clmbr wrote:sfgfan10 wrote:I'm not sure if that was a "I don't get why that's dangerous", or something else. It could be dangerous because if there's significant snow on the glaciers, the crevasses could be covered up, and as a solo mountaineer nobody would be able to self arrest me if I don't see one and fall in.
I believe you are making a joke here; otherwise, I would really discourage you from entering the glacier. It seems you have no idea what you are talking about.
On the "knowing what I'm doing part": I just got back from a 2 week trip on the Nelchina Glacier in Alaska. We traveled through ice, "firn zone", and roped travel on snow. We didn't get to climb anything due to a combination of bad weather and a particularly long crevasse (my guess is that it was at least 1/2 a mile long, and at least 10 feet wide in some parts. It covered almost the entire width of the glacier.).
What I meant is that between having patchy snow on a glacier and having the glacier completely covered with snow, I'd rather have patchy snow. That way I can just stay to the ice, where I can see all the crevasses from a distance. I recognize that it's worse to be on steep ice than steep snow if I fall, but that's a matter of keeping good footing, not putting myself in a dangerous position, etc. If the only choice is between a little snow covering the whole glacier and a lot of snow covering the whole glacier, then a lot of snow could be better because at least if I do step onto a crevasse, then the snow bridge (if there is one) might be able to hold me. If it's between patchy snow and snow covering the whole glacier, tho, I'd rather have patchy snow that I can just avoid.