 Poster: A snowHead
|
My pal and I, who are pretty experienced off piste-skiers (believe it or not !) , took a friend and his 3 children down a marked itinery run in St Anton yesterday. This was a fairly shallow slope 15 to 20 degrees max, north facing. 10am in the morning and no more than 50 to 100metres from the piste. Anyway got picked-up by an instructor who was "guiding" some clients and he berated us for our lack of transcievers, probes and shovels ! My first reaction was "fair cop", he is absolutely right it was stupid to put 3 relative beginners in that position, even though I considered it only the most remotely risky situation. Arguably no riskier than skiing the cattle run back down to the Galzig last thing in the afternoon !
However the implications of this principle would be NEVER to skip across those lovely little streches of un-pisted hillside between designated track. I think everyone does this at one point or another and few predominantly piste based holidaymakers will want to fork out for transcievers etc for what many may not regard as genuine off piste. Every day I see hundreds of people take these little routes, are they all wrong ? Is there a grey area between piste and off piste ? Was the instructor just justifying his daily paycheck and seeking to keep a lovely run to paying clients only ? We discussed this in the bar last night and could reach no firm conclusions. Appreciate any views so I can consider my position !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
If it is a marked itinerary, then it should be avalanche controlled just the same as the pistes are, and those should not be necessary.
Skiing across between pistes is rather different, or even just a few metres off the edge of the piste. But even so, I disagree with people who say that there is no grey area, and that saying "a little bit off-piste" is like saying "a little bit pregnant".
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
dyesie, welcome to snowHeads.
I think it's a tricky question. IIRC the statistics for avalanche deaths show that the majority of victims are caught relatively close to pistes, are inexperienced skiers without avy kit, in which case I do subscribe to the notion that there's no such thing as "a little bit off-piste". However, in your example you had done a risk assessment of sorts and taken a judgement that the slope was safe - which in my mind is far more relevant point than whether you are wearing transceivers, etc. So perhaps the more important question is "was your risk assessment good enough to be on that slope" rather than "should you have been there without avy kit". I think it's a good policy to make slope assessments as if you weren't wearing avy kit, than to rely on them without making sensible slope judements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I would ski a 15-20 degree slope without a beacon with an avalanche risk of 5/5. However it is rare that you get such slopes without there being something steeper above.
Did the instructor say why he thought it was a bad idea? What did the bulletin say? Were the slopes above your slope steeper? Remember that an avalanche can run down a slope, traverse a valley and run partway up the far side (you will sometimes notice this by the lack of trees on the far side of avalanche paths).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| If it is a marked itinerary, then it should be avalanche controlled |
I've always thought this. Is anyone saying this is not true?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Could it be that the instructor/guide had a financial interest in keeping that particular bit of snow exclusive for his clients? Wouldn't want them getting the idea that they could ski it themselves without paying him €80 per hour, now would he? Na, we're not allowed to think that, are we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That story reminded me of Christmas in Serre Chevalier when me and my two children went down an unbashed run which had acquired some sizeable moguls. My youngest who's knee high to a grasshopper didn't fancy the bumps much and in true Glencoe mini warrior fashion, decided to traverse right at full pelt across a 30 degree powder field amongst a few broken trees and saplings to hook up with a groomed run about 500 metres away. The older one got the idea and instantly followed, both of them ignoring my shouts to hold up. This snow was unbonded and sloughing slightly and although no harm was done, it could have turned out differently in what would have seemed a harmless shortcut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
hook up with a groomed run about 500 metres away
|
You meant to say 50 metres away, I presume?
500 metre is a looong way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
which run was it ?
I did route 33 on Saturday, it was a marked ski route, unpisted, but I never considered avalanche gear, there were loads of people on it.
Surely if it is a marled run it is controlled
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
moffatross, I know where abouts you describe and that is a dangerous spot with possible avalanches coming from above that position. It is one of the 1st places they control after heavy snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| maggi wrote: |
| alex_heney wrote: |
| If it is a marked itinerary, then it should be avalanche controlled |
I've always thought this. Is anyone saying this is not true? |
I don't think anybody is, but it seemed to be the implication behind the reaction of the instructor.
And I'm not sure what the OP was thinking after that reaction, so just thought I would state it.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Tue 17-02-09 16:28; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| chris wrote: |
| moffatross, I know where abouts you describe and that is a dangerous spot with possible avalanches coming from above that position. It is one of the 1st places they control after heavy snow. |
Thanks Chris,
My youngest has an uncanny sense of direction and knew exactly where he was heading although was completely unaware of the potential danger he was putting himself / us / anyone below us in. He was duly bollocked but little people having short memories, a little cautionary lecture at the beginning of the day is de rigeur from now on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
dyesie, this website may interest you in deciding the best approach to off-piste skiing http://www.henrysavalanchetalk.com/index.html and whether the guide was justified in his criticisms.
davidof, I refer you to the avalanche video and avalanche grading system explanation on the same website - you may wish to reconsider your statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
ajl, brave man taking on davidof on off-piste matters - I'd say he is one of the most authoratitive SHs on the subject - he runs pistehors.com. Welcome to snowheads, anyway.
