@abc, you were happy to say this about a dead woman who can't defend herself and the whole incident had only 1 witness, who has a huge bias in defending himself:
""In reality, the woman probably didn’t know what she’s gotten herself into due to lack of experience. But sometimes mother knows more. It’s also quite possible the woman was a head strong type who repeatedly ignore advices to turn around?"
Now you want to criticise others for speculation without enough facts?! Give it a break, you are just as bad as the rest, stop trying to claim some moral high ground.
Again, the difference being the climber’s case is a couple years old. And a judge had ruled on all the information available. Even if those information wasn’t completely truthful. There will be no more additional information able to clarify the issue any more. The rest, will forever be unknowable. That’s why we’re end up speculating on the unknowns!
In the Tahoe case, 2/3 of the survivors hadn’t been interviewed, either due to legal reason or due to emotional trauma. So it’s simply premature to speculate at this point. Once the rest of the the story came out, many of the key information become known, a good portion of the speculations will become irrelevant.
I’m not at all claiming “moral” high ground. But I’m claiming pratical high ground. When you know you have quite a bit more additional information but rather not consider them (i.e. wait a few days/weeks for those information to become available), it’s rather childish. That’s all.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@abc, you have years worth of evidence from the climbers case with all the facts about why the judge made his decision. Yet you choose to ignore all the stuff we do know (which provides a good explanation) and speculate about the dead woman who can't defend herself - "It’s also quite possible the woman was a head strong type who repeatedly ignore advices to turn around?". Do you not think this would have came out in the trial if true? It would have only supported the climber, so he would have an incentive to bring it up.
Like I said I saw some stuff online where the posters were making out the kind of women in the group and their personalities would have been quite forceful to the point of bossing the guide around. I thought that crossed a line, but don't think what you said about the other woman is any better.
I think most of the speculation in this thread has been very reasonable. If you don't like speculation and opinions my suggestion is avoid online forums and just stick to legal documents. Also don't be a massive hypocrite and speculate yourself when it suits you, then justify this based on some arbitrary rules you've made up that would be rather childish. That's all.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Origen wrote:
If people set off on a route they correctly calculate carries only a low risk, a fatal avalanche doesn't mean they got that wrong.
No. You don't traverse under 30 degree plus slopes at avalanche risk 4 - not if you have a professional responsibility for your parties lives anyway. Avalanches are rare, they are always "low risk" but to survive long term in avalanche terrain you have to get the risk to minimal. If for some reason you HAVE TO make that traverse then you spread out so an avalanche can't take the whole group.
Imagine a "low risk" is 1% chance of an avalanche. Do that twenty times in your life and you have an 18% chance of being avalanched. Unacceptable risk
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Wed 4-03-26 10:01; edited 1 time in total
@boarder2020, I thought he explained quite clearly how experienced professionals can make those mistakes. That's not excusing it of course.
My understanding is that they were not skiing the slope but were traversing out on the valley floor and were hit by the avalanche in the run off area. Did they remote trigger it or was it just terrible timing? Seems it’s very rare for that particular slope to avalanche (the guide says old growth forest avis are very rare) but the combo of a very bad weak layer and huge amounts of fresh snow created an anomaly.
Seems they did have an alternative route out but it was much longer and there’s a suspicion (in the comments) that commercial pressure came into play
On the old growth forest thing I think you misunderstood his point.
Look at the images - they were hit by an avalanche off a clearing down the mountain. That is an AVALANCHE PATH. The reason you are "safe" in old growth forest is because that is evidence that tress are not being culled by occasional avalanches. If you are in a valley bottom below an open slope or one where the trees are young you should be assuming that the slope is occasionally cleared by avalanches. So minimise your time there (don't transition or take a break) and certainly spread out (travel one by one with big gap between)!
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
jedster wrote:
On the old growth forest thing I think you misunderstood his point.
Look at the images - they were hit by an avalanche off a clearing down the mountain. That is an AVALANCHE PATH. The reason you are "safe" in old growth forest is because that is evidence that tress are not being culled by occasional avalanches. If you are in a valley bottom below an open slope or one where the trees are young you should be assuming that the slope is occasionally cleared by avalanches. So minimise your time there (don't transition or take a break) and certainly spread out (travel one by one with big gap between)!
Agree with everything you say.
