Long Abstract of a poster presentation ISSW 2018 Innsbruck, Austria 

 

AVALANCHE AVOIDANCE MADE SIMPLE:

INSTANT INCLINOMETRY AND IMMEDIATE VISUAL RISK CHECK   

​

Matti Verkasalo, Backcountry snowboarder, Helsinki, Finland

​

ABSTRACT: Backcountry novices are over-represented in avalanche mortality statistics. With great enthusiasm for good runs, but sometimes without snow safety education, risk awareness, and avalanche gear, they are in a very vulnerable position. Even a thorough avalanche course will not immediately make one fully competent backcountry traveler. The novice would need a very easy-to-use tool to keep one safe until enough learning and experience has been gained. A refinement of age-old ski pole contact inclinometry into instant and accurate slope angle measurement, combined with immediate visual risk check according to a very conservative avalanche decision framework, could be quick and easy enough avalanche avoidance tool for the powder-hungry novice. Adding a line-of-sight ski pole inclinometer will facilitate route selection in the terrain. Using this kind of universal instant inclinometry and immediate risk check could totally change the novice’s mindset: from a fearful, passive follower of the crowd or death-defying powder hero into an alert traveler, who takes responsibility of one’s own safety. In making own safety decisions, the novice gains an attitude to learn little by little more of avalanche avoidance, while at the same time enjoying reasonably safe slopes.

 

KEYWORDS: Avalanche avoidance, decision frameworks, novices

 

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

Young people, sidecountry skiers/riders and those with little or no snow safety education are over-represented in avalanche mortality statistics. In most studies only about half of avalanche victims had an avalanche beacon (Boyd et al 2009, Hohlrieder et al 2005). This implies that they were not aware of, or disregarded the avalanche risk, probably because of inexperience or ignorance.

 

1.1 Avalanche education – novice students

 

There are excellent avalanche courses and books available, giving a wealth of scientifically founded information on avalanches. Actually the amount of information given in an avy course or contained in an avalanche textbook may be overwhelming and intimidating for the novice (Geismar 2014). The most popular avalanche safety books have glossaries of nearly a hundred terms, all previously unknown to the novice. The student should not only know the meaning of each word in the glossary, but also understand its significance for the process of avalanche avoidance.  About half of those who have attended a formal avalanche course are less confident than before; dismayed by the impossibility to assimilate and utilise the information available (Balent et al 2016, Margalef & Esteban 2013).

Studying a book or taking a course does not make one an expert (Balent et al 2016); the information on avalanche avoidance matures

into relevant field behaviour only over some years of active practice (Hallandvik et al 2017, Lane 2013).

 

A significant proportion of beginners rely on someone else’s avalanche knowledge whatever that is worth. They may hire a professional guide, or be lead by their buddies. If they perceive avalanche hazard, they may hide their fears and play cool, while inwardly being afraid by the possibility of getting caught.

 

Others may simply deny danger and disregard any ideas hinting towards avalanches, fearing nothing and attacking all challenging slopes without any concerns of safety.

 

There is great need to give the novice the mindset and means to survive over this vulnerable stage (Michaelssen and Rolland 2016).

 

1.2 Avalanche education - nihilists

 

To me it also seems that there is a subgroup (-or tribe?) of backcountry enthusiasts; skillful skiers/riders with considerable experience, but lacking any interest in avalanche safety. They may have started backcountry adventures with self-declared expert friends (Zweifel et al 2012), following their example and picking up their habits, which may not include much of avalanche safety.

 

The avy education nihilists would need a very quick and easy risk sensor.

​

2. AVALANCHE DECISION FRAMEWORKS

 

Avalanche decision frameworks such as Obvious clues, Nivotest, 3x3, Reduction method, Snowcard, and Stop-or-go are condensed packages of the most important facts one should keep in mind in avalanche terrain. They work well in experienced user’s hands. However, for the novice and uninterested they are too complicated. Several authors have emphasized the importance of simplicity of the avy avoidance frameworks (McCammon and Hägeli 2004, Geisler 2014).

 

The Elementary Reduction Method (ERM, Munter 2009) and the Afterski method (Brattlien 2017) are the simplest and most conservative avalanche decision frameworks. The user only needs to know the danger grade given in avalanche bulletin, and measure the slope angle – the simplest, unequivocal determinant of local slide possibility. The recommendations for steepest slopes according to ERM are <30 degrees for high, <35 degrees for considerable, and <40 degrees for moderate avalanche danger. Afterski recommendations are 5 degrees lower. In Norwegian (maritime snowpack) conditions ERM would have prevented 93% of avalanche fatalities (Hallandvik et al 2015), and Afterski 100% (Langeland et al 2011). In USA (varied snowpack) ERM showed 80% (McCammon and Hägeli 2004) and Afterski 93% efficiency. (Brattlien 2017).

