A Dangerous Day in the Wasatch - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Altanaut 

I don't understand what you mean by there are no safety protocols.  Skiing one at a time down a slope that has some chance of sliding is one basic example.  Choosing where to stop to minimize exposure to a possible slide above you is another.  I don't claim to be an expert, but basic safety protocols exist and should be followed.  I also agree with previous posters that there are plenty of situations where decision making/personal judgement will make the difference between a good day and a bad one.

 

Sorry, I was confused about the word prtocol. I see a protocol as a formal document or agreement  or rules where people are held accountable for following the protocol. I know of no such document or agreement that generally exists for BC skiing. Avalanche experts make recommendations. They don't make rules. What you do in real life is talk with your partner decide what you want to do, what rules you want to follow, and then go out and implement that plan and hold each other accountable.

I agree that following safe travel practices is a good idea. And that "gang skiing" in the BC is a bad idea. And in this case in particular with a rescue in operation below and obvious redflags, I have no idea why those people chose to do it that way.  But there is no rule against "gang skiing" in the BC. And it is an all to common occurrence. Maybe they were videoing each other?

The things you talk about are IMO good practices, but its always up to the group what they want to do, how formal they wish to be, what risks they are ok with, etc... Some times people do things in the heat of the moment and are always making decisions based on less than complete information and its possible to be tricked or misunderstand the situation. Not that I think this happened in this specific case, but that's reality.

I think the real x factor is in crowded situations like Alta preseason when groups meet, and the lax safety ethic of your group ends up ruining the day for my group.

I'm not sure who you are talking about here.  I wouldn't call JP a knowledgeable back-country practitioner.  He and his partner weren't even carrying gear!  I am sad that he is dead and feel badly for his family, but I never really appreciated his skiing and always thought of him as my favorite "lawn dart".  IMO the 245 jump shouldn't even count....  I re-watched the footage and it was just silly, Jesus would have stuck it!  The best recent example I can think of regarding the passing of a knowledgeable back-country practitioner would be Howie Henderson.  He also left behind children who need him and friends who will miss him.  IMO Howies contribution to skiing and level of knowledge/experience was MUCH greater than JPs, yet few people on this board seemed to take notice.

I think the idea of a "back-country movement" is a bit flawed.  Most "participants" seem to be refugees from a resort slipping past a gate looking for powder because they can and it's become the cool thing to do.  I see a huge mix of ability levels and experience heading through the gates at JHMR.  To me a movement has some sort of cohesion and commonality.  I don't see that in the slack-country crowd.  The groups on Teton Pass are a bit better than the average slack country group.  The farther you get from a lift or road, the more serious and committed the groups seem to be.  It's pretty easy to go to a shop and buy gear, a little harder to sign up for and attend a class, a little harder to actually apply yourself in that class, the hardest thing to do is to change is your mind and then change your plans in the field.  Looking back at most of the BC incidents I've ever heard of, the biggest common thread through them all is the human factor and a flawed decision making process in the field.

I don't mean to be rough on JP.  I really do feel badly for the people he left behind.

edited to change "respected" to "appreciated".  It's hard not to have some level of respect for the balls that it takes to do what he did and have enjoyed the images of JP over the years.  I just watched a good tribute from one of his friends of about 80 stills set to AC/DC....  "Because it's what Jamie would have wanted".
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by davluri 

Skiing has lost a number of their most knowledgeable BC practitioners. Therefore the entire movement has to look at what they are doing. I know what you are saying and agree completely. But it's not about skills and gear, or even knowledge, but judgement. If I thought the thread needed to focus exclusively on dangers of the backcountry, I would withhold comment, but since it stated: danger in the Wasatch, it seemed to me it related to danger all along the west where this October base condition exists, resorts, sidecountry, and backcountry. Early pre-season, as you say, there is no difference between BC and resort slopes, they are all raw and not-consolidated, bad layering right down to the dirt. thanks for the comment.

Here's the UAC report for the Pierre slide....

http://www.powdermag.com/stories/uac-releases-pierre-slide-investigation-photos/

They also show the first avalanche he and his buddy triggered, which was pretty significant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tetonpwdrjunkie 

Skier traffic results in a MORE, not less, homogenous snowpack.  I know you know this and just typed it wrong.  Good post!

Oops and double oops!

Thanks for pointing that out.  I edited in the correction.

This photo is pretty interesting.  

This is exactly my point.  They continued past the first and they knew they didn't have gear.  In this case, it sounds like the gear may have been irrelavent, but they knew the snow was unstable because they triggered an avalanche that they were able to walk away from and they kept going.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayT 

Here's the UAC report for the Pierre slide....

 

http://www.powdermag.com/stories/uac-releases-pierre-slide-investigation-photos/

 

They also show the first avalanche he and his buddy triggered, which was pretty significant.