I didn’t fully understand how the “old growth forest” comment related to this specific event, but I assumed the point being made was that avalanches in that particular area might be relatively rare
On the old growth forest thing I think you misunderstood his point.
Look at the images - they were hit by an avalanche off a clearing down the mountain. That is an AVALANCHE PATH. The reason you are "safe" in old growth forest is because that is evidence that tress are not being culled by occasional avalanches. If you are in a valley bottom below an open slope or one where the trees are young you should be assuming that the slope is occasionally cleared by avalanches. So minimise your time there (don't transition or take a break) and certainly spread out (travel one by one with big gap between)!
Agree with everything you say.
I didn’t fully understand how the “old growth forest” comment related to this specific event, but I assumed the point being made was that avalanches in that particular area might be relatively rare
I think he was using it as an illustration of how to pick terrain when you are skiing on a elevated risk day. I know you know this but it is wrong to think about a large area being low risk for avalanches - it's very micro. If you find a clear slope in an otherwise old growth forest then that slope is not low risk terrain!
I was skiing with a guide in Hakuba in January and we were skinning along a wooded trail. There was a pink tape on a tree just before we got to a clearing with a lovely looking slope above. He pointed it out and said that is to remind us of the avalanche path above us - we cross this one at a time...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
boarder2020 wrote:
based on some arbitrary rules you've made up
It may irritate some people, but since you brought up the subject of “rules” of speculation…
Yes, I have rules, but they’re only for myself to use. It has no bearing on what others may do. This being a public forum and everyone is free to make up rules of their own and act accordingly. And that includes expressing those rules in public!
When a tragedy like this occurs, it attracts a lot of attention. In the vacuums of “public” information (”public” in this case specifically means information actually exists but not shared in public), speculation fills that vacuum.
Also in a public forum, people participate for different reasons. Information, learning, entertainment… Yes, entertainment! Even after a tragedy.
So to speculate in an incident like this, it could be because it’s a teachable moment. Or it could be more macabre due to the shock value of high death toll (witness the never ending mass shooting thread which has nothing to teach). Even in the best cases, it’s a mixture of both.
Given there’re significant key information available (one surviving guide who was in the meeting when decisions were made) but withheld from public, this incident had stopped being a case study. We know from history there were plenty of conclusions based on partial information only to had them proved wrong once more information became available. We’re mostly in speculation for entertainment territory here.
Noticed the 1 video in this thread, the author only reiterates the principle and best practice, but did not speculate why such practice weren’t followed. That’s because he’s not there in person. He’s not aware of what other issues that may have made following those best practices difficult. Unlike our keyboard warrior who was so quick to slap various labels on the guides with little actual evidence.
As an example of speculations as entertainment, the Kennedy assassination to this day generates huge amount of speculation, and provides plenty of entertainment after so many decades!
I think I'm generally critical of all such failures, but then I worked a lot in rescue. Occasionally someone would do everything right and still die, but it's almost always what that report says in the intro (about other events): a series of screw ups.
After the slide, these guys in that report were good. They did everything right, even in what would be a high stress situation. I suppose that would be the tail guide doing his job.
That speaks to a professional approach. But not reading the map (!) is inconceivable. I suppose someone underestimated the risk, which (a) put them there; and (b) allowed then to bunch up, compounding the risk.
The guides log books will show the route choice and reasoning, which obviously was poor, but they write it down for a reason.
..
Speculation is fine by me - that's what we are all here for.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
As everyone is speculating, one aspect I haven’t seen anyone speculated on was why the 4 guides opted to combine the two groups of clients as one big group. (The 3 men were a completely separate group from the 8 women).
Whatever motivations that led to the guides combining the two groups may help answer the question of why they all bunch up (and got buried all at once).
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@abc, yes, I think questions like this are interesting and worth pondering even if that involves some speculation.
I’ve been in situations where guided groups work together. Nothing quite like this though. I can see a safety angle to keeping a group together in bad weather conditions.
It’ll be interesting to see if we get more information on how they came to be grouped together under the slope that slid. Was it a conscious decision? Did they start spaced out but bunch up through poor discipline? Were they even aware that they were under the dangerous slope? It looked like it was quite a specific area so if the visibility was bad and GPS wasn’t functioning perfectly maybe they didn’t realise the danger they were in.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
abc wrote:
As everyone is speculating, one aspect I haven’t seen anyone speculated on was why the 4 guides opted to combine the two groups of clients as one big group. (The 3 men were a completely separate group from the 8 women).
