With the recent fatalities at Silver Mtn, It seems like there's an increasingly clear pattern of inbounds avalanches early season on terrain that's recently opened. It's always been fairly apparent but probably worth emphasizing following this tragedy.
I'd love to see a study of how many inbounds fatalities have been in late December or January on recently opened terrain. I bet it would be eye-opening.
I'm using this as a motivator to wear my beacon when I otherwise wouldn't the next few weeks, even if there isn't much new snow. It seems far more important to do so this time of year than on similar days in March and April.
Am I off base with this thinking?
it seems that ski patrol had not checked the efficacy of mitigation steps. So, maybe for terrain that is Considerable hazard or higher, confer with ski patrol to determine what has and has not been done, then make your decision?? The thing to keep in mind is that resorts endeavor to make things safer, not iron-clad safe, something impossible for any resort to do.
Except when they’re not - controlled well enough and safe. At hazard level 4 & 5, if patrol is wrong, those are killer avy’s at elevated probability. In that context, each of us can take some personal responsibility. I’m proposing one possibility.if patrol opens terrain with no further warnings posted, they’re doing it because they have good reason to believe conditions are safe.
I'm thinking recent is in the last week or so, of course depending on skier traffic and a whole host of other things.“Recently opened terrain” might be a hard metric. Possibly you could do a word search through reports. You could suggest it as a category to include. Define “recent” though.
What you’re proposing sounds like second-guessing those on the mountain with both the most experience and data on the current hazards, which I don’t think is especially useful. If patrol were to publish their own report, I expect you’d find it looks quite different on any terrain that they’ve actually opened.Except when they’re not - controlled well enough and safe. At hazard level 4 & 5, if patrol is wrong, those are killer avy’s at elevated probability. In that context, each of us can take some personal responsibility. I’m proposing one possibility.
Well that’s at least two metrics- skier compaction and when the closed area was opened. But “weeks”? We’re talking in bounds.I'm thinking recent is in the last week or so, of course depending on skier traffic and a whole host of other things.
You can feel it under your skis. There isn't the compaction from skiers that you get after a slope is open for a while.
What you’re proposing sounds like second-guessing those on the mountain with both the most experience and data on the current hazards, which I don’t think is especially useful. If patrol were to publish their own report, I expect you’d find it looks quite different on any terrain that they’ve actually opened.
The better question to ask, when there is an incident, is what did patrol miss, and what could they have done to prevent it, and I have no doubt this is what every single mountain that performs avalanche mitigation is doing right now. If the answer were simply to close or post warnings on any terrain that would fall under “considerable” risk or above in the backcountry, they’d be doing exactly that.
This is not at all what I meant.I do agree that it's important to debrief and learn afterwards, but I do not think it's "better" to ask questions after the fact.
This is also going to vary significantly between locations.Thank you for clarifying. I think we're on the same page.
I do think reading the avalanche bulletins for the resort's area can be very informative and helpful in making decisions. If you're making decisions based on that, you're probably making more conservative decisions since they're talking about uncontrolled slopes. This would not be in lieu of talking to patrol, and reading resort reports. Sounds like we both read karlo's post about taking avy advisories into account very differently.
The thought of my post being construed as second-guessing came to mind, as second guessing those who were caught in the avalanche, which I do not mean to do. I hadn’t thought about it as possibly second guessing staff at the resort. I don’t mean that either. Second guessing has the connotation of right and wrong, will there be an avalanche or not? What I mean is that we each endeavor to be educated and informed. Then, we each determine for ourselves the level of risk we are willing to take, understanding that anyone’s and everyone’s, ours, local patrollers’, regional avy boards’ assessments can be right or wrong or both.What you’re proposing sounds like second-guessing those on the mountain with both the most experience and data on the current hazards, which I don’t think is especially useful. If patrol were to publish their own report, I expect you’d find it looks quite different on any terrain that they’ve actually opened.
The better question to ask, when there is an incident, is what did patrol miss, and what could they have done to prevent it, and I have no doubt this is what every single mountain that performs avalanche mitigation is doing right now. If the answer were simply to close or post warnings on any terrain that would fall under “considerable” risk or above in the backcountry, they’d be doing exactly that.
Hope not as well. But, at the same time, skiers should be educated consumers. Resorts are mitigating and deciding when and when not to open. It’s fair that this be an open process and that we know their criteria. Otherwise, they perhaps should do as EU does and not raise expectations??hope no one is suggesting that ski areas keep terrain closed until it is deemed 100%