Home > Trip Reports > April 19, Mt Rainier

April 19, Mt Rainier

4/15/09
WA Cascades West Slopes South (Mt Rainier)
18547
32
Posted by CoachingEndurance.com on 4/20/09 2:16pm
the weather looked perfect.  10 mph winds and 15 degree temps forecasted at the summit for sunday, with partly cloudy. 

we discussed how the lenticular cloud on the top 3,000ft of the mtn was not a good thing but we hoped it wasn't that bad, or would simply go away in the hours it took us to climb.  we started up at 11:30pm saturday night.  the plan was a single push to the summit via ingraham direct and a nice ski back down.  by 7,500 feet the wind started to become an issue.  by 8,500 ft it was whipping at an easy 60mph.  get a little off balance and it would blow you down.  5hrs and one self arrest later we arrived at camp muir, about 4:30am.  by far the hardest trip i've ever had to camp muir.

of about 10-15 groups that were up there only one made a bid sunday morning in the insane weather.  upon return they said the made it to about 12,000 ft and could no longer see each other, etc, etc.  sunday morning we tried to wait for the wind to die down a bit.  you can clearly see in the video it was still wicked.

http://coachingendurance.com/blog/2009/04/failed-attempt-to-ski-mount-rainier.shtml

i'm pissed at the weather man.

Too bad the trip didn't work out.  I had some friends go to Muir on saturday and they said the wind was very strong above about 9k.

On the weather:
Are you not from the PNW?    The weather man is rarely correct.

I've threatened for years to setup a random weather forecast website and compare that to forecasts made by the news, noaa, etc.  We could see if there was any improved correlation between a random prediction and the weather man...  some day i'll do it.


Just go and hope the weather is good and be prepared to deal when it's not. 

author=CoachingEndurance.com link=topic=13091.msg54516#msg54516 date=1240290977">
the weather looked perfect.  10 mph winds and 15 degree temps forecasted at the summit for sunday, with partly cloudy. 

. . .

i'm pissed at the weather man.


Matt, thanks for the report. We met in the parking lot on Sunday morning beside your van. I don't mean to be critical of you, but I'm completely baffled as to where you saw a forecast for 10 mph winds at the summit. I'd be interested to know which weather service made such a (ridiculous and erroneous) claim, since the official NWS Rainier forecasts did not. In fact the NWS forecasts were very accurate this weekend. Keep in mind that the forecasts are for free air winds, and orographic effects as the air is forced up and around a massive obstruction such as Rainier often cause a velocity increase of 2x or more over the free air numbers.

Here are the relevant snippets from the NWS Rainier forecasts issued from Friday morning to Sunday morning:

MOUNT RAINIER RECREATIONAL FORECAST
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SEATTLE WA
349 AM PDT FRI APR 17 2009

                       FRI    FRI    SAT    SAT    SUN 
                            NIGHT         NIGHT       

SUMMIT   (14411 FT)      2      2      9     11     13
                     SW 53   W 35   W 44   W 51   W 32

CAMP MUIR(10188 FT)     16     19     24     28     32
                      W 34   W 22  SW 24   W 37   W 27


MOUNT RAINIER RECREATIONAL FORECAST
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SEATTLE WA
305 PM PDT FRI APR 17 2009

                       FRI    SAT    SAT    SUN 
                     NIGHT         NIGHT       

SUMMIT   (14411 FT)      3      9     12     13
                      W 32   W 48   W 49   W 33

CAMP MUIR(10188 FT)     18     23     28     32
                      W 19  SW 25   W 38   W 25


MOUNT RAINIER RECREATIONAL FORECAST
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SEATTLE WA
416 AM PDT SAT APR 18 2009

                       SAT    SAT    SUN    SUN    MON 
                            NIGHT         NIGHT       

SUMMIT   (14411 FT)      8     12     13     16     19
                      W 47   W 52   W 35   W 27  SW 25

CAMP MUIR(10188 FT)     23     29     32     34     35
                     SW 23   W 40   W 26   W 18  SW 14


MOUNT RAINIER RECREATIONAL FORECAST
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SEATTLE WA
413 PM PDT SAT APR 18 2009

