'Considerable' rating

maybe, its certainly used most. But I would rather the forecasters err on the conservative side the learning curve of its accuracy is more forgiving.

I generally agree with erring on the side of caution but in this case I'm concerned about an issue of complacency if users of the system consistently see less activety than a forecast that includes "natural avalanches possible, skier triggered avalanches likely" would suggest.

My experience is 95% PNW snowpack so my observations and comfort level with snow is obviously biased.

I agree with your sentiment about complacency and seeing less instability than a ‘considerable’ rating implies but I think this breaks down to not being able to provide pinpoint avalanche forecasts within a region. This winter I skied an exposed line this on a considerable day, it was solid. The next day NWAC reported avalanches at a location adjacent to the ski resort ~3 miles away from ours on the same day we skied… it was certainly “considerable” over there one could argue the rating should have been high!

I don’t think there is going to be an easy solution. Put yourself in the forecasters shoes, if you had to post a rating for a region that all level of people are basing decisions on… I would not want that responsibility on my shoulders. The details are always in the report that might be more specific to the aspect we want to ski…. It’s up to the individual to remain diligent and not become complacent, identify all the risks and mitigate them to a level that they are comfortable with… and pray you didn’t miss something.

On a lighter note when once I was getting scolded by my friend for me not checking the forecast we got a good laugh when I jokingly replied what’s the big deal, how is that going to change our plans when it’s always considerable anyways?

On a lighter note when once I was getting scolded by my friend for me not checking the forecast we got a good laugh when I jokingly replied what’s the big deal, how is that going to change our plans when it’s always considerable anyways?

Haha, I can be accused of saying the exact same thing.

I don't envy the job of the forecasters and I can't thank them enough for the work that they do. I appreciate the details that are provided and that's where the best information is. I do get frustrated by backing down from things when the risk is above my threshold and watching other people put down good tracks. It's better to be safe than sorry though.

I am always torn as to whether or not I should even view the forecast.  The pseudo intellectual in me is biased to believe that more information is always better, but the dirtbag in me says, "screw the man and his fancy equipment."  Put another way, am I better off going into the field assuming the danger is Considerable to High and  then using observation and testing to determine otherwise or am I better off viewing the forecast and allowing it to color my decision making before I even put a ski on the snow?

It would appear to me that some interpret "High" as a reactive snowpack, and "Considerable" as a snowpack in which experts can usually play with a mitigable risk of consequence.

That's not what the terms actually mean .

"Considerable" states that human-triggered slides are likely, and that avalanche size can span the gamut of many small slides to rare but large slides. There's lots of room in there for a reactive snowpack.

To me, the biggest distinction between Considerable and High is the likelihood of natural slides. I often think about the "high side of Considerable" and the "low side of Considerable", as well as a "high side of Moderate".  I didn't get to play in the snow two weekends ago, but my impression is that NWAC got it reasonably right. There weren't widespread reports of consequential natural slides, but human triggered slides were widely reported.

It's easy to be lulled into Considerable complacency by the days when the hazard is obviously more than Moderate, but easily mitigated, and be lured into danger when the hazard is less than High, but demands full attention to safe travel. Don't rely on a hazard rating alone to encapsulate danger -- there's a lot more in the discussion, telemetry, and the weather forecast. The whole point of an avalanche education is to make local decisions for ourselves. Forecasters can't do that, and shouldn't bear that burden.

A five-point danger scale is good; humans understand five-point scales (look at climbing, whitewater, etc.). Distinctions of finer gradation are hard to comprehend, though people will argue to no end about the meaning of "third class". I sometimes wish that the forecasters would give Moderate slightly more teeth; for many backcountry travelers, there's little distinction between Moderate and Low -- it's the difference between "Go!" and "Bomber!".  As Scott Schell and others have said, the scale is kind of logarithmic; each step up the ladder is a multiplication of the hazard, not an increment.

Charlie, I am advocating for the elimination of the "Considerable" rating and working with just four ratings.

I fail to see where having the considerable rating provides useful input for the large number of users that become jaded to the rating, and that it provides little usefulness in post-event statistical collection as so many avis involving skiers occur during the considerable rating.