A parked snowmobile is an inherent risk of skiing for which all skiers assume the risk under Colorado Ski Area Safety Act.

A Steamboat ski area employee parked a snowmobile at the bottom of a run. The plaintiff came down the run and hit the snowmobile injuring herself. She claimed the snowmobile was not visible from 100′ and was in violation of the Colorado Skier Safety Act. The Federal District Court for Colorado Disagreed.

Schlumbrecht-Muniz v. Steamboat Ski & Resort Corporation, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30484

State: Colorado, United States District Court for the District of Colorado

Plaintiff: Linda Schlumbrecht-Muniz, M.D.

Defendant: Steamboat Ski & Resort Corporation, a Delaware Corporation d/b/a STEAMBOAT

Plaintiff Claims: negligence, negligence per se, and respondeat superior

Defendant Defenses: Colorado Skier Safety Act

Holding: for the Defendant

Year: 2015

The plaintiff was skiing down a run at Steamboat Ski Area. (Steamboat is owned by Intrawest Resorts, Inc.) On that day, an employee of Steamboat parked a snowmobile at the bottom of that run. The snowmobile was not visible for 100′. The plaintiff collided with the vehicle incurring injury.

The plaintiff sued claiming simple negligence, negligence per se and respondeat superior. The Negligence per se claim was based on an alleged failure of the ski area to follow the Colorado Skier Safety Act.

The ski area filed a motion for summary judgment arguing the claims of the plaintiff failed to plead the information needed to allege a violation of the Colorado Skier Safety Act.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

The court first looked at the requirements necessary to properly plead a claim.

“…the mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient; the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims.” The ultimate duty of the court is to “determine whether the complaint sufficiently alleges facts supporting all the elements necessary to establish an entitlement to relief under the legal theory proposed.”

This analysis requires the plaintiff to plead facts sufficient to prove her claims to some certainty that the court can see without a major stretch of the imagination.

The ordinary negligence claims were the first to be reviewed and dismissed. The Colorado Skier Safety Act states that the defendant ski area is “immune from any claim for damages resulting from “…the inherent dangers and risks of skiing…

Notwithstanding any judicial decision or any other law or statute, to the contrary, … no skier may make any claim against or recover from any ski area operator for injury resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing.

Although the law allows suits against ski areas for violation of the act, those claims must be plead specifically and fit into the requirements set forth in the act. As such the court found the defendant Steamboat could be liable if:

Accordingly, Steamboat may be liable under one of two theories: a skier may recover if her injury resulted from an occurrence not considered an inherent danger or risk of skiing; or a skier may recover if the ski operator violated a provision of the Act and that violation resulted in injury.

The first claim of an injury that was not an inherent risk of skiing would hold the defendant ski area liable for a negligence claim. The second requires specific violation of the Colorado Skier Safety Act.

Steamboat argued that pursuant to the Colorado Skier Safety Act, the term inherent risks as defined in the act were to be read broadly and a parked snowmobile was an inherent risk of skiing.

The Ski Safety Act defines “inherent dangers and risks of skiing” to mean:

…those dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing, including changing weather conditions; snow conditions as they exist or may change, such as ice, hard pack, powder, packed powder, wind pack, corn, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine-made snow; surface or subsurface conditions such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, extreme terrain, and trees, or other natural objects, and collisions with such natural objects; impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences or enclosures, hydrants, water pipes, or other man-made structures and their components; variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or as a result of slope design, snowmaking or grooming operations, including but not limited to roads, freestyle terrain, jumps, and catwalks or other terrain modifications; collisions with other skiers; and the failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities.

The court then looked at decisions interpreting the inherent risk section to determine if the act was to be construed narrowly or broadly.

In all cases, Colorado courts looked at the act as a list of the possible risks of skiing but not all the possible risks. As such, a snowmobile parked at the bottom of the slope was an inherent risk of skiing.

I am also persuaded that the presence of a parked snow mobile at the end of a ski run is an inherent risk of the sport of skiing. While Steamboat cites Fleury for that court’s description of the “common understanding of a ‘danger,'” and analogizes the presence of a snowmobile to cornices, avalanches, and rubber deceleration mats for tubing, I find that a parked snowmobile is not analogous to those examples because a snowmobile is not part of the on-course terrain of the sport.

