 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Tim Brown, none of us here claims the experience or technical knowledge to know for certain if cellphones affect transceivers. Therefore, until further evidence appears I'm sure most everyone would ski off-piste adhering to the recommended practice of the day. However, it is perfectly reasonable to question the practice if it may actually be unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Mike Lawrie wrote: |
colinmcc, I see what you ( and the Pieps manual ) are saying, but it still doesn't add up for me.
You say you had problems when your group of searchers converged. Did the problems with the Pieps disappear if they all switched off their mobile phones? Because if that is not the case then I would suggest that the problem lies in having a bunch of other search devices (Barrivox or Marmot) which are receiving on the same frequency as your Pieps was doing. I could quite easily imagine that the IF radiated by the other receivers could cause your receiver to do unspecified things. Like de-tune itself. Possibly.
I would also say again, that if Pieps have known problems of this nature, and they throw their device onto the market anyway, then they are acting in a highly irresponsible manner! Imagine the litigation that would ensue if it turns out that people had died because their device didn't function in the presence of other common equipment! I think they would have a hard time pointing to the manual and saying that covered their asses |
Mike Lawrie,
Sorry if I wasn't clear, yes, it was the other transcievers in close proximity that were probably the main cause of some of the problems I encountered, but....
One of our Guides exams on that course in Dec was to find, dig up and turn off 4 buried transceivers, in a 100 ft by 100ft square plot, all buried 2ft deep. Only one searcher in the plot at a time.
On exam day we'd practiced this extensively over the past 10 days. No trouble I thought, at least I'll pass this one! 
We had one non-counting practice each in the morning before the pass or fail one, and although I followed the arrows on the Pieps in 'coarse' mode straight to the first one, at 2m from the burial the pieps changes to 'fine' search mode and the direction arrows then disapear and an audio tone/distance display occurs. You are then meant to bracket the area to reach the lowest distance display. Then probe.
Could I get a reliable distance indication? No. I tried moving the Pieps fast, slow, turning it off & back on. After 6 minutes of rather random probing I hit the target (A plastic tray) buried over the transmitter. Needless to say I failed to find all 4 in 10 mins. Lucky it wasn't the exam.
Seriously worried I left the test plot and headed back to the other folk on the course. "Hey Colin what the heck happened, on the booze last night etc?" was the general question. Puting my hand in my inner, fleece pocket a few minutes later to get something, what did I find? Yes, you guessed it, my cell phone & it was on.
I took it out, turned it off, left it with my lunch outside the test plot, and in the exam had all 4 found, dug up and turned off in just over 6 minutes. I was sweating buckets, thats a lot of digging and running! But I am convinced that the phone contibuted at least in part to my earlier problem.
I really have to rest my case at that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Tim Brown, I agree we're not talking about hospitals, planes, or petrol stations, but there are obvious parallels in that these places have all taken the view that mobile phones may interfere with the operation of various items of equipment in the past, but now seem to be coming around to the view that they actually don't. Surely the same may be true of the avalanche beacon manufacturers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
colinmcc, I can understand your sentiment with that experience. I'm sure I'd feel highly suspicious too. The problem is that, as I think you are already aware, you have not proved a causal relationship. I often have patients pitch up in clinic relating a medical complaint to a point in time when some irrelevant event occurred, and even when there is no conceivable logical or scientific basis for an association will not be persuaded that their disease is in fact entirely unrelated to that event, because the temporal relationship is so strong. This, of course, does not directly apply to your contention as there is a possible basis for it, but the only way of proving it is by doing a properly arranged test many times under specified conditions with cellphones on and off and seeing what the difference is. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
colinmcc, OK. I understand your suspicion about phones now, but as slikedges says I don't think it proves much more than that the Pieps device is not exactly 'ready for market' yet! One time it worked, the next it didn't. If you could repeat the experiment ten times in a row then I would start to think there might be some causal relationship.
