Avalanche danger inbounds

[James]

Where does he ski usually?

Utah Wasatch back country I think.

 

[Rod9301]

Utah Wasatch back country I think.

The makes sense, lots of time they have buried persistent layers so it's unsafe to ski

 

[tball]

@Slim this podcast should answer all your questions:

Listen to the podcast at: https://utahavalanchecenter.org/blog/43654 . It is truly enlightening.

Thanks so much for posting that @stan51. Everyone who skis steep and deep terrain should listen to that podcast.

I was moved by Jake Hutchinson's article when I saw it posted here last year. It was great to hear his voice, and I'm very grateful for him opening a window into the difficult world of avalanche control work:
http://ascentbackcountry.com/guilt/

I struggle to reconcile that story and the one of Taft Conlin's death at Vail and the lack of avalanche control work done by Vail Ski Patrol prior to the inbounds avalanche.

How can we be confident best efforts have been made at avalanche control as was the case at Canyons, but not at Vail?
https://www.vaildaily.com/opinion/f...-been-closed-the-day-taft-conlin-died-letter/

 

[pais alto]

Avalanche advisories like the ones issued by UAC are for backcountry, uncontrolled terrain and snow. The snow inbounds at resorts bears little, if any, resemblance to ‘wild’ snow that doesn’t get the constant evaluation, testing, mitigation procedures, and skiing that inbounds snow gets. Something like the difference between a city park and designated wilderness. One gets constant attention, evaluation, and problems get addressed by staff, the other is more or less what ever is there, you deal with yourself.

 

[pais alto]

So that got me thinking, and I wondered if there were any patrollers around who could explain how they would like skiers to think about avalanche risk inbounds.

I will ask next time I’m in the mountains during elevated danger, but I’m impatient...

See my above response. As you noted the UAC report doesn’t address ski areas. As a patroller, I’d like you to think that the avalanche danger is constantly evaluated and addressed and bears little resemblance to OB conditions, and that the patrol is a professional organization that has an immense amount of pride, personal esteem, training, and effort involved in avy mitigation. I know people on the Taos patrol, and they are devastated, completely devastated by the incident there. And every patroller and snow safety staff everywhere takes note of what happened at Taos and other areas where avys are possible and makes every effort possible to get it right. It’s just that, as noted previously, nothing can be guaranteed.

 

[pais alto]

BTW, when I got around to reading the whole thread, this stood out as a quality reply:

Like most conversations about avalanche risk, the answers are really complex thanks to the fact that they're nuanced and personal. In the example about the 3 options that a patroller would tell you about a specific run, I don't think they'd commit to any of those 3 answers (or at least the avalanche professionals I know would not - they'll talk about observations and problems in the snowpack all day, but if anyone asks is X safe, their answer is always no). Are the avalanche problems deep persistent slabs or wind slabs? If the latter, are you and your buddies strong at identifying patterns in snow and what those patterns say about the transport and loading zones and which areas of a run to avoid? There are so many variables involved that it's really impossible to compare two scenarios unless you know every detail about the people, terrain, weather, and existing snowpack problems.

For me personally, I gather that if terrain is open and a named run, the risks are quite low. I make adjustments if the avalanche forecast is high and it is storming throughout the day (vs. overnight, where it's easier to do control work without the resort being in operation). Likewise, I'll give myself a buffer if I'm considering any sort of "grey area" from an inbounds/out of bounds perspective, like a series of ridgelines above a run that are within the resort boundary markers and controlled to protect the runs below them, but there's also s sign that you're leaving the area boundary for part of the hike that includes a minimum fine for rescue and, until this year, included a beacon checkpoint.

 

[Slim]

@pais alto ,
Thanks for your reply.
Just to be clear. I am not expecting anyone to be able to absolutely certainly say that terrain is either safe or not. Nor am I talking about the (rare) inbounds avalanches, and wondering if the Patrol should have done more.

