Forums Avy Discussion Forum VA Lakes avy conditions Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)Author Posts March 28, 2006 at 7:27 am #567679 jimw 1421 PostsReal sobering report on serious avy conditions right now in VA lakes area, posted over on the ESAC forums:http://www.esavalanche.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=89Sounds like the ESAC forecaster is going to check this area out this week so hopefully we’ll get more info on it. March 28, 2006 at 5:43 pm #587872 knucklesplitter 340 PostsDon’t believe everything you read on the Intarwebs. PJ and I were joking (joking!) a couple weeks ago about posting scary avy stuff to keep people away, because I’ve noticed a significant reduction in people out there when the avy reports are more dire. Also I heared on the intarwebs that the poster is a “kook”. And no, it wasn’t me.Sue Baruk will give us a reliable report that will confirm/deny the conditions. Lots of people are watching this. March 28, 2006 at 8:50 pm #587873 jimw 1421 Posts @knucklesplitter wrote:Also I heared on the intarwebs that the poster is a “kook”. Do you believe everything you read on the intarwebs? 🙂There were 2 guys that posted basically identical results. Sure, it could be the same guy and he could be a kook. But if there’s even a remote chance that this info is correct I want to know about it, especially since I’m planning on heading out not too far from there this week. I would like to see pictures of the 30-60 ft debris mentioned though!!Sue Baruk will give us a reliable report that will confirm/deny the conditions. Lots of people are watching this. In today’s avy report it says:For a detailed discussion of snowpack conditions in Virginia Lakes, please see the discussion section of the website. But, there’s nothing additional on the discussion forum… March 28, 2006 at 9:57 pm #587874 knucklesplitter 340 Posts @jimw wrote: @knucklesplitter wrote:Also I heared on the intarwebs that the poster is a “kook”. Do you believe everything you read on the intarwebs? 🙂It seems [ JimW ] is not without a sense of irony. 😉Sue has a post up now… and all it says is “test post”. Arrgh.Be careful at TPR, Jim. looks like they’ll get 3 feet out of this storm… you bastards. March 28, 2006 at 10:02 pm #587875 SanFrantastico 1514 PostsThis seems like a weird observation to me. He dug 13-foot deep pits on multiple aspects?? What a champ! Eight feet of depth hoar buried under 5 feet of consolidated snow seems fishy. Wouldn’t the snowpack be too deep for depth hoar formation unless the temperatures were very very cold? Still, I wouldn’t go near it without hearing an observation from Sue Burak because that’s really sketchy if its true. It will be interesting to hear what she has to say.Putting the poo in swimming pool since 1968. March 29, 2006 at 3:26 am #587876 SanFrantastico 1514 PostsSounds like Sue Baruk spent the whole day digging pits:http://www.esavalanche.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=89Seems like the issue is mostly a series slabs in top meter of the snowpack. I couldn’t really understand whether the faceting lower in the snowpack is a problem…Putting the poo in swimming pool since 1968. March 29, 2006 at 4:31 am #587877 jimw 1421 PostsInteresting discussion over there. The take home for me was the last paragraph:The snowpack this season has several well defined layers that could be sliding layers for wet slab avalanches later this season. I expect to see a great deal of activity on all aspects, though I am not sure what will happen on slopes that have been stripped by the large avalanches of January 2-3 and Feb. 27-28.Apparently the OP wasn’t a complete kook after all… 🙂 March 29, 2006 at 5:19 am #587878 knucklesplitter 340 PostsNote that she did not mention the ultra-spooky-be-very-afraid 8++=+ feet of “depth horror!!!1!!1” 🙄 March 29, 2006 at 2:18 pm #587879 jimw 1421 PostsYeah. Instead, she mentions that below the slab at 75-80 cm down, the weak layer was “faceted grains that were rounding”, and that the snowpack below this was simlar. With a total snowpack depth of “over 3.2 meters”, that works out to, oh, about 8 feet of the stuff. Hmm.I didn’t quite get the depth hoar discussion… it sounded like she was explaining that this weak snow wasn’t actually depth hoar, and that depth hoar can become stable over time, but why discuss that if this isn’t depth hoar? Maybe I’ll just ask over there… March 29, 2006 at 4:06 pm #587880 SanFrantastico 1514 PostsMaybe she was diplomatically trying to say the rounding faceted grains aren’t the problem? She didn’t seem particularly concerned about the bottom of the snowpack. It would be interesting to know how deep the Red Lake avalanche was.Putting the poo in swimming pool since 1968. March 29, 2006 at 4:24 pm #587881 knucklesplitter 340 PostsYeah, that was kinda confusing to us non-experts, I thought. It does sound like it will get interesting when things finally warm up. It’s at least a month before the masses start going back there to Ginny Lakes, so maybe things will improve by then.That Wall Run into Red Lake runs regularly and deep. There are natural a funnels at the bottom that focus it too. Never seen it 30-60′ deep though. Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)You must be logged in to reply to this topic.