What's missing from online avy safety videos

Been browsing the internet, watching avvy safety videos, trying to refresh what I learned in my classes over the years.

There are a ton of videos teaching you how to dig pits, perform various tests, how to record your observations, etc.

What's pretty scarce is information on interpretation and decision making.

I would love to see one of the respected avalanche organizations put out a whole series of videos just of them digging some pits, making assessments, and then (this is the important part) making a decision whether or not they will ski the slope in question, (and explaining their go /no-go rationale.)

If there were a bunch of these go / no-go videos available, covering various years and various conditions, that would be super useful.

99% of the educational videos show you how to dig pits and study the snowpack, but they never get to the most important part; would they ski it?

That's because you shouldn't be making the decision to ski something or not based solely on what you find in a pit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glademaster

That's because you shouldn't be making the decision to ski something or not based solely on what you find in a pit.

---

I believe that’s his point: new vids to illustrate how those decisions should be made

I would argue that information is impossible to encapsulate in a video that will hold someone's 90-second attention span.

You know what would be even better than a video doing a half-baked job of conveying that information? Reading it in a book!

I don't disagree with ya Kai, but here are a few comments from someone with 25+ years experience ski touring in a continental snowpack. There has been an increasing desire by backcountry users to have the magic key to be able to green light/red light a particular slope. Here in Colorado we travel under yellow light conditions a majority of the time.

While the ultimate decision to go/no go is binary, the process by which you get there is anything but. The longer I do this shit, the more I realize that a large percentage of backcountry skiers do not have the patience and awareness to "ski the day" and understand all the subtleties and dynamics needed to be consistently safe. Said another way, the exact information you seek is the exact information we don't need. This is the challenge.

Another point to be made is that avalanche problems that exhibit high spatial variability can not, by definition, be green lighted by a stability test. If you don't understand that, you are personally at high risk. Most areas in the mountain west have great Avalanche Centers that are doing the forecasting for you. Heck, there just about spell out exactly how to stay safe.

We are the problem. I challenge you to think about what are the impediments to you making consistently conservative decisions because that is what it takes to be a safe, incident free, backcountry tourer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles

I don't disagree with ya Kai, but here are a few comments from someone with 25+ years experience ski touring in a continental snowpack. There has been an increasing desire by backcountry users to have the magic key to be able to green light/red light a particular slope. Here in Colorado we travel under yellow light conditions a majority of the time.

While the ultimate decision to go/no go is binary, the process by which you get there is anything but. The longer I do this shit, the more I realize that a large percentage of backcountry skiers do not have the patience and awareness to "ski the day" and understand all the subtleties and dynamics needed to be consistently safe. Said another way, the exact information you seek is the exact information we don't need. This is the challenge.

Another point to be made is that avalanche problems that exhibit high spatial variability can not, by definition, be green lighted by a stability test. If you don't understand that, you are personally at high risk. Most areas in the mountain west have great Avalanche Centers that are doing the forecasting for you. Heck, there just about spell out exactly how to stay safe.

We are the problem. I challenge you to think about what are the impediments to you making consistently conservative decisions because that is what it takes to be a safe, incident free, backcountry tourer.

---

Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles

While the ultimate decision to go/no go is binary, the process by which you get there is anything but. The longer I do this shit, the more I realize that a large percentage of backcountry skiers do not have the patience and awareness to "ski the day" and understand all the subtleties and dynamics needed to be consistently safe.

---

if we as a ski culture cannot figure out how to share wisdom and teach, we really are fucked

And it is possible that all 3 of you are correct to varying degrees.

FG, well put!

I think it's a great idea for a series. Just have the forecasters explain the whole picture of what the see and find that day, not just results from a pit. Maybe have a less experienced person with him/her and we hear their guesses which is confirmed/denied by the pro.

That or go back several year, scrub any embarrassing or identifying information and examine past avalanche accidents. A sort of an online Snowy Torrents that focuses on the decisions made and the red/yellow/green signs present and either identified or ignored/missed.