                       SAT    SUN    SUN    MON 
                     NIGHT         NIGHT       

SUMMIT   (14411 FT)     11     13     15     16
                      W 50   W 40   W 30  SW 25

CAMP MUIR(10188 FT)     28     31     35     35
                      W 40   W 30   W 25  SW 20


MOUNT RAINIER RECREATIONAL FORECAST
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SEATTLE WA
342 AM PDT SUN APR 19 2009

                       SUN    SUN    MON    MON    TUE 
                            NIGHT         NIGHT       

SUMMIT   (14411 FT)     13     16     17     18     14
                      W 42   W 26   W 23   W 30   W 38

CAMP MUIR(10188 FT)     31     34     34     35     32
                      W 35   W 32   W 18   W 17   W 24

++ TEMPERATURES AND WIND FOR THE SUMMIT AND CAMP MUIR ARE AVERAGE
   CONDITIONS EXPECTED IN THE FREE AIR AT THOSE ELEVATIONS.



As of Friday morning, the NWS forecast was already predicting free air winds on Saturday night of 50+ at 14000 ft and 40ish at 10000 ft == a good chance of 60-100 mph at those elevations on a mountain like Rainier. Winds were forecast to increase throughout Saturday, peaking overnight. Then Sunday was going to remain very windy, with diminishing winds into Monday.

Based on that info, the worst possible time to climb was Saturday night, and yet that's when a few dozen people intended to climb. Right into the teeth of lenticular clouds and those 60-100 mph winds. I spoke with at least 2 parties who had made summit attempts in the early AM Sunday, turning around below 12K on Gib Ledges and at Cathedral Gap (10700) on the Ingraham Direct.

Being fortunate enough to have midweek days free, based on the forecasts my ski partners and I planned a Sunday-Monday trip. As expected, large stacks of multiple lenticular clouds formed above and to the east of Rainier during the day on Saturday, becoming truly awesome in their beauty and multitude by sunset, and still remaining so when the sun rose again on Sunday.

   
The Mountain and its retinue of lenticulars, from a field near Orting on Sunday morning.

We arrived at Paradise on Sunday mid-morning to find those lenticular clouds still stacked atop the mountain, along with numerous disappointed climbers and skiers in the parking lot, already returned from failed summit bids. As we got ready to go, we watched the lenticulars slowly shrinking and lifting, right before our eyes. Just as forecast! Soon we could see up to 12000 ft, and then 13000 ft. As we skinned to Muir on Sunday afternoon, we could see to 14000 ft and then the summit lenticular eventually vanished entirely, returning briefly as a lacy filigree and then eventually re-forming in a much-reduced size during Sunday evening.

   
A lacy lenticular swathes the summit at 3pm Sunday, seemingly pierced by a contrail far overhead.

It was still somewhat windy up at Muir as the sun set and we settled in for the night, but I assured my partners that (based on the forecasts) the winds would decrease overnight and reach a minimum by Monday morning. And that's exactly what happened. Monday morning dawned glorious and sunny at Muir, with dead-calm winds at times interspersed with an occasional gust. A single round lenticular cloud still hovered several miles off to the east of the Mountain, its underside glowing pink and pearlescent in the sunrise.

   
Looking east at sunrise and the underside of the single remaining lenticular at 6am Monday morning.
The colors are natural, not enhanced in any way and not shot in "sunset" mode.

In contrast to the 0% success rate on Saturday-Sunday, there was a 100% success rate for parties heading for the top on Monday. Including the party of two who had turned back at Cathedral Gap the day before, now summiting via Ingraham Direct and getting engaged on the summit. And also a solo skier who skied from the top via Gib Chute. Winds were reported to be still gusty at the summit, but not too bad. I decided to chill at Muir all day, as a lingering cold/cough and lack of motivation undermined any desire for a summit attempt despite the nearly-ideal weather.


author=trees4me link=topic=13091.msg54531#msg54531 date=1240326382">
On the weather:
Are you not from the PNW?    The weather man is rarely correct.