I agree, but what are you seeing in it? was this taken on Monday? can you see any tracks entering from the top to ski it? is this slide triggered by skiers? what is the allusion to the bootpack trail about? what was the proportion of booters to skinners on that croweded Sunday would you say? are booters more likely to be BC novices, owning less gear?

In my experience, it is extremely difficult to both follow correct unstable snow protocol and compete aggressively for first tracks at the same time. Another example of bringing the resort mentality into the BC that just doesn't fit.

thx. I, for one, do believe we ca n learn a few things, even just talking far from the hill.

Just wondering why the slides fracture quit on the lookers right side? Different vertical or exposure?
TPJ?

The shot of the avy path that killed him looked pretty nasty.  So I suppose early season avalanches are potentially more fatal due to more exposure to rocks, etc. without a solid base covering them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayT 

The shot of the avy path that killed him looked pretty nasty.  So I suppose early season avalanches are potentially more fatal due to more exposure to rocks, etc. without a solid base covering them?

Check out the second photo in the report here.  http://www.powdermag.com/stories/uac-releases-pierre-slide-investigation-photos/

I think it's pretty clear in that picture why an early season slide would be more dangerous.  Looks like beautiful pow on the right, and grass and rocks sticking out below where the slide went.  A real meat grinder...

Quote:

Originally Posted by davluri 

I agree, but what are you seeing in it? was this taken on Monday? can you see any tracks entering from the top to ski it? is this slide triggered by skiers? what is the allusion to the bootpack trail about? what was the proportion of booters to skinners on that croweded Sunday would you say? are booters more likely to be BC novices, owning less gear?

 

thx. I, for one, do believe we ca n learn a few things, even just talking far from the hill.

Here's my summary based on reading the Utah Avalanche Center's report.  UAC did interview JP's partner from that day...

* JP and friend were booting up the hill and carrying snowboards (but no avalanche gear).

* Their boot track is the one seen exiting the looker's-right side of that avalanche track in Peruvian Cirque.  The report states that they triggered that entire slide remotely and that the slide covered their tracks behind them.

* The report then takes pains to state that it is "unclear whether they realized they had triggered this large avalanche".

* They then continued hiking up and over the ridge to the right side of the photo.  On the other side of the ridge, they prepared to drop into Gad Valley, which is the next terrain feature to the west.  JP dropped in and immediately triggered the fatal slide.

So, the report doesn't make completely clear whether the two riders saw the slide - that they themselves triggered - in the Cirque.  If they were indeed aware of it, that knowledge SHOULD have been a big waving red flag.  If they weren't aware of it, that's a shame.

In your vein of learning a few things even talking far from the hill, dav, there's a very, very valuable lesson here.  As tromano said early in this thread, the best warning sign for avalanches is other avalanches.  

For those of you reading this who don't get out in the mountains all that much, that statement is an extremely important one.  If you find yourself in a situation where you're riding/traveling somewhere in avalanche terrain and you see (or even trigger) a slide, that's a very clear indication that unstable conditions exist and you'd better be extremely sure of your assessment and decisions before going further.  Nothing shouts CAUTION more loudly than an avalanche in your immediate vicinity.  It means the snow is not happy.   

Originally Posted by Bob Peters 

 

The simple fact that in-resort and heavily-traveled sidecountry slopes are skied - a lot - changes the dynamics pretty significantly.  Skier tracks compact the snow and mix the layers. That results in a more (edited out the incorrect "less" thanks to tetonpowderjunkie pointing out my error)  homogenous snowpack, which diminishes - but definitely doesn't eliminate -  the chances for large and dangerous slabs to form.  Skier traffic also adds load to the snowpack, often in the exact trigger points needed to release a slab if release is going to be possible.  So, it's my contention that the amount and frequency of skier traffic inside resorts and in nearby sidecountry slopes has a very definite impact on the likelihood of serious avalanches.

Bob, I'd be very careful about your words here. The snowpack in the sidecountry is rarely rarely rarely ever safer than the backcountry, even the slightest bit. Yes, in-resort changes the dynamics, but the sidecountry does not get anywhere near enough traffic for the snowpack to go through these kinds of changes.

From what I hear, it may be a remote possibility that some areas of the JHMR sidecountry get enough traffic to reduce probability, but I'd be VERY careful about saying this, as it's easy for uninformed and uneducated people to read your words and get the wrong impression, or make assumptions about the dangers of skiing in the sidecountry.

"There's lots of tracks already here, it would have slid by now if it was dangerous, or, the dangerous layers are probably broken up."

WRONG!

