UKC

Excuse my ignorance on this subject; I'm still a Winter Walker /Grade I dabbler, but want to get stuck into something more challenging this winter.

Last season I noticed that sometimes the Scottish Avalanche Forecast would be assessing Northern/North Eastern Gullies as 'Considerable Avalanche risk', but I would still see people out/heading for routes on these aspects on days deemed High Risk.

I reckon I've developed an OK judgement of winter conditions over the years, but I am still a bit of a wimp. I tend to not bother if the forecast is anything but perfect or I just back off if anything is looking remotely dodgy.

Any pointers?

In reply to ogreville:

By winter conditions do you mean the condition that routes are in? That's how most people use the phrase. That's often quite distinct from the avalanche conditions. But trekking up a NE facing slope on 3 or 4 day for avalanches on a NE aspect is pretty dubious decision making so you're probably sensible to err on the side of caution. Of course on those days you might be able to do a great climb on SW facing crag.

Just don't presume because lots of people are doing something it is safe! Lots of people can be foolish or know no better.

In reply to ogreville:

It's all about mixing the forecast with a knowledge of the build-up of the snowpack, the history of the weather, experience in reading terrain and conditions (including that 'sixth-sense' thing that should not be ignored) and one's own personal appetite for risk. There are times where doing a route on an aspect marked dangerous is actually fine, because it's not a snow route. However, the approach to it could be a death-trap. The snowpack can change rapidly and unexpectedly too, even on slopes that otherwise appear safe. It's possible to play in category 4 conditions and be fine, it's also possible to plan in category 2 conditions and get avalanched. This all factors into it.

Are you being a wimp? No, you're still alive. Can you take more risk? Yes. Should you take more risk? That is the unanswerable - working out if you are comfortable doing so should be developed by going out with reliable, experienced people who really know their stuff, working through their judgment with them and learning as much as possible.

At the end of the day, it's never stupid to turn around - the mountain will be there another day.

In reply to TobyA:


I also wonder how many winter walkers / climbers wear avalanche transceivers, carry poles and shovel and know how to use them.

In reply to James Jackson:



Easier said than done. I'm at that limbo - anyone I know is either a comfortable winter hillwalker or a full-on ice and mixed warrior. The former aren't in to roping up for winter stuff and pushing it, and the latter don't want to take my sorry ass out and hold my hand all day.

Club or course for me I think

I don't actually know anyone who goes out in winter with a transceiver, poles or shovel

In reply to ogreville:

I don't want to sound like a know-it-all here as I'm not but I have also seen what I would of deemed very bad route choice considering the conditions. Did they get avalanched? No they didn't.

I suppose it's like driving, Some people are happy to drive down the motorway at 90mph and others stick to the speed limit if you know what I mean.

I too try to minimise the risks and a wimp. I remember getting pretty freaked out whilst climbing Taxus on a Sat as we where the only team on it. Why? What did people know that I didn't ect...

I suppose it's a balance, everybody has to find what percentage of risk they are happy with to enjoy their climbing experience.

" Easier said than done. I'm at that limbo - anyone I know is either a comfortable winter hillwalker or a full-on ice and mixed warrior. The former aren't in to roping up for winter stuff and pushing it, and the latter don't want to take my sorry ass out and hold my hand all day. "

Are you looking for like-minded people to climb with in the mid grades?

If so, look here on UKC and post on the partners and lifts forum.

good luck.

cheers

Gaz

In reply to ogreville:

James Jackson's post above is good sense. I'd say: gather as much information as you can before you decide where to go. The crucial things to know are wind speed, temperature, and which aspects are going to have snow or ice buildup on them. E.g. if the wind is blowing across a plateau then over the rim of the cliff you want to climb on, then there's a good chance of a cornice at the top of the cliff. But if you're planning to climb an arete on the cliff, there may well be a gap in the cornice above it; that's why Tower Ridge can be safe when its flanks aren't. Good ways to judge this kind of micro-question include recent photos and reports, which is why it's always worth a look at SAIS and the various climbing blogs. Also, nothing beats using your own eyes when you get there, and being prepared to tailor your plan to what's in front of you; if you can see queues/ falling ice on Point Five, or bad windslab on the approach to Ledge Route, then do something else.

In reply to ogreville:

Following on from what Toby has said, it may be worth reading these two articles, which discuss heuristic traps that people can fall into when making decisions about avalanche prone terrain:

http://www.tgomagazine.co.uk/global/pdfs/Avalanche-Safety.pdf
http://www.northernmountainsport.co.uk/index.php?/eng/content/download/1533...