I've threatened for years to setup a random weather forecast website and compare that to forecasts made by the news, noaa, etc.  We could see if there was any improved correlation between a random prediction and the weather man...   some day i'll do it.


Numerical weather prediction models (on which all forecasts are based) have a great deal of difficulty in forecasting surface weather conditions, especially in complex terrain such as the PNW, since there are so many local variations due to mountains and water and whatnot that it is impossible for the model to completely account for all that. And even if the broad-brush forecast for the region is mostly accurate, there will be enough local variation that some people will find the forecast to be "wrong".

However, in contrast, the upper atmosphere is very simple: no terrain, no nothing, just winds circulating almost entirely unimpeded around the globe (except for a few high mountains and ranges, but that's a miniscule fraction of the total area of the globe). Because of this simplicity, upper air forecasts are in general much more reliable than any local surface forecasts. The NWS Rainier forecast for 10000 and 14000 ft are based on these upper air forecasts.

By the way, trees4me, there's no need to do your random test. All agencies which run numerical weather prediction models already do exactly that, because what's the point of conducting research and putting in the massive work of writing/running a weather model unless you can test its accuracy. Anyway, NOAA/NWS has data about its forecast skill available online someplace. If I remember correctly from when I last looked at that, their main GFS weather model in general has high forecast skill (relative to random) out to 3 days, still measurable skill out to 5-7 days in most cases, and almost no statistically significant skill from 8-14 days (it's not much better than climatology, i.e. forecasts based on past averages for the date). In general, the model is only run out to 14 days because of this, it's pointless and a waste of computer time to run it farther out.


[Edited to add the three photos and captions.">

Thanks again Amar for your expert knowledge.  Someone pay this man something ;)

author=daveb link=topic=13091.msg54555#msg54555 date=1240342926]
Thanks again Amar for your expert knowledge.  Someone pay this man something ;)


I suspect a great many of us will, as soon as the book emerges. Get that sucker on shelves, man!

(My own thoughts on the weather: The predictive power of the forecast models is impressive. It's rare that they're completely wrong; timing seems harder, but my own meta-analysis of the forecasts/discussion has permitted successful exploitation of hours-long weather windows. That said, I would've gotten snookered by the Rainier forecast this weekend for volcanic adventures if Will hadn't encouraged a trip to Stuart instead. The 35 mph Friday night summit forecast had me jonesing for an all night climb. All good things come to those who wait.)

We arrived at Muir at about 9pm Staurday night after an uneventful skin up from Paradise.  We thought things were looking good until about 9000' when the wind picked up quite a lot.  There were no more bunks so we tented behind what seemed at the time to be a sufficient wall of snow to keep the wind at bay.  The wind seemed to be consistently above 30-40 mph throughout the night, not the ideal conditions to be in a tent.  We got up, then delayed, then delayed some more, but by sunrise it was looking as bad as it was at 2am.  The plan was for a summit via the ID.  When we left Muir at 10AM for the car, all but one climbing group who had started the ascent were back in their sleeping bags!

Friends that set up camp just below Furher Finger Saturday night had similar bad luck.  Too bad Monday was a work day!

Could someone help explain the following inconsistency?

This link from the TAY forecast link section predicts a temperature of 7 F and a wind speed of 71 mph for Wednesday.

This link from the TAY forecast link section predicts a temperature of 15F and a wind speed of 18-18 mph for Wednesday.

This seems quite different to me, especially the wind speed. Am I reading something wrong? What explains the difference?

