From NWAC - This is worth noting

I tried the link you provided (FOAC Information Exchange). It comes up as a blank search form. 
I typed "Garth" in the Name field and "Cannon Mountain" in the Location field, but came up with nothing.
Any tips on how to get to the information would be helpful. Seems like a great resource.

You're entering too much info in the form (and the wrong name in this case) -- just enter "cannon" in the Location field to find that report.

Or just press the "Search Reports" button, no need to type anything in the form. If you type nothing, you get every report. Like it says, "To see all reports, leave all fields blank."

I agree with you that the blank form is very confusing at first.

If you've got an axe to grind, start your own thread!

God help me. I don't have an axe to grind. A request for clarification isn't an axe. The use of the word "eh" isn't meant to convey a tone of snark, nor were the questions. The post in question contained several contradictory statements.

Anyway, I do appreciate the clarification provided.

***

The general gist of KarlK's papers is "don't try to outsmart the snowpack".

thanks Amar,
nothing works best... how very zen.
Funny how I was trying to avoid the info overload of "see all reports" yet that's the way to go...
I guess the form works once you've figured it out but it's not exactly intuitive design.
If you hit return on any of your search entries you'll also get the dreaded:
No results found. Please specify fewer terms to broaden your search.

Glad to have found it though. Looks like a valuable resource.

The general gist of KarlK's papers is "don't try to outsmart the snowpack".

Now that I agree with. I think those words are a quote from Ed LaChapelle. Most (all) of the experienced people I've met and/or skied with are of the same mindset.

What I'm trying to get across to some of the less experienced folks here is that snowpack evaluation isn't pure science and shouldn't be viewed as such. I think in avalanche courses, because snowpits, etc. are taught, students come away with the opinion that this is how the experts do it. That is really not true except at highways or snow patrol where measureable scientific results are provided with the use of explosives. Even then control work is dictated by meteorological variables and experience; snowpits are really just a small piece of the puzzle. I don't rail against digging pits, you always learn something when you dig them. For instance, living in Sun Valley one winter I learned about depth hoar and the depth of snowpacks as related to faceting or rounding processes. Blewett Pass for my classes taught the same thing. I often found that from week to week the entire snowpack would often double in strength or lose half it's strength depending both on the snowpack depth and, of course, the weather. I learned that in the Blewett Pass climate and weather that snowpacks greater than about hip deep tended to get stronger, while those that were shallower often went the other way. At Sun Valley the critical depth was more than 5'. (Of course, for near surface faceting the total depth is irrelevant.) Anyway, there is always something to learn.

The other thing valuable about snowpits (easier language) is that they are essentially a language, so that individuals and professionals can "talk" to one another and get the message accross. This language enables avalanche forecasters to assimilate data from a variety of sources and assists them in preparing their forecasts. Hence the pit from Cannon Mountain is an effective warning not only in the present, but for future stability concerns as spring comes and it get's warmer (It doesn't take much warming to destroy the bonds in a weak snowpack or within a weak layer).

There is a wise way of using snowpit information and a not so wise way. Dave McClung suggests that snowpack evaluation (all forms) are essentially "a search for instability". To use snowpit information (unless very definitive) as a justification or green light to ski a particular slope is the wrong way to go about it. One should already have a pretty solid opinion about stability before choosing a destination. That is based on avalanche forecasts and meteorological constructs. The location chosen should be reasonable given that expectation. Then snowpack evaluation comes into play to make sure your expectations are not in error. From personal experience, we all make mistakes in this evaluation (Any science that has as it's chief tool a shovel has to make one wonder.)

Now another valuable use of snowpits, etc. is in evaluating a snowpack for which little information is available. That, then is the starting point - but only for snowpacks where little is known.

Because we make mistakes in evaluating snowpack ( a crude science at best ) we have to allow a significant safety margin in our terrain choices to be successful (meaning staying alive, not getting injured, or not having the wits scared out of you) over time. Terrain selection is the response to snowpack stability expectations and observations. It is much easier to successfully evaluate the consequences of a slide than it is to evaluate the probability of one. Hence seat of the pants physics that concern the amount of snow that might slide, the slope angle and dynamic friction considerations, stress concentrators on the slope, and terrain hazards are valuable mental exercises before one chooses to ski a slope or to choose a line on that slope. This, of course, plus group management, is what risk management is all about.

Nicely said, Gary.

Nicely said, Gary.

Agreed X2!!

All of Gary's response are biblical to my concerns and good reminders too.
Those who are newer (even less aware experienced folks) who have taken avy 1 or 2 classes can't hang their hats on those classes. Just like a shovel, they are just tools.
The real tool is the awareness of the experiences and a growing inventory of experience comes from return trips. It would be a heuristic trap for me to think that my 35 years of BC touring makes me an expert. I just have the privilege of seeing a lot more things over and over to base some conclusions, but mistakes will happen. It comes down to a numbers game at one point or what is called exposure. If you do something a lot, long enough some adverse things will happen along the way no matter how good you plan.