ski_photomatt

I made some assumptions in interpreting the statistics: if the other easy seach methods weren't available (attached body part/gear) and the person was wearing a beacon, then a beacon seach would be the method of rescue. Basically, if the person is buried with a beacon on then it would be used to find them. This is exactly the situation we all buy and wear beacons for, and it looks like it is about 33% successful. I think we both agree whatever the odds, they are worth the money.

and there were prolly 10 times (at least) of the latter group The link above clearly shows that about 1/3 of attempted beacon rescues are successful. Not 1/10. This seems obvious to me: if you are ever buried in an avalanche, and wearing a beacon (with partners who also have beacons and know how to use them), your chances of survival go from 0/3 to 1/3. That makes it worth the money.

Nah, it's the photographer that determines how good the picture is. eBay is by far the cheapest place I've found for used camera gear and is typically at least 30% less than the used camera shops around Seattle. Use a little common sense with regards to who you're buying from and you should be fine. I've bought two cameras and a couple lenses without any problems.

I went in there to climb this route with my girlfriend maybe three weeks ago via Spider Gap. We were moving slow (she wasn't feeling well), got a late start and didn't climb all the way to the summit, but instead to a high ridge for a view. We avoided the ice fall by scambling easily on the slabs to the climber's right, then gained the upper portion of the glacier above it. No real crevasse problems to speak of. The final portion of the glacier looked somewhat steep, and from what I remember the climbing would be above a crevasse or to, but didn't have any ice showing. It looked to be running belayable. We didn't climb this portion, my view of it was foreshortened and it was hard to judge the true angle, so necessary caveats apply. Spider meadows is a very pretty spot. Flys were annoying in the valley three weeks ago.

As Josh and Mtnnut already pointed out, the glaciers are considerably more broken than the Ruth, Sahale gl, ect.. I did the traverse September 5-11, 2001 and saw the glaciers when they are perhaps most broken. The entry to the LeConte Glacier involved crossing a narrow bridge, a steep traverse for a few feet then a couple foot vertical step all exposed to a sizable crevasse (we belayed this in one short pitch using pickets for the anchors.. they were useless to protect the traverse though, what I wouldn't have given for an ice screw). Exiting the Dana glacier to the col near spire point required walking across a series of narrow snow bridges (narrow in width, not depth) through a crevasse field, not difficult, but required care even with a rope. It all depends on how comfortable you feel walking unroped on crevassed glaciers. If you are looking for a multi day solo experience, there are plenty of other high routes in the Cascades with less glacier travel.

Had a good look at the standard route two weekends ago from Whitman Crest. Getting to the rock looked straight forward, some snow climbing above crevasses (that I think are always there). The glacier you'd be climbing up to access the rock looked to be littered with rock fall, don't forget your helmet.

It's a wonderful thing that people like Lowell and Fred Beckey with deep connections to the land and people are taking the time to document Cascade history and publish it before it is lost. I'm hoping Fred Beckey is planning a second volume to compliment his Range of Glaciers and document Cascade history of the last 100 years or so. He'd be the person to do it. I'd personally like to see the mountaineering history combined with other Cascade history, such as the history of places like Stehekin, Holden, the creation of the parks, Wilderness designation, ect. Anything like this exist? It might be in Range of Glaciers, but I've just started reading it and only have managed to get through the first 1/4 or so. Quite interesting reading and obviously comprehensive, way to go Fred.

Thanks. That appears to be the easiest way but Beckey describes another way (one with a rappel I think, but my memory is hazy, this may have been another description). I have a photo of the route from September when we walked it and it looks somewhat non-trivial with some crevasses to negotiate, but the photo isn't the best and it's hard to tell.

JoshK, Did you climb the Dana Gl to the Dana/Dome col? The Dana is split into two distinct parts, separated by a steep looking rock ridge. From White Rock Lakes, the right hand side climbs to Spire Col and Spire Pt, the left to the Dana/Dome Col. My question is, what is the easiest way to access the left hand side? Contour around the toe of the rock ridge? This would give very easy access to the top of Dome and to the Chickamin.