Whenever there is a notable avy accident (or a series of them) people start asking questions about how to better convey messages that don't seem to be getting through to certain skiers. This is certainly a noble goal but there are two things that need to be kept in mind:

1) All the relevant information is already out there.
2) Forecasters have almost certainly already thought about messaging more than the rest of us.

Bruce Tremper on Persistant-Slabs: "The only way to deal with them is by avoiding or making very conservative terrain choices."

on Deep Persistent Slabs: "Just don't mess with them, usually for the rest of the season."

That's some pretty clear messaging.

Quote:

---

I think it's a great idea for a series. Just have the forecasters explain the whole picture of what the see and find that day, not just results from a pit. Maybe have a less experienced person with him/her and we hear their guesses which is confirmed/denied by the pro.

---

At least for the CAIC, that is more or less the purpose of both the daily (usually) discussion and the YouTubes.

Quote:

---

Avalanche activity continues to taper off without new snow to load the snowpack. Ski areas continue to trigger large avalanches with explosives, but it's been several days since a confirmed human-triggered avalanche across the Northern Mountains. The snowpack, however, is still grumbling and observers are reporting cracking and collapsing.

We know that the poor structure is present and steep northerly and easterly-facing aspects are the most suspect areas, especially where there is previous wind loading. The dry, cool weather isn’t changing things quickly. The midpack slabs continue to decay as the surface snow facets during the long dry spell, with cold clear nights. At lower elevations the slab is gone in many places and you'll find just weak, cohesionless snow from top to bottom, and you might be able to trigger small facet sluffs in steep terrain.

Each time we experience a small loading event, whether it’s new snow or wind, or any combination, expect an uptick of avalanche activity on the same slopes. We might get enough snow tonight and into tomorrow to increase avalanche activity, especially in the Steamboat Flat Tops zone, and the northern Gore Range.

It’s important not to mistake a lack of reported avalanche activity as a sign of stable slopes. In a season like this, persistent dry weather means that the snowpack is slow to change. Northerly and easterly-facing slopes will remain dangerous for a while. Assume that these slopes are unstable even when the snowpack does not present obvious signs of instability like collapsing and recent avalanches. Give yourself a wide margin of safety in your terrain choices until conditions improve.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHE0...ature=emb_logo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CevJJWa8wLM

I place no blame on traditional avalanche education, in fact we may be where we are because of how good those curricula are. That said, we talk about FACETS and heuristic traps and all that but we collectively do a shitty job a being reflective as a community and providing the feedback loop needed to be a safe community.

Personally, I feel that the culture of safety made huge improvements from say 1995-2015. Then popular and social media happened and we collectively lost the ability to be consistently awesome. Tracks and the scarcity of powder drives people to ski increasingly risky terrain and snowpack while social media how both provided the motivation for "getting after it" and echo chamber of dog shit takes on safety.

It sucks. I've been forced to manage myself though reduced expectations, riding chairlifts, snowmobility to more remote areas and simply not going ski touring.

I think you are looking for the answer that doesn't exist. The best you are gonna get out of a forecast or guide or educator is what they would do in a given situation with variable that will never be replicated. The beauty of ski touring is that it is wild and unpredictable. It can not be simplified into a laboratory experiment.

This a challenge. Do you have and knowledge gap? A skills gap? What is preventing you from making consistently conservative decisions?

Learning how to reprogram our minds is the biggest challenge. We all come with so much baggage from regular life that we can't get out of our own heads and think clearly.

I think the field videos from the avy centers do a good job extrapolating snow study to weather, slope aspect angles and risk. They also do a great job examining the cognitive-behavioral defects in individuals involved in avy accidents.
Attachment 357648
The question is, "Do you feel lucky? Punk!"

I could envision a “dramatic reading” of Tremper’s book in the style of Planet Earth

macro shots of crystals debonding with the micro sounds to match

360 time lapse of loading in progress from crystals zoomed out to the view from 10k’

Trigger closeup zooming out to the resulting release & slide ending in a zoom back in to the compaction at the bottom

The book is good but I expect it could be improved on with pertinent visual story telling, maybe even with his ok following his chapter structure

[ultimately won’t completely satisfy a “complete” education, but could be improved]

just my imagination

Lots of great insight so far, thanks all. behind the scenes at TAR and in the avalanche education business we laugh at how the Rec 2 crowd wants to learn science in order to justify skiing things. Ha!

