 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Hiking, according to bbc news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Ski touring on the classic descent of the domes de miage. Huge avalanche. 4 dead including 2 guides. Horrific
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Saw the skiers on the top of the Domes de Miage, looked back a few min later and there had been a huge avalanche- we can only see the top of it from the Arpette in Megeve. We called in an avalanche report, we were the 6th to report it. All day we listened to the scary radio chater, thinking we might be called to assist. The recovery is sill on going (11.15 10/4). Some crazy reports coming in on things found, Jacket with beacon I the pocket but no person etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saw the skiers on the top of the Domes de Miage, looked back a few min later and there had been a huge avalanche- we can only see the top of it from the Arpette in Megeve. We called in an avalanche report, we were the 6th to report it. All day we listened to the scary radio chater, thinking we might be called to assist. The recovery is sill on going (11.15 10/4). Some crazy reports coming in on things found, Jacket with beacon I the pocket but no person etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m sure everyone in the area will be sad to see such an end to an already terrible season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@Idris, how awful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@jmr59, 6 dead according to the article you gave, plus one in hospital.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| snowball wrote: |
| @jmr59, 6 dead according to the article you gave |
Yes, isn't that what I said?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Horrible thing to see, incredible feeling of helplessness knowing the likely outcome for the poor victims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
...
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Mon 10-04-23 11:55; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@jmr59, I was writing at the same time as you, so hadn't seen your correction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| snowball wrote: |
| @jmr59, I was writing at the same time as you, so hadn't seen your correction. |
(Update rather than correction)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
OK. On the original URL you gave it said 6, but perhaps that had been updated since without changing the URL?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| snowball wrote: |
| OK. On the original URL you gave it said 6, but perhaps that had been updated since without changing the URL? |
Yes: it still said 5 when I posted it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
We were skiing in Contamines yesterday, and although unaware of the tragedy nearby until checking the news in the evening I did notice a helicopter touch down by the top Signal station and take off again pretty quickly. At the time I assumed it was picking up a local casualty (and they had a very slick system for loading a stretcher) but I now wonder if they were picking up trained avalanche rescuers. There is a Sécurité des Pistes office there, including I think rescue dogs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
The local guides office posted this:
| Quote: |
La Compagnie des guides de Saint-Gervais - Les Contamines vient de perdre deux de ses guides, Clément Jacquemoud et Laurent Rigaud.
D’autres guides situés en aval ont pu s’échapper, l’avalanche emportant hélas un de leurs clients.
Après avoir passé la nuit au refuge des Conscrits samedi, ils ont, accompagnés de leurs clients, effectué la traversée des Dômes de Miage et entrepris la descente de ce sommet par l’itinéraire du glacier d’Armancette.
Cet itinéraire fait partie des grands classiques du ski en haute montagne.
Les conditions étaient parfaites. Il faisait froid en cette belle matinée.
Le risque d’avalanche déterminé sur le bulletin régional d’avalanche était très faible.
Les clients de nos guides étaient tous de bons skieurs et possédaient un niveau technique adapté à cette descente. Cet itinéraire avait été parcouru à de nombreuses reprises la semaine précédente sans qu’aucun signe de danger n’ait été relevé.
L’avalanche s’est déclenchée en matinée et a balayé tout le glacier d’Armancette.
La Compagnie des guides de Saint-Gervais - Les Contamines est durement touchée par la disparition de ses deux guides Laurent et Clément, et de leurs clients.
Elle s’associe à la peine de leurs familles.
L’efficience remarquable des secours mis en place rapidement est à saluer.
La Compagnie des guides de Saint-Gervais - Les Contamines tient à remercier les personnels qui ont été sollicités sur cette opération.
Les guides de Saint-Gervais - Les Contamines
(c) photo Ludovic Sarmento
|
In summary: conditions were good, the avalanche bulletin was for low risk (presuming this was a level 2 day). The descent had been skied numerous times the week previously with no warning signs. The group was well equipped for the descent.
Very sad and shocking incident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| belette wrote: |
In summary: conditions were good, the avalanche bulletin was for low risk (presuming this was a level 2 day). |
Moderate risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The signs in Les Contamines where we were said level 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
| belette wrote: |
In summary: conditions were good, the avalanche bulletin was for low risk (presuming this was a level 2 day). |
Moderate risk. |
Yes: but the guides' office statement says something else.
| Quote: |
| Le risque d’avalanche déterminé sur le bulletin régional d’avalanche était très faible. |
It's striking that instead of saying 'limité' they say 'très faible' (and 'faible' / 'low' is level 1), even though it was a level-2 day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jmr59 wrote: |
It's striking that instead of saying 'limité' they say 'très faible' (and 'faible' / 'low' is level 1), even though it was a level-2 day. |
I'm not sure that at 3500 meters, with cold, fresh snow and strong winds on Saturday you'd really describe the risk as 'très faible' which is why I imagine the bulletin was set to 2 / Moderate above 2400 meters.
