Home > Trip Reports > 12,16, 2010- White Pass, Washington

12,16, 2010- White Pass, Washington

12/15/10
WA Cascades West Slopes South (Mt Rainier)
39933
74
Posted by Snowolf on 12/18/10 5:46am
Deleted
Great trip report!  That tele skier will probably never know how close he came... One of these days after I finish purchasing all of my AT gear ($$!!) and have stuff suitable for wintering bc skiing in pow (as opposed to hauling my alpine gear up mtns to ski stable corn in the summer!) I'd love to go out with you a few times to help me get more avy savvy.

Good to see some some WP TR's Excellent writing and pictures.

Unfortunately patrol has had a terrible time keeping people in bounds. 14 people so far have been lost and 6 of them ended up walking 15 miles down to clear lake (seriously? how does that happen???)

All of the new terrain is pretty mellow but the short traverse out west will get you face shots til 3 in the afternoon which is nice when you clock up almost 15000' in 3 and a half hours.  ;D

Dear Snowolf:

let's say you really are an "avy savvy" splitboarder with a plan to 'drop in' in the backcountry at White Pass....

because of your training and expertise - on display and drenched in jargon for all the world to read in your Turns All Year TR posted 12/16/10 - you know that you should always check the NWAC avalanche report for the latest conditions before heading out...you also know it's important to carry a map and compass; or at least a compass to tell you which way is north and southeast; and maybe an altimeter to tell you if you are above 5000'...

no map, compass and altimeter? well, an experienced backcountry traveler should be able to figure which way is north, especially on a day when the sun is shining ("It was the first time I have seen the sun in a month!"); and White Pass isn't shy about posting the elevation of the Couloir Express 'up top'

On the NWAC website, at a minimum,  you surely saw the danger rose for the next day:

http://www.nwac.us/archive/sabsea_2010-12-15-1021.html

whoa, jim: some pretty serious warnings about slopes north to southeast above 5000'!

so you ride the white pass lift on Friday, then head out Hogback Ridge ridge to ride into the bowls (alone) that face north to southeast and - surprise! there's an avalanche...

oh, of course: you dug a little hole in the snow to "analyze" the layers and that's how you knew it was going to happen...sheer genius.

A word of non-technical advice, Snowolf: don't let your life insurance policy payments lapse.

Your cousin,

Wild Dog

Passenger,

Please review the Terms of Use again.  You can disagree with his choices without being rude and, as a bonus, he'd probably be far more likely to listen to you if you have some good points.

The boundary policy may seem relaxed for now, but I suspect it will become more controlled as the season goes on.  White Pass is a big ski area now with backcountry hazards similar to place like Baker. I think they could learn a lot from the boundary policy baker has implemented.

As of now I'm not sure White has even put a rope line along the entire boundary in the Paradise basin area.  From the White Pass website. "14 individuals have been lost out-of-bounds in the past 11 days. 7 required rescue."

Here is the link to their boundary policy:  http://campaigns.ratepoint.com/campaigns/8f699271bbe0944e0d576d1c0d63bec4

In my opinion the majority of the White Pass ski crowd is not familiar with backcountry travel.  I hope those people become educated before ducking the rope and heading out into avalanche terrain.  It would be a shame to loose access to those nice spots due to a few people not thinking.





I have fought hard to not reply to this all day.  I am a WP regular and have been for years.  I am also a frequent BC skier and last year for example I was probably skiing the Hogback area more than inbounds every weekend (P.S. before I get the TGR style "oh, yeah, slack country is not really experience in the BC -- STOP)  I have plenty of true BC experience multi day big trip etc (so be cool) .  I had a very serious conversation with ski patrol last year about the "less informed" individuals I was running into at a frightening pace last year in that area.  My prediction has been realized much quicker than even I had expected.  I hope they get things figured out.  I am guessing that some other mountains have it going the right way.  You know, a beacon, shovel, probe.  Check in with the ski patrol prior to leaving the area.  Loose your pass or ticket if you have violated any of the forementioned and are seen out of bounds.  Not sure.

author=Passenger link=topic=18494.msg78509#msg78509 date=1292889473]
Dear Snowolf:

let's say you really are an "avy savvy" splitboarder with a plan to 'drop in' in the backcountry at White Pass....

because of your training and expertise -  you know that you should always check the NWAC avalanche report for the latest conditions before heading out...you also know it's important to carry a map and compass;

so you ride the white pass lift on Friday, then head out Hogback Ridge ridge to ride into the bowls (alone) that face north to southeast and - surprise! there's an avalanche... oh, of course: you dug a little hole in the snow to "analyze" the layers and that's how you knew it was going to happen...sheer genius.




Interesting.  Your post sounds as if you think he didn't know what he was doing and truly was surprised when he made a cut and cracked a slab loose?  Were you there?  What makes you think this?

You must know something about his trip that is not in his report because you appear to be making a lot of assumptions here.   You don't think he was properly prepared?  What in the trip report suggests that?  You think he made some bad decisions?  What were they?  Skiing up a ridge, making some tests, deciding the slopes he tested were not safe and skiing back down the ridge again?  Spending the rest of the day successfully skiing great pow on a different exposure that he decided was safe?

I'm just here to learn, but in all my naivety it appears he made good decisions.  Sure, maybe he didn't need to hike the ridge and do the tests if he had read the avy report, but who says he didn't and didn't go up anyway just to examine things and learn.  That's what I would do if I had the time and was in learning mode.  When I did Avy 1 the instructors were delighted that avy danger was extreme because it was a good opportunity to analyze and observe unstable snow.

I think most savvy folk do read the NWAC posts, but what if he didn't that day?  Frankly I would rather have the skills to analyze snow and make tests, and practice them frequently, than become dependant on NWAC reports and making decisions based on that.  What if the report says avy danger is low and there are isolated areas where it's high or extreme?  How are you going to know if you don't become an expert at analyzing snow yourself?

As for how he travelled in avalanche terrain?  Again, it sounds like he went by the book.

I want to learn so I honestly would like to know what he should have done different.
Yes it would be safer to have a partner.  Safer yet to stay home.