Again I would say that Pieps must be acting in a highly irresponsible manner if they put a life saving device on the market which can easily be shown to be adversely affected by the presence of other avalanche transceivers. That is not a very comforting thought 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Haven't read the thread, so sorry if it's already been mentioned, but in response to the original question, if you wear tranceviers for on-piste skiing you are WAY TOO PARANOID!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...or possibly Japanese?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kramer, I frequently get accused of being a useless Scottish Prussian by virtue of the fact that anyone in Bavaria who isn't Bavarian is by definition Prussian. Only just learned to live with that, and now I get accused of being Japanese as well 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| ponder wrote: |
| Haven't read the thread, so sorry if it's already been mentioned, but in response to the original question, if you wear tranceviers for on-piste skiing you are WAY TOO PARANOID! |
I always wear mine. The point isn't a fear of avalanches on piste but just that you never know when you might find you want to go on a bit of off piste, even if you set out in the morning thinking you wouldn't (and in a white-out it is very easy to do it accidentally). And what would you do if you saw someone off-piste in an avalanche? You would just have to stand by while time ticked away for lives, till help eventually arrived, perhaps too late.
But really it is just a matter of getting into a habit. Then you won't one day stand at the top of a pwder slope and realise you haven't got it on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowball, all excellent points, worth thinking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I wear a transiever at all times, both for personal saftey and should there be an accident nearby, hopefully the more searching the better chances of a rescue. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I carry a transceiver at all times. Generally sits in my pack unless I am going to go off piste. The prime motivation is that I don't want to be in a position where I have to decide not to go off piste due to lack of kit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wear mine every time I go skiing too. One less decision to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Congratulation snowball, SMALLZOOKEEPER, Arno, Tim Brown, you're all, unlike ponder, definitely survivors in the snow safety game.
Perhaps ponder either Can't ski off piste? Never goes off piste? Hasn't a clue? Comments like his really make me wonder!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
colinmcc, Plus i like to be found by my buddies at apre ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I wear mine all the time I'm on snow, caused endless amusement as we were sat in a refuge in Alagna as some guys outside were doing peeps searches. they kept coming to the window near me, deciding it was wrong and wandering off again 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| colinmcc wrote: |
There was once an argument that Recco was just a body finder... No more! With cell phones and now satelite phones, in Switzerland (using the same article from the SAC as an example) 80% of mountain accident callouts are by cell phone, and the average time from call to REGA ( the rescue service) arriving is only 22 minutes (they quote 2003 for this, I suspect it is even better now!)
|
Colin
I believe from reading the other posts that you are a guide. In that case, I am sorry to be harsh but shame on you! You should know the figures. If arrival times are averaging 22 minutes, add to that location time and how long it takes to dig somebody out and what will you find? Statistically, you will find a body. From arrival you have 8 minutes to organise the search, find a location with the RECCO, probe for accuracy and dig out. 8 minutes to avoid the "30 minute" barrier. As has been said, RECCO is a body finding device.
I really get upset by the who RECCO thing and believe they shoudl be banned. I know the "something is better than nothing" arguement but in the case of RECCO, it isn't. Statistically, even with modern transportation and alert systems, if you rely on RECCO you are looking for a body. Over many years of off piste skiing, studying and learning about avalanche safety and rescue, I cannot remember any case of RECCO saving lives. I am sure there are some, but i don't know of any. In fact, I cannot remember ever reading an item about somebody found using RECCO. I have tried checking the French statistics and cannot find any over the last 6-7 years. Surely there must be some? I do, however, know of a high number of lives saved by wearing a transceiver.
I believe that RECCO sends out totally the wrong message. Choosing to wear RECCO (as opposed to "it came with the equipment") is an act of total selfishness. I am totally convinced that stopping the use of RECCO, coupled with a campaign to support that in resorts and elsewhere, would do more to raise the issue of safety than anything else.