[edit] Ha! I see others have noticed, too. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Back to the OP. I have always thought that itineraries are avy controlled.
Looking at example piste maps, for Tignes it says that the itinerary runs ("Naturide") are "made safe" which I take to mean avy controlled.
On the Ischgl map, the "ski trails" are "only secured in the immediate area of avalanche warning signs", which I find a bit more tricky - I didn't notice any such signs on such routes, and we skis them all. Maybe they are only temporary signs when there's a high risk? Why put up a warning sign if the area has been made safe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| ajl wrote: |
davidof, I refer you to the avalanche video and avalanche grading system explanation on the same website - you may wish to reconsider your statement. |
I work quite a bit with Henry and his team has an excellent an informative site, thanks for posting the link.
You have to read what I say very carefully but generally an avalanche risk 5, which is a rare event in any season, occurs after heavy snowfall so the principal dangers are powder avalanches, purges and slab avalanches. These occur on slope angles above 25 degrees although can obviously run to much lower or even negative angles. Wet snow avalanches can occur on lower slope angles, exceptionally as little as 10 degrees but you are generally looking at late spring with a risk of 1 (am) -> 3 (pm) or 2 (am) -> 4 (pm). You could actually be at more risk on your lower angled slope at lower avalanche risk but the risks are much easier to manage.
Risks 4 and 5 are generally used to indicate risk of spontaneous avalanches as opposed to skier triggered avalanches (the Meteo France forecasting service is an exception and uses risk 4 for certain levels of skier triggered avalanches - which is why more deaths occur at risk 4 in France than in Switzerland, for example).
The main issue with risk 5 would be reaching somewhere to ski safely as many roads will be impractical. However assuming I were on this imaginary slope of 15 - 20 degrees with no steeper slopes above, we are looking at something close to nordic skiing territory then I would be pretty safe from powder or slab avalanches, there just wouldn't be much of a slope to actually ski on with the depths you would associate with that risk.
Most ski touring routes start in the 20-25 degree range though and many easier routes also have sections closer to 30 degrees, already you are looking at some risk of avalanche. 15-20 degrees would be like off the edge of the flatter bits of a blue run).
Anyway don't take this as a green light to go skiing at risk 4 or 5 without avalanche gear. I'm just saying if Dyesie was on a 15-20 degree slope then there was very little risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Often there are entire hillsides made up of marked pistes, with unpisted sections between them. e.g. virtually everything between the top of Saulire and Meribel.
Yes, clearly off piste. But surely quite clearly if these sections are at risk of avalanche then so are the pistes. It did make me wonder whether my on-piste-only insurance would cover me if I took a wrong turn into the mogul fields.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Re-reading dyesie's first post I am rather unclear if he / she was on the marked itinerary or 50-100yards off it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| Yes, clearly off piste. But surely quite clearly if these sections are at risk of avalanche then so are the pistes. |
The pistes are pisted so no danger from hidden weak layers in the snowpack. Slopes above pistes are normally controlled, but I don't think you can necessarily say that slopes alongside pistes will be safe simply because they are near or even between pistes. There have been lots of avy fatalities near pistes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Yes, clearly off piste. But surely quite clearly if these sections are at risk of avalanche then so are the pistes. It did make me wonder whether my on-piste-only insurance would cover me if I took a wrong turn into the mogul fields.
|
Which is why I always have insurance which covers off piste as well. Even if you don't intend to go off piste, in a whiteout you could find yourself on the wrong side of marker poles thinking you're on piste. If you had an accident you might technically be off piste, so I don't know how an insurance company would react.
In the past when I was still progressing (as opposed to now when I seem to be regressing), in all the "advanced" group lessons I had, the instructors never once mentioned the pitfalls of going off piste or avalanche awareness. I know that's not their remit, and to do so would perhaps encourage the uninitiated, but there must be a lot of skiers who have lessons up to the point where their competent technique can get them into potentially dangerous places but have never had any exposure to avy risk assessment. There is a perception that the avalanche warnings are for "real" off-piste work rather than for playing around the sides and between pistes. At what point to you stop to think about getting the training and the gear?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Where can i find some good reading material on avvy risk assesment / recovery basics?