I'd urge the OP to subscribe to a few choice IG feeds like the American Avalanche Institute and the Sawtooth Avalanche Center, especially the short vids from Sawtooth forecaster Ben VandenBos. In-depth insight about translating theory/ data into appropriate action.

Different people learn differently. It's good to have different options out there rather than suggest people should simply find the info already out there and 'stay the course' for avie awareness. Certainly there is great resources out there already, and a video like Kai isn't the silver bullet missing that will solve everything, but if it helps a certain few, then why not, if there is funds out there to support a video like that.

Or you could shove a Horseshoe up the old blowhole.

Sorry if I was not clear.

I did not mean to imply that a decision to ski or not ski a slope should be based solely on examination of a snow pit. I understand that many other factors go into that decision. (slope angle, terrain, avalanche poodle tests, etc.)

What I am looking for is a go / no-go decision with an explanation of the rationale behind the decision, (which could/should include many factors other than what is seen in the snow pit.)

The problem is that there is a ton of information out there on the more esoteric aspects of snow science. There is almost none with real life examples regarding how to make the binary decision of "do I ski that?"


Here's an extreme example:

A guy doing an extended column test. It fails and propagates after 7 taps.

With a test result such as this, I'm pretty sure most everyone would agree that, absent some over-riding mitigating circumstances (very low slope angle, perhaps) nobody should ski this.

And yet, nowhere does the guy say, "DON'T SKI THIS."

This is an extreme example. Maybe they figure that anyone with half a brain could know not to ski something that reacts this way. But there are many other less extreme examples where it's not so obvious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHE0...ature=emb_logo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunion 2020

Or you could shove a Horseshoe up the old blowhole.

---

I don't want to see an instructional video on how to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kai

Sorry if I was not clear.

I did not mean to imply that a decision to ski or not ski a slope should be based solely on examination of a snow pit. I understand that many other factors go into that decision. (slope angle, terrain, avalanche poodle tests, etc.)

What I am looking for is a go / no-go decision with an explanation of the rationale behind the decision, (which could/should include many factors other than what is seen in the snow pit.)

The problem is that there is a ton of information out there on the more esoteric aspects of snow science. There is almost none with real life examples regarding how to make the binary decision of "do I ski that?"


Here's an extreme example:

A guy doing an extended column test. It fails and propagates after 7 taps.

With a test result such as this, I'm pretty sure most everyone would agree that, absent some over-riding mitigating circumstances (very low slope angle, perhaps) nobody should ski this.

And yet, nowhere does the guy say, "DON'T SKI THIS."

This is an extreme example. Maybe they figure that anyone with half a brain could know not to ski something that reacts this way. But there are many other less extreme examples where it's not so obvious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHE0...ature=emb_logo

---

I think your question has to do more with people's level or risk tolerance. What may be a 'go' for one person would be a 'no-go' for another person because the risks people are willing to take differ on an individual basis. I feel like what your looking for has more to do with human behavior and risk tolerance than snow science.

Adding that FGs comments are really well stated. Thanks for that.

^^^ yours was not so bad either.

To the OP, I appreciate your thought but making the ski or not decision binary will probably never happen and you demonstrate why that is the case very well in your example.

Skiing avalanche terrain when the snow is still dynamic is always going to contain more than a little risk and hold a lot of grey area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danmelon

I think your question has to do more with people's level or risk tolerance. What may be a 'go' for one person would be a 'no-go' for another person because the risks people are willing to take differ on an individual basis. I feel like what your looking for has more to do with human behavior and risk tolerance than snow science.

