CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 1

nEw ZEALAnD MOUntAin SAFEtY COUnCiL

PERIODICAL OF THE NEW ZEALAND AVALANCHE COMMUNITY

DISCOVERMORE, SAFELY

vOLU

ME

22

win

tEr

201

3

www.avalanche.net.nz

www.mountainsafety.org.nz

www.adventuresmart.org.nz

PH

OTO

And

rew

Hob

man

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 1

CONTENTS

01 welcome

02 Snow and avalanche committee

03 News bites

08 using checklists to get the dumb stuff right

09 avalanche problems and public advisories

15 airbags as personal protective equipment

16 russian roulette on ruapehu’s backcountry

17 whakapapa research - hazard modelling from weather data

19 lithium batteries and avalanche beacons

WELCOMEhi and welcome to the winter issue of the 2013 crystal Ball.

it has once again been a busy summer for the avalanche Programme. we have focused on developing educational resources and safety management systems, updating the web-site and planning for the Southern hemisphere avalanche conference.

the conference, which ran over Queens Birthday weekend, was a successful event. the education and Sar workshops were well received and a big “thanks” to Pete Bilous and don Bogie for their work in running these. thank you also to the other people that helped as facilitators and umpires.

the main conference rolled on from this positive start. we had a good turnout and representation from the all parts of the sector and everybody seemed to have a good time, use the networking opportunities and take something useful away.

Now we sit back and wait for the snow to accumulate.

the Northern hemisphere winter was late to start and was then punctuated by large and extreme weather events. this seems to be the new normal in our current warming climate and i think that we can expect to see more of them. along with this came the almost daily news of avalanche incidents and fatalities. here’s hoping that this trend is not followed for our winter.

the decision to publish this periodical electronically seems to have been well received but we appreciate that it also adds to the flood of e-mail content we are bombarded with on a daily basis. the crystal Ball is an important vehicle for sharing avalanche related information so please ensure that this gets printed off and left around the office for all to read.

as always, we welcome your feedback on this new format and any suggestions on the content. if you have a personal stories or articles, we would love to see them so please contact us with your submissions.

See you out in the hills.

- Andrew ‘Hobbie’ Hobman, Avalanche and Alpine

programme manager

the crystal Ball

volume 22, winter 2013

Editor: Gordon Smith

Managing Editor: andrea corrigan

Designer: dani millar

Cover Photo: andrew hobman

thank you to the contributors for giving permission to reproduce their material.

copyright © New Zealand mountain Safety council 2013.

all rights reserved.

All opinions expressed in this magazine are not necessarily those of the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council. While efforts are made to check facts are accurate, responsibility lies with the author.

Editorial and Advertising enquiries

do you have something to say or show? we would like articles relating to the professional avalanche industry, public avalanche safety, teaching tips, research papers, accounts of avalanche events, book and gear reviews, event listings, interviews, letters to the editor, and humorous stories related to avalanches.

we are also looking for winter mountain photography of avalanches, touring, terrain, skiing, snowboarding, active control work, backcountry recreation or avalanche awareness activities.

for more information please contact:

andrew hobman

Tel: +64 27 446 2626

Fax: +64 4 385 7366

Email: andrew.hobman@mountainsafety.org.nz

to have your voice heard at the Sac committee, contact your industry representative, or email: manager@avalanche.net.nz

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 2

CONvENOr’S COrNEr

it’s time to remove the rust from the edges you swore to tune before stowing away the gear last season…it seems like a good time to sweep the cobwebs from the dusty corners of your avalanche safety brain as well.

the recent Southern hemisphere avalanche conference in christchurch provided a great opportunity to do some mental housekeeping, catch up with mates, and meet someone new of similar ilk. Plenty of discussion around a good mix of presented topics aided by the occasional ‘flying gift monkey’ kept most folks entertained, if not engaged. Good on all of you who made it along and prioritised staying current with what’s happening in our industry. if you couldn’t make it, the crystal Ball and the avalanche.net.nz website are being targeted to disseminate as much of the information as possible. helmets or beanies off to hobbie and Gordie whose big organising efforts paid off. a special thanks to all the presenters as well as ian owens (a.k.a. ‘Shorty’-who’s probably taller than me), and don Bogie for putting in a lot of time and effort to making the rescue and education sessions a success. a special congrats to don as he has recently been awarded the NZ order of merit award for his contribution to land search and rescue.

the avalanche education working Group (aweG) has been plugging away to establish a set of avalanche qualifications comprising the education pathway as part of the targeted

SNOw aNd avalaNChE COmmiTTEE (SaC)

review of Qualifications (troQ). the irony is that although the overall goal of the process is to reduce the number of qualifications in NZ, avalanche may slightly expand. watch this space…the other main focus is shifting a lot of the theory based leaning that has previously been done on-course to on-line pre-course. the goal is to have folks arrive with the theory base and allow more time to be spent on the practical aspects of the course.

at the Snow and avalanche committee (Sac) level, one priority was to prepare a Safety management System (SmS) proposal to the Ski area association of New Zealand (SaaNZ) for their consideration at their 31 may meeting. Some of the other evolving projects include developing and disseminating a resource for public awareness and perhaps teaching survival skills when a slide danger is present from icy conditions, recommending and disseminating the current iKar rescue standard of practice around search and rescue and patient care, buttoning down explosive practice protocols and the constantly improving our education practices. we’ll be sharing other appropriate issues as they progress into recommendations or are completed.

have a great, safe season and please…don’t snake my line!

- Peter Bilous

Snow and Avalanche Committee Convenor

The mission of MSC’s Snow and Avalanche Committee:

to provide expert advice and support to the council on appropriate strategies to foster public safety in snow environments including:

• overseeing the training, assessments and qualifications of instructors to ensure that national standards are maintained and enhanced

• overseeing the professional training programmes of all providers as required

• monitoring, research and review trends in snow and avalanche activities to ensure the council remains the leading authority for safety in this environment.

To have your voice heard at the SAC committee, contact your industry representative or email manager@avalanche.net.nz

The Snow and Avalanche Committee May 2013

Back row from left: arthur tyndall, John hooker, leonce Jones, don Bogie, andy hoyle, Pete Zimmer, Kevin Boekholt, Gordon Smith, dr ian owens.

Front row from left: Nick Jarmin, andrew hobman, Peter Bilous

Absent in picture: wayne carran

Convenor: Peter Bilous (Otago Polytech & AEWG rep)

Members: dr i owens (University of Canterbury)

don Bogie (Department of Conservation)

arthur tyndall & Nick Jarmin (Club Ski Fields)

wayne carran (Works Infrastructure)

andy hoyle (SAANZ North Island)

John hooker (SAANZ South Island)

Pete Zimmer (LandSAR)

Kevin Boekholt (NZMGA)

andrew hobman & Gordon Smith (NZMSC)

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 3

OnlinE AvAlAnChE COurSE 101: www.AvAlAnChE.nET.nz The New Zealand Mountain Safety Council’s Avalanche Centre has developed a freely available online avalanche theory course. It is intended to be used as a primer for those wanting to attend a physical course.

Making use of pictures, video and interactive route finding games, the course leads the user through the fundamentals of avalanche theory. You can find it in the ‘Education’ section of www.avalanche.net.nz

Get Snow Smart by running through this online avalanche course.

Whether you duck out beyond the ski area boundaries for a quick lap of the adjacent backcountry, or go farther afield, we hope this short introductory course gives you the basics that will whet your appetite to learn more. These core skills are the same for those who ski, snowboard, climb, snowmobile, tramp/hike and hunt.

Once you have these basics under your belt, enrol on one of the many avalanche courses offered around the country.

Avalanche safety is a practical skill that cannot be learnt by just reading a book, or completing this online course. Learn with expert guidance out in the field. ▲

Click here to book on a nzMSC Avalanche course

COngrATulATiOnS TO DOn BOgiE In this year’s Queens Birthday 2013 New Zealand Royal Honours list, Don Bogie has been appointed a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit (MNZM) for his outstanding service to Land Search and Rescue.

We congratulate Don for his latest recognition, which is thoroughly deserved, and are thankful that he remains a pivotal contributor to our Snow and Avalanche Committee.

Well done Don. ▲

NEwS BiTES

Above: Route finding exercise – draw your track and avoid the avalanche terrain

Above: Don Bogie pictured with another outstanding NZ icon in the background - Aoraki”)

Avalanche awareness, advisories and info

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 4

while these figures give us an indication of the activity last season, anecdotal evidence shows that we are not capturing all the incidents that are happening. it is critically important for evaluation, planning, development and saving lives that all near-misses, involvements and incidents are reported.

Gaps in vital data fields make quantitative analysis tricky or impossible. avalanche fatalities are our only complete dataset.

Prior to 2000, data had been collected primarily via a paper based process. Since the 2000 winter season, contributors have made increasing use of the online iNfo-eX system as their primary method of reporting. the iNfo-eX system has developed and changed over the years, as has the “new zealand guidelines for weather, Snowpack and Avalanche Observations”.

Since 1998 (last 15 years) statistics gathered from data collected by the New Zealand mountain Safety council, shows that during an average year in New Zealand there will be 34 reported avalanche involvements, resulting in 23 people being caught, one of whom will die.

in the 2012 calendar year there were 31 reported avalanche incidents and accident events involving people and/or property. 29 events caught 13 people, three of whom were partially buried and one fully buried. equipment was lost in three events. only one person sustained injuries, and there were no fatalities. two naturally triggered events damaged ski area plant and machinery.

the first reported events were logged on June 7, and the last on october 23 2012.

