Anyone have them in a format they could easily send me?
Thanks
-Chris
Printable View
Anyone have them in a format they could easily send me?
Thanks
-Chris
I just returned from Squaw. Last week I hauled all that stuff to work and won't be there until Monday.
Are you looking for anything in particular or the entire proceedings?
I'm looking for "Explosive Shock Wave Compression in Snow: Effects of Explosive Orientation and Snowpack Compression" by Binger.
I will see what I can do and send it via either a burned copy or PDF.
In the future we will be able to find proceedings archived at www.issw.info, but it isn't active/ live quite yet.
Bunion you make it home in one piece? If you can't extract that pdf, let me know and I bet I can.
We left right after Scotty's presentation at about 16:30 Montana time.
It was a drive straight through arriving here at 8:00 the next morning.
We did stop at a couple of Casinos for a break and some cheap food.
Yesterday was pretty much a waste but I slept well last night.
Lots to digest from the conference.
Main thing so far is:
If you are caught in an avalanche and carried any distance you are in deep shit.
If you get buried you have less than a 50/50 chance of survival.
Trauma is as big a concern as burial.
Avalungs and ABS systems are some help but by no means a magic bullet.
Good shoveling techniques are as important or even more important than good beacon skills.
Avoidance, good decision making and excellent route finding skills beat good rescue techniques and snow knowledge hands down.
And then there is the AVALUATOR.
Talk about waking up a drowsy crowd.:eek:
Lucky me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion
Lynn, if you could help CMOR out that would be great, I can't locate that CD in my highly organized filing system, aka pile.
OK. Will do. Cmor pop me your regular email address- pdf is ready to send to you.
And Bunion, thanks for the succinct rescue summary. I am working on the Dec and Feb issues of TAR, seeing what should be priority for us. Will take your thoughts under advisement.
The Avaluator presentation ended up being a forum for Lori Zacaruk (the only one brave enough to reply) to say what we all think about using the obvious Clues Method/ aka the Avaluator as an initial rule-base learning tool for beginners. There is so much info out there, they need to know what central material to pay attention to.
I drove strait through from Squaw to Golden in 16.5 hours, slept a few hours and made it to opening day at Loveland...:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion
As for the AVALUATOR, any one want ot lay down money he tries to get into ISSW 2012 or 2014? :cool::eek:
I heard he is banned by the steering committee from presenting at future ISSWs.
And didn't you just love that Lori Zacaruk?
She was GREAT!!! To bad she didn't have a dozon eggs to throw at him. But, her verbal jabs did the job just as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by homemadesalsa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hacksaw
Verbal Cage death match, Him VS Ian McCammon, 2 men enter, 1 man leaves!
The Battle of Anchorage! 2012, get your tickets now!
The thing is, as far as I could tell, he had some genuine and valid critiques.
Had he presented them without ad hominem attacks, they might have had a lot more traction.
Maybe we could have that on the evening of the Avalanche Divas night, so the guys have something "interesting" to attend. Otherwise, its off to The Great Alaskan Bush Company....;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad
Simply quoted for truth.
CMOR did you get that article from me?
For the lay person, what is all the Avaluator talk about? I know that it is a planning chart....but good thing, bad thing or just inside drama?
This looks like a pretty good summary of the Avaluator:
http://www.ubc-voc.com/wiki/Avaluator
As I understand it, it basically requires yes or no answers to seven questions, with the mnemonic ALPTRUTh:
- Avalanches - Recent natural or human triggered avalanche activity
- Loading - Recent loading by snow, wind or rain
- Path - Is the slope an avalanche path or start zone
- Terrain - Is there a terrain trap that increases the consequences of getting caught in an avalanche
- Rating - Is the PAF Danger rating Considerable or higher
- Unstable snow - Is there any evidence of unstable snow
- Thaw instability - Is the snowpack melting due to solar radition and/or warm temperatures.
Again, as I understand it, four or more yeses means don't go.
This looks like a pretty good summary of the critique:
http://www.avalanche-center.org/News...-19-Canada.php
The most compelling aspect of which is that randomly choosing yes or no for each question yields the same results, because a trip avoided is safer than one taken.
It's a rule-based tool for beginners. Helps them to know what of the gzillion factors out there you should pay attention to. If you look at the original research, then you'll see that it is based on looking at maybe now 1000 recreational accidents, seeing which of those 7 obvious clues people missed when they got into accidents.
It is a good thing, in my opinion. Gives you something to lean on while you accumulate experience. You can find the original article on Heuristic Traps at .
Not detailed, but ESPN published an interview of Lel Tone by Michelle Parker.
I did. Thank you very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by homemadesalsa
also, Dave Gauthier had a poster "Evaluation of the Avaluator..." In the abstract, he states, "...missing data remain a significant challenge in the evaluation."
