Yeah, Avalanche safety and decision making is progressing all the time. And the ECT is an awesome part of a thorough decision making process. However, casual readers might overlook a few points: -The researchers who generated the data cited are super thorough with their practice of the test AND immaculate in their terrain selection. "you have to locate your tests carefully" is an understatement. -What other tests are required? "There’s so much it’s hard to know where to start." 'Nuff said. -"it is only one piece of a large amount of information you need" Also, massive understatement.
Not trying to undermine the validity of this new skill, just making the emphasis the researchers probably would have preferred. Long-time students of avalanche safety and research might recall a similar buzz back in the '90s for the Rutschblock test. (the other "new snow test that could save your life" v1.0)
It's a new variation of a pretty old test. Would be interesting to try. Previous tests would dig a pit and cut on the sides (not the back) then either jump on your skis from above to see if a slab releases or pry with a shovel. Anything that gets you to look closely at the snow layers and their relative cohesiveness is good. These guys also look like they're going about it in a very organized way, which isn't done often. Avalanche prediction hovers closer to an art than a science for the average skier in the field.
Also, the Sierra snowpack tends to be more cohesive and sets up more quickly. Talking with some Sierra avalanche people, that effects how they interpret the ski check test. This might be the same.
