http://www.mountwashingtonavalanchec...spect-and-awe/
rog
Printable View
Good post. Enjoy the mtns an be safe out there.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using TGR Forums
Yes, incredibly well-written, especially his discussion of dealing with uncertainty. I excerpted that last part to accompany the MWAC season summary in The Avalanche Review.
ya, uncertainty. quite the adventure:eek:
always enjoy chris's point of view. the daily advisories of his, jeff's, and the others really give a good daily picture of what's going on and how things are stacking up. whether yer heading out or not on a given day it's always good learning/awareness to read the daily advisory for yer local area or for where yer headed months out. any ammo is good ammo.
rog
ain't that the truth without the fluff.
b
UAC blog
http://utahavalanchecenter.org/blog-...danger-ratings
and from a recent Vancouver Sun article citing Bruce Tremper of the UAC
"Forty-seven per cent of avalanche deaths occur when conditions are reported as "considerable." Most weekend warrior backcountry skiers back off on their plans in avalanche danger points to high and extreme zones, but “considerable” conditions are harder to predict, and where almost half of all avalanche deaths occur. While the majority of ski tours that take place under these conditions will have a happy outcome, skills such as safe route-finding, keeping a handle on group dynamics, and knowing how to undertake a rescue and find buried victims is of paramount importance."
moderate is the true voodoo, imo. under the moderate rating, a bc user may get away with a lot, but if shit hits the fan, it can often hit huge. "moderate" is a much more mistaken/underestimated danger rating title. it should be changed, imo.
rog
i'm thinking 'wary' to replace 'moderate'.
b
not trying to start an argument. what would you change it to? given your position on the word moderate, how do you feel about the use of the word considerable? how would you portray the low probability/high consequence that comes with the territory of conditions currently described as "moderate" using just one word?.Quote:
Originally Posted by icelanticskier
this is a topic of conversation for many forecasting and education programs and any dialogue is good!
well I do like a number scale, like 1-5. the word considerable to me means that there is a considerable chance of human triggered avalanches. pretty straight forward, less straight forward than low/high/extreme. i'd like to see the rating of moderate change to caution. even tho low doesn't mean no and you should always use caution, but caution is easy for most folks to understand. folks are used to seeing caution signs of all kinds in every day life.Quote:
Originally Posted by camlax
rog
I think that the problem is that the danger rating remains mainly a mix of probability and consequences, which may not be all that helpful if conditions don't really allow you to assess the risks of a given slope. The Hardesty blog Mike posted is really about this- not all moderate is the same.
I also found this really interesting: http://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-scie...W-2006-004.pdf
That paper breaks down fatal accidents vs. forecast stats by region, and the differences between regions, especially considerable vs. moderate being more deadly are pretty dramatic.
I guess I don't see the problem with the existing scale. Ya just gotta think about what each level means.
Considerable = expect "small avalanches in many areas, large avalanches in specific areas or very large avalanches in isolated areas. Natural avalanches possible, human triggered slides likely". That means p>=.50 that I or somebody else in the neighborhood is gonna trigger a slide. And I prefer to stay away from all avis, so that means "many" areas are OOB for me.
Moderate means to expect "small slides in specific areas, large Avis in isolated areas. Natural slides unlikely, human-triggered slides possible".
The advisory usually tells you the "specific" areas/aspects with higher risk, so mitigation there isn't too tough to figure out. Then use snow sense to deal with the "isolated"areas and the micro space of the "here and now"
All that said, comparing the deaths by region/danger level for CAIC and UAC is interesting. My quick skim didn't uncover any good reasons though. A function of some big incidents in CO during "moderate" conditions? Too many Coloradicals ignoring warnings about specific areas? Less snow sense than Utards?
More homogeneous conditions in Utah?
The distributions are indeed very interesting, and surprisingly different. UAC with the highest concentration on High days, BT on Considerable, CAIC on Moderate. I'd tend to ascribe the Colorado moderate concentration to their poor snowpack tendency and the resulting high spatial variabilty, ie. weak pockets existing on even moderate days. Maybe Utah skiers ski on High days more than anyone else, and Teton skiers treat Considerable like Moderate (which jives with my observations here).Quote:
Originally Posted by telebobski
The National distributions are interesting as well, with Canada and France being very similar, the Swiss having the highest Considerable grouping but the lowest at High, and the US the most broadly distributed. No idea as to what that means.
It'd be great to see this updated with another 10 year study as this one is now 7 years old.
FIFY^^^^^^^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by telebobski
rog
I'd like to see a scale that shows probability and consequence, but I know people want a single number / word to dumb it down. Sometimes this info is in the discussion, sometimes not.Quote:
Originally Posted by NatEE
You mean separately? As in:Quote:
Originally Posted by neufox47
Probability is Moderate
Consequences are High
That's interesting. I think it would likely lead to changes in behavior. On a day forecasted as above, I'd expect people to pay more attention to route selection and potential trigger points to avoid being caught in that unlikely, but potentially very big slide.
On the other hand if the forecast is:
Probability is High
Consequences are Moderate
I envision the 20 year old with an airbag thinking he's badass enough to deal with a moderate slide. He'll either ski out of it, or just inflate his bag and ride it out.
Perhaps it would make sense to never post the consequences as being lower than the probability?
D'oh! Post first get blitzed later.Quote:
Originally Posted by icelanticskier
Edited above to correct :o
just lookin out for ya!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by telebobski
rog