Snowmobiler Avalanche Fatality?

Here's the link to an interesting and thought-provoking critique of avalanche courses, beacon-search, etc.<br><br> www.adventureplus.org/avalanche.htm

---

<br>In a similar vein:<br><br>I particularly like the avalanche safety statement which appears at the bottom of every NWAC avalanche forecast.<br><br>"Backcountry travelers should be aware that elevation and <br>geographic distinctions are approximate and that a transition <br>zone between dangers exists. Remember there are avalanche safe <br>areas in the mountains during all levels of avalanche danger." <br>

Randonee, you sound like you have much more experience <br>than myself with avalanche assessment in the backcountry. You and Scotsman have both made valid points. Scotsman did not respond to your relative dismissal of the value of digging pits/evaluating snow layers, so I will.<br><br>I don't agree that a pit in one spot on a slope tells you nothing about another spot on the same slope. Certainly if you examine layers on a southern, wind scoured aspect at low angle, you should not extrapolate your results to a wind-loaded, shaded aspect. But if you dig a pit in a spot with similar aspect and local environment to the spot you're wondering about, you will probably learn something that you can use to increase your safety. This works in the same way that a transciever works: not a sure fire way to protect yourself, but it improves your odds, so doing it is better than not doing it, IF you have the right attitude and apply the information effectively (a very big if, as you have pointed out). <br><br>I agree with you that variations of terrain result in huge variations of risk within a small topographic area. Avalanche experts likewise stress that there is usually safe terrain to be found even during times of high avy danger. Knowing how to find the safe path may be more important than knowing how to evaluate layers, or use a transciever. But in the end the safest person is the one who can gather the most information and use it effectively.

"your relative dismissal of the value of digging pits/evaluating snow layers" (end quote)<br><br>Um, sorry up front if it comes across in any way except helpful. I do have extensive background and avy control experience but just want to offer helpful information. Now I am just responsible for keeping myself and touring partners out of trouble and have nothing to prove, and I don't care except maybe something that I say could stimulate someone to figure it out on their own.<br><br>Sorry if what I said was not inclusive. You are right on it normanclyde, one must know that snowpack. In the past I have talked about understanding the snowpack, but did not really go there yet this time. Knowing the characteristics of the snowpack is fundamental, as is recognizing avalanche terrain. I know the history of the snowpack that I am skiing, in detail at least back to the last stabilizing event such that we are fortunate to have here, e.g. warmup and or free water in the snowpack/ avalanche activity/ refreeze. If I do not know what is down there, I dig a pit, do a Rutschblock. This winter we have had a lot of soft snow (nice) and I have dug extra pits, and to the ground. I skitour 3-4 days per week, so I am on some tours once or twice per week. If I know things were stabilized and refrozen, then I know to worry about what is on top of that last crust and the degree of stability, or I know the windspeed, direction and duration, precip intensity, total snow accumulation per aspect for the storn that built the hazard. Know what windspeed is required for snow transport. Whenever I tour, I kick (ski cut) a lot. Ya gotta get down to the last stable layer and really push that slab. It is not exact, but very helpful, especially if one has experience kicking slabs and watching them go. If I do not feel that I can reasonably kick what is there, you bet it is time for a deep pit, more formal evaluation, or sometimes time to go somewhere else.<br><br>To understand, one needs to study the literature and use the resources such as the NWAC telemetry, Pass Reports, ski area info, posted info. One needs to understand slope angle and the relationship to avalanching, the safe angle for the relative hazard, what angles are pertinent in regard to dry seasonal snow, slabs on crust, slabs on facets, wet loose etc. and know the angle of what you are about to ski. I carry my inclinometer to help get a handle on the angles. It is easy to underestimate the slope angle. <br><br>I do like to talk about never getting caught in an avalanche, as I think that simple concept is overlooked and underestimated in importance. It is not with pride to admit that I have had the experience of avalanche entrainment and would not recommend it, it is a cautionary admisson. It is a good idea to study the available information on all avalanche accidents in detail and gain understanding of just what people do before getting caught. <br><br>For all of my talk, I usually tour on active avalanche paths, I sometimes ski cut avalanches in those paths. As a result of having done avy work for over a decade, I am always looking for an escape, thinking of the consequences of the release of the slab that I am on. I am always skiing from safety to safety as best I can. If I am concerned, I ski one turn from the edge of the path as much as possible. I look for support of the slab- terrain variations, benches, sometimes maybe vegetation (careful-lots of avy activity runs right through trees of all sizes). I like to go back after an avalanche cycle and see what avalanched and where, and analyze it in regard to what I consider my safe routes. Today I looked across to where I had skied great powder last week through some cliffs and was glad that I had carefully avoided the area beneath the cornices. Those house-sized cornices fell in the last few warm days and caused sizeable avalanches. <br><br>A fundamental habit of mine is to approach the hazard from above and test it. If it is not possible to approach from above, one must realize the commitment of approaching from below and be cautious and conservative- if it goes and you are on the bottom, you are statistically way more screwed than if you ride it from the top, which is deadly enough. I like to find approaches to my ski runs- slide paths- that do not ascend the slide path, otherwise I tend to stay away from it unless there is proven stability. <br><br>In one of my posts, I framed it in comparison to driving a car at 60 mph. We all do it every day. If we do not anticipate and avoid hazards, if we drive in a hazardous or foolish manner without consideration, we may certainly die. A lot of that goes for traveling on avalanche terrain. Just like getting that assured clear distance before pulling out in traffic in order to avoid a potentially fatal collision, we need to have a good idea of the avalanche risk and including the possible consequences that we are facing when choosing to ski a slope. One must understand that snowpack to estimate the risk. <br><br>My estimate of the hazard is something that I have confidence in. Yet I know that it is an estimate. I tour in seasonal snow with a transceiver, shovel, probe, avalung, avalanche airbag pack, and a well-trained avalanche rescue dog. Lately sometimes I think about packing my parachute in comparison to estimating the avalanche hazard of the slope that I am about to ski- it is a similar commitment, get it wrong and you are screwed.<br><br>Well, for what it is worth, bla, bla. I recommend continuous study of the literature and frequent personal sampling of the goods while studying the avalanche problem

