Rogers Pass is a Deathtrap

[snoboy]

 

klenke - that would be Eagle peak according to my map. Avalanche is just out of picture.

 

Edit: Wrong, it is avalanche, see dru's post below!

Edited February 3, 2003 by snoboy

[klenke]

Thanks for the correction. I knew it was close to that peak if not that peak. Slopes would be about the same though, right?

[mattp]

North Slope of Cheops definitely looks like a danger area to me.

 

Meaning what? It doesn't take an avalanche expert to know that those slopes are periodically swept by avalanches (that's why they are large and open slopes devoid of vegetation), but are you suggesting that they should not have been there or that there was some other obvious problem with their party management or something?

[Dru]

 

klenke - that would be Eagle peak according to my map. Avalanche is just out of picture.

 

uto is hidden behind eagle

 

eagle is 1st pk left of sir donald

 

avalanche is snow peak left of eagle

 

i think, anyways, and according to the way i memorize selkirk south guide....

 

[snoboy]

Yup, similar. I think the slope at the very left of the pic is the edge of the one with all the big tracks on it.

 

The attachment shows the whole of the Connaught drainage, with my best guess of where the group was caught marked.

 

Edit: Dru is right now that I look again... Sorry.

Edited February 3, 2003 by snoboy

[fern]

picture in todays paper looks like your circle starts a little too far down the drainage snoboy, but the lower extent is right. Size estimate class 3.5, width 500m, debris pile up to 4m deep, natural trigger. This was a big slide, super-elevated up the other side of the valley a little before making a 90 degree turn and flowing down the valley bottom

[klenke]

So I was right after all? I'm very cornfused. I was up there last August on the Avalanche Creek Trail, and the terrain that I remember being near was that of the basin below and to the right of the second hump left of Sir Donald.

 

Mattp: Looking at the Cheops north side photo, it appears to me to be an avalanche-prone slope. It would not be a wise place to be (based on all I can see from the photo) when avy conditions are considerable. Can't really say until I visit the place myself though.

[AlpineK]

Well if we were smart we would spend most of our time hidding in our house. hmm but that could catch fire....

 

The trail stays on the opposite side of the valley from Cheops. Big avalanches obviously come into the center of the valley all the time. Most folks don't ski the slopes on Cheops; they ski on the south facing slopes across from Cheops.

 

If you were to stay away from all the possible avy slopes arround Rogers Pass you would never ski. Especially since the term considerable is used most of the winter.

[mattp]

Klenke-

 

In light of what happened, I suppose it is hard to argue with the statement that it was "not a wise place to be when avvy hazard is considerable." I will attempt to do so anyway, but pretty much I will just restate what Alpine K already said.

 

First of all, it looks as if they were traveling in an avalanche run-out zone. I think that photo posted by Snowboy had the vertical element exaggerated a little bit, but in any case who among us who are active during the winter has not ventured up the Alpental Valley or otherwise traversed avalanche runout zones during "considerable" hazard conditions? At Roger's Pass, I bet the conditions are rated "considerable" or above throughout most of an average winter and literally thousands of people have enjoyed a tour up the Connaught Creek Valley in these kinds of conditions without a problem. I believe there are few if any avalanche experts who would seriously argue that the party should not have been where they were on that day.

 

Second of all, I wonder if you may be thinking that the size of the avalanche slopes in that valley makes travel there more questionable than other locations. I don't think that particular valley has significantly more large avalanche tracks across it than do most drainages along the crest of the Selkirks or even the higher portions of the Cascades, for that matter. I don't think it was necessarily more "obvious" that those large slopes were more dangerous than some smaller ones nearby though a small avalanche would not have crossed the valley and caught that party on the far side of a creek and it is certainly true that large avalanche slopes pose a more obvious hazard and most avalanche accidents involving several victims occur on large slopes. In my own assessment and route-finding, I try to bear in mind that many avalanche accidents occur on small slopes, often in the woods, that you might not immediately recognize as hazardous. If you equate size with danger, or at least if you equate lack of big open slopes with safety, I think you are making a mistake.

 

We can all debate what should or should not have been done whenever there is an accident, and I acknowledge that it is difficult to argue with your assessment, but I think it was a little simplistic. I am hoping to encourage people to learn more about the hazard they may be facing when traveling in the mountains in the winter and I am arguing that learning to distinguish relatively safe routes or conditions from relatively unsafe ones involves a lot more than thinking "considerable" and above is dangerous, or that big avalanche tracks should be avoided.

[specialed]

Good points Matt. I wouldn't hesitate to travel in similiar valleys when I though avy conditions were considerable and just stay out of well known slide paths. But I do think this year's weather patterns and events have been unusual and have contributed to the formation of some very weak and funky (hoar frost) layers, as often happens in years of low snow pack.

[mattp]

I agree, Ed. One of the articles I read quoted an avalanche tech as saying there was a funky layer left over from a warm spell in November, and it sounds as if that layer may be bad news!! Clearly, there is an unusual potential for large and dangerous avalanches this season and Klenke is right in the respect that, after two serious accidents, a cautious person might want to stay away from the Selkirks right now. I would not, however, second guess the judgment of either the Canadian Avalanche Association or the leaders of this high school group in connection with this tragedy. Avalanche hazards are difficult if not impossible to predict with certainty.