The facts are simple. Wearing RECCO means finding bodies. Wearing a transceiver and skiing with people who know how to use them means a good chance of staying alive.
Colin
I would ski with you in my group any day! I want to ski with people who can find 4 "victims" in 10 minutes. I generally ski with groups of 4-7 people and everybody wears transceivers. More importantly, I want to know how many in the group know how to use the equipment. As I ski only with a guide, who does know, and usually with my brother who also practices, it means that 3 out of 7 (max) know and we always spread ourselves through the group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Hi Simon,
Thank for your thoughts and words both kind and, er, unkind. I too would be happy to ski with you!
Yes, I am a certified member at the highest level of the Canadian Avalanche Association, also of the Canadian Ski Guide Association, BASI and CSIA.
| SimonN wrote: |
| The facts are simple. Wearing RECCO means finding bodies. |
Easily proved wrong you'll be pleased to hear!
The first recorder live Recco recovery in Europe was in Lenzerheide, Switzerland in 1987. According to The American Avalanche Association newsletter I have on file here, the victim was a female, who had earlier that day been given a pair of reflectors and had stuck them in her pocket. That afternoon she was caught and buried. Dogs and probing failed to find her. Once the Recco detector arrived on site she was quickly located and recovered alive.
The most recent I know of was in Germany this last New Years eve. Dec 31st 2005.
Here's a report I grabbed off the web at the time:
Hinterstein, Germany (Ski Press)-On New Year’s Eve, a 29-year old German woman who was caught in an avalanche and trapped under 1.5 meters of
snow was pinpointed with the RECCO avalanche rescue system and recovered
alive after being completely buried for 45 minutes.
The woman and her partner had been snowshoeing to a backcountry cabin when the slide hit, swept her 150 meters downhill and trapped her under 1.5 meters of debris in a narrow, hard-to-reach gully. The backcountry traveler caught in the slide was not wearing a transceiver even though the avalanche danger in the surrounding mountains was rated considerable on the international scale that day.
Luckily her partner was not caught and placed a cell phone call to police, who then deployed Mountain Rescue of Hinterstein. Two rescuers equipped with an avalanche dog and a RECCO detector were immediately transported to the accident scene by helicopter, ahead of a rapidly approaching storm and descending darkness.
After a 15-minute search, the buried woman was located with the RECCO detector, pinpointed with probes and subsequently dug out alive and conscious. Three hours after the slide, she was transported by military rescue helicopter to a nearby hospital where she has since recovered from the ordeal.
In between there have been many more live Recco rescues. I have no problem with your thought that transceivers (and training) should be #1 for anyone going off piste, but if you had seen the vast influx into the backcountry around Whistler for example of folk on fat skis and snowboards, and, like me you’d stood on occasion at an access point to off piste routes, with your transceiver on receive, waiting to check some straggler from a group you were leading, you’d realize that the majority of folk heading out of bounds have no transceivers, or rather no transceivers set to ‘send’.
Try this example statistic for France, taken from: France, Past 5 years. Anaea and Snosm (Nat. Association for the study of Snow and Avalanches, & Nat. System for the observation of Mountain Safety)
‘In Tignes, in 2004 a user count conducted by the ski resort revealed that 75% of the Skiers that were accompanied by a guide on a classical out-of-bounds tour did not carry Avalanche Beacons. The ski resort estimates that based on counts, interviews, and air photographs indicate that about 1/3 of their visitors ski out of bounds every day, which means about 5,000 persons.’
75% of 5000, out of bounds with no transceivers…….
Scary stuff eh? Multiply that by all the resorts in France alone… Transceivers 200 pounds each… Pair of Reccos 12.95 pounds….. I fail to understand your dislike of the things.
| SimonN wrote: |
| I have tried checking the French statistics and cannot find any over the last 6-7 years. Surely there must be some? |
You may be right about France.
The only one I can find was Dec 2002 in Besse-en-Olsan (France) Call for help via cell phone. Helicopter with Recco there in 15 minutes, signal immediately picked up by Recco detector, victim sadly dug up dead due to major trauma.
