@@mountfairweather each avalanche death is a loss to mother, father,siblings, friends colleagues the community and the world. we get nowhere by adding an ad hominem attacks on snowmobilers or monkeys.
Easy there. I have many friends who are snowmobilers. This was NOT a jab at the snowmobile community. Lets keep our comments respectful of all backcountry users and free of judgement. A monkey riding around on a snowmobile would be (in my mind anyway) objectively funny. It's an image that brings a smile and brings the point across that if you randomize travel decision under isolated hazard your likelihood of triggering remains somewhat low. Therefore, ALL OF US at one point or another (skiers, snowshoers, snowmobilers, climbers, workers...) simply get lucky, believing that we made good decisions when in fact we were actually acting like... well... you guessed it.
@ I know the idea was just random probability and I've injected the hypocrisy issue. TGR & POW are trying to address this issue & even made a film about it entitled "The Hypocrite." You're info is excellent content & applies to all backcountry users.
The conceptual model is a poor predictor of deadly human triggered avalanches. Examination of deadly human triggered events all show shallow weak layer REGUARDLESS of slope with concurrent activity usually ascending or traversing. North America averages one avalanche worker death each year in managed terrain and one client or guest death each year usually the first day an open. Prediction of size conflates natural avalanches with deadly human triggered avalanches with attention on the crown which is where avalanches end in stable snow generally FAR from where they start. The origin or source of deadly human triggered avalanches may be anticipated by wumphfs, shooting cracks or collapse REGUARDLESS of slope with concurrent group activity. Slab is not the danger without a shallow weak layer.
@ 1200 plus deaths in the United States and over 450 in Canada can be attributed to concurrent activity within the “alpha angle” approximately 26 degrees from avalanche “fracture line or crown”. When investigated by avalanche “experts “ you are provided with the danger scale rating for where the avalanche ends and NOT the avalanche origin or source. We will continue to loose an avalanche worker an a client or guest death each every year until we look at deadly human triggered avalanches in a different way!
Thank you for your comment. We clearly share a deep concern for public safety. The Conceptual Model is not a predictor of avalanches. Rather it is a systematic and consistent workflow for hazard and risk assessment. It is deeply rooted in science and vastly accepted as a valuable tool. The peer reviewed, scientific paper about it can be found here, along with the nearly 70 other scientific papers it references. www.avalancheresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2018_StathamOthers.pdf I can’t comment on the information you are presenting as I do not know your sources. I will say that crown profiles are valuable. It is true that trigger points are generally far from the crown, but the location of a crown is not determined by the snow becoming stable. The layer of concern can reliably be found at the crown (Canadian Avalanche Association Observation Guidelines and Recording Standards) and these profiles are only one piece of the very large puzzle that is to provide a danger scale rating. The Alpha angle is used to determine the lowest margin of a runout zone in the case of an extreme event based on a 100-year return period. It has nothing to do with avalanche initiation or crown location. A dive into chapter 5 of the Avalanche Handbook (McClung and Schaerer) will provide more information. Also, Bruce Jamieson’s TH-cam channel explains avalanche initiation concepts very clearly th-cam.com/play/PLGmWBG-SxLT-cV-xQtSw5j4ABzkmYCgyU.html
@ you said it yourself the conceptual model is not a predictor of avalanches. Concurrent activity, where there is a shallow weak layer is a predictor of deadly human triggered avalanches. 1200 plus deaths in the United States and over 450 in Canada allow us to model this. The crown is where the supercritical shear failure goes from slope parallel to slope normal because it is stable. The well accepted Conceptual model is one large expert halo heuristic trap. The documentation you recommended is all circular logic and cognitive bias no more valid than a horoscope. It produces a macro and mezzo scale “danger” for when avalanches happen when we need a micro scale danger for WHERE avalanches originate, what is the trigger for deadly human triggered avalanches. Your estimate of 300 deaths worldwide could be drastically reduced if we abandoned NAPADS and Europe’s version.
All this support for NPADS and EADS puts you on the same page BUT the wrong page. Dr David McClung said many would die if we relied on weather to predict (deadly human triggered) avalanches. At 250 per year worldwide that makes over 8750 deaths since EADS and NAPADS implemented.
These videos are super appreciated!
Monkeys on snowmobiles cleared this right up for me 😂 love it
@@mountfairweather each avalanche death is a loss to mother, father,siblings, friends colleagues the community and the world.
we get nowhere by adding an ad hominem attacks on snowmobilers or monkeys.
