What Are You Trying Not To Say or Non-Specific Answers to Specific Questions

Yesterday I led a trip for my local mountaineering club to Sandon Peak. Not a particularly hard trip for me, in fact, pretty easy and straight forward, but a difficult trip for many people in the club. On harder trips, making sure the entire group has the physical and technical skill and ability to complete the trip in a reasonable time frame is important. Epics and clusterfucks are born and bred when groups are both too disparate and too physically and technically weak for the objective. Screening and turning away non-qualified applicants is necessary.

Personally, I find generic screening questions (i.e. Are you fit? Are you a good skier?) do nothing to sort the qualified from the unqualified. Almost everyone will answer yes to both of those questions and tell you that they can always keep up with the group they normally ski with. Clearly, without knowing the group they normally ski with, this tells you nothing. A weak skier can easily keep up with an even weaker group, and, as people tend to gravitate towards people of their own skill, fitness and ability, "keeping up with their group" will, in all likelihood mean, that they are capable of skiing short distances and taking a long time to do so.

My preference is to ask very specific questions. Namely, "tell me about your last 3 to 4 trips and when you did them?" I am looking for people whose most recent trips have involved a similar amount of distance and elevation gain through similar terrain and conducted in a reasonable time frame to the trip I am planning.

On my last trip, I had an unknown person apply to come along. I asked exactly this: "what are the last three ski trips you've done and when did you do them?" In response to this very specific questions I got all kinds of information, but no answer to the question I asked. I was told how much the individual attempted to run and cross-country ski each week and had, the previous year, been on a hut based ski trip. But, no specific answer to my specific question.

I tried phrasing the question another way "what is a typical trip? how far will you go? how long will it take?' Again, lots of bluster about various things done in times past, but an answer that was remarkably short on detail. Interestingly, a friend of the participant in question contacted me (unsolicited) to vouch for the participant and was similarly fuzzy in his recommendation. Statements like "he will be an asset if the going gets tough" tell me nothing specific as I don't know what these people consider tough. Tough for them could well be easy for me, in which case, this trip might well be too hard. Eventually, many many questions later I felt as confident as possible that the trip was within the individuals ability, albeit, a bigger trip than normal and likely a stretch for him.

A less experienced trip leader would have a hard time in this circumstance recognizing that the barrage of information being provided does not address the basic issue - how far can you go in what time frame and what terrain can you manage? Much poking, prodding, questioning of both the participant and the participant's reference still did not leave me with clear answers to these questions. And, that is the big issue for volunteer trip leaders, separating the qualified from the unqualified is difficult, requires tenacity, a clear understanding of exactly what is required, and a certain degree of experience to be able to estimate from all the information that is provided (much of it useless), that the person is likely to succeed.

No doubt you are wondering if this particular individual was adequately fit and competent for the trip. The answer is yes, but I suspect the trip was a stretch both physically and mentally.

Skiers Arriving on top of OK Mountain

A Couple of Good Days

This year has been marked by sporadic small snowfalls separated by long periods of grey weather with poor visibility, no sun, and no new snow, so, when the weather icons showed a couple of days of sun in a row, we were keen to get out on some bigger ski days.

The first day, we skinned up through the trees near White Queen to the ridge that runs NW from Ymir Mountain, and then skinned and boot-packed (hard going at times) until we could cross the top of an avalanche slide path and gain the ridge separating 5 Mile and Kutetl Creeks at about 2300 metres.

A beautiful 500 metre descent down an open alpine bowl and through burnt timber to 1800 metres followed. We then traversed south a short distance beyond one slide path, to the margin of a second bigger slide path and built an uptrack through burnt timber and open alpine terrain to about 2240 metres under the big east face of Ymir Mountain. Another stunning run down alpine terrain to burnt timber and through the avalanche path took us to about 1730 metres - if you are counting that is another 500 metre run.

Finally, we skinned back up and broke a new trail up to a narrow col on the north ridge of Ymir and descended Ymir bowl.

