 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Slikedges, OK thanks for the comment. Some might say that transceivers are misused everyday by people who don't know how to use them. Dangerous to have a tool in your hands that you think will save lives but when it comes down to it, you really don't know what to do. We (Cambridge Ski Safety) and anyone that sells any mountain safety equipment have a responsibility to inform their customers about its suitability. After that, it the responsibility of the owner to use it as appropriate. We could extend that point to many other consumer items on the market. The On-Piste Emitter is designed for children skiing on-piste only, those who cannot perform a search anyway, so this is not selfish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
So you're restricting sales and application to the under 5s? Because I'm pretty sure that 5+ year olds could play electronic hide and seek with a modern digital transceiver and a modicum of training.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
cambridgeski, please don't miss my questions now at the bottom of the first page where the pagination jumped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
fatbob, I know they can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
ami in berlin, your points are very valid but the fact is that if an avalanche did cross a ski run and bury (lets say) a child, then it's better to be protected than not...right? You say avalanche terrain but of course we are not saying that you are in avalanche terrain when on-piste. But accidents happen, they do and this can catch people out. In your scenario the piste patrol would arrive within a few minutes and be able to search with a device that can locate the emitter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
fatbob, ok fair points, but we are not stating anything different to that. Our sales plan does not include scaremongering - we want to inform and provide choices, if we do that well then it's up to people / parents to decide for themselves. I understand your analogy about the guns, but that's implying that our product can put people in danger and this is not the case despite comments to the contrary. This device is for children on-piste who would not normally wear any other safety device.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| cambridgeski wrote: |
| When an avalanche occurs on-piste, the rescue services would expect to be on the site within 2 to 3 minutes.. |
I am sorry Cambridge Ski Safety but that is simply untrue....
Avalanche beacons depends on immediate companion rescue by other group members. Spending time to alert the ski patrol, describe your exact location, and then wait for them to arrive is simply not an option (in some resorts just ascending a medium length lift takes 10-15 minutes! by which time the victim is probably dead).
Your product has no purpose - and you have been told this multiple times. Not just by myself by from several other profesionals who returned your samples with clear feedback as 'not fit for purposes'. Yet you still come back trying to justify its existance, and flaws, with misinformation.
If worried parents actually only have £50 to spend then a probe & shovel are a much better investment than your half-finished product.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Megamum, thanks again for the questions! Yes I think an adult with his/her children can carry a transceiver if they want to but the fact is that on-piste the rescue services are there very quickly, within a few minutes. This means that they will be the ones locating anyone with the on-piste emitter device as they do carry the suitable equipment. It's very hard to answer questions about every possible scenario that could occur but the point is that I would rather be wearing a device if buried in an avalanche than not.
fatbob, Just following on from that, I don't believe we can rely on children to locate avalanche victims, whether on or off-piste. Perhaps in a controlled situation you can train a child to locate and find a signal, but surely in a real life situation, expecting a child to do that is wrong. But we are not restricting to under 5's
I hope that helps or at least answers your questions to some extent and I will continue to try and do so...thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| cambridgeski wrote: |
| ami in berlin, your points are very valid but the fact is that if an avalanche did cross a ski run and bury (lets say) a child, then it's better to be protected than not...right? You say avalanche terrain but of course we are not saying that you are in avalanche terrain when on-piste. But accidents happen, they do and this can catch people out. In your scenario the piste patrol would arrive within a few minutes and be able to search with a device that can locate the emitter. |
Avalanche terrain is anywhere that an avalanche can occur. That you fail to grasp this shows that you are unqualified to be producing equipment in the avalanche safety field.
Those few minutes (and frankly you are being optimistic here) that it takes the ski patrol to arrive while two children are standing on the side of a slide path holding useless pieces of plastic while their parents are buried beneath them (or somewhere else, how could they know without a working search function?) could be the difference between life and death. And let's hope those soon-to-be orphans despite the fact that you have determined them to be unable to operate a proper beacon will nevertheless have the where-with-all to have turned their "Emitters" off before the now arriving ski patrol spends the few remaining precious minutes chasing the signals being "Emitted" from those childen.
But forget all that. Forget that your product is insufficent and relies on the irrational fears of overly anxious parents for sales. Leave that aside for a moment. Instead, please explain how your product is different from the much cheaper Recco technology that is already widespread and installed at most resorts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cambridgeski, you say
| Quote: |
I would rather be wearing a device if buried in an avalanche than not.
|
Personally I'd rather be wearing a device if buried in an avalanche if I knew that there was someone nearby who had something that could find me. Lets hope the avalanche is selective and only buries those with emit only devices and leaves people with ones that can find them behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Haggis Trap, thanks but what I'd say to your comment initially is that firstly this is an on-piste emitter. It's nothing to do with off-piste skiing. For example, in Tignes the ski patrol is within 3 minutes of any 'pisted' area, ask them and they will clarify this. Surely having a device that sends out a signal is better than having nothing at all.