Tignes 2003. Nov. 3 backcountry skiers on Grand Motte, one buried. Accident seen by ski school instructor, Recco detector was on site in 5 minutes! Victim carried no Recco but had Transceiver with, it transpired flat batteries! Eventually found alive by dog. LUCKY BOY!
I do however have reports about live Recco recoveries in many other parts of Europe in the past 7 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| SimonN wrote: |
| Choosing to wear RECCO (as opposed to "it came with the equipment") is an act of total selfishness. I am totally convinced that stopping the use of RECCO, coupled with a campaign to support that in resorts and elsewhere, would do more to raise the issue of safety than anything else. |
Wow! Even if you were right about the 'only a body finder stuff' how can you call wearing a Recco selfish?
I read a week ago that the recent search here in N Vancouver for snowboarder this winter which took two days, and sadly found him dead, cost over a million dollars with the accompanying risk to search and rescue teams , cost of police, coroner's court etc. Helicopters flew over the area frequently, but only an on foot search eventually turned up his body. It wasn't an avalanche he just boarded into a closed area full of gullies and fell off a cliff into one.
If he had for example bought a pair of boots from Vans, the snowboard boot maker who has Reccos in their boots, the first helicopter flight over 'his' ravine would quite possibly have detected him, perhaps saving his life (he died from exposure) and certainly saving S&R volunterers and other professionals involved all sorts of financial costs and time.
So I ask you again what would have been selfish about him wearing $25 reflectors??????
After the loss of the Canadian PM Trudeau's son in an Avalanche some years back, there has been vast amounts poured into the 'Canadian Avalance School' system , there are many courses offered here both 3 day 'recreational' and 10 day 'industrial' courses at various levels.
Off course education is the way forward, but banning RECCO doesn't seem constructive in any way to me.
I bug everyone I ski with to do a course, wear a transciever etc. Please lets all do the same!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
SimonN, thank you for your punter's view of RECCO. colinmcc, thank you for giving us your professional view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Colin
You raise some interesting points. In almost every case you mention, the burial time is very high, over the magic half hour (or is it now accepted that its actually 35 mins!). The chances of them surviving was down to about 20%. Those are not odds I would want to play with or suggest others do. And in the cases stated, it seems that the victims would have been recovered quicker if they and their ski partners had transceivers and knew how to use them. Great they were got out alive, but the statistics say that they were very lucky.
Secondly, I wil attempt to explain why deliberately buying a RECCO tag is, I believe, selfish. I see it as a recognition of the risks but the person is saying "I am prepared to take those risks but I am not prepared to take responsibility for anybody else I ski with. As a guide, would you allow your clients to ski with only RECCO's? I agree that with many, the selfishness is done through lack of understanding and isn't deliberate. However, if we are to see a drop in the numbers killed, we need to be teaching people to ski in self relient groups and anything that dilutes that message is, IMO, bad.
I would also like to give you some clarity about the Tignes data on transceiver wearing. I know the ski area very well and more importantly, I suspect I know over 75% of the guides who work in the Tignes/Val D'Isere area. I can tell you catagorically that I do not know a single GUIDE who works in the area who woudl allow their clients to ski off piste without a transceiver. In addition, most of them (but regrettably not all) will make sure you know how to use one).
The problem isn't guides. The problem is ski instructors who are taking people off piste and show up in the data as guides. This is a real problem. Firstly, data like this gives properly qualified guides a bad name. Secondly, people are being given a false sense of security by skiing off piste with instructors. While I acknowledge that there are instructors who are very competent guides and I ski with some, the majority do not have the experience or knowledge to be safe guides. If you look at the vast majority of guided avalanche incidents in the Espace Killy over the last 10 years, it is instructors who are leading the groups. In fact, I cannot remember a single death in the area caused by a guide although I happen to know of 2 burials which had happy outcomes.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothimng against instructors and, in fact, I believe that one of the most knowledgable and safest "guides" in France only has an instructor ticket and isn't qualified as a mountain guide (Henry Schniewind). However, I am fed up with ESF instructors, skiing off piste with poor etiquette, placing me in danger and also their clients. I have twice had "incidents" caused by ESF instructors cutting across slabs above where my group has been skiing. In one, my guide was so annoyed he actually cut the instructors badge off his suit and took it to the head of the Pisteurs!
