had a chat with the PGHM guys that were up in the barracks as they stopped me for cycling through the barracks as it was Interdit Zone Militaire but after a while, they relaxed and one guy had a go on my e-mtb but we talked about how bad the snow was for touring etc and then come back to read about the incident. There's a bit more to the above but not for here....
@davidof, but where exactly was it, were they on the North or South side of the ridge as risk on S side was minimal*.
I can't find the detail, as it was the Dauphine was initially reporting it the Aiguillette du Chardonet which is up near Mont Blanc.
If it was the S side it could have been a cornice, as the winds have been blowing N/NW these past ten days, but the cornice and below could well have been loaded both sides, either way very bad luck to be in that place for it to go, especially with a guide, I was only up there a month or so ago touring.
West facing slope just below the col Sud, windslab, apparently. Risk 2. The bulletin for Monday warned of rare hard slabs on a PWL / old snow which could be triggered by a single skier. PWL obviously still a danger.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Tue 7-02-23 10:53; edited 1 time in total
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
pam w wrote:
These are indeed very sad and sobering stories, but I wonder how dangerous off piste skiing really is, in comparison to other hazardous activities. Hundreds of motor cyclists die in the UK every year, and thousands more are seriously injured. Horse riding is notoriously dangerous (remember when one of the government's senior advisers on drugs noted that more kids died from riding accidents than from Ecstasy - there was such an outcry at this heretical truth that he had to resign).
Yes agree, the relevance in reporting and how sensationalised that may be certainly draws comment. Obviously it's very significant for anyone to lose their life and should be viewed in that manor.
A lifelong motorcycle rider, father that raced TT, sisters involved with horses etc, I'm aware of the risks in those arena. The one that shocks me though is cycle deaths in traffic scenario.
Stats, I think but you'd need to check, London average 10 per year, from usually people commuting etc, going out without any real appreciation of risk level, let alone 1 to 5 .
Relevance to advrhture sports ? Adventure participants do have a choice and know they head into some risk. Coincidental deaths, they didn't even see it coming, involuntary participants really.
Cycling UK is average over 100 as far as I understand. Nuts really but no particular news gathering about that.
"it's 1, it's safe and I can do whatever I want" is not the way to go. I can ski in backcountry and being perfectly safe when avi danger is 4 or 5, or on the other side, you can easily get killed, when avi danger is 1.
Avalanche deaths when the risk is 1 have got to be exceptionally rare, can you find any documented cases of this? Unless you're including non-avalanche deaths in that but this is a discussion about avalanches and other risks need assessing separately. Maybe a spring time wet slide on steep south facing slope could catch you out at level 1 but this risk is normally clearly explained in the bulletin and easy to avoid
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
pam w wrote:
I wonder how dangerous off piste skiing really is
For ski touring it is approx. 1 death per 70,000 skier days (France). I think that makes it safer than horse riding and base jumping and swiming but more dangerous than sky diving or cycling (just). Sky diving is relatively safe because it is a controlled environment with lots of safety checks in place which ski tourers generally don't do outside of guided or club groups. Swimming is relatively dangerous because there are fewer safety checks in place and participants are aged from a few months old - upwards.
Off piste skiing is safer than ski touring.
If everyone were to use the Risk Reduction Method this figure will move to 1:100,000 - about the same as cycling.
Regarding club groups, Austria figures give the fatality rate as 1 death per 333 350 skier days for club groups so following correct protocols and procedures can considerably reduce the risk of a fatality by 5x (note I've mixed French and Austrian data but it gives an idea).
After all it is free
After all it is free
This article has the best summary of the quantification of the risks that I’ve seen. It estimates an average backcountry ski tour is about as dangerous as a scuba dive or a parachute jump (~10 micromorts). Going for a bike ride is orders of magnitude safer.
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.
@davidof, Thats really interesting and I was trying to look at the relative risk this week as was discussing with someone. Do you have a link to that info so I can read around?
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@hold_my_biere, x post! thanks!
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
hold_my_biere wrote:
This article has the best summary of the quantification of the risks that I’ve seen.
Some Dutch Bloke wrote wrote:
1%.
That is the amount of residual risk promised by snow and mountain safety guru Werner Munter. This is, of course, absurd.
I first heard this percentage during a backcountry skiing course. Thankfully, I was not alone in my disbelief. A ‘one-in-a-hundred chance’ implies that we won’t survive more than a hundred skiing trips on average! Even if we planned every tour by the book – Munter’s book to be precise. Even if we base our decision on his ‘3 × 3 Filter- and Reduction' methodology that should make ski-touring risk acceptable.
To claim that Munther said that ski touring has a fatality rate of 1:100 is the most stupid thing I've read on line for a long time. (I've contacted the author).