You might say the risk of a very large avalanche was 'très faible' and maybe that is what they are trying to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@davidof, I think you are spot on. I remember reading the Tarentaise one which set the level at one below 2400m and two above(it might have been 2300). But it did say that on north facing slopes there was chance of a surface slip causing a cascade avalanche down to the long term weak layer, in which case the crown line could be 2m. Perhaps this is what happened, even though it was still fairly early in the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| chocksaway wrote: |
| But it did say that on north facing slopes there was chance of a surface slip causing a cascade avalanche down to the long term weak layer, in which case the crown line could be 2m. Perhaps this is what happened, even though it was still fairly early in the day. |
The head of the French avalanche research institute said something along those lines (although I don't know if he has yet seen the official report): a small surface slide that then triggered down to the weak layer identified in the snowpack in the bulletin. The depth was 60 to 130cm - so not down to ground level as there is 2 to 3 meters depth. A chamonix guide Pierre Muller, was more aligned with your view - a surface slide that went down to the weak layer formed at the start of the season.
Just learned the young girl who died is an ESF instructor and "colleague" (as the French kids say) of my son at his engineering school. The couple who died have left behind four young children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
| jmr59 wrote: |
It's striking that instead of saying 'limité' they say 'très faible' (and 'faible' / 'low' is level 1), even though it was a level-2 day. |
I'm not sure that at 3500 meters, with cold, fresh snow and strong winds on Saturday you'd really describe the risk as 'très faible' which is why I imagine the bulletin was set to 2 / Moderate above 2400 meters.
You might say the risk of a very large avalanche was 'très faible' and maybe that is what they are trying to say. |
I have no expertise and comparably little experience in this regard, but it looks to me like they’re continuing to downplay the risk in retrospect. I don’t mean to blame them for this, both because of the tragic outcome and because I’m sure I and countless others have got away with apparently riskier things on level-2 and indeed level-3 days. But Sunday’s events are really striking home for me that skiing off-piste at level 2 is really not ‘low risk’; I hope I have the presence of mind to remember this the next time I’m out in fresh snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Avalanche bulletin covers a wide range of altitudes / aspects & regions.
The concept of "only level 2" is (almost) irrelevant once you get on high glacial terrain >3500m where it's winter for most of the year
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@jmr59, the level 1 was what was on all the display boards in resort. But I am sure that wasn't intended to be applicable to ski touring on a high altitude glacier the other side of the valley, it was advice to on-piste recreational skiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| jmr59 wrote: |
| But Sunday’s events are really striking home for me that skiing off-piste at level 2 is really not ‘low risk’; I hope I have the presence of mind to remember this the next time I’m out in fresh snow. |
"What happens where an old snow problem is mentioned in the bulletin? Moderate danger days (level 2 on the avalanche bulletin) are 50% more dangerous when there is a PWL. When the danger is Considerable (3), PWL days are twice as dangerous. Perhaps more surprisingly, PWL avalanches are triggered by guided groups in 80% of cases reported in Switzerland. "
https://pistehors.com/dbCNGG8ByuHDGsGAyHG6/old-snow-persistent-weak-layers-and-guided-groups
couple that with what Haggis says above and there is a difference between a level 2 day at 2000 meters and level 2 with PWL and at high altitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Idris wrote: |
| Saw the skiers on the top of the Domes de Miage, looked back a few min later and there had been a huge avalanche- we can only see the top of it from the Arpette in Megeve. We called in an avalanche report, we were the 6th to report it. All day we listened to the scary radio chater, thinking we might be called to assist. The recovery is sill on going (11.15 10/4). Some crazy reports coming in on things found, Jacket with beacon I the pocket but no person etc. |
This has reminded me of the incident on K2 which lead to the death of Nick Estcourt, many of the team were watching (and filming) from base camp unaware that some of the team where caught up in the avalanche (Doug Scott and a climbing porter both survived as the ropes broke). They were crossing a slope that was deemed safe enough for the porters to carry loads across. A reminder that no matter how experienced or skilled in mountain craft you might be there is always an undefined element of risk (even level 1 does not mean no risk) . Looking across at the slide must have been a very sobering experience, especially as there must have been a thought that you might have known some of those caught up in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@Haggis_Trap, ….I think you have stated something vital here.