It's something I always try to increase people's awareness of, as it's all to easy to fall into one or more of the traps, and we've all done it at some point.

In reply to ogreville:

'Considerable' is normal.

You need to learn to use the shape of the ground and the information about the riskiest aspects from the forecast to keep yourself safe in those condition.

'Grade I dabbler' puts you right in the firing line. Could be safer on Grade III!!!

Of course, as stated above, you still have to get to the bottom of it!

In reply to ogreville:

Agree with the above, considerable is normal, if you never go out in considerable av forecast in the uk you will never go out!

It's a case of overly emotive language on the av forecasts, if you consider it to be a 5 point scale then considerable gets 3, which if you reword it to average all of a sudden feels allot less scary! The forecast is still the same but the perception is different.

The second point is a forecast is exactly that, a forecast. I have been out when the forecast has been black but I have found the conditions on the ground to be much less death on a stick. Treat the forecasts as just one of your tools in the toolbox for judging risk.

In reply to KA:

Thanks Ken (and others), extremely informative....as are all the responses to my original post. Plenty to chew over.

If the long term weather forecast is anything to go by, I'll have plenty of time at home to swat up on the subject!!

In reply to Webster:

So if you were told there was a considerable chance of being stabbed if you went down a particular dark alley would you go there?

Considerable hazard mean that "natural avalanches are possible and human-triggered avalanches are likely". That's pretty touchy conditions and the wording was chosen to reflect that. Considerable is the rating that corresponds to the highest number of avalanche accidents, partly because it's the most common individual rating, but also because the higher ratings discourage people from going and the lower ones are safer anyway.

I'm also wary of the advice that's commonly given on UKC that runs along the lines of "it's only a forecast - go out there and use your own judgement." That's fine if you're talking to someone who has put the time and effort into learning the observation skills and developing the judgement to make good decisions in avalanche terrain. From the original post I don't think that's the case here. Better advice might be to go on a course where he or she can start learning those skills.

In reply to AdrianC:


I actually think that the input I've received from the UKC community to my post is a lot broader and packed with warning than a straight "it's only a forecast - go out there and use your own judgement."

As a side note...I have put the time and effort in

On the subject - for the statistics geeks -
http://www.mountainrescuescotland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Avalanche-...

Forgive my ignorance here because I really dont know very much about this, but it seems to me like we are discussing use of the headline avalanche risk here. this is naturally the highest risk of any elevation/aspect combination for a given area. Would you not use the hazard compass? If we take today's forecast for the southern cairngorms for example:

http://www.sais.gov.uk/southern-cairngorms/

headline risk is considerable, which suggests that its not safe to head out, but looking at the hazard compass, you can see that the high risk area are the SW-N facing locations. assuming that you stay clear from areas like that, surely on balance you should be ok, no?

In reply to ogreville:

I highly recommend the MCofS avalanche awareness courses. I went on one several years ago and thought it was very good. It's only £45 if you're an MCofS member http://www.mcofs.org.uk/avalanche-awareness-course.asp

And if you're not, I'm sure you can find similar course available out there if you have a bit of a search around.

Avalanche awareness is something I think it's really worth the investment of going on a course/or spending time with someone more experienced who can teach you the skills. I don't think it's necessarily always a case of just using intuition/common sense, and so I don't think it's something you can just pick up from time out on the hill.

In reply to carr0t:


Ish... The forecast is as such, based on recent eyeball observations, snow pits, historical snow profiles and forecast weather conditions. However, local conditions can be very variable and this is why one should always be performing a running assessment of local terrain and snowpack no matter what the forecast or aspect. Confirmation bias is one of the human factors that can catch us out - 'the forecast said this aspect would be fine, so this aspect is fine'.

In reply to ogreville:
It seems that it's often walkers who get avalanched. That makes sense as they cover more ground and different aspects over the course of a day. However climbers aren't immune either - the approaches and descents can be dicey. Low grade gullies can be deadly as well. Whether you are a walker or a climber, you can usually find something fairly safe to do even with a relatively high risk forecast. For example:
Stay away from steep approach/descent slopes
Stay out of gullies
Watch out for windslab
Seek out gentle slopes for approaches and descents
Pick your objectives carefully, eg the Douglas Boulder on the Ben is known as a good bet when the avalanche risk is high
Go for ridges - they don't generally avalanche (as long as you can get on them safely)
Go for shorter routes that you can abseil into, eg in Lochain
Go to a different area, eg the north west rather than the Cairngorms

In reply to Webster:
When you take into account that the Scottish avalanche system effectively only has four levels (I don't think the top level gets used like in Europe), that's three out of four, which is less comforting than three out of five!