 

Inclinometry is easy and inclinometers are simple devices. Inclinometry can be done on the slope where one is standing (contact inclinometry), viewing the profile of an adjacent slope from the side (line-of-sight, across the slope inclinometry) or from the bottom or top of the slope (line-of-sight, up or down inclinometry).

 

However, in real life inclinometry is often overlooked. It may be regarded not crucial, the inclinometer not carried along, or digging the inclinometer from pocket considered too cumbersome, and measuring process too time-consuming.  Or maybe one is not sure what the reading means.

 

The use of an inclinometer must be very easy and very quick. The process should give relevant information about the safety of the measured slope even to the first-timer.

 

3. INSTANT INCLINOMETRY

 

Ski pole inclinometry is age-old quick method, which involves forming a right angle triangle on the slope with vertical (freely hanging) and horizontal poles. However, without a horizontal reference line and being too close to observe the 90 degrees angle, the method is grossly inaccurate.

 

Its precision can be radically improved with bubble level vial and geometric tables: bubble level vial glued on the horizontal pole to confirm the position, and geometric tangent values used to mark the angle scale in degrees on the vertical pole.

 

The tip of the horizontal pole is set on the snow surface, handle pointing in fall line and bubble vial confirming the position. The freely hanging vertical pole with degree scale is positioned at the indicator line on the horizontal pole, and lowered until its tip touches the snow surface (Fig 1). 

The slope angle is read on the vertical pole scale (Fig 2).

 

Fig 1.                                                                                                      Fig 2.

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

 

This makes contact inclinometry an instant procedure: It is possible to determine the exact slope angle in a couple of seconds, even with gloves on.

For line-of-sight inclinometry of an adjacent slope; up, down or sideways, there is an equally fast tool already on the market: PoleClinometer® by SnoWander LCC (http://poleclinometer.com/) (Fig 3 & 4).

​

 

Fig 3. Line-of-sight inclinometry with PoleClinometer®.                                          Fig 4. Line-of-sight inclinometry from the side

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

4. IMMEDIATE RISK CHECK

 

For the novice, knowing the slope angle is not enough. Instant inclinometry can be combined with immediate checking of the slope angle recommendation from the simplest avalanche decision frameworks.

 

This is achieved by painting three risk indicator columns, yellow, orange and red, representing moderate, considerable and high avalanche risks, on the vertical pole next to the slope angle grades.   (Fig 5 & 6).

 

 

                                                 Fig 5.                                                                                    Fig 6.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each column begins interrupted to mark the highest recommended slope angle of the Afterski method, and changes to continuous column 5 degrees higher to indicate the highest recommendation of ERM.

 

After reading the slope angle the measurer rotates the vertical pole 180 degrees to check the angle against the day’s avalanche risk.

 

For contact and line-of-sight inclinometry, bubble vial and PoleClinometer® can easily be applied on one pair of poles to make a ”universal clinopole” tool. The risk check columns with slope recommendations can be added to PoleClinometer® stickers. The methods complement each other at different stages of the trek.

 

5. DISCUSSION

 

With this tool even the total novice can estimate if the slope is reasonably safe to travel.

 

The measurements are easy and can be done in a few seconds, which means they are done often. This reinforces the habit of checking slope safety and trains the user to estimate slope angles even without instruments. It makes one aware of approaching the risk limit, thus giving time to plan simple hazard mitigation tactics such as route selection and spacing. Use of the tool encourages the novice to take responsibility of one's own safety from the very beginning.

​

This creates confidence and a mindset change from a worried, passive follower of guide or buddies to a responsible traveler and alert observer of surroundings (Kruse et al 2014).

 

It will also familiarise the novice with one of the most important backcountry skills: being prepared to change plans or even turn back if conditions are not favourable (Bolognesi 2007).

 

For the more experienced backcountry traveler this tool may be useful in visualising how close or how far into the risk area one has come.

 

Using ”clinopole” with Afterski and ERM recomendations will inevitably limit the user’s mobility – on purpose. This is to keep one reasonably safe until she/he has more experience and has assimilated enough skills for successful avalanche avoidance in more challenging situations. Use of the tool pushes the novice to learn more, to be able to tackle steeper slopes. Relying on such conservative methods for avalanche avoidance will also allow the novice to relax, concentrate on the other challenges of the sport and fully enjoy the slopes.

 

The ERM limits seem to be most suitable for maritime snowpack, and Afterski for intermountain/continental snowpack. However, more research on the limits in different snow climates and on their relevance regarding e.g. North/South aspects is needed.

 

The tool is low-tech, gravity-powered, thus independent of battery life or internet connection. It is lightweight (about 15 grams), very durable, and ready for use anytime during the trek. It is cheap to produce and suitable for do-it-yourself (DIY) production.

 

It does have weaknesses, too: the free hanging pole is sensitive to strong wind. I have considered using a bull’s eye level indicator on top of the handle, or loading the pole basket with snow, but not done even preliminary testing of these tricks.