AvAlAnChE ACCiDEnT SuMMAry 2012

Climbing Ski Patrol Control work

Ski in Ski area

Backcountry Ski

Backcountry Snowboard

Heli - Ski & Board

Vehicles Total

Number events

1 4 2 6 2 12 2 29

People caught

2 2 0 0 2 7 0 13

there have always been inconsistencies in reporting frequency and habits, (NZmSc’s crystal Ball reports - irwin 2003, hendrix 2006, dignan 2007-2009), but it is hoped that with more opportunity, training and support, both the general public and industry can record as full and accurate a data set as possible. NZmSc will continue to provide both on-site and remote support to help achieve this.

one of the core principles of the recommendations by the ministry of Business, innovation and employment (mBie - formerly the department of labour) in the tourism and adventure operations review is that:

“Safety information is willingly exchanged externally. Exchange of safety information: organisations make a conscious and formalised effort to share safety information (including lessons learned) with others while externally seeking information that may strengthen their own safety provisions. Commercial interests are pushed aside in the interests of achieving better safety outcomes through shared learning.”

(MBIE - Review of risk management and safety in the adventure and outdoor commercial sectors in New Zealand 2009/10 - Final report)

thank you to all those organisations and individuals that have shared their observations. the NZmSc look forward to this continuing with our full support. we have a good system in place that will only get better. the sharing of this data is important for the safety of everybody. ▲

 

 

There  have  always  been  inconsistencies  in  reporting  frequency  and  habits,  (NZMSC’s  Crystal  Ball  reports  -­‐  Irwin  2003,  Hendrix  2006,  Dignan  2007-­‐2009),  but  it  is  hoped  that  with  more  opportunity,  training  and  support,  both  the  general  public  and  industry  can  record  as  full  and  accurate  a  data  set  as  possible.  NZMSC  will  continue  to  provide  both  on-­‐site  and  remote  support  to  help  achieve  this.  

One  of  the  core  principles  of  the  recommendations  by  the  Ministry  of  Business,  Innovation  and  Employment  (MBIE  -­‐  formerly  the  Department  of  Labour)  in  the  Tourism  and  Adventure  Operations  review  is  that:    

“Safety  information  is  willingly  exchanged  externally.  Exchange  of  safety  information:  organisations  make  a  conscious  and  formalised  effort  to  share  safety  information  (including  lessons  learned)  with  others  while  externally  seeking  information  that  may  strengthen  their  own  safety  provisions.  Commercial  interests  are  pushed  aside  in  the  interests  of  achieving  better  safety  outcomes  through  shared  learning.”  

 (MBIE  -­‐  Review  of  risk  management  and  safety  in  the  adventure  and  outdoor  commercial  sectors  in  New  Zealand  2009/10  -­‐  Final  report)  

 

Thank  you  to  all  those  organisations  and  individuals  that  have  shared  their  observations.  The  NZMSC  look  forward  to  this  continuing  with  our  full  support.  We  have  a  good  system  in  place  that  will  only  get  better.  The  sharing  of  this  data  is  important  for  the  safety  of  everybody.  

37   37  

68  

91  

36  

29   27  

39  

25   24  

31  

16  

62  

40   38  

7  

23  

12  

26   24  

12   13  

2   1  

7  

0   0   0   0   0  3  

0   0   0  0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

70  

80  

90  

100  

2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012  

Avalanche  Incident  Summary  

Total  number  of  events  reported   Number  of  people  caught   Number  of  people  killed  

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 5

the Southern hemisphere avalanche conference (Shac) held over Queen’s Birthday weekend was well attended with representatives from all sectors of the avalanche community. friday’s pre conference workshops were also popular. those involved got to apply their skills as well as share their collective knowledge and experience.

To see more photos from SHAC 2013 click here

the “resources” section of www.avalanche.net.nz has been reorganised to include news and fresh updates for the Snow and avalanche industry. those that were unable to attend this year’s conference will be able to find readings and links to some of the presentations given.

Below are some photographs from the conference.

2013 SOuThErn hEMiSphErE AvAlAnChE COnFErEnCE ShAC

Left

: An

drew

Hob

man

ope

ns

the

con

fere

nce

Left

: Dr I

hir

angi

Hek

e en

gage

s th

e au

dien

ce

Rig

ht:

Ste

ve P

arke

r an

d S

imon

Sh

eldo

n s

har

e

thei

r exp

erie

nce

s of

rais

ing

aval

anch

e aw

aren

ess

fo

r th

e vi

llage

peo

ple

of P

akis

tan

.R

igh

t: S

atu

rday

’s g

ala

din

ner

Left

: Qu

een

stow

n’s

Mik

e M

adde

n a

nd

Chri

s Co

chra

ne

enjo

yin

g a

livel

y de

bate

spa

rked

by

the

prev

iou

s pr

esen

tati

on.

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 6

alpine rescue techniques $69.95

avalanche accidents $15.00

alpine Skills $20.00

Safety whistle $9.95

avalanche accidents $15.00

alpine Skills $20.00

avalanche awareness $30.00

avalanche handbook $45.00

NZ Guidelines and recording Standards for weather, Snowpack and avalanche observations (2011, NZ) $30.00

Packliner $5.00

avalanche handbook $45.00

NZ Guidelines and recording Standards for weather, Snowpack and avalanche observations (2011, NZ) $30.00

alpiNE aNd avalaNChE rESOurCES

OThEr uSEful OuTdOOr SafETy rESOurCES

avalanche assessor card $11.99

avalanche rescue card $11.99

card combo (both cards) $19.99

outdoor first aid manual $35.00

avalanche rescue card $11.99

card combo (both cards) $19.99

To purchase any of these resources online, please visit www.mountainsafety.org.nz/resourcesTo set up a wholesale account, contact our resources Co-ordinator. Tel: 04 385 7162 or email orders@mountainsafety.org.nz

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 7

Book review: the checklist manifesto, how to Get things right by atul Gawande (2011)

uSing ChECkliSTS TO gET ThE DuMB STuFF righT //AnDy hOylE

The Checklist Manifesto is written about experiences assisting the World Health Organisation (WHO) to develop checklists for use in the healthcare industry including operating theatres.

Using checklists to assist the human brain to remember important parts of complex tasks is not a new concept. In 1935 Boeing Corporation developed an incredibly complex bomber in a bid to secure a large order from the US Army. The “Flying Fortress” had four engines and a lot of other new technology that required a different approach to flying than was the norm at the time. In a display for Army officials, a very experienced pilot and four crew members took off, climbed to 300 feet and stalled. In the aftermath it was found that pilot error was the cause. Specifically, the pilot was overloaded with too many tasks. Boeing then developed flight checklists to enable the crew to achieve safe flights with this complex aircraft.

In our industry we are required to collect masses of information each hour of each day and use it to make safety critical decisions about avalanche risk. This may be for a guiding operation, ski area or as a recreationalist in the backcountry. There have been some good pulses of ‘human factor’ type research pass through our midst. Some really in-depth work has been done by experts and experienced snow professionals such as Laura Adams, Dale Atkins and Ian McCammon. These theories are now entrenched in the teaching for avalanche professionals in this country and around the world. Their papers tend to focus on the different styles of decision-making and those things that might affect how we make decisions.

In his book, Atul Gawande is not trying to produce expert status through the use of a checklist, rather, enabling us to get the ‘dumb stuff’ right consistently and avoid human error. His focus for the WHO was to improve the safety of surgical procedures by engaging the whole surgical team, and empowering everyone in the team to take responsibility for the safety of the patient. The checklist should be aimed not at replacing experience and skills built up over years in the field, but more to facilitate and support decision making by skilled users.

He spent time with Daniel Boorman from the Boeing Corporation who is responsible for writing modern day checklists for all of Boeing’s airliners. Interestingly, the checklists for a Boeing 747 have no more than about 8-10 items on them. At the top of the list – so to speak – is a requirement that the crew do a short introduction with each other including the cabin crew, prior to the flight so everyone knows each other and has a chance to voice any concerns they have.

How can we use this knowledge in our industry? That is up to each of us individually but I suspect we could learn a bit from the aviation and medical industries. ▲

- Andy Hoyle - Safety Services Manager, Whakapapa Ski Area

Above: Andy attempts to cope with an avalanche of information

PHOTO: Andy Hoyle

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 8

Public advisories increasingly use avalanche character/types/problems to communicate their message to the public. many forecasting operations and educators are finding this approach to communicating risk and risk management helpful.

AvAlAnChE prOBlEMS AnD puBliC ADviSOriES // BriAn lAzAr, EThAn grEEnE, AnD kArl BirkElAnD

This requires that those of us using these terms in our operations use them consistently. It doesn’t help the public if a “Persistent Slab” has a different meaning in Utah, Montana, Colorado, or Canada. It’s easy to think that we all know what we mean when we use these terms until we have to write them down and agree. At that point different interpretations come to light.

The following article outlines a framework of consistent terms for describing avalanche character, types, and problems. If avalanche professionals do not speak the same language, the public has no hope of using this information effectively. Let’s start by suggesting these terms be referred to as “avalanche problems,” rather than “types” or “character.” We treat them as problems in the field, and we encourage the public to approach them that way as well. To us, the term “problem” best describes these terms, so let’s go with that for now.

