Some comments from USFS about "Moderate" avalanche danger

[DLottmann]

While the season is winding down Christopher Joosen, Lead USFS Snow Ranger, posted this yesterday:

http://www.mountwashingtonavalanchecenter.org/2013/04/07/moderate-danger-and-avalanche-accidents-respect-and-awe/

It's a pretty good read, and I especially like this photo taken just last week!

[lucky luke]

http://www.mountwashingtonavalanchecenter.org/2013/04/07/moderate-danger-and-avalanche-accidents-respect-and-awe/

This article is very a bad one. There is "avy" post for tornado, but if one year there is more tornado than and other, it will have more death and damage. the comparaison between avy and accident is stupid. It show the inutility of the system in the form that we have actually (saying that, I admit that avy can be usefull)to take a look). Doing avy to make money and for climbing is not the same game

One of the biggest mistake it is to take a look at the entire system, and just discuss the accident. It is like looking at all the accident by ligthning and saying that you must stay home when a thunderstorm occur. Stupid.

The entire system is closely relate to the "line" between mass of warm air from atlantic or continental direction and cold air from canada, that move north and south depending of the season (not remember the name). As you know that, you will see that, because of the global warming, the mt Washington was for many days in a spring situation where the avalanche danger is higher. Using a compilation of what happen before to apply at the actual situation is a mistake. And giving theoric data to a new weather condition is useless. I will prefer Marc Chauvin or Synnot to smell/feel the slab and gave the beat of the mountain. There was a guide caught in an avalanche this winter and all the party was safe. The guide did a good job.

Education most be to be like those guide, not learning a law write by human that you most follow
   

[eyebolter]

While the season is winding down Christopher Joosen, Lead USFS Snow Ranger, posted this yesterday:

http://www.mountwashingtonavalanchecenter.org/2013/04/07/moderate-danger-and-avalanche-accidents-respect-and-awe/

It's a pretty good read, and I especially like this photo taken just last week!

Good article, thanks for the link.  The pics of Tuckerman's are great. Looks like there is a lot of snow up there!.   

[hobbsj]

Great read with some good points. And that picture was awesome.  I can't imagine the pure mass and energy involved in that slide!

[DLottmann]

I will prefer Marc Chauvin or Synnot to smell/feel the slab and gave the beat of the mountain. There was a guide caught in an avalanche this winter and all the party was safe. The guide did a good job.

I took my first 3 avalanche courses with Chauvin, and Synnott observed one of mine this year (in order to get certified to teach AIARE courses). I think he enjoyed it.

I also spoke with the guide who was caught, and he felt he had made a mistake (one that could have easily been made by any other guide in those circumstances). EDIT: This incident can not be compared to the Wounded Warriors incident in terms of managing "reasonable risk/uncertainty".

Eyebolter & Hobbsj, that pic is awesome... the debris was pretty impressive and still quite visible last Saturday!

[JakeDatc]

There was a guide caught in an avalanche this winter and all the party was safe. The guide did a good job.   

A guide almost got 3 people killed by playing movie star hero

[lucky luke]

The entire system is closely relate to the "line" between mass of warm air from atlantic or continental direction and cold air from canada, that move north and south depending of the season (not remember the name). As you know that, you will see that, because of the global warming, the mt Washington was for many days in a spring situation where the avalanche danger is higher. Using a compilation of what happen before to apply at the actual situation is a mistake. And giving theoric data to a new weather

Here is some link to what I said: First the air mass distribution in american situation, 2- the distribution of the jet stream, we are at the 45 to 60 degree, 3- and the oscillation of the jet stream with global warming.

As the jet stream moved a little from normally, we have more snow in the central state and warm air in mt washington, with rain in winter. This is condition that we found ordinarly around the conecticut where the ice is not really safe. So, the overall year was more dangerous than moderate for all ice condition.

1- http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect14/airmasses_schem.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect14/Sect14_1b.html&h=325&w=410&sz=120&tbnid=baHgikeIJMrvaM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=114&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dair%2Bmass%2Bmap%2Bworld%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=air+mass+map+world&usg=__VnE9nbpkzKpuhjGLYNNGcKhx75M=&docid=mIY5JjVg6sF_AM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8ipoUbfEF_e14AOXtYGQDQ&ved=0CDIQ9QEwAQ&dur=315

2- http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/images/jetstream3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/jet.htm&h=240&w=600&sz=39&tbnid=gJOtmu_9Wy-Y2M:&tbnh=54&tbnw=135&prev=/search%3Fq%3Djet%2Bstream%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=jet+stream&usg=__lGf4nQfkLFEFY2zs9SNKgbchKOc=&docid=vsEbSNon-T2HkM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wCtoUcvIOMfc4APriYDACA&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQ9QEwBA&dur=4787

3-http://fp.arizona.edu/kkh/climate/PPT-PDFs-09/indices/NAO.pdf

[DLottmann]

Thanks for the helpful info, understanding oscillation and jet streams is so important to understanding avalanche danger. We’ll get this info into the hands of the avalanche center immediately.

<end sarcasm>

[JBro]

[lucky luke]

Here is some link to what I said: First the air mass distribution in american situation, 2- the distribution of the jet stream, we are at the 45 to 60 degree, 3- and the oscillation of the jet stream with global warming.

As jet stream is very important to predict the weather, the knowledge of the air mass will help people to be safer every where in the world. In alaska, where there is nice places to ski, the air mass are different and so the weather. After a while, you will understand that the cliff is like a patch work. With rock, ice, snow field, hoar ice (present year), and other ice condition.

The difference between a guide like chauvin and synnot is that, even if they don't explain that theory on meteorological aspect, they know how to evaluate the patch work on the ground...what guide with spot check (avy danger done actually) can not do. The guide who sky and was caught by the avalanche is a good example of that. Think when wrong unexpectably, as it those for the avalanche forecaster from utah, but in the particular situation of the guide in Mt Washington, he ski down first to a safe place. So, it is safety rules that save him. Imagine if he went down hill to the bottom without stopping at a safe place???

Unfortunately, the people will think that Dman was correct and the guide caught by the avalanche was wrong. they will follow course with who? unfortunately, with a good guide you will understand that he save your life months after when it is you who will take a decision and after it, thing will go wrong. With a bad guide, you will think that you are safe because you can not see the patch work in the cliff.

As I bring some theorical knowledge to the forum, I don't want to annoyed Chauvin and Synnot. I know that in the wild, I am at there "ankle level" (hauteur de la cheville, french expression). And I prefer some one who won't tell me any thing, but bring me to think at the consequences of my act by bringing me in control situation when the think go wrong...more than a guide that put all his safety rules in the same basket (avy danger).