Are you going??
Printable View
Are you going??
yes! should be a fun week.
can't make it
Yup. Reporting back for the rest of the proletariat for whom it is too expensive. Hard to dirtbag properly if you fly up there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homemadesalsa
QFT.
Love to go but other priorities are calling.
We will live it through your eyes.
I really wanted to go to this one, but I can't make it... teaching avalanche rescue in China that week.
How did you get that job?Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
maybe one day a cure will be found. till then, round and round we go............
rog
There is only one cure for stupidity.
Just sayin.
I'll Be there.
If anyone is looking for cheap lodging the bent prop Inn(hostel) has beds for $25/night http://bentpropinn.com/downtown
Here's the one that really caught my eye:
Title: Avalanche Education in the United States: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Authors: David W. Lovejoy
Prescott College, Prescott, AZ, USA
Avalanche education in the USA has a long and colorful history punctuated by many of the most notable and endearing personalities of our field. However, in the last few decades a new generation of avalanche instructors has emerged and avalanche education is becoming more geographically available and formatted in delivery. Debates over standards, curricular consistency and recommended practices are prolific, as are efforts by the American Avalanche Association (AAA), American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education (AIARE), and the National Ski Patrol (NSP) to credential both instructors and course providers. The issue is further complicated by a range of avalanche education providers including the National Avalanche School, guide services, outdoor equipment stores, ski patrols, avalanche centers, training institutes, colleges and universities and outdoor program such as National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) each catering to varying clients backgrounds. As a result a certain amount of discordance has emerged. In this poster and companion paper, the author will describe and discuss the history and current state of avalanche education in the United States. An analysis of the benefits and liabilities of various certification schemes will result in a proposal for scenarios with the greatest good for the greatest number of winter backcountry users being the guiding objective.
That will be interesting. And it should stir the pot some. Dave is an interesting guy.
I would love to hear how that discussion goes.
Yea, I'm sure you will....
I would be really interested in hearing the opinion of someone that teaches avalanche courses in Arizona.
:rolleyes2Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan S.
rog
I too was wondering about that at first, but then I found this:Quote:
Originally Posted by BFD
http://www.kachinapeaks.org
http://kachinapeaks.org/pdf/KPAC_ISSW_2006_Poster.pdf
Attachment 119199
The director of the National Avalanche Center received his Ph.D. from Arizona State University. Just sayin'.Quote:
Originally Posted by BFD
On another note, I finished my paper this morning which felt really really good, but sadly I won't be able to make it to Anchorage.
Congrats on getting the paper done Matt.
Maybe he can present on how the use of effluent in snowmaking affects the stability of the snowpack.Quote:
The director of the National Avalanche Center received his Ph.D. from Arizona State University. Just sayin'.
Can someone explain to me why it's good for skiers to have one size fits all avy education standards? I mean, I get why the providers want little collect $$$$ standards, but why do I? Kachina Peaks there is a fair bit simpler than some other ranges in the world, why would a class taught there be relevant to skiing in Alaska? I've taken NSP Avy work, it's good for producing ski area monkeys, much better than some other course, which is what they want, right?
Totally. Nothin but sand and cactii up on top of those 11-12k ft peaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by BFD
It ain't no Chugach, but people do get killed there in slides.
People die from roof avalanches in Ontario. Maybe we can get a safety course focusing on their needs.
roofs and mountains have much in common when it comes to slides. angle, new slab, sliding surface, and a trigger. same as anywhere else in the world. teach skiers the basics and keep much of the silly intricate "science" bullshit away from them and they'll do much less second guessing and actually pick their head up and look around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Conway
rog
Or teach them out in the real world more - I took my avy 1 in the san juans this past winter in an extended 4 day version where we spent almost 2 full days total touring safely around the fringes of avy territory in a sketchy snowpack. On the last day the students made all the touring decisions from planning tour/route the night before to what line we would ski. With that much outdoor time it was easy to throw in emergency shelters and multiple rescue scenarios (when they were least expected).Quote:
Originally Posted by icelanticskier
I think I would take a class like this every few years at a minimum just because it was a great mix of skiing/touring and learning.
Sorry for semi hijack from conference thread...
Thanks, Bunion. Now all I have to do is graduate and then the big bucks will start coming in. :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion
darn toot'n nopostholio. classroom time is good for student/teacher intro's, packing up gear. and snack time:) and that's about it. getting out in all conditions including scary stupid is paramount. scary stupid learns you proper terrain management right quick or you'll probably die. you don't learn nearly as much on low days as you do high days. pits are cute, but once dug your decision to ski that slope is 95% made up in favor of slaying the thing.
rog
One size fits all? I don't think AIARE curriculum takes that approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Conway
* There are multiple levels and the level 1 course covers important basics.
* I can't imagine anything that ties the basic skillset learned at an AIARE course to any particular location.