I don't generally do off piste (at least off piste as i had classed it until recently) but do sometimes nip off the piste down an attractive looking (what i would class as in between piste but safe) run down to another piste.
this thread has really got me thinking about a) how i preceive the mountain and b) how i presume 90% of the people out there ski i.e. with no real knowledge of the dangers of the enviroment they are in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| Often there are entire hillsides made up of marked pistes, with unpisted sections between them. |
That's motivation enough for studying avi danger. So you can understand that it's safe to ski them! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
Often there are entire hillsides made up of marked pistes, with unpisted sections between them
|
But there can be some significant hazards in these areas (eg damn great holes if you are in Flaine). I do ski "off piste" on areas exactly as described by James the Last in Crest Voland, generally (because I am not at all good at it) on "blue slope" type gradients. And not when the avalanche risk is 5. I confess that I do feel pretty safe on them - I might be wrong, but I feel that the risk is low. There's nothing steeper above, I've been in the area for 6 seasons, summer and winter, and I know the territory fairly well - it's pasture. There's a risk, but probably not as great as I just took cycling up to the shop to buy some coffee. And I have off-piste insurance, of course. I have even, at times, been known to wear powder traces (after taking 20 minutes to find a ski once) though I always feel a complete fraud doing so.
In my book, the fact that an activity carries a risk is not a good reason not to do it (or we'd none of us go out on the roads for pleasure, let alone go skiing on crowded pistes), I've read some stuff about avalanches, and been to a talk. I know very little, and want to learn more, and get better, but I do think there's such a thing as a "little bit of off-piste".
The glib retort that "there's no such thing as a little bit pregnant" is true but irrelevant. A more sensible analogy would be with overweight. It is possible to be a little bit overweight. It's not risk-free, but it's not the same as being 10 stone overweight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pam w wrote: |
| but I do think there's such a thing as a "little bit of off-piste" |
I think that oft used phrase is useful because it should indicate to skiers that they can't ignore snow conditions even if you're just a little bit away from the marked piste, whereas skiing on piste doesn't require any thought about snowpack stability. Many off-piste slopes can be assessed as very low risk and can be skied safely, but you should actively make that judgement rather than simply heading into deep snow without thinking about how stable it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
rob@rar, well put.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
pam w, I don't know, but suspect that as far as your travel insurance is concerned, there is something very much 'a little bit off piste', and they will be very quick to exploit it in the event of a claim....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
rob@rar, I missed getting buried in an "on-piste" avalanche by 5 minutes in December. I am re-evaluating my assessment of snow conditions even when I am on piste too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| rob@rar, I missed getting buried in an "on-piste" avalanche by 5 minutes in December. I am re-evaluating my assessment of snow conditions even when I am on piste too. |
For me on-piste avalanches are rare enough not to give a second thought to. The transfer from airport to resort is probably considerably more risky, and I don't worry about that either 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Guvnor, as I mentioned, I am insured to do what I do.
My "little bits of off-piste" are indeed done after "actively making the judgement" that they can be assessed as low risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| pam w wrote: |
| My "little bits of off-piste" are indeed done after "actively making the judgement" that they can be assessed as low risk. |
As you made clear in your post. The reason I think the "no such thing as a little bit off-piste" is a useful notion is that there are many people who don't make the risk assessments that you said you did. They either don't think about the risk, or assume because it's close to the piste it must be safe. I certainly dabbled like that in off-piste for a long time, but fortunately on low angle slopes only. I know better now - and it was a HAT talk where I first heard the phrase, and it gave me a lot to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
rob@rar, It would have been off-piste in Europe - so I am spending more time looking above me now.
I do worry about the tranfer though
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Actually, I worry about the transfer a lot more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
The pistes are pisted so no danger from hidden weak layers in the snowpack. Slopes above pistes are normally controlled, but I don't think you can necessarily say that slopes alongside pistes will be safe simply because they are near or even between pistes. |
Indeed. The off-piste areas I was thinking of are, in themselves, above pistes.
Those of us who have spent a lot of time in the hills and mountains otherwise than in a ski-playground tend to look upon skiing as a dangerous mountain sport. Those whose only interaction with the hills has been skiing tend to look upon skiing as a laugh.
How many skiers would know what an avalanche pit is? Let alone have they ever dug one - and I wouldn't claim to be an expert on analysing one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
rob@rar, It would have been off-piste in Europe - so I am spending more time looking above me now.
I do worry about the tranfer though |
I think the Teton snowpack (and indeed all over Western N America was a bit freaky that week). It had all the guys on TGR swearing they'd always carry inbounds.
On piste slides in Europe seem mainly to be wet slides in spring though I have seen retards skiing past pisteurs at a piste ferme sign to go on some poxy cattrack under a huge peeling face after about a day of rain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
's. Hopefully you will find it a source of very useful information, and also find that some fairly knowledgeable people reside here. Take 