 

The bubble vial inclinometer with risk check columns is an ”open source concept”, which anyone may take up, produce and improve. During autumn 2018 its description and DIY instructions will appear on web page http://kirja.vapaalasku.com/artikkelit.

 

DIY: The grade scale and risk check columns may be painted on the pole free-hand or with a stencil. Some work and skill is involved. Having stencils cut and buying bubble vials is most economic in quantities of 10 or more. My dream is that freeskier/rider groups and avalanche course organisers could run DIY workshops for clinopoles. 

 

Small scale commercial production might happen by local businesses/ski shops converting customers’ poles to clinopoles.

 

Larger scale industrial application of the tool on traditional telescopic poles is somewhat problematic: the grade scale markings on the vertical pole must be adjusted to suit the user’s preferred pole length.

 

Newer four-part folding poles with telescopic top segment could suit better for industrially produced clinopole as it has about 80 cm of constant length, giving good precision and avoiding the need to personalize grade scale markings.

 

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 

-Grateful to the organizers for giving an individual without any credentials, institutional snow science background, or influential friends a chance to get a sounding board for an idea stuck in his brain.

-Thank you, Grayson King at SnoWander LLC, for PoleClinometer® images.

-Grateful to ”TeleAl” from Leysin, Switzerland, for a post in Teton Gravity Research (now extinct) Forum on Apr.10, 2006, giving the original impetus to ponder pole inclinometry: a punchline about ”bringing a level (torpedo)!”

​

REFERENCES

​

Balent C, Johnson J, Hendrik J, Shanahan EA, 2016: Student motivations and learning objectives before and after a level one avalanche course. Proceedings of the International Snow Science Workshop, Breckenridge, Colorado, 1054-1056.

​

Bolognesi R, 2007: AVALANCHE! Cicerone Press, p.106.

 

Boyd J, Haegeli P, Abu-Laban R B, Shuster M, and Butt J C, 2009: Patterns of death among avalanche fatalities: a 21-year review. Canadian Medical Association Journal 180(5), 507–512.

 

Brattlien K, 2017: Den Lille Snøskredsboka 5th ed. Fri Flyt, 112.

 

Geisler K R, 2014: Explaining human factors with behavioral economics. Proceedings of the International Snow Science Workshop Banff, Alberta, Canada, 218-223.

 

Geismar N, 2014: What do avalanche students recall one year post course? Proceedings of the International Snow Science Workshop Banff, Alberta, Canada, 1196-1200.

​

Hallandvik L, Svarstad Andersen M, Aadland E, 2017: Decision-making in avalanche terrain – How does assessment of terrain, reading of avalanche forecast and environmental observations differ by skiers’ skill level? Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Vol 20, 45-51.

​

Hallandvik L, Vikene O L and Aadland E, 2015: An Evaluation of Rule-Based DecisionSupport Methods in Norway 2005–2014: Practical Implications for Avalanche Education. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, Vol. 7, No. 2, 128–139.

 

Hohlrieder M, Mair P, Wuertl W, Brugger H, 2005: The impact of avalanche transceivers on mortality from avalanche accidents. High Altitude Medicine & Biology 6(1), 72-77.

 

Kruse R, Atkins D, Carlson A, Clayton M, Diegel P, Edgerly B, Lazar B, Murphy T, Pritchett B, Schell S and Tremper B, 2014: Changing beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors to make snow safety stick. Proceedings of the International Snow Science Workshop Banff, Alberta, Canada, 317-323.

​

Lane J, 2013: In: 5 Tips for Staying Safe in Avalanche Country by Handwerk B, National Geographic News, April 22.

 

Langeland S, Skjøstad MB, Øvrebotten VA, 2011: Kunne fatale snøskredulykker i Norge fra 2005/2006 til 2010/2011 vært forhindret ved hjelp av enkle regelbaserte metoder? Bachelora’ thesis ID3-322 Høgskolen i Sogn og Fjordane.

 

Margalef A and Esteban P, 2013: Assessing the impact of avalanche safety training courses in Andorra (2009 – 2012). International Snow Science Workshop Grenoble – Chamonix Mont-Blanc, 528-531.

 

McCammon I and Hägeli P, 2004: Comparing avalanche decision frameworks using accident data from the United States. Proceedings of the International Snow Science Workshop, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, 502-512.

​

Michaelsen B and Rolland C, 2016: Observing ski touring and decision making in the alps what ordinary people do or not do, and why? Proceedings of the International Snow Science Workshop, Breckenridge, Colorado, 770-777.

 

Munter W, 2003: 3x3 Lawinen: Risikomanagement im Wintersport. Pohl & Schellhammer.

 

Zweifel B, Techel F and Björk C, 2012: Who Is Involved In Avalanche Accidents? Proceedings of the International Snow Science Workshop, Anchorage, Alaska, 234-239.

​

​