 Poster: A snowHead
|
For everyone travelling to the alps this weekend or already out there.
Due to the recent heavy snowfalls the avalanche danger in many european alpine destinations is currently in the high to very high catagory, please take note of any warnings and try to avoid going off piste until the snow stabilises, already today there have been multiple deaths due to avalanches we don't want to lose any of you.
In the words of an old TV series, "Lets be careful out there"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Amen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Thanks DG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
D G Orf, Quite right - lots of fluffy snow and high winds on a hard base .......... Now crusted over windslab and getting curstier - nasty light layer in between 2 crusts - perfect recipe for avalanche. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
In the Tirol the official rating is 3 this morning. This rating is the most dangerous (numbers) for injuries,loss of life as it gives the impression that it maybe OK to ski off piste as its not 4 0r 5 .
http://www.lawine.at/tirol/index.html?id=1
Personally I think its a foolish system & they should make the rating 1 or 5 .
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I agree with the above. Avalanche risk assessments should be either 'unknown' or 'high' as far as I'm concerned, so that people are not lulled into a false sense of security and only tackle these areas with a guide or their own local knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OR just "Safe" or "Unsafe" .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
OR just "Safe" or "Unsafe" .
|
It seems irresponsible to deem something 'safe' that is unpatrolled. But I confess that my knowledge of the 1-5 scale is limited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
It seems irresponsible to deem something 'safe' that is unpatrolled
|
Precisely then its "Unsafe"
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
In the words of an old TV series, "Lets be careful out there"
|
I thought it was "Don't have nightmares" (as a result of watching the gory crimes reported in this blatantly exploitative show)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Hill St Blues.
And, apparently not seems to be the answer to my earlier question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
until I was a regular reader of snowHeads, my knowledge of the avalanche scale was based on an incorrect assumption - that it was a scale of the overall probability of avalanches, with 3 being relatively safe.
Of course, as I now know, what 3 really means is that most slopes should be ok and you are unlikely to have an avalanche fall on you from above, but if you ski the wrong slopes (which will always tend to be the slopes that you WANT to ski), it is easy to trigger an avalanche and in these circumstances the number may as well be 5.
The basic numbering system is deceptive. I'm not sure what the answer is - (1) educate people about the current system (and how do you do that?) or (2) use a system that is less likely to be misunderstood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Tony Lane, spot on.
I really don't see how the scale could be simplified further. The idea of a binary risk indicator is plainly nonsense, it clearly can't indicate comparative risk and would require either slope to be individually graded or entire areas. A risk of three tells us exactly what we need to know and gives us scope if we understand the scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
ise, perhaps if they were to just not use the numbers but only the text? I think that 'Considerable' tells me that there is, well considerable danger, whereas 3/5 doesn't quite deliver the same punch. In fact in Austrian and German avalanche reports they always quote the appropriate text (i.e 3 'Erheblich'). Even so, I'm not sure that quoting danger levels in whatever form actually deters many people from going off piste. The thing that I found most astonishing about the recent events in St.Anton and Lech was that in fact the groups were being lead by ski teachers (or guides). What the hell was a ski teacher doing taking a group off piste round the back of Rendl when the avalanche level is up at 4?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I can tell you, that serious questions are being asked at the Gemeinde (Town council).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Mike Lawrie wrote: |
| ise, perhaps if they were to just not use the numbers but only the text? I think that 'Considerable' tells me that there is, well considerable danger, whereas 3/5 doesn't quite deliver the same punch. |
I don't read it as 3/5 really, I know what the text says so 3's just an index to me. The fact it's apparently not to other people is a bit of a worry really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Do the warnings necessarily only apply to off-piste?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Inga, there are alot of very knowledgeable people on this site. But the general thing is to obay all the signs, off-piste or not. If there is a danger, don't try it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
It would seem that common sense (and a sense of self-preservation) should rule, and SHOULD make us all err on the cautious side, but the lure of untracked snow, and the feeling that 'it can't happen to me' all too often results in a rush of blood to the brain, with dreadful consequences. Skiing can never be a completely safe sport, (thank God). It is the thrill of pushing oneself as far as one can (sometimes resulting in a brown trouser situation) that makes it THE great sport it is. But as DG said above "Let's be careful out there!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we should link this thread with the Avalanches claim victims in the Savoie thread where similar comments are being made.
I note that ise link has a 5 point scale with colour coding. This is the first time I have seen this. It is certainly not written like that in any of the resorts that I have visited, but definitely a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