Using avalanche problems in public advisories has some real potential advantages, and the following provides some general guidance to promote consistency and describes some communication tools for forecasters and the public. The merits of the current construct of avalanche problems has been intentionally left out. We’ll save that discussion for the spring.

A BriEF hiSTOry

The idea that we manage terrain differently depending upon the type of avalanches we expect is not a new one. We recognize that similar danger or stability assessments do not necessarily elicit the same risk-management response in the field. For example, storm-snow instabilities often require different risk-management strategies than Persistent Slabs, although both might be responsible for a CONSIDERABLE danger rating. We don’t treat all CONSIDERABLE (or any rating) days the same, and for good reason. The flavour of the avalanches we expect to encounter can be more influential in our risk-management practices than a given danger or stability rating.

In 2004, Roger Atkins put some of these thoughts down in a great ISSW paper (Atkins, 2004, http://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-science/item.php?id=1118). He proposed a framework for considering how we might approach this condition and his construct divided avalanches into eight avalanche regimes consisting of 20+ avalanche types (Atkins, 2004). The utility of Roger’s suggestion is that the criteria used for the avalanche characterization “…is tied directly to different risk-management strategies and/or imply different spatial distribution or terrain type for avalanche potential.” This proposal linked nicely with parallel efforts considering how we communicate what we’re thinking with the public and each other.

Around the same time as Roger’s paper, professionals on both sides of the border began discussions regarding revising the North American Avalanche Danger Scale. This process led to the Conceptual Model for Avalanche Hazard (Statham, 2010, et al) that distilled Roger’s original “long list” down to a list of eight “avalanche characters” for use in avalanche forecasting for public bulletins and for communication to a wider audience. This is the current construct used in North America and New Zealand, and the one with which most of us are familiar. >>

Avalanche Type

Above: Avalanche Types, Statham et al 2010

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 9

why uSE AvAlAnChE prOBlEMS in puBliC ADviSOriES?

Communicating risk management is not the same as classifying avalanche observations via guidelines such as those published in SWAG (Greene et al., 2010). The intent of using avalanche problems is not to describe any and all avalanches that you might observe, but rather to distil avalanches into risk-management categories that backcountry travellers can use in the field. This allows communication of avalanche conditions to focus on a small set of field observations relevant to the types of avalanches we anticipate, and puts risk management at the center of the discussion.

We are not suggesting that all forecasting operations need to use avalanche problems for disseminating their message, nor are we suggesting that using them is imperative for effective public communication. There are many effective ways to communicate avalanche danger to the public. However, we think there are good reasons for considering an avalanche problem approach for public advisories:

• They streamline messaging for forecast centers and focus users on risk management in the terrain.

• There is less uncertainty in the type of avalanches we expect than in probability of triggering them. Conveying this distinction helps the end user.

• Educators are using them in avalanche courses and, more importantly, are reporting success in making the fire hose of information more discrete and manageable for recreationists.

SuggESTED gEnErAl guiDAnCE

Over the summer, the Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC) began to develop some guidance for forecasters using avalanche problems. We agreed that using avalanche problems in our advisories was improving our messaging, but the problem used on a given day wasn’t always consistent.

The classic question went something like this, “You have patchy surface hoar or NSFs that you expect will be reactive once buried. Then a storm rolls in, drops a bunch of snow, and arrives with some moderate to strong wind. So, do you have one problem (Storm Slabs) or three problems that arise simultaneously (Storm Slabs, Wind Slabs, and Persistent Slabs)?” There was no “right” answer, but we wanted to make sure forecasters in our group would give similar advice to the public in similar situations.

We reached out to other operations north and south of the border to see what they were doing. What we discovered was that each operation, and in some cases each forecaster, had a slightly different interpretation of how to answer that question. It’s not that anyone was right or wrong, but rather the construct of using avalanche problems necessarily has inherent gray areas. This posed a problem. If professional forecasters aren’t speaking the same language and using problems in the same way, what hope does the public have in understanding our message?

In response, we developed some guidance for how and when different avalanche problems might be used. The general guidance for using avalanche problems is grounded in the principle that the risk-management message is the most important message to convey effectively. This guidance is:

• use as few problems as possible to cover the risk-management advice you want to communicate to the public. Coming back to the question posed above, a forecaster might elect to use only Storm Slabs in their advisory if they believe that covers the risk-management message. This is not to say that Wind Slabs or Persistent Slabs don’t also exist. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine a storm without some Wind Slabs existing somewhere in the terrain, but it’s easy to imagine Wind Slabs without Storm Slabs present. We’re suggesting that it’s not always helpful to describe the evolution of each storm instability during a loading event unless they require different risk-management strategies. Only use multiple problems when multiple risk-management strategies are required.

• Only use persistent Slabs as a problem when a buried persistent weak layer (pwl) is anticipated to be reactive once buried. Just because a PWL is buried does not necessarily mean you have a Persistent Slab problem.

• use persistent Deep Slabs in your problem list when: 1) Triggering is stubborn, 2) you anticipate D3 or larger avalanches, and 3) you have a deep or basal pwl. When asked, “What distinguishes a Persistent Deep Slab from a Persistent Slab,” everyone asked touched on some variation of, “They are low-probability, high-consequence events.” There is not a rigid depth requirement for the weak layer to be considered “deep.” The criteria we’re suggesting here links directly to the unique risk management required of deep instabilities.

• Consider removing persistent Deep Slabs from the problem list when: 1) Triggering is unlikely and/or 2) Other more likely avalanche problems exist. We offer this suggestion to combat the very real problem of message fatigue. Given the nature of Persistent Deep Slabs, once the problem is established, it can persist for months. How many ways can a forecaster say, “There’s a small probability of triggering a deep slab, but if you do, it will be destructive”? Discussion of this possibility should not disappear completely, but may be more effective when used selectively (like when triggering is becoming more likely) and in other formats such as forecast blogs.

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 10

TOOlS FOr FOrECASTErS

Several efforts produced some tools intended to help avalanche forecasters determine which problems to use in their advisories on a given day and enable them to communicate their message effectively to the public. In concert with these efforts, tools to help the public understand and utilize the advisories have also been developed. This article will be posted on the National Avalanche Center Web site under Tech Papers, and the tools will be posted with the article (www.fsavalanche.org/Default.aspx?ContentId=44&LinkId=78&ParentLinkId= 40#CA).

The flowchart consists of three main trees: storm snow, wet snow, and cornices. The latter two trees are straightforward, so we’ll elaborate here only on the storm snow tree on the left. Most of the decision points are self-explanatory. You begin with new snow or snow available for transport. If the snow is being redistributed into slabs, you have Wind Slabs. If snow is not being redistributed, but slabs are forming via consolidation, you have Storm Slabs. If either of these storm instabilities forms over a PWL, you might have a Persistent Slab or one might be developing. The suggested criteria for when to use Persistent Slab and/or Persistent Deep Slab are described above.

In addition to this quick reference tool, Bob Comey and the Bridger-Teton National Forest Avalanche Center took on the task of compiling available resources regarding

The CAIC developed a flowchart intended to help forecasters answer, “Which problem(s) should I use in my advisory today?” The idea was that this tool would be a quick reference guide for the forecaster in the hot seat and help promote consistency between forecasters. This is not a tool intended for public use, and it assumes that the forecaster is using it with an in-depth understanding of the snowpack for which they are forecasting, and with good communication with their fellow forecasters.

avalanche problems and getting the considerations for avalanche professionals into one reference document. The result is an Excel spreadsheet packed with lots of information. Each avalanche problem is listed, along with criteria for each of the following categories: basic information-short definitions and formation, avalanche character, distribution/terrain characteristics, snowpack character, fate in the environment, hazard assessment, risk assessment, and risk management. The spreadsheet is less of an on-the-fly, quick look-up tool, but rather it is a more comprehensive reference document that one can refer to for a variety of applications. >>

Above: Avalanche Problem Guidance for Backcountry Forecasters, CAIC

u PAGe 14 The AVAlANche reVIeW Vol. 31, No. 2, December 2012

snow science

A Brief HistoryThe idea that we manage terrain differently depending upon the type of avalanches

we expect is not a new one. We recognize that similar danger or stability assessments do not necessarily elicit the same risk-management response in the field. For example, storm-snow instabilities often require different risk-management strategies than Persistent Slabs, although both might be responsible for a Considerable danger rating. We don’t treat all Considerable (or any rating) days the same, and for good reason. The flavor of the avalanches we expect to encounter can be more influential in our risk-management practices than a given danger or stability rating.

In 2004, Roger Atkins put some of these thoughts down in a great ISSW paper (Atkins, 2004, http://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-science/item.php?id=1118). He proposed a framework for considering how we might approach this condition and his construct divided avalanches into eight avalanche regimes consisting of 20+ avalanche types (Atkins, 2004). The utility of Roger’s suggestion is that the criteria used for the avalanche characterization “…is tied directly to different risk-management strategies and/or imply different spatial distribution or terrain type for avalanche potential.” This proposal linked nicely with parallel efforts considering how we communicate what we’re thinking with the public and each other.

Around the same time as Roger’s paper, professionals on both sides of the border began discussions regarding revising the North American Avalanche Danger Scale. This process led to the Conceptual Model for Avalanche Hazard (Statham, 2010, et al) that distilled Roger’s original “long list” down to a list of eight “avalanche characters” for use in avalanche forecasting for public bulletins and for communication to a wider audience. This is the current construct used in North America and New Zealand, and the one with which most of us are familiar.

