'Considerable' rating

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.

...

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.

I think these are two great points and agree with the use of "Considerable" if it came with a warning to "consider your plan for the day including familiarity with the snowpack, weather history, and terrain" before making decisions on whether travel on a specific slope is feasible. This would put more pressure on the backcountry user to make their own decisions because the avalanche forecast does not cover an entire region with enough detail to make specific decisions about specific slopes.

Obviously, when the danger is "high" most backcountry users should avoid any threatening terrain and when it is "low" it is generallly safe for novices with a minimum of avalanche awareness education.

My other big issue with the "considerable" rating is the opposite of the complacency concern that I already expressed, it's that the media grabs it and sensationalizes the dangers. I know it's what the media does but to say that it's foolish and asking for death by skiing anything out of bounds on any day that is "considerable" paints us all in a bad light. Maybe I'm alone in the idea that i always feel like I can find somewhere relatively safe to go on "considerable" days but since I usually find other fresh skin tracks on my days out and about I doubt it.

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.

Just reading through the comments quickly i think the word that best sums up many of the comments is human factors.

In Bruce Trempers book he has a whole chapter (chapter 10) on what he calls human factors. He lists the primary factor in fatal avalanches from 1990-2000 as "Human" and overconfidence as being the primary reason.

My favorite table of the whole book however is under the title "Common Mental Shortcuts" of which he lists; familiarity, acceptance, commitment, expert halo, scarcity, and social proof. Social proof is my favorite one and refers to the herding instinct that we all observe in the sidecountry or heavily traveled areas. Social proof seems to be a very dire problem in the revelstoke sidecountry where you can see large aggressive lines from inbounds that are only a 20min bootback away which leads right back into the resort.

My point is that as many have already pointed out the main problem with the considerable rating is not that it isn't clear on the risks the considerable rating implies, it is that it is the rating at which human factors are the most likely to occur. In the interior I believe this is a larger problem then for you guys on the coast as the rating is considerable 3/4 of the time or more midwinter.

While human factors can lead people to be overconfident with the information they gleam from the avalanche bulletins. I do not believe this is reason enough to reduce the amount of information available on current conditions. In fact I would like to see the amount of information released increased.

Sorry for any errors or redundancies in my post but I have to get ready for a weekend of skiing now and do not have time to check everything over. Just throwing in my 2 cents.

Personally, I'm having a very hard time accepting the notion that "Considerable" was/is not enough of a warning--almost to the point of feeling negatively judgmental towards a person who thinks that, and their ability to correctly make self-assessments and decisions in the BC (an un-healthy response in itself on my part I know).  I feel that if one truly reads and heeds the fine print of a "Considerable" rating, it is a good indicator of the complex dangers, mysteries & uncertainty of BC travel.  Key words/concepts including:
-Dangerous Avalanche Conditions (the first descriptor-obvious?)
-Natural avalanches possible, human triggered likely (how many other 'go for it' decisions made in life be they recreationally, financially, emotionally would we make if violent outcomes were "possible to likely"?)
-'Avalanche Size & Distribution' column lays out a wide variety of sizes as a possibility, which to me reads not as "If" but "When".

I'm curious if folks think it's not enough of a warning for the un-trained & in-experienced mountain travel sort (who don't read the fine print of the rating), or falls short even for people of "experience" going into the backcountry?  Am I being small-minded here and missing an important point?

Submitted with honest inquiry and openness towards other ideas.

Remember that we are talking about an internet-based rating system, not an observation based rating system for those considering backcountry travel.  The reader has little else to go on than what is in the report.

I find the "considerable" rating to be the absolute most useless rating in the entire system, and am surprised by the number of enthusiasts that are jumping to its defense.  Red and Black being Extreme and High are simple.  They tell me to do something else.  Buy a lift ticket, pull weeds, take the kids to the zoo, whatever.  Green is also easy - you never ever see it so it may as well not exist.  Yellow then serves a role that may as well be green for all practical purposes, and I believe many people interpret this to mean "yellow means go".  Orange or "considerable" represents a lot of the time that I would bet most users of this website are out in the backcountry.  If you stayed home when it was "considerable", you would be staying home a lot.  In my opinion, "considerable" means "you are on your own" and that the forecasters can't make broad observations or predictions. 

A traffic light type of analysis is basically useful for people to make stay or go type decisions from the comfort of their keyboard.  All the colors of the analysis lend themselves fairly well to that type of decision, but orange does not.  Orange won't tell you whether to stay or go, but tells you to figure it out on your own by going and evaluating conditions the old fashioned way.  Orange requires more thought than any of the others.

We shouldn't be surprised that an attempt to oversimplify avy study into a traffic light signal provides an unsatisfactory result.

Discussions like this can be useful in that they may prompt the inexperienced to better learn the system we've got.

"Considerable" is as clear as it's English definition.  Efforts to educate others on what it means regarding avi forecasting would arguably be more productive than changing a system to make it less confusing for those unwilling to take even the most basic steps towards educating themselves on what is necessarily a fairly complex subject.  The current forecasting system is already really, really simple. I doubt the target audience would care if the "Considerable" was eliminated or changed - peer interaction seems to be a much more likely path to more widespread awareness.

You've got to pay to play (safely).   

I think the idea that the Considerable designation is somehow defective or a contributing factor in recent accidents shows a lack of ability in the criers, not in the avy professionals.

It is true that Considerable is put on some of the most challenging and rewarding touring days. With lots of a new snow and weather it is harder to make good decisions in the bc, that is certainly true. To rename those days High or Moderate would be a disservice. We should not look to dumb down our avy reports. I'll bet that the criers' frustration with those Considerable designated days is not the forecast as much as their inability to make a good plan to get out into the fresh for themselves.

I look at the avy forecasts as our professionals' informed guesses, often covering a large swath of mountains, on what the average party may encounter. I take the forecast as just one data point in my planning, with the largest set come from my recent time on the snow collecting locally relevant data as I travel, perceive, discuss and interact with my immediate surroundings. It is just not safe to take the avy report and proceed as if it is fact. This is how people get in over their heads, by not using them.

I've been out in plenty of "High" days where the conditions were very stable. I've also found very active snow packs, that we made move heavily, on "Moderate" days. This seeming contradiction with the forecast was never a surprise because the facts are what you see and feel, not what you read.

Please don't change a thing, except maybe giving more to NWAC so they can keep doing what they do.

Chuck, some "criers" have loads of experience in a variety of snowpacks. I simply ask the question, "what is the effectiveness of a rating that constitutes a large portion of the ratings listed during days in areas where avi fatalities occur?"

My thought is that between the normalization of risk (chances taken without consequence that alter the risk perception) among many backcountry skiers and increasingly crowded and more socialized places to ski, "considerable" basically defaults to GO and make sure your buddies are nearby.

Why not give some thought to returning to the four rating system?

The current system with its use of "considerable" seems to not be an improvement from my read of accident reports.