As far as any professionals sending our product back or providing the feedback as you state, I can categorically say this has not happened. We are not providing any misinformation at all, in fact we want to be completely open about what we are doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Lets be honest... The transmit section of an avalanche beacon is very easy & cheap to implement. (its just a 457KHz oscialltor connected to an antenna). The search section is more complex and expensive to implement.
The simple fact is that Cambridge Ski Safety have a half finished product, with no real purpose. Some of the guff he is still coming out with to justify its existance is just comedy.
My suspicion is that he is some 'fred in a shed' with 2000 spare units that he needs to shift at any cost ? Please do everyone a favor and just give up on the 'transmit' only idea. Its a horrible idea : it wont save lives, and it certainly wont make you any money either.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Sun 24-03-13 23:53; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cambridgeski, You didn't answer all the questions:
Do you have any figures relating to how many you sold prior to the rebranding and how many have been sold since?
So you ski recreationally with your own kids. Would you also agree that the device would be hopeless unless a receiver was immediately available - with every minute being vital in a burial situation, how do you feel about needing to potentially wait several minutes for someone to arrive with a receiver if your own children were buried. Or do you carry a receiving transceiver when your children wear their transmitting devices? How do you think your children would feel if you were buried carrying the receiving device (assuming you wear one) if they could do nothing towards searching for you in the first few minutes? I don't know how old they are, but if only carried emitters they couldn't even shout that they had a search tool if someone knew how to use one.
I'd also be interested to know why you didn't build in the search capability - how much would including the functionality have added to the cost of the device?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| cambridgeski wrote: |
| For example, in Tignes the ski patrol is within 3 minutes of any 'pisted' area, ask them and they will clarify this. |
Your are living in cuckoo land if you think ski patrol can reliably be called to the site of an avalanche within 3 minutes. Remember they need to be alerted, the location described, then ride the lift to get there before the search or digging even starts. All of this in a mountain environment where phone signal may be weak....
| cambridgeski wrote: |
| As far as any professionals sending our product back or providing the feedback as you state, I can categorically say this has not happened. We are not providing any misinformation at all, in fact we want to be completely open about what we are doing. |
I actually spoke to a respected profesional this afternoon that returned your Snow-Be samples in the autumn with clear feedback as to why it was unsuitable. So I guess that means one us is telling lies.... ?  Send me a PM if you need reminded of their name....
Anyway - I am out of this debate because there is not much more I can add.
Have spent far too much time explaining multiple reasons why this product is dumb and has no purpose.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
cambridgeski,
I don't really want to get into whether you should or shouldn't be selling a product, the market will decide. I don't think I'll be buying one of your transmitters, but I do think perhaps your enthuesiasm for improving snow safety could be suitably channelled...
As an experiment I might teach my (just) 5 year old how to work my Barryvox - since even I can work it I suspect he will have little trouble! 
However I will agree with your sentiment that it would be most unfair and unexpected for a child to carry out a search and actually find you, so here are a few thoughts:
- Take your product and actually make a _tranceiver_ so easy to use that a kid could use it (I think limiting yourself to the lowest common denominator analogue signal is a limitation of all tranceivers)
- Differentiate yourself. Selling something marginally cheaper than a full on tried and tested tranceiver with less functionality is not really doing this.
Unlike CH2O I wont be taking my son into serious avalanche terrain (less need to in N. America) until he really gets it and can make reasoned decisions himself, I do however take him tree skiing quite a bit, and this has it's own different risks (which I work hard on to make sure he does get already). How about you knock up some sort of tracker to keep tabs on friends/family in the trees, (perhaps with an alarm if they stay stopped, are upside down, etc) where I think statistics will bear out the risk is considerably higher than that of being caught in an inbound avalanche on low/intermediate terrain.
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Fri 29-03-13 7:32; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
... or piste tcas? Thats another thing that worries me a bit more than avalanches skiing on-piste with kids...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
cool - I'm really getting going with my ingenuity now!(?) while I'm at it:
- how about a remote parent operated avalanche airbag?
- better still a remote operated set of airbags/zorb ball.
- Parent operated ski brakes.
- erm, thats it for now...