Why Use Avalanche Problems in Public Advisories?Communicating risk management is not the same as classifying avalanche

observations via guidelines such as those published in SWAG (Greene et al., 2010). The intent of using avalanche problems is not to describe any and all avalanches that you might observe, but rather to distill avalanches into risk-management categories that backcountry travelers can use in the field. This allows communication of avalanche conditions to focus on a small set of field observations relevant to the types of avalanches we anticipate, and puts risk management at the center of the discussion.

We are not suggesting that all forecasting operations need to use avalanche problems for disseminating their message, nor are we suggesting that using them is imperative for effective public communication. There are many effective ways to communicate avalanche danger to the public. However, we think there are good reasons for considering an avalanche problem approach for public advisories:

•Theystreamlinemessagingforforecastcentersandfocususersonriskmanagementin the terrain.

•Thereislessuncertaintyinthetypeofavalanchesweexpectthaninprobabilityof triggering them. Conveying this distinction helps the end user.

•Educators are using them in avalanche courses and, more importantly, arereporting success in making the fire hose of information more discrete and manageable for recreationists.

Suggested General GuidanceOver the summer, the Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC) began

to develop some guidance for forecasters using avalanche problems. We agreed that using avalanche problems in our advisories was improving our messaging, but the problem used on a given day wasn’t always consistent.

The classic question went something like this, “You have patchy surface hoar or NSFs that you expect will be reactive once buried. Then a storm rolls in, drops a bunch of snow, and arrives with some moderate to strong wind. So, do you have one problem (Storm Slabs) or three problems that arise simultaneously (Storm Slabs, Wind Slabs, and Persistent Slabs)?” There was no “right” answer, but we wanted to make sure forecasters in our group would give similar advice to the public in similar situations.

We reached out to other operations north and south of the border to see what they were doing. What we discovered was that each operation, and in some cases each forecaster, had a slightly different interpretation of how to answer that question. It’s not that anyone was right or wrong, but rather the construct of using avalanche problems necessarily has inherent gray areas. This posed a problem. If professional forecasters aren’t speaking the same language and using problems in the same way, what hope does the public have in understanding our message?

In response, we developed some guidance for how and when different avalanche problems might be used. The general guidance for using avalanche problems is grounded in the principle that the risk-management message is the most important message to convey effectively. This guidance is:

AVAlAnche Problems definedstory by Brian Lazar, Ethan Greene, Karl Birkeland, continued from cover

Flowchart: Avalanche Problem Guidance for Backcountry ForecastersIf you would like electronic versions of these charts and documents, please contact the editor.

General Guidance•Useasfewproblemsaspossibletocoverrisk-

management issues.

•Persistentslabsareonlyaproblemwhenyouexpect avalanches on that layer.

•Removedeeppersistentslabsfromtheproblemlistwhentriggeringisunlikely,andthereareothermore-likelyavalancheproblems.

AVALANChE TyPEChARACTER Weak Layer / Slab Persistence Weak Layer Propagation Relative Size Interface Properties Location Potential Potential (1-5)Loose Dry Snow Various -NA- Hours/days Near the None R1-2

Loose Wet Snow (no cohesion) surface

Wind Slabs Various grains 4F-K Hours/days Upper pack Terrain feature R1-3 Wind transported

Storm Snow Various grains Soft - stiff Hours/days In or just below Path R1-4 (F-P) storm snow

Wet Slabs Various grains Wet loose Hours/days Any level Terrain feature R1-5 (climax) and/or to multi-path wet slab

Persistent Slabs SH, FC, CR, Stiff - hard Weeks/months Upper to Path to R2-4 FC/CR combo (4F-P) mid-pack adjacent paths

Persistent DH, FC, CR Hard Weeks/months Deep or basal Path to R3-5 (climax)Deep Slabs FC/CR combo (P-K) adjacent paths

Cornices -NA- -NA- Months with -NA- -NA- -NA- short-term peaks

Comments Can be wet Typical duration Relative to HS Typical Typical range of or dry snow of instability expectation size relative to path

Deep Persistent Slab Storm Slab

Wet SlabCornice

Fall

PersistentSlab

Loose WetLoose DryWind Slab

New snow orsnow available for

transport

heating and/orrain on snow

Existing overhangingmasses of hard

(P-K) snow 30' tallor greater exist

Slab formation

Wet, cohesionlesssurface conditions

Windredistributing

snow

Slab overwetting weak

layer

Periods of rapidcornice formation

rapid warming and/orrain on snow

over a PWl

risk managementdifferent than

storm instability

over a PWl

risk managementdifferent than

storm instability

Stubborn trigger

D3 or larger

Deep or basal Wl

yES

yES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

yESyES

yESNO

yES

yES

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 11

TOOlS FOr ThE puBliC

A key component for effective use of avalanche problems is making sure the public understands what we mean when we use the terms. Fortunately, some excellent descriptions of avalanche problems already exist, which laid the groundwork for the development of some short definitions.

The Canadian Avalanche Center did some heavy lifting and drafted comprehensive descriptions of the eight avalanche problems (see www.avalanche.ca/cac/training/online-course/avalanche-formation/Avalanche-problems). These descriptions are clear, thorough, and useful references and instructional aides. However, everyone involved recognized that we needed something else for our advisories. Specifically, we needed short, non-technical, bite-sized definitions that could be used in dropdown menus or linked to within the body of avalanche advisories. We hope that if someone sees Wind Slabs in an avalanche advisory and doesn’t know what that means, they can quickly access a short, simple description. Web sites and Smartphone applications can link to these short descriptions and also to longer, more detailed explanations. The idea is that the definitions are written broadly enough to be applicable in all locations and snow climates.

The CAIC took the lead and drafted some definitions, which we circulated around to the working group. After a lengthy process of revisions, discussions, and wordsmithing, we sent a working draft around to the larger US avalanche community and some folks at the Canadian Avalanche Center and Parks Canada. After incorporating comments and making revisions, we agreed on the definitions below. The list includes a definition for a ninth problem - Glide Avalanches. Thanks to our friends in Alaska and at the Chugach National Forest Avalanche Information Center for taking the lead on drafting a definition for this overlooked problem. Also, these definitions are not necessarily final or set in stone. We came up with these for the 2012/13 winter season but if problems arise, we may revisit some of them next summer.

loose Dry Avalanche

Release of dry unconsolidated snow. These avalanches typically occur within layers of soft snow near the surface of the snowpack. Loose dry avalanches start at a point and entrain snow as they move downhill, forming a fan-shaped avalanche. Other names for loose dry avalanches include point-release avalanches or sluffs. Loose dry avalanches can trigger slab avalanches that break into deeper snow layers.

loose wet Avalanche

Release of wet unconsolidated snow or slush. These avalanches typically occur within layers of wet snow near the surface of the snowpack, but they may quickly gouge into deeper snowpack layers. Like loose dry avalanches, they start at a point and entrain snow as they move downhill, forming a fan-shaped avalanche. They generally move slowly, but can contain enough mass to cause significant damage to trees, cars, or buildings. Other names for loose wet avalanches include point-release avalanches or sluffs.

Loose wet avalanches can trigger slab avalanches that break into deeper snow layers.

wind-Slab Avalanche

Release of a cohesive layer of snow (a slab) formed by the wind. Wind typically transports snow from the upwind sides of terrain features and deposits snow on the down-wind side. Wind slabs are often smooth and rounded and sometimes sound hollow, and can range from soft to hard. Wind slabs that form over a persistent weak layer (surface hoar, depth hoar, or near-surface facets) may be termed Persistent Slabs or may develop into Persistent Slabs.

Storm-Slab Avalanche

Release of a soft cohesive layer (a slab) of new snow which breaks within the storm snow or on the old snow surface. Storm-slab problems typically last between a few hours and few days. Storm slabs that form over a persistent weak layer (surface hoar, depth hoar, or near-surface facets) may be termed Persistent Slabs or may develop into Persistent Slabs.

wet-Slab Avalanches

Release of a cohesive layer of snow (a slab) that is generally moist or wet when the flow of liquid water weakens the bond between the slab and the surface below (snow or ground). They often occur during prolonged warming events and/or rain-on-snow events. Wet slabs can be very destructive.

persistent-Slab Avalanche

Release of a cohesive layer of soft to hard snow (a slab) in the middle to upper snowpack, when the bond to an underlying persistent weak layer breaks. Persistent layers include: surface hoar, depth hoar, near-surface facets, or faceted snow. Persistent weak layers can continue to produce avalanches for days, weeks or even months, making them especially dangerous and tricky. As additional snow and wind events build a thicker slab on top of the persistent weak layer, this avalanche problem may develop into a Persistent Deep Slab.

persistent Deep-Slab Avalanche

Release of a thick cohesive layer of hard snow (a slab), when the bond breaks between the slab and an underlying persistent weak layer, deep in the snowpack or near the ground. The most common persistent weak layers involved in deep persistent slabs are depth hoar, deeply buried surface hoar, or facets surrounding a deeply buried crust. Persistent Deep Slabs are typically hard to trigger, are very destructive and dangerous due to the large mass of snow involved, and can persist for months once developed. They are often triggered from areas where the snow is shallow and weak, and are particularly difficult to forecast for and manage. They commonly develop when Persistent Slabs become more deeply buried over time. >>

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 12

AVALANCHES & OBSERVATIONS REFERENCE

“The Problem”

Critical / Red Flag Observations

Field Tests & Relevant Observations Important Considerations

Loose Dry Snow

Fan-shaped avalanches: debris fine. Loose surface snow ≥12” (30 cm) deep.