* Local experience and observations are essential for effective backcountry avalanche forecasting, but those aren't something that can be taught in a class anyway.
* However, you can teach the -importance- of local experience and observations at a course.
* You can teach people how to make and prioritise observations.
Anyway, even if Kachina Peaks lacks the complexity of the Chugach, the laws of physics are the same. It takes a surprisingly small amount of snow to bury, injure, or kill a skier.
* Do you really think that "intricate 'science'" is why backcountry avalanche forecasting is complex?Quote:
Originally Posted by icelanticskier
* Do you really think second guessing is the fundamental problem?
Here are the answers.
* The chaotic interaction of terrain and weather is why backcountry avalanche forecasting is complex.
* Faulty perception of instability is the root cause of all avalanche involvement.
What you call "intricate 'science'" is really just a reflection of the complexity of the natural world.
I'd love to see your outline for an avalanche skills training course. Do you happen to have one?
nice clear input above cookster.Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieMonster
i have no outline for an avy skillz training course, i'm just a skier coming at this from a skiers point of view, my point of view. my belief is that avy courses in general can bring more complexity into a recreational skiers world than is necessary. i see lots of skiers out there fresh out of an avy 1, or even avy 2, without any clue of where to properly put in a skinner or booter to suit the conditions or the terrain they are in.
they love to dig pits tho and get out all of their nice lil snow tools and stuff. i really feel that folks should take a backcountry/mountain 101/ettiquette course before any type of avy course. avy forecasting can be complex due to weather/terrain, but can be pretty darn basic for skiers that are just out there to ski. a go or no go thang. has it snowed? is this slope over 30 degrees? wind? terrain traps? not hard, not complex. at all. unless ya wanna make it so. most folks i run into coming fresh out of a course seem to wanna make things more complex than they need to be and still have their head in the book and not where they actually are which is where their heads need to be.
rog
Jeebus, Rog, why does every single thread have to become a discussion of how YOU make decisions in the backcountry. Everybody learns differently, you know that. For some, the experiential method, or following around a mentor is better; others like to have a little book larnin' behind them. It is part of your job as the old dude to be a little bit tolerant of people trying to figure it out, and using a wide variety of tools.
The AAA and AIARE are simply (oversimplified) working to make sure that courses are good, appropriate, and taught by people who know what they are doing. Courses are points along a long long curve, theory must be translated to action, but theory is improving over time, I assure you.
If you've an experienced local instructor, yes, some can be. If you've credentialed broheim.... not so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieMonster
sounds like a bug, not a feature. I take classes for real world feedback from humanoids. The real world feedback afforded by studying mountains in the Cascades, inland ranges, and podunk peaks without much above treeline like the east coast or kachinas is substantially different. which means the environment for:Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieMonster
is substantially different. Having taken classes in the coast ranges which "dug pits" the feedback afforded from them was pretty worthless because there wasn't much happening in the snowpack. Inland, different story. Similarly for planning routes in the North East - straight forward slide paths, substantially different from other ranges with overlapping slide paths and hazards. Different terrain, different problems, different needs of the people skiing there. Unless one devotes much time and money I wouldn't expect mastery.Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieMonster
Dunno, to me the data/assumptions used to generate the "greater good/greater number" are more interesting than any standardization.
"All animals, while capable of some degree of specialized learning, are instinct driven, guided by simple cues from the environment that trigger complex behavior patterns. The complexity of the universe means nothing to them. They are exquisitely adapted to just those parts of the environment on which their lives depend." - E. O. WilsonQuote:
Originally Posted by icelanticskier
Rog, take a few minutes to calm down the cheerleaders in your head, behind all the self accolades is a conversation that is quite complex built on all your days and experiences with other people I might add, even though you like the idea of being an animal you seemed to have forgotten how you learned your instincts. Anyone new at anything is going to make it more complex, its the framework on how it gets redefined that is critical. Insert the understanding of any system your interested in. working on an understanding of any complex system shapes empiricism
thank you ms salsa and kt:)
rog
hey ISSW people,
the Central Oregon Avalanche Association is looking to send one of our own to ISSW (we won the essay contest to get a free pass to ISSW).....am curious if any mags can offer up a place to stay, even better if it is a bunch of attendees who have a house they want someone to go in on with them.
Please hit me up with a PM ASAP, thx.
Tap
Hey Tap-
You should check out the hostel: www.bentpropinn.com (I think that's it). They have beds in the bunkroom for $30 for the first night, $25 each night afterwards. If you call or make a reservation make sure you get the downtown location (there are two).
Thx HMS!
heading up on Saturday and presenting Monday afternoon I believe.. should be fun!
What's your paper?Quote:
Originally Posted by endure
deep slab, I think it is 1:20..? right after Yurg, eek! you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hacksaw
I will be there Thurs-Fri only unfortunately. I talk on Thurs. Apologies in advance.