UKC

I think you can see where this is going, but a little background first.

Wednesday 11th March.
It's been snowing heavily for two days, accompanied by very high winds. The col des Montets between Argentiere and Vallorcine has been closed for a day and a half. I haven't checked the avalanche risk category, but then I haven't felt it necessary to. It's obvious.

Yesterday I sat here at my desk and watched a group of nine skiers in bad vis in the couloir opposite cut a slab which took one of them a fair way down. The others helped find his skis, but clearly he was not well. Turned out later he was an instructor from Argentiere. He'd hurt his leg to some extent.

Bad weather and another 30 - 40cms overnight - here at 1300m.... a lt more higher up. Clear this morning and incredibly warm... The slopes of the col des Montets were bombed by helicopter to enable the ploughs to start opening the road. The bombs cut two big slides - that's only the third time in 19 years I've seen that happen. At exactly the same time a group of skiers in the couloir just left of yesterday's cut two biggish slides. Some time afterwards the PGHM helicopter came and made a visual search but found no one and went away. Sometime later a lone skier cut another slab. He was less lucky and it seemed he was smashed into some trees (I say less lucky, but in fact, if the trees hadn't stopped him he's been taken clean over the Vallorcine slab...). His tracks were clearly visible and led into the largest headwall of any of the slabs cut today - well over a metre. This was exactly where a Norwegian snowboarder lost a leg in a similar avalanche last year. The PGHM returned and after some time lifted him out. Looking across I can see seven slab avalanches, all with ski tracks leading into them.

Am I missing something? Anyone offer some comments?

In reply to jon:

Don't know the area that well, but I'm always astounded by the amount of people that will follow tracks.

It just takes one or two sets of tracks and the belief is that is everything is "safe".

Kev

In reply to jon: My thoughts are:

1) I'm glad I'm not the person responsible for making sure there are no skiers in the area before setting the explosions.

2) I really worry that eventually it will be made illegal to ski off piste without a guide. For me making my own decisions on route and safety is the most rewarding aspect of off piste skiing.

In reply to John2:

1. In this case it's very easy overflying. The area is completely closed of for the period the col is closed. I know what you mean, though. On the other hand, if there was someone in the area, they might make the heli unnecessary...
2. That will never happen. However, the area in question ie the Aiguillette des Posettes was subject to a ban on off piste skiing when the risk went above 3, last year. That ruling finished with the election of a new maire.

In reply to arctickev:

In this particular area that isn't the problem. It's an all out race to get the first tracks. My point is the outrageous stupidity of people willing to kill themselves (and others) for that pleasure. Sitting here watching, it would have been laughable if it hadn't been so serious.

But you're right, of course.

In reply to jon: People think Le Tour is safe because it's low altitude and sunny. That side of it is absolutely terrible and I have to admit that I've set off a small slide just above the tree line.

In reply to billy.grant:

Yes, Le Tour is known for it's gentle slopes etc, but as you say the Vallorcine or Trient sides are anything but, and are accessed very easily.

I think most people who've done lots of off piste skiing have at one time or another set off small slides. I have twice, but they were really VERY small. eg the top 5cms of spring snow on a warm day. I was surprised at the force of it. By the time it covered my skis I was powerless to escape it. Both times it happened were on 'safe' days. That sort of slide is pretty innocuous, but could easily push you over a cliff, for instance. However, my rant was about diving straight into a 35° couloir, immediately after a 2 day storm with high winds and heaps of new snow, while the slopes on the other side of the valley are still being bombed.

In reply to jon:

Totally agree with your sentiment Jon. Some folk fail to correlate the pure pleasure of great snow conditions with danger.

Last Saturday (Cat 3 day but no wind slab) with a metre of fresh powder on the Laub at Engelberg (average angle about 30) it was amazing to see folk without rucsacs(and therefore correct safety gear) skiing on very off piste terrain.

When I questioned (politely) one solo german skier without any avalanche kit his reply was something like "well I dont usually carry safety gear when on my own" as if to suggest that if he sent an avalanche down on someone else he was not responsible to help.