What I meant is there are stacks of books and training for assessing and deciding on avalanche risk in the backcountry. No 100% certainties, but clear ways to decide what options are safer or more dangerous. Also clear forecast assessing the danger on that day.

I don’t know of any such information for inbounds terrain.
Closed areas are clear.
If I understand you all correctly you are still saying that if patrol opened the terrain, they are fairly confident that it’s safe (example,Jake Hutchinson skied the terrain that ended up avalaching the next day, himself on the first day, solo, so obviously he considered it safe enough, not 100%, but safe enough).

perhaps the other way to explain it is:
Just because it’s open, does that mean Patrol opened it thinking: “well if you want to play Russian roulette, suit yourself” i would be fine with that style too, I just want to know which it is.

 

[jmeb]

just because it’s open, does that mean Patrol opened it thinking: “well if you want to play Russian roulette, suit yourself” i would be fine with that style too, I just want to know which it is.

It absolutely does not mean that. Patrols first and foremost responsibility is to ensure the safety of guests. That means if they opened terrain, they are confident in it.

If it bears any resemblance to Russian roulette, it would be 1 live round on a 100,000 cartridge.

 

[tball]

^^^ Yes, and If you listen to the whole Jake Hutchinson podcast you get a great sense of how seriously ski patrol takes avalanche control.

That doesn't mean there are not individual or systemic errors in avalanche control work. Given the consequences, what I'd like to see is more visibility into the control plan and control work that has been done to help us make informed decisions. Currently, we must have blind faith in ski patrol, at least everywhere I ski.

 

[RuleMiHa]

I know people on the Taos patrol, and they are devastated, completely devastated by the incident there. And every patroller and snow safety staff everywhere takes note of what happened at Taos and other areas where avys are possible and makes every effort possible to get it right. It’s just that, as noted previously, nothing can be guaranteed.

Recently, in medicine there has been a lot of focus on the "second victim" in any situation where there is a medical error or a horrendous outcome. The rates of self harm (psychological and physical) are sky high and the result is often destroyed careers and suicide.

I hope someone makes sure the Taos patrollers are ok because at the end of the day they aren't gods and they don't have a crystal ball, but it can be hard to remember that in the face of a tragedy. All they can ever do is the best they can, with the resources they have at that point time.

I appreciate everything patrollers do, it is a difficult job, and there would be way more tragedy if it weren't for all their efforts. Thank y'all so much!

 

[Slim]

^^^ Yes, and If you listen to the whole Jake Hutchinson podcast you get a great sense of how seriously ski patrol takes avalanche control.

That doesn't mean there are not individual or systemic errors in avalanche control work. Given the consequences, what I'd like to see is more visibility into the control plan and control work that has been done to help us make informed decisions. Currently, we must have blind faith in ski patrol, at least everywhere I ski.

Yep, I did listen to that interview. Very interesting, and I feel very bad for Mr. Hutchinson that he had to keep quiet for 7 years, that certainly didnt help him deal with it.

What I meant is, it could be policy that says: well, we think it’s a bad idea, but we leave it up to individual freedom. That’s not the same as a disregard for visitors safety, but it is a choice for individuals;l freedom and responsibility. The Highway de[partement does that (at least here in MN). They will give a negative travel advice, but they won’t close the road down.

Anyway, it sounds like the consensus is that, patrol only opens terrain, that in their estimation is reasonably safe, but of course it is never a guarantee.

I also agree with @tball that a bit more info and differentiat would be nice. perhaps an “inbounds avalanche forecast” . And, or recommendations on certain terrain to take extra precautions.

 

[Analisa]

I also agree with @tball that a bit more info and differentiat would be nice. perhaps an “inbounds avalanche forecast” . And, or reconnections on certain terrain to take extra precautions.

In a way, I think we've kind of come a consensus on what an inbound avalanche forecast would look like. We've agreed the risk is low. Low on the danger scale means "Generally safe, watch for unstable snow on isolated terrain features."

