1 / 18

Activities of the EAWS working group Jakob Rhyner, SLF

Activities of the EAWS working group Jakob Rhyner, SLF. Short History of the EAWS. Meetings: 1983 München (D) 1985 Davos (CH) 1985 Vill (A) 1986 Grenoble (F) 1991 Bozen (I) 1993 Wildbad Kreuth (D) Unified Danger Scale 1994 Davos (CH) 1995 Davos (CH) 1997 St. Christoph (A)

ghita
Download Presentation

Activities of the EAWS working group Jakob Rhyner, SLF

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Activities of the EAWS working group Jakob Rhyner, SLF

  2. Short History of the EAWS Meetings: 1983 München (D) 1985 Davos (CH) 1985 Vill (A) 1986 Grenoble (F) 1991 Bozen (I) 1993 Wildbad Kreuth (D) Unified Danger Scale 1994 Davos (CH) 1995 Davos (CH) 1997 St. Christoph (A) 1999 Chamonix (F) 2001 Trento (I) 2003 München (D) 2005 Davos (CH) 2007 Starý Smokovec (SK) http://www.slf.ch/laworg/map.html

  3. EAWS Permanent Working Group Members (since 2001): Anselmo Cagnati (I) Cécile Coléou (F) Enrico Filaferro (I) Daniele Moro (I) Patrick Nairz (A) Christoph Oberschmied (I) Jan Peto (SK) Jakob Rhyner (CH), lead Michael Staudinger (A) Jacques Villecrose (F) † Thomas Stucki (CH) Bernhard Zenke (D)

  4. EAWS Working Group Activities Since 2001 • Danger scale: Various refinements • Unified Danger Matrix (Bavarian Matrix) • Danger Characterization by Examples (ongoing) • Avalanche Size and Frequency Classification • Multilingual glossary (G, F, I, E, SK, R) Level 4... • Restructuring of Avalanche Bulletins (ongoing) • Simplified information (ongoing)

  5. Group Meetings since Davos 2005 • 6 May 2006, Bozen Main Topic: Danger level characterization by examples • 6 October 2006, Salzburg Main Topic: Information structure and simplification

  6. RARE Reducing Avalanche Risks in Europe (New EU FP7 project) Jakob Rhyner, SLF

  7. RARE Partners Full partners: Icelandic Meteorological Office IMO (IS) Bundesforschungs- und Ausbildungszentrum für Wald, Naturgefahren und Landschaft BFW (A) MétéoFrance, Centre des Etudes de la Neige CEN (F) University of Cambridge (UK) University of Pavia (I) CEMAGREF (F) Consulting Office FLOW-ING (I) Norwegian Geotechnical Institute NGI (N) Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF (CH) In addition: Several Associated Partners!

  8. RARE Work packages Spatial variation of snow cover properties and their effect on initial conditions for snow avalanche release Prediction an warning Avalanche path variability of snow cover and its influence on avalanche hazard Harmonizing hazard, vulnerability, and risk mapping methods Effect of permanent and temporary risk control measures Quantifying uncertainty and including effects of climate change Harmonisation of avalanche forecasting, data management, and education outreach

  9. RARE WP 7 tasks / deliverables Web page for the storage of RARE data and meta data RARE Portal for external use, with data exploitations tools for extracting, viewing and analysing data Further development of the common EAWS platform (common XML) Document on the best practices and „minimal“ standards for avalanche forecast and warning systems Harmonized course program for safety services and observers Special session „EU-RARE Forecast and Warning Procedures“ within 16th EAWS meeting 2011 Teaching material (case study based) Framework for permanent European forecaster exchange Workshop on hazards mapping

  10. RARE might provide... • .... a channel to discuss new research results from the point of view of practice • .... some (limited) financial support for the EAWS work • .... a framework for a forecaster exchange programme The RARE consortium is still looking for Associated Partners !

  11. RARE Associated Partners • Associated partners obtain... • ... access to products and data • ... invitation to the most important meetings • Associated partners are expected to... • ... Share their ideas and views with the project consortium and give input to the ongoing discussions • ... Carry the results and to and them within their region of responsibility

  12. Open Points for the Working Group Jakob Rhyner, SLF

  13. Graphically based information (1st session Thursday afternoon) Graphical Information in Bulletins: • Basic decision: Include exposition, altitude, and time development as „mandatory“ graphic information Proposal: NOT TO WORKING GROUP, DECIDE IT HERE ! • Details of graphical icon design: working group develops pilot solution ready for winter 07/08 Greenhorn Icons: • Swiss proposal should be tested as a pilot. • Icons are open for use by any warning service. • Working group make assessment after winters 07/08 and 08/09 and decide on possible improvements

  14. Standardization – harmonization – credibility(2nd session Thursday afternoon) Canadian and European Standardization approach: Canadian: Probability - Consequence Scheme European: Bavarian matrix Two approaches are most probably very similar. Working group should keep close contact to Canadian colleagues Comprehensibility / perception of danger terms: Problem: „3“ is perceived more problematic than „considerable“ Solution (Decision ?): Communicate that only levels 1-4 are relevant. Then „3“ is in the „upper half“.

  15. Hazard levels Examples(1st Session Friday morning) Decided: • Level 1 (Mauro Valt) • Level 2 (Bernhard Zenke) • Level 4 (Thomas Stucki) • Level 5 (Patrick Nairz) • Spring situation 2  3 (Christoph Oberschmied) To be taken up by the working group: • Level 3 (Thomas Stucki) • Level 4 without spontaneous releases (Cécile Coléou) • Less catastrophic 5 / transition 4 to 5 Special cases: Level „Skier 4“ (Lukas Dürr): ?, Switzerland and Tyrol use it More numerous compressed examples (Bernhard Zenke): Fact sheet be made by working group!!

  16. Hazard levels Examples(1st Session Friday morning) Avalanche size scale: • Patrick Nairz proposes to (re-)introduce 5th size level Take it up in Working Group again?

  17. General Issues Protected section on EAWS web page • „decided issues“ available in structured form • guidelines for automatic stations and observer networks • Law issues. Make documents available. • Forum for Questions and Answers (to be decided: who takes care?) • Info on interesting projects European wide phone number • Check possibilities for a no / low cost solution

  18. Requests of small and new avalanche services to the working group of EAWS(collected by Jan Peto) 1/ Requests on automatic stations of avalanche service (kind of sensors, measurement frequency, data transmission, localisation of stations, etc.) 2/ Requests on observation stations of avalanche service (kind of observations, frequency etc.) 3/ Requests on stable snow-profile places and on measurements of snow profiles on leaning slopes (dimensions of stations, orientation /exposition, methodology of measurement –hammer-probe, hand-profile, unification the methodology of snow stability on the slopes – slide block test, slide wedge test, compression test, K.O. test, norwegian method, etc.) 4/ Unification the methodology of measurements and observations, multilingual software development, exchange an experiencies on avalanche courses organised by EAWS countries 5/ Summarisation the directives in various countries about blasting avalanches and avalanche defenses. 6/ Juridical instructions (laws, edicts, etc.) about avalanche accidents, tragedies, damages. 7/ Continuos filling-up the multilingual avalanche vocabulary with special terms and definitions.

More Related