A "Moderate" discussion of the avalanche rating scale.

[Telemarketeer]

So if you guys think that "Moderate" is a poor word for what Colorado has been experiencing lately, what would you suggest it be replaced with? Do you think that the rating should remain on "Considerable" all season?


This is my perception of the rating from another thread:

The moderate rating is dependent on the likelihood of causing an avalanche. When persistent slabs are your avalanche problem, the likelihood of causing an avalanche is lower than, for instance, now, when we also have a rather significant windslab problem. Remember that persistent slab avalanches are often referred to as "low probability, high consequence events". So when the probability is lower but the problem is there, the danger is moderate. You can still trigger them, even when there hasn't been a storm or wind event in weeks, but it is less likely than right after they have received a new burden of snow weight.

Likelihood: "Likelihood is a description of the chance of encountering a particular avalanche problem. It combines the spatial distribution of the problem and the sensitivity or ease of triggering avalanche. The spatial distribution indicates how likely you are to encounter the problem in the highlighted avalanche terrain. The sensitivity indicates how easy it is to trigger avalanches when you do encounter them. Sensitivity includes both natural or spontaneous release and human triggered avalanches."

Moderate: "Heightened avalanche conditions on specific terrain features. Evaluate snow and terrain carefully."
I think of it as the danger being in more obvious areas that you would expect to slide.

Considerable: "Dangerous avalanche conditions. Cautious route-finding and conservative decision-making essential."
I actually like this more as the problems are more easily identified and therefore easier to avoid.

What I do agree with is that the word "moderate" is misleading. The description above is accurate, but the word should be changed to something more ominous, or split into two different ratings. However, then it starts to get to a point where it is getting a little too convoluted.

The CAIC has different "tiers" of users depending on how far they progress into the website and what information they access. Some people, are just looking at the overall danger rating of their zone, some click further and look at the danger rose, some people go so far as to actually read the report and some go even further to read obs. They have to cater to each of these user groups and determine the most effective way to communicate to them. I just thought that was pretty interesting.

Just my 2 cents.

However, if you are basing your decision making in avalanche terrain solely on what rating the CAIC has provided without delving deeper into the site and forming your own opinions and coming to your own conclusions about where to ride, you are doing it wrong. CAIC is a great resource, but that's all it is, it is not a traffic light for the backcountry.

[bendtheski]

However, if you are basing your decision making in avalanche terrain solely on what rating the CAIC has provided without delving deeper into the site and forming your own opinions and coming to your own conclusions about where to ride, you are doing it wrong. CAIC is a great resource, but that's all it is, it is not a traffic light for the backcountry.

Truth.
I'll just add the obvious; that forecasting, especially anything weather related is an inexact science. We've all seen weather forecasts that run completely contrary to observable conditions, and I agree that we all need to factor much more than the forecast into our decision making, especially when our lives hang in the balance.

This, coming from pretty much a complete n00b, who has seen too many people with much more knowledge and experience getting caught. I've mentioned this in some other threads, but probably bears repeating; I think it's part of human nature to look at an accident, and cherry-pick only the details that make you feel warm and fuzzy, because you would never make those mistakes, expose yourself to that risk, and therefore, this could never happen to you. As I choose to ski more backcountry, I'm trying to go in the opposite direction, and look for similarities to possible mistakes and decisions I've made, and have been lucky enough to get away with. As some have pointed out, 100 successful bc trips does not mean that you didn't make 100+ mistakes. It might just mean you got lucky 100 times.

I went out Tuesday after reading the forecast. Observed some things that had me very concerned, skied terrain above my comfort level, and acknowledge that I made mistakes that I don't want to repeat. Had something gone seriously wrong, the day's forecast would only have played a very small part.

[GoldenBear]

Just for reference.

[bendtheski]

^Thanks.

Looking specifically at the definition of moderate, I would say Tuesday, for the specific location I observed, the rating should have been condiderable, but can't remember now if I looked at CAIC much after 7am, which could mean the report had not been updated yet.

Lesson learned; wake the fuck up before reading the report, and actually take some time to process the information it contains.

[newbreak]

Moderate means low likelihood, high consequence. That's about as far as you can get when forecasting danger across a zone that is over 10000 square km and with few observations. Keep in mind that earlier there weren't a lot of observations coming in to CAIC so why would they push to Considerable if the obs in quantity don't show it?