Whatever motivations that led to the guides combining the two groups may help answer the question of why they all bunch up (and got buried all at once).
The research would say bigger groups have increased risk of avalanche. But that's really looking at downhill skiing rather than more of a walk/traverse, and there are a number of factors in play some of which don't factor in here (e.g. competition/ego of members of the group pushing each other into risk taking behaviour).
I don't think it's that unusual to merge groups, particularly in more extreme circumstances. 4 brains better than 2. Halves the amount of trail breaking each guide has to do. If there is a problem you are potentially in a better situation to solve it. Also if one guide is very familiar with the route and the others not so much it would make sense to join them.
From a psychology point of view being in a bigger group can provide a greater feeling of safety. Maybe good for the guests. Not so good if the guides get lazy leaving decisions to other guides or just blindly following them.
On the face of it merging the groups doesn't stop you going one by one/maintaining a safe distance from each other. So in that regard you would say it's not a big deal. Could there be a situation where one guide says "I know the route well, it's safe, follow me" and the other guides don't bother checking maps or enforcing safety protocols and just follow (halo effect)? Yes, in which case merging groups could effect things massively. Of course I'm talking in generalities, there is no evidence to suggest something like that happened here.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
To me the real questions with the Castle Peak incident are
- Why had they even gone on the trip given the universal forecast for extreme amounts of snow?
- Why not take the option of staying put in the hut for further days?
- poor visability a given but why not use some protocols to spread the group out more to safer spacing?
I'm not sure that they hadn't selected the best route given terrain and circumstances.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
I was talking to a few Tahoe locals yesterday, up here in BC. Those routes in and out of the lodging were well known. They would have known all the options, and the risks of them. The guides would have understood the terrain features.
On those questions ..
I think they would perhaps have gone because someone knew there was a safe route out. The problem was that they did not use that route!
There is also a rumour that one guide turned the trip down.
I don't think visibility would have been a factor: they were on the route they had picked. If they bunched because of bad Vis... Yeah, I'm not sure what the protocol for that would be . You are following a track, but gaps would require some management which may not be practical.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
The survivor article says that earlier on the avalanche day (on the first climb out from the huts) the guides sent everyone across a risky slope one at a time. So they were clearly aware of the risk, and best practice to mitigate it. It seems likely that when they were on the second climb and reached the danger area they were either planning to do the same thing but went a bit too far before implementing it (perhaps in poor visibility?), or assessed the avalanche slope as less risky, or felt they were far enough away on a part shallow enough for debris not to reach them.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
To me the real questions with the Castle Peak incident are
- Why had they even gone on the trip given the universal forecast for extreme amounts of snow?
- Why not take the option of staying put in the hut for further
- poor visability a given but why not use some protocols to spread the group out more to safer spacing?
I'm not sure that they hadn't selected the best route given terrain and circumstances.
The links above answered some of these questions:
- Why had they even gone on the trip given the universal forecast for extreme amounts of snow?
It hadn’t snowed for weeks. Everyone wants to ski powder. Experienced guides think risk is manageable. Cancel and lose your money. It’s business isn’t it!
- Why not take the option of staying put in the hut for further days?
Everyone wants to get home! That route led back to the cars. The guides think the risk is manageable. Customers don’t question the experts
- poor visability a given but why not use some protocols to spread the group out more to safer spacing?
Given they had done so earlier that day on steeper slopes it seems that the combo of bad weather, guides breaking trail at a slower speed causing bunching behind, low angle terrain, under-estimation of risk from above all probably contributed
Given the 3 guides at the front all perished we may never know
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Quote:
Why had they even gone on the trip given the universal forecast for extreme amounts of snow?
Some generalising as I don't know if these were true in this specific case.
Clients have paid money, taken time off work, maybe travelled, this is possibly the thing they are most looking forward to all winter. Like the NYT article suggests they though the forecast was lucky and they were going to get a ton of powder. They have guides to keep them safe so why worry? Nobody ever wants to cancel a trip, even when it's the best decision there's usually a little reluctancy.