Cut-and-Paste Boy here with Gauthier's abstract, as well as Bob Uttl's.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Evaluation of the Avaluator™ decision support tool for Canadian accidents: 1997-2009
Dave Gauthier, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada
The Avaluator™ is a rule-based avalanche decision support tool for amateur backcountry recreationists, published by the Canadian Avalanche Centre. It consists of a Trip Planner (TP) for choosing appropriate backcountry destinations, and a slope assessment tool called the ‘Obvious Clues Method’© (OCM) for use in the field. Evaluating a decision aid with historic avalanche accident records is crucial for assessing its effectiveness. While the TP component of the Avaluator was examined with respect to Canadian accidents during its development, the OCM component was validated using only U.S. accident data. The goal of the current study is to provide the first evaluation of the Avaluator™ using only Canadian accident data. Significant effort was made to compile a complete record for each fatal avalanche accident that occurred in Canada in the seasons 1997 to 2009; however, missing data remain a significant challenge in the evaluation. Unfortunately, no simple and consistent treatment was available to handle missing data in the analysis. Therefore, accident prevention values were calculated under several assumptions regarding missing data to provide insights on the limits of possible values, and allow the direct comparison with values calculated from the U.S. data. The analysis showed that clue presence in Canadian accidents was not significantly different from that published in the Avaluator™, although the Avaluator™ values may be similar to the upper limit for the Canadian dataset. The main conclusion of this study is that further investigation of each accident record would reduce missing data, and allow a much more reliable evaluation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ethics of experimenting with people’s lives in winter backcountry
Bob Uttl1 Dylan Smibert2 Alain Morin1 Gregory Wells3 Jan Uttl4 Breanne Hamper1
1. Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB, Canada; 2. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; 3. Red Deer College, Red Deer, AB, Canada; 4. avidata.ca, Cochrane, AB, Canada
The purpose of the Avaluator Avalanche Accident Prevention Card, designed by Haegeli and McCammon (2006) and published by the Canadian Avalanche Association (CAA), was to reduce the number of avalanche accidents in Canada. Speaking to the ISSW 2006 audience, McCammon (October 3, 2006) announced an experiment on the Avaluator’s effectiveness: “This is an experiment. This is an experiment with people’s lives, with their loved ones.” Subsequently, we (Uttl et al., 2008a,b; 2009a,b,c,d) have shown that (1) the data behind the Avaluator are not available for inspection, (2) Haegeli and McCammon inappropriately excluded 1,148 avalanche records (82% of their sample) due to missing data, (3) the Obvious Clues prevention values in the Avaluator are grossly inflated, and (4) the number of accidents in Canada doubled following the introduction of the Avaluator. The two new disclaimers in the latest printing of the Avaluator (2009) advise that the Avaluator’s Obvious Clues Method is not suitable for “any particular purpose” and that the Canadian Avalanche Center (CAC) is not responsible for any “injuries or death” or other damages caused by the Avaluator. Inexplicably, the CAA and CAC continue to claim that the Avaluator is “the best tool” and have not recalled it. We asked over 100 individuals how ethical various actions taken by thedevelopers, CAA, and CAC (e.g., not recalling it) are. The participants rated the actions as nearly extremely unethical and believed that the developers, CAA and CAC should “tell the truth” and recall the Avaluator.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Certainly not taking sides, but I do think Dave and Bob have valid questions about missing data.
You know, Mike. I talked to Ian about that. He said that initially he was fully willing to cooperate with Bob Uttl, but after Bob took several unreasonable pot shots at him, for no reason that Ian could ascertain, Ian refused to share his data. I can't blame him. Three ISSWs now (Whistler, Davos, and Squaw)- and no real reason for Bob's animosity.
Things are always more complex than they appear on the internet.
Indeed. I've always wondered what the back story is on this one. Bob's animosity aside, why is Dave Gauthier saying essentially the same thing?
I feel like I should clarify that Dave G is not really saying the same thing as Uttl - the main similarity is accepting that missing data are a problem, which sort of goes without saying. Dave G is trying to come up with historic prevention values for the Avaluator from the Canadian accident database, after taking reasonable steps to analyze and reduce missing data.
Most of the (technical) arguing is over the 'missingness' mechanism in the data, or why we can't answer all the OCM questions for each accident. Dave G concludes that the reasonable approach is to improve the database by researching the accidents, rather than inventing data to fill the gaps (or ignoring the gaps).
No idea about the rest of the arguing...
I certainly do not want to mis-characterize Dave G's abstract, and I apppreciate the comment and clarification.
Honestly, as I read it, I think Bob U is also saying that "that the reasonable approach is to improve the database by researching the accidents, rather than inventing data to fill the gaps (or ignoring the gaps)." I think he would argue (to put it mildly) that he tried to do that and was rebuffed.
Obviously, he feels like he needs to raise a stink, and has done so on every possible occaision. I'm not so sure that that's a bad thing. Where else are you going to raise these issues in a public forum other than at ISSW? That was not the way to do it, though. I'd hate to see him banned from presenting at future ISSW's, but I would certainly like to see something a bit more professional next time.
Does that sorta thing happen at other conferences like this? Do glaciologists or botonists or geologists stand up there and publicly heckle each other? And don't forget, this isn't the only simmering pissing match we've got going. The BCA/Pieps/Ortovox thing can always get fun.
Dave - thanks for taking the time to respond.
Fixed it!Quote:
Do Ski Patrollers or Avi Forecasters or Guides stand up there and publicly heckle each other?
Yes they do, part of the fun at an ISSW.
I remember a large contingent of Heli-guides walking out en mass when a certain Attorney was introduced at an ISSW several sessions past.
Stuffy conferences are for Librarians.
And no way do they drink as much beer as we did....Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion
Quoted for truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by telemike
I think that the difference may be that there are very direct consequences. If the glaciologists are wrong, there may be a diffuse effect on climate change science, with a potential effect on associated policy, that has a broad but shallow effect on human lives. If the Avaluator is wrong, there may be people who decide to take an inappropriate risk that exposes them to death or serious injury, which is a narrow but deep effect on human lives. Human beings tend to justify extreme actions in the face of the latter type of risk more than the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by telemike