I have also come across an ESF instructor lost in white out conditions in and area called Col Pers, where there are significant rocky outcrops etc. They had to join our group otherwise I am not sure what would have happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't ski out of bounds with anyone who only had RECCO. Who is going to dig me out? However, owning a transciever isn't enough, you must be able to use it and use it well, along with the other disciplines that go along with skiing with friends out of bounds. Fat skis have certainly encouraged more and more people to take on skiing they may be technically capable of, but lack the mountain skills. In Chamonix at New Year I was skiing a couloir with a friend. I started into the couloir with him stopping at the top to leave me some room. Some clown comes ploughing over the top, sloughing a load over my buddy and down the couloir. He then proceeds to make off behind me. My buddy 'encouraged' him to remain where he was until it was somewhat safer, to which he responded with 'what's the problem?'. back bottom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Just a few points taken from the Recco site.
"The maximum range of the system is 200 meters through air and 30 meters through snow. A 20-meter corridor, 10 on each side, is recommended for the mountain search path, and an angled orientation of the detector to the slope is optimal for the first stage of the search.
Searching by helicopter has become a common use of the RECCO detector due to its extensive range through the air.
The RECCO detector does not interfere with transceiver searches, probe lines or avalanche dogs. Yet, since the device occasionally picks up weak signals from electronic devices such as cell phones, portable radios and transceivers at short distances–even when turned off–management of the search party is required to maximize the effectiveness of the system. With adequate training, however, a successful signal sweep can be accomplished with a minimum of separation in a hectic search situation.
Paired with function that does not replace, compete with or negate the effectiveness of other systems, the RECCO detector functions as an ideal complement in any scenario. The detector is light, fast and straightforward in function, allowing it to integrate easily with comprehensive search strategies. Utilized to its full potential, the RECCO detector is an additional tool that provides rescue organizations with one more chance to realize their ultimate goal of a live recovery. "
I bought a couple of the Reccos for half price with my boots. Not much cash to part with for the slight chance that they prove useful. I don't consider them to be an active part of safety equipment like the 3 essentials (four if you count training), but simply as an additional factor.
Regarding body recovery - if you were killed and burried deeply would you want the body recovery delayed by possibly many days causing extra distress to your family? I wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ponder - I don't always take my tranny out with me if skiing in resort in N America due to the extensive level of control work though I have used it inbounds at Whistler a fair few times - if you're skiing Spanky's after a recent snowfall then ski patrol are certain to have done a great job but a little bit of extra insurance certainly doesn't hurt.
In Europe though I'm with the others - having read this I'll probably buy a couple of Reccos as well - I hadn't really focussed on the heli search benefits before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Sorry to drag up a dead thread but in the light of somebody being killed in an avalanche thatswept across the piste in Tignes, I find it even harder to find justifaction for not wearing transceiver at all times, if you own one. For those who didn't see it, 9 people were caught in this avalanche which crossed the Echappatoire piste. Scary
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
SimonN, sounds bad. Whereabouts is Echappatoire?
Since I have personally been nearly taken out by two avalanches on piste, one of which was a very close thing, I now always wear a transceiver. In fact I've had more close calls with slides on piste than off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mike Lawrie wrote: |
| SimonN, sounds bad. Whereabouts is Echappatoire? |
As more detail are know, we have ben trying to piece together exactly where they were. It seems they were somewhere on the way down to Les Brevieres. Echappatoire is a big open blue run that starts from the black "Sache" run and joins another blue just below the bubble station.The accident is now described as "crossing an itinerary leading to the open Echappatoire piste" (Pisteurs). The victim was not found for 90 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
colinmcc, I ski roughly 80% off piste. My comment was aimed at people who only ski on piste, or on-piste with the odd bit of not-too-steep off piste.