(sorry for distracting from the serious purpose of this thread  )
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Mon 25-03-13 5:38; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
ps I really do want the tree tracker thing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| stuarth wrote: |
cool - I'm really getting going with my ingenuity now!(?) while I'm at it:
- how about a remote parent operated avalanche airbag?
|
This already exists - ABS do a remote activation handle (although no pack for small kids as far as I'm aware)
As to tracking kids in trees you could try a loc8tor device some of their kids devices do much of what you suggest although no ability to say if they are upside down in a tree well
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
OK. Having listened to the owner I don't think his justification for the existence of the device is sufficient. I don't believe you can divorce on piste intent from off piste use so tritely and if the "can't search" logic is followed then there's even less reason to selfishly buy a transmit only device. So unless and until respected avalanche professionals come forward to support the product as a positive step forward in avalanche safety and any meaningful stats are produced re risk levels I'll continue to believe this is at best a charlatan product relying on gullible consumers. At worst it's corrosive to avalanche safety principles more generally and accordingly I'll continue to think poorly of retailers that choose to stock it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| cambridgeski wrote: |
| Our sales plan does not include scaremongering |
Talk of being hit by an on-piste avalanche is scaremongering though. The chances are miniscule and getting smaller all the time. You have created a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist (as they'd say on Dragons' Den). I'm out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Unlike CH2O I wont be taking my son into serious avalanche terrain
|
Nor will I, as you put it. All snow can avalanche. And i will not take any risks with his life, I see a hardlie approach, knowing my son to be a worse method of risk management.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Megamum, coming back to your questions! Time is crucial as you say and so without wearing a device that emits a signal your chances seriously diminish, this makes the device in that situation crucial, not useless. The difference when skiing off-piste is that the rescue services are not immediately available, that's why a transceiver with a search function is the only suitable piece of equipment. But, on-piste, the rescue services will get to the scene and take control of the situation. As far as waiting for them to arrive, I'd rather have the knowledge that when the rescue services get there, they will be able to locate them much faster. If I was to become buried on-piste then I would expect the same response and would have confidence in a trained professional being able to locate my position quickly.
Rescue services are highly trained professionals that know how to locate buried avalanche victims quickly. As we are talking about scenarios on-piste, I'd put my trust in a professional over a child with a transceiver device. I'm sure in a real life situation involving and avalanche, anyone, especially a child, could be effected badly by what confronts them. That's why the emitter relies on the rescue services.
When the rescue services arrive on a scene involving an avalanche they would clear the area anyway. They would then be able to search for any buried victims without interference from multiple signals. If there was an injured child with an emitter device that was not buried, then the rescue services could switch that off quickly.
Sales figures - with all due respect, I don't think it's relevant even though I'm sure there is a point to your question, but I'm not prepared to divulge that information. Sorry Megamum
To address the point regarding the cost of the search function which others have also mentioned. Yes, it is more expensive to produce this device.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cambridgeski, what is the incidence of on-piste avalanches? Presumably you did research on this so do you have numbers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
From pistehors :
"the average response time of the search and rescue services which is 45 minutes in France. This is the time to process the emergency call, warm the motor of a helicopter, fly to and locate the scene of the accident then deploy the search and rescue services. Two thirds of avalanche victims will succumb in that critical half hour"
http://pistehors.com/backcountry/wiki/Avalanches/Avalanche-Survival-Curve
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
cambridgeski, in the incredibly unlikely event of an on-piste avalanche companion rescue is still the way to go. You'll be edging out of the "15 minute window" to dig someone out who is buried reasonably deeply even with competent people on scene, who witnessed the accident, as per avalanches off-piste.
In a real on-piste situation with your device you have the lag time between the incident occurring and the incident being reported. Plus the response time, plus the time it takes to work out exactly what has happened, corral transmitters and prevent further traffic coming past (in case they are transmitting) you are already going to be well outside of the best chance of survival by the time the victim has been dug out. It also requires many more ski patrol guys than are going to be able to respond within the cited 3 minutes, although I can believe there might be enough ski patrol around for one first responder to arrive in that time (after the incident has been reported) it is a pitifully small amount of man power for such an incident.
Your device is useless for the purposes you are marketing it for and your sales pitch for it relies on scaremongering about risk to the ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cambridgeski, Sales figures - I was just interested in how many of the devices might already be floating around sold before you tried to tell people that they were unsuitable for off-piste use. Did you follow up on all those previously sold to update the users with this vital information?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Hi Bode Swiller, thanks for your question. The question was asked by fatbob earlier on and we provided an answer to that, but essentially the fact that they happen at all is why we developed the emitter.