The court also found that even if the snowmobile parked on a run was not an inherent risk, the statute required skiers to stay away from vehicles and equipment on the slopes. “Each skier shall stay clear of snow-grooming equipment, all vehicles, lift towers, signs, and any other equipment on the ski slopes and trails.”

The plaintiff’s argument was the violation of the statute was failing to properly for failing to properly outfit the snowmobile.

Plaintiff clarifies in her Response that the negligence per se claim is for violation of section 33-44-108(3), which requires snowmobiles operated “on the ski slopes or trails of a ski area” to be equipped with “[o]ne lighted headlamp, one lighted red tail lamp, a brake system maintained in operable condition, and a fluorescent flag at least forty square inches mounted at least six feet above the bottom of the tracks.”

Plaintiff also argued the statute was violated because the snowmobile was not visible for 100′ as required by the statute. However, this put the plaintiff in a catch 22. If the plaintiff was not a vehicle, then it was a man-made object which was an inherent risk of skiing. If she pleads the snowmobile was a vehicle and not properly equipped, then she failed to stay away from it.

Neither approach leads Plaintiff to her desired result. Steamboat correctly asserts that if the snow-mobile is characterized as a man-made object, Plaintiff’s impact with it was an inherent danger and risk pursuant to section, and Steamboat is immune to liability for the resulting injuries. If Plaintiff intends for her Claim to proceed under the theory that Steamboat violated section 33-44-108(3) by failing to equip the snowmobile with the proper lighting, she did not plead that the parked vehicle lacked the required items, and mentions only in passing in her Response that the vehicle “did not have an illuminated head lamp or trail lamp because it was not operating.”

The final claim was based on respondeat superior.

Plaintiff has alleged that the Steamboat employee was acting within the scope of her employment when she parked the snowmobile at the base of Bashor Bowl. See id. (“Under the theory of respondeat superior, the question of whether an employee is acting within the scope of the employment is a question of fact”)

Because the respondeat claim was derivative of the prior claims, and they were dismissed, the respondeat superior claim must fail. Derivative means that the second claim is wholly based on the first claim. If the first claim fails, the second claim fails.

So Now What?

This is another decision in a long line of decisions expanding the risks a skier assumes on Colorado slopes. The inherent risks set forth in Colorado Skier Safety Act are examples of the possible risks a skier can assume, not the specific set of risks.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Copyright 2018 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law


Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law


Mobile Site:

By Recreation Law    James H. Moss

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom,, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Steamboat, Steamboat Ski Area, Colorado Skier Safety Act, snowmobile,


Colorado Snowpack is Extremely Dangerous and getting Worse

FEBRUARY 2018 ISSUE |Large & Dangerous
We Have a Deep Problem
After a dry start to the winter, the snowpack in the Colorado mountains is rapidly increasing. The increase in snow over the last few weeks is building a thick slab on top of a weak foundation. This weak layer of snow that sits near the ground has been producing avalanches for most of the winter. With a thicker slab, the avalanches are now much larger. Avalanches are breaking at the ground and are hundreds, sometimes more than a thousand, feet wide. If you get caught, it will be hard to survive.

These are very large Persistent and Deep Persistent Slab avalanches. These types of avalanches are especially dangerous as you may not see the usual signs of unstable snow that you rely on: shooting cracks, rumbling collapses or recent avalanches. The only way to stay safe from these avalanches is to avoid terrain over 30 degrees in the areas that can produce these types of destructive avalanches. The snowpack this winter is unlike the past few winters. The steep slope that you rode safely last season or last month, may now be dangerous.

This is an important time to take a step back and carefully consider the terrain you want to ride. These conditions could last for the rest of the winter. Many of the big avalanche paths that you see in Colorado were formed during avalanche years like this one. Watch the video below and share with your friends. Always get the forecast before you head into the backcountry.

Cheers to CAIC with Coffee!
There is nothing better than a hot cup of coffee before, during and after your backcountry ventures! Bivouac Coffee is our official coffee partner for the 2017-2018 season! When you purchase their delicious coffee beans you are directly supporting your avalanche center.

10% of all Bivouac Coffee purchases support avalanche awareness and forecasting throughout Colorado.

Let’s cheers to that! Visit Bivouac Coffee’s website today.

Upcoming Events

Down for Change!

Sunday, March 4
Breckenridge Ski Resort
How many vertical feet can you ski or ride in a day? Take part in this competition and benefit CAIC while doing it! Learn more by clicking here.