Boot / ski penetration ≥12” (30 cm). Slope tests / cuts result in sluffs. Loose snow surface texture (as opposed to wind-affected, refrozen, or other stiff snow textures).

Can be triggered by falling snow, cornice fall, rock fall, a brief period of sun, wind, or rider. Sluffs can run fast and far. Small slides dangerous with terrain traps / cliffs. Sluffs can trigger slabs in certain conditions.

Loose Wet Snow

Rain and / or rapid warming. Air temp > 0ºC for longer than 24 hours (cloud cover may prevent nighttime cooling). Pinwheels or roller balls. Fan shaped avalanches: debris lumpy and chunky.

Observed and forecast temp trend. Temps (Air, Surface, T20) / freezing level indicate near surface snow temps at 0ºC. Note slopes receiving / will receive intense radiation. Wet snow surface: water visible between the grains with a loupe, may be able to squeeze water out with hands.

Wet Slab

Rain on snow, especially dry snow. Current or recent wet slab avalanches: debris has channels / ridges, high water content, may entrain rocks and vegetation. Prolonged warming trend, especially the first melt on dry snow.

Consider Loose Wet Snow observations. Observed melting snow surface (rain or strong radiation) of a slab over weak layer. Tests show change in strength of weak layer due to water and / or water lubrication above crust or ground layer.

Identify the depth at which the snow is 0ºC.

Monitor liquid water content and deteriorating snow strength using hardness and penetration tests. Nearby glide cracks may be widening during rapid warming.

Timing is critical. Danger can increase quickly (minutes to hours). No freeze for multiple nights worsens condition. However, nighttime freeze can stabilize. Gullies and cirques receive more radiation and retain more heat than open slopes. Shallow snow areas become unstable first - may slide to ground in terrain with shallower, less dense snowpack. May initiate from rocks or vegetation. Can occur on all aspects on cloudy days / nights. Conditions may also include cornice fall, rockfall or increased icefall hazards. Snow temp of slab at or near 0ºC. Loose wet snow slides can occur just prior to wet slab activity. Possible lag between melt event and wet slab activity.

Storm Slab

Natural avalanches in steep terrain with little or no wind. ≥12” (30cm) snowfall in last 24 hours or less with warmer heavier snow. Poor bond to old snow: slab cracks or avalanches under a rider’s weight.

Observe storm snow depth, accumulation rate and water equivalent. Observe settlement trend: settlement cones, boot / ski pen, measured change in storm snow (>25% in 24 hours is rapid). Tests show poor bond w/ underlying layer (Tilt and ski tests). ID weak layer character. Denser storm snow over less dense snow (boot / ski penetration, hand hardness).

Rapid settlement may strengthen the snowpack, or form a slab over weak snow. When storm slabs exist in sheltered areas, wind slabs may be also present in exposed terrain. May strengthen and stabilize in hours or days depending on weak layer character. Potential for slab fracturing across terrain can be underestimated.

Wind Slab

Recent slab avalanches below ridge top and / or on cross-loaded features. Blowing snow at ridgetop combined with significant snow available for transport. Blowing snow combined with snowfall: deposition zones may accumulate 3-5x more than sheltered areas.

Evidence of wind-transported snow (drifts, plumes, cornice growth, variable snow surface penetration with cracking). Evidence of recent wind (dense surface snow or crust, snow blown off trees). ≥ Moderate wind speeds observed for significant duration (reports, weather stations and field observations).

Often hard to determine where the slab lies and how unstable and dangerous the situation remains. Slope-specific observations, including watching wind slabs form, are often the best tool. Strong winds may result in deposition lower on slopes. Commonly trigged from thin areas (edges) of slab. Wind transport and subsequent avalanching can occur days after the last snowfall.

Persistent Slab

Profiles reveal a slab over a persistent weak layer. Use multiple tests that will verify the location of this condition in terrain. Small column tests (CT, DT) indicate sudden (Q1) results; large column tests (ECT, PST, RB) show tendency for propagating cracks.

Instability may be localized to specific slopes (often more common on cooler N / NE aspect) and hard to forecast. Despite no natural occurrences, slopes may trigger with small loads - more likely when the weak layer is 8-36” deep (20-85cm). Human triggered avalanches are still possible long after the slab was formed.

Deep Slab

Bulletins / experts warn of persistent weak layer (surface hoar, facet/crust, depth hoar). Cracking, whumping. Remotely triggered slabs. Recent and possibly large isolated avalanches observed with deep, clean crown face.

Profiles indicate a well preserved but deep (≥1m), persistent weak layer. Column tests may not indicate propagating cracks; DT and PST can provide more consistent results. Heavy loads (cornice drop or explosives test) may be needed to release the slope - large and destructive avalanches result.

May be aspect / elevation specific - very important to track weak layer over terrain. Slight changes, including mod. snowfall, and warming can re-activate deeper layers. May be dangerous after nearby activity has ceased. Tests with no results are not conclusive. May be remotely triggered from shallower, weaker areas. Difficult to forecast and to manage terrain choices.

Cornices Recent cornice growth. Recent cornice fall. Warming (solar, rain at ridge tops).

Note rate, extent, location and pattern of cornice growth and erosion. Photos tracking change over time.

Cornices often break further back onto ridge top than expected. Can underestimate sun’s effect on the back of cornice when traveling on cool, shaded aspects.

© 2012

Above: Avalanche and Observations Reference, American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education ( AIARE)

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 13

Cornices / Cornice Fall

Release of an overhanging mass of snow that forms as the wind moves snow over a sharp terrain feature, such as a ridge, and deposits snow on the down-wind side. They range from small wind lips of soft snow to large overhangs of hard snow that are 30 feet (~10 meters) or taller. They can break off the terrain suddenly and pull back onto the ridge top and catch people by surprise even on the flat ground above the slope. Even small cornices can have enough mass to be destructive and deadly. Cornice fall can entrain loose surface snow or trigger slab avalanches.

glide Avalanche

Release of the entire snow cover as result of gliding over the ground. Glide avalanches can be composed of wet, moist, or almost entirely dry snow. They typically occur in very specific paths, where the slope is steep enough and the ground surface is relatively smooth. They are often preceded by full depth cracks (glide cracks), though the time between the appearance of a crack and an avalanche can vary between seconds and months. Glide avalanches are unlikely to be triggered by a person, are nearly impossible to forecast, and thus pose a hazard that is extremely difficult to manage.

The American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education created an additional public tool, an avalanche and observation reference table (see above right) for use on courses and beyond, informed by the ideas proposed by Jamieson et al. (2010). The table divides the avalanche problems into critical/red flag observations, field tests and relevant observations, and important considerations. The intent of the tool is to relate the forecast avalanche problem(s) to field observations. It also helps to identify the field observations and tests that are most helpful to relate the forecast problem to specific or general terrain features.

SO whErE DO wE gO FrOM hErE?

As using avalanche problems becomes more widespread in avalanche advisories and on avalanche courses, many us have voiced opinions that the current system might have some room for improvement. We have intentionally not addressed this question here, but believe it’s a conversation worth having. There are many ways to skin this cat. For example, the Swiss have sliced this into five avalanche patterns, while in the Tirol/Bavaria region they are working with 10. It’s probably worth reconsidering if our current set of nine avalanche problems does the best job defining risk-management categories appropriate for backcountry travelers. People have proposed some interesting ideas that we should debate before we commit further to the current system. As we stated above, the current system is not perfect, but it is the best we could come up with for the upcoming season. We plan to revisit these definitions next spring, which will undoubtedly be an interesting and frustrating process.

We use avalanche problems to try to focus our message to the public on risk management. This begs the question, “Why not just tell the public directly the risk- management strategies we’re suggesting?” Maybe we should work on drafting some short risk-management definitions to accompany the avalanche problems? ▲

acknowledgements

An active working group provided invaluable insight and thoughtful

responses to the questions and considerations discussed in this article.

Without their input, moving toward consistency would have been impossible.

Our thanks to everyone involved in these discussions: Bruce Tremper, Bob

Comey, Roger Atkins, Karl Klassen, Ilya Storm, Grant Statham, Spencer

Logan, Doug Chabot, Scotty Savage, Simon Trautman, Ron Simenhois,

Wendy Wagner, and Colin Zacharias.

references

atkins, roger (2004) An Avalanche Characterization Checklist for

Backcountry Travel Decisions. Proceedings of the 2004 international Snow

Science workshop, Jackson hole, wyoming, pgs. 462-468.

Greene, e., d. atkins, K. Birkeland, K. elder, c. landry, B. lazar, i.

mccammon, m.moore, d. Sharaf, c. Sterbenz, B. tremper, and K.

williams (2010). Snow, Weather, and Avalanches: Observation Guidelines

for Avalanche Programs in the United States. american avalanche

association, Pagosa Springs, co, Second Printing fall 2010.

Jamieson, J.B., Schweizer, J., Statham, G., haegli, P., (2010) Which

Observations for Which Avalanche Type? Proceedings of the international

Snow and Science workshop 2010, pgs. 155-161.

Statham, G., P. haegeli, K.w. Birkeland, e. Greene, c. israelson, B.

tremper, c. Stethem, B. mcmahon, B. white, J. Kelly, (2010) A Conceptual

Model of Avalanche Hazard, Proceedings of the international Snow

Science workshop, Squaw valley, california, p. 686.