Thanks for the report, Snowolf.  We all had a chat here last year over the likely consequences of the lift expansion as it relates to side country access, and it appears the concerns are starting to come home to roost.  Also, I posted in the lift assisted section last week about WP conditions only to mention about the 'bermuda triangle' zone in the expansion area, which has been responsible for some of the missing (but safely found) skiers.   It is now only a matter of time before what will probably be a young male resort rider losing his life, most likely in the Hogback snowshed.  There is rope and prominent signage at the upper area boundary near the lift exit, but access is not presently otherwise controlled or planned, according to patrollers i spoke with.  This may well change with a fatality, legal challenge, or resulting terms of use/lease from FS, perhaps.  Also, it may be relatively easy to access dangerous terrain from the Basin Quad (first access lift to expansion area).
So, there are at least two new dangerous attractions at WP.  We should all find an effective way to express to those we find chancing the rope, what lays beyond.  Some years ago, Letty and I went for a meadow-skip at Paradise.  We were hailed by someone exiting (whom we later found out to be Lowell Skoog).  Perhaps we looked clueless, but nevertheless he made it a point to advise about instability in the area.  Always have appreciated that.

Snowolf it was a shame to see the flame and lame response to your well produced report with some nice fotos.  Welcome to the board and just let me say that here people are courteous and polite as well as experienced and savy in the world of skiing in the wild.

About the WP expansion I am hoping that because the Crest Trail passes through the boundary that access to it will always stay open despite the number of sad and unfortunate incidents.    Also if there have been this many so far in the beginning of the season with all of the limited visibility days brace yourself for the times when people can really see what is beyond the rope and heed the call of the fresh pow.

Appreciate the update Snowolf, thanks for the extra info.  Thanks for your reasoned response to Passenger, as well.

I would like to apologize to Snowolf and anyone else that was offended by the tone of my earlier post.  My only excuse is that his TR happened to coincide with my thinking about several recent avalanche incidents and seemed to encapsulate many of the things that I feel are wrong with how people consider the backcountry.  What I am about to say is not a personal attack on Snowolf, just one skier’s thoughts on staying alive.  You are free to disagree.

The popular safety mantra seems to be: carry a beacon, shovel and probe.  Snowolf had several additional safety items.  Not to be glib but when you are under two feet of snow do you deploy the PLB first or immediately begin self excavation. I agree that there are many opportunities for a safe solo tour but digging a meaningful pit or skiing on an avalanche slope may not be one of them.  Read Bruce Tremper’s description on where and how to dig.  Snowwolf now says there was never any intent to do any backcountry however in his original TR he specifically states”I hiked the ridge line above the first bowl to the second peak. I was going to drop it and hike back out” He has every right to make that decision for himself and I don’t fault him for that but when the White Pass Facebook page links to his report with the line “Excellent trip report from a backcountry skier who KNOWS how to deal with avalanche-prone terrain” I wonder how many people will follow his lead without appreciating the potential consequences.  Anyone who is confident about predicting exactly where a slope will break and makes ski cuts solo may want to read a TR on Telemarktips from an experienced PNW skier who had this to say about his outing last Sunday, “I knew I was going to pull something out on that pitch and I told my friend who was below to back up a bit farther onto the safe shelf he was waiting on. I was prepared for sluff at least. But I was surprised at how far out in front of me it propagated. In the end I was only carried about forty feet once I lost my balance in the moving snow. Got submerged and tumbled once before paddling to the surface where I stayed when the snow stopped moving. I threw a hand up, waved and got myself out.”

My opinion is that the vast majority of people in the BC rely too heavily on a pit without the amount of field experience needed to accurately assess conditions let alone consider the wide spatial variability on any given slope. Our sport will always be somewhat of crapshoot. Concentrate on the things you have control over.  Be aware of past weather and snow conditions, manage your terrain so that if it hits the fan you have minimized the consequences, practice your rescue skills and always have your eyes on your buddies. Again, make your own individual choices but don’t tell me promoting solo travel in avalanche terrain is responsible.  The mountains don’t care why you do what you do or how experienced you are. I would guess that the head Patroller at Wolf Creek might agree with me if only he had had a partner to dig him out of the inbounds avalanche that took his life earlier this season.

author=pcg link=topic=18494.msg78525#msg78525 date=1292896768]
I think most savvy folk do read the NWAC posts, but what if he didn't that day?  Frankly I would rather have the skills to analyze snow and make tests, and practice them frequently, than become dependant on NWAC reports and making decisions based on that.  What if the report says avy danger is low and there are isolated areas where it's high or extreme?  How are you going to know if you don't become an expert at analyzing snow yourself?


Nail on the head.  It was made very clear to me in my training and reading that my own senses (visual and audtory), training, and site observations are the tools that will keep me safe in the snow.  NWAC is good info to have but it's too generalized.  I don't think it's necessary to have to be safe.  Nice work, Snowolf.

JJS

Great report Snowolf! I've been watching their expansion plans and finally realized expansion for some time. This is the first opportunity I've had to actually see some of the terrain (other than gazing longingly from the top of Great White  :)). Your report confirms what I had expected, maybe just a tad disappointed about the lack of steeps inbounds, but moderate glades are pretty fun too. White Pass gets great snow and the ski side lodging is great - hoping to get up there as soon as i can.

Passenger is obviously a lamer with too much time on his hands and probably no real BC experience.

author=Snowolf link=topic=18494.msg78561#msg78561 date=1292938911]
Obviously having a partner or partners is the best, safest way to go, it is not always possible. A solo skier or rider with common senses can be infinitely safer than a pack of idiots.


Amen, Snowolf.  Another great tidbit.  Words to live by (literally).  Group influence on decision making leading to even the slightest seemingly inconsequential decision can lead to disaster.

JJS

Passenger, thanks for coming back and presenting your observations without the personal attacks.  If we can all stick to that, and give each other the benefit of the doubt in these conversations, that would be great.  Guessing at others' experience and motivations isn't going to help.

We've all got different degrees of risk tolerance and there's a lot to learn from discussing individual approaches.  

Thanks for the recon Snowolf, and thanks for the moderation, Marcus.

Great TR! Informative and stokeful! I will try to make it out to white pass a few times this year, looks awesome!