I don't know about this particular lodge, but there are huts in BC that are booked out months in advance and really hard to get a place at. If you are fortunate to get one you almost feel obliged to go even if forecast is terrible.
Guides want to earn money. Company running the trip want to earn money.
Quote:
Why not take the option of staying put in the hut for further days?
Speculation that the hut was booked out by another group. Although I find it hard to believe in the circumstances it would have been an issue.
People have lives and commitments. "Why waste a day sitting around doing nothing here, let's push on and get home". If you think the route is safe why not go?
Quote:
- poor visability a given but why not use some protocols to spread the group out more to safer spacing?
I agree you have to space out, if that's not possible simply avoid avalanche terrain, even if that means turning around.
But to play devil's advocate;
In extreme weather with low visibility it's possible the skin track was disappearing pretty quickly. I could see how a guide could be worried about someone getting lost and not enforce appropriate spacing. I could also see a guide trying to maintain spacing but the clients being worried about getting lost and not following it.
There's also the possibility of a lead guide going slow due to having to break trail in deep snow, or even having an equipment problem, and the rest catching him up.
There is also the possibility the guides simply didn't realise what was above them or perhaps just didn't think it could slide so far, in which case you (wrongly) wouldn't bother to space people.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
To me the real questions with the Castle Peak incident are
- Why had they even gone on the trip given the universal forecast for extreme amounts of snow?
For the Tahoe region, that amount of snow was far from extreme. The region is well known for its "feast and famine" snowing pattern.
What makes the avi risk a 4 isn't simply the amount of snow. It's because there's a persistent weak layer.
Yes, the highway was closed for a while. And everyone commented why bother skiing out when they can't drive away anyway? But highway closure happens pretty often! You never know for sure. I lived there only 4 years. Got stuck on the one or another end of that stretch of highway like 3-4 times! That's AFTER I learned the snow pattern. Before I figured that out? I got stuck in the middle of the travel, bumper to bumper for several hours TWICE in my first winter!!!
It's something California skiers just live with. A lot of the time, you plan to get there (or back) beating the storm. But frequently enough, the storm beats you instead.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
I would respectfully suggest to all off piste skiers they read davidof's summary of the avalanche scenario this winter.
This can be found at Pistehors, it is a very well written informative piece, going a long way to explaining the "nasty" nature of the snowpack.
This post https://avalanche.report/blog/at-07-en/14090 from the Tirol Avalanche report is worth reading, a lot of details and examples of current conditions in the eastern Alps.
The NYT article is interesting and sobering, not the sort of decisions anyone wants to be faced with. As with so many incidents in the mountains most of the time this trip would have passed without anything of note occuring. Anyone who has spent time in the high mountains has walked / skied across avalanche debris or travelled under a serac and had the thought about what might have occured.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
I see Japan has had some incidents including a piste which slid.
Also a back country slide where the survivor was dug out from 4.5m of snow after 90 mins by his crew. I think he was caught by a secondary slide after kicking off the first so the airbag didn't help keep them on the surface but perhaps did create an air pocket.
@AndAnotherThing.., pretty amazing that they managed to dig down 4.5m in 90 mins. Pretty amazing that the person was alive!
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@Steilhang, Yes - I need to try and find out a bit more info beyond insta posts.
After all it is free
After all it is free
AndAnotherThing.. wrote:
I see Japan has had some incidents including a piste which slid.
Also a back country slide where the survivor was dug out from 4.5m of snow after 90 mins by his crew. I think he was caught by a secondary slide after kicking off the first so the airbag didn't help keep them on the surface but perhaps did create an air pocket.
The air inside the airbag probably wouldn’t help. However, I used to have a Jetforce airbag which after some minutes from the last pull of the handle would reverse the airflow, deflating the bag and leave à decent amount of air around your back and head.
He was very lucky nonetheless
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
[quote="RickBoden"]
AndAnotherThing.. wrote:
I see Japan has had some incidents including a piste which slid.
Also a back country slide where the survivor was dug out from 4.5m of snow after 90 mins by his crew. I think he was caught by a secondary slide after kicking off the first so the airbag didn't help keep them on the surface but perhaps did create an air pocket.
The air inside the airbag probably wouldn’t help. However, I used to have a Jetforce airbag which after some minutes from the last pull of the handle would reverse the airflow, deflating the bag and leave à decent amount of air around your back and head.