I'm sure you're very familiar with the inbounds slide at Jackson that resulted in the fatality that happened after tens (hundreds?) of people had already skied the slope. Slabs, whether they be hard slabs or soft slabs can start/propogate from a single trigger point. It only takes one person to hit the trigger point, and bring the whole slope down on them. Just because the 50 people before you haven't hit the trigger point, doesn't mean you won't. This is especially true with the continental snowpack, where cold clear nights and temperature gradients turns near-ground snow into sugar. If a skier skies over a shallow zone (i.e. a buried rock outcrop) and cuts the slab layers that are doing the bridging, it can proprogate across and bring the whole slope down.

One should be assessing sidecountry terrain and snowpack with the same care and attention that they do with backcountry terrain and snowpack. This means that you should be telling yourself that the entire slope is completely untracked during your assessment.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

 

It's not like sidecountry, where you basically ride a lift, hike for 10 minutes and maybe forget about the fact that you've entered dangerous, non-controlled terrain. When you're hiking a long approach up a mountain, whether it's part of a closed resort or not, most people must realize that there's no control and avalanches are a very real danger.

Originally Posted by tetonpwdrjunkie 

 

I think the idea of a "back-country movement" is a bit flawed.  Most "participants" seem to be refugees from a resort slipping past a gate looking for powder because they can and it's become the cool thing to do.  I see a huge mix of ability levels and experience heading through the gates at JHMR.  To me a movement has some sort of cohesion and commonality.  I don't see that in the slack-country crowd.  The groups on Teton Pass are a bit better than the average slack country group.  The farther you get from a lift or road, the more serious and committed the groups seem to be.

After having numerous conversations about the LCC/BCC with friends and BC partners that have lived there, it's quite different than most other areas around the nation. The BC in the Wasatch gets tracked almost as fast as resort sidecountry out there. There is a disproportionate number of BC skiers. I would wager that the slackcountry crowd at JHMR is very similar to the BC crowd in the Wasatch. I would wager that they are less educated and pressured more into getting their turns in, before someone else douches their line (as davluri touches on). If this sh!tshow was going to happen anywhere, I'm not surprised it happened in the Wasatch after the first significant storm of the season. The BC culture in the Wasatch is a huge part of the ski scene, and I would say it's more trendy there, than anywhere else, to get into the BC, leading to multiple uneducated/uninformed groups, poor decision making, and herd mentality, that was witnessed during that day.

It's even possible (remote) that the slide was natural, and not remotely triggered, thus they never even knew about it.

Originally Posted by slider 

Just wondering why the slides fracture quit on the lookers right side? Different vertical or exposure?

Hard to say for sure, but it looks like there's a terrain variation (sort of a subdued spine) nearby. My guess is less crossloading and windeffect, reducing the ability for the slide to propagate. If it was triggered on the bootpack, my guess is that either they triggered it while crossing this terrain variation, the shallower snowpack at this location acting as the trigger, or it was triggered when they reached the ridgeline and collapsed some snow on top, or hit a different trigger point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Lindahl 

 

...Bob, I'd be very careful about your words here. The snowpack in the sidecountry is rarely rarely rarely ever safer than the backcountry, even the slightest bit. Yes, in-resort changes the dynamics, but the sidecountry does not get anywhere near enough traffic for the snowpack to go through these kinds of changes...

I think the point he was making is that skier compaction does stir the brownie a good bit.  This is undeniable, even in CO which does frequently have a funkier snowpack.

A BC snowpack, including as BP noted inbounds terrain with little skier compaction but not one that's been controlled and skied the heck out of, is different.  There's a broader recreational point, which is that people don't need to worry about skiing inbounds in a few weeks just because there were a few slides recently.  It's kinda like surfers worrying about sharks rather than drowning, staph and heart attacks. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Lindahl 

 

Bob, I'd be very careful about your words here. The snowpack in the sidecountry is rarely rarely rarely ever safer than the backcountry, even the slightest bit. Yes, in-resort changes the dynamics, but the sidecountry does not get anywhere near enough traffic for the snowpack to go through these kinds of changes.

 

From what I hear, it may be a remote possibility that some areas of the JHMR sidecountry get enough traffic to reduce probability, but I'd be VERY careful about saying this, as it's easy for uninformed and uneducated people to read your words and get the wrong impression, or make assumptions about the dangers of skiing in the sidecountry.

 

"There's lots of tracks already here, it would have slid by now if it was dangerous, or, the dangerous layers are probably broken up."

WRONG!

 

I'm sure you're very familiar with the inbounds slide at Jackson that resulted in the fatality that happened after tens (hundreds?) of people had already skied the slope. Slabs, whether they be hard slabs or soft slabs can start/propogate from a single trigger point. It only takes one person to hit the trigger point, and bring the whole slope down on them. Just because the 50 people before you haven't hit the trigger point, doesn't mean you won't. This is especially true with the continental snowpack, where cold clear nights and temperature gradients turns near-ground snow into sugar. If a skier skies over a shallow zone (i.e. a buried rock outcrop) and cuts the slab layers that are doing the bridging, it can proprogate across and bring the whole slope down.