The question is probably not whether to dig pits, or in many cases where to dig pits, but rather when to dig pits. What information is one trying to obtain? Present information? Future concerns? Variability? Recent snows? Or deeper weak layers?<br><br>Keeping track of the snowpack and recognizing regional and localized variability is one of the keys. But just as important as digging a pit is recognizing that in some situations, the pit may be merely academic, in other cases, it may be misleading.<br><br>Current thinking says that the real value in sampling the snowpack may be found in the process of staying engaged in the process over time. The majority of fatal accidents, especially among those with some or significant experience, tend to occur when there are bad weak layers (Persistent) in the snowpack - observe Crystal, Navajo Mountain, Kokanee, Mt. Carlisle, Durrand, Strathcona-Tweedsmuir, and others. So, it is important to know when and where those weak layers may be found. When they are found, it is unlikely a pit and concurrent tests (Rutschblock, Compression, etc) is going to be a definitive determinant in deciding whether or not to ski a particular slope because there is likely considerable variability in snowpack strength and the significance of the weak layers(s). And if an avalanche can be released in this situation, it is likely to be significant in scope, possibly in potential burial depth, and likely surprising in slope angle.<br><br>Fortunately, new snow instabilities are not quite as tricky to discern and, in most accidents, may not result in as deep of burial. One of the keys in this latter situation is just reading the efects of wind, and extrapolating; choosing say, the windward side of a bowl as opposed to it's leeward side, avoiding convexities, and always being aware of the consequences of getting caught in a slide. Essentially, terrain is the key to safety here. Though that (terrain) is true with weak layers as well, the scope of the avalanches and distribution of trigger points is not as intuitive. The snowpack is not as predictable, nor are the consequences.<br><br>The value in education, lies primarily in safe travel techniques, terrain and routefinding, learning snowpack information gathering skills, and in understanding the limits of one's diagnostic skills.

<br><br>Quote from garyabrill: <br><br>"the real value in sampling the snowpack may be found in the process of staying engaged in the process over time." <br><br>Great, a very succinct and meaningful statement.<br><br>Great discussion, thanks.

Earlier a reference was made to beacons & shovels as safety devices. This made me think of a recent discussion with a friend who is a very experienced mountain guide in France. He is a true professional spending 8 - 10 months in the mountains each year guiding or consulting. So I asked him about this new fangled pack he was using this year. I know these have been around a little while but I reveal my ignorance as I don't know the proper term for it. It is a daypack that inflates a couple bladders when activated. <br><br>I guess I showed enough interest in it that he pulled the trigger standing right next to me when I wasn't expecting it. Ha ha, funny joke I thought as I changed my shorts. The thing was loud. We teased him quite a bit as he purposly skied down the piste with his cute red waterwings. They were about 30" in diameter. Having been a guide for 25 years he gets around so I asked him if he knew of any success stories. He had one friend who was with a group of skiers last year when 12 of them got caught in a major slide. I didn't ask him why so many people were exposed but the Alps are awfully big. Turns out that 10 activated their packs and all 10 remained on top of the snow and survived. The 2 that for what ever reason did not activate the pack were buried and died. His enthusiam, this one anecdote, and the fact that many BC skiers in the Alps are using them has me thinking about purchasing one myself.<br> <br>Being the elderly person that I am I'm pretty conservative and don't intent to change my risk tolerance even if I do buy one. In other words this pack should still be considered a plan B (body retrieval) device and not a safety device. I don't drive faster (more reckless) because I now have an air bag in my car either. I'm sure there are other testimonials however this involved so many individuals in the identical circumstance where the results correlated 100% to the activation or lack there of. So.... I thought I'd pass it on to others in this discussion of avy "safety devices". <br><br>PS: The high pressure nitrogen cylinder was a little smaller than a liter water bottle. The bottle, tubing & etc couldn't have weighed more than a few pounds so weight and volume handicaps would not be a big issue. I guess there are 2 sizes of air bags. His are the bigger ons and for my money I'd follow his lead for obvious reasons. Oh and don't forget to pull the trigger.