Well, I'll try. One forecast (the Mount Rainier Recreational Forecast, which predicts 71 mph winds) is a mountain-specific forecast prepared by a human being twice a day, using critically important inputs such as upper air data. The other (the point forecast, which claims 18 mph winds) is an automatically-generated forecast based on a grid of data points for which forecasters adjust parameters across broad regions. It is intended (and works best) for lowland locations such as cities and towns, especially across the 2/3 of the US which is almost entirely flat and contains 90+% of the population. It was originally an experimental product of the NWS, but moved into normal runtime status a few years back. It was certainly never intended as a mountain forecast tool, as it simply does not include enough orographic effects to make accurate forecasts of precip at mountain locations, nor does it (apparently, I don't know for sure) include any of the upper air info needed for predicting winds above, say, 8000 ft. I'm always surprised when people blindly use it for mountain purposes; just search for some posts on TAY where people excitedly post the output of the point forecast showing huge predicted snowfalls of 100+" or whatever over the next few days at Baker. Sorry, it just doesn't work well for that.

In my own opinion, the point forecasts are useless for the mountains, and I never bother looking at them. The NWS should really have a bold, impossible-to-miss disclaimer alerting users to the severe limitations (and outright expected errors) of the point forecasts for mountainous locations. Unfortunately, there is no such thing yet as an accurate point forecast for every location in the mountains, and such a product is unlikely to exist for many decades, if ever. It's just too difficult to make useful automated forecasts on scales as small as a few miles/km in the mountains.

On a larger distance scale, the NWAC mountain forecast (during the 5 months of the year that it is available) is vastly superior, prepared by a trio of very experienced mountain weather forecasters, and is rarely far wrong. The NWS zone forecasts (see e.g. http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/total_forecast/getprod.php?wfo=sew&sid=sew&pil=zfp for the Seattle office and scroll to bottom for the mountain zones) are also generally good as a large-scale mountain forecast, but make no attempt to offer predictions much above highway pass levels.

The best forecast for Rainier by far is the NWS rec forecast, and we're lucky that such a product even exists. By the way, here's a much better link to the Rainier forecast, which includes access to the last 10 archived versions:  http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/total_forecast/getprod.php?wfo=sew&sid=sew&pil=rec
And similarly for Shasta too: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/total_forecast/getprod.php?wfo=mfr&sid=mfr&pil=rec

For accurate mountain forecasts, especially of precip and snowfall amounts but also of high-elevation winds, the best forecasts for the Pacific NW are those generated by the UW WRF-GFS model, run by the Atmospheric Sciences Dept: http://www.atmos.washington.edu/mm5rt/  These forecasts are produced by a weather prediction model which is specifically tailored to the extreme terrain variations and orographic effects which dominate the weather in this region. They are not designed to be easy to use for the general public, but with a little bit of effort (maybe lots of effort) one can figure out how to find really useful forecast info for skiing and recreating in the mountains. If there is interest (and if I feel like it), I could try to post a primer on how to quickly find the most useful and relevant forecast output within the vast sea of model output linked from that page. It would take a while to write something like that, though.

author=Amar Andalkar link=topic=13091.msg54577#msg54577 date=1240359550]
If there is interest (and if I feel like it), I could try to post a primer on how to quickly find the most useful and relevant forecast output within the vast sea of model output linked from that page. It would take a while to write something like that, though.


Interest? Yes.

(And thank you for what you have provided so far.)

Thanks for the great explanation Amar. I would also like to cast my interest vote.

Here is the new experimental forcast link with pointable map. I believe Mike Gauthier had some involvement in its coming to life. Ive been using it since mid winter along with other products like the recreational forcast.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/forecast/wxtables/index.php?lat=46.78436955219954&lon=-121.7406177520752&table=custom&duration=7&interval=6
Thanks for the tips and links Amar. Is this what you call a automated point forcast or is this beyond that?

Thanks for the great info on the forecasts, Amar. Here is Mt R with a stack of lenticulars moving off to north, from University Bridge, Seattle, Sunday afternoon 4/19/09. 

author=Robie link=topic=13091.msg54580#msg54580 date=1240365333">
Here is the new experimental forcast link with pointable map. I believe Mike Gauthier had some involvement in its coming to life. Ive been using it since mid winter along with other products like the recreational forcast.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/forecast/wxtables/index.php?lat=46.78436955219954&lon=-121.7406177520752&table=custom&duration=7&interval=6
Thanks for the tips and links Amar. Is this what you call a automated point forcast or is this beyond that?