Thanks for the info guys. When we approached the north face this way last August there were two distinct brush sections. One had old growth and stream crossings coming down from Shuksan Arm, then a small talus field and then a gigantic alder thicket before the snowfields. I was hoping the alder would be still be snow covered from a winter's worth of avalanche debris. The old growth section I'm not so worried about. MattP, I've used a similar technique with skis, strapping them into a gigantic V at the waist belt with tips forward. Your method would probably work a little better.

Anyone been into the White Salmon valley recently, either to climb the north face or White Salmon Glacier? I'm wondering how much of the brush is snow covered, especially the gigantic alder thicket farther up valley. I'm contemplating a ski ascent/descent of the White Salmon Glacier and planning on using a high approach, from the utility road leaving the lower parking lot at the ski area. A little brush in the old growth is ok if it leads to snow relatively rapidly; working through the alder thicket with skis isn't.

Now they are targeting Cascade River Road? Is nothing sacred? I'll point this out even if some or most already know it. Damage to your car on break ins like this is covered by comprehensive insurance on your car insurance policy. Replacement of stolen items inside is covered by homeowner's or renter's insurance (not sure about the stereo). I don't have renter's insurance (perhaps should) but do carry comprehensive. It saved me over $200 when my car was broken into at Rainy Pass two falls ago to replace the broken window.

jja - call the number listed on the back. tell the person answering the phone you got one of the $50 tickets for not displaying a parking pass, but you have one and forgot to put it up. they will ask you to fax them a copy and throw out the fine. as easy as writing a check, addressing an envelope, buying a stamp and mailing it. there are always places to park near a trailhead for free. one can park on the highway pullout a little ways down the hill from blue lake trailhead for example.

Talk about car prowls - at the Heliotrope Ridge/Glacier Creek TH on Sunday, a car had its tire stole. The entire tire! The truck was sitting directly on its axle, a few springs and other assorted parts lying on the ground. Someone evidently jacked it up, stole the tire and took the jack. No other damage as apparent, no broken windows, nothing. I now pack my backpack completely before leaving home and make sure to bring nothing extra to the TH except the old shoes and clothes I'm wearing in the car. Nothing in the car to tempt theives with.

I was wondering how the weather was in the mountains last week. Ned_Flanders and I saw your registration at the marblemount ranger station last sunday. how was the weather? tuesday had a shallow inversion and wednesday a fairly quite deep one right? i bet the skiing was good. it sometimes amazes me what the weather models can now do. they rarely seriously miss a storm and can almost capture subtle changes, especially regarding topography (the MM5 can predict convergence zones). the weather changes predicted on friday afternoon for the period through tuesday night/wednesday are pretty tough and the NWS may have nailed it.

JoshK, Skisports- nice job on the traverse Do a goodle search for 'south cascade glacier' and you'll get lots of hits about the various studies done there. I'm sure there are many technical journal articles published in places like 'Journal of Glaciology' if you are really curious. I'm going to stick up for the NWS. In case you haven't noticed or bothered to think about it, weather prediction is dam hard. And it's really fucking hard in places like Washington where the available data upstream (ie, the ocean) is virtually nil. The varied topography here makes it even harder. The short term forecast (48 hours) is remarkably accurate; the longer range forecast has been getting better and better, but oftentimes is wrong. The NWS issues more of a forecast than 'partly cloudy', FL = XX ft. With every forecast update, they also issue a forecast discussion (forecast discussion) It almost always includes a statement about the forecaster's confidence in the issued forecast. For instance, the one linked now (2:45pm, Friday) says the forecast should be pretty good for the next few days ( .DISCUSSION...MODELS CONTINUE TO SHOW RATHER GOOD CONSISTENCY AND CONTINUITY THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF NEXT WEEK...) but after that (MODELS SHOW INCREASING CONSISTENCY AND CONTINUITY PROBLEMS SO THAT BY NEXT FRI THERE IS EITHER A RIDGE JUST TO OUR E...OR A TROUGH JUST TO OUR E...) they have no clue. The forecaster goes on to say from next Wednesday on, they will broad brush the forecast (nothing specific, it isn't really a forecast). Sometimes, the discussion will say we're unsure even a day or two from now. So there's your forecast: cloudy and showery through tomorrow (mostly in northwestern WA.. it's in the discussion), clearing sligthly by sunday, and nice Monday and Tuesday. To be able to say that with any confidence at all Friday afternoon is remarkable. If you don't want to take the time to read the discussion or learn about the weather and (gasp, even) make your own forecasts, then at least read the NWS forecasts regularly, a few updates a day. If it is changing back and forth from one to the next, don't give it much confidence. If it remains unchanged from day to day, it's a good bet.