---

You're absolutely right in that what I am asking for goes beyond snow science. However I'm honestly not interested in the pure science aspects of avalanches. I'm interested in practical application of that science. The usefulness of any of the snow science ultimately comes down to how it impacts the decision of whether or not you would ski a particular slope. In any endeavor that involves risk, there is a lot to be learned by watching experienced people and how they manage that risk. It's the conjunction of the science and the behavior that has practical application to the decision of whether or not to ski something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunion 2020

To the OP, I appreciate your thought but making the ski or not decision binary will probably never happen and you demonstrate why that is the case very well in your example.

Skiing avalanche terrain when the snow is still dynamic is always going to contain more than a little risk and hold a lot of grey area.

---

The decision to ski or not ski is a binary decision. You either ski it or you don't. There are rarely any third options. Obviously, the factors that go into making this binary decision include multiple variables (the grey area you speak of.)

It just seems outside the mission of avy centers to go into the reward part of the equation. Documenting the decision making process and review of exposed or challenging descents is more often addressed by professional athletes and guides as part of content development. The Fifty comes to mind.

The UAC generates reviews of prior year incidents and spends a lot of time on decision making during their annual snow and avalanche workshop. I recommend Logan Cookler's talk from day 3 about how Powderbirds goes about getting the goods and keeping clients safe. Day 2 reviews incidents, and Day 1 has more meterological content including a recap of last year's historic storm cycle in LCC.

$10/day for a bunch of good presentations and it raises a little money. Totally worth it this far into a season when it might as well be November.
https://store.utahavalanchecenter.or...tions/events-1

Kai, I honestly commend you for trying to dig a little deeper into decision make. One thing that I think you are missing is what the role of an avalanche center is. They absolutely positively do not tell you where and when it is safe to ski. The best you will get is a suggestion about recommended travel protocols. Do you want the backcountry to be open and closed by the avalanche centers or do you want to be able to decide for yourself?

Here is a quick list of factors that may effect my tour planning and whether I ski or don't ski something:

Group (who, size, currency)
Time (later in day?)
Weather (freezing cold, visibility)
Vibe (group awareness, hungry, tired, agenda)

And back you the YouTube example, here are the forecast and discussion from that zone on that day:

Quote:

---

A few inches of new snow yesterday with moderate winds and strong gusts at times added load primarily to northeast slopes. While it wasn’t quite enough to increase the avalanche danger rating, there are now more spots where you can trigger dangerous avalanches. Expect avalanches to break larger and wider where you find wind-affected snow. Conditions remain sensitive enough that you can trigger an avalanche big enough to bury and kill you, even in areas without obvious signs of instability on the surface. Near treeline, on north, northeast, east, and southeast-facing slopes are the most suspect. Consider avoiding any slope on these aspects over 30 degrees, especially where you find wind drifted snow.

High variability and unpredictability pretty much sum up the name of the game. Avalanche sensitivity varies throughout the zones based on slab thickness. In areas where the slab is thickest, three feet or more, avalanches are more stubborn to trigger. In areas where the slab is slightly thinner, around one to two feet thick, the slab remains reactive to your body weight. In other areas, the snow has remained unconsolidated and lacks enough slab stiffness to avalanche.

The unpredictable nature of Persistent Slab Avalanches makes recreating safely tricky. Obvious signs of instability can become less frequent or go away completely. Avalanche activity slows and if you are not careful, it is easy to start stepping out and get caught. Our best strategy is to avoid avalanche terrain where the structure exists. This takes discipline and vigilance as this structure is not going away anytime soon. It will be something we continue to talk about for the foreseeable future.

Expect surprises. Manage your terrain choices to accommodate that uncertainty and the potential of larger, well-connected slabs breaking wider than expected. Choose lower angled slopes. Give steep, overhead slopes a wide berth, and be diligent in your procedures while traveling through the mountains.

---

Quote:

---

Weak snow structure exists on most slopes. Slopes that face north, northeast, and east are the most dangerous. Yesterday’s snowfall and moderate to strong winds continued to move snow onto easterly-facing slopes. Avoid any terrain over 35 degrees where you find wind-drifted snow, see shooting cracks, or hear sounds of collapse in the snow around you. You can trigger avalanches from a distance in low-angle terrain, beneath or adjacent to larger slopes, so be aware of what is around you. Below treeline, steer clear of steep-walled gullies and small slopes where even a small avalanche could bury you in a terrain trap.