Hi, Brian.

I'll certainly concede that it would be easy for the "uniformed and uneducated" to get the wrong impression about my comments on sidecountry stability.  I was actually trying to be very careful about what I said, but I can see where it could be interpreted incorrectly by some people.  Not only that, but MY opinions definitely shouldn't be extrapolated to other resort/sidecountry situations. Certainly, the default strategy for anyone unfamiliar with a given snowpack should be to err on the side of caution.

Nevertheless - and I'm choosing my words VERY carefully here - I don't think there's an ounce of doubt that high skier traffic in sidecountry and even certain backcountry areas here in Jackson Hole have radically and permanently changed the snow stability equation over the last ten or so years.  I think the same can be said for significant swaths of the terrain in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons.

Is it heresy or irresponsible to recognize that the dynamics have changed?  

I've been backcountry skiing in Jackson Hole for over thirty years and I was a backcountry guide for the Jackson Hole Mountain Resort for eight winters in the 80's.  In the days I was guiding, we were very, very cautious.  We hardly ever even touched lines that I'll now see dozens or even hundreds of tracks on every day. The same applies, to an even greater degree if at all possible, to "pure" backcountry lines off Teton Pass.  The snowfall is the same as it always was, the storms are the same, the mountains are the same.  The only true variable that I can see is that there is a ton more traffic on these slopes now than there used to be.  I know that many areas of the Wasatch are seeing the same thing, although they get more snow on average than we do.

Training, gear (along with the ability to use it), experience, judgement, and a very healthy fear of avalanches are all still important.  Risk assessment is very important too, though, and the snowpack risk is simply different in heavily-traveled areas than it used to be before backcountry skiing got cool. That doesn't mean anyone can ignore the risks, but I am suggesting that sidecountry snowpacks - at least here in Jackson Hole - are a different animal than they used to be.

By the way, I'm quite familiar with the inbounds slide.  It's still an open question as to whether or not that skier was actually technically "inbounds" at the point where he triggered the slide.  While he was definitely within the boundaries of the ski area, it's possible that he was nudging the line somewhat on a permanently closed area.  I think it's fairly safe to say that the place where he triggered that avalanche sees very little (or no) skier traffic.   

Thanks Brian,

what's the new dynamic in the sidecountry? more skier tracked and packed? therefore more consolidated? the layers more cohesive? just like the resort? kinda' like it?

Brian Lindahl did a nice job of explaining this.  I pretty much would be repeating what he said.  One of the problems with stability assessment is spatial variability, which means that the snow pack can be very different in areas that are not far from each other.  The snow pack is also connected to it'self and impulses in one area can and do trigger events in adjacent areas.  Under the "right" conditions these impulses have been observed to travel over a half mile at close to the speed of sound to remotely trigger large slides.  Things like wind loading and solar heat gain are heavily effected by subtle terrain variations.  Snow crystal metamorphosis which can increase or decrease stability are effected by snow depth, aspect and angle of incidence.  Finally tension and compression of the snow pack are effected by pitch and again subtle variations in average pitch or changes in pitch have huge effects on the volatility of a slab once its formed.  I could explain this in great detail and occasionally do in classes that I help teach.  This forum is not the place for that.  Anyone who wants to know more should start by reading a book like "Staying Alive in Avalanche Terrain" by Bruce Tremper, then take an Avy 1 class, and finally get out and learn with some partners.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by slider 

Just wondering why the slides fracture quit on the lookers right side? Different vertical or exposure?
TPJ?

 

Brian you bring up a good point here.  I agree with the response that Bob Peters has already posted about this concern.  It is a fact that skier traffic in the most popular areas of the Tetons have increased the overall stability by breaking up the layers that exist in "virgin" snow.  I have observed this both anecdotally in over 20 years of observation and talking with even longer time skiers and guides like Bob Peters and through direct pit data where pits in close proximity show very different layering profiles as well as CT, ECT, and Shear results based on skier traffic.  You are 100% correct to comment on the fact that a slope has been skied before and has tracks on it may not be safe.  This is particularly true right after a storm when the new snow and the resultant slabs haven't been busted up yet and the churned snow hasn't had time to bond to itself.  The in-bounds incident that you refer to happened under conditions of rapid loading combined with some bad snow layers that had been formed in the very early season.  There is also some controversy about just where the victim was and if he was in an open area.  The official story is that he was, but he may have been creeping a bit.

