Avalanche training doesn’t reduce risk of incident, says researcher

A snowHead

New research has found that people with avalanche training are no less likely to be involved in an avalanche than other skiers, and that being accompanied by a woman tends to reduce the risk. Albi Sole, program co-ordinator for Public Avalanche Awareness Programs at the University of Calgary Outdoor Centre, has just finished a master’s degree looking at who is at the highest risk of being involved in an avalanche incident. He found that the male backcountry skiers, aged 25-29 years, with a bachelor’s degree or higher and earning about $10,000 more than provincial average are most at risk. ...The study included 447 skiers, who were asked about their socio-economic status, attitudes and experiences on the slopes during one season. Of the people involved in the study, 35 had been involved in an avalanche incident. Only one had experienced injuries of any significance due to an avalanche.

For more information see: http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/utoday/nov27-08/avalanche

A snowHead

What a pointless study....

This is like saying having a driving license make you more likely to be in a car crash rolling eyes

For sure people with avalanche gear and training are more likely to be involved in incidents.
Mainly because they are more likely to venture off piste in the first place.
I could have told you that with out spending a year at uni!

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Canadian masters degrees take longer than a year.. rolling eyes

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Surely what they should have studied was the survival chances of those who have studied avalanches compared to those who hadn't for all those in an avalanche, that might have given slightly more useful data Very Happy

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Being accompanied by a woman reduces the risk becuase it means you're still in the kitchen or at the ironing board wink

I agree with the above- absolutely pointless study unless you have a control population which spends the same amount of time in the backcountry but doesn't do any education or stats are filtered by time spent.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Glad about the money part, thought I was fooked for a moment there

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Hands up those of you who have actually read this guys study/thesis...........?

After all it is free

The demographics are interesting as a comparison to the last figures compiled by the Mountain Rescue Council, Those most likely to need MRT in the UK are males aged 21-30yrs and are from the home counties, so the age group is similar as is the affluence factor.

But If research was looked at for kayak accidents/deaths and mountain biking accidents Im sure the same age group would feature.

Experience counts more than any training, certificates in any sports or industry.

You can take a kid out of university with a plethora of training & certificates but unless you gain the experience they are the same as the next guy.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

447 surveyed, and 35 (8%) reported to have been in an "avalanche" yet only one of 35 was injured. hmmm......

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

snow reports

Arno, you must be a lawyer or something wink

if it does indeed include rescuers etc would'nt really be a fair sample though.

sample set sound weird to me, would you say 8% of backcountry skiers have been involved in an incident? perhaps, but i felt if 8% actually in an avalanche sounded high to me..

I think the article on pistehors (previous post in this section) is much more useful... not least because its based on actual incidents, rather than 'questioning... status, attitudes and experiences'.

You know it makes sense.

So, don't ski with Tim Tim Rich but Dim, take the wife or mistress.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

A snowHead

pam w, hey, if someone wants to take me on their ski holiday at their expense, as a lucky charm, good omen, spiritual guru, snow digger etc, etc, I'm here for the asking!!!! Laughing

A snowHead

sharon1953, I'll put myself forward as a blokey alternative too. Queue up quietly... bribery will get you anywhere... I can cook too Little Angel

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Critiquing a study on the basis of the newspaper report is a pointless exercise. If you want to make a decent evaluation go to the original study.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Best comment so far.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Well done T Bar (and PP). To suggest you can conduct a randomised controlled trial into accidents is bonkers.
This is the real world. We have to make best use of the data available. So well done to Albi Sole for trying.
Even the summary is full of sensible useful information.
e.g.
"The message here isn’t that avalanche training is the problem. It’s just that training opens the door to a recreational activity that is very valuable to this group"
"It would obviously be far more dangerous to do these sports without proper training"
"Going out into the wilderness carries about the same risk as being a motorist,"
"the potential risk of being involved in an avalanche is much less than the risk to your health from physical inactivity"

Help!!

Avalanche training doesn’t reduce risk of incident, says researcher

snowHeads Forum Index >>> snowNews