Actually Robie, that's the same as the automated point forecast, just with a table of info instead of written words and text. The content is identical, and you can easily switch between one and the other version. Here are the two URLs for the grid point closest to the summit of Rainier, the same one found on the TAY weather links page:

Written version: http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?smap=1&textField1=46.86&textField2=-121.78
Table version: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/forecast/wxtables/index.php?lat=46.86&lon=-121.78

However, both versions are automatically generated from the same input data, and unfortunately, both have about the same usefulness as mountain forecasts: I think they are highly suspect and not trustworthy. As you can clearly see, the winds they are predicting for the next few days (staying under 20 mph near the summit) are just plain dead wrong. The NWS Rainier Rec Forecast is going to be much closer to the mark with its prediction of 70+ mph.

I'm sure that Mike Gauthier definitely wasn't involved in any way with the NWS point forecast system, although he may have had some input in the creation or improvement of the Rec Forecast (I've never heard that before, though).



Great info here - thanks Amar, and thanks to the folks who reported from being up there so I could live vicariously through you. It was relatively calm at Crystal on Sunday. The lenticular clouds were amazing all day. It was great fun to watch them change from one lift ride to the next. By later in the afternoon there was one big one that had a nearly perfect flying saucer shape with remarkably defined edges, beautiful symmetry, and really cool backlighting from the sun toward the west. The cloud that was settled over the top of Rainier like a rumpled skullcap earlier in the day looked like a hell of a place to be.

author=Robie link=topic=13091.msg54580#msg54580 date=1240365333]
Here is the new experimental forcast link with pointable map. I believe Mike Gauthier had some involvement in its coming to life. ..


I believe this link was recommended/publicized earlier this winter on the Rainier climbing blog started by Gator.

Thanks for the excellent tutorial, Amar!  I'd subscribe if you ever decide to get into the forecasting business.   ;) 
I think Longmire has a weather station; is this data/telemetry available online?  This info would be very handy for me, since my records show that the Longmire gate did not open on at least 25 days between mid December & mid-April.

Double thanks Professor! I think I get it.

Thanks Amar for all the useful explanations.

I've delved into the prediction models before and have come across consistent comments and reports describing the accuracy that you summed up: 
0-3 days Good Predictor,
4-7 days Decent,
7+ days Worthless.

An aside, it's really fun to look at the long-term 3 to 6-month out watershed predictions and see that they have 0 correlation in terms of predicting an average, above average or below average year. 

Anyway, I'm frequently swear off the weather man since usually I'm planning trips in the 4-7 or 7+ day range....  We need to fund some more ocean data collection, which should extend the more accurate portion of the forecast.

Thanks.




thanks amar - great info!

Still wondering where you saw the forecast of 10mph winds . . . although now I suspect that it might have been the point forecast linked from TAY.

I really have developed a personal dislike of those point forecasts, based on seeing outrageous and dead-wrong predictions numerous times. And because they give such a false sense of precision and accuracy, yet have no disclaimer letting users know that in fact they offer no such thing. Perhaps it's some internal NWS/NOAA politics which prevents adding a disclaimer, since I'm sure that the research meteorologists who developed the point forecast system (which is probably a great thing for most of the country) are well aware of its limitations in complex and high-elevation terrain. Hopefully they'll continue to improve it over the years.


yea that was some nasty weather up there last weekend, good job getting to 12k!

we skiied a shot down to the carbon over the weekend, and i skiied gib chute from the summit yesterday - windy up high, but nothing like what you guys experienced

good stuff!!

I was going to toss my 2 cents worth into the pot just before Amar put up the homestead, so I guess I'm glad i didn't as I would have ended up in the soup line.  I was, however, going to say that I believe the NWS does a very good job, particularily given the very complex terrain of the PNW.  Forecasting is a probabilistic endeavor.  It's not surprising that people may feel the forecast was 'wrong' when the 30% chance of rain (a relative low chance - yet not unusual around here) leaves them soaking wet while 70% of the region stayed dry.

