 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Thornyhill wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
Yea, that's what I recalled, 20%. Given the rare nature of the event, I'd say the statistical uncertainty might make it anywhere between 10-30%? |
But if you have a 30% chance of survival without, increasing to a 50% chance with, then the increase in survival rate is 66% instead of 20%. The difference in survival rate is a percentage of a percentage. |
Quite right. You can look it that way.
Or, a half-half chance of being dug out alive with a beacon, reduced to 1/4 without.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Megamum, Electronic devices like transceivers and phones will show up on Recco but I do not know how well this works for locating victims compared to a Recco reflector.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
If you were playing Russian Roulette and somebody offered you two guns each with six chambers, but one had three bullets and the other had four, would you consider them "significantly different"? I would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| finestgreen wrote: |
| If you were playing Russian Roulette and somebody offered you two guns each with six chambers, but one had three bullets and the other had four, would you consider them "significantly different"? I would. |
No, I wouldn't (consider it significant).
But that's because no one would play Russian roulette with 3 bullets, never mind 4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| abc wrote: |
Or, a half-half chance of being dug out alive with a beacon, reduced to 1/4 without. |
That makes it a 100% increase in survival rates then.
(although some people will look at that technically correct figure and realise it that a transceiver makes them invincible now DOH! )
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Thornyhill wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
Or, a half-half chance of being dug out alive with a beacon, reduced to 1/4 without. |
That makes it a 100% increase in survival rates then.
|
Yep, indeed. 50% reduction, 100% increase. All depends on which 'base' one uses.
Or 0.0001 vs 0.0002 when taken with other factors (throw in any random number of zeros). That, was the openning post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
finestgreen, more like playing Russian roulette with a gun with several thousand empty chambers and 2 bullets, or several thousand empty chambers and one bullet, oh and paying (say £1000 for the first game and £1025 for the second) (I have guessed the per trip cost of shovel, probe and transceiver as £25).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| finestgreen wrote: |
| If you were playing Russian Roulette and somebody offered you two guns each with six chambers, but one had three bullets and the other had four, would you consider them "significantly different"? I would. |
No, I wouldn't (consider it significant).
But that's because no one would play Russian roulette with 3 bullets, never mind 4 |
I would with a decent revolver. Would have to be a quality brand though, preferably German. Spin the chamber and the bullets will stop at the bottom. 1 or 3 is good. 4 is a bit risky, but you would be OK 99/100. Don't try 5 or 6, or any cheap mass produced revolver though.
p.s. - Don't try this at home kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
[quote="abc"][quote="Thornyhill"]
| abc wrote: |
That, was the openning post. |
So if you were buried uninjured in an avalanche with no transceiver, but your 6 mates were kitted out and trained.....you could go back and change 1 thing, what would it be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thornyhill, I probably wouldn't have killed that hooker back in Reno.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Why not - you got off with it for the rest of your truncated life 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| I don't agree that the point at which you should ski with a transceiver is when you start to ski terrain that should require a guide or sufficient experience to read the situation. I think it happens way before that point. It is very easy to end up on terrain and in snow which is potentially dangerous, and for many skiers this will happen before they have any thought of hiring a guide. Using my insurance analogy, I don't think newly qualified drivers need any less insurance than experienced drivers. |
I don't disagree that many skiers will end up on terrain and in snow which is potentially dangerous before they have any thought of hiring a guide, but I'd still argue that for them the cost-benefit of a transceiver is miniscule. Their transceiver money would like my parachute money be better spent on a nice meal. The benefit will reach tiny (but more understandably worthwhile) when they do start to think about hiring a guide (what did you mean by systematically ski off piste?). I think the equivalent car analogy would be when one's habitual driving style leads one to think about investing in higher performance tyres for one's car.
| rob@rar wrote: |
| slikedges, perhaps a better trigger point for beginning avalanche education is when people start considering hiring or buying fat skis? |
That'd be after the first week then! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
finestgreen, more like playing Russian roulette with a gun with several thousand empty chambers and 2 bullets
|
No, because the discussion was about whether this was true:
| Quote: |
his risk of death or serious injury if he gets caught increases significantly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| finestgreen wrote: |
| Quote: |
finestgreen, more like playing Russian roulette with a gun with several thousand empty chambers and 2 bullets
|
No, because the discussion was about whether this was true:
| Quote: |
his risk of death or serious injury if he gets caught increases significantly
|
|
Statistically, the "increase" of risk is the same: having 3 vs 4 bullet in a 6 shooter, or 1 vs 2 bullet in a roulette with thousands of emtpy chamber.
Also if you buy 2 lotery tickets instead of 1, you increase your chance of winner by 100%! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Here's a question then... on a personal level would you rather ride with a group of people where everyone (including yourself) had airbags but no other kit, or one where everyone had a shovel, probe and beep (but no bags) and knew how to use them?
