Quantitative Assessment of Risks Involved in Mechanized Skiing in Canada
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Quantitative Assessment of Risks Involved in Mechanized Skiing in Canada by Matthias Walcher B.Sc., Technische Universität Dresden, 2013 B.Sc., Technische Universität Dresden, 2014 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Water Management and Environmental Engineering - Mountain Risk Engineering - UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES, VIENNA 2017 AFFIDATIVE I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this work. No assistance other than that which is permitted has been used. Ideas and quotes taken directly or indirectly from other sources are identified as such. This work has not been submitted in the same or similar form to any other examiners as a form of examination. I am aware that offenders may be punished and that further legal action may ensue. In addition to the printed version, a copy of this work was also submitted on CD ROM to the appropriate examiner for approval of the above declaration. Innsbruck, 10 November 2017 ......................................................... Matthias Walcher iii ABSTRACT Guests and guides partaking in commercial mechanized backcountry skiing are exposed to numerous types of hazards (e.g., avalanches, tree wells, cliffs, crevasses) that can result in injury or death. While guides have extensive practical experience in managing the risk associated with these hazards, detailed quantitative estimations of the associated risks are currently lacking. This represents a considerable barrier for evaluating existing risk management practices and impedes the further improvement of backcountry safety within the mechanized skiing industry. This study collected historical incident and exposure information from helicopter- and snowcat-skiing operations to perform a quantitative retrospective risk analysis. The collected dataset spans 47 winter seasons (1969/70 to 2015/16) with a total of 2,792,570 skierdays and 763 incidents that resulted in injuries or fatalities among guests or guides. The overall mortality rate for mechanized skiing between the seasons 1996/97 and 2015/16 was 21.0 x 10-6 per day skiing. The highest risk was associated with avalanches (14.4 x 10-6), followed by non-avalanche related deep snow immersion. Avalanche mortality decreased substantially over the study period. Comparing the two types of mechanized skiing, avalanche mortality was higher in helicopter-skiing, and the risk of NARSID was higher in snowcat- skiing. The highest risks of major injury were associated with ski accidents and collisions. Higher values of morbidity were found for guides engaged in snowcat-skiing, compared to helicopter- skiing guides. Keywords: Risk analysis, avalanche risk, mortality rate, mountain mortality, mountain guides, backcountry safety, backcountry skiing, helicopter-skiing, snowcat-skiing. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This piece of work would not have been possible without the help and guidance of my supervisor Dr. Pascal Haegeli. Thank you for the great mentoring throughout this project and all the skills you have taught me – it was a real pleasure to work with you. Thanks also to Dr. Sven Fuchs who supported me right from the beginning in my intention to write my thesis abroad, and helped me with his constructive advice and support in the preparation of the present work. The SARP team of the Simon Fraser University in Burnaby created a very pleasant working atmosphere and made me feel comfortable in Canada very quick. Thank you for all the interesting talks and the shared adventures! The skiing with you was fantastic! HeliCat Canada, the association of helicopter- and snowcat-skiing in Canada, sponsored my research but also provided me with data for my research. Thanks Ian, Miranda and Andrea for your support! Also, I would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Mitacs Accelerate Program, as well as WorkSafeBC and the BC Coroners Service for providing me data for the analysis. Acknowledgements also to all operations who supplied me with the sensitive incident information for this research. Your confidence was utmost important for carrying out the analysis. It is great to see such an industry, where competing companies meet in friendship and work closely together for a mutual success and the safety of the clients. Lastly, and most of all, I would like to thank my family and friends for being there for me, whenever I am in need! vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Affidative .................................................................................................................................. iii Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. vii Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ xi List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xiii List of Acronyms ..................................................................................................................... xv 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Problem definition ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objectives and hypothesis ........................................................................................... 2 1.3 Document organization ............................................................................................... 4 2 Background ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Mechanized backcountry skiing in Canada ................................................................. 5 2.1.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 5 2.1.2 Industry profile..................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Hazards and risks in mechanized skiing ..................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Definitions............................................................................................................ 8 2.2.2 Hazards and risks ............................................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Hazard management........................................................................................... 21 2.3 Risk of death and injury in adventure sports and everyday life ................................ 23 2.3.1 Mortality rates .................................................................................................... 23 2.3.2 Morbidity rates ................................................................................................... 26 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................... 29 3.1 Data collection........................................................................................................... 29 3.1.1 Definitions.......................................................................................................... 29 3.1.2 Data sources ....................................................................................................... 32 3.2 Statistical analysis ..................................................................................................... 37 3.2.1 Data pre-processing ........................................................................................... 38 3.2.2 Mortality rates .................................................................................................... 39 3.2.3 Morbidity rates ................................................................................................... 40 ix 4 Results .............................................................................................................................. 43 4.1 Summary of the dataset ............................................................................................. 43 4.1.1 Exposure data ..................................................................................................... 43 4.1.2 Incident data ....................................................................................................... 44 4.2 Mortality rates ........................................................................................................... 53 4.2.1 Avalanche mortality, 1969/70- 2015/16 ............................................................ 53 4.2.2 Incident type specific mortality, 1996/97- 2015/16 ........................................... 55 4.3 Morbidity rates .......................................................................................................... 57 4.3.1 Guide morbidity, 2006/07- 2015/16 .................................................................. 57 4.3.2 Guest morbidity, 2006/07- 2015/16 ................................................................... 59 5 Discussion .......................................................................................................................