---

The rating was Moderate. You tell me what additional information you would have needed to make safe terrain choice decisions on that day.

For me it’s pretty simple. Read the forecast and observations, recall my own observations of snowpack and weather for the area I ski regularly. Choose terrain appropriate for those conditions. Identify and acknowledge the consequences of your choice. Stay disciplined, don’t push into more consequential terrain if you aren’t willing to accept the outcome.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

One of the more renowned avy forecasters from the Silverton area survived 3 burials. I'd also add:
Attachment 357817
your partners

What's the probability of an accident?
What are the possible consequences of an accident?
Who are the people involved?
How good is our plan?

I have kids. If I'm uncomfortable with any of these I back off. And uncertainty = uncomfortable. Being optimistic about uncertainty has put me in dangerous places a few times.

Lots of good comments by FG and others. I'm not sure exactly what the OP is looking for, but my local center had a good video this morning (I thought). Sort of a day in the life of a forecaster tour, and Evan is funny, so that helps. It's on the beginner side of things, perhaps, but here it is.

https://youtu.be/xXDgp5xXcUg

Foggy is pretty much killing it in this thread but I'll add a few thoughts.

I think what the OP is describing is a video series that at least somewhat fills the role that a mentor traditionally would have had. When I started, it was pretty commonly accepted practice to go find an experienced person(s) and start your backcountry career by traveling with them and learning about their decision making process (as well as formal classes). Fast forward 15+ years and now there are SO MANY people getting into backcountry riding that people are (understandably) skipping this step. Not to mention, "experienced" means different things to different people, and one can have a great deal of experience making extremely bad decisions.

I do think there is a bit of a gap in formal avalanche education in really talking through risk and the decision making process. I don't know how to address that. I know the recent updates to Level 1 and Rec Level 2 curricula were an attempt to address that to some extent. I agree fully that it is not the forecast center's place to do this.

I've been strongly encouraging experienced people this year to consider taking some time to pass on what they know to someone new and act as a mentor if possible.

in the old days we just went out and skied a lot. Now everyone wants to just look at their phone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldenboy

Lots of good comments by FG and others. I'm not sure exactly what the OP is looking for, but my local center had a good video this morning (I thought). Sort of a day in the life of a forecaster tour, and Evan is funny, so that helps. It's on the beginner side of things, perhaps, but here it is.

https://youtu.be/xXDgp5xXcUg

---

This is a good example I think of an attempt to tie together info into actual ski day decisions. If this format were used on a variety of tours, it would help educate in the way I think the OP was requesting.

I was lucky to get this type of education over the years with some experienced partners, nearly all of who seemed very aware of the heuristic trap of thinking of themselves as ‘experience experts’.

I feel like what OP is looking for is some expert / experienced guidance in interpreting middle of the road conditions.

The rating for the day is moderate. You dig a pit and get an ECT 21 Q2. There's a deeper problem layer, but it's 150cm down and hasn't been reactive. Wind direction has been consistent, and wind loaded slopes are reasonably avoidable. There haven't been any reports of slides on similar aspects in 2 days, and the last time it snowed was 3 days ago.

How aggressive will you get with your terrain choice? The answer is different in different locations, and everyone's going to be different per their risk tolerance, but it would be interesting to at least hear a discussion of the thought process on a day like that from someone with a lot of experience. If they're standing on top of a 38 degree face, would they ski it? What other information beyond their knowledge of the snow pack and the angle and aspect of the slope are they considering?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kai

Sorry if I was not clear.

I did not mean to imply that a decision to ski or not ski a slope should be based solely on examination of a snow pit. I understand that many other factors go into that decision. (slope angle, terrain, avalanche poodle tests, etc.)

What I am looking for is a go / no-go decision with an explanation of the rationale behind the decision, (which could/should include many factors other than what is seen in the snow pit.)