On-Snow Pop Up!

Saturday, March 3
Location TBD
Join Friends of CAIC and Bivouac Coffee at one of the popular backcountry trailheads along I-70 for some coffee, swag and more. Check back in soon for more information!


WP Beers & Cheers

Sunday, March 18
Hideaway Park Brewery, Winter Park
Coming at you, Winter Park! Join us for beers and cheers in support of your avalanche center. Check back in soon for more information!


Party for a Purpose

Saturday, March 24
Highlands Alehouse, Aspen
Mark your calendars, Aspen! The party you love is back thanks to Strafe Outerwear. Check back in soon for more information!

Featured Follower
Tag us for a chance to be featured!
@friendsofcaic | #friendsofcaic
“Breaking on through to the weekend. Plenty of new snow and hidden dangers in the backcountry so be safe. Know b4 you go!”
– JJ, @peter_deepinpow
Want to Give Back?
Whether you use the CAIC forecasts every day or once a year, please consider making a donation to support avalanche forecasting and education in Colorado. A donation of even $10 helps us continue to improve our programs. Please donate today and support your avalanche center.
Donate Now
Copyright © 2017 Friends of Colorado Avalanche Information Center, All rights reserved.

Our email address is:

Want to change how you receive these emails?


Backcountry skier sues in Small Claims Court in San Miguel County Colorado for injuries she received when a backcountry snowboarder triggered an Avalanche that injured her.

The defendant snowboarder had agreed not to descend the slope until the lower parties had called and told them they had cleared the area. The defendant failed to wait and admitted he had triggered the Avalanche.

State: Colorado, San Miguel Small Claims Court

Plaintiff: Jayleen Troutwin

Defendant: Christopher Parke

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence

Defendant Defenses:

Holding: for the plaintiff

Year: 2017


Under Colorado law, you can create a duty when you agree to act or not act. Here the defendant created a duty when he agreed not to descend the slope until he had received a phone call from the first party that they had cleared the danger area.

This is a first of its kind suit that I have found, and the judge’s decision in this case is striking in its clarity and reasoning. At the same time, it might open up backcountry injuries to more litigation. The facts that created this lawsuit are specific in how the duty was created, and that will be rare in 90% of the backcountry accidents.

I have attached the written decision of the court to this analysis, and I encourage you to read it.

Facts: taken from the complaint, the CAIC Report and The Order of Judgment

The plaintiff was skiing out of bounds in Bear Creek outside of the Telluride Ski Area. While skiing they ran into the defendant and his friend. The defendant and friend were not ready to go, so the plaintiff and friend took off. The plaintiff and friend stated they would call the defendant when they were out of the danger zone at the bottom of the chute they both intended to ski.

The defendant and his friend did not wait, and triggered an avalanche. Plaintiff was still repelling when the avalanche hit her sweeping her off the rappel, and she fell 1200 feet down the slope riding the avalanche. She survived on top of the snow with several injuries.

The defendant admitted that it was his fault, and he would pay for the plaintiff’s medical bills. He made one payment and no others. The Plaintiff’s medical bills were in excess of $50,000. However, she still skied out after the incident.

The plaintiff sued the defendant in Small Claims Court. Small Claims court is for parties without attorneys, and the judge can grant a maximum of $7500.00 in damages.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

Normally, participants in sporting or outdoor recreation events assume the risks inherent in the sport. Avalanches are an inherent risk of skiing. The Colorado Supreme Court has stated that in Colorado Supreme Court rules that an inbounds Avalanche is an inherent risk assumed by skiers based upon the Colorado Skier Safety Act.

Under most circumstances, the plaintiff in this situation would have assumed the risk of her injuries. What sets this decision apart was the agreement at the top of the mountain between the two groups of people. One group agreed not to descend into the chute until the other group had cleared the chute.

This creates an assumed duty on the part of the defendant. By agreeing to the acts, the plaintiff assumed a duty to the defendant.

The assumed duty doctrine “must be predicated on two factual findings.” “A plaintiff must first show that the defendant, either through its affirmative acts or through a promise to act, undertook to render a service that was reasonably calculated to prevent the type of harm that befell the plaintiff.” “Second, a plaintiff must also show either that he relied on the defendant to perform the service or that defendant’s undertaking increased plaintiff’s risk.”

This assumed duty was done specifically to prevent injuries to the other skiers. The skiers also relied on this agreement when they skied down the slope.

