'Considerable' rating

The group size has nothing to do with who lives or dies when caught in an avalanche, the focus should always be on stability and risk mitigation. Larger groups only have the possibility to hinder recovery outcomes.

personally I prefer groups 3 or less.
most all of my tours are with only 1 friend, occasionally two, rarely 3 or more, we get more skiing done and communicate safety and risk mitigation more efficiently. Admittingly that logic started with me wanting to get more skiing in on the tour without regard to avalanches. But what I found over time was the conversations on the tour became more in depth about snowpack and stability etc. and I learned a lot more about the snowpack than with any past larger groups. Occasionally I still go on yurt trips that always involve a large group and the stability assessment is much more complicated. I've seen groups split up over stability disagreements or sometimes everyone stares at the most experienced for the decision...


it is off topic but its a good question.

Great reply.

Your mind has to be thinking through the entire journey.  Think of the landscape as constantly changing location to location and moment to moment.  Listen to your spider sense!

A bit about the history of the "Considerable" rating: It was added a number of years ago because it was thought that there was too much spread between "Moderate" and "High". At the time the terms "Considerable" and "Moderate to High" were put forward. I favored the term "Considerable" both because it was different and also because of the definition of the word "considerable". "Moderate" hazard is more cut and dried, certainly with a good base of knowledge and experience and conscientious decision making, "Moderate" hazard can be managed with leeway for PWKL's. "High" hazard should mean to experienced backcountry users that only safe terrain is reasonable. "Considerable" is different from "High" in that there are likely to be fewer naturals and the avalanche hazard is likely to vary more by aspect as well as being somewhat lower overall.

Regarding "Considerable" hazard, I believe a good number of people treat it as they should "Moderate" hazard, likely because their experiences have shown that they can ski terrain without getting caught, but that is something of a trap because most forecasters would tell you that in "Considerable" hazard they would expect to hear of a few incidents. Thus the fact that one doesn't get caught in "Considerable" hazard is really just playing the probability game. Sooner or later you get caught. For me, in "Considerable" hazard the amount of snow that might slide and the nature of the terrain regarding consequences are the determining factors.

Has there been any decrease of avi incidents or deaths since the inception of the "considerable" rating if adjusted for increased BC skiers and sledders?

Has there been any decrease of avi incidents or deaths since the inception of the "considerable" rating if adjusted for increased BC skiers and sledders?

Whether there has or hasn't been a per-capita shift in accident rate, it would be hard to prove that a change in rating system had any causative effect. The advent of Considerable
also correlates well with fat skis, a backcountry culture that condones risk, superior avalanche rescue equipment, smartphones, and the Red Sox winning the Series.

It's hard to see how backcountry travelers might travel more safely with less-detailed primary information from forecasters.

Whether there has or hasn't been a per-capita shift in accident rate, it would be hard to prove that a change in rating system had any causative effect. The advent of Considerable
also correlates well with fat skis, a backcountry culture that condones risk, superior avalanche rescue equipment, smartphones, and the Red Sox winning the Series.

It's hard to see how backcountry travelers might travel more safely with less-detailed primary information from forecasters.

So would bc travelers travel more safely with more-detailed primary information from the forecasters? Or is the current system that essentially equates "best skiing-but be careful" with "considerable", adequate considering the incidents, especially those involving supposedly knowledgeable types?

If no information was available would that change skier behavior or real-time analysis? My hunch is that once someone latches on to a specific rating, that rating shades most further analyses, and that a basic go/no-go decision has already been made. Perhaps the ratings are best for directing skiers towards trailheads, but decisions beyond the car seat be done with eyes-wide-open and the assumption that all snow conditions are entirely local and not reflected by a general forecast.

I keep asking the question because folks like you seem to think it works and I am still waiting for a convincing answer. I clearly understand the culture of risk and the advances in gear and rescue gear as it plays out in the world of ski touring.

As for the Sox... well I grew up in Baltymoor, Sox suck!

My problem with the "considerable" rating is not that people go out with fine print ...

Don't forget that the guys who were killed in Colorado were experienced backcountry travellers as were the Tunnel Creek victims, the Phantom Slide victims, the recent Utah victim, and many many more.

Lou Dawson Dawson's report has spent a lot of time analyzing the Colorado tragedy; it is apparent that the group was unable to either accurately process the most recent avalanche statement or evaluate the terrain they decided to cross.

The major problem in most avy incidents and the major challenge to most bc travellers is in cognition--how to gain, process, and apply information in decision making.  Most of us fail at one time or the other.  We are most likely to fail in fulfilling our personal responsibilities in a group (diffusion of responsibility; submission to the most outspoken, forcefully spoken, etc. person or persons).

I think the "Considerable" rating is an especially good one: it says "think about it! before you leap/traverse/climb; thinking means gathering all available signs, symptoms, experience and applying them in an effective way.

Lou initially began by questioning avy info and training/education processes (the group was in a course) but then became astounded by the failure to recognize plainly written and patently obvious information.  Not that the group was ignorant, or even unaware, of the potential for danger; many had avalungs or airbags (none were deployed); I believe all had shovels, beacons.  Apparently they just didn't think straight (think critically and insist on group critical thinking [full participation by all] in decision making).

So the implications of a "considerable" rating will be lost to those refractory to the information it contains; no other words will prove to be more effective.