Next day, the sunny weather turned to high overcast, but at least visibility was good. We lucked out and were able to drive for about 3.5 km up Barrett Creek and Lost Lake FRS's to about 1160 metres. One hour of skinning up Lost Lake FSR and we skinned west crossed Lost Lake Creek and finally skinned up to the long east ridge of Commonwealth Mountain. Another 400 metre climb and we were at the summit cairn on Commonwealth Mountain where the wind was howling.

Quickly stripping skins we skied a 700 metre line down the big south face to Barrett Creek FSR and sped out the road returning to Nelson for a late lunch.

Snow is in the forecast for the next week.

Laying down some nice tracks in Kutetl Creek

Let Me Check Your File ....

Ominous words when you are trying to deal with a warranty issue. I first heard this line when I called G3 to get a tip attachment loop for a pair of skins that were sent to me as replacements for a lightly used (in my opinion) pair of skins that I returned for warranty because the tail attachment system had broken off and, due to a design error, could not be repaired. On that occasion, G3 did send me tip loops which, it seems had simply been missed in the packaging process. After using these new G3 skins for about a year, and reglueing them three times in that time period - a ludicrous and expensive (at $15 per tube) thing to have to do with skins that are less than a year old - I again returned the skins for warranty. And, again got a replacement pair.

Last June, after skiing on the new, new skins (my second G3 pair if you are counting) for a total of 13 days, there was no glue on the skins yet again. I returned them again and received my third pair of replacement skins in less than two years. On this, the final occasion, I was told that I was forthwith cut off. There would be no replacement skins under any circumstances.

Now, I find myself with a pair of Black Diamond Syncra skis that I have skied on for 16 days and the top sheet is peeling off. After much discussion with the MEC warranty department, MEC has agreed to replace them with a new pair of the same skis. This took quite a bit of wrangling (unusual for MEC who are generally exceptionally helpful with warranty issues). The warranty representative tried to tell me that the skis were delaminating due to improper storage (in my garage), despite the fact that I have a 15 year old pair of Atomic skis stored under the same conditions with no delamination. Or that I had beaten the ski up so much that the top sheet was peeling off. But, really how much can a 120 pound 48 year old generally conservative female skier beat up a pair of skis in 16 days?

Unfortunately, somewhat complicating the issue is the fact that these particular skis (Syncras) are replacements for a pair of Dynafit 7 Summits skis that had delaminating bases (which MEC happily warrantied). Two random and unrelated occurrences in my mind - one is a top sheet pulling off, the other is a delaminating base due to stress points in the ski design, but, not in the mind of the warranty representative, who clearly suspects me of beating my skis up and then claiming they should be replaced under warranty. Though why I would go through the hassle is beyond me.

The end result is this pair of skis and skins has got to last more than one year. Can it be done? Check back in May or June to find out. 

Broken ski on day 3 of a 7 day traverse

Not Bad For A Couple Of Old Farts

Doug and I had some awesome skiing today in the Qua Creek drainage  You can do 500 metre runs down both N and S aspects right down to the creek at 1600 metres.  In the  morning, we managed to sprint up 400 metres in 40 minutes, and, our turn around time on 500 metre runs was one hour.  That's not bad for a couple of old farts.  Check out the video here.

I was a little distressed to find that the top sheet is pulling off my Black Diamond Syncra skis that are less than a year old.  

Another pair of skis bites the dust.

It Depends Where You Dig

Digging snowpits to decide whether or not to ski a slope is a somewhat controversial topic. Most avalanche professionals would say that the decision to ski or not ski a slope should never be made on one single observation like a snowpit. Yet, all too frequently, among recreationalists, this seems to be the case.

Digging pits to make decisions can provide worthwhile information, but you really need to know what you are looking for before you dig. That is, what layer exactly is likely to be the failure plane for an avalanche, where (spatially) is it likely to be preserved, and where does the possible failure layer have enough of a slab over the top to cause a problem.

In December, we had a three week period with virtually no precipitation. During that time, a surface hoar grew large on sheltered north and east aspects, and near surface facetting was found all other aspects. Finally, in late December significant precipitation buried these snow crystals and a persistent weak layer (PWL) was formed. Depending on exact location, this PWL (referred to as the mid-December PWL) is buried between 20 cm (Rossland Range) and 80 cm (Nelson Range).