He was very lucky nonetheless. Chapeau to the rescuers!
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
It looks like one of 2 incidents was on Sanam-yama which is a popular peak in the Tokachi range.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Heads up to all, a significant storm system coming through. Possibly some big volumes of snow.
Swiss avalanche forecasting are hinting at level 4 for Valais, Berner Oberland and suggest probable further east.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Interesting follow-up on the Castle Peak avalanche. Hadn't seen the info on the delta angle before
The comments are worth a read too - more on the delta angle from a local. In summary, the fact that the avalanche ran out as far as it did was really exceptional. However, so was the snowpack so maybe guides' previous experience gave them a false sense of safety where they were caught
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
"A lot of the victims are skiers who come here often, are technically skilled, but aren't necessarily connoisseurs of the mountain environment," suggests Stéphane Bornet, the director of Anena, a French snow safety association.
Several, he says, didn't have safety kits, such as a transceiver to reveal their location or a shovel. Bornet claims they also didn't carry out basic research on the routes they wanted to take.
Etc, etc.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
The quickest and biggest impact.measure would be to only.allow the rental of skis above 100mm to those that can produce a beacon, shovel etc.
It would greatly reduce the number of YouTube jockeys that rent wide rockers, don't know what they are doing and trash the lines whilst they are unsafe.
Won't eliminate incidents but will reduce them to more normal levels.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
I don't follow the avalanche stories in great detail but it doesn't seem to a casual reader that a significant number of those killed have been "YouTube jockeys". On the same basis, should car dealers be prohibited from selling powerful cars to people who only just passed their driving test, or have speeding tickets?
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@22 dropout, any evidence that inexperienced skiers are over represented in avalanche incidents? The opposite seems more likely to me
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@colinstone, Just read the BBC article, one or two nails hit firmly on the head.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
I just read the pisthors article Rodger mentioned above, they say the snowpack wasn't always easy to manage and what someone said above about the difficulty of comprehending "low probability but high consequence" events
The comments are worth a read too - more on the delta angle from a local. In summary, the fact that the avalanche ran out as far as it did was really exceptional. However, so was the snowpack so maybe guides' previous experience gave them a false sense of safety where they were caught
The author isn’t from the area. So some of his “analysis” on snow condition isn’t quite right. (E.g. The storm isn’t “historic”. Just another big storm typical of the Sierra) The comments from the locals pointed some of that out.
However, his human factor analysis are largely on the spot. The big thing is, every storm is unique. Past experience needs to be used with eyes to how exactly it applies to the next one! The guides didn’t consider they were in avalanche terrain because it’s rare the run out goes much farther than “usual”. Unfortunately, “usual” doesn’t mean ALWAYS!
Then, there’s the “Expert Halo” effect.
I’ve been in similar situation before, just not skiing. I was in a guided kayak camping trip. We beached on a small cove. The landing was rough for me who hadn’t seen shore surf that big before. So, when I saw everyone was leaving their boats only a few feet from the water, I was surprised. I even asked whether it’s safe to leave the boats there, given how violent the surf was. The guide replied: “Oh, I’ve been coming here many years. This is as high as the water ever gets”! Famous last word.
Overnight, the surf came up WAY higher than “usual”. Washed all the boats into the water!!!
Fortunately, we were in a cove with a few “guard rocks” at the mouth. So the boats just recirculates inside the cove, bashing against the rocks notwithstanding. One boat was completely trashed. Several others were damaged. Without those rocks, all the boats would have ended up in Japan!
To be honest, had it not been a guided trip, I probably would have tied my boat to a rock at the minimum. But my trust in the experienced guide stopped me from thinking about the matter any further. I even left my gears (paddle, gloves, helmet…) scattered around the boat, instead of teetered to the deck line. They all got washed away.
@Origen, yes, although not directly related to avalanches, young drivers who just passed their test shouldn’t be allowed to buy, or drive, powerful vehicles IMHO. Neither should drivers over an upper age limit, to be determined by the evidence available.
Where it’s clear that the damage, human misery and cost associated with people likely to be incapable of safely handling a vehicle outweighs the benefits, then stop them. Same applies to, for example, gun ownership, which can also kill people.
