I saw a boarder release an avalanche after an unnecessary tight turn with deep edge cut into the pack
Sounds like the classic scenario where the second guy down follows in the tracks of the first guy, thereby cutting down to the weak layer... Not something you (as the first guy) can control. Best not to be there in the first place
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@SnoodyMcFlude, again, I'm not saying skiing fast/smooth is a suitable avoidance strategy. I always say if your in an avalanche you already made some big mistakes. My point was actually more the opposite, are weaker skiers venturing off piste putting themselves in more risk? Watching that video of the guy fall and get caught in the slide - if he doesn't fall and rides a bit faster imo he makes the traverse. I do think fast/smooth skiers probably "get away" with somethings. Less pressure on snow, no falls, less wide "traversy" turns, less time in general in avalanche terrain. These things are only going to reduce your odds of triggering something compared to the less skilled rider on the same slope.
@Steilhang, I'm not sure it's really that "classic". The majority of time the first guy triggers the slide. If the week layer is really so close to the surface the first guy was probably more lucky than a good decision.
As much as people spout "tracks don't mean it's safe" there is really no better test of a slope than someone skiing it before you. As Bruce Tremper says "never go first". Of course people will point to someone triggering a slide where there's tracks, but often the tracks are >30degrees and the person goes further left or right into >30 degree terrain, so not really apples to apples you are basically skiing a different slope.
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?
I was at a conference this week and one of the presenters gave a fascinating talk about his academic research into why people who know and understand the risks still take them - and how they did the research. He’s written a book on it. But in broad terms young guys in a group way more likely to take a punt on safety.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
BobinCH wrote:
SnoodyMcFlude wrote:
@boarder2020, I thought he explained quite clearly how experienced professionals can make those mistakes. That's not excusing it of course.
My understanding is that they were not skiing the slope but were traversing out on the valley floor and were hit by the avalanche in the run off area. Did they remote trigger it or was it just terrible timing? Seems it’s very rare for that particular slope to avalanche (the guide says old growth forest avis are very rare) but the combo of a very bad weak layer and huge amounts of fresh snow created an anomaly.
Seems they did have an alternative route out but it was much longer and there’s a suspicion (in the comments) that commercial pressure came into play
The Aspect Avi guy did a followup after more details emerged. While he avoids explicitly blaming anyone and acknowledges the real commercial pressure, the guides decisions appear highly questionable, particularly in the context of a freakish storm and the known avalanche report warning of a persistent weak layer on north facing slopes
The "companion rescue" bit seems text book.
Remarkable also how compact the burial zone was.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
phil_w wrote:
The "companion rescue" bit seems text book.
Remarkable also how compact the burial zone was.
Me too. I wonder if that suggests that they weren't carried far by the avalanche and we're basically all stood in one location? Possibly stopping to wait for the other two to catch up?
The other thing that surprises me is the presence of reasonable sized trees which looks like they'd have provided at least some shielding from the slide.
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.
Even if they were all stood in that location there is no way 13 skiers with skis on, in deep snow or otherwise would squash in that tight. Even in a whiteout it doesn't make sense you'd be constantly bumping into the person in front and coming in on top of their skis. Either the infographic is wrong or they were somehow all compacted from a wider spread into that one area? 13 skiers in 20 feet?
Am inclined to agree that judgments based on just 2 accounts of the survivors are of limited value. Slide site also looks pretty inoccuous from below. Between that and the trees I think 99% of us would have been happy to traverse across, and in a whiteout they wouldn't even have seen the slope above.
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
It does seem remarkably compact.
Perhaps they'd stopped - not in an island of safety, clearly. They were right at the end of the slide path, on the trail (see map in report). It hit, they were in the terrain trap...
Having seen trees flattened only by air blast from slides, I'm surprised the trees were unaffected.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
If they were (found) on the trail it makes even less sense. They couldn't have been that compact unless they were swept into that compaction by a terrain trap. But it doesn't look like there was a terrain trap there? Again, I think the info in the public domain now isn't good quality. I wonder could it just be a misreporting in that photo or in the account that led to that photo.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