I have spent time with one of the most seasoned guides in the Valais. We had a coffee at Violettes and he made clear three things - which will be clear to the seasoned guides already on this thread, but which I think are worth stating, since people generally seem pretty unaware of them:
1 avalanche warnings are interesting but could be totally irrelevant to the specific location to which you are going. Avalanches occur because of complex conjunctions of very localised conditions, and terrible slides can occur in specific location on an ‘Avi 0’ day. They are of no consequence for specific planning, other than as a general guide. This should not be read as ‘so ignore level 4’ - far from it, that usually means ‘do some reading rather than go touring’.
2 as has been mentioned, slides can occur because of very long standing problems with the snow pack. I saw wind blasted and rain scoured - faceted - layers throughout, early in the year, which clearly would lead to trouble later in the season. This raises the vital issues of highly specific knowledge of location, thorough knowledge of what has happened throughout the season, highly analytical approach to specific routes, and constant evaluation. Cody Townsend’s videos are exemplary in mindset and skills and techniques.
3 I do not feel sufficiently skilled AT ALL … even though I know the places I go to like the back of my hand. For example, I just went into the trees at Vercorin during half term, ….trees…safe…right? ….and the snow on the steep small clearing I was on let go, 40cms slab, just an area of maybe 5m by 5m but plenty enough to give me something to think about. The problem is that I have experienced very different guides - from calm ultra-informed and cautious to pretty gung-ho. Like the Avi warning, just ‘having a guide’ doesn’t mean very much. I went into the Faverges with one guide who I really trust, and we were in an area where a different guide had been killed with a client some ten years previously.
I have climbed and skied enough in the Alps to know the issues. I don’t feel I know enough to avoid all the risks.
And I guess I should add ‘wrong place wrong time’ - the roll of the dice. Elite climbers with fabulous craft and knowledge have died because of slides which started WAY above them…in some cases over 1km vertical, out of sight. And that has happened on MB too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| davidof wrote: |
| jmr59 wrote: |
| But Sunday’s events are really striking home for me that skiing off-piste at level 2 is really not ‘low risk’; I hope I have the presence of mind to remember this the next time I’m out in fresh snow. |
"What happens where an old snow problem is mentioned in the bulletin? Moderate danger days (level 2 on the avalanche bulletin) are 50% more dangerous when there is a PWL. When the danger is Considerable (3), PWL days are twice as dangerous. Perhaps more surprisingly, PWL avalanches are triggered by guided groups in 80% of cases reported in Switzerland. "
https://pistehors.com/dbCNGG8ByuHDGsGAyHG6/old-snow-persistent-weak-layers-and-guided-groups
couple that with what Haggis says above and there is a difference between a level 2 day at 2000 meters and level 2 with PWL and at high altitude. |
I was looking at Henry's avalanche email on April 9th. It talked about how the conditions were generally excellent and stable but did mention a PWL at high altitude on North facing slopes. For absolute clarity - I'm not suggesting that the guides were negligent to be up there. I don't feel competent to judge that. I do THINK an avalanche of this magnitude under the prevailing conditions is a pretty freakish event but I'd be interested in more informed views on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| jedster wrote: |
| It talked about how the conditions were generally excellent and stable but did mention a PWL at high altitude on North facing slopes. For absolute clarity - I'm not suggesting that the guides were negligent to be up there. |
There was no reason not to ski tour that route like that on the 9th, especially as the route was done as a traverse from the Refuge des Conscrits so the glacier was being tackled descending, although they would have climbed to the summit. Once again I will highlight Haggis' comment about the dangers of high mountain glaciated terrain and the strong NE winds of the day before and light snowfall.
Three experts have been on the ground and have established the cause (as far as I understand it) as a small slab taking out the weak layer and causing a much larger avalanche (as we already discussed). Was the small slab natural or skier triggered? Eye witnesses say they saw two skiers at the start of the slide but it seems that the theory of a natural departure has been concluded. The slab also seemed to have its apex at exactly where the downhill tracks were on the slope, did this contribute to the danger? I doubt the full investigation will be available to us members of the public.
Was such an avalanche predictable ? Yes, it was mentioned in the avalanche bulletin as a risk.