Very informative and thought provoking discussion.
Here's what I got out of it.
1) Pits---- problem I have with pits is that to dig one that truly represents the slope I'm testing , I usually have to put myself in a dangerous situation to be truly representative. Many times I've dug a pit in a safe positon and found the slope 50' lower to be completely different due to wind effects or lack of wind effect.
2) NWAC report.... I used to read them religously before I went out... I've recently stopped doing so because most of the time I find the variances in terrain and micro-climate so variable that  the report doesn't jive and I don't want to be influenced by it. I'm not saying report is bad or wrong or useless ( far from it) but as long as you are following the weather, snowfall amount, wind directions etc., I prefer to make my own judgement ( which may be wrong) but my point is I don't want to be influenced by it .
3) Solo travel... I won't do it unless its' extrmely benign terrain and I used to pass judgement on those that did and tell 'em so. I guess I've decided that it's their right to go solo and their right to accept the consequence.
4) WP= looks rad now....... me going soon.Yessir!!!!!!!!!

In the spirit of furthering a discussion on avalanche safety and decision making I would like to ask a question of Filbo.  I will freely admit to my lameness as would most who know me.  Outside of the new White Pass expansion area there is a slot next to Gun Sight that opens onto an approximately 500 foot slope. Over the last 25 years I can not count the number of times I have ski cut that and watched it break to the right and strain through the trees or release  and go all the way to the bottom.  Either way the outcome might not be so good.  The interesting thing is that it often breaks down the slope from the start so there is a very real possibility of a lot of snow coming down on top of you.  Last Sunday my partner and I stood with you at the top of this slope and watched as you and your partner jumped in without so much as even poking the snow with your pole.  Now I admit that we all have different levels of risk tolerance but I am very interested in your thought process as someone “well  experienced and savy in the world of skiing in the wild.” 


Excuse me. We skied Wednesday and Sunday.  It was Wednesday morning.


Thanks for the TR. Nice to see the conversation turned towards the productive.


author=Scotsman link=topic=18494.msg78594#msg78594 date=1292963242]
Very informative and thought provoking discussion.
Here's what I got out of it.
1) Pits---- problem I have with pits is that to dig one that truly represents the slope I'm testing , I usually have to put myself in a dangerous situation to be truly representative. Many times I've dug a pit in a safe positon and found the slope 50' lower to be completely different due to wind effects or lack of wind effect.


Interesting relevant discussion recently in the TGR forums. Posting a link to it because it is interesting and relevant, but not because I am personally advocating (or contesting) the above item.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208653

That's a great post doc_i, thanks for linking to it.


author=Scotsman link=topic=18494.msg78594#msg78594 date=1292963242]
Very informative and thought provoking discussion.
Here's what I got out of it.
1) Pits---- problem I have with pits is that to dig one that truly represents the slope I'm testing , I usually have to put myself in a dangerous situation to be truly representative. Many times I've dug a pit in a safe positon and found the slope 50' lower to be completely different due to wind effects or lack of wind effect.
2) NWAC report.... I used to read them religously before I went out... I've recently stopped doing so because most of the time I find the variances in terrain and micro-climate so variable that  the report doesn't jive and I don't want to be influenced by it. I'm not saying report is bad or wrong or useless ( far from it) but as long as you are following the weather, snowfall amount, wind directions etc., I prefer to make my own judgement ( which may be wrong) but my point is I don't want to be influenced by it .
3) Solo travel... I won't do it unless its' extrmely benign terrain and I used to pass judgement on those that did and tell 'em so. I guess I've decided that it's their right to go solo and their right to accept the consequence.
4) WP= looks rad now....... me going soon.Yessir!!!!!!!!!


That's plain wrong.  There's no excuse not to check nwac and dig a pit.  It's just lazy.  Because regardless of micro climatic zones there's still SOME valuable info to be gleamed from any pit (unless you bisect a cornice or something stupid like that).  And that info might save your life.  what's the alternative, a lame ass ski cut?  Talk about worthless. 

This week a snowpit just about anywhere is going to tell you how well new snow is bonding to that old rain crust... and how much or whether that rain event got rid of some facet layers that were widely found throughout the Cascade range.  Call it MACRO data, but it's still vital.  Best of all, it slows down your impulsive desire to drop the slot before checking it out first. 

I'll have to *cough* side with Scotsman on this one.  Avy forecasts can be valuable, but they're far from absolutely necessary and they can introduce bias.  And I could argue with you until I'm blue in the face about whether it's necessary to dig a pit to see how new snow is bonding with a crust.  Do you ever pay attention to how the snow reacts when you make a kick turn on a roll in a place of relative safety?

A more general question to a broader skiing public: what's with all the dogma?  I resent all these perceived necessities.  Partner, beacon, shovel, probe, avalung, airbag... there is always a way to enjoy backcountry skiing in relative safety, regardless of the hazard rating or how many of these safety THINGS a skier has.  The most important safety tool is the brain and that's not being used when one is citing by rote what is and isn't acceptable without a whole lot of qualification. 

author=skykilo link=topic=18494.msg78786#msg78786 date=1293143357]The most important safety tool is the brain and that's not being used when one is citing by rote what is and isn't acceptable without a whole lot of qualification.


Amen.  Well said Sky.

I can't wait for the day when having dynamite will be one of the standard essentials to be considered a qualified backcountry skier.

author=Stefan link=topic=18494.msg78789#msg78789 date=1293144440">
I can't wait for the day when having dynamite will be one of the standard essentials to be considered a qualified backcountry skier.


BACKCOUNTRY BOMB :)


what i'm taking from this thread: continually reevaluate information internally, externally, and interpersonally (when applicable) using whichever methods and metrics one finds most useful. Continually reevaluate the efficacy of chosen methods, metrics, and tools. staying alive in the mountains is an art and a science. get explosive handling permit...


author=skykilo link=topic=18494.msg78786#msg78786 date=1293143357]
...  The most important safety tool is the brain and that's not being used when one is citing by rote what is and isn't acceptable without a whole lot of qualification. 


Amen, for sure.  So, the next time I see someone digging a pit i'll just remind them what a waste of snow it is..

and a nod to doc_i for the tgr link

author=Splitboard Graham link=topic=18494.msg78793#msg78793 date=1293146989]get explosive handling permit...


May I suggest.....Bolivia, where you can buy TNT sticks in hardware stores along with detonators, fuses and little bags of fertilizer to intensify the effect.  Often enough, there's grain alcohol and a certain green leaf available too, just in case of failures of nerve.  It's kind've similar to Kentucky back in the seventies, except that the leafy substance was different.