Lately there have been more Avy obs in the last week, and incredibly huge avalanches occurring lately (look at today's report and the monster that went on Jones Pass). The recent jump to Considerable is warranted based on the obs coming in.

I'd suggest we keep supplying CAIC with as many obs as possible in order to get the forecasts more in line with reality.

Sent from my LG-D800

[adrenalated]

I think it's part of human nature to look at an accident, and cherry-pick only the details that make you feel warm and fuzzy, because you would never make those mistakes, expose yourself to that risk, and therefore, this could never happen to you. As I choose to ski more backcountry, I'm trying to go in the opposite direction, and look for similarities to possible mistakes and decisions I've made, and have been lucky enough to get away with.

At risk of taking this discussion off topic from the discussion of Moderate, I think this is a very valid point and I agree that I see people do this regularly. I agree that it is extremely important to look for similarities in mistakes you've also made or are capable of making and recognize them so that you can avoid them in the future. I also find it very helpful to try to put myself in their shoes, understand why they made the decisions they did, and understand why they made the mistakes they did. Nobody WANTS to die in an avalanche, and except in the rare cases of sheer ignorance, the victims certainly thought that they were making good decisions that would keep them safe.

[SDW]

A very important distinction between Moderate and Considerable is natural triggers which = weather. Given the same unstable snowpack, but without windloading, additional precip, or rapid warming, most forecasters will choose Moderate.

[NoPostholio]

A lot of the reason I think "moderate" ends up being a grey area is people's risk tolerance differences. For people who regularly ski in higher risk snowpacks, albeit carefully, when it goes from considerable to moderate it is more of a green light. For someone like me, a bump up to moderate is a yellow light and anything above that I am prob skinning resort or meadow skipping.

[hortence]

Maybe one way to think about it (or just a different way to say what has already been said) is that "moderate" is a statistical designation. Of all the possible slide paths in the forecast zone, only a "moderate" number would slide that day. It says nothing about the severity of any one slide, or the likelihood of slide concerning the slope you're standing on.

[spook]

i'm not willing to take a moderate chance of risking my life.

[bodywhomper]

Moderate means low likelihood, high consequence.

if you read the danger scale, this ^^ is not true. there are several circumstances that dictate a "moderate" rating.

several years back the UAC initiated a discussion on ttips (back when it had an active avi forum) about adding a new term to the danger scale, something like "X-Moderate". My memory was the intent was to indicate when there was a low probably/high consequence hazard that can occur from PS/PWL. I'm not sure what became of that idea.

[bodywhomper]

spook, if you are riding inbounds during a storm in terrain steep enough to slide, there's a good chance that you're riding and enjoying things as the hazard is increasing....

[newbreak]

The likelihood/consequence scale is difficult to fully grasp, thanks for the info.
Human triggered is"possible", naturalist unlikely. Sounds on the lower scale but then again there isn't an absolute to any if this.

Isolated larger avys and specific area smaller avys are again not absolute. Should be taken as an indicator but not a determining factor. To me personally it all means I still need to go and find the problems via sampling HS, hasty pits & profiles, tests and verify what I am seeing out there with the reports. I actually like doing this more than going on missions anymore because it forces me to slow down and observe...think and visualize. That tended to go out the window when I was younger and just had my mind set on a line because I wanted another notch in my belt.

Each slope has micro terrains that certainly can obsolete the danger rating but also heighten it drastically. Its a crap shoot really.

[spook]

spook, if you are riding inbounds during a storm in terrain steep enough to slide, there's a good chance that you're riding and enjoying things as the hazard is increasing....

yes, i realize that. i've said it before but when that huge avalanche swept down heather canyon on a sunday evening around 6-7pm -- 3 hours after people were in there, i decided that i wasn't going to trust mt. hood meadows to protect me so i'm slowly but surely gathering knowledge and gear.

my chances of rescue inside a resort are greater than they are outside just by the sheer number of people i would guess. i'm just saying i wouldn't go bc if the avy rating is moderate. maybe when i learn more, i'll have a different perspective. so far, since i started snowboarding, i've never been bc, i've only watched dozens of avy videos which though not comparable, still convey enough of the power and finality to scare the shit out of me. i've also read dozens of avy reports with fatalities reading about people being so beat to shit that their bodies were basically jelly folded over backward.

i don't want to be that guy.