Quote:
In the book “3x3 Lawinen” (Munter, 2003) An estimate of the ski tour case fatality rate (avalanche accidents) in Switzerland in the 1980-ies corresponds to about one death in 36000 ski touring
days. A use of 1/100000 as a base rate for winter mountaineering seems nevertheless reasonable (Munter, 2008). Compared to other risks this can still be seen as rather high, but it can be seen as the price that we must pay for the freedom of the mountains. (Munter, 2008)
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Tue 7-02-23 14:18; edited 4 times in total
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.
Quote:
Munter said 1:100,000
Which means that if you go ski-touring 100 days a year, you would die once every thousand years. Decent odds, I'd say.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
pam w wrote:
Quote:
Munter said 1:100,000
Which means that if you go ski-touring 100 days a year, you would die once every thousand years. Decent odds, I'd say.
Yes, he calculated that the death rate in the 1980s was 1:36,000 ski tours and he said that 1:100,000 was an acceptable level. His reduction method would reduce the risk to this level.
My own figure for France is 1:70,000 in the 2010s. Obvously this is an estimate. Safety has improved for a number of reasons we've discussed previously but principally: widespread use of avalanche beacons, better understanding danger mitigation, better helicopter response times for rescue, better treatment of victims, more widespread use of airbags and even "climate change". This is countered to some extent by more risk taking by participants.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
ski3 wrote:
... The one that shocks me though is cycle deaths in traffic scenario. ... you'd need to check, London average 10 per year, from usually people commuting etc, going out without any real appreciation of risk level, let alone 1 to 5 .
There were an estimated 1,390 reported road deaths in the UK in the year ending June 2021, with a total of 24,530 killed or seriously injured.
Drivers' excessive speed was a contributory factor in most of those incidents, and the biggest cause of fatal incidents.
The ten number probably comes from here, but it's not an average, bad drivers usually kill many more than that.
I think what's shocking is that people consider drivers killing people - pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, passengers - to be acceptable.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
I do think its really sad @phil_w, that's London centric data.
Someone just going to work and not coming back is awful. It makes me wince though when I see how some cyclist position themselves, particularly on the inside of vehicles of any size, trusing that nothing is going to happen to them.
They of course go with no notion, well it seems that way to me, as in comparison a mountain expedition/trip would normally set up at least some protocol however thoroughly that may or may not be approached.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@phil_w, within the World Health Organisation it's known as the silent epidemic. If you had that number of deaths due to anything else there would be an outcry. That's like 5 commercial airliners crashing every year with no survivors. And the UK has one of the lowest road death rates per capita in Europe.
Sorry, can't say much on topic of avalanches, but yes risk communication - not just calculating it, but then transmitting it so Jo Public understands - is not straightforward.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Quote:
1,390 reported road deaths in the UK in the year ending June 2021, with a total of 24,530 killed or seriously injured.
And that included a big chunk of time when traffic was significantly reduced because of Covid
People do faff a lot about the dangers of skiing and collisions on the piste and don't see the irony of boasting about getting from Calais to resort in 10 hours or complaining about the inconvenience of being stuck behind someone only doing 130kph.
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?
pam w wrote:
or complaining about the inconvenience of being stuck behind someone only doing 130kph.
that was probably me, I don't think my car goes much faster I'm afraid
and if it was raining, and it was me, I'd have been doing 69mph - i.e. the speed limit.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
@phil_w,
Quote:
Drivers' excessive speed was a contributory factor in most of those incidents, and the biggest cause of fatal incidents.
There's a lot of misleading evidence from plod, and a lot of rubbish talked about speeding. For example:
On the way back from work one day I was (for a change) pootling along in a bus lane passing the long line of traffic when a young guy on a scooter comes past me, now I know there are turnings all over the place on this bit of road and sure enough at the next left turn a car comes across from the other side of the road and knocks this guy for six. I stayed around because I saw everything. So when Plod turned up and asked me, I told the the nice Mrs Plod what I saw, excatly as I saw it. Her first comment was "How fast was the scooterist going?" I replied that I was pootling at about 20-25mph and he came past me, not quickly but past anyway. So she said "So he was speeding" and didn't even write down that the car turned across traffic he couldn't see past without actually looking to see if anyone was coming. If he had he would have seen me as I was on the inside...a bloody dirty great 1000cc V-twin motorbike making a 102db din, with my headlights on.
