Washington Terrain Ratings

I can't see how such a category in this system would be useful for me.  The dangers are obvious.  I think that's part of what makes extreme skiing safer than a lot of people think it is, at some level.  Lessee, go get caught in an avy with brain disengaged because it "felt safe," or go somewhere with maximum pucker and bail the instant things don't seem just right.

How do you see people properly applying such a category? 

Personally, if people need a categorical stamp for those type of ski descents, I'd say they don't belong there.

Some young kids with little experience but great skiing skills probably equate steep skiing in the back country with steep skiing in a ski area. You have to try to reach these young-uns.

In the Alps I can see it, but in the Cascades those younguns will probably get their reachout en route to those lines. The approaches demand non-resort skills. But I see your point now.

With the number of inbounds avalanche deaths in recent years, it would seem that these same individuals need to learn to use avalanche-aware thinking in the ski areas.

Thanks for all the wonderful contributions in this thread.

For SkyKilo:

The ratings might not help you very much since the dangers are "obvious" to experienced eyes. It's also worth noting that ATES does not rate ski descents. ATES is a measure of avalanche exposure for an area. You are correct to point out that traveling in extreme terrain might be safer because of the care taken by the traveler.

Many people would agree with your comments about whether or not people "belong" in certain areas based on their experience or ability to evaluate exposure. Terrain ratings make it easier for someone to decide whether or not they "belong" in a certain area.

For JoeDaBaker:

Perception problems are what you describe as "compare more subtle terrain areas that have the propensity to have lots of slides".

With respect to computer modeling, the computer produces a statistical analysis of terrain and ground cover, i.e., numeric values. In an earlier post I describe Union Creek as having "serious numeric pull" which means that statistical analysis of the area produces numeric results that are the same as the "complex" terrain shown in the photograph above but the terrain doesn't "look" nearly as dangerous. I have not yet resolved these conflicts to my satisfaction.

A simple example.

In some cases, up to 90% of the slopes in a region of "complex" terrain are steeper than 25-30 degrees and 80% are steeper than 35 degrees. Computer analysis of Union Creek says "90% of the terrain suitable for skiing is between 30-40 degrees." There are also numerous terrain traps, start zones, avalanche paths, and at least one area with overlapping runouts.

While the terrain isn't "huge", you correctly describe a central problem with ratings: if you're buried somewhere, the terrain rating doesn't matter. However, the rating is to measure the exposure.

Access is part of the perception problem with Union Creek and the surrounding areas. I think Union Creek is easy to regard as "well it's not meadow skipping so we might get nice turns but it's not a traverse of the Picket Range". Nevermind if the terrain is highly avalanche prone with other factors that ensure high consequences.

People tell me that you've skiied Union Creek for years. What are your impressions of Union Creek? How would you rate the terrain?

For Gary_Brill:

Thanks for your suggestions. Funny you should list Jim Hill because that's my other rating test case. Definitely a great example of terrain that is difficult to rate. I'd rate Jim Hill as "challenging" because there is some gentle terrain in the area and there are options to reduce exposure. The majority of travel is below treeline and exposure to avalanche paths is avoidable. There are, however, lots of terrain traps.

I've spoken with several skiers about this area. Both felt extremely exposed on the approach, especially by the large avalanche path(s) on skier's right as you head into the steeper part of the drainage.

I'd like to use a poll because the ratings would be more accurate with more brains.

Another useful area to analyze maybe the routes people take to Snow Lake from Alpental. Many people follow the summer trail, regardless of avy danger, and others head up toward source lake - both routes have resulted in recent fatalities. I have heard many people debate whether there is a safe route in all conditions but it remains very popular especially for people just introduced to the backcountry.

With the number of inbounds avalanche deaths in recent years, it would seem that these same individuals need to learn to use avalanche-aware thinking in the ski areas

I definitely agree. But skiing in a ski area doesn't prep one for backcountry as well as it did 25-30 years ago and more. There is just so much more effective avalanche control and skier compaction is off the charts by comparison with days gone by. You probably remember my talk at the seminar fall a year ago. Well most of my avalanche involvements were in ski areas - but from the late 60's to the mid-70's - all but three, in fact. Heck, I remember being the first to ski Pan Face at Baker five weekends in a row in waist to chest deep powder in 1971. And on two or three of those days the ski patrol hadn't test skied it or thrown charges. All of my long time downhill buddies were very avalanche terrain and snow aware. I could trust them to do the right things. Yet, none of them, myself included, had ever taken an avalanche course. Still, we were probably lucky that we didn't take a backcountry trip to Colorado or the Canadian Rockies, because we knew very little about snowpack other than new snow instabilities. Nowadays, the chances of releasing significant slabs inbounds is so much less. So, ski area skiing breeds overconfidence. Dale Atkins pointed to overconfidence as being a very significant factor in some 400 or so accidents he reviewed for the 2000 ISSW.

Thanks for all the wonderful contributions in this thread.



For Gary_Brill:

Thanks for your suggestions. Funny you should list Jim Hill because that's my other rating test case. Definitely a great example of terrain that is difficult to rate. I'd rate Jim Hill as "challenging" because there is some gentle terrain in the area and there are options to reduce exposure. The majority of travel is below treeline and exposure to avalanche paths is avoidable. There are, however, lots of terrain traps.

I've spoken with several skiers about this area. Both felt extremely exposed on the approach, especially by the large avalanche path(s) on skier's right as you head into the steeper part of the drainage.

Actually the avalanche path early on doesn't scare me that much because I wouldn't ski Jim Hill if natural avalanching from a storm cycle might be occurring and I can beat the danger from sun released slides by starting early. When I come out at day's end that east facing starting zone has been in the shade for several hours. Now if it was heavily corniced (which it usually isn't) that would make me change my underwear.

Certainly most of the other hazards can be mitigated by cautious route finding. I always used to tell students that when ascending "Choose the Safest Reasonable Ascent Route" - no reason to take unnecessary risks while ascending (for skiers, not climbers). But Jim Hill is pretty scary within about 300-400' of treeline where remote triggering could happen and above treeline it gets progressively risky. Obviously in the right conditions one could trigger the entire bowl and get one helluva ride. It's only the fact that one can keep the angle to 33-34 degrees or less that makes the upper part of Jim Hill reasonable in favorable snow conditions (no PWL's and settled snowpack structure). Incidentally Tuesday a week ago a skier triggered a 3-6'
slab by skiing from the steeper ridgeline along the NE ridge of the peak. It looked like the avalanche broke right at his tracks and released to his left (towards the upper left center of the bowl). Fortunately, for him (or her) the area to the right of his tracks didn't release. Of course, the angle to the ridgeline is nearly 40 degrees and there were both some new snow weaknesses and, of course, the faceted crust. I couldn't tell (from the distance) whether the new snow released first (my guess) or whether it just failed at the crust. Old ice was visible at the bed surface. The avalanche was not reported first hand. Lucky chap!