I have a hunch that we over estimate the risk of inbounds avalanches and try to peg it closer to moderate based on news coverage. It's less expected/more shocking. Tends to make a bigger impact on people who don't have avalanche education/experience and can't satisfy the "watch for unstable snow on isolated terrain features" as part of the low forecast. The number of people skiing on heavy snow days inbounds is higher than the number of people skiing on a low risk day backcountry, so there are likely some rate of accidents vs. total accident effects at play. Accidents are probably more likely to be fatal since people are less likely to have their avy kit on. There are also inbounds accidents that occur in areas closed down by patrol that skiers were able to hike or traverse into

Are some "low" days riskier than other "low" days. Yes. But that's the case with any scale that has to draw concrete barriers. Having additional avalanche education helps you parse apart what risk looks like on a spectrum that's more nuanced that the 5 color scale. I think a beneficial corollary, and a question snow professionals would be much more likely to engage in, is what factors make avalanche control challenging. Like, I presume getting pummeled by 4 feet of snow overnight is easier to manage than getting pummeled with 4 feet of snow during operational hours where you can't just detonate explosives. What other factors make it a hard or busy day for patrol from a control standpoint? But, I also think the safety gains of those conversations is pretty minimal. Patrollers are pretty good about minimizing control challenges by staggering the opening on certain parts of the mountain or closing down terrain if heavy winds and snow make it hard to keep up.

 

[jmeb]

/ thread. Well said.

 

[stan51]

"That doesn't mean there are not individual or systemic errors in avalanche control work. Given the consequences, what I'd like to see is more visibility into the control plan and control work that has been done to help us make informed decisions. Currently, we must have blind faith in ski patrol, at least everywhere I ski."

I have to say I don't follow this. I doubt there is a fixed plan that applies in all cases. There are designated control routes, but how each route is conducted depends on conditions.

In any event, it is not like patrol is working in secret. They are out there in the open. Anyone who is observant and knows what they are looking at can see the bomb craters and patrol tracks. You can see where the bombs have caused snow to run and where they have not. A lot of the time you can watch from the lift as patrol runs routes on closed terrain.

 

[4ster]

This was my reply to a similar inquiry a few days ago specific to Snowbasin

“Anytime there is a heavy rate of snowfall like some of the periods we had today, I would certainly be wary on anything with or connected to a steep slope. Many of the roped avalanche control areas will not be open till Thursday or maybe even Friday. When they are open & you choose to ski that terrain, make sure you enter through the gates and also stay alert to what is going on around you. Once you are in these areas the ski area boundary is rarely roped & only marked with red signs along the ridges. Anything outside the ski area boundary should be considered backcountry with complicated topography. I imagine on a scale of 1 to 5 avalanche danger will be rated around a 4 for the next few days outside the boundaries.”

With that I would say that risk is minimal on any inbounds open terrain as long as you remain focused & attentive to your surroundings.

From a few years ago. Mitigation in a designated, roped Avalanche Control Area while the rest of the area was open.

& that’s why you don’t duck the ropes .

 

[pais alto]

...What I meant is there are stacks of books and training for assessing and deciding on avalanche risk in the backcountry. No 100% certainties, but clear ways to decide what options are safer or more dangerous. Also clear forecast assessing the danger on that day.

I don’t know of any such information for inbounds terrain.
Closed areas are clear.
If I understand you all correctly you are still saying that if patrol opened the terrain, they are fairly confident that it’s safe (example,Jake Hutchinson skied the terrain that ended up avalaching the next day, himself on the first day, solo, so obviously he considered it safe enough, not 100%, but safe enough).[/b]

@Slim, if you’re looking for a professional-level checklist that will tell you if the patrol has done their complex and nuanced job of avy mitigation, it doesn’t exist.