This Court, therefore, finds that the Defendant assumed a duty of care in agreeing not to ski his chosen route while Troutwin and Hope were still skiing theirs in an effort to avoid a skier-triggered avalanche.

Thus, when the defendant started down the chute, he violated the agreed to duty of care to the skiers below them.

The next issue to prove negligence in this case is causation or proximate causation. The breach of the duty by the defendant must be related to the injury the plaintiff received. The court simply found but for the actions of the defendant, the injuries of the plaintiff would not have occurred.

The defendant admitted triggering the avalanche, and the avalanche is what swept the plaintiff off the rappel.

The defendant raised two defenses at trial. Comparative Negligence and Assumption of Risk.

Comparative negligence asks, “did the actions of the plaintiff create or expose the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of harm?” Comparative negligence is applied to reduce the damages the plaintiff might receive if both parties are at fault in causing the injuries to the plaintiff.

The defendant argued the plaintiff assumed the risk of her injuries and was a partial cause of her injuries when she did not use a backup device on her rappel.

The court looked at the failure to use a backup system on rappel as the same as failing to wear a seatbelt in a car or failing to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. Both have been determined by the Colorado Supreme Court to not be a component contributing to comparative negligence.

The reasoning behind this is simple. The plaintiff should not be required to determine in advance the negligence of any third party. Meaning it is not the injured parties’ duty, in advance to determine and then deal with any possible negligence of any other person. If that was the case, you could never leave the house because you never guessed what injury you might have received.

…[f]irst, a defendant should not diminish the consequences of his negligence by the failure of the injured party to anticipate defendant’s negligence in causing the accident itself. Second, a defense premised on an injured party’s failure to wear a protective helmet would result in a windfall to tortfeasors who pay only partially for the harm their negligence caused. Third, allowing the defense would lead to a veritable battle of experts as to what injuries would have or have not been avoided had the plaintiff been wearing a helmet.

The court found that neither comparative negligence, nor assumption of the risk applied to these facts and were not a defense to the plaintiff’s claims.

The court also added a section to its opinion about the future of backcountry skiing and the Policy issues this decision might create. It is well-written and worth quoting here.

51. This Court has determined that Parke’s duty of care is a result of his express assumption of that duty, rather than broader policy concerns that are typically addressed in protracted discussions of legal duty. It is nevertheless, worth noting that given the increasing popularity of backcountry skiing and skiing into Bear Creek, in particular, the risk of skiers triggering avalanches above one-another is likely increasing. In situations where skiers have no knowledge of whether a group is below, the legal outcome of an accident may be different than the result reached here. A liability rule that thus encourages skiers to avoid investigating whether their descent might pose a risk to those below feels averse to sound public policy. Communication and coordination between groups of backcountry skiers is surely good practice.

52. But meaningful communication is not necessarily impossible in these circumstances. This Court is swayed by the availability of radios like that which Troutwin and Hope carried. These radios are a communication option that appears more reliable than cellular telephones. Perhaps if they become more prevalent, more communication between parties will take place. And it follows and is foreseeable that other communications platforms or safety standards will develop to address this specific risk. The liability rule discussed here does not necessarily foreclose those developments.

53. The ethics and liability rules associated with backcountry skiing are likely to continue to evolve as its popularity increases and safety standards emerge. The law is likely to continue to evolve in kind.

It is refreshing to see a judge look at the broader aspect of his or her decision as it applies to an evolving sport.

The court found that the plaintiff suffered $9,660.00 in damages. The jurisdictional limit a Colorado Small Claims court can issue is a maximum of $7,500.00, which is the amount the plaintiff was awarded.

So Now What?

If you say you are going to do something, do it. If you say you are going to wait, wait. It is that simple.

More importantly, litigation has now entered the realm of backcountry skiing. Will it create more litigation, probably? Backcountry skiers who have no health insurance or no income while they recover will be looking for a way to get hospital bill collectors off their phone and pizza coming to the front door. Worse, health insurance companies will look at a way through their subrogation clauses to try to recover the money they pay out on behalf of their insureds.

At the same time, based upon these facts, the defendant was the sole cause of the plaintiff’s injuries not because he triggered an avalanche, but because he agreed not to trigger an avalanche.

Documents Attached:

Notice, Claim and Summons to Appear for a Trial.   


