Washington Terrain Ratings

Thanks for a great contribution. Some other rating possibilities:

Paradise to Glacier Vista. Simple.
Narada Falls To Reflection Lakes. Simple.
Narada Falls To Paradise. Simple.

Paradise to Panorama Point or McClure Rock. Challenging.
Union Creek East Bowl. Challenging.
Pickhandle Basin. Challenging.
Mt. Snoqualmie. Challenging.
Reflection Lakes To Pinnacle Peak. Challenging.

Paradise to Camp Muir. Complex.
Camp Muir to Nisqually Bridge. Complex.
Whitehorse Mountain. Complex.
Dragontail Peak. Complex.
Dome Peak. Complex.
Vesper Peak. Complex.
Forbidden Peak. Complex.
Mt. Ross to Davis Peak. Complex.
Pyramid Peak. Complex.

For reference:

COMPLEX: static.panoramio.com/photos/original/8508614.jpg

I am kind of going on my overall feel for Union Creek rather than accessing the technical model (although I am familiar with it). I was a little between on Union Creek, but I still feel it is Complex mainly because if there was bad layering or an avalanche cycle, I am not sure I could navigate that terrain without getting into trouble. Perhaps via the rib below Bullion Peak, but even then, I am really exposed throughout since slope angles in the gladed terrain still exceed 35-38 degrees in a number of places. And then there is the roll at the bottom. No matter how one cracks it, that roll is very problematic. I chose Union Creek as an example for two reasons: 1) It is familiar and 2) In my view it is a bit controversial because it is on the cusp between Challenging and Complex terrain. Certainly there are any number of tours that are more serious. But as far as a place to go and ski runs, I would put Union Creek on a par with Jim Hill Mountain. In fact other than Union Creek and Jim Hill only Shuksan Arm (and environs) seems to me to be more risky. On the other tours I agree with you Cookie Monster.

Have others heard, though, that the Canadians were going to go to a 5 step system? Ian Tomm told me that this was their intention last year when he was down for the seminar (November, 2007). The reason I favor such a system is that there is, as you say, a lot of difference between Simple and Challenging terrain, as defined. And so, Heather ridge, which is very easy may not really be Simple terrain under the current definitions. Yet few people would have trouble negotiating the standard route(s) with even the barest Avalanche Awareness Lecture type of knowledge. I also think that it needs to be recognized that skiers who ski terrain like the Triple Couloir on Dragontail or Cascade Couloir for instance are really always at risk. A 4" slab could easily be fatal because of a fall. BUT, since people are skiing that type of terrain it needs to be included in the system.

For the Canadians, the ATES ties tightly in with their educational philosophy. And it is one that I share. With a basic two or three day class and for those without much  previous experience, students cannot really be expected to have very good judgement. So that is what the Avaluator and the ATES are for - so that those with little experience don't have to rely on judgment that is yet to have developed. Note that the Canadian ADVANCED Recreational courses are usually about five days, enough time to help students develop good routefinding and risk avoidance techniques and skills.

ATES doesn't consider snowpack, aspect, etc. That's why I think Union Creek is challenging. Especially when you compare Union Creek with terrain that really qualifies as "complex" ( see the photograph link in my previous post ).

Union Creek is dangerous because of perception problems.

Gary, since you are one of the most experienced skiers around, would you care to contribute ratings for some of the tours in the long list above? Topographic maps and aerial photos are all a person with your expertise needs.

Union Creek is dangerous because of perception problems.

Please explain in short terms what you mean by perception problems.
Is it because it is so accessible, but when you get down in the hole you realize that you are screwed from nearly all ways to get out without higher danger factors?

A couple problems that I have experienced with professionals using computer modeling is that they use the modeling as foundations for experience.
This overrides that real experience of actually personally visiting an area to access the potential problems.

The example picture of the COMPLEX terrain is pretty darn obvious, so it makes it difficult to compare more subtle terrain areas that have the propensity to have lots of slides. What I'm saying is that Complex terrain or Simple terrain are equal if you are buried, tossed into a tree well and the like.

I also think that it needs to be recognized that skiers who ski terrain like the Triple Couloir on Dragontail or Cascade Couloir for instance are really always at risk. A 4" slab could easily be fatal because of a fall. BUT, since people are skiing that type of terrain it needs to be included in the system.

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.

ATES doesn't consider snowpack, aspect, etc. That's why I think Union Creek is challenging. Especially when you compare Union Creek with terrain that really qualifies as "complex" ( see the photograph link in my previous post ).

Complex (Class 3) terrain demands a strong group with years of critical decision-making experience in avalanche terrain. There can be no safe options on these trips, forcing exposure to big slopes. A recommended minimum is that you or someone in your group should have taken an Advanced Recreational Avalanche Course (ARAC) and have several years of backcountry experience.

But there are multiple overlapping avalanche paths and there is a notable terrain trap at the bottom of the slope (along with trees that one can hit throughout) with rapid decrease in angle. The Complex definition also mentions experience and is designed to be used with the Avaluator. Implicitly, the statement "There can be no safe options on these trips, forcing exposure to big slopes" causes me to conclude that there is a relationship with snow conditions because if there is essentially no avalanche hazard, why would experience be required?

Union Creek is dangerous because of perception problems.

Gary, since you are one of the most experienced skiers around,  would you care to contribute ratings for some of the tours in the long list above? Topographic maps and aerial photos are all a person with your expertise needs.

Yes. I think there are many people who could contribute. I was just trying to get the ball rolling by opening a discussion that makes people realize where the boundaries (as indistinct as they are) might lie.

I think a discussion that helps us to define in our minds what might be Simple, Challenging, and Complex Terrain in our region would be helpful. I would like to see other experienced people discuss a couple of borderline cases that might help with the definitions for all of us. So, I suggest Jim Hill and Union Creek. My thought is that Jim Hill for an example is Challenging to treeline but is Complex above. But even that distinction is not as clear for me because of the possibility of remote triggering or natural activity over much of the upper part of the slopes.

After reaching some mutual agreements on some "classic" borderline cases, maybe Cookie Monster you could format a polling thing so many people could become involved? Again, a great idea, Cookie Monster.