Whether there’s evidence to show that skiers renting skis >100mm wide are a disproportionate danger, I doubt, but actually have no idea.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Quote:
young drivers who just passed their test shouldn’t be allowed to buy, or drive, powerful vehicles IMHO. Neither should drivers over an upper age limit, to be determined by the evidence available.
Or drivers of any age convicted of speeding?
Reckless or inattentive skiers are much more likely to damage other people on piste, than off. Where would you stop?
France has laws preventing rich people who can't sail from buying a boat and setting off out to sea. And preventing even the most experienced sailors from setting off out to see on a boat without the relevant safety equipment. UK doesn't, and there's no evidence the French laws work better.
After all it is free
After all it is free
I don't know, I think most of us would be pretty happy skiing 20 degree terrain in a forest in those circumstances. The photos from the ground show it so inoccuous. Vis would have been very low so they wouldn't have seen the risky slope to their left. From the photos it looks like that's just one notch in the mountain, and not clear was that photo taken after the avalanche which might have accentuated it. It also not a huge slope. I doubt there are many off piste skiers here who haven't skied under a much larger more dangerous slope than that on a 3 or 4 day at some point.
I agree that the guides and the lodge should have been aware of that risky area in that route. In fact, I think a lodge like that should have a defined series of exit routes for different conditions which would acknowledge the risks attendance on them. That would be standard health and safety practice independent of the mountain environment. Here are the risks, here are the steps to mitigate them.
If that is the learning from this avalanche I suspect that will become policy for such lodges going forward. However, even at that I suspect most people would be happy to take this route on agreement you move quickly across that section, rather than a more difficult flatter longer hike out. Consider the Grand Couloir risk on Mt Blanc for instance. People habitually take it. Also those seracs on the 3 monts route that collapse periodically and killed multiple climbers a few years back.
What I always don't like after these incidents is the categorical judgment imposed on the people from afar. They made stupid mistakes so they deserved to die. Its a dangerous environment and that is part of the attraction for us. You can mitigate it for sure but the reality is the most important thing to be in the mountains is lucky.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
@8611, yes, assuming this wasn't triggered by them they could have been 5 minutes later or earlier and been absolutely fine. The latest Dave Searle video is interesting in that he shows what looks like an outstanding run (from an enjoyment point of view) then reflects on it and says he wasn't happy with his decision making on the day
The quickest and biggest impact.measure would be to only.allow the rental of skis above 100mm to those that can produce a beacon, shovel etc.
It would greatly reduce the number of YouTube jockeys that rent wide rockers, don't know what they are doing and trash the lines whilst they are unsafe.
Won't eliminate incidents but will reduce them to more normal levels.
What a load of nonsense. We actually had to assist two people today who had landed themselves in a bit of bother with the wrong skis for the conditions. They were a couple, both using something in the region of 75mm, so pretty narrow piste skis, totally normal. Only the conditions were 40-50cm fresh snow, drifted by the wind in excess of 50 kmph – the level that blows down the signage and fences and stops the lifts running. As we headed out of the gondola station, a snowboarder behind us asked us if it was safe then noped out and retreated back inside. I decided to put my skis on at the bottom of the initial short steep slope, where I knew it was flatter, in case they blew away, but while booting down I noticed a guy struggling up the slope with only poles (no skis), and he did not look well. We asked him if he was okay, and eventually managed to discern that his wife was somewhere in the murk below, but we did not know if she was injured.
We found her a little way around the corner, uninjured, but very tired and struggling to hike up with two pairs of skis. My partner took the skis, gave her his poles for assistance, and escorted her up to the lift station to her husband. We think they tried to ski the flattish cat track that leads back to the main slope, but with the fresh snow and very string wind, had got completely bogged down in it and couldn't ski at all. On our 100mm+ skis, we simply floated over the top and it was no trouble at all.
Over the course of the day, I saw many people on the piste struggling to ski the fresh falling snow, heavy in places, on their standard issue piste skis. Those of us who had gone up on fatties had a great time (no, we didn't stay on the piste, but yes, we were equipped, before anyone asks).
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
that would be rather childish. That's all.
One boat was completely trashed. Several others were damaged. Without those rocks, all the boats would have ended up in Japan! 
(no, we didn't stay on the piste, but yes, we were equipped, before anyone asks).