True enough, but that's a lot different from the assertion that the ECT is a good way to test layers below 1 m.... I bet the 1 m was chosen as a 'conservative' estimate -- along the lines "if you're interested in deep instabilities, ECT may not be the way to go".
I never made the assertion that the ECT was a "good way" but as this video shows, it can be revealing and " useful "for these sort of conditions. I was surprised by how well it worked in the video and that was my point and question.
What test, other than a deep tap test would be a "good way" to test for deep instabilities?
If you remember last year and our MLK layer that got very deep, and then revealed itself in some huge( ANFO assisted ) slides last year at Crystal......one of the hot topics for discussion last season between my BC buddies was how well that layer was bridged and how to test for it so deep down. Some never trusted it and stayed off the big stuff all year...others continued to test the top 4ft with CT's and hand shears and "hoped" the MLK was sufficiently bridged and skied the bigger stuff if this relatively "shallow" layer showed a good result in line with observed stability( no naturals, good temps etc,)
Even though forecasters can spell out a deep PWL in their forecasts....the question of "is it deep enough to be bridged" seems to be causing a lot of the troubles in UT at the moment amongst the avid. The concept of deep enough to be bridged seems a fallacy in UT at the moment as the video and their "tall" ECT shows.
