 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hi all! First of all, I have full avy gear so this doesn't not apply for myself (and I assume most people who are deep enough in the sport to sign up to this forum!) but a general question:
Do you or people you know use beacons in side-country? If not, do you know the reason why not? Is it cost or small probability of avalanches etc. etc.
For example, I ski a lot of lift-access of piste with my friend (we both have full gear) but many times I know people or people tag along that don't have gear, so I want to know what your experiences on the mountain relating to this are 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Depends if there is a risk of avalanche: "side country" or whereever else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
We (family of 4) put our transceivers on every day regardless of the conditions or what we intend to do. It's like a seat belt in a car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@iskipow, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
What is “side country”?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Side country is a meaningless term in Europe and even in N America where it originated the answer is yes you should because side country is by definition outside resort boundaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No such thing as side country where I am. It’s either inbounds controlled or out of bounds and not controlled.
I wear a transceiver inbounds quite often too. May as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like @Layne, putting a transceiver on in the morning & starting the day with a check is as automatic to me as putting on my helmet. I didn’t use one through maybe 2017, though, for assorted reasons: mostly inertia (I’ve been skiing off-piste since the late 80s, none of the people I rode with then used them at the time, it didn’t ‘feel necessarily’, that kind of thing). Cost was probably a factor to some degree, but I think more than that it was about not really appreciating the danger, even just off the side of the piste, or (for much the same reason) being able to assess it properly. & probably a large dose of the imagined immortality of (relative) youth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think people vary in their attitude and perception of risk ad well as what they should spend their money on. A few years ago we were involved on the periphery of an avalanche incident on a much frequented route in Val d’ Isere in which ultimately a guy died. People were arriving at the scene with no kit at all; others had kit, but had no idea how to switch from send to search. I spoke to one person from London who told me he and his friend had one tranceiver between them and each day they decided who was going to do the most dangerous thing and they got to take it!
In my view skiing off piste without kit is simply selfish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I have the gear but I don’t take them everyday.
If I don’t have a partner, what’s the point of taking the gear?
No, I’m not hooking up with strangers I met on the lift to go