Personally while I recognize that skier compaction and stabilization is a real factor, I choose to be conservative and treat side country and OB slopes with the same index of suspicion.  I have only skied OB one time with out gear in the last 20 years.  I felt it was probably OK based on the conditions and the fact that I was skiing a conservative Rock Springs line with Bob Peters and another Bear I can't remember.  I only did it because I ran into them in The Tram at the last minute and was invited to go along.  I was a bit on edge the whole time even though I never really thought there was much danger.  I am of the opinion that avy rescue gear should always be carried and never used if the group is making good decisions.  Plan A is Avoidence.  If you are caught there is a pretty good chance of trauma that might be fatal regardless of how prepared you are.  I believe that this was the case with JP. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Lindahl 

 

Bob, I'd be very careful about your words here. The snowpack in the sidecountry is rarely rarely rarely ever safer than the backcountry, even the slightest bit. Yes, in-resort changes the dynamics, but the sidecountry does not get anywhere near enough traffic for the snowpack to go through these kinds of changes.

 

From what I hear, it may be a remote possibility that some areas of the JHMR sidecountry get enough traffic to reduce probability, but I'd be VERY careful about saying this, as it's easy for uninformed and uneducated people to read your words and get the wrong impression, or make assumptions about the dangers of skiing in the sidecountry.

 

"There's lots of tracks already here, it would have slid by now if it was dangerous, or, the dangerous layers are probably broken up."

WRONG!

 

I'm sure you're very familiar with the inbounds slide at Jackson that resulted in the fatality that happened after tens (hundreds?) of people had already skied the slope. Slabs, whether they be hard slabs or soft slabs can start/propogate from a single trigger point. It only takes one person to hit the trigger point, and bring the whole slope down on them. Just because the 50 people before you haven't hit the trigger point, doesn't mean you won't. This is especially true with the continental snowpack, where cold clear nights and temperature gradients turns near-ground snow into sugar. If a skier skies over a shallow zone (i.e. a buried rock outcrop) and cuts the slab layers that are doing the bridging, it can proprogate across and bring the whole slope down.

 

One should be assessing sidecountry terrain and snowpack with the same care and attention that they do with backcountry terrain and snowpack. This means that you should be telling yourself that the entire slope is completely untracked during your assessment.
 

 

After having numerous conversations about the LCC/BCC with friends and BC partners that have lived there, it's quite different than most other areas around the nation. The BC in the Wasatch gets tracked almost as fast as resort sidecountry out there. There is a disproportionate number of BC skiers. I would wager that the slackcountry crowd at JHMR is very similar to the BC crowd in the Wasatch. I would wager that they are less educated and pressured more into getting their turns in, before someone else douches their line (as davluri touches on). If this sh!tshow was going to happen anywhere, I'm not surprised it happened in the Wasatch after the first significant storm of the season. The BC culture in the Wasatch is a huge part of the ski scene, and I would say it's more trendy there, than anywhere else, to get into the BC, leading to multiple uneducated/uninformed groups, poor decision making, and herd mentality, that was witnessed during that day.

 

It's even possible (remote) that the slide was natural, and not remotely triggered, thus they never even knew about it.

 

Hard to say for sure, but it looks like there's a terrain variation (sort of a subdued spine) nearby. My guess is less crossloading and windeffect, reducing the ability for the slide to propagate. If it was triggered on the bootpack, my guess is that either they triggered it while crossing this terrain variation, the shallower snowpack at this location acting as the trigger, or it was triggered when they reached the ridgeline and collapsed some snow on top, or hit a different trigger point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Peters 

...the snowpack risk is simply different in heavily-traveled areas than it used to be before backcountry skiing got cool. That doesn't mean anyone can ignore the risks, but I am suggesting that sidecountry snowpacks - at least here in Jackson Hole - are a different animal than they used to be....

 

 

 

 

A couple lift-served areas now use skier compaction as an explicit part of their early-season program.  This reflects what skier compaction does result in.  Some of the Jackson and SLC sidecountry for sure receive as much or more traffic.  Doesn't mean that on a day where it pukes in the morning followed by some high wind and rising temps topped off by rain that the sidecountry won't be as risky as anywhere else, but does mean that on average it gets much closer to inbounds terrain than other areas.  Obviously people who know the local conditions will have a much better sense of what this translates to than tourists though. 

Originally Posted by CTKook 

I think the point he was making is that skier compaction does stir the brownie a good bit.  This is undeniable, even in CO which does frequently have a funkier snowpack.

Sure, it can. But it's very dangerous to have it factor into risk decision making when it comes to the sidecountry and backcountry. Where in CO does the sidecountry or backcountry get enough traffic for skier compaction to make enough of a difference for it to factor into decision making? I can answer that - nowhere. I believe, however, you meant that if CO did get enough traffic, you'd see similar results in snowpack changes that Bob is claiming for the Jackson region?