Trial Exhibits 1 through 9

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

Exhibit 5

Exhibit 6

Exhibit 7

Exhibit 8

Exhibit 9

Order of Judgment

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Copyright 2017 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law


By Recreation Law    James H. Moss

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom,, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,

10th Annual CAIC Benefit Bash – Get your tickets now!

Tickets are selling quickly. Do you have yours?

Join the Friends of CAIC on Saturday, December 2, at the Riverwalk Center in Breckenridge and support the CAIC in their continued efforts in avalanche forecasting and education throughout Colorado. Get your tickets now before they sell out.

Saturday, December 2
10th Annual CAIC Benefit Bash
Breckenridge Riverwalk Center
5:00pm – 10:00pm
Tickets and more information:

Here are few things you have to look forward to:

We look forward to seeing you on December 2!

2 People have already died in Avalanches this Year. Sign up and Support the Colorado Avalanche Information Center


Backcountry Avalanche Forecast
Front Range



We continue to receive reports of avalanches breaking into old, weak snow. Combine this with widespread shooting cracks and large thunderous collapses, and we have plenty of good evidence that dangerous avalanche conditions exist on north and east-facing slopes at higher elevations. The most suspect slopes now have freshly form wind-drifted slabs from the 1 to 4 inches of new snowfall, stacked on top of older early season snow. The slopes with the best coverage are also the slopes where you’re most likely to trigger an avalanche. You can trigger avalanches from a distance and from below, so give this terrain a wide buffer to address the unpredictability.

we now have slabs 1 to 2 feet thick on east-facing slopes, and you might be able to trigger an avalanches in just the freshly drifted snow even in areas that don’t harbor more deeply buried weak layers. Drum-like or hollow sounds underfoot are signs of this problem. You can reduce your risk by avoiding slopes where you observe active wind loading.

Persistent Slab


What You Need to Know About These Avalanches Persistent Slab avalanches can be triggered days to weeks after the last storm. They often propagate across and beyond terrain features that would otherwise confine Wind and Storm Slab avalanches. In some cases they can be triggered remotely, from low-angle terrain or adjacent slopes. Give yourself a wide safety buffer to address the uncertainty.

Wind Slab


What You Need to Know About These Avalanches Wind Slab avalanches release naturally during wind events and can be triggered for up to a week after a wind event. They form in lee and cross-loaded terrain features. Avoid them by sticking to wind sheltered or wind scoured areas.

Weather Forecast for 11,000ft

Issued Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 6:33 AM by Brian Lazar

Wednesday Wednesday Night Thursday
Temperature (ºF) 35 to 40 25 to 30 40 to 45
Wind Speed (mph) 15 to 25 15 to 25 15-25 G50
Wind Direction WNW WNW WNW
Sky Cover Mostly Cloudy Partly Cloudy Partly Cloudy
Snow (in) 0 to 1 0 0

© 2008-2014 Colorado Avalanche Information Center. All rights reserved.

If you work in the Ski Industry you need to be a Member of the American Avalanche Association. Upcoming Avalanche Training for the 2017-18 Season Announced.

Hello American Avalanche Association (A3) Members & Friends,

A3 and our alliance of six professional course providers are excited to announce this season’s Pro course offerings. We have been working collaboratively for years to develop a program of professional avalanche education in the United States. Most recently, on October 20th, A3 professional course providers met in Golden, Colorado to iron out some of the last details of this season’s course rollout. As a result, we are now proud to introduce a distinct program of high-quality and consistent professional training designed for the advancement of our nation’s avalanche workers.

If you are considering a Pro course this season, the following course providers are progressing through a multi-year A3 Pro Training review process:

Alaska Avalanche School – Pro 1, Pro 1 Bridge

American Avalanche Institute – Pro 1, Pro 1 Bridge, Pro 2

American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education (AIARE) – Pro 1, Pro 1 Bridge, Pro 2

Colorado Mountain College Leadville – Pro 1 – CMC Avalanche Science Certificate format

National Avalanche School – Pro 1 – NAS format

Silverton Avalanche School – Pro 1, Pro 1 Bridge

Please contact each of these Pro Course Providers directly about schedules and enrollment on a Pro Training course this winter. At this time, A3 recognizes Pro 1, Pro 1 Bridge, and Pro 2 courses from the six providers above who are proceeding through a rigorous review process. Our goal is to hone course quality and consistency amongst this initial group of pro providers before potentially expanding the program in the future. Other courses may still provide valuable training and/or continuing education, however, they are not recognized as part of the A3 Pro Training Program. For general questions about the A3 Pro Training Program you can visit the a3. Read on for more information on the new Pro courses…

Who should take a new Pro Course? And why?

