Every year people die in avalanches. In many cases – here in Europe at least – we read about the conditions in which these deaths occur. One thing that always strikes me is the reaction of the general public when they read things went south at an avalanche danger level of ‘only’ 3.
What is the Avalanche Danger Scale
The Avalanche Danger Scale goes from 1 to 5. Level 1 is ‘low’ avalanche risk, level 2 is ‘moderate’, level 3 is ‘considerable’, level 4 is ‘high’, and level 5 is ‘very high’ avalanche risk. In Europe, level 5 occurs only sporadically. It usually means the mountain is closed and even roads are closed. I have been in a situation once in France, where we were only allowed to be outside if we were wearing an avalanche beacon. We stayed in that day.
Level 5 is for extreme circumstances and is beyond anything that has to do with skiing. It impacts normal life itself. So even if it is certainly part of the Avalanche Danger Scale, for outdoor recreation, the Danger Scale should only go to 4. After all, only the first four levels are relevant for recreational use. Beyond level 4, there no longer is any recreation possible, in my opinion.
Back to the wider public
This simple fact, that danger level 5 is outside recreational boundaries (and the range for recreational use really ends at level 4) makes it even more astonishing that much of the general public isn’t at least somewhat intimidated by avalanche danger level 3.
‘It’s level 3 on a scale of 5’ would put it right in the middle. A level 3 on a scale of 4 gives that level 3 – ‘considerable’ that much more weight. If we were only to use a four-level scale instead of a five-level scale, that would really put the most deadly avalanche danger level – ‘considerable’ – in proper perspective. This is the level at which 80% of avalanche deaths occur, according to Swiss long-term statistics. Moreover, if we were to say ‘the danger level is considerable’ (rather than ‘level 3’) – that has a very different ring to it.
My suggestions
- Use only four danger levels: ‘low’, ‘moderate’, ‘considerable’, and ‘high’. The fifth one – ‘very high’ – has no recreational use and should not be used for backcountry recreational activities, but only be applied in extreme situations in public life.
- Get rid of the numbered danger levels. Let’s refer to them as, ‘low’, ‘moderate’, ‘considerable’, and ‘high’. Especially ‘considerable’ sounds so much more serious than ‘level 3’.
In North America we only use the terms, not the numbers. However, I assume the numbers are used in Europe due to different languages.
Yes, the numbers are used in Europe (sometimes the adjectives too). On the mountain, often the number or corresponding flag color is displayed to signal the avalanche danger of the day.
Totally agree with this, Gijs 👍
Funny argument to end the scale at 4 because then people would understand that level 3 is the most deadly? Wouldn’t it make more sense to end the scale at 3 if this is the argument? Wouldn’t a scale where the top level is still not claiming the most victims, be as confusing as the 5 point scale? In a 3 point scale the top level (3) would really be the most dangerous in terms of claimed victims. But then what with level 4 conditions?
The main thing is that considerable is not always very deadly, in fact more often not so. But sometimes considerable is indeed very tricky (and unfortunately every now and then deadly at the same time). This is why there is no sound learning curve for skiers/snowboarders to understand the danger of level 3: very often nothing happens and, to make things worse, those ‘non event’ days are mostly fantastic powder days!
To address this problem Austria uses the term ‘Schifahrer Gross’ (meaning ‘High danger for skiers/snowboarders’) for a ’tricky’ considerable. The Swiss use subdivisions 3-, 3 and 3+ (being the tricky one). N.B: I feel this Swiss system still needs some tweaking.
As in the US the descriptions like ‘considerable’ are always used in Europe as well. Exemple: Erhebliches Lawinegefahr, Lawinewarnstufe 3. In the radio sometimes even without mentioning the number at all.
As for the statistics: level 3 is not claiming 80% of the victims: 80% of people involved in avalanche incidents in ‘off piste’ occur at level 3. Fortunately not every person in an accident dies (otherwise we would have 431 off piste victims in 10 seasons + 897 victims in touring!!) Note: by the numbers skitouring is indeed claiming more victims, however the balance is changing towards more victims in off piste/freeriding…..