And I do realise that most people with airbags do already possess the other items.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| abc wrote: |
Also if you buy 2 lotery tickets instead of 1, you increase your chance of winner by 100%! |
So you understand that anything based on statistical analysis is BS. If you were buried by an avalanche, would you rather have or not have a transceiver?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Thornyhill, I'd sure hate to be laying there entombed thinking... "If only I'd..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Scarpa wrote: |
| ....... thinking... "If only I'd..." |
brought me shotgun. They will find me in no time. Might be a bit loud though
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Thornyhill wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
Also if you buy 2 lotery tickets instead of 1, you increase your chance of winner by 100%! |
So you understand that anything based on statistical analysis is BS. |
How did you reach that conclusion?
Statistical analysis is not BS. But it becomes BS if you lose track of the context!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
The point I think is that transcievers really don't of themselves save many lives, particularly for lift accessed off piste / sidecountry skiing. But obviously if it were to be me completely buried then I'd very much like to have my transciever strapped on thanks because they do save some. The "is it worth it?" question provokes different and quite extreme reactions, I guess the divide might be between people who think about risk in a structured way professionally and those that don't (this is just a hunch). I wonder how many skiers wouldn't wear a transciever if they cost £5? or would if they cost £5000? I'm sure people don't buy airbags because they are expensive (like me) but they probably also justify this with "well the juries are still out " and '"air travel seems a complete nightmare- if I had my own place in Chamonix I'd keep it there." "If only they were easily available to rent.." type arguments with themselves.
There have been at least one or two studies looking at risk homeostasis- the idea that peoples responses to risk mitigation measures is to increase the risks they take - and it looks like this doesn't happen for skiing (so far). But: I wonder how many people, having a transceiver, shovel and pros don't buy an airbag- which looks like a better solution to not getting buried in the first place.
Also: I also wonder if the extra weight of airbags will result in people skinning under dangerous terrain for longer- and exposing themselves to more risk??
Does this thread alter at all what people think about the merits of one beeper over another?? (I doubt it)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ed123 wrote: |
| ...The "is it worth it?" question provokes different and quite extreme reactions, I guess the divide might be between people who think about risk in a structured way professionally and those that don't (this is just a hunch). I wonder how many skiers wouldn't wear a transciever if they cost £5? or would if they cost £5000? |
I think that's pretty much it.
We're looking at cost benefit of all of this stuff, and you can't do that sensibly unless you have the data, which is what I think the OP was asking about. I can see no argument for not knowing that data.
The "media" appear to believe that if you wear a helmet and use a transceiver then you're "sensible" and don't deserve to die. The way they report incidents, and even which incidents they report, is filtered by that belief. They re-enforce their own "narrative", irrespective of the actual objective risks. I think that they're looking for ways to explain fatalities which allow people to think: "well, I'm a sensible consumer, I buy the safety toys, so it won't happen to me". That's not how the world works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guy's got an avalung on; that's the source of at least some of the odd noises. Do you carry one of those?
| andersont wrote: |
| Does wearing a helmet reduce the chances of being killed by an avalanche? |
Yes. Whether it reduces it by a statistically significant amount or not I've no idea. Have you seen this video, by the way? http://vimeo.com/22462953 The guy in the slide reckons that his helmet did a good job of keeping his goggles on, and not being blinded made everything else a bit less unpleasant. He had an avalung too, and again being able to actually breathe during the slide was considered a bonus.
Apparently the other guys in his party found the avalung'n'airbag combination amusing, at least before the slide occurred. There's a thread about it on TGR somewhere, but I can't remember where offhand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Serriadh wrote: |
Guy's got an avalung on; that's the source of at least some of the odd noises. Do you carry one of those?
. |
No I don't. Its an interesting idea, but I'm not sure whether you'd be able to get the thing into your mouth while your doing rag doll impressions in an avalanche. The guy in the video had to have two goes. Also £120 for a glorified snorkel whats all that about?
Air-bags are I think a better investment if you can afford that kind if price, I can't. There is also a weight penalty with them, when touring every gram has to justify its place on your back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OwenM wrote: |
| I'm not sure whether you'd be able to get the thing into your mouth while your doing rag doll impressions in an avalanche. |
Not been in one myself, but the various videos I've seen suggest that you have time enough when the slide begins to yank your airbag cord or stuff your avalung mouthpiece in before the whole thing turns entirely fluid. Best not to have your hands in your pole straps though.
| OwenM wrote: |
| Also £120 for a glorified snorkel whats all that about? |
Beats me. I paid £80 for mine, though I got lucky. It isn't quite a snorkel... there's a bare minimum of engineering in there too. Earlier models were recalled due to material problems for example; it isn't a totally trivial design.