The problem is that there is a ton of information out there on the more esoteric aspects of snow science. There is almost none with real life examples regarding how to make the binary decision of "do I ski that?"


Here's an extreme example:

A guy doing an extended column test. It fails and propagates after 7 taps.

With a test result such as this, I'm pretty sure most everyone would agree that, absent some over-riding mitigating circumstances (very low slope angle, perhaps) nobody should ski this.

And yet, nowhere does the guy say, "DON'T SKI THIS."

This is an extreme example. Maybe they figure that anyone with half a brain could know not to ski something that reacts this way. But there are many other less extreme examples where it's not so obvious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHE0...ature=emb_logo

---

That is not true, some will come out and say straight up their no-go:

https://www.blackdiamondequipment.co...d-column-test/

Quote:

---

How do I make sense of my result?

The short answer is really simple. If you get an ECTP, (the “P” stands for propagation, meaning the weak layer fails across the entire column) then stay out of any avalanche terrain on that slope. That's correct, it's a NO GO situation. Pretend that you just observed a massive collapse underfoot.

Really, it's that cut and dry?

Yes, it is.

---

And take this for thought:

https://theavalanchereview.org/ect-test-update/

https://theavalanchereview.org/wp-co...3-ECT-Test.png

Unlike snow science, it's cut and dried btw. That really bugs me, but wrong thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

I could envision a “dramatic reading” of Tremper’s book in the style of Planet Earth

macro shots of crystals debonding with the micro sounds to match

360 time lapse of loading in progress from crystals zoomed out to the view from 10k’

Trigger closeup zooming out to the resulting release & slide ending in a zoom back in to the compaction at the bottom

The book is good but I expect it could be improved on with pertinent visual story telling, maybe even with his ok following his chapter structure

[ultimately won’t completely satisfy a “complete” education, but could be improved]

just my imagination

---

Here is some drama:
https://vimeo.com/38207836

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

I feel like what OP is looking for is some expert / experienced guidance in interpreting middle of the road conditions.

---

Lots of good comments in here. I think this statement sums up what I suspect the OP is looking for. I can relate. I took an avy class about 20 years ago. I learned a lot. One of the things I learned was that it was really complicated and I didn't have a clue what I was doing. I certainly got some good science info about how snow transforms with temperature gradients and how wind was a big deal and the concept of understanding terrain was driven home. But what I took away more than anything was that I was clueless and really wasn't in a position to make good decisions.

Last winter I retook the Avy 1 class. With 20 years of meadow skipping under my belt and a fair amount of reading and observation I was in a much better position to get something out of the class but the way the class was structured had also changed dramatically. The guys teaching the class boiled it down to a few simple things. Primarily, if there's a strong layer over a weak layer then you have a potential avalanche problem. Really, it doesn't matter too much what caused the condition to set up, if there's a weak layer buried under a stronger layer then there's the potential for a problem.

For me, that little revelation was eye opening. I knew that to be true but to have it explained so simply was really important.

I went out on a short tour a week or so ago. There had been quite a bit of new snow with some rain mixed in and some warming a couple days earlier. We made observation on the approach as we skinned uphill. There were no signs of instability. When we got to the top of the climb, which was right at the foot of some pretty big avalanche terrain, we dug a hasty pit and did a half assed ECT test for fun. It took a lot of effort to get anything to fail on those recent layers and nothing propogated. That confirmed what we already knew. If the results had been reactive I would have pushed for a more conservative terrain on the descent but with the confirmation that the newer wet snow was fairly well bonded to a couple rain crusts in the snow pack and there didn't seem to be any sign that things would propogate, I felt comfortable to ski the better, steeper, more open terrain.

The key was that we knew that there was a heavy consolidated layer of snow on top (strong layer) and it was over some layers that were potentially weaker. We assessed that potential problem and decided that it wasn't a concern.

Of course, living in the PNW where our snowpack is usually really stable and the key to dealing with weak layers is usually just to wait a couple days, makes the whole process a lot easier.