Checking stability and amount of new snow on known weak surface hoar, facets, and faceted melt freeze. Found very sensitive fresh windslabs, shooting cracks, mini-slabs, and very weak block tests fracturing with first loading (#2) on relatively low 35° angles, but the new snow layer is still thin enough that the slides are fairly small. Nonetheless, some drifts are over 30 cm thick, so there is potential for slabs large enough to threaten backcountry travelers.

Beware further loading, especially if followed by thaw. This weakness may be so sensitive that it fractures and slides early in the storm cycle, rather than building up large volumes before release, but that remains to be seen. The underlying ice is so slippery that even a slide too small to bury someone could carry them at high speed into obstacles or over cliffs.

We took advantage of the weak snowpack to do a series of AK Block tests with varying sized blocks. We found as expected that block size makes no difference in snow this weak - any size block we tried went at #2. We tested blocks up to 8 steps larger than normal with no difference in the results. AK Block and Rutschblock results were all identical.

These results are encouraging. We expect that #1, #2 and probably #3 test value blocks will show little or no size effect. Since any of these values indicate a very weak snowpack, the lack of size effect here makes no difference in decisionmaking. We expect the value of sized blocks to show up in #4 and #5 range results, the most problematic values. The results from previous years' studies indicate that sizing makes only a little difference on #6 and #7 values, again as expected because these are so strong that size is not expected to make much difference. We hope we may find some #3 to #5 values during this week's storm cycles while we are out with out UAS course.

This is not a strength test. We are not looking at how much force it takes to create fracture, we are looking at the character of the fracture. What we are looking for is stored elastic energy and ability to propagate fracture.

On a numerical scale, this result is a #1. A #2 would be a clean, fast fracture that rips out most or all of the undermined area, a #3 would rip out more than half of the undermined area, but would be a slower or irregular fracture. A #4 would rip out less than half slowly and irregularly, and a #5 would only crumble away irregularly in and near the area where it was loaded.

Though it is still considered a nonstandard test and it is less quantitative than some other snow tests, we find this test gives valuable information about critical slab properties that most other snow tests ignore.

We often use splitboards for fieldwork. They are lighter and shorter than skis, break trail very well in deep snow, climb steeply, and make descending bad snow much easier than it is on skis. The boots are warm and comfortable for walking. The biggest disadvantage is lack of edging on ice, for which we use special splitboard crampons, and they are not very practical for traveling in terrain where it is necessary to switch between ascent and descent modes frequently. But for those who prefer the splitboard's advantages and the incomparable feel of the ride of a snowboard, they are a very good choice.