This aside, I find myself digging far less full pits these days, but constantly stomping on switchbacks, scooping hand pits, and studying the attempts of other skiers to bury themselves and their partners.  But I still read the NWAC forecasts, since they include perspectives which I find valuable--including historical and current information about areas where I'm not skiing today, but might be skiing next week. 

Mark

Musings from one with too much time on his hands.

The discussion on the relative safety between groups and individual skiers is flawed in that it compares the best practices of the individual to the worst practices of a group.  It is true that a cautious individual can be safe but once he ventures much beyond meadow skipping the situation changes.  If you are on a slope with powder snow you are by definition in avalanche terrain.  Without a partner you have no backup and your decisions had better be 100 percent right 100 percent of the time.

The season before last my partner and I were involved in a full burial avalanche.  If  results are the final arbitrator then we made a bad decision that day however in our defense I would say that I don’t know a single skier who would not have skied that slope.  The slope we were on was in fact bomber, it was an adjacent slope that went sympathetically and covered my partner at the end of his run.  I would like to now give a shameless plug to BCA and the Tracker beacon.  Our almost religious adherence to the points I made in the  previous post plus a lot of luck saved his life. Things can suddenly go terribly wrong and when they do it’s not a game and it’s not matching wits on the internet. You are either prepared or you are not. Hopefully this discussion can be a catalyst to get people thinking.  Defend your positions but not at the expense of closing your mind to new ideas.

The skiing today was incredible.  I can’t remember when quality powder has held up this long after a storm in the PNW.

author=Marcus link=topic=18494.msg78787#msg78787 date=1293143991]
Amen.  Well said Sky.


Well said.... but perhaps total B.S.  I would think it a fairly simple and universal truth that more information is better than less.  So dig a pit and take 5 minutes on the NWAC site.  It's not hard, and the cost is low: that someone drops in your line before you.  But that's also good avi control in my view, albeit potentially tragic.

I think digging a pit also has a valuable psychological benefit related to what I wrote above.  IT SLOWS YOU DOWN.  gives you time to think.  I know I'm reading between the lines but I detect a psychological problem I'll name as being 'too hasty'.  I respect Scotsman but the argument against digging a pit smacks only of impatience. 

I don't know how many times digging a pit has cut down significantly on my own hubris and given a wake up call. 

The cost-benefit analysis is solid.  It's still unquestionably wise to carefully study the weather data on-line and dig a pit and do your snowtests in the area in which you are skiing.  The notion that it is often dangerous to try and choose a representative area for a pit is true...but again...reading between the lines I think we are again talking about laziness here.  A bc rider should do the best they can to find a safe place to study the snow and they WILL likely learn something valuable.  And that's never bad.

So yes there are universal truths we should perhaps adopt...because hubris often produces 'nuances' and 'qualifications' that sound good but are pure crap.  I'm a BA in Philosophy and I should know as a personal expert in the art of B.S. 

Safety in the BC is as much a psychological game as it is an intellectual analysis.  Our brains can and will do a lot problematic analysis with the raw data as influenced by our own agendas, desires, and excitement.  This thread has become more about the psychological element and I'm arguing that slowing down to dig a pit and read the weather data may do nothing if not slow down your heart rate enough to make more sensible decisions.  While the Scotsman stops to dig that pit near that desirable slope he may not find much if any valuable information but he might also have time to remember other details he noticed on the hike up that may indicate a 'no-go' on this ski run. 

I agree with Sky too.
When I am totally unfamiliar with an areas snowpack history a pit is a good idea to get some background data.
But if I am on the mountain 3-4 days a week digging a pit for my mental state is just a waste of energy. I am not against learning by any means, but there is a lot learned by having a lot of experiences. Dig all the pits you want if that makes you comfortable. But I would think that the real savvy tend to dig a lot of Hasty or micro pits to identify the hazards.

Just the other day I was in familiar 35 plus degree terrain that had variable depths of wind deposits. I dug a 2'x2' hasty pit and isolated a block of snow to the crust. Anything below the crust is irrelevant, unless there has been some deep faceting. I did my tap testing and found the snow well bonded to the ice layer, bomber. But 3cm above the terrific bond there was a shear factor that made me uncomfortable, so I decided to not cross the exposed slope and ski below the slope. It may not have reacted, but why put myself in that situation? One may question why I even traveled below the slope and thought that I may kick the toe out from the bottom. But in my experience that tendency with that bond is pretty darn low unless the slope gets significantly weighted. I have not read an NWAC avy report in weeks, but I can make assessments on my own based on experience. The NWAC reports are helpful insight that help build a base of experience and a great tool, but when one gets enough experience it is not a tool I need to go to all the time to build my database of experience.

Stomping above kick turns and steep rollovers while ascending can give good info, as noted above, but if the layer of concern is deep enough, a hasty pit will be a lot more informative. I wouldn't want to rely on ski cuts alone, but they strike me as being a good "last sanity check" when other assessments say "go," at least in some cases (where I think I have a good idea of where a slide may be more likely to start such as a convexity and I also think I can ski quickly to a safe zone w/o being sucked down if I start something). Stomping and cuts (and pole probes) can quickly gather limited info across a wide area, whereas pits (even hasty) give more info but unless you're digging all day, much fewer sample points. NWAC helps me keep up on changes which is nice as I'm not out on most weekdays but of course it's just the thin start of info gathering. I'm sure I could stand to be more hard core in doing assessments and categorizing sheers with standard up-to-date terms and all that, but I agree that it's more crucial to keep thinking and watch for biases and mental shortcuts. Whatever your tools, erring on the side of your reasonable doubts seems like a generally good plan.

Anyone, however, who is enjoying good backcountry powder turns and also thinks they can squeeze out ALL (or even almost all) risk of being a slide victim is fooling themself. Anyone who can judge another's actions in a complex situation from a brief web posting (w/o having been there themselves) is either a lot more insightful than me or is fooling themself.