Corresponding author bio: Brian Lazar is the deputy director of the

Colorado Avalanche Information Center and the executive director of the

American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education. Always up for

a challenge, he and his wife planned the arrival of their second kid for the

middle of the forecasting season. He spends his off seasons herding cats.

Notes from the Editor:

you may find it interesting to navigate to the following links where you

can view examples of public avalanche advisories from other countries.

here you will no doubt find similarities and differences between how each

country has chosen to communicate danger to the public.

uSa - www.avalanche.org

canada - www.avalanche.ca/cac/bulletins/latest

europe - www.avalanches.org

this article first appeared in The Avalanche Review, volume 31, No.2,

december 2012. it is reproduced with kind permission of the american

avalanche association.

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 14

the list of Personal Protective equipment (PPe) appears to ever increase as technology and innovation bring new ways to mitigate hazards in the workplace. the length of time between a new product launch and industry adoption is sometimes long as practitioners seek endorsement before jumping on the bandwagon. occasionally this time line is shortened as a change in regulations can dictate our fate and force us to comply.

AirBAgS AS pErSOnAl prOTECTivE EquipMEnT – ThE JACkSOn hOlE ExpEriEnCE //gOrDiE SMiTh AnD JAkE ElkinS

Some of you may remember when avalanche transceivers first appeared, and the sceptical attitudes towards their use for fear of increasing dangerous workplace activities. It did not take long however before their universal benefits were unanimously adopted. Despite the high unit cost, these are now standard Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) across the New Zealand and international avalanche industries.

So step forward a few years and here we are. The new debate surrounds the use of avalanche airbags/balloon bags as a safety device when working in avalanche terrain.

Compared to a transceiver, shovel, probe, Avalung, or Recco, this is the first device that doesn’t pre suppose that you are buried and need finding. While it doesn’t guarantee that you will survive the avalanche or indeed that you will be on the surface, the statistics showing your chances of ending up on the snow surface or closer to it, appear to be establishing themselves. While early statistics made this new device out to be an essential ‘must have’, more recent studies are showing a more modest but significant benefit to their use.(Click here for Pascal Haegli’s Study)

The snow safety industry in NZ appears to be in a transitional phase as the uptake and usage of airbags cautiously increases. Some operations outfit all their staff, some have a few devices for sporadic use, and other operations have no devices. NZ is at a crossroads like many other nations.

In the last edition of the Crystal Ball, the NZMSC Snow and Avalanche Committee were asked by industry to release a recommendation on ‘the use of avalanche Balloon bags as a safety device’. (click here). How long will it be before we see these new devices becoming accepted standard PPE issue across our industry? Will the growing use by many operations force others into following suit, just like the transceiver example years ago?

To help the dialogue along, we have asked for comments from Jake Elkins (JE), the Ski Patrol Director at the respected Jackson Hole Mountain Resort in Wyoming, USA. Jake and his team have taken a lead role and for the last three winter seasons have adopted airbag/balloon bags as PPE, with each ski patroller being issued their own pack.

Below are Jake’s summarised notes from a Ski Patrol Directors’ meeting held in January 2013 at the Snowbird Resort, Utah, USA. Thanks to Jake for sharing these observations from the Jackson Hole experience – Editor, Gordie Smith.

Jake elkins >> we began our research more than three years ago prior to any patrol use of air bags in the uSa. we did extensive research with prototypes and demos. to begin with they were a really bad fit with poor design and construction. Subsequent to that there has been a lot of change that we are benefitting from. our patrol crew wore them non-stop for three weeks to get used to them and to decide what the important features were in each design.

after trialling the different models we recommend a dual bag system with the two bags working independently. this provides two times the staying power, so if one gets destroyed, the other still can work. we also found that this gives additional protection from the top of the head to just above the knees for trauma protection.

care and maintenance are key protocols with this equipment. while testing, we had one brand not deploy until the fifth pull of the trigger. as the products have evolved, we like the hair trigger mechanism of aBS. Because the trigger mechanism requires maintenance, we have gone to issuing packs to each patroller for accountability, and have incorporated pack use as PPe.

everyday use has over time morphed into use during storm cycles. they are always used on control routes, in any closed area with hazard, and in every back country rescue. halfway through the second year of use, we decided that there were duty stations that do not require air bags. the patrollers out of those duty stations do not need to bring their own pack that day as there are three packs stationed there just in case. this eliminates unnecessary wear and tear.

we also added a component of training where we simulate an avalanche when a patroller is trying to deploy the air bag. this is to create muscle memory because when one is on an avalanche the first instinct is not to reach for the trigger. ▲

Contact:

If you wish to contact Jake to get further details, email

info@avalanche.net.nz

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 15

over the past five to ten years, advances in ski/snowboard equipment and lift access have seen a significant rise in general public being able to easily access backcountry terrain adjacent to ski areas.

ruSSiAn rOulETTE On ruApEhu’S BACkCOunTry – “DO yOu FEEl luCky?” //BrEnDOn nESBiTT

We see a lot of guests coming in from Wellington and Auckland on two to three day trips. These snow users come prepared with the proper equipment for in-bounds skiing but not for going into the backcountry.

Sadly, this ill equipped majority more often than not, act as sheep, following tracks blindly past the ski area boundary signage with a ‘she’ll be right’ attitude.

Informal questioning and observations find the majority of those travelling out of bounds:

• do not have avalanche or alpine safety equipment

• do not realise the avalanche risk/hazards of the day

• do not check in, or leave intentions

The avalanche and snow surface conditions can vary with altitude and aspect throughout the day. Due to these snow users exiting the ski area boundary unprepared, we are finding an increase in Mt Ruapehu Ski Patrol teams performing search and rescue under the Ruapehu Alpine Rescue Organisation (RARO) banner. Backcountry users regularly find themselves exposed to hazards such as waterfall holes, trapped on cliff bands, or slick, slide for life conditions.

Last winter this was highlighted during an avalanche cycle that occurred while up to 30 people hiked to the summit, and numerous other backcountry users were to the East and West of the ski area boundaries. The Backcountry Avalanche Advisory (BAA) was on CONSIDERABLE. Natural avalanches were triggered by a rapid temperature change in the snow pack, and could have easily buried those travelling out of bounds on the day.

How can we educate and ensure that those travelling out of bounds are properly prepared? Mt Ruapehu has backcountry advisory signs at the bottom of the road, base areas, and at the highest ski lift exit point from the ski areas. Even with this information many people may not understand what they are reading.

While the Mountain Safety Council is putting a growing number of people through general Avalanche Awareness courses, the majority of boundary jumpers remain uneducated.

Will there need to be a backcountry tragedy on Mt Ruapehu before people become aware of the dangers and risk they take on when crossing the ski area boundary?

As more people head into the backcountry, more bullets are being loaded into the chamber. Maybe you get lucky once, or even twice, but pretty soon the odds are going to turn on you, and avalanches seldom fire blanks.

We do not want people to be scared of the backcountry, but a healthy respect, knowledge, understanding, and appropriate gear are things essential for safe travel. Enrol on a course! ▲

more:

Watch this head cam video of two ill prepared backcountry users who

had traversed out from a nearby ski area. http://youtu.be/K4UOcffQ4mY

Make sure you have the sound turned up.

A backcountry avalanche incident at Bridger Bowl, Montana in 2010 was

very similar to what we experienced at Mt Ruapehu last winter. Neither

had any fatalities, but things could have easily gone the other way. http://

www.tetonat.com/2010/02/17/big-sidecountry-avalanche-at-bridger-bowl/

Another interesting article relating to backcountry avalanches in

Colorado: http://summitcountyvoice.com/2010/10/11/avy-experts-target-

sidecountry-safety-programs/

Ph

oto:

An

drew

Hob

man

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 16

avalanche forecasting at whakapapa can be quite a different beast to other areas of the country/world. the snowpack is about as maritime as you can get, generally being strong and stable, with the majority of instabilities being storm related, and rarely persisting for longer than 48 hours.

whAkApApA rESEArCh – hAzArD MODElling FrOM wEAThEr DATA // ryAn lEOng

Persistent weak layers (PWL) do exist from time to time, however more often than not impenetrable ice layers will promptly bridge them, leaving them to heal relatively quickly thanks to the warmer temperatures and deep snowpack. In terms of forecasting avalanche hazard, it’s more about the storm snow instabilities that may form, how sensitive they may be, and what sort of avalanche characteristics we might see as a result. The key word here is ‘may’.

You can try to plan as much as you like, but in the end, you need to get out there during every storm, and dig around early in the morning to actually see what you’re dealing with. A storm can deposit more than three metres of new snow onto lee slopes with stability remaining good. Conversely a mere skiff of snow can be extremely reactive and produce widely propagating (even if very shallow) slabs.

A few seasons ago I was working snow safety for a resort in the Canadian Rockies – about as continental as you can get, and also about as different in terms of snowpack as you can get from Whakapapa. I was amazed at how different the daily routine was. Show up, do the weather observations, review the info-ex then have the morning meeting and decide the plan of attack for avalanche control. What stood out to me the most was writing up your snowpack observations, stability and hazard/danger

ratings/forecasts, then deciding exactly what paths will be ripe without getting out and ferreting around on test slopes and start zones. The only time spent actually in the snow was in the weather plot. In that environment the PWL’s are in for the long haul, forming early in the winter and often lasting until the spring isothermal cycles. It’s all about how much water equivalent is sitting on top. In general, you know what you’re dealing with, and it’s not ‘if’ but ‘when’ it will reach the tipping point.