In reply to Misha:

the top level us used but it's rare as it needs danger of spontaneous release on most aspects. Given the wind this isn't too common.

if you have it the introduction in the smc winter climbs guide has a lot of great advice.

In reply to Misha:


iv seen the forecast black a few times (and indeed been out in it)

In reply to ogreville:

I've seen many climbers I would describe as lemmings climbing on slopes I know to be highly risky and even some on slopes where recent avalanche debris is visible. Most seem to get away with but quite a few don't (and they put the rescue teams in high risk situations as well). If I was you I would ignore any advice to the contrary here and stay away from any slope aspects of considerable risk and remember gullies facing a different direction and descents may have risk slopes on their sides. This does mean you end up doing a lot of easier ridges and longer walk-offs but better that than the alternative. I'd also learn how to judge dubious slopes: as someone who has climbed a lot in the Scottish winter, even being careful I've been caught out by unexpected snow conditions at times (usually due to unpredicted weather) and some friends of mine were avalanched due to unpredicted snow and were lucky to survive.

I'd also be a bit careful with kitchen sink advice on kit. Often being able to move as fast as you can is very important and having a light pack helps. The spare stuff I take is gloves, a small emergency first aid/ survival kit, a bit of food and enough water to avoid dehydration. Having experienced trying to use a map in windy white-out conditions I memorise bearings (and pacings) off the top of a route and keep information as small map laminates (for the Ben) or photocopies in freezer bags.

In reply to ogreville:


Don't be surprised. People will always head into avalanche risk whether they know about the assessments or not.

From another area - there are plenty of people heading for Somalia, despite all advice that it's unwise/ dangerous

In reply to Webster:


In Scotland? In the past few years?

In reply to Webster:


But not recently, I suspect! I believe the use of Cat 5/Very High has not been used since the SAIS adopted the European Avalanche Hazard Warning Scale (Some discussion of this here: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=396666

In reply to Mark Bull:

>In Scotland? In the past few years?


In scotland, last year, and the year before. specifically one time last season i went up to glencoe ski centre to find it shut with the wind, so walked up to the summit to properly tick the munro. several aspects had black spots (would now be stripes) and the whole wheel was red.

In reply to Webster:


That's odd: I can't find a forecast like that for Glencoe last season at http://www.sais.gov.uk/forecast-archive/

In reply to ogreville:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35303921

In reply to Offwidth:


Might the presence of recent avalanche debris not indicate that the slope was now a safer place to be than the still loaded slopes beside it?

In reply to AdrianC:

All my friends are running in front of me... surely there cant be a cliff?

Just think about what you said; in particluar how you might possibly know all the dangerous stuff has gone in an area that is so unsafe its self triggering.

In reply to Offwidth:

Oh - I did think about it.

The logic goes like this. There was an unstable snowpack and an avalanche ran. Several tons of snow have rumbled down the slope so 100kg of climber or skier is unlikely to get anything else to move in that particular path. Unless the area is still threatened (i.e. it's in more than one avalanche path) or the start-zone has re-loaded then it's very likely a safer place to be than slopes of similar aspect & steepness on either side.

In reply to AdrianC:

Lemming logic. Same as the logic of those following existing tracks on slopes with considerable forecast risk. If you really can't see why you need to talk to some experts on the subject.

In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks for the advice. I'll see if I can find some experts. In the meantime I'm hoping you can explain how making a reasoned judgement that the avalanche hazard has gone (the evidence being the pile of debris at the bottom of the slope,) is akin to following a herd of small, furry creatures, presumably over a cliff.

In reply to AdrianC:
I explained it before. Most climbers will have no idea what is left up there. Easier Scottish gullies often have avalanche slopes on their side out of the main fall line which dont all go at once and of course cornices which rarely go uniformly. I've watched avalanches on infamous Lemming magnets (like the start of Ledge Route) go again over previous avalanche debris quite a few times. In addition new snow after an avalanche can reload a slope that failed. More importantly through, thats what I was told by the BMC and through University safety help for student clubs (one of which I helped for 20 years) as they got advice from the experts: like the best local UIAA guides and the annual Winter Lectures. Hey but you disagree so they must be all wrong eh?