If you ski with groups that lead you to make decisions you judge unwise in retrospect, find new partners or learn to change the group dynamic. I will tour alone, but much prefer skiing in small groups, both for fun and for safety. I suspect the decision-making benefits are kind of a wash (some pros in terms of insights I would not have had alone, some cons in terms of peer pressure and the Abilene Paradox), but I'm certain that in case of injury, burial (whether in a slide or a tree well), or possibly even gear failure, I'll be better off with others around (and yes, at Muir on a sunny May Saturday, that doesn't require me to have my own partners with me).

Thanks for the reminder to check out WP, snowolf.

I vote for Jim Oker as having the best post on this thread.

author=Passenger link=topic=18494.msg78825#msg78825 date=1293169088]
I don’t know a single skier who would not have skied that slope.  The slope we were on was in fact bomber, it was an adjacent slope that went sympathetically and covered my partner at the end of his run. 


Another good reminder - Tremper stresses the importance of being aware not only of the safety of the slope you are on, but of where you will end up, and that you should carefully assess the terrain so that you avoid going into the potential runout path of another slope whose stability you have not determined to be safe.

Great thread.  Thanks for everyone's contributions.

This is one of the best discussions I've ever read here. Thanks for all the great info.

***

1. Ski cuts are a perfectly valid method of testing snowpack instability.

2. Skiing is also a perfectly valid method of testing snowpack instability.

3. It is better to rely on local observations without using the bulletin than it is to rely on the bulletin without local observations. Obviously, this only applies to observers with the right mix of skill and experience.

4. The bulletin provides valuable perspective and clean information, but all the remarks about the general applicability of the bulletin are also absolutely right.

5. All information can have a positive or negative impact on our beliefs about instability and its parameters.

author=CookieMonster link=topic=18494.msg78856#msg78856 date=1293237708]
This is one of the best discussions I've ever read here. Thanks for all the great info.

***

3. It is better to rely on local observations without using the bulletin than it is to rely on the bulletin without local observations. Obviously, this only applies to observers with the right mix of skill and experience.



I do like the summary of one through five.  one and two are perhaps hilarious in the tragic consequences they might incur.  But I still don't get this insisting from several posters about the usefulness of NOT looking at some data i.e. nwac reports or pit tests. 

take the ski cut for example.  It *might* tell you that a slope is unsafe but by itself will never tell you if the slope IS safe.  so it's usefulness is at best extremely limited to confirming data one already knows from other forms of research that everybody should be doing: shovel test, some sort of pit, reading the nwac weather data and relevant telemetry, etc.  By itself it's pretty worthless.  And yet I suspect some of the posters above are using it to the exclusion of these other well accepted methods...what? combine your ski-cut test with local knowledge and call it good? 

the reason I call this out as stupid (like the above top five) and am so passionate about doing so, is that should people start excluding any data sets from their evaluation process people are going to end up not just horribly wrong but dead.  (sorry Marcus the these 'spats' are valuable to keep going) all we need is a big storm and an avalanche cycle and someone that doesn't consider all of the easily accessible information (i.e. nwac telemetry that shows a brief but huge spike in temperatures high up at midnight) and someone ski cuts themselves right into the middle of a slab.

1. Ski cuts are a perfectly valid method of testing snowpack instability.  (not perfect, and not sufficient, and hardly useful...but valid, yes.)

2. Skiing is also a perfectly valid method of testing snowpack instability.  (um yeah..your death would be a good confirmation of instability wouldn't it?)

3. It is better to rely on local observations without using the bulletin than it is to rely on the bulletin without local observations. Obviously, this only applies to observers with the right mix of skill and experience.  (there is no good reason to exlude any information that is easily accessible...therefore this statement might be valid and yet unwise).

4. The bulletin provides valuable perspective and clean information, but all the remarks about the general applicability of the bulletin are also absolutely right.  (yes)

5. All information can have a positive or negative impact on our beliefs about instability and its parameters.  (not really.  it's brains, skill, experience and interpretation that matter...it's not the data's fault...it can neither save us or hurt us...it's our interpretation that matters...and in the case of this thread, our hubris)


(sorry Marcus the these 'spats' are valuable to keep going)


Not at all -- this is great stuff.  I think you may have misinterpreted my "amen" for Sky as a condemnation of all the stuff you're talking about, which isn't the case at all.  I was more emphasizing my agreement with the fact that the brain is the most important thing to bring to the party.

The only thing that matters to me, re: the "spats", is that they don't swing down into the mud.  By all means, debate away, and Merry Christmas, Happy etc, Tra la la.  :)

BTW Happy Holidays to all!
Not all science is exact and perfect. I get what you are saying about utilizing as much info as possible. I can't tell you the amount of geophysical projects I worked that were cut and dry science according to the engineers and ended up being a cluster of additional costs due to broken science.

Last year we dug a pit on the upper reach of a bowl and determined the snow condition to be a green light. We had over 100 years of cumulative backcountry experience in the group.
I Skied right below the pit area and the whole bowl broke loose with a 2ft crown 100 feet wide. There were even two sets of ski tracks already in the bowl from some other party before us.
Had I done a ski cut it would have given me better results than the pit gave me.
At least I would not have been caught in the middle of a near catastrophe where I had no choice, but had to out run while 10 truckloads of cement 15ft high chased me down the slope.

I really am a big advocate of the NWAC avy reports. I just don't use them as a go to tool. The NWAC avalanche reports come out pretty late in the day too. By the time the report is out we are already on the hill doing our thing. So I guess it is good retrospect info after the fact to compare our field study to gain further knowledge.

My knowledge of BC conditions has changed so much from my 20's to 30's. And now late in my 40's I wonder what I was thinking in my 30's and how I survived the teen and twenty years. The reality is that I have a lot of exposure and for today I am still alive. FWIW I am more concerned with my exposure than if I am making logical estimates of the conditions.
The much greater danger is just driving to the hill than any snow condition I encounter.


author=Joedabaker link=topic=18494.msg78887#msg78887 date=1293324248]
FWIW I am more concerned with my exposure than if I am making logical estimates of the conditions.

I agree. I've also seen that in the cases where I've been with a guide, they've put a lot of focus on planning around managing consequences of a possible slide, unless we were in low or on the cusp of low/moderate hazard conditions. In other words, avoid skiin above terrain traps or below potential hangfire, pick the long slope that is puncuated by a few benches instead of the one next door that is continuous slope all the way, etc. But again, they are doing other assessments along the way as well (including but not limited to ski cuts - almost always with the ski cuts with them).