Haggis Trap, this article, although very informative, is talking about skiers who get caught in avalanches off-piste. This is why skiers who ski off-piste should carry the correct safety equipment that enables companion rescue. The response for the rescue services attending an incident on-piste is a completely different scenario and they are there within minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
^ Cambridgeski - 2 questions
1. Have any ski patrol or highly trained rescue professionals that you talk about officially endorsed your product ? (I know of one that returned your samples in the autumn as 'not fit for purpose'.)
2. What do you think of the sensible decision by Snow & Rock (etc) to stop stocking your product due to negative feedback ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
meh, thanks and your point is well made but the fact is that people/children who ski on-piste do not wear avalanche transceivers so if they were to be buried they would have less chance of survival than if they were wearing an emitter.
As far as you say about scaremongering the risk to the ignorant, as previously stated, we have a responsibility to inform consumers about the suitability of the product and be clear what its use is. People are well informed and capable of making decisions based upon the information provided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
cambridgeski, So assuming that you practice what you sell/preach and only put a snowbe on your kids, are you happy that you won't be doing you head in standing there waiting for the emergency services to arrive if your kids are under 10 foot of snow and you can't do anything in the meantime? I'd be very interested to know if you personally carry a proper dual function device when your kids wear the emitter only snowbe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| cambridgeski wrote: |
| The response for the rescue services attending an incident on-piste is a completely different scenario and they are there within minutes. |
So you'll have stats to back this up? I should have challenged earlier but you said on-piste avalanches go unreported, I'd have thought they are the most reported and widely circulated events, at least for learning purposes among the professional community who are trying to prevent them ever happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
^ Cambridgeski - 2 questions (again!).
1. Have any ski patrol or highly trained rescue professionals officially endorsed your product ?
I know of one that returned your samples in the autumn as 'not fit for purpose'....
2. What do you think of the sensible decision by Snow & Rock (etc) to stop stocking your product due to negative feedback ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| cambridgeski wrote: |
| Hi Bode Swiller, thanks for your question. The question was asked by fatbob earlier on and we provided an answer to that, but essentially the fact that they happen at all is why we developed the emitter. |
Well, several thousand meteors hit the Earth each and every day but we don't walk around with crash helmets on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
So, buy them for your kids when the ski on piste, expalian why they wear them and as a "growing" aid they may only ski off piste when they can correctly use a proper search device, seems a nice way to introduce the system and develop safe thinking in the young.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haggis Trap, sure...at this point we do not have any official endorsement from ski patrol professionals but we do have written testimonials stating the potential benefits that the emitter can provide. We have already in a previous post talked about the work required in this department. I will dm you!
I completely understand the reaction of Snow & Rock (etc) and they have obviously done the right thing at this stage. We also take all the comments seriously and that's why I am here to discuss and listen, but we must state our case whilst at the same time consider all the points that are being put forward. Fundamentally the main 2 arguments being put forward are that the device could be misused and that avalanches on-piste are rare - they are valid points and we have a responsibility to ensure the right information is provided and that the consumer has a responsibility to understand what they are using.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| cambridgeski wrote: |
| meh, thanks and your point is well made but the fact is that people/children who ski on-piste do not wear avalanche transceivers so if they were to be buried they would have less chance of survival than if they were wearing an emitter. |
That's because the risk of avalanche on piste is completely negligible. The fact remains that to stand a good chance of surviving such an incident you would need transceivers and companion rescue.
| cambridgeski wrote: |
| As far as you say about scaremongering the risk to the ignorant, as previously stated, we have a responsibility to inform consumers about the suitability of the product and be clear what its use is. People are well informed and capable of making decisions based upon the information provided. |
But the risk of avalanche on piste is completely negligible making your product redundant, I'm pretty sure you aren't marketing them on that basis! Not withstanding that it's not actually fit for purpose as per the above criteria regarding companion rescue.
Not only that but it distracts from safety issues that are more mundane but much more prevalent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
cambridgeski, there's a third point that an emit only device prevents the user from engaging in companion rescue which is an essential part of rescuing someone quickly from burial for them to have a good chance of survival. However the rarity of incidents is enough to make your product redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cambridgeski, to be constructive what you need to do to make a case for your product is the following:
1) Quantify the actual risk involved per skier day. Then you can tell people exactly what chance they have of actually needing your device.
2) Find out the actual response time from the time of an incident occurring until a properly equipped team arrive at the site. This needs to be from a variety of resorts in various countries as what is representative in one is not representative in all. Particularly when the only data you have is in the form of anecdote. This will tell you if an transmit only beacon is actually helpful in this very unlikely event of a slide hitting a piste.
Currently you don't seem by your responses here to have done any reasonable due diligence into your product other than a bit of transparent rebranding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