Originally Posted by Bob Peters 

Not only that, but MY opinions definitely shouldn't be extrapolated to other resort/sidecountry situations. Nevertheless - and I'm choosing my words VERY carefully here - I don't think there's an ounce of doubt that high skier traffic in sidecountry and even certain backcountry areas here in Jackson Hole have radically and permanently changed the snow stability equation over the last ten or so years.  I think the same can be said for significant swaths of the terrain in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons.

This bears highlighting. I'm aware of only SOME sidecountry in one region (LCC/BCC), and it sounds like JMHR may be in the same boat? And even in those areas, only some lines see enough traffic. Hardly can one suggest that all sidecountry sees enough traffic (I'm sure that's not what you meant). No other areas that I'm aware of (certainly none in Colorado) have enough traffic to impact the snowpack enough to factor into decision making

Originally Posted by Bob Peters 

I've been backcountry skiing in Jackson Hole for over thirty years and I was a backcountry guide for the Jackson Hole Mountain Resort for eight winters in the 80's.  In the days I was guiding, we were very, very cautious.  We hardly ever even touched lines that I'll now see dozens or even hundreds of tracks on every day. The same applies, to an even greater degree if at all possible, to "pure" backcountry lines off Teton Pass.  The snowfall is the same as it always was, the storms are the same, the mountains are the same.  The only true variable that I can see is that there is a ton more traffic on these slopes now than there used to be.  I know that many areas of the Wasatch are seeing the same thing, although they get more snow on average than we do.

I'm sure you didn't mean it, but it sounds like you're using positive results to reinforce risk-based decision making, which is a pretty big no-no. Just because you see dozens or even hundreds of tracks down lines that people didn't touch back in the 80s, doesn't mean that stability has improved due to skier compaction (or other reasons). A far more likely cause is the search for fresh tracks in an ever-growing sidecountry and backcountry population (and the growing popularity of skiing committed lines - the 'lets get rad' effect). I'm only calling you out here because I don't want someone to misread your intent.

I'd like the pose a few questions to you. Can you quantify how skier compaction has changed the snow stability equation? Are there less step-downs? Does stuff get skied off so quickly when fresh snow falls, that large slabs (say 40' across) do not form? Do you not see slides with fresh snow on top of surface hoar, because the surface hoar layer has been utterly destroyed before new snow falls? How have these observations and knowledge changed your decision making in the sidecountry? Also, how much traffic are you seeing in the sidecountry and popular backcountry lines where you consider skier compaction to be a factor in decision making? 10 people per day per line, 20 people per day per line, 50 people per day per line? Double on storm days and a day or two after the storm?

Originally Posted by tetonpwdrjunkie 

It is a fact that skier traffic in the most popular areas of the Tetons have increased the overall stability by breaking up the layers that exist in "virgin" snow.  I have observed this both anecdotally in over 20 years of observation and talking with even longer time skiers and guides like Bob Peters and through direct pit data where pits in close proximity show very different layering profiles as well as CT, ECT, and Shear results based on skier traffic.

I'll ask you the same questions I asked Bob. If I read you correctly, your observations of the effects of skier compaction in popular sidecountry and backcountry lines have not changed your decision making in said areas? Can you share how your direct observations have changed over time? And what anecdotal evidence you've seen? How much traffic are you seeing in the sidecountry and popular backcountry lines where you consider skier compaction to be a factor? 10 people per day per line, 20 people per day per line, 50 people per day per line? Double on storm days and a day or two after the storm?

I'm sure I can give a good educated guess as to what you guys have seen and evidenced over the years at a high level, but I think it's important not to leave this vague and open for interpretation for others who might read this.

I think it was stated that some of the more detailed and complicated information is available in classes, seminars, and actual tours, and that TPJ and BP are not comfortable educating people on such a complex subject on line. What you are trying to clarify to make absolutely certain that people do not go away from this thread with false conclusions is not possible, IMO, and the risk you wish to avoid still exists wherever people seek to shortcut the learning curve.

Responses in red:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Lindahl 

 

I'm sure you didn't mean it, but it sounds like you're using positive results to reinforce risk-based decision making, which is a pretty big no-no. Just because you see dozens or even hundreds of tracks down lines that people didn't touch back in the 80s, doesn't mean that stability has improved due to skier compaction (or other reasons). A far more likely cause is the search for fresh tracks in an ever-growing sidecountry and backcountry population (and the growing popularity of skiing committed lines - the 'lets get rad' effect). I'm only calling you out here because I don't want someone to misread your intent.

 

My only intent is to suggest that lines that had been known to avalanche big time occasionally during the winter thirty years ago are not regularly doing that now.  Those lines are getting far more traffic today than they did before the backcountry gates were thrown open here, yet the incidence of huge slides has decreased, when logic might suggest they would increase with the vastly increased frequency of riders using those areas.