I don't buy the "avoid potentially useful data as it might bias you" notion either. Everything including your own observations might bias you, so where does this stop?

The Kinks - Destroyer

destroyer

SaveGondor, you're entitled to your opinion, but your post neatly outlines a lack of understanding of some very basic facts about avalanches and backcountry avalanche forecasting.

Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to disassemble the remaining fallacies, bad information, and red herrings in your post.

***

author=savegondor link=topic=18494.msg78884#msg78884 date=1293318785](not perfect, and not sufficient, and hardly useful...but valid, yes.)


Ski cutting may reveals information about instability, which is the most useful information for solving backcountry avalanche forecasting problems. Sorry, but your opinion about ski cuts doesn't reduce their value.

( Source: The Avalanche Handbook )

author=savegondor link=topic=18494.msg78884#msg78884 date=1293318785](um yeah..your death would be a good confirmation of instability wouldn't it?)


( Despite your snark, skiing applies a dynamic load to the snowpack, as as such it is a perfectly valid method of testing snowpack instability. Your opinion doesn't change the facts. )

( Source: The Avalanche Handbook )

author=savegondor link=topic=18494.msg78884#msg78884 date=1293318785](there is no good reason to exlude any information that is easily accessible...therefore this statement might be valid and yet unwise).


( What is the relationship between redundant information and the accuracy of a forecast? Does redundant information help the increase the accuracy of a forecast? At what spatial scale is the public avalanche bulletin issued? Your statement about the choice to exclude information is utterly misinformed. )

( Source: The Avalanche Handbook )

author=savegondor link=topic=18494.msg78884#msg78884 date=1293318785](not really.  it's brains, skill, experience and interpretation that matter...it's not the data's fault...it can neither save us or hurt us...it's our interpretation that matters...and in the case of this thread, our hubris)


( Your statement about the relationship between data sampling and perception of instability is totally, utterly and, possibly tragically, misinformed. )

( Source: The Avalanche Handbook )

***

Gondor, in the "spirit of arguing" as proposed by your post, I'll be happy to outline the remaining errors in your post. But remember, you can't cite a single source for any of your "data", and I already have cited my sources.

RE: hubris. It takes hubris to parade your opinion around as if it were fact!

Have a nice day.



Snowolf, regarding your latest post.....The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

That's the kind of thing that's not going to be very helpful here, Passenger.

If y'all can't come to some agreement and neither of you will soften your position, please let it go.  Snowolf's clarified his feelings and actions that day at length -- you don't have to believe him, of course, though I'm not sure why you're insisting on that.

Marcus, I believe you misunderstand my motivation for posting here.  I have no interest in debating Snowolf.  The value of this thread is in facilitating a discussion on backcountry safety.  There must be some interest if the number of views is any indication.  I have been lurking on this site for too many years to remember and will continue to do so, however if my style of making a point is detrimental to your fine work then I promise that you have heard the last from me.  I would like to end with one thought.

The best line to date is from Jim Oker “Anyone, however, who is enjoying good backcountry powder turns and also thinks they can squeeze out ALL (or even almost all) risk of being a slide victim is fooling themself.”  It matters little if you make a small lapse in judgment or a major boneheaded move, either can result in the same consequence.  Imagine living with yourself if after losing  a ski partner, you knew in your heart that it might have been preventable if not for your lack of preparation.  By the way, if you haven’t read it before check out the article on strategic digging on the Backcountry Access website.

author=Passenger link=topic=18494.msg78940#msg78940 date=1293391629]
Marcus, I believe you misunderstand my motivation for posting here.  I have no interest in debating Snowolf.  The value of this thread is in facilitating a discussion on backcountry safety.  There must be some interest if the number of views is any indication.  I have been lurking on this site for too many years to remember and will continue to do so, however if my style of making a point is detrimental to your fine work then I promise that you have heard the last from me. 


Fair enough and no problem -- I think you're adding good points and the discussion on BC safety is certainly worth the time.

100% agree with your assessment of Jim's observation, as well.

Well Savegondor I can assure you I'm not lazy and I don't want to die in an avalanche and regularly ski with my son and friends and don't want them to die either so I take avy safety very seriously but have never being inclined to dogma either.

When I first started BC skking and for several years thereafter, I read my avy report, even took a copy with me and  dug pits like a demented badger.
Now I ski a lot so I usually really watch the weather, wind directions and temperature and I found the longer I did this that the NWAC report by its very nature was only a generalized statement and I would find the micro -terrain I was skiing significantly different from the NWAC report. I also found that I would mentally use the NWAC report to justify my decisions..."NWAC says it's moderate and it's not a NE slope and NWAC says it's well bonded" etc...... Sometimes I used the NWAC report to justify NOT skiing a slope that seemed stable because the NWAC report said considerable or high. Based upon the recurring disparity between the generalized NWAC report and what I was finding I decided that my observations, feelings, intuition were more important that the NWAC report and that I would stop reading it and be , even subconsciously,influenced by it.

I also stopped digging pits( unless in a new area) because I again found the data only marginally useful compared to the data I could pick up from being observant and doing small tests, hasty pits, the feel of the snow, cutting rollovers , stomping during kick turns. I call my mental process "progression".  As the day/tour progresses, I try and form an opinion  and will also try and start with less steep slopes and progress to steeper stuff as my comfort level with the stability grows( or vice-versa).

Now we all like to think( and we all like to be considered" experts" if we're honest) that the more we do this we develop some ninja sense and can somehow determine from the the way the snow feels, reacts and that our intuition is finely developed as to how safe a slope is. I call bullshit on myself most days and readily admit that I'm hoping for the best despite all my tests and conclusions from my" progression". But it does help my stack the deck( my decision) hopefully in my favor.

However, to be honest, all the above is also subject to peer pressure and the group I'm with and sometimes I just follow and drop in and hope for the best and sometimes I drop in first and hope for the best because I really really want to ski that powder. Bad I know but I find the human dynamics are usually far more powerful that most of us are willing or like to admit to.
Only last week I backed off a slope that didn't feel right and the very next day skied a very committing slope in serious avy terrain( same aspect, same snow conditions) because.... oh man it was going to be so good.