@primoz - we‘ll have to agree to disagree on the possibility of skiing off piste safely when there is a Stufe 5 warning in force. With Stufe 5 we are talking about such a serious danger that entire settlements and infrastructure (roads) could be unpredictably engulfed. Certainly in the Vorarlberg where I am based, everyone with the exception of essential services (rescue, police, & medics), is effectively confined to their homes or to buildings deemed safe…skiing anywhere in the off piste under such „Einschränkungen“ (difficult to translate but roughly equates to „restricted circumstances“) would be regarded as reckless endangerment of ones life AND the lives of the rescue services & would almost certainly be considered for prosecution… bytw I‘ve only twice experienced a Stufe 5 lockdown in the 10 years I‘ve lived here..as background I‘m certainly not overly cautious - I average at 130 - 180 days a year mountain walking, (off piste and on piste) skiing & climbing and formerly was a committed white water canoeist (now that really is risky!) but some risks you simply can‘t take…
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
..the German might help again to put Stufe 5 in perspective..my translation is underneath..
Ausserordentliche Lawinensituation
Viele sehr grosse und extrem grosse spontane Lawinen sind zu erwarten. Diese können Strassen und Siedlungen in Tallagen erreichen.
Exceptionally serious avalanche occurrences. Many huge and severe and unpredictable avalanches are to be reckoned with..these could engulf roads and settlements in and around valleys..
After all it is free
After all it is free
…but (on both occasions that I‘ve experienced Stufe ) as there was no transport running, the roads were barred and all lifts were shut, my chances of going skiing (whether on piste or off piste)were in any case zero…+ the constant avalanche sirens at full blast right round Bludenz gave me a blinding headache…!
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.
Oje. …“that I’ve experienced Stufe 5“…
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Of course it’s theoretically possible to ski something reasonably safely in level 5 conditions but whether it’s worth the bother is another matter. Low angle, a long way from anything which might slide - these places exist. I’m pretty sure I skied Les Contamines on a day which was trending to level 5 (certainly the following day the Chamonix valley was completely closed.). However we were pretty much confined to 1 piste at Les C which went along the top of a ridge. You could ski the ungroomed snow to the side but you would barely keep moving because of the low angle and deep snow
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Level 5 in Feb before COVID throughout the Valais - Leukerbad cut off, nothing running, red everywhere, snow piling up. So….coffee…then more coffee…then lunch….and a decent book….
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.
In all the time I've lived here in Serre Che don't think we've ever had 5 - plenty of 4's and then we know where to go, theoretically, and now we're convinced that whereas in the past lifts were open (even on 3 days) they now remain closed.
And as has been mentioned deep fresh snow it's hard to ski low-angle stuff anyway let alone skin up through it, but as ever we'll continue to do it.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
In my case, we were doing an avalanche safety course in Chamonix the next day. We were very nearly confined to the classroom but the guide decided he was comfortable it would be safe to do some transceiver practice on the golf course near ENSA. The previous week there has been pretty much no snow at all in the valley. Was a big storm!
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
I thought it was in here, but there was an article posted on another thread https://www.meinbezirk.at/tirol/c-lokales/lawinenwarnungen-muessen-mehr-ernst-genommen-werden_a5859739 which bemoans skiers ignoring warnings blah blah blah, but actually makes a good point in the last couple of paragraphs: the information about the avalanche danger is reaching experienced people, guides, ski tourers etc. through relevant channels like the Avalanche Warning Service but not joe public from the flat lands on their one-week holiday.
Readers of local news in Tirol will see bulletins as part of weather warnings, but links to better information are often omitted. It was suggested in that article that the radio could be used more, but I don't believe many tourists visiting from other countries will tune in to Austrian radio, or understand the message in a different language even if they do. More info at ski resorts is probably a better approach.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
The information is already there @Scarlet, the problem is getting people to read ,digest and
accept the information applies " to me"!
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@Rogerdodger, I don't agree. A lot more could be done to raise awareness.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
If it’s open and accessible people will ski it. Whatever the avi level, without kit, on their own, without skills. Fortunately it’s pretty hard to trigger an avi on an easily accessible slope, even on an avi 4 day. Otherwise people would be dying all over the place!
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?
@Bergsteiger278, it depends on location. If we are talking about some little valley in middle of Austrian Alps surrounded by 3000m mountains straight out of valley bottom, then I absolutely agree with you. On the other side, if we are talking about a bit different terrain, let's say Innsbruck, with lot of terrain around from steep high mountains to mellow hills (and no I don't know Innsbruck all that well so maybe it wasn't right sample), you can still be fine, even if it's level 5, as normally avi forecast is for region not one particular place. I have seen level 5 only once for few days around my hometown, and I have been out skiing at that time... not my normal stuff, but something easy where, if avi report would be for particular microlocation and not for general region, it wouldn't be 5 but more like 2 in best case low 3.
But otherwise I agree, if we are talking about terrain that really has level 5, then of course it's stupid to think you can be out there safely.