If the forecast is considerable for an aspect including a route that has avalanched the route should still be avoided. Making decisions that it is probably safer than the route next door (with the same aspect) when you cannot directly assess the risk is still not considerable, is Lemming logic. Simply climb on an aspect that doesn't have the risk or on a ridge.

In reply to Offwidth:
You make some fair points, but so does a well known book on avalanches (I want to say Chance in Million, but it might be another one I've got, I'll try to find it). It clearly states that a recently released slope is safer than it was before it released. In the context here, I think we're talking about a slope, say under a crag, where you can see it all, i.e. there isn't a gully way up in the mist out of sight or other overlapping avalanche paths.

First google hit:
http://www.chamonet.com/avalanches

Read the para "Is the slope safe after an avalanche has gone?"

Of course the critical factor is timescales - clearly the next day may be very different to half an hour after a slide.

In reply to Offwidth:
You know, if you didn't always start from the position that you are really clever and knowledgeable and everyone else an idiot, it might lead to a better discussion. As I recall AdrianC is a guide, so perhaps he is worth at least taking seriously, rather than dismissing him as a "lemming"?

Any decision about avalanche risk is going to be based on judgement of lots of factors. That all the stuff that was at the top of a slope is now at the bottom of the slope, is a pretty significant factor in reducing the risk on that slope, I would say.

In reply to MG:


"All" being the important word there.

In reply to MG:

I was pretty clear I'm not the clever and knowledgeable one; the people who taught me were that and who watched with me as the Lemmings rolled on, season after season. The context was the OP was raising questions about SAIS assessment and moving into easier winter climbs. Those Scottish grade I gullies are some of the most dangerous terrain when the aspect risk is considerable and visible debris in the gully most certainly doesn't make them safe to try. I'd expect higher standards or at least more nuance from a guide.

In reply to MG:

I would suggest this is rather false logic - if there is recent avalanche debris, it suggests that this aspect of slopes is dangerous and there is a high avalanche risk. You would be better advised to head elsewhere, ridges etc and different slope aspects than gamble on the likelihood of secondary or tertiary avalanches.

For example if the slopes in the Northern corries are loaded, quite likely that the slopes over the other side of the plateau are windswept and ice-lines and ridges my be in a safer condition.

Without casting aspersions at anyone - I would recommend that anyone who is unsure on how to judge conditions for themselves out on the hill, undertakes some sort of bon fida training course/s and/or heads out with a Mt Guide to learn. Nothing written on here can really beat in the field craft and learning.

In reply to Neil Anderson:

It obviously depends on lots of things, as I said. However, for example, using the logic above I would be happy walking the slope that has avalanched here, but not the unavalanched ones to each side.

http://np-web01.squiz.co.uk/__data/assets/image/0005/267764/507xCornice-The...

In reply to MG:

That's probably true, but if someone was talking about slopes that you can clearly see have recently had a top-to-bottom full-depth avalanche then I'd expect them to say that. If they just say "avalanche debris" then I'd assume that we're talking about (eg) a load of debris at the bottom of a gully with no clear view of how much stuff further up has gone and how much is still hanging around on a hair trigger. And if the gully in the latter case was on my intended route for the day then I'd be wanting to come up with a new plan pretty sharpish.

In reply to MG:
The OP was asking for advice to move into climbing Scottish grade 1 routes. Are you seriously suggesting a gully with avalanche debris on an aspect with considerable avalanche risk forecast is anything other than something to avoid. Since when did a beginners advice thread need so much pointless and inappropriate argument. Gullies on aspects with considerable risk of avalanche are simply best avoided.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


if you get to the bottom of gully which has the same aspect as the highest avalanche risk, then that person would have already failed in their planning the evening before. If the forecast is 3 or 4 for say NW faces, then find a SE face and proceed with caution. Wind can still swirl around corries and dump snow in unusual places. Better to simply find a rock ridge line or spur to ascend and avoid gullies altogether until the OP gains experience and judgement.

In reply to Offwidth:


Yep, definitely exactly what I am saying. Just ignore all those words sayjng something else. I was just trying to confuse you.

In reply to ogreville:

You also need to consider your approach and exit to a climb as well. Although your climb may not be on an aspect with high Avalanche risk, does your entry and exit cross or traverse below such slopes?