[bendtheski]

Cross-post from the other thread, but relevant I think with regards to risk tolerance:

I would think/hope that everyone has a reason and desire to get home safe. Seems like a delicate balancing act between doing the things that give us enjoyment and quality in our lives, which could also kill us, and staying home, safe, and bored to death.

AFAIK there's no forecast to predict the dangers of road riding or mountain biking, but I would argue that you roll the dice every time you participate in either of those sports, or any number of other seemingly benign activities.

ETA: I don't want to be that guy either. I want to be that crusty old fuck, telling kids to get off my lawn in the dusk of a long, full life.

[LightRanger]

yes, i realize that. i've said it before but when that huge avalanche swept down heather canyon on a sunday evening around 6-7pm -- 3 hours after people were in there, i decided that i wasn't going to trust mt. hood meadows to protect me so i'm slowly but surely gathering knowledge and gear.

my chances of rescue inside a resort are greater than they are outside just by the sheer number of people i would guess. i'm just saying i wouldn't go bc if the avy rating is moderate. maybe when i learn more, i'll have a different perspective. so far, since i started snowboarding, i've never been bc, i've only watched dozens of avy videos which though not comparable, still convey enough of the power and finality to scare the shit out of me. i've also read dozens of avy reports with fatalities reading about people being so beat to shit that their bodies were basically jelly folded over backward.

i don't want to be that guy.

Not a bad idea, but from what I recall of that slide gear wouldn't have helped and if caught you would've been jelly folded over backward.

I like the X-Moderate idea.

[spook]

Not a bad idea, but from what I recall of that slide gear wouldn't have helped and if caught you would've been jelly folded over backward.

I like the X-Moderate idea.

yeah, i'm just using that as an example of mhm either not knowing what they were doing or pushing the envelope in my opinion and me having no clue. i was there that night and was riding the debris pile on the runout two or three days later and it scared the shit out of me. plus the pics they posted. before that, i looked uphill to find my line if i was cutting upcanyon or to see the view. never once occurred to me that that entire face would ever come crashing down because of course mhm wouldn't have it open within 3 hours of a major event. so because of that, i decided i have to start being more personally responsible. why should i trust a corporation that makes me sign away every possible right to use their facility? and then of course, the more bc stuff i see the more i want to do it so it's a win win.

[simplypow]

just putting my hat in the ring here with. If you're skiing a slope that runs big on a regular basis....aka last year's vail pass fatality, this years steambot fatality, two or three years ago on wolf creek pass, do you really need a rating? On a similar not the three slides i've referenced all have at least one thing in common. A clearly observable "strainer" of trees. I dont know if this applies as readily to chutes, because both strainer terrain and chutes scare the pants off of me.

[GoldenBear]

A good forecast discussion by Spencer today in the Steamboat zone forecast.

"There are many elements that go into our forecasts and assessment of a danger rating. One thing we can do with the Discussions is peel back the covering and give you a little insight. Here are my thoughts behind, and comparison of, today’s CONSIDERABLE (3) danger in the Front Range and MODERATE (2) danger in Steamboat.

Persistent Slabs are the major issue in both zones.

In the Front Range, the likelihood of triggering a Persistent Slab is “possible.” Likelihood is a combination of sensitivity to triggering and spatial distribution. The sensitivity is stubborn--not out of the question, but not easy, and signs of instability are not obvious or everywhere. You have to find the land mine. The spatial distribution of the Persistent Slabs is specific. Although on most aspects, it is not every slope. Most of the avalanches have started on very steep slopes, steeper than about 35 degrees. Size is easier—large (D2) and heading towards very large (D3). Treatment is even easier—“Dangerous avalanche conditions…cautious route finding and conservative decision making” certainly apply to this problem. The Travel Advice and Size and Distribution carry the most weight today, and we end up at a CONSIDERABLE danger.