I really dont know how peolple can progress to skiing at that level and not build up an awareness (through training or otherwise)of the potential hazards involved - or is that the excitement of the conditions overrides this.

In reply to jon: Have you seent his btw? http://www.metronews.ca/calgary/local/article/193346

In reply to Chris F:

No, but sadly this exact article pops up in France on the first day of nice weather after a big storm with amazing regularity.

In reply to SiWood:


Very easily - I'm happy to snowboard down most things. I have been in many situations that I just would not consider going near now that i have a bit more avalanche awareness.

Remember, ignorance is much easier to have than to lose.

In reply to SiWood:

I love the clear and precise German logic. I was told once by an 11 year old German lad who I was taking ski touring, "I have been skiing all my life. I have never been in an avalanche. I do not need a transceiver." Said with all the maturity of a 50 year old.

In reply to jon:

Think that just about sums it up & along with a healthy dose of ignorance.

Got caught out myself about 3 weeks ago on the descent from Aig Berard on a cat 2 day, no wind & been perfect weather for the previous 5 days!
Managed to break off a 800mm slab, very scary & absolutely no control as you have mentioned.
Lucky to get away with this one with only a bruise & an even bigger dose of paranoia of snow conditions than before, certainly not going to forget that experience for a long tome.

Pete

In reply to walts4:

Do you mean having come through the notch? If so, that's where it happened to me - I went R around the first rocky buttress just after the notch. As I said, though, only the 5cms top layer of wet snow.

In reply to jon:

No, went down a fair way after the notch to the band of rocks, there was tracks going both left & right, but was seduced by a ramp going through the band, we decided to go through there, big mistake......

After shaking myself down & managing to retrieve my skis, poles, took a photo, which after looking at, realised there was evidence of much smaller slabs.
Never noticed these, as I've mentioned, totally seduced by the day, cat 2 & the fact that there had been quite a lot of traffic previously, never too old to learn!!!!!

Going back to your incident, my friend went R at what i think is your rocky buttress, thought at the time as i was below & to the side, that it looked very suspect, was expecting a slab there.

Pete

In reply to jon:

Here's a photo of an avalanche that killed four people in the Valmeinier on the same day. I think some people have no idea of the power of an avalanche. Doesn't take much to work it out when you see this one. It was 400m wide...
http://www.data-avalanche.org/files/alea_avalanches/version-50001425-SVCHXR...

In reply to jon: My experience of working and ski guiding in Italy has taught me that Avalanche is almost unspoken among/between locals. Its exactly like english people talking of cancer and the reluctance to actually say the word.
From my knowledge of the language and culture it a word that has taken many friends.

In reply to John2: so many of the "guides" are now obviously less well-trained in mountaineering terms..."off-piste" now just means that rather than ski-touring which is something experienced mountain-goers undertake either out of their own mountain experience or with a guide whose winter-spring mountain experience is built into his qualification.

In reply to potted shrimp:

I'm not 100% sure what you mean here. Guides are much better trained in all aspects of mountaineering , ski touring etc than ever before. The upward trend continues and the qualification harder and harder to get. Don't confuse that with people working for tour operators etc, who use the word guide far more loosely. A UIAGM guide whether British or any other nationality holds the highest qualification that exists. There is no lower category of guide.

In reply to Terry1080:

"Valanga" is not much used per se as normally people here ("people" includes me!) prefer to use "scarica" and its variants ("rischio scariche" etc). It's just easier to use and shorter than valanga - I don't believe there's any sort of self-censorhip involved.

In reply to Luca Signorelli:

Not sure if you caught his meaning... there again you might have, and it's me missing your subtleties!

In reply to jon:

I'm not THAT subtle, and I'm afraid I may have not caught what did he really mean (hey, give me some slack, I'm an Italian native speaker after all, not an English one!)

So, what did he mean?

In reply to Luca Signorelli:

I think he meant that for instance people don't actually like to use the word 'cancer' - the very word frightens them so they use euphemisms or alternatives, like 'the big C' etc. In the same way he infers that where he worked, people may have found other words for avalanche. I'm probably now going to be shot down for not understanding him in my own language. If that's so I'll apologise in advance! Anyway it seems most here consider English to be your first language...!