On Tuesday, we went out for a tour and decided to see how the mid-December PWL was reacting. We chose a sheltered location on an NNE aspect at 1900 metres in an open glade of trees with a 38 degree slope to dig a test pit. This location was specifically chosen because it is a likely area for the surface hoar to be preserved with a good slab of snow overlying it, and, the slope angle was steep enough to give some meaningful results. We got a couple of good "pops" on this layer.

A couple of days later, we were over the east side of Five Mile Creek on a W to NW facing slope with burnt timber (not sufficient to anchor the snowpack) and a 38 degree slope angle, and a desire to ski the slope. We dug another test pit on the slope we were thinking of skiing. A quick probe indicated we should find the mid-December PWL down about 60 cm, if we would find it at all. The location we were thinking of skiing, faces west (afternoon sun) and gets down-slope winds from the valley to the south (both sun and wind frequently destroy surface hoar before it has a chance to be buried). Digging down about a metre, we found only a trace of the mid-December PWL. Looking carefully with a loupe, we could see a few facetted crystals down 60 cm. We got no results on this layer with testing. We skied the slope, but continued to use precautions - putting our up-track in a safe location, skiing steeper sections one at a time, and regrouping in safe locations.

Did we make our decision based on one single observation point? Not really. We knew the slope aspect and exposure to wind and sun was likely to have destroyed the surface hoar before it was buried, and we had no concerns about other layers in the snowpack. Digging down indicated that our hunch was correct, the mid-December PWL is virtually absent in that specific location. Skiing the slope seemed a reasonable choice. Other locations we would encounter during the tour, such as the climb back out of the valley on a sheltered NE aspect still warranted caution, as there we would expect to find the mid-December PWL preserved and with enough snow over the top to cause an avalanche.

The morale of this long and likely tedious blog post, is that test pits can provide useful information, but you must understand the avalanche problem and its distribution well enough to dig your snowpit in a location that is likely to give you the worst result possible. After all, if you are going to trigger an avalanche, it is where that combination of factors (layer depth, slab stiffness, terrain features, etc.) come together to cause the most unstable snow. Of course, the caveat to all this is that you should be digging in a safe location. No point finding the most unstable snow because it avalanches on you when you start to dig. 

Surface hoar as big as the palm of your hand

Pop Goes The Slab

Conditions are pretty much ripe for skier/sledder/boarder triggered avalanches right now. Around the Nelson Range, somewhere between 110 and 120 cm of snow has covered the mid-December surface hoar/near surface facet layer, and has settled out to a slab with a thickness of 70 to 80 cm. That is getting near the limit of skier triggering, but, there will be plenty of areas where the slab is slightly less thick and thus well within the range of skier triggering.

Digging in the snow, in the right location (look for open gladed areas in the trees sheltered from the wind on E or N aspects at treeline or below), the mid-December surface hoar is up to 18 mm in size and well preserved. On compression and extended column tests, fractures initiate and propagate with sudden fracture character. In other words, that slab pops. Hit it right, and it will pop with you on top.

Check out the videos to see a "pop" on the compression test and the extended column test.

There's also a nasty freezing rain crust on the surface impacting ski quality.

Nasty Freezing Rain Crust

Phew ...

No, I'm not recovering from the mother of all hangovers after the wildest New Years Eve party of all time, actually, I'm struggling to recover from the mother of all stomach viruses. This is my seventh day down with some kind of gastric bug, that, I must say is good for leaning out - although I am sure I am losing muscle mass not fat - but not good for much else.

The last couple of days, I've spent trying to rehydrate from my sadly dehydrated state. One glass of water every hour has been a struggle, but I've done it for the last two days and seem to be finally turning the corner.

The paleo diet, however, went to crap, as the only thing I could face eating was dry bread. Better that than nothing I figured. I challenge anyone to chew on steak and eggs when they feel like they are going to heave.

I'm supposed to be off on a SAR course this coming week, but, in my present state of physical (and mental deterioration) I can't see myself participating. 

Hopefully, your New Year came in a little more positively.

Emerging from a fog of illness