Professional-level avalanche training used to be Avy level 3, but that has been supplanted by the recently developed Professional Avalanche Training:
https://www.americanavalancheinstitute.com/professional-avalanche-training/

And a key reading for that is the SWAG - Snow, Weather, and Avalanche Guidelines handbook:
https://www.americanavalancheassociation.org/swag/

I think you can see that, as I said, and as @Analisa pointed out, it is complex. The training and procedures are very involved, as are the snow conditions.

perhaps the other way to explain it is:
Just because it’s open, does that mean Patrol opened it thinking: “well if you want to play Russian roulette, suit yourself” i would be fine with that style too, I just want to know which it is.

Please. As I said, patrol and snow safety outfits are professionals, the Russian roulette scenario you describe above is anything but that. If, as a result of their observation, training, and experience, patrol and/or Snow Safety feel the conditions are anything less than safe, they will not allow skiing in that area.

 

[pais alto]

I have a hunch that we over estimate the risk of inbounds avalanches and try to peg it closer to moderate based on news coverage. It's less expected/more shocking. Tends to make a bigger impact on people who don't have avalanche education/experience and can't satisfy the "watch for unstable snow on isolated terrain features" as part of the low forecast. The number of people skiing on heavy snow days inbounds is higher than the number of people skiing on a low risk day backcountry, so there are likely some rate of accidents vs. total accident effects at play. Accidents are probably more likely to be fatal since people are less likely to have their avy kit on. There are also inbounds accidents that occur in areas closed down by patrol that skiers were able to hike or traverse into

More good thinking, quoted for truth.

 

[pais alto]

Recently, in medicine there has been a lot of focus on the "second victim" in any situation where there is a medical error or a horrendous outcome. The rates of self harm (psychological and physical) are sky high and the result is often destroyed careers and suicide.

I hope someone makes sure the Taos patrollers are ok because at the end of the day they aren't gods and they don't have a crystal ball, but it can be hard to remember that in the face of a tragedy. All they can ever do is the best they can, with the resources they have at that point time.

I appreciate everything patrollers do, it is a difficult job, and there would be way more tragedy if it weren't for all their efforts. Thank y'all so much!

Where I work, Critical Incident Stress Counseling and follow-up is available for patrollers. It is especially valuable for fatality incidents.

 

[Ken_R]

Also, one thing to keep in mind is to consider the likelihood AND the consequence.

There are a lot of days that the likelihood is moderate (or even low) but the consequence is high. The consequence is related to the size of the avalanche but also consider the particulars of terrain at your particular location at each moment your are on, above, below or close to avalanche terrain.

Patrol have the huge advantage of knowing the mountain so well they know exactly where the trouble spots are and are familiar with the weather and snow throughout the season. That is on top of their education and training. Would love to know more details from the Patrollers on this site.

 

[tball]

I also agree with @tball that a bit more info and differentiat would be nice. perhaps an “inbounds avalanche forecast” . And, or recommendations on certain terrain to take extra precautions.

My understanding is ski patrol creates an "inbounds avalanche forecast" every day where control work is done. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

They don't share with us their forecast and other information like where they did control work, what slid, and additional useful information. I wish they did. We are big boys and girls and can take the truth.

I believe we could make better decisions with more information about the inbounds snowpack, just like more information helps backcountry users make better decisions. No, I don't have training on inbounds avalanches, but I'd love to take an appropriate course if it was offered like it is for the backcountry.

In a way, I think we've kind of come a consensus on what an inbound avalanche forecast would look like. We've agreed the risk is low. Low on the danger scale means "Generally safe, watch for unstable snow on isolated terrain features."

I very much disagree. The risk is not always low. There are high-risk days and low-risk days and they are considerably different.

Same with slopes. On any given day, there are big differences in risk depending on how long a slope has been open, how much it has been skied, what control work has been done, and a zillion other factors. The risk on one open run doesn't equal the risk on another.

On January 22, 2012, both Taft Conlin and Christopher Norris died in different inbounds slides in Colorado. It was a crazy high-risk day.

To my knowledge, resorts did nothing to warn their guests of the high inbounds avalanche risk that day, nor which slopes to avoid because of the risk.