I'm thankful for the forgiving maritime snowpack I ski in as I'm pretty sure  that if I lived in CO I'd probably have been caught in several slides by now and maybe even dead. Not because I'm always pushing the envelope ( far from it)) or because I'm uneducated about the danger and snow conditions( I'm not) but because of the simple laws of probability and the fact that micro-climate and micro terrain are going to render some of my assumptions incorrect....eventually.

I also realized that unless I was constantly willing to ALWAYS be very conservative( which for a while I was.... and it would leave me feeling unfulfilled) I wasn't going to be able to ski the slopes and powder I wanted to and would miss out so I'm willing sometimes to take a risk and roll the dice.

But that's me and I'm not advocating my practices for anybody else.

The more I do this and the longer I observe myself and my partners and how decisions are reached  I am convinced that skiing safety in avy terrain has more to do with Game Theory than snow science.


author=Snowolf link=topic=18494.msg78949#msg78949 date=1293399208]
too many self appointed "experts" acting as the thought police trying to mind everyone else`s business down here. When you are not out yelling at the kids to get off of your lawn, I bet you are the guy in the left lane of the freeway trying to control everyone else`s speed too...... ::)






High five Snowolf.

maybe the admin should create a column specific to avi safety talk so these trip reports can stay what they should be. A trip report is for sharing with the community what you found, not for cutting people down so you can brag on your expertise....

Snowolf and Passenger – this lurker begs you to stop the sniping!



We finally have an interesting and fruitful dialogue going in this thread that transcends an inconsequential TR about Hogback or a sideways reference to Shakespeare. Passenger’s first post was inflammatory, no doubt: but look at the result. People are re-assessing how they approach safety in the BC and that’s what’s important, so good on ya for that. Revising what you originally wrote over and over in an attempt to justify yourself to the readers of this thread is counterproductive, Snowolf – it doesn’t matter at this point in time. It doesn’t appear to me that Passenger is trying to make a display of his or her expertise – rather, he/she is throwing out his/her opinion for discussion in an open forum. And there have been some fascinating contributions from several parties that we can all learn from. To paraphrase Snowolf: I like to think the contributors to this thread might have saved a life!

had you done the ski cut you might also be dead.

author=Joedabaker link=topic=18494.msg78887#msg78887 date=1293324248]
BTW Happy Holidays to all!
Not all science is exact and perfect. I get what you are saying about utilizing as much info as possible. I can't tell you the amount of geophysical projects I worked that were cut and dry science according to the engineers and ended up being a cluster of additional costs due to broken science.

Last year we dug a pit on the upper reach of a bowl and determined the snow condition to be a green light. We had over 100 years of cumulative backcountry experience in the group.
I Skied right below the pit area and the whole bowl broke loose with a 2ft crown 100 feet wide. There were even two sets of ski tracks already in the bowl from some other party before us.
Had I done a ski cut it would have given me better results than the pit gave me.
At least I would not have been caught in the middle of a near catastrophe where I had no choice, but had to out run while 10 truckloads of cement 15ft high chased me down the slope.

I really am a big advocate of the NWAC avy reports. I just don't use them as a go to tool. The NWAC avalanche reports come out pretty late in the day too. By the time the report is out we are already on the hill doing our thing. So I guess it is good retrospect info after the fact to compare our field study to gain further knowledge.

My knowledge of BC conditions has changed so much from my 20's to 30's. And now late in my 40's I wonder what I was thinking in my 30's and how I survived the teen and twenty years. The reality is that I have a lot of exposure and for today I am still alive. FWIW I am more concerned with my exposure than if I am making logical estimates of the conditions.
The much greater danger is just driving to the hill than any snow condition I encounter.




A good discussion was attempted to be nipped in the bud by the moderator.  Perhaps T-A-Y needs a re-evaluation of its policies on frank discussions.  The moderation is personal opinion inserted with the earnestness of a school marm.  PNW social correctness rears its head...  a good way to encourage group think, especially in regards to avi considerations.

author=savegondor link=topic=18494.msg78970#msg78970 date=1293412248]
had you done the ski cut you might also be dead.


I realize that I am not going to change your belief system about pits and ski cuts. But digging in to a certain belief hardly cast the image of being open to as much information as possible. Maybe, quite possibly, if there are so many experienced BC travelers that hold the contention that ski cuts are a good idea, then possibly there is something to the possibility that it's not such a bad idea to incorporate into your systematic assessment.

If you know how to do a proper ski cut you have a safe exit strategy in place before the ski cut is made. Had I just done a ski cut after the pit, would be a better way to say this. Then I would have never been caught in the middle of the slide at all.
I am going to sound arrogant but a lot of people don't really know how to do a proper ski cut. I'm not suggesting this is your case, but if one is not a very good skier, maybe doing a ski cut is not a great idea. Going out into the middle of the bowl is just not a good place to do a ski cut. They are done with very good intention and planning. I learned a lot of my techniques on ski cutting from the old guard of the highway department avalanche control where every cut was mindful of staying alive and controlling a slope. I remember thinking, why don't these guys just ski this thing?  I waited as we all took turns managing and ski cutting the slopes, then moved to the next position.
I have also learned that a lot of skiers think they are much better skiers than they actually are.
The reality is we are not as good as skiers as what our office workers think we are.

I have also learned that a lot of skiers think they are much better skiers than they actually are.
I wish you would keep my name out of this .

author=Snowolf link=topic=18494.msg78997#msg78997 date=1293424679]
So, in the interest of not upsetting the apple cart here, I will peace out now and leave you folks to your own club. I can post trip reports on splitboard. Com without creating a firestorm.



I am sorry it has come to this Snowolf.  Since moving south from Bellingham I have found myself touring solo quite often.  I would prefer not to, but most of the people I know here are either not interested in BC or don't have the time.  So what it comes down to is I either get out alone or not at all.  I want to come home alive and well and do what is in my power to be as safe as possible given the situation. 

People's opinion of what is safe and unsafe while touring the BC will always be slightly different.  These opinions are what makes the world go round.  The one true unsafe condition is when someone becomes injured or worse.