I find it more irritating that you can't get any combined avalung/airbag packs, and either Black Diamond aren't interested in licensing the system, or no-one is interested in buying.
| OwenM wrote: |
| Air-bags are I think a better investment if you can afford that kind if price, I can't. There is also a weight penalty with them, when touring every gram has to justify its place on your back. |
Lots of opportunities for rental now, and there were a substantial number of pretty reasonable deals for airbags over christmas. They're not quite commodities yet, but they're well on their way. The weight is a larger inconvenience, but the further I am travelling on skis the less likely I am to be travelling in riskier avalanche conditions. If I'm only out for the day, an extra kilo or so is not a grievous burden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
As someone who owns an avalung, I never get why people think you have to put it in your mouth during an avalanche.. You ski with it in and can bite on it. The glorified snorkel has saved lives and is actually a much better investment than an airbag if you ski trees over steeps. An airbag is useless if you fall in a tree well for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Timmaah, Yup, for forest skiing they are pretty good. Been thinking of one myself as I often ski trees on my own on safe(ish) ground, plus there is always the chance of being tail end charlie and not being seen if you go into a drift or well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
chloep, well you won't get many 'likes' if you spam every thread with a crappy photo, sorry. You've already posted this once in your own thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
ha ha- found the other post - sH welcomes spammers......NOT chloep, 10/10 for effort. 0/10 for the pic. 0/10 for thinking that spamming was a good idea. I've just liked every other pic in that competition cos they aren't spammers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
| There is always the chance of being tail end charlie and not being seen if you go into a drift or well. |
This is what concerns me as the kids start to want to ski through the trees more and more often. Cutting the corners of pistes etc. and saying 'we'll see you around the corner'  They are also only to get older and more independant now with every trip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
"Beacon"?
Don't you mean "Transceiver"?
Yes - transceivers when in normal use act as a beacon. Radiating a repeating radio pulse so that its position can be located.
But beacons (in the correct use of the term) are simple transmit-only devices.
Transceivers stop being beacons when they are switched to receive.
Same name two different devices.
The danger is that devices that are transmit-only are correctly named beacons, and sold as such. But they are useless without a receiver too.
It's a gross Americanism in the classic attempt to redefine words to make it simpler. Unfortunately, this attempt fails.
You have to know that when folks say "beacon", they usually really mean "Transceiver", and either don't know any better, or go along with the misnomer for their own reasons.
Only if they say "Doggie Beacon" do they mean a simple transmit-only beacon.
Simpler? I think not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
SkiPresto, I think it's just a colloquialism
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Also bleeps after well the bleeping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Colloquialism like "Bad" meaning "Good"?
or all the various colloquial meanings of the word Sh*t.
I'm not impressed with the misnomer.
Even some manufacturers are calling transceivers beacons now.
Although the Ortovox site for its Recall Campaign Ortovox 3
seems to have changed the word "beacon" to "Transceiver" (I'm very glad to say").
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Isn't it facile to look at transceiver wearing stats and make conclusions based on whether victims were wearing one or not?
Transceivers don't save lives on their own.
They are simple locator devices.
What saves your life if you are wearing a transceiver and get completely buried in an avalanche are your buddies/ your clients. (Assuming they are properly equipped, trained and make an effort to come to your rescue).
If they find you in time, they can have a chance to clear your airway and save your life. If you are still alive otherwise.
Once they have done that, they can dig you out (If they are properly equipped and strong enough) and save your life.
I thought the vid posted by Serriadh was really good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SkiPresto, I get that you're not impressed 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Serriadh wrote: |
Not been in one myself, but the various videos I've seen suggest that you have time enough when the slide begins to yank your airbag cord or stuff your avalung mouthpiece in before the whole thing turns entirely fluid. Best not to have your hands in your pole straps though.
. |
The time I was avalanched the first I knew I had been hit in the middle of my back and was flung on my face. Quite right about the straps, though, and much of the time you would have time to pull the cord etc if you were thinking quickly.
I doubt there are any Guides not carrying Transceiver, shovel and probe (and normally first aid pack, a rope, harness etc etc). I find that many now also carry an airbag (but few wear helmets).
To the person who asked about Recco, a page back: No, you can't pick up Recco on a Transciever. The bit of Recco you carry is just a cheap reflector which reflects the radar signal from the rescuer back to him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Spyderman wrote: |
| No idea, but if it's only one it's worth it. |
Especially if that life happens to be my own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| Am I wrong to fly without a parachute? We need to look at things in perspective. |
A parachute would be more use than the life jacket that everybody is given on a scheduled flight. Remember, no single life has ever been saved by a life jacket - and on the Hudson River incident life jackets put lives at risk. Yet airliners blow up and people fall out of them and some do survive; the survival rate would be higher if people were issued parachutes. Yet they're not.
| GrahamN wrote: |
rob@rar, it's that James the Last sees no benefit in someone else being able to find him when he's buried under a metre of snow - but he's acceding to the group demand that he can contribute to the search effort if someone else gets buried, and he's quite happy for others to waste their cash on a pointless transmit-capable beacon if they so wish. So he saves £50 on the cost of a beacon because he's confident he'll never be buried.
No, I'm not that cocky/arrogant [delete to taste] either. |
You haven't read my posts at all, have you. Obviously *if* I were buried and were still alive then I would see a point to having a transmitter. My argument is that the *if* is a mightily small possibility, and there are probably other areas of our lives where we can reduce the risk of our death more easily.
If other people won't ski with me unless I can rescue them from this miniscule danger, then I would be prepared to carry a receive-only device in order to keep them happy, on the grounds that it would not be making a material change to my life expectancy.
The crowds of ESF instructors taking an army of children off piste down the Vallée Perdue above La Daille ten days ago weren't bothering with all this faff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
