March 4th 2017, busy day

Quite possibly the most bullshit avalanche forecast in years

I have to post in defense of NWAC. They provide a regional forecast based on remote sensor data and reports from a few locations. I personally find their work very useful, and I'm thankful for the avalanche forecast. I also find that the forecast usually jives with my own observations, but not always. If you think you can provide a better forecast, why don't you start publishing one?

I am also alarmed at the tendency to blame NWAC when you go into the backcountry and find conditions different than you expected. All backcountry travelers (by any mode, in any season) should have an ethic of self-reliance. You are responsible for the decisions you make and the resulting risk. If you get caught in a slide, don't blame somebody else -- you put yourself there!

aaron_wright: I feel like Jason4 has a point regarding recalibrating the danger scale (we should remember when reading the forecast that some days that used to get high now get considerable). Your point about splitting hairs between high and considerable is very well taken, however.

You can debate between "high" and "considerable" ... but clearly many slopes were chosen that were not appropriate for either one.  The considerable standard definition is pretty clear: "human triggered avalanches likely".  I think the number of people hit is a function of the number of people out and the less than good choices made.  A good weather weekend day just after a big storm series is usually a recipe for increased avalanche accidents... a function of the number of people out rather than any problem in the avalanche forecast.  NWAC put their forecast in the right ballpark and they have no blame for this.

I did not ski on 3/4, and cannot take a position on the accuracy of the day's forecast.

It is my impression that NWAC attempts to be as accurate as possible. With that approach, sometimes a forecast will miss high, sometimes it will miss low. In my experience, NWAC rarely misses.

Accurate, rather than conservative, forecasting is the right mode of operation -- the forecasters are giving you their best guess (and stating uncertainty in the discussion). If the forecast were to consistently over-rate the hazard, readers would eventually lose trust in the forecast.

When NWAC calls for a higher danger level than conditions warrant (say, Considerable rather than Moderate), there are few complaints -- travelers may simply pat themselves on the back for having navigated Considerable so well that they barely found any instability. It is only an expert who will notice that miss.

Forecasts, any forecasts, will be in error at least occasionally. (It is to NWAC's credit that any missed forecast is a notable surprise, not the norm.) To expect forecasts to be spot-on every day is to demonstrate a substantial gap in one's understanding of the mechanics of mountain weather and avalanches. We must, therefore, defend in depth by corroborating the forecast with lots of observation in the field.

About a third of the point of skier avalanche education is to equip people with the ability to discern whether the conditions encountered are in line with the forecast. If conditions do not align with the forecast, the response is simple: reduce risk exposure.

Maintain a healthy margin for error.


Looking forward: If you think the forecast is in substantial error: After you dial back your plans to accommodate the added uncertainty, pop open the NWAC app or web page on your phone and submit an observation. They're particularly fond of photos, I hear.

Furthermore, if you want forecasting to become more accurate over the long haul, post trip reports to TAY or the NWAC observations page. Whatever detail you're willing to provide (one needn't betray a stash to share useful information) will help NWAC and everyone else ground-truth their forecasting.

Dr. Fall Line: Part of NWAC's mission is avalanche-accident reporting; the only people more aware of the detailed tragedy of avalanche accidents are those on the scene and the families of the victims. I've seen first-hand that NWAC takes the impact of public-messaging as seriously as anyone can.

i find it hard to justify blaming an NWAC forecast for any accident, under any circumstances.  Considerable is just as bad as High.  Avalanches happen during all advisory levels.  NWAC forecasters are professionals doing their best to forecast for a large area. They do not control the wind or precipitation rates or the physics that cause avalanches.  They do not control people's terrain choices or travel habits.  They do not have unlimited resources and data. If someone in an accident blames a forecast, that clearly betrays the fact that they base far too much of their decision making on someone else.  I suppose if the avalanche hazard was rated low when it should be extreme you might have an argument but that would indicate you have no clue what is going on outside of reading a forecast.  I understand that there are more under-experienced users in the backcountry than ever right now and NWAC should (and I'm sure they do) consider that their forecasts are often taken as gospel rather than simply adding to an individual's decision-making process.  But that does not suggest that they should necessarily be more subjective in their forecasting--that undermines the credibility of the process.  To be fair, I was surprised by some of the hazard ratings, particularly in the Snoqualmie region over the last week.  We noted the forecast and assumed (and found) more touchy conditions than were forecasted based on our own knowledge of the snowpack and weather.  I do recall worrying that a novice might see the forecast and consider it a green light--but the fact remains that that is never an acceptable practice.  

Adding my vote to debating the point. NWAC does a damn fine job. They aren't perfect, they don't have unlimited resources, and can't continually alter the forecast instantly based on a constant stream of real-time input. The forecast is one useful part of the information we should each include in decision making. My perception is that they are less conservative than CAA about persistent weak layers but very similarly conservative, if not more, to wind slab, storm slab, and temperature change. I'm grateful to them and include their forecast discussion and details in my planning and how I look around as I tour, adding info. Rest assured they take this very seriously, and internally review for quality control. Throwing them under the bus is not our finest moment. The more people contribute to their funding, the better they can do for all of us recreationists.

i tend to get defensive at this site because i've had all manor of insults and ad hominen debate thrown my way here, much from the guide industy people and their zealot supporters for business at any price.

Just look at my last thread, where the guy says that he's glad he's not my neighbor, when i'm trying to make a point concerning the need for accurate information from nwac. I flagged that comment for the mods, but it was still there last time i checked.

Perhaps you've been blinded by your own personal beliefs, but your last thread reads nothing like "I'm concerned that NWAC isn't providing accurate information". Like 90% of your posts here, it reads more like "I continue to feel the need to expose NCH on the internet, I have a deep hatred for them based on a previous experience and personal agenda". Many folks might sympathize with your bad experiences when first hearing of them, but even the most understanding of people tire of the incessant bitching and thread derailing, week after week.

And FYI, I am not in the guide industry or a patron of NCH, nor do I wish to be involved in either of those in the future.

Amazingly, you've managed to post something in this thread that wasn't about NCH, regarding the usefulness of NWAC avy forecasts. To that, I'll respond:
For those folks that have the luxury of skiing a "home" area almost daily in the winter, an NWAC forecast is probably not that useful. You build a good feel for the terrain and the snowpack as it evolves throughout the season.
For the vast majority of ski tourers (i.e. weekend warriors often skiing a different place each weekend), we don't have very many data points. Weather telemetry data is only so useful in determining what kind of layers might exist in the snowpack. NWAC's avy forecast and observations are the best tool available in determining a starting point of what terrain should be in play for the day and what layers/aspects/etc. to look out for (and then make adjustments based on your own field observations, if desired).