Snowolf... listen to Shaman. Your voice is important and as John Wayne once told Barbara Walters..... "don't let the bastards get you down"...( true believe it or not... look it up.) Grow some thicker skin and suck it up. We need new members in the club.... even soloists. ;)
I learnt a lot from the discussion and Skykilo( albeit with a "cough") agreeing with me on a point means Christmas miracles are possible. ;D


author=Robie link=topic=18494.msg79006#msg79006 date=1293428539]
I wish you would keep my name out of this .


;D

Seriously? Snowolf and Passenger sign off and no one has anything more to add about BC avalanche protocols in the PNW in the last 24 hours?


author=Scotsman link=topic=18494.msg78947#msg78947 date=1293396904]
Well Savegondor I can assure you I'm not lazy and I don't want to die in an avalanche and regularly ski with my son and friends and don't want them to die either so I take avy safety very seriously but have never being inclined to dogma either.

When I first started BC skking and for several years thereafter, I read my avy report, even took a copy with me and  dug pits like a demented badger.
Now I ski a lot so I usually really watch the weather, wind directions and temperature and I found the longer I did this that the NWAC report by its very nature was only a generalized statement and I would find the micro -terrain I was skiing significantly different from the NWAC report. I also found that I would mentally use the NWAC report to justify my decisions..."NWAC says it's moderate and it's not a NE slope and NWAC says it's well bonded" etc...... Sometimes I used the NWAC report to justify NOT skiing a slope that seemed stable because the NWAC report said considerable or high. Based upon the recurring disparity between the generalized NWAC report and what I was finding I decided that my observations, feelings, intuition were more important that the NWAC report and that I would stop reading it and be , even subconsciously,influenced by it.

I also stopped digging pits( unless in a new area) because I again found the data only marginally useful compared to the data I could pick up from being observant and doing small tests, hasty pits, the feel of the snow, cutting rollovers , stomping during kick turns. I call my mental process "progression".  As the day/tour progresses, I try and form an opinion  and will also try and start with less steep slopes and progress to steeper stuff as my comfort level with the stability grows( or vice-versa).

Now we all like to think( and we all like to be considered" experts" if we're honest) that the more we do this we develop some ninja sense and can somehow determine from the the way the snow feels, reacts and that our intuition is finely developed as to how safe a slope is. I call bullshit on myself most days and readily admit that I'm hoping for the best despite all my tests and conclusions from my" progression". But it does help my stack the deck( my decision) hopefully in my favor.

However, to be honest, all the above is also subject to peer pressure and the group I'm with and sometimes I just follow and drop in and hope for the best and sometimes I drop in first and hope for the best because I really really want to ski that powder. Bad I know but I find the human dynamics are usually far more powerful that most of us are willing or like to admit to.
Only last week I backed off a slope that didn't feel right and the very next day skied a very committing slope in serious avy terrain( same aspect, same snow conditions) because.... oh man it was going to be so good.

I'm thankful for the forgiving maritime snowpack I ski in as I'm pretty sure  that if I lived in CO I'd probably have been caught in several slides by now and maybe even dead. Not because I'm always pushing the envelope ( far from it)) or because I'm uneducated about the danger and snow conditions( I'm not) but because of the simple laws of probability and the fact that micro-climate and micro terrain are going to render some of my assumptions incorrect....eventually.

I also realized that unless I was constantly willing to ALWAYS be very conservative( which for a while I was.... and it would leave me feeling unfulfilled) I wasn't going to be able to ski the slopes and powder I wanted to and would miss out so I'm willing sometimes to take a risk and roll the dice.

But that's me and I'm not advocating my practices for anybody else.

The more I do this and the longer I observe myself and my partners and how decisions are reached  I am convinced that skiing safety in avy terrain has more to do with Game Theory than snow science.



Scotsman: I'm actually finding your argument via experience compelling.  Let's just say you end up having such a good point that it get's published as a new way of assessing danger.  I'm still wanting the majority of people in this forum and 'out there' to THINK that they MUST dig a pit.  B/C, like I've repeated a zillion times in this thread.  It slows them down.  And that I think is more valuable than any data. 

That said, I do beg to differ on the quality of data from a pit.  I think there is more quality data than you think there generally is.  Might I even suggest there may be a problem with user error here.  Not digging in a cornice are you?  :)

Like I said Savegondor.... most of the time I'm just hoping for the best . But seriously... I'm not saying a pit doesn't give some useful information( if dug in the right place which is sometimes very difficult) but what I dislike is dogma and the belief by many that digging a pit on every tour or even every slope is a necessity and that those that don't are somehow unsafe or reckless and more importantly that if you do you are a now a paragon of knowledge and safe.
I've skied with a lot of people over the years and honestly some of the unsafest in terms of handling themselves in avy terrain where the ones that could quote the avy handbook and spout out CT22, Q2 and all the avy lingo. They'd dig a pit in a unrepresentative location... declare it good and then ski over a convex rollover with a big wind pocket. I call them "educated fools" and there are many in the BC and from my perspective the number is growing.
People like dogma,  they lap it up if you will excuse the pun as similar to religion it gives them comfort and faith without having to think too hard ( or even at all).

Great TR, Snowolf.  Thanks to everyone for the avalanche of input.  Now for the ibuprofen...

Thought I'd reply to passenger's question as I haven't been on the computer for a while.
I remember you guys at the top of Gunsight and really admired the nice tracks you two put down after ours.  Hope you enjoyed the skin track I put in as well.  I don't always dig a pit or do a ski cut there, especially if I skiied it the day or two before and am aware of its condition as well as how much snow has fallen.    I don't like to give to much away about good solid stashes, but since you mention the slide factor there the two semi-chutes are so steep they always sluff slide and often self-slide, which creates a pretty good scenario for not accumulating too much snow up top.  It's pretty easy to outski the sluff there or just ski to the side if you want to.    I'm not trying to sound too unconcerned about avy awareness, because I often dig there if it has been a while since I was there, but as I mentioned I have been hitting it on a very regular basis and that is why when I saw how much snow had filled it in and how good it it was and after putting in the trail, well I felt very good about jumping in and getting FIRST TRACKS!  before you guys.  Hope that answers your question.

Filbo: you're kidding about this....right?

White Pass Rocks!



Not at all, checkers as I don't know what I'd be kidding about unless it might be too much left brain activity and not enough right.   just kidding.

Reply to this TR

8043
12-16-2010-white-pass-washington
Snowolf
2010-12-18 13:46:07