The Steamboat Zone has a similar likelihood of “Possible”. The snowpack is riddled with many more weak layers than in the Front Range. Unlike the Front Range, the weak layers are not producing many avalanches—with tragic exceptions. Comments about noticeable lack of avalanching come from multiple observers. The sensitivity of Persistent Slabs is very stubborn—the land mines even more scattered and sparse than in the Front Range. The spatial distribution is “isolated.” The size of the few avalanches reports were small (D1) to large (D2), compared to the large and now very large avalanches in the Front Range. So we have a possible triggering, with large, isolated avalanches. That fits MODERATE. The travel advice works well too, because we need to “evaluate snow and terrain carefully”.

The danger in the Steamboat zone has been cycling in response to the recent wind loading. Wind Slabs are a fairly transient problem. After a few days, the storm instability either stabilizes, or the slabs become another Persistent Slab. There was not that much new snow to drift. Winds changed direction overnight, swinging to the southwest and loading slightly different areas, instead of further loading the same spots. And the snowpack in most of the Steamboat Zone has not been as hair-trigger as the Front Range, where fragile depth hoar is widespread.

Expect the danger to cycle back up with the forecast snowfall this weekend. It looks like another good shot of snow is in store. Expect both new Wind Slabs and an increase in sensitivity of the Persistent Slabs."

[NoPostholio]

yeah, i'm just using that as an example of mhm either not knowing what they were doing or pushing the envelope in my opinion and me having no clue. i was there that night and was riding the debris pile on the runout two or three days later and it scared the shit out of me. plus the pics they posted. before that, i looked uphill to find my line if i was cutting upcanyon or to see the view. never once occurred to me that that entire face would ever come crashing down because of course mhm wouldn't have it open within 3 hours of a major event. so because of that, i decided i have to start being more personally responsible. why should i trust a corporation that makes me sign away every possible right to use their facility? and then of course, the more bc stuff i see the more i want to do it so it's a win win.

This one? Great read on event and the true power of one running super hudge off a big mtn. Hard to fathom an avy running almost 3 miles.

http://www.skihood.com/Community-and...f-an-Avalanche

I love Mt Hood in the summer but not sure I would ever feel very safe up there in the winter.

[enginerd]

I've always liked the quote "If I told you there was a considerable chance you'd get shot if you walked into a bar, would you go in? What if I told you there was a moderate chance?"

Moderate means a person might be able to trigger an avy so I want to consider moderate danger slopes potentially lethal until proven otherwise. - I dont think re-naming is necessarily going to help propagate this perspective because it's still going to be one level above "low" and probably still yellow in color...

I like to view the avy forecast as an opportunity to test my obs against the pros. Am I getting the same results they are? Why or why not?

[icelanticskier]

I've always liked the quote "If I told you there was a considerable chance you'd get shot if you walked into a bar, would you go in? What if I told you there was a moderate chance?"

my response to this^^^^^^^^^^^^^

from the other thread:

come up with any analogy's you choose. when it comes to the avalanche game, "moderate" is not so clear as it would be with burning houses, bar brawls, and sinking boats. staring at steep hillsides covered with perfect powder snow is a whole different deal where our minds are thinking "face shots", not "body blows"

rog

[Oceanman]

Spot on rog

[spook]

This one? Great read on event and the true power of one running super hudge off a big mtn. Hard to fathom an avy running almost 3 miles.

http://www.skihood.com/Community-and...f-an-Avalanche

I love Mt Hood in the summer but not sure I would ever feel very safe up there in the winter.

yeah, that;s the one. it's weird, i've climbed a fair number of mountains in a variety of conditions, but whatever it is about hood something just feels like i'm pushing my luck to summit it and ride down. it's not necessarily rational, but it's a bad feeling i get and every time some dumbshit decides to race a storm up and down and dies, i think it's probably better just to stick to the resort and low level bc. that and the fact that my knees are thrashed.

[Crampedon]

This article regarding "lessons" (or lack thereof) in the Pucker face fatality mentions that the that evening the author read a report that the Bridger-Teton Avalanche Center intended to reduce the backcountry danger rating from high to moderate for Dec. 26.

It goes to say that this, along with numerous other factors influenced their decision to ride a slope that was better left alone. Read down to "ski guys" comment at the end.

http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/f...5eb4ffb9c.html

__________________________________________________ _______________________________________

"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule" -AC