 

I'd like the pose a few questions to you. Can you quantify how skier compaction has changed the snow stability equation? No, I can't quantify it.  Are there less step-downs? Yes - in the heavily-traveled sidecountry. Does stuff get skied off so quickly when fresh snow falls, that large slabs (say 40' across) do not form? Yes - in the heavily-traveled sidecountry. Do you not see slides with fresh snow on top of surface hoar, because the surface hoar layer has been utterly destroyed before new snow falls? No/Yes - in the heavily-traveled sidecountry. How have these observations and knowledge changed your decision making in the sidecountry? I'm typically now less concerned about deep instabilies than I used to be - in the heavily-traveled sidecountry. Also, how much traffic are you seeing in the sidecountry and popular backcountry lines where you consider skier compaction to be a factor in decision making? 10 people per day per line, 20 people per day per line, 50 people per day per line? All of the above. Double on storm days and a day or two after the storm? Less on storm days, increasing as time after the storm increases.

 

I'm sure I can give a good educated guess as to what you guys have seen and evidenced over the years at a high level, but I think it's important not to leave this vague and open for interpretation for others who might read this.

 

I think that by its very nature snow safety is fairly vague and open for interpretation.  Every avalanche pro I know has been surprised both ways - conditions that they were SURE would slide but never did as well as conditions where every bit of data and intuition would lead one to believe the slope was safe and it slid anyway.  

 

And you rightly point out that Colorado is much different from our snowpack in Jackson and from what I'm familiar with in Utah.  

 

No one - informed or uninformed - should just go out and ride sidecountry or backcountry without taking appropriate precautions.  Those precautions include learning and practicing how to assess the snowpack, find routes, ski lines as safely as possible given the conditions (or not ski them at all), making safety the priority rather than adrenaline, and knowing how to use your search and rescue equipment.  The fact that a sidecountry (or backcountry) slope has been skied a lot does not change the requirement that all of those factors should be considered before you ski it, but it does change the dynamics of load and trigger on that slope.    

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Lindahl 

 

...Sure, it can. But it's very dangerous to have it factor into risk decision making when it comes to the sidecountry and backcountry. Where in CO does the sidecountry or backcountry get enough traffic for skier compaction to make enough of a difference for it to factor into decision making? I can answer that - nowhere. I believe, however, you meant that if CO did get enough traffic, you'd see similar results in snowpack changes that Bob is claiming for the Jackson region?...

There are places where I'd say it does indeed get enough traffic for this to happen in CO.  It doesn't mean that the snowpack there is always safe, just that skier (or ski)  compaction has an effect on the snowpack itself, in addtion to whatever assessment value it might or might not have.  View a spectrum, from bootpacking -- extensively used, and way deeper than ski compaction -- to patrol intentionally leaving inbounds terrain open during storms in part precisely because the inbounds traffic is enough to be a significant source of stability/less heterogeneity (w is what BP was initially meaning on the homogenous thing), to ski compaction by patrol, to sidecountry and BC with heavy use, to less crowded. 

I would totally agree with you in stressing to anyone reading this that they on average can get themselves in trouble much easier in CO because of stability issues, just right outside the resort. You're also at least implying that you'll frequently see others doing boneheaded things right outside a resort, and that someone can't think that because they see this that it has any meaning to them, and while I apologize for putting words in your mouth if I phrased it wrong, I think this is also true.   

I would say that as a technical matter that depending on the year Jackson is pretty in between, and some years can be pretty close to CO. 

For the average person reading this, if they go to CO or UT or Jackson and ski a resort, what they should know is that inbounds, the majority of the terrain they ski will in fact be way different stability-wise from the conditions involved in this incident.  If they want to ask patrol to point out to them any areas that have just opened, and have seen little or no skier or other compaction, and then ask patrol's opinion on stability for the day, they could certainly do this, but while it's a human story and one that could relate to access issues as others have noted, it's not a resort story. 

In terms of baking the brownie, another way to look at this is, does terrain get rode/whatever enough to help prevent instabilities from forming?  Including deep hard instabilities of the kind that funky snowpacks can generate? 

That answer is obviously local both in terms of location and time, and can depend.  It doesn't have to depend on whether the terrain is lift-served. 

You guys can try and place blame , suggest that people should get a permit, or only the experienced should be allowed... The bottom line is, snow is unpredictable, and plenty of very experienced BC skiers/boarders get caught up on avalanches each year.  I am and have skied with lots of experienced people and some of them are the worst!  Including me at one time!     The Backcountry is what it is, a crap shoot.    Obviously skiing without any gear is irresponsible for you and especially everyone else, so pick smart friends and watch out for everyone else because you really are on your own out there ..       

