Hello All,
Thanks for the good discussion here—we read and rely on the info from the TAY community! Indeed, Saturday was a busy day throughout our mountains. Condolences to all those involved in avalanche incidents.
We did adjust several forecasts on Saturday as more info came into the center. The first was around 10am (which did not archive), and one around 1:30 pm.
I can speak for NWAC on our use of the Danger Scale. We’ve not made a conscious choice to adjust our danger to more align with Avalanche Canada, or because of complacency in our users. We have significantly increased our internal training over the last several years since the Pro Observer program began, often hiring consultants from outside our organization. This multiday training (both in-house and field-based) occurs at the beginning, middle, and end of season with the intent of improving our products. Two topics we regularly touch upon are the use of the Danger Scale and public safety messaging. In short, we are working hard to apply the Danger Scale as it was designed. The working group responsible for the creation of the N.A. Avalanche Danger Scale, developed a simple safeguard in applying the scale. At the end of the day, when all data is in the hopper and the forecaster needs to the select the best rating to issue, it comes down to one key element: travel advice. Before a forecast is issued, the forecaster on duty reviews the info asking themselves: how do I want people to move through avalanche terrain given the conditions? The travel advice column on the Danger Scale is then reviewed and the forecast is issued. As a backcountry user, reviewing the canned travel advice against your tour-plan can go a long way in choosing appropriate terrain.
All this said, I’m not claiming perfection in our forecasts. There have been many times that our weather and avalanche forecasts have been off. We’re striving to the learn from our inaccurate forecasts through verification and review. This afternoon (Monday 3/6), based on the amount of activity over the weekend, we conducted an After Action Review with our forecasters, staff, and Pro Observers. There was a lot learned after such an active pattern. And a reminder, the more info from you all the better, so please help our forecasts and submit observations through the NWAC website.
A few last thoughts on the difference of High and Considerable. In High danger, the distribution or avalanches usually encompasses enough terrain to generalize an elevation band (example, Above Treeline) and includes all or most aspects in that band. Backcountry users should consider avoiding avalanche terrain as safe options are very limited to non-existent. Considerable can be thought of as High danger on specific slopes (i.e. north aspect above a certain elevation with a slab over a buried surface hoar layer) or High danger at certain times of day (i.e. daytime warming on sunny aspects). Without advanced skills to carefully evaluate the snowpack as it lies over terrain, you should avoid avalanche terrain as you would in High danger. Unfortunately, many backcountry travelers draw a line between High and Considerable, and on the considerable side of things they assume a "good to go travel scenario" as opposed to assuming a "likely triggered avalanches on specific slopes" scenario.
Please feel free to get in touch with feedback or questions. Here’s to a safe rest of the season…
Scott Schell
scott@nwac.us