I've seen a few monkeys on snowmobiles. They usually have a POW sticker on the sled because they're "protecting" winter.😂
Easy there. I have many friends who are snowmobilers. This was NOT a jab at the snowmobile community. Lets keep our comments respectful of all backcountry users and free of judgement. A monkey riding around on a snowmobile would be (in my mind anyway) objectively funny. It's an image that brings a smile and brings the point across that if you randomize travel decision under isolated hazard your likelihood of triggering remains somewhat low. Therefore, ALL OF US at one point or another (skiers, snowshoers, snowmobilers, climbers, workers...) simply get lucky, believing that we made good decisions when in fact we were actually acting like... well... you guessed it.
@ I know the idea was just random probability and I've injected the hypocrisy issue. TGR & POW are trying to address this issue & even made a film about it entitled "The Hypocrite." You're info is excellent content & applies to all backcountry users.
@@misterfunnybones Thanks. I'll try to find that movie. Sounds interesting.
The conceptual model is a poor predictor of deadly human triggered avalanches. Examination of deadly human triggered events all show shallow weak layer REGUARDLESS of slope with concurrent activity usually ascending or traversing. North America averages one avalanche worker death each year in managed terrain and one client or guest death each year usually the first day an open. Prediction of size conflates natural avalanches with deadly human triggered avalanches with attention on the crown which is where avalanches end in stable snow generally FAR from where they start. The origin or source of deadly human triggered avalanches may be anticipated by wumphfs, shooting cracks or collapse REGUARDLESS of slope with concurrent group activity. Slab is not the danger without a shallow weak layer.
Not following your logic... ?
@ 1200 plus deaths in the United States and over 450 in Canada can be attributed to concurrent activity within the “alpha angle” approximately 26 degrees from avalanche “fracture line or crown”. When investigated by avalanche “experts “ you are provided with the danger scale rating for where the avalanche ends and NOT the avalanche origin or source. We will continue to loose an avalanche worker an a client or guest death each every year until we look at deadly human triggered avalanches in a different way!
Thank you for your comment. We clearly share a deep concern for public safety. The Conceptual Model is not a predictor of avalanches. Rather it is a systematic and consistent workflow for hazard and risk assessment. It is deeply rooted in science and vastly accepted as a valuable tool. The peer reviewed, scientific paper about it can be found here, along with the nearly 70 other scientific papers it references. www.avalancheresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2018_StathamOthers.pdf I can’t comment on the information you are presenting as I do not know your sources. I will say that crown profiles are valuable. It is true that trigger points are generally far from the crown, but the location of a crown is not determined by the snow becoming stable. The layer of concern can reliably be found at the crown (Canadian Avalanche Association Observation Guidelines and Recording Standards) and these profiles are only one piece of the very large puzzle that is to provide a danger scale rating. The Alpha angle is used to determine the lowest margin of a runout zone in the case of an extreme event based on a 100-year return period. It has nothing to do with avalanche initiation or crown location. A dive into chapter 5 of the Avalanche Handbook (McClung and Schaerer) will provide more information. Also, Bruce Jamieson’s TH-cam channel explains avalanche initiation concepts very clearly th-cam.com/play/PLGmWBG-SxLT-cV-xQtSw5j4ABzkmYCgyU.html
@ you said it yourself the conceptual model is not a predictor of avalanches. Concurrent activity, where there is a shallow weak layer is a predictor of deadly human triggered avalanches. 1200 plus deaths in the United States and over 450 in Canada allow us to model this. The crown is where the supercritical shear failure goes from slope parallel to slope normal because it is stable. The well accepted Conceptual model is one large expert halo heuristic trap.
The documentation you recommended is all circular logic and cognitive bias no more valid than a horoscope. It produces a macro and mezzo scale “danger” for when avalanches happen when we need a micro scale danger for WHERE avalanches originate, what is the trigger for deadly human triggered avalanches. Your estimate of 300 deaths worldwide could be drastically reduced if we abandoned NAPADS and Europe’s version.
All this support for NPADS and EADS puts you on the same page BUT the wrong page. Dr David McClung said many would die if we relied on weather to predict (deadly human triggered) avalanches. At 250 per year worldwide that makes over 8750 deaths since EADS and NAPADS implemented.