Wow, congrats. Sounds like a great trip.

'visible' is the type of picture shown, in this case what you would see if you were in space looking down (as opposed to the other two common types, IR and water vapor). 1km is the image resolution. Every image pixel is 1km square. You can't really see detail this small, except by enlarging the picture and looking at the individual pixels. But then it becomes hard to see what's what. I dunno if the ones available are the raw images, or if they have been compressed and/or shrunk down somewhat. I suppose one could find out by measuring the number of pixels across Washington for example and comparing this to the actual distance on a map.

Whenever it is clear and the mountains are still convered in snow, the visible satellite shows excellent pictures of the mountains: more at UW atmospheric sciences You want the 1km visible satellite. They really look neat on the few days during the winter when it's clear, or earlier in the spring with more snow.

I have the Gemini. Overall I really like it except for one major complaint: the cord connecting the battery pack to the lamp in front is too short and it won't fit over a helmet comfortably. I tried to put it on once and pulled the cord too hard; now the led mode sometimes flickers off and I need to wiggle the wire a little bit to get it to come back on. I'm planning on taking it back to REI soon for a replacement, but even still, it's a pain.

I think our higher elevation snowpack is doing quite well right now. Well, we'll see if the warmth of the next few days lasts long. I'd imagine this would be a good ski route for a few more weeks.

I'll second what Jim said. We did it in early september when the glaciers were pretty broken up and being able to see and pick our route through the crevasses was a tremendous help. Plus, as you already experienced it's a lot easier going out from Dome than going in. If the weather really craps out and you decide to bail after a day or two, it's easier to bail back to Cascade Pass too.

This year I switched to rose colored ski googles after years with yellow and they are much better in fog. Black and white photographers use red filters to increase contrast; your eyes compensate for the color difference but are able take advantage of the enhanced contrast. Yellow (amber) filters block out blue (cool) light and warm the light somewhat. But in fog, most of the light is blue (scattered). My sunglasses (cheap $16 glasses) are polarized with an amber tint. The polarized lenses will tend to cool the light somewhat, the amber compensates. In sunny meadows, the polarizer cuts the glare off the heather and flowers and the amber makes the green look almost flourescent Added bonus: by turning my head on its side, I can decide whether I should put a polarizer on my camera for a photo.

I'm looking for a partner/partners to do some 3-5 day ski tours in the Cascades in coming weeks. Most of my regular ski partners have other commitments and can't afford to take the time off unfortunately. I'm primarily thinking of established one way traverses (Ptarmigan Traverse, ...) or loops (Forbidden Tour). I'd like to squeeze in two before summer fully arrives. Destinations are completely open to suggestion, though I would really like to ski out to Primus and Tricouni on one of the trips (could be a three day trip, out and back from the standard Eldorado approach/exit). After next Monday, June 2, my schedule is infinitely flexible, but would prefer to take the trips over long weekends. Send me a pm or e-mail ski_photomatt AT yahoo DOT com.

If you waterproof treat boots, how do the boots get wet? In my experience, no matter how much waterproof stuff I put on leather boots, walking all day (or on multiday trips) in wet spring snow will cause wet boots. My understanding is that the waterproofing keeps the leather from getting damaged and cracking when it then dries. I could be completely wrong though. I have noticed when I don't treat them for a while the leather does start look dried out and not so healthy. A little moisture is all that's needed to soften the leather though and make it easier to break in.