This got me thinking about how we could streamline our daily systems and improve the accuracy of our forecasting at Whakapapa. The weather information we have is relatively limited compared to other countries. MetService, Metvuw, MetConnect, Snow-forecast, Mountain-Forecast, plus all the links from Sunrockice, can give a pretty good indication of what’s coming, but it can be quite difficult to try and filter it down to a small scale area and really get specific. The dream would be to review weather data, run that through formulas that take into account the terrain you are dealing with, and then have a much more accurate estimation of the amount of snow, loading patterns, density, likelihood of weak layers forming etc. I’m well aware that this is a pretty ambitious end goal, but any step along the way would be an improvement. >>

Ph

oto:

Rya

n L

eon

g

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 17

SO hErE’S whAT wE hAvE STArTED On:

We have gone back through the Weather Observation history to get an average density and water equivalence of HN24. This has helped us better predict the amount of snowfall expected, as the most accurate forecast data available to us is in mm of precipitation. So from the forecast precipitation we can work out the amount of HN, through using our average density. To further improve the accuracy of this we will closely record other variables and their trends during the snowfall such as air temp, relative humidity, barometric pressure, and then use these to keep refining the formula as our data set grows. The outcome will hopefully be a formula where you can input the forecast amounts for each variable, which will then give you your anticipated density. You can then take that expected density and work out your expected HN from the amount of mm of precipitation forecast.

The next step will be to work out the difference in HN between different elevations within the ski area, taking into account how the above mentioned variables affect it.

This only estimates how much snow will fall at our observation study plot sites. The next step is to figure out in better detail how the HN is distributed by the wind into the start zones. Each start zone differs in terms of its terrain configuration and therefore how it is affected by the wind, making it impossible to apply one formula to cover them all. We have 134 paths within the ski area boundary and it would be impractical to research every single one independently.

So far we have started recording data from a handful of specific ‘regular performers’ which we believe are good indicator slopes. We measure wind direction/strength at the top of the start zone, then HN and density in the mid slope area.

This data will then be compared with the data collected at the study plot for that elevation band and a formula created. From that, we intend to take our HN/density forecast as mentioned above, and then work out how much we can anticipate in our major start zones. Using our previous knowledge and experience, as well as reviewing previous avalanche observations to get an idea of the difference in avalanche size between specific paths under the same conditions, we will extrapolate what we anticipate seeing in the surrounding start zones.

The amount of data we have to work with at this stage is minimal, a long way from what we need to start becoming even semi accurate.

The first goal is to collect data, and start working out these formulas, and in time, keep refining them as the amount of data grows.

I do realise that this is not a new ground breaking idea at all, and I’m sure that this sort of stuff has already been done at other areas – I’ve heard that some of the Mt Cook guides from the 60’s and 70’s came up with some pretty accurate stuff for the area which is still being put to good use today. But nothing like this exists up here, so it seems like a good time to start.

I don’t come from a science or research background. My background is more of a ‘hands-on’, approach, so I’m sure that there will be better methodologies than what I have come up with. ▲

- Ryan Leong, Snow Safety Officer at Whakapapa Ski Patrol

Contact:

If anyone has any suggestions or comments please get in touch. It would

be greatly appreciated. You can contact me by emailing rglnz@yahoo.co.nz

Ph

oto:

Rya

n L

eon

g

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 18

mark Sedon is a full NZmGa guide who works all over the world. as well as guiding work you can also find him digging sand from between his toes, lodged there during sabbaticals from colac Bay to chile.

liThium BaTTEriES aNd avalaNChE BEaCONS // mark SEdON

during a lunch break heli-skiing in Gulmarg, Northern india i just happened to look at my transceiver. it was completely turned off. the batteries appeared dead. what? i’d used the three aaa lithium batteries for a while in NZ, removed them so it wouldn’t get accidentally turned on, and then brought them to india. when i put them back in, the unit told me 100% battery life.

my motivation for using lithium batteries was that they are designed for electronic equipment (such as digital cameras) and resist cold much better than alkaline batteries. But i talked to a mate and fellow guide from the uSa and he said: ‘never use lithium batteries in avalanche transceivers!’ i’d never heard of this, but after reading some beacon web sites i found out that it really does say that in the manual’s small print. i’d read the bit on how alkaline batteries are recommended, but just wrongly thought that lithium batteries would be better.

there are three main types of chemical batteries and different batteries use different chemical systems. the most common are:

• Zinc-carbon

• Alkaline-manganese

• Lithium

it seems that the choice of the battery type depends on the primary use.

zinc-carbon batteries are low-priced, have a reduced temperature range and a lower energy density than other batteries, plus a higher internal resistance. for this reason it is advised that you do not use them in avalanche transceivers. they also have a shorter shelf-life due to high discharge.

lithium batteries are more expensive than alkaline-manganese batteries, have a high capacity and low temperature range. Studies indicate that there are just a few advantages when compared to alkaline-manganese.

the two problems with lithium batteries in your beacon are:

• the discharge curve

• the beacon’s ability to read remaining battery strength.

this means that it is not advisable to use lithium batteries in your beacon.

Alkaline-manganese batteries are 50-100% more expensive than zinc-carbon. their temperature range is specified down to -20°c and they have a high energy density and low internal resistance. their low discharge rate allows for a long shelf life (6 to 8 years). these batteries are the best for avalanche transceivers.

all the manufacturers are very strict about using only alkaline batteries in their avalanche beacons because the circuitry which detects how much battery life remains is tuned for this kind of cell. the capacity of alkaline batteries degrades gracefully whereas lithium batteries (including rechargeable lithium) have a relatively flat discharge curve. one minute your beacon is saying 99% full, the next it is on zero.

rechargeable batteries are never recommended because:

• The accurate remaining battery life and capacity is also very difficult to ascertain.

• The power is quickly drained even after a relatively short period of storage.

• The power output diminishes after a longer period of use.

• The initial voltage of rechargeable batteries is lower than alkaline ones (1.2 V compared to 1.5 V).

at the beginning of a trip the battery strength indicated by a rechargeable battery may be very high, but after a few hours of use it may become completely discharged. >>

Imag

e: G

ordi

e S

mit

h

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 19

BACk TO AlkAlinE.

the important issue with these batteries is they tend to corrode which can damage the battery contacts causing another serious problem. to eliminate the possibility of alkaline corrosion, mammut developed lithium capability into the 3.2 firmware by using a timer (if you are not sure which firmware you are running, look at the display during start-up, it should say 3.2.). lithium batteries do have some advantages. they last longer and are lighter, but even more importantly, they do not leak. however, there are the problems outlined above. Note that you must change an internal setting in the Pulse before changing the battery type.

alkaline batteries should always be removed when the beacon is being stored during the off season. additionally, a close inspection of the battery contacts should be done each time batteries are replaced. there should never be any visible corrosion and the contacts should always have ample spring to them.

ortovox recommends the use of high quality disposable alkaline batteries. they have this to say on the use of lithium batteries: “we absolutely do Not recommend lithium batteries. yes the life of them is much longer, and they are much lighter, but unless you know exactly how much power is left in them, they are potentially dangerous. when a lithium battery loses power, it drops off very quickly. alkaline batteries fade more slowly, giving the user an indication of diminishing usability.” the ortovox website also says to use only brand name batteries. No rechargeable batteries and no lithium batteries.

the dtS tracker manual says: use only high-quality alkaline batteries of identical age and brand. do not use rechargeable, lithium, oxyride, PowerPix or any other non-alkaline battery.

SOME pOinTS TO rEMEMBEr:

• Test your beacon’s range on flat-ish batteries. This can show up problems with transmit power which are not evident on full power.

• Battery sizes actually vary. Check that the brand you buy cannot shake loose.

• Wear your beacon close to your body. This keeps the batteries warm and avoids it being ripped off your body in the event of an avalanche, if you have removed your shell layer.

• Remove batteries at the end of the season for storage.

• Recycle old batteries – they are often good for portable radios or other devices before they are fully discharged.

BATTEry SizE: DiMEnSiOnS OF BATTEriES:

although the battery sizes are standardised, there may be a considerable variance in the length and diameter of some batteries. the worldwide standard allows a minimum and a maximum size, however, this size can vary dramatically between battery manufacturers.

in 2005, there was a situation in the uSa concerning battery size variances. the batteries, which were too small, resulted in a disruption of the power supply after the unit suffered a severe blow which caused the batteries to become dislodged. ortovox’s website recommends that you use only ‘large batteries that have a prominent negative terminal’. this will ensure that your transceiver has proper battery contact at all times.

CEll phOnE AnD gO prO inTErFErEnCE:

John Barkhausen of alaska Pacific university did a study on interference and his first finding was that these electronic devices have no effect on a ‘transmitting’ beacon. his second finding was that these electronic devices can definitely throw off the transceiver search if they’re held within 40cm of the receiving unit.

he noted that iPods and GPS’s are the biggest culprits in creating interference. No evidence has been seen that these items (GPS, mobile phone etc) will affect a transceiver that is in send mode.

the tracker2 website recommends not placing cellular phones, communication radios, or any other electronic equipment within 30cm of a transceiver while performing a search. in receive mode, irregular readings, decreased range and multiple burial indications can be caused by these and other sources of electrical interference, such as power lines, electrical storms, and electrical generating equipment. in transmit mode, they recommend keeping the tracker2 at least 2.5cm from other electronic equipment.

TO SuMMAriSE:

• Remember to change batteries before their indicated life drops below 50%.

