A distinction is generally made between three different types of decision-making: the analytical Species that probalistic type and the Intuitive Art. Each of these methods has its place in the assessment of avalanche danger and the resulting decisions. In order to achieve the best possible balance between risk and safety, each of these methods of decision-making must be considered. However, any decision is useless if the subsequent behaviour is not aligned with the decision or if the wrong measures are taken.
The path of analytical decision-making could be described as classic avalanche science, as it was the standard method for assessing avalanche risk for many years. When making analytical decisions, it is necessary to analyse the snowpack. This is done by creating snow profiles and carrying out stability tests such as the slide block, compression test (CT) or ECT. The problem is the validity of these tests. A snow profile or stability test is only carried out at a specific location. But are these results representative of the entire slope? Many experts doubt this. The latest and very renowned analytical strategy comes from Bavaria in the form of the "Systematic Snowpack Diagnosis". Systematic snowpack diagnosis focusses on the small block test and attempts to evaluate the result using process thinking and derive decisions from it. This provides the user with practical tools. Digging lengthy snow profiles for every tour is not reasonable due to time constraints.
However, avalanche commissions and professionals such as mountain and ski guides do carry out regular snowpack surveys in their home area in order to obtain as complete a picture as possible of the processes in the snowpack throughout the winter.
> MORE ABOUT SYSTEMATIC SNOW COVER ANALYSIS
> CONTRIBUTION TO SSD IN MOUNTAINEERING
It was "avalanche pope" Werner Munter who, with his method of probabilistic decision making opened up a completely new path in avalanche science. Initially, there was a great deal of rejection and scepticism, especially among experts. Today, nobody doubts the importance and justification of probability-based avalanche science.
The basic idea is to take certain probabilities into account and derive simple patterns of thought and action from them. Based on these easy-to-understand criteria and the structured approach, both beginners and professionals can achieve a good result in complex situations. A "good result" refers to a decision made on tour or when riding variants, in which a socially acceptable decision is made. Acceptable residual risk remains.
Probabilistic methods are based on the following assumptions and thought patterns:
The Professional Reduction Method (PRM) was developed by Werner Munter in 1992. It is the most complex of all reduction methods, but gives the user the most room for manoeuvre in terms of limits.
In principle, PRM is about analysing the current Hazard potential with a possible Reduction potential in relation to each other. If the final result is a risk of less than 1, the risk is acceptable. If not, alternative measures must be taken. For example, a less steep slope or a different exposure can be selected. The aim is therefore to reduce the risk by adding further reduction factors.
In practice, the PRM is rarely applied in its full form. One reason for this is that hardly any expert knows all ten reduction factors by heart. Other reduction methods have been derived from the PRM:
"Attending a course under professional guidance is essential in order to understand and apply the methods of strategic avalanche awareness. "
Intuition means making good decisions based on gut instinct. Experts with extensive experience in particular often make decisions based on their gut feeling and therefore achieve a high hit rate.
The theory of intuition is that the subconscious mind can take far more information into account than the conscious mind. The conscious mind, on the other hand, is very precise in processing information, but can only deal with a limited amount of information. Intuition is a fundamental human skill that enables us to react appropriately in complex situations.
Even though intuition is an ingenious means of decision-making and each of us is at least partially guided by intuition, it also has disadvantages. For one thing, intuition is difficult to understand and communicate. Intuition can hardly be taught in courses, for example. Secondly, intuition is not so strong that it can really reliably prevent accidents. It is true that many experts say after accidents that they had a "bad gut feeling". However, this gut feeling usually does not ultimately lead to the necessary (avoidance) decisions.
In addition, especially for professional decision-makers in a guarantor position (mountain guides, ski guides, avalanche commission), there is the aspect that intuition is difficult to argue in the event of a court hearing.
Intuition is therefore unsuitable as a decision-making method for beginners and cannot be taught in courses. Experts can certainly rely on their gut feeling, but should always cross-check it with analytical and probabilistic methods.
Book tip: The Oberinntal mountain guide Florian Schranz has written a controversial book about intuition as a method of decision-making in the mountains. BERG SEIN - The book
Combined decision-making strategies take into account different methods of decision-making.
One of the best-known combined methods is Stop or Go. Stop or Go were presented to the mountain guides Michael Larcher and Robert Pfurtscheller in the Austrian Alpine Club developed. Stop or Go is made up of Standard measures (Standard Operating Procedures - SOP) and a Decision strategywhich consists of two checks (Check 1 + Check 2).
The Standard measures take into account basic aspects of tour planning, such as avalanche reports, weather reports, maps, groups and equipment, as well as standard measures in the terrain. These include relief distances, avalanche transceiver check, track system and orientation.
Check 1 is based on the elementary reduction method. This means that, depending on the avalanche warning level, clear limits are set with regard to the steepness of the slopes to be skied. This is supplemented with Check 2which uses analytics to recognise signs of danger in the snowpack. These include the critical amount of new snow, fresh drifting snow, settling noises, fresh avalanches, crack formation and heavy soaking. If it is decided after Check 2 that no signs of danger are recognisable, the tour can be continued. Otherwise the tour must be changed or cancelled.
Because Check 1 is backed up with Check 2, the Stop or Go method is a tool with a large safety buffer, but which also requires a lot of sacrifice if used consistently. With the "nevertheless go factors" heavily tracked, Forest or Melting harsh more room for manoeuvre was introduced in the latest version.
The snowpack and the topic of avalanches are so complex that making the right decisions is very difficult, even for experts. Decision-making strategies help to create a guideline with the help of structures and rules that experts and beginners can use for orientation. The great challenge is to make decisions in complex situations with insufficient information that still contain a socially accepted residual risk. It takes a lot of practice and training to be able to apply such decision-making strategies correctly. It is best to make use of the training programmes offered by professional ski guides.
The question of "Who is authorised to guide ski tours?" is a concern for many recreational athletes. Anyone who joins a guided ski tour relies on the competence, qualifications and authorisation of the guide. Last but not least, your own safety depends on the decisions and guiding tactics of the ski tour guide.
Strategic avalanche management should help to optimise the relationship between risk and safety. It forms a decision-making basis for behaviour in alpine areas and aims to prevent avalanche accidents.
One Response
I think the biggest problem with analytical avalanche assessment is that a snow profile or a stability test only ever applies to one specific spot. So you can never be entirely sure whether the result is truly representative of the whole slope.see