May I ask of someone knowledgeable on the subject, is NOAA the only data collector (for the US - and please don't tell me it's really the military), leaving modelers of many origins to tinker with it?  And also, does Canada rely at all on, or collaborate with, NOAA (I do believe that Canada collects it's own ocean data)?

Finally, as it has come up in varying shades of directness, in the thread here and elsewhere,  I am amazed by the number of people who have apparently skiied/ridden Rainier from the summit.  A short while ago I may have guessed that one or two may have.  Am I the only person blown away by this?  Does anyone know how many and who they are?  This seasons' posts have found at least a half dozen or so.  What a feat this is, in my view.  I do wonder, though, if such posts and discussion amps up folks to give it a go who perhaps shouldn't...

I think Rainier does a fine job of weeding out those folks that "shouldn't" ski from the summit without the aid of trip reports, weather conditions, etc.  Also, haven't heard of any fatalies on skis/boards from anywhere above 10k since '99 from what I can remember.  Those skiers/boarders who get shut down due to conditioning, etc. typically figure out that it's best to descend.

Conditioning, I can guarantee, you would not have been a factor in Matt's summit attempt.  Sounded like the right call to go down, shame you didn't have Monday as the day to summit though.

Maybe you didn't notice, but I put etcetera after conditioning to be all inclusive (i.e. weather included).

Amar - thanks for the weather info.  I'd also be very interested in a primer on how to use the UW atmospheric sciences forecast.  I've tried to use it a few times and had limited success.

author=vogtski link=topic=13091.msg54590#msg54590 date=1240402427]
I think Longmire has a weather station; is this data/telemetry available online?  This info would be very handy for me, since my records show that the Longmire gate did not open on at least 25 days between mid December & mid-April.


Gary, I'm not sure if there is an automated weather station at Longmire, if there is I'd like to find that data too. But the weather info collected by the rangers each day is available online.  Here is a link to the last 30 days of data for Longmire: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sew&sid=RLGW1&num=744&raw=0

Similar data for Paradise: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sew&sid=ASFW1&num=744&raw=0
Unfortunately, the Paradise data usually has lots of missing values, even on days when I know that the rangers have made measurements. Note that the manually measured snowdepth at the Paradise snow stake differs from the depth at the automated NWAC telemetry site, often by 10-20" or more.

Longer-term data for Longmire and Paradise are available from the National Climatic Data Center.  The past few months of preliminary data are available for free here: http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/dlyp/DLYP  Look for stations LONGMIRE RAINIER NPS and RAINIER PARADISE RS.

Older data (scanned PDFs of the original typed or handwritten weather observer forms) are available for free here: http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html

Older data in machine-readable form (more complete data and somewhat error-checked) are available from the NCDC website too, but not for free unless you are using a computer with an edu or gov or mil IP address.



Amar, thanks for the additional links!  I'm not much interested in the older data.  However, the first link's temperature & snowfall readings appear to be posted early enough each morning to help decide if starting from Longmire might be enjoyable on days when the phone message says Paradise will not open.  I owe you bigtime, so send a PM if a shuttle would expedite your future adventures, such as leaving your vehicle at the planned finish...also, apologies to CE for the thread drift.

I thought you might use the data as ammunition in fighting against the park's efforts to keep the road closed on days when in shouldn't be closed. In which case older data might be useful, too.

As for the daily data, as usual there is a fly in the ointment: even though the time says 7:30 or 8am, it is often not actually available online until a few hours later. Which might make it too late to be useful for day-of-trip decisions.

Thanks for the shuttle offer (and thanks again for turning around and driving me and H back up to Paradise that time in February, as sunset neared and uphill traffic was almost non-existent).

And I'm the one who's guilty of completely hijacking this thread . . . sorry CE.



I thought I should add my 2 cents worth.

Good job Amar of taking the time to explain some of the ins and outs of weather forecast information. I think it is a good guess that the forecast of light winds that started this discussion was from a point forecast product. I understand that the NWS point forecasts off their web page use data averaged over 2.5 x 2.5 km grid boxes. The NWS Mt Rainier Recreational Forecast of temps and winds should be much better for Rainier.