Was it likely? No, this size of avalanche on a risk 2 or 3 day is pretty rare.
Should the guides have accounted for this risk? It is part of their job, that is what they are paid to do.
Did the guides get it wrong? Three guided groups involving 15 skiers were caught up in the incident, 6 people are dead, 1 is injured. I think it is going to come down to whether they could have reasonably made decisions that would have changed the outcome accepting that the route choice in itself seems reasonble given the bulletin which we must assume they would have consulted. Insurance company lawyers will be limbering up.
Something else, this was from a ski touring trip report posted the day before to the Domes de Miage :-
"The problem is the wind that blows above 3300 meters from the north. After two loud "whompfs" we made the hard decision to U-turn. In terms of avalanche risk the sector is very tricky, some zones are ultra stable and in others there are huge accumulations due to the wind. Be very careful."
Now we don't know how competent these ski tourers were to judge the conditions and did the guides check what TRs were posted - I think they were climbing to the refuge at the same time as this group were higher up on the Domes. However this information seems consistent with a surface slab triggering a buried weak layer.
The remaining guide(s) may be able to shed some light onto the decision making process and route management.
As you can see 10 paragraphs just to add to the open questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Many thanks, @davidof, that's incredibly helpful: with regard both to the answers and (more importantly, to my view) to the questions and uncertainties that remain open.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
There was no reason not to ski tour that route like that on the 9th, especially as the route was done as a traverse from the Refuge des Conscrits so the glacier was being tackled descending, although they would have climbed to the summit. |
I’m pretty sure the normal route for this doesn’t involve retracing your steps at all (ie you climb up on one side and ski down the other)
I attempted this many years ago and got turned back by avalanche danger. Wasn’t much doubt about that decision - we were up to our waists in fresh snow which would need a few days to settle. IIRC a typical route was to traverse the Domes de Miage then ski the Glacier d’Armancette. It’s certainly a beautiful route and I can see why it’s popular
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having said that, it’s quite possible that the normal route has changed a bit since I was looking at it what with glaciers retreating etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, … great detail and insight…very helpful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
| jedster wrote: |
| It talked about how the conditions were generally excellent and stable but did mention a PWL at high altitude on North facing slopes. For absolute clarity - I'm not suggesting that the guides were negligent to be up there. |
There was no reason not to ski tour that route like that on the 9th, especially as the route was done as a traverse from the Refuge des Conscrits so the glacier was being tackled descending, although they would have climbed to the summit. Once again I will highlight Haggis' comment about the dangers of high mountain glaciated terrain and the strong NE winds of the day before and light snowfall.
Three experts have been on the ground and have established the cause (as far as I understand it) as a small slab taking out the weak layer and causing a much larger avalanche (as we already discussed). Was the small slab natural or skier triggered? Eye witnesses say they saw two skiers at the start of the slide but it seems that the theory of a natural departure has been concluded. The slab also seemed to have its apex at exactly where the downhill tracks were on the slope, did this contribute to the danger? I doubt the full investigation will be available to us members of the public.
Was such an avalanche predictable ? Yes, it was mentioned in the avalanche bulletin as a risk.
Was it likely? No, this size of avalanche on a risk 2 or 3 day is pretty rare.
Should the guides have accounted for this risk? It is part of their job, that is what they are paid to do.
Did the guides get it wrong? Three guided groups involving 15 skiers were caught up in the incident, 6 people are dead, 1 is injured. I think it is going to come down to whether they could have reasonably made decisions that would have changed the outcome accepting that the route choice in itself seems reasonble given the bulletin which we must assume they would have consulted. Insurance company lawyers will be limbering up.
Something else, this was from a ski touring trip report posted the day before to the Domes de Miage :-
"The problem is the wind that blows above 3300 meters from the north. After two loud "whompfs" we made the hard decision to U-turn. In terms of avalanche risk the sector is very tricky, some zones are ultra stable and in others there are huge accumulations due to the wind. Be very careful."
Now we don't know how competent these ski tourers were to judge the conditions and did the guides check what TRs were posted - I think they were climbing to the refuge at the same time as this group were higher up on the Domes. However this information seems consistent with a surface slab triggering a buried weak layer.
The remaining guide(s) may be able to shed some light onto the decision making process and route management.
As you can see 10 paragraphs just to add to the open questions. |
Thank you. That is very interesting.
I spend a lot of time looking at the Armancette and have skitoured their route from the Conscrits (with a guide). These disasters are always salutary but this one feels very close to home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
