Check Out Our Shop
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 59 of 59

Thread: Avalanche with fatalities near Stevens Pass

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    11,076
    Thanks for posting that Shralpmacchio, I'd never seen it.

    "Even with the massive avalanche clearly evident, people continued skiing adjacent terrain that did not slide in the days following the avalanche. For some people, no amount of avalanche education or in-your-face evidence will dissuade them from their powder turns or the certainty of their belief that they know exactly what is going on in the snowpack."

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    14,442
    Another nice quote from the piece from MT

    "However, much to our amazement, there is a sizable population that cannot or will not be reached. Even with the massive avalanche clearly evident, people continued skiing adjacent terrain that did not slide in the days following the avalanche. For some people, no amount of avalanche education or in-your-face evidence will dissuade them from their powder turns or the certainty of their belief that they know exactly what is going on in the snowpack. We need to realize that these people exist, but our time, our energies and our message will only reach those members of the public who are willing to listen."

    Coming to that realization may be sad but is ultimately a good way to relieve frustration

  3. #53
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juxtaposition
    Posts
    5,732
    Good read, Schralp. Thank you for posting it. Not only was it interesting, but it left me with a lingering sense of the value of a community of like minded people who communicate on the same terms all centered around an area of terrain [kind of made me envious].

    C.Monster - I glanced only very quickly at first since terms such as "Information Philosophy Map" tend to put me off. I then took the time to read the images and you are certainly onto something with course curriculum complexity and the educational levels at which they are best aimed. Could say more...
    Last edited by neck beard; 03-08-2012 at 11:36 PM.
    Life is not lift served.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by Hohes View Post
    Good read, Schralp. Thank you for posting it. Not only was in interesting, but it left me with a lingering sense of the value of a community of like minded people who communicate on the same terms all centered around an area of terrain [kind of made me envious].

    C.Monster - I glanced only very quickly at first since terms such as "Information Philosophy Map" tend to put me off. I then took the time to read the images and you are certainly onto something with course curriculum complexity and the educational levels at which they are best aimed. Could say more...
    Thanks Hohes.

    I should have mentioned that it was heavily redacted. It sounds a lot less pretentious with complete subject headings. Without redactions the headings read like "Mountain Guides Inc. Avalanche Course Philosophy - Information Map 1". Info map is just pretentious jargon for "outline".

    Feel free to say more if you're inclined... criticism welcomed.

    Sent from my Paranoid Android using TGR forums.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SW CO
    Posts
    5,630
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    If you have the time, I highly recommend you read this:
    http://www.fsavalanche.org/NAC/techP...SSW_Chabot.pdf
    This was excellent. Can't believe I've never read it before. Thanks much.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    2,569
    Scralph - thanks for posting. Had not seen that either. Very good read.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    17
    Thumbs up, a good read. Raises important questions about open gates and side country. The BB Ski Patrol and Avalanche Center were issuing appropriate warnings, but can you blame people for wanting to ski terrain that is so accessible, especially with so many others skiing it? We teach people to access stability, manage terrain and ski/ride strategically, but who wouldn't feel like a geek digging a pit on a heavily trafficked slope? And managing terrain and skiing strategically quickly become meaningless with so many others on slope.

    Perhaps posting the current stability rating at the gate?

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by CookieMonster View Post
    Here's a model of topics that myself and some other folks have been working on. It's based on analysing themes/details from the literature and to be fair I should disclose that it also uses computational linguistics. This theoretical learning model turns the avalanche triangle into a snowflake and has other points as well.
    I like it. It's challenging to make that kind of a diagram because some categories will deserve four subsections and others will only deserve two subsections.

    Did you consider changing "Angle" to "Angles" - that would capture the slope angle as well as an analysis of slope shape.

    The labels in the Weather circle seem a little confusing. I'd be interested to know what the explanation is for each label.
    Why not call "motion", wind to simplify comprehension? Is there another kind of motion I am missing?
    What is "mountains" - just an acknowledgement of the rapidly changing conditions (spatially and temporally) in the mountains?
    I assume that the "air" category would include ambient temperature and cloud cover (and indirectly, solar radiation)?

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by steventy View Post
    I like it. It's challenging to make that kind of a diagram because some categories will deserve four subsections and others will only deserve two subsections.

    Did you consider changing "Angle" to "Angles" - that would capture the slope angle as well as an analysis of slope shape.

    The labels in the Weather circle seem a little confusing. I'd be interested to know what the explanation is for each label.
    Why not call "motion", wind to simplify comprehension? Is there another kind of motion I am missing?
    What is "mountains" - just an acknowledgement of the rapidly changing conditions (spatially and temporally) in the mountains?
    I assume that the "air" category would include ambient temperature and cloud cover (and indirectly, solar radiation)?
    Thanks for the comments. You've correctly identified the challenges! Your suggestions are great and not something I've heard before. I'll incorporate them and post a new version

    The integrated nature of factors is supposed to make it easier to see the connections between factors and their relationship to our perception and decisions. I suppose "weather" could be explained more clearly.

    The "Weather" section is supposed to list the factors that create mountain weather "trends". I'm definitely open to other suggestions: "wind" is great...

    Sent from my Paranoid Android using TGR forums.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •