Ruschblock scores - descriptive vs. numeric

In JW's recent report for Paradise,<br><br>www.turns-all-year.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB...splay;num=1105366037

he reported a Ruschblock score of "2". I think I know what he's talking about, and I suspect most people who read this board do, but I'd like to offer a suggestion.

My friend Garth Ferber, one of the NWAC forecasters, says he's always careful in his reports to give a descriptive account of snow stability tests, rather than using a number. For example, in this case, I think he would say, "the slab failed while stepping onto the block." The idea is to avoid any possibility of ambiguity, just in case somebody learned the test using a different numeric scale.

This always seemed like a good suggestion to me. I just thought I'd pass it along to other TAY posters ...

Not a bad idea. There's been some interesting discussion recently on the Couloir site regarding Rutschblock vs. "AK" block tests, including standard Rutschblock sizing (which I never really knew, just thought it was roughly the length of my skis, which was true about 20 years ago - it's actually 200cm x 150cm) and the fact that the test is designed for a skier weight of 80 kilos (176 lbs.)<br><br>www.telemarkskier.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb...t_topic;f=4;t=000015

Not to disagree with Lowell, I just wanted to note that today's NWAC forecast mentions specific scores:<br><br>

Stability tests in both the north and central Washington Cascades during the past two days show easy to moderate shears on either lower density snow or surface hoar from 12 to over 30 inches below the surface depending on location, with compression tests of 7 to 11 and rutschblock scores of 2 on a weak layer about 12-16 inches below the snow surface on a 30 degrees slope.

<br>www.nwac.us/products/SABSEA

The forecast goes on to characterize the danger, so even if you didn't understand the specific scores you'd at least understand the danger. I guess this may be slightly different then what Lowell is referring to.

Yeah, today's report was written by Mark Moore. As I mentioned above, Garth Ferber was the one who suggested to me the idea of using a descriptive score. So, the NWAC forecasters have their own personal styles. Sometimes I try to guess who wrote the report as I'm reading through it (the author's last name is always shown at the bottom). Kind of a silly game, but what the heck... <br><br>[...posted from Delhi, India. No snow in sight, but a really interesting place...]

Easy trick to remember the numbers. Jump "4" Joy, in other words, when you jump on the block, that is a "4" and you are happy because the danger is low, work backwards from there, knee flexing is a 3, 2 is stepping onto the block and 1 is cutting it, see, easy. Going above 4 is increasing less important, with a 5 being repeated jumping and everything after that being less relevant to skiers. 6 with skis off/half block jumping and 7 with nothing moving at all.