In reply to jon:

That's what I actually thought when I wrote that the (actual) use in Italy of the word "scarica" instead of "valanga" is a matter of convenience, and no a psychological self censorship (as his post seemed to imply)

>Anyway it seems most here consider English to be your first language...!

Well, no, I'm a full blooded Italian living in Italy and using English just as a second language (even if in some circle Torino is not considered "real" Italy...) If you could hear me speak in English I would probably sound like some sort of Chico Marx impersonator...

In reply to Luca Signorelli:

I think you're just being modest, and I'll stop digging a deeper hole...

In reply to jon: You nailed my intentions Jon. I understand there are numerous words that translate avalanche into italian (even Livigno - the resort name - is another I believe)

In reply to Terry1080:

Exactly. It happarently derives from the "lavino", a word on Ladin language which means "snow avalanche", and itself derived by the Latin word "labes" (again, "avalanche". It can be found in different, even non-Ladin areas of the Alps, as for instance Lavina (like the Torre di Lavina, a mountain of the Southern Graians well visible from Torino), Lavinia or Livina.

It should be however noted that some expert believes all Alps toponims beginning with "lav" or "liv" to be derived from the indoeuropean radical "lav" -> "slab"

In reply to jon:

Completely impossible, but it would be wonderful to interview each of these people just as the decided to ski, moment before the avalanche, just afterwards and then a few days later. Impossible, yes, but it would allow a window into the minds, and why they ignore such obvious signs. At an avalanche seminar I went to years back, the prof. giving the lecture said it was a fine line between saying yes and saying no, and it came down to the self-belief in the person, and their abilities. A confident, outgoing person might be able to ski medium risk slopes, because they are light, fast and relaxed, while a less confident person, might turn heavily, less fast and therefore trigger and avalanche. The confident person might be able too out ski said avalanche while the less confident person might panic freeze up and be buried. It’s all hypothetical, a high risk slope will take all, and the line between confidence and arrogance is very fine. The dynamics of the group are also heavily responsible for the outcome, with may be people with knowledge not been taken seriously or refrain from speaking out because of ridicule, while the more dynamic members of the group might ignore their shy protests, hoping there selfish arrogance will pull them through, almost certainly at the expense of certain members of their group. This is all hypothetical however!
At the same avalanche seminar one of the Davo’s avalanche’s pointed out that 65% of avalanche victims in Sveits were guided parties. It must be very difficult for some people to observe guides going out, and having to stay back at home. Local knowledge is everything, and a person who knows the landscape might get away with it (Might!), while a new person might not. Guides come in many shapes and forms, most well trained with mountains of experience, but also some have admitted in private they after all those years still they find avalanche assessment difficult to near impossible.

The conditions you described seem to me very obvious to me.

In reply to jon: Do you remember the 9 dead in a week end early in the season? It had snowed just before a week end and everyone rushed to ski powder.....

In reply to jon:

Nobody gets it right all the time. Even Dougal Haston got caught out;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dougal_Haston

In reply to sutty:

Agree but sometimes there is a lemming attitude in the hills(skiers and climbers) People will follow others tracks just because they are there.

Far too many people who have little idea of avalanche awareness head off thinking if I follow tracks it is/will/must be - safe... doh

In reply to francoisecall:

Yes, but I don't remember the exact number of people killed, but I think it was when a ferocious storm / mini hurricane traversed France, decimating forests etc. After storms like that, it seems obvious, but still it happens. Exactly the point of my post...

In reply to Jamie Simpson - Alpine Dragons:

65% does seem a lot but you can't really argue against statistics. However, (and here I'm not rushing to the defence of guides, more trying to find a reason) I think that one point that often gets sidelined about accidents that occur to guides is that a guide may be working in the mountains up to 200 days a year. Their clients maybe in the mountains for a week. A recreational skier or climber maybe in the mountains two or three weeks. It's a very dangerous milieu to be in and therefore statistically it's obvious that the guide is more at risk. Even though scientifically we know more and more about snow, the assessment of risk isn't a science, and borderline cases are a hard call. Sometimes, though, as you say, it is obvious...