• Use well known named brand batteries. Avoid anything that you’ve not heard of, looks cheap or has a language on it you don’t understand.

• Don’t use Lithium batteries. Although they are good for cold, the discharge rate is not compatible with beacon battery meters and they don’t have a regular discharge curve.

• Never use rechargeable batteries or Oxyride, PowerPix, or any other non-alkaline battery.

my thoughts are that guides should consider including something in transceiver briefings suggesting; turning phones to flight mode, iPod separation (if even allowed), and keeping GPS units switched off, or at least to turn them off during a search? And Only use recognised brand alkaline batteries in transceivers. ▲

references:

http://www.mammutavalanchesafety.com/2012/12/alkaline-vs-lithium-batteries.html

http://www.backcountryaccess.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/1213_T2_Manual_WEB_english.pdf

http://www.avalanche-center.org/store/manuals/ortovox-s1-E.pdf

http://beaconreviews.com/transceivers/

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 20

parTiNG piC JUST FORFUN!

Above: New trail signs – are you feeling the pinch?, Photo: Gordie Smith

THE world

outdoorssummit

19-22 NOV 2013 ROTORUA NEW ZEALAND

THE VALUE OF THE OUTDOORS TO SOCIETY

The World Outdoors

Summit aims to advance

the progression of

education, recreation and

leisure activities within

the international outdoors

community, through the

sharing of knowledge,

debating of ideas and

experiential practice.

OUTDOORS EDUCATION

OUTDOORS COMMERCIAL

OUTDOORS LEISURE

∞ Professional Development∞ Networking opportunities∞ Keynote presentations∞ Panel discussions∞ Workshops and discussion groups∞ Outdoor sessions∞ Activities∞ Exhibitions∞ Awards Gala Dinner

TO PRE-REGISTER FOR EARLYBIRD TICKETS EMAIL:

FOR MORE INFO

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 21

WH

AT TY

PE O

F EMER

GEN

CY EQ

UIP

MEN

T AR

E YO

U CA

RR

YIN

G?

Wet w

eather gear and thermal clothing

GPS

First Aid K

it

Extra food

Survival Kit

Emergency Shelter

Personal Locator Beacon

Firearms (w

ith spare emergency am

munition)

Mountain R

adio Call sign:

Satellite phone number:

Other:

HO

W A

RE Y

OU

TRA

VELLIN

G TO

AN

D FR

OM

THE A

REA

?

WH

ERE W

ILL YO

U B

E GO

ING

AFTER

LEAV

ING

THE A

REA

?

Terms &

Conditions

Type of vehicle etc. Please also include name of bus/rental car com

pany, if applicable:

e.g. name/address/telephone of accom

modation:

Registration no:

Make and m

odel:Colour:

Parked at:

If you are leaving a vehicle in the area for your return, please provide details below:

The Outdoors Intentions form

is provided free of charge but without w

arrant or guarantee. ‘OU

TDO

OR

S USER

’ refers to the person using the form to com

plete their Outdoors

Intentions. ‘TRU

STED CO

NTA

CT’ refers to the person that the ‘OU

TDO

OR

S USER

’ gives their Outdoors Intentions form

to, whether it be via electronic or hard copy m

eans. The process relies on the O

UTD

OO

RS U

SER providing correct and com

prehensive information. N

o responsibility is accepted for users providing incorrect information, including

incorrect email addresses. The process relies on the TR

USTED

CON

TACT receiving the inform

ation from the O

UTD

OO

RS U

SER and follow

ing the designated process as set out on the form

. It is recomm

ended that the OU

TDO

OR

S USER

checks that their TRU

STED CO

NTA

CT has received the Outdoors Intentions (by w

hatever means chosen) prior

to leaving on a trip. It is the responsibility of the OU

TDO

OR

S USER

to ensure that the TRU

STED CO

NTA

CT they select is willing and able to respond and follow

the process contained w

ithin the information they receive. N

o responsibility is accepted for the TRU

STED CO

NTA

CT not receiving the information or not follow

ing the correct process. The tim

eliness and accuracy of a search and rescue response depends somew

hat on the quality, quantity and accuracy of the information that is provided by the O

UTD

OO

RS

U

SER to the TR

USTED

CON

TACT and that the TR

USTED

CON

TACT follow

s the process correctly. No guarantee is given regarding search and rescue response. Internet and

telecomm

unications providers do not guarantee uptime of their system

s or delivery of electronic messages. Postal services do not guarantee tim

eframes of delivery of physical

letters, parcels or packages. By using the O

utdoors Intentions form you accept that you have read, understood and agree to the term

s and conditions above.

AD

DITIO

NA

L GR

OU

P M

EMB

ERS? (O

verseas visitors please include your passport number and your nationality.)

Nam

e:

Nam

e:

Nam

e:

Address/Passport N

o./Nationality:

Address/Passport N

o./Nationality:

Address/Passport N

o./Nationality:

Phone:

Phone:

Phone:

Medical Conditions &

Medication:

Medical Conditions &

Medication:

Medical Conditions &

Medication:

456

* If you need to add more group m

embers, please dow

nload the additional group mem

bers form.

Rem

ember to tell your Trusted Contact as soon as you have returned safely.

OU

TDO

OR

S INTEN

TION

S FOR

MN

ew Zealand

Safety is your responsibility so tell someone, it could save your life | w

ww

.adventuresmart.org.nz

OU

TDO

OR

USER

INSTR

UCTIO

NS

EXP

ECTED D

ATE O

F RETU

RN

TIME

OU

TDO

OR

S USER

(S) may select either of these options to

complete your O

utdoors Intentions details via a downloadable form

.

Option 2a. D

ownload the form

. Save to your system. Print form

. Com

plete details by hand and give to your TRU

STED CO

NTA

CT.

Option 2b. D

ownload the form

. Save to your system. Type

directly into the form. Save fi

le. Attach to an em

ail and send to your TR

USTED

CON

TACT.

None of the fi

elds on the form are com

pulsory, but the more

details you provide, the better the search and rescue agencies w

ill be able to respond should the alert be raised.

By using this form

you agree to the terms and conditions.

Whatever m

ethod you use, it is recomm

ended that you check that your TR

USTED

CON

TACT has received your O

utdoors Intentions prior to leaving on your trip.

You have been nominated as the TR

USTED

CON

TACT for the

OU

TDO

OR

S USER

listed below, so you can raise the alarm

and contact the appropriate authorities if for any reason they do not return by the expected date and tim

e below.

TRU

STED CO

NTA

CT INSTR

UCTIO

NS

DD

MM

Y Y

/ / :

AM

PM

WH

AT A

RE Y

OU

DO

ING

AN

D W

HER

E AR

E YO

U G

OIN

G?

OU

TDO

OR

USER

/LEAD

ER D

ETAILS (O

verseas visitors please include your passport number and your nationality.)

WH

O A

RE Y

OU

R G

RO

UP

MEM

BER

S? (Overseas visitors please include your passport num

ber and your nationality.)

DD

MM

Y Y

/ / :

AM

PM

Start Date:

Family nam

e:

Nam

e:

Nam

e:

Address/Passport N

o./Nationality:

Address/Passport N

o./Nationality:

Phone:

Phone:

Address or Passport

Num

ber & N

ationality:

Medical Conditions

& M

edication:

Medical Conditions &

Medication:

Medical Conditions &

Medication:

First name:

Cell Num

ber:

Hom

e Phone:

Intended track/route/huts and alternatives:

Note: A

lways enter your progress and changes to plan in hut logbooks, even if you don’t stay overnight.

Activity:

Time:

2 13

At the ‘expected date and tim

e’ below, im

mediately try

and contact the ‘OU

TDO

OR

S USER

’ directly, if you have not already heard from

them.

If unsuccessful try and contact other group mem

bers (if applicable).

If unsuccessful wait 1 hour and then repeat the process of

contacting the OU

TDO

OR

S USER

and if applicable other group m

embers. If unsuccessful and you are extrem

ely concerned or bad w

eather has set in, go straight to contacting the New

Z

ealand Police.

If you are still unsuccessful in contacting the OU

TDO

OR

S USER

or any m

embers of the party, telephone 111 (or if outside N

ew

Zealand call +64 4 381 2000) ask for the Police and tell them

you w

ish to report a missing person(s) w

ho is on a trip in the outdoors and has not returned by the expected date and tim

e. You w

ill need to provide the Police with the inform

ation below.

Rem

ember to tell your Trusted Contact as soon as you have

returned safely, to avoid unnecessary alarm and possible

involvement from

New

Zealand Police.

For tips, advice and links to help keep you safe throughout your land, snow

, water, boating and air activities in N

ew

Zealand, visit w

ww

.adventuresmart.org.nz

YOUR CUT OUT AND KEEP MASTER OUTDOORS INTENTIONS FORM - VISIT WWW.ADVENTURESMART.ORG.NZ TO FIND OUT MORE

CRYSTAL BALL | CRYSTAL BALL | Periodical of the New ZealaNd avalaNche commuNity 22

New Zealand’s outdoors is a great place to be and there are so many different ways to enjoy it. But before you set off on your adventure, take the time to plan and prepare for a safe trip.Follow the 5 simple rules of Outdoor Safety Code and make sure you tell someone your plans. Tell someone you trust where you are going and leave a date and time for when to raise the alarm if you haven’t returned.

Complete your outdoors intentions by downloading a form or entering your details online at www.adventuresmart.org.nz