It so happens that a NWS forecaster here at the Seattle office is interested in comparing the Mt R Rec Forecast Muir winds with those from our NWAC Muir weather station. So we may undertake this project and see what comes of it.

To answer David G's question: I think NOAA in the main collector of weather observations on a large scale for the US. NOAA also produces the regional to global scale model data for the US. Local scale modeling is often done by universities for example the WRF and MM5. Other organizations may do local scale modeling.

Fortunately there is a lot of international collaboration when it comes to weather information including between the US and Canada. Canada has its own suite of weather models as well.

:)

Thanks for the input, Garth. I'd be interested in the results of that comparison between forecast winds and the Muir telemetry. But it's hard to compare forecasts and telemetry without the telemetry, though ;)  I'm glad to see that the Muir telemetry is back online today after a lengthy outage since April 8. It's gotta be tough to keep that station functioning in such a severe environment.


author=davidG link=topic=13091.msg54610#msg54610 date=1240431642">Finally, as it has come up in varying shades of directness, in the thread here and elsewhere,  I am amazed by the number of people who have apparently skied/ridden Rainier from the summit.  A short while ago I may have guessed that one or two may have.  Am I the only person blown away by this?  Does anyone know how many and who they are?  This seasons' posts have found at least a half dozen or so.  What a feat this is, in my view.  I do wonder, though, if such posts and discussion amps up folks to give it a go who perhaps shouldn't...


Regarding skiing from the summit of Rainier: it's something I've spent a lot of time pondering during the past decade. When I first skied from the top in July 1999 (via the Emmons-Winthrop), it was still a fairly uncommon feat, and felt like a major accomplishment at the time. That was one of the greatest days of my life, and the high lasted for weeks, as I stared towards the Mountain and the route I had skied throughout the rest of the summer. Other high Cascade volcanoes such as Shasta, Adams, Hood, Baker (the 2nd-5th highest volcanoes in the range) plus Lassen and South Sister (8th and 9th highest) were commonly skied from their summits even in the late 1990s, but there was something about Rainier which kept most backcountry skiers / ski mountaineers from attempting to ski from its summit: perhaps crevasse hazard, or altitude, or mystique? I don't know.

Based on observation and what scanty reports were available back then (with no TAY or Mt Rainier rangers blog), I guesstimated that much less than 1% of the roughly 6000 annual summiters in the late 1990s skied or snowboarded from the top, only a few dozen per year (not counting descents by climbing rangers or guides). If you skied off the top back then, you were usually the only party doing so on that day, and everyone else was climbing/descending on foot. Most who skied off the top did so via the Emmons-Winthrop in June-July, with much smaller numbers skiing the Fuhrer Finger or the Ingraham Direct earlier in the spring. Descents of other routes were rare. However, a number of climbing rangers, including Mike Gauthier and David Gottlieb, were already skiing/boarding semi-regularly from the summit and had completed ski/board descents of multiple routes each by then (like 8-10 routes, if I recall correctly).

Over the past decade, the number of Rainier summits (and attempts) has not increased at all, in fact drifting downwards from a high of over 7000 successful summits in 1999 to roughly 5000 per year during the past several years (see this PDF of official NPS stats). However, the number of those skiing or boarding from the "top" (meaning from one of the three 14000+ ft summits, Columbia Crest, Point Success, or Liberty Cap, or from the crater rim which has a minimum elevation of 14180 ft) has increased very substantially: I would estimate by nearly a factor of 10, from much less than 1% to perhaps as much as 5%, or about 200-300 summit skiers/boarders per year. Of course, this is just my own guesstimate, since the Park Service makes no attempt to collect stats on how many skied or boarded from the summit (I really wish they did). And those skiing/boarding from the top tend to take a wider variety of routes these days, with a half-dozen or more routes being skied each year (although the Emmons-Winthrop remains the most common, followed by ID and Finger). Skiing from the top of Rainier has now become fairly routine.