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

There are places where I'd say it does indeed get enough traffic for this to happen in CO.  It doesn't mean that the snowpack there is always safe, just that skier (or ski)  compaction has an effect on the snowpack itself, in addtion to whatever assessment value it might or might not have.  View a spectrum, from bootpacking -- extensively used, and way deeper than ski compaction -- to patrol intentionally leaving inbounds terrain open during storms in part precisely because the inbounds traffic is enough to be a significant source of stability/less heterogeneity (w is what BP was initially meaning on the homogenous thing), to ski compaction by patrol, to sidecountry and BC with heavy use, to less crowded. 

 

I would totally agree with you in stressing to anyone reading this that they on average can get themselves in trouble much easier in CO because of stability issues, just right outside the resort. You're also at least implying that you'll frequently see others doing boneheaded things right outside a resort, and that someone can't think that because they see this that it has any meaning to them, and while I apologize for putting words in your mouth if I phrased it wrong, I think this is also true.   

 

I would say that as a technical matter that depending on the year Jackson is pretty in between, and some years can be pretty close to CO. 

 

For the average person reading this, if they go to CO or UT or Jackson and ski a resort, what they should know is that inbounds, the majority of the terrain they ski will in fact be way different stability-wise from the conditions involved in this incident.  If they want to ask patrol to point out to them any areas that have just opened, and have seen little or no skier or other compaction, and then ask patrol's opinion on stability for the day, they could certainly do this, but while it's a human story and one that could relate to access issues as others have noted, it's not a resort story. 

Backcountry terrain that gets plenty of traffic and packed out around Denver.   Loveland Pass, loveland side, from lot straight down, or slight right or slight left to run that runs above or below the rock at Gibralter (or the ironing board, just look up when traversing over).    Berthoud pass, creek bed, Telegraph, and even the rock garden gets well tracked out.    For being in the backcountry those particular areas are pretty stable and get tons of traffic every day.  
 

So did fat skis/electronics help to increase BC traffic or and are there  just more riders? I can see were higher traffic would decrease Avalanches except is high instability conditions. Personally you would not catch me out there! Might as well launch a row boat into the Ocean.

I'm a little concerned by this comment. There's a reason why patrol sidestep and bootpack avalanche terrain in the early season. They do so because by the time the slope can be skied safely without hitting rocks and other obstacles, the potential weaknesses are buried, away from the effects of skier compaction. In addition to this, in the early season, even after the season is underway, temperature gradients in the snowpack can turn lower layers to sugar (depth hoar), creating the weakness after the snow is buried - again, skier compaction is ineffective to combat this layer. Finally, slab formation can also happen overnight, before skier compaction has any sort of chance to break it up.

If surface hoar develops before the storm rolls in, after the terrain is skier compacted, you've got a nasty bed surface for a new slab to slide on. Or, later in the season, if you get some warm thawing before the storm, the snowpack can deteriorate and you get a lot of grainy facets, which turn almost any surface windslab slab into a slide due to the ball bearing effect. But, I believe you've already mentioned that skier compaction is ineffective against new storm layers? This is especially true, because, as you mention, traffic in the sidecountry and backcountry is significantly less during storms.
 

It's not just that bootpacking is deeper than ski compaction (though that does make a difference - see the history of Highland Bowl avalanche mitigation), it's that bootpacking can be used when ski compaction can't happen due to coverage issues. This is important for breaking up deeper instabilities that I just mentioned.
 

 
Sure, it has an effect, but it should play little role in risk assessment and decision making. I'll leave this thread with a word of caution: using skier compaction as an assessment variable during decision making is a dangerous practice. Other observations and data greatly overshadow any information that can be gleaned from skier activity/compaction, making it an ineffective tool in risk assessment. Heck, even popular in-bounds areas will slide, for example the far Lover's Leap area at Blue Sky Basin at Vail in December of 2008 (or the Jackson slide I referred to earlier). They had bombed the area a lot, but all my buddy had to do was hit the trigger point and he got swept away by a 3' crown (midpack instability).

I'll leave this as food for thought, as well:

http://www.camptocamp.org/images/110094/fr/plaque-en-bord-de-piste

wind is a cause of inbound slides at resorts, after control. several ways, but one is a windbuff layer in the snowpack, another is windload during the ski day after control. what you said, about factors more consequential than skier compaction. One white out windy day I skied into a trigger point and watched the windslab slowly open up a crack at the crown, right in front of my ski tips.

I understand that the differences between coastal, inter-mountain, and continental snowpacks are very large. Perhaps this disagreement is an example of this?

It looks like a couple more storms might be hitting N. UT this weekend. I think it may be time for turns in the Bear River Mts.