'Considerable' rating

Avi fatalities in the region covered by NWAC are far too rare to glean much, if any, statistically valid causal relationship between the system's nomenclature and the decisions made by the victims.  Unless we can figure out a way to debrief these victims, this isn't going to change.    

Both recent victims were highly educated and had spent a lot of time in the backcountry.   Was 'considerable' inherently confusing to them?  I'm not going to speculate other than to say that perceived ambiguity of the rating probably wasn't much of a factor in the eventual tragic outcomes here.   

One might argue that, whatever the nomenclature, accidents will tend to happen in the zone between moderate and high - whatever you call it.  Does that speak to the need to eliminate this essential category? 

No.

One might also conclude that, because avi accidents are so rare, the system works very well to provide one valuable piece of data in a decisions that should also include local observation, a consideration of weather history, and current weather.   Probably not supportable by any data - just another way of looking at it.

Like traffic accidents, until we have fully automated skis that veto the rider's desire to venture into harms way, avi fatalities will continue to happen, regardless of how sophisticated or dumbed down the warning system is.

   

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. 

That is a problem with decision-making of those many skiers, and not of the avy forecast system. The folks who I often ski with view Considerable a bit differently - more along the lines of "we'd better have a safe route up and do repeated stability evaluation as we go, and we should tend toward more cautious slope choices for our descent - e.g. not big long slopes that could slide very long way entraining lots of snow but rather slopes that are broken up by benches or mellower stretches, and also typically tree skiing where the new snow depth will be a bit less and the nature of the snow surface typically a bit different" (though I've seen a partner trigger a decent-sized pocket slab in deep forest on a considerable day - had we been on a more continuously steep slope such a slide would likely have been larger). The exact nature of these decisions depend a fair bit on how much snow has fallen over the potential sliding layers. There are some considerable days when we just say "let's ski the lifts" or otherwise occupy ourselves due to both the risk and the potential "wallow factor" that would lead us to either be skiing figure 11s or going onto steeper slopes than we'd like to tackle given the mix of the rating and the depth of potential slides.

I recall the older system that lacked this rating, and I've found the newer system to be an improvement - a bit more precision about what the forecasters are thinking. Looking at fatality stats since the change is not super informative, given all the other confounding factors (increase in backcountry skier population, improvements in ski shape which makes skiing deeper fresher snow more rewarding instead of painfully wallowy, etc.).

However, I think the NYT article about the Tunnel Creek incident mentioned something along the lines of a "bigger further faster" attitude that was on the increase. Perhaps this is in play as people say "GO" when they read "Considerable?" Does anyone really think that removing a step from the rating scale is going to change this dynamic and reduce risk level among this cohort?? Tony - I'd submit that if you remove this rating level, you'll just find that the majority of the fatalities will be occurring at some other level that contains the conditions most often seen on days currently called Considerable.

As for folks who need binary traffic lights due to lack of basic avy education, I think their light should always be "red" when there is more than a small bit of snow on the ground.

...
As for folks who need binary traffic lights due to lack of basic avy education, I think their light should always be "red" when there is more than a small bit of snow on the ground.

Nicely said; that seems to go for so many activities in life.

I have done a little research, but can not fully substantiate the following postulation "if recommendations in the avalanche bulletin were followed there would be few, maybe no avalanche fatalities (in PNW)". Learning to read the bulletin (know what the words mean) and follow the recommended terrain choices should be of high priority to us. Furthermore we should learn to watch for (usually easily recognizable) signs of snow instability. It is not rocket science, but maybe it should be, as we really try to overcomplicate our decisions at times, so much as we end up not seeing the forest for the trees.

This is how I think:
Low danger level - i dont spent much time thinking about the snowpack
Moderate - i start thinking about what avalanche problem is the concern and how can i avoid it in the terrain (surface hoar down 50 cm in specific terrain vs point releases in 15 cm storm snow provides me different feelings when i think about likelihood vs consequences)
Considerable - i spend more time analyzing the terrain and making sure that i can avoid the forecasted problem(s). i increase my margins of safety and really try to listen to my certainty and uncertainty. The hairs on the back of my neck are standing up now.
High and Extreme - some times fun to go out on days like these if able to manage the hazard by absolutely avoiding the terrain in which it is present.

To me the rating of Considerable and the accompanying text is very descriptive. "You face a considerable risk of getting hurt if you enter avalanche terrain". Sounds pretty clear to me. However, having followed the research on human factors and kept a little track of the statistics, there seems to be something missing........... some communication that does not come across. Or is it that it is ignored?

Chances of dying or getting seriously hurt in an avalanche are very low if we let simple tools guide our terrain choices (bulletin/observations available to the naked eye). I fail to understand completely how we think we are above making it simple..........

Anyway, i like the 5 part system and think that considerable is a suitable descriptor to me.

I appreciate all the replies and agree with most of the points as they concur with my experiences in the PNW. I previously spent a number of years in Colorado and still have a conservative clinometer built into my brain and usually receive well-intentioned ribbing for my tentative approach to places commonly skied here.

Cheers!

The considerable rating becomes more useful the more one uses the incredible device located behind the eyes and between the ears.