In addition, many more people are now skiing from above the high camps (above 10000 ft), mainly from Camp Hazard at the top of Turtle (11600 ft), the top of Fuhrer Finger (11500 ft), or the top of the Emmons corridor (12000+ ft). These descents are done either without summiting at all, or while summiting but without taking their skis/snowboard higher up.

So the natural question is, why are so many more people skiing off the summit of Rainier now than a decade ago?? The percentage of skiers versus climbers on other high Cascade volcanoes (Shasta, Adams, Hood, Baker, Lassen, South Sister) has increased too over this decade since 2000, but not by much and not nearly as visibly and substantially as on Rainier. Most of the increase in skier percentage on those other volcanoes happened during the 1990s, but on Rainier it happened a decade later.

One element which I think is not a major factor in the Rainier increase: backcountry ski/binding/boot technology. At least in regards to what is relevant to skiing Rainier from the summit, it has not improved substantially over the past decade, compared to the huge leaps made during the 1990s. Most notably the introduction and widespread adoption of Fritschi and Dynafit AT bindings, along with stiff but lightweight boots and thermoformable liners. The AT setups that I use today to ski off the summit of Rainier (Volkl Norbert Joos or K2 Baker Superlight skis, Dynafit Comfort or Vertical FT bindings, Garmont Megaride boots) are only incrementally better and lighter than the gear I used in 1999 (Tua Excalibur skis, Fritschi Diamir bindings, Scarpa Denali boots). But a decade earlier in 1989, my choices would have been far worse in terms of both performance and weight.

I'm sure that numerous positive trip reports on sites like TAY during the 2000s have encouraged many skiers to give Rainier a go, who might otherwise not take the risk. But I think that other more cautionary reports (such as my Fuhrer Thumb trip of May 2008 or  another skier's crevasse fall the same day we started that trip, or the sketchy descent of Gib Chute three weeks ago) would in contrast give pause to those on the fence. Rainier still tends to weed out many of those who don't belong on skis/snowboard on the upper mountain, before they get themselves in trouble up there. But a few people will always overestimate their own abilities to ski/snowboard the rough icy gnar which is all too common on the upper mountain, and those same people may tend to go up there in inappropriate conditions which exacerbate that iciness issue (when the freezing level is not high enough to soften things), resulting in some scary falls and slides-for-life on skis/boards over the past few years. Thankfully and luckily, I think there have been no serious injuries and no fatalities while skiing on the upper mountain since 1999.

But inevitably, there will be. Ski mountaineering is dangerous, and far more so on the upper mountain of Rainier than almost anywhere else in the lower 48. No one should undertake a ski descent from the summit lightly, without considering the possibility that it could easily be their last ascent or descent. I hope that my positive reports don't convey a false sense of safety or lack of hazard to anyone considering such a trip. After nine summit ski descents, I'm much more experienced, cautious, and calculating than I was a decade ago, and have much greater respect (perhaps even fear) of the Mountain and what can go wrong up there. And much more likely to turn around or not even leave camp when things are not just right. Even so, the Mountain could easily claim me on my next attempt, although I hope it never will.

[i">Sorry for getting so verbose (again) and spraying out my thoughts. But it's an interesting topic, one near to my heart and I could talk about it all day. Better stop now.[/i">


[size=small">[i">(Edited to add a couple of short phrases this morning.)[/i">[/size">

I know that one of the guys I was talking to at the Centennial celebration that Lowell put together last month explained to me that he had skied many of the lines on Rainier, from the summit, that are common ski descents now (ID, E-W, the finger) like 20 years ago. 

I think the primary reason is that more people are hearing about this stuff via internet or other "fast news" media sources and say, "Hey, that sounds like fun.  I can do that."  I think people were pioneering descents from the summit on skis, just not in as great of number.  Where few will lead, many will follow.  There was just no internet to spread the word as fast as what is possible today.  We watched a video of some ski mountaineers who were using canvas skins to ascend Rainier...and that must have been in the 1960's.  Lowell would have some good information.


Reply to this TR

6280
april-19-mt-rainier
CoachingEndurance.com
2009-04-20 21:16:17