People working outdoors in the mountains as highway avalanche control technicians, as backcountry ski guides or as avalanche forecasters at ski hills have a lot in common with academics studying snow and avalanches from a scientific perspective, according to civil engineer Alex Sinickas.
Sinickas was speaking as a member of a panel discussing the question, “What has science taught us?” at the International Snow Science Workshop (ISSW), which took place in Banff last week. More than 800 delegates from the U.S., Canada, Europe and other countries participated in the biennial gathering of snow and avalanche professionals and academics who attended workshops and presentations and participated in field trips.
The scientific method used in researching a particular question or problem shares a great parallel with how pro ski patrollers practicing avalanche control on the slopes do their job, she said.
“Ski patrollers carry notepads, they make bets on the chair lift, they like to throw bombs and they really like to talk about it,” Sinickas said. Although not formally structured as such, those actions correspond to the steps followed by a scientific researcher – observing, questioning and hypothesizing, testing and analyzing.
Working in the natural mountain environment, however, requires paying attention to more than science, said both the members of the panel and those in the overflowing audience at The Banff Centre’s Max Bell Auditorium.
Despite valuable advances in technology, science and practical work both harbour degrees of uncertainty. While forecasters can predict the probability of an avalanche in a particular mountain range or region based on measurements and data collected such as snowpack depth, consistency, temperature and wind activity, there is still no way for anyone – or any computer – to predict when and on which exact slope an avalanche will occur.
“When an accident happens, the public asks, ‘Why? What went wrong?’” said panellist Roger Atkins, an ACMG mountain guide with extensive experience in the heli-skiing industry. “The expectation from the public is that we’re more certain than we can be. There is always residual risk.”
While science is an essential component of avalanche study, from a safety perspective, human experience, education and good judgement are indispensable factors in the equation.
Overall, suggested audience member Albi Sole, executive director of the Outdoor Council of Canada with decades’ experience coordinating public avalanche awareness programs at the University of Calgary’s Outdoor Centre, all the major gains in avalanche safety have had nothing to do with science, but rather, perspective and a greater awareness of the seriousness of risk due to objective hazards, and a desire to manage that risk.
“I think that creates a really healthy culture dynamic,” Sole said.
While scientific studies that examine the physical characteristics of how the layers of a season’s snowpack bond – or don’t – do provide practitioners with a better understanding of the snowpack, in the end, humans still have to base their decisions about when to ski a slope on a particular aspect or elevation on their interpretation of the information available.
To that end, the increase in availability of quality information for the public and professionals made possible through the Internet and social media does provide people with more and better tools with which to make their decisions. Ultimately, however, the decision of where to ski is a human one.
“I like to think I’m better at making decisions than I was 20 years ago, but that’s not due to science, but to experience,” said panellist Karl Birkeland, avalanche scientist with the U.S. Forest Service National Avalanche Centre.
“Science has given practitioners a better understanding of the snowpack,” said panellist Colin Zacharias, technical director with the American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education. “But has it made us better forecasters? Are we better at it? We better understand the nature of uncertainty, but am I making better decisions? I don’t know.”
It’s essential, commented one audience member, that public safety professionals act as bridges to convey scientific knowledge to the public, and that avalanche professionals translate scientific theory into practice, and that scientists share their findings with practitioners.
When it comes to building the systems by which knowledge gained from scientific research is communicated to the public, said Parks Canada mountain risk specialist and ISSW chair Grant Statham, scientific data alone is not enough.
“You can’t pull science out of a journal and build a system that works,” Statham said. “You have to adjust it and take pieces of it and create a teaching program that works.”
Overall, the two arms of scientific research and the practical experience gained by those working in the field guiding skiers and managing highway avalanche control programs work to feed each other in a symbiotic relationship necessary to manage a complicated, and potentially dangerous, reality.
“For everybody in this room, whether you’re taking people out into avalanche terrain or managing a ski hill or opening up roads, avalanches are life and death,” Birkeland said.
