Avalanche Education

One thing I'd note is that some folks are offering "Level I" 2-day courses. Oscar, I know that isn't you. The AAA guidelines for US Level I is 3 days. In two days all you really have time to do is teach some general education, terms, etc and in the field do transceiver work and demonstrate travel techniques and introduce a bit of snowpack evaluation (can't do transceivers and snowpack in a classroom. So with two days you end up with and RAC or 2-day program - which is fine, but you haven't done any real routefinding.

I spoke with a few Canadians at Telluride and they basically did what I've described above for the RAC. But I wouldn't and shouldn't call a 2 day course a Level I. It's really just awareness. The 2-day RAC course is an Avalanche Awareness course.

With a third day there is enough time to do some traveling and evaluate routes and snowpack microclimatology. I was very reluctant to offer Level I for a long time because I've always been afraid that recreationalists could see certification as a sort of a license, which it is not. The value of a "certificate" is twofold: to make sure students going on are ready for more advanced materials and as a credential for employment purposes. For recreationalists the value of education is the education itself, not the credentials. so....a 2-day LI (which doesn't exist according to the AAA) is just one day's less education than a LI - and the day that is missing is a travel day where decisions are made in the field.

I still offer a 2-day program but offer no certification with a 2-day program. I offer this as the basic because it has always appeared to me that a fairly high proportion of accidents seem to happen to folks who have absolutely know avalanche awareness. The Canadians note the same thing in the ADFAR program. So, the 2-day course does serve a purpose, as does an AA lecture, but it is not LI. Two day courses do serve to keep courses affordable and I am aware there are some folks out there who want to take a course even if they don't really ever get into avalanche terrain. so, when they take a short course, they discover that they are really on the safe side anyway and so for them - 2 days is plenty.

Just some philosophy...

Gary has some very good comments regarding avalanche education. Realizing that there is so much one can cover in a course it is very frustrating to limit the topics and the discussion in a course in order to fit into the time alloted. The Everett Mountaineers Level 1 course mentioned in original posting covers 3 evening lectures from 6:30 till 9:30 and 2 full-day field trips. Even with this time alloted it feels like we are only scratching the surface. However, it is a step in the right direction. Understanding that learning in this field (like many mountain oriented activities) is highly experiential, we hope to build a good foundation for further learning.

I think in the ADFAR program the Canadians are saying that about 85% of avalanche accidents show no or almost no avy awareness. I spoke with one of our forecasters today, to run numbers by him as they investigate most local accidents. Although he couldn't come up with a number, he thought the portion of unaware in accidents fairly high...but not 85%. "Way too high" was the comment. My personal guess would be roughly 30-40% but I don't know the details of many of the snowmobile accidents.

Anyway, those numbers justify at least Avalanche Awareness. But the ADFAR program puts it in perspective when it describes terrain on the ATES. There is a heck of a lot of difference between "Simple" and "Challenging" terrain by the definitions and by the experience that is suggested for those two categories. My feeling is that there is too much differentiation between Simple and Complex, and maybe not enough between Complex and Challenging. Simple reads very similar to me to non-avalanche terrain.

I attended the first-ever northeastern AIARE instructor training course last week.
Overall, I was very impressed: by the AIARE instructor trainers, my fellow participants, and especially the AIARE materials and focus.
Now, AIARE instructors are merely qualified and not certified, so any single AIARE instructor could conceivably be incompetent as a teacher. And AIARE instructors are free to modify the AIARE materials and curriculum, so the content of an AIARE course could vary siginificantly among providers.
But overall, I really like what AIARE is doing for avalanche education.
(As for course length, the AIARE recommendation is for 24 hours. But the debate over whether a Level 1 course should be 2 or 3 days strikes me as somewhat moot, since either way it's just a short introductory beginner-level course -- would anyone take an extended weekend for a learn-to-ski program and then go about proclaiming some sort of certification?)

I attended the first-ever northeastern AIARE instructor training course last week.
Overall, I was very impressed:  by the AIARE instructor trainers, my fellow participants, and especially the AIARE materials and focus. 
Now, AIARE instructors are merely qualified and not certified, so any single AIARE instructor could conceivably be incompetent as a teacher.  And AIARE instructors are free to modify the AIARE materials and curriculum, so the content of an AIARE course could vary siginificantly among providers.
But overall, I really like what AIARE is doing for avalanche education.
(As for course length, the AIARE recommendation is for 24 hours.  But the debate over whether a Level 1 course should be 2 or 3 days strikes me as somewhat moot, since either way it's just a short introductory beginner-level course -- would anyone take an extended weekend for a learn-to-ski program and then go about proclaiming some sort of certification?)

I don't think we necesarily disagree, Johnathon. Even AA is potentially life-saving. But the AAA does specify a minimum of a 3 day course at Level I and the AAA is the most exemplary body of knowledge and experience in the US.

For a recreationalist, though, the focus has to be on gaining education and experience rather than certification, no matter what the course's duration. The Canadians do suggest a "Mentorship" program and that doesn't really even start until one has completed an introductory field day on transceivers and intro to trip planning and snowpack. so that is where the Mentorship concetp begins....after the first day. After that, the more experience and learning, the more likely it is that the student is able to comprehend how terrain might be defined and might have at least some idea of how decisions are really made in the field.