@Bergsteiger278, it depends on location. If we are talking about some little valley in middle of Austrian Alps surrounded by 3000m mountains straight out of valley bottom, then I absolutely agree with you. On the other side, if we are talking about a bit different terrain, let's say Innsbruck, with lot of terrain around from steep high mountains to mellow hills (and no I don't know Innsbruck all that well so maybe it wasn't right sample), you can still be fine, even if it's level 5, as normally avi forecast is for region not one particular place.
Yes, it can really be like that in Innsbruck. Level 5 on eg Nordkette and the main resorts, but a little further south at eg Bergeralm 'only' 4-5. I've only skied on one day like that, but >20° powder in the trees with no steeper slopes around was possible and fun (with big enough skis to float the low angle powder). Gotta be very very VERY picky with slopes and very familiar with ALL the terrain around though. In other places there are footpaths (from the city!) though that semi-regularly get closed even on 3/4 days.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
davidof wrote:
Weathercam wrote:
Avy Risk 1 maybe 2 yesterday didn't stop a person getting killed 10kms from where we live, in a group with a guide.
All I can think it must have been a cornice that got them with all the recent wind we've had, as conditions on the South side are very safe indeed, unless they were on the North side or climbing up the back of the Lauzet, tragic indeed.
It was a hard slab formed by the recent wind on a PWL above 2200. This was mentioned in the bulletin that morning.
That's bad luck. Apparently happend on the way down. The inquiry will show if they skied all at the same time or not. If one-by-one, I can't imagine any charges brought.
As for avalanche risk 3, let's get real please. If you are not willing to ski a 3, you are probably not going to ski any powder at resort level, especially not around the Arlberg. Because Stanton on the very first bright day after snowfall at around 9am looks like this:
It makes a huge difference though, if we're talking inbounds or outbounds. Munter recognizes this explicitly in his standard work 3x3 Lawinen: skiing a so called "Modehang" (regularly skied slope; literally a slope that is in fashion; i.e. everything inbounds which doesn't require abseil) is a "reduction factor" (brings down the calculated risk, that is). Otherwise we would see far, far, far more avalanche deaths in ski resorts. Doesn't work so well in gullys, as remote triggering is still a thing. That's why Törl on a risk 4 day is a double no.
As a matter of fact (and one wouldn't believe it, if not on video), Arlberg Resorts released a ski porn video couple of weeks ago, in which they framed - typical Austrian cowdoo grandiosity - this effect as The Arlberg Effekt (no joke). It's not worth to watch, but for the very short interview snippet with Freeskier and Guide Lorraine Huber, in which she blatantly states, that people who are shelling out for a guide expect to ski untracked snow in return (comes with English subtitles):
and if it was raining, and it was me, I'd have been doing 69mph - i.e. the speed limit.
68mph ! Lunatic !!!!
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@Tristero, if we are really honest, if someone is not ready to ski at 3, they are not going to ski any powder anywhere... regardless if it's Arlberg or some little hill in middle of nowhere and regardless if it's lift asisted or ski touring. When it's powder it's in 90% 3 (at least). Sure there are days, when you have superb powder at 2, but at least in middle Europe, those days are so rare, you won't really see much powder in 10 years time, not in single winter.
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.
primoz wrote:
@Tristero, if we are really honest, if someone is not ready to ski at 3, they are not going to ski any powder anywhere... regardless if it's Arlberg or some little hill in middle of nowhere and regardless if it's lift asisted or ski touring. When it's powder it's in 90% 3 (at least). Sure there are days, when you have superb powder at 2, but at least in middle Europe, those days are so rare, you won't really see much powder in 10 years time, not in single winter.
I tend not to agree with that, but have to admit that I toured very little in Austria which might make some difference, as the ratio of interested tourers to uncabled mountains is much worse there than in the Western Alps. Honestly, I would never set out on real skitour given risk level 3, as it's dangerous and you can't expect to reach the summit of any but the most boring tours anyway. It's of course different if you live at the foot of the mountain or are already on tour and the conditions turn.
All I can say is I had very nice runs outbounds at level 2. Not anywhere near a lift, of course, and not from top to bottom. One can't have it all.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
On more serious side, I'm sure there's plenty of statistical data showing how much chances you have to die or to get injured in certain sport, including freeride and/or ski touring. But yeah even without this, it is dangerous. When you start doing stupid things, it gets even more dangerous. But just looking at avi danger scale and saying "it's 5, I'm not going anywhere" or on the other side "it's 1, it's safe and I can do whatever I want" is not the way to go. I can ski in backcountry and being perfectly safe when avi danger is 4 or 5, or on the other side, you can easily get killed, when avi danger is 1. I never understood, how people can underestimate 3, and dismiss it the way like "it's middle, so it's good", but reading just this thread makes me realize, it's not so uncommon. 
stuff anyway let alone skin up through it, but as ever we'll continue to do it.