With that being said, I don't wear a tranciever myself. I realise that probably makes me an idiot considering the amount of off-piste I do, but I very rarely hike to open, untrakced stuff (would take forever at Whistler! Too many powderhounds = everything gets tracked out quickly), I don't disobey the "avalanche danger zone" signs, I do a fair bit of trees, and none of my friends have trancievers, or have used them, so who would find me?
I realise it's a stupid risk, but it's hardly the only stupid risk I take. Plus I'm a student and can hardly afford boarding as it is - I simply do not have the money for avy gear and training courses, and even if I did, I highly doubt I could convince my likewise strapped-for-cash friends to buy avy gear and take the courses.
Edit: it should be noted that I have never skied in Europe, where I understand there is less bombing and testing done by ski patrol?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
If you have one wear it. its simple and costs nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
ponder,
I don't wear an avy tranceiver inbounds, however quite a few pros I ski with at Whistler do, especially if there's been more than 25cm fresh (there's been quite a few of those days so far!), and I'm seriously considering doing the same. Accidents do happen inbounds at Whistler, such as the slide in Cockolorum/Mondays a couple of weekends back where 'fortunately' the only injury was a broken femur. Someone I know also got buried up to his waist on Surprise (also inbounds) at the end of last season. I reckon for inbounds Recco receivers are a good idea since patrol should be able to get to you pretty quickly with the gear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
david 1664, I agree, if I had one, I would wear it, but I don't have one.
stuarth, good points, but just out of curiosity, do you know when the last time someone died of suffocation in an avalnche in-bounds at Whistler? I'm not asking this to try to be a smart-ass or anything, just genuinely curious.
When I say I board almost entirely "off-piste," I should clarify that I mean things like the trees of 7th and Crystal, Couloir Extreme and the surrounding bowls/chutes, Spanky's ladder, peak chair stuff, harmony horseshoes, and occasionally flute bowl. All of this stuff is fairly heavily skied, patrolled, and avalnche controlled (bombs set off by ski patrol if they deem it unsafe in the morning). Doesn't mean an avalnche won't happen, but certainly greatly reduces the risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| ponder wrote: |
Edit: it should be noted that I have never skied in Europe, where I understand there is less bombing and testing done by ski patrol? |
There is bombing of well known avalanche ridges, but only where there is a chance they might endanger pistes somewhere below.
The off piste in Europe is not just LESS tested and bombed, it is simply NOT patrolled or tested or bombed. If you leave the pistes you can assume the slope is as it would be naturally.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Wed 1-02-06 13:34; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| snowball wrote: |
| ponder wrote: |
Edit: it should be noted that I have never skied in Europe, where I understand there is less bombing and testing done by ski patrol? |
There is bombing of well known avalanche ridges, but mostly where there is a chance they might endanger pistes somewhere below.
The off piste in Europe is not just less tested and bombed, it is simply NOT patrolled or tested or bombed. If you go far from the pistes you can assume the slope is as it would be naturally. |
That should be worded far stronger. If you go off the piste in Europe, even a little, you need to assume that the slope hasn't been made safe.
There is an infamous place in Val D'Isere, near the top of Toviere, where there have been many deaths within metres of the piste. The pisteurs take the attitude that as the slope concerned doesn't threaten the piste at all and therefore isn't their responsibility. In recent years they have added a rope, but that is it.
Most avalanches happen on runs that have been accessed by a lift system so don't take anything for granted!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I take your point and have changed "mostly" to "only" (and taken out "far from"). There may be one or two exceptions somewhere, but if so they are just that, unusual exceptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
)