A3 Pro Training courses – currently, Pro 1, Pro 1 Bridge, and Pro 2 – offer valuable, relevant skill development for avalanche workers at a variety of points in their careers. These programs provide a clear path for avalanche workers just entering the industry, as well as serve as excellent resources for seasoned professionals to gain the most current updates and refresh their skills. All A3 Pro Training courses:

  • Meet or exceed collaboratively designed, industry-driven skill and proficiency guidelines.
  • Are taught by top educators who also have a solid background of operational avalanche experience.
  • Teach, coach, and evaluate students to a consistent standard.

Pro 1is appropriate for entry-level avalanche professionals newly employed or seeking employment within the industry as well as seasoned avalanche professionals who wish to refresh their skills and get up to speed with current practices. The course covers skills and proficiencies that enable an individual to be a contributing member of an operational avalanche program, including making and documenting relevant observations to SWAG standards, managing personal and group risk in avalanche terrain, and contributing informed opinions during risk management discussions. Find more specific Pro 1 course details here.

Pro 1 Bridge is appropriate for individuals who recently took a Level 2 course and/or regularly apply snow and avalanche observation skills to SWAG standards in an operational setting and wish to demonstrate proficiency at the Pro 1 Level. To be set up for success, students should have their SWAG observation skills well-honed prior to this condensed course and be ready for rigorous evaluation. **Students who took a Level 2 course a long time ago and/or have not been applying snow and avalanche observation skills to SWAG standards in an operational setting are encouraged to consider a full Pro 1 course.** Review the Pro 1 Bridge evaluation criteria here.

Pro 2 is designed for developing avalanche professionals with several seasons of applied professional experience as well as seasoned professionals who are looking to develop skills applicable to leadership roles within their operation. The course covers skills and proficiencies that enable an individual to step into a leadership role within an operational avalanche program. A focus on operational risk management and decision-making skills such as forecasting, risk mitigation strategies, and professional communication. Find more specific Pro 2 course details here.

Again, please do not hesitate to reach out to A3 and/or individual Pro Course Providers with questions.


A3 & The Pro Training Provider Alliance



P.O. Box 248 * Victor, Idaho 83455 * Phone: (307) 699- 2049

a3 *


Colorado Avalanche Information Center has a new Monthly Email, sign up now

AUGUST 2017 ISSUE |Winter is coming…
Winter is coming and our 2017-2018 season is going to be big. See below for exciting updates, upcoming events and more.
First thing’s first…
You’re probably wondering, ‘How did I get on this email list?‘ We are emailing you because you have been a loyal supporter of Friends of CAIC. You have either donated to us, attended our events, or are just awesome.

We are excited to bring you ‘The Monthly Dump‘, a seasonal monthly email that will highlight what is happening around the state. We will promote our events, feature avalanche problems and weather patterns, and keep you in the know. This first issue is simple — as winter approaches, more content will be shared here.

Upcoming Events

Bentgate’s Ski Season Kickoff Party

Thursday, Sept. 21
American Mountaineering Center, Golden
Click here to learn more and purchase your ticket.


Mountain Meteorology Workshop

Tuesday – Thursday, Sept. 26 – 28
Colorado Mountain College, Leadville
Click here to learn more and purchase your ticket.


Colorado Snow & Avalanche Workshop

Friday, October 6
Riverwalk Center, Breckenridge
Click here to learn more and purchase your ticket.


The 10th Annual Benefit Bash

Saturday, December 2
Riverwalk Center, Breckenridge
SAVE THIS DATE! You will not want to miss this year’s Bash.

Featured Follower
Tag us for a chance to be featured!
@friendsofcaic | #friendsofcaic
@eliotrosenberg : I had a dream last night. Winter is coming.
Want to give back?
Consider donating to Friends of CAIC! Your gift supports CAIC’s backcountry forecasting program and avalanche education throughout Colorado. Help us help you stay safe – donate by using the button below.
Donate Now
Connect with us!
Our Website
Our Website
Email Us
Email Us
Copyright © 2017 Friends of Colorado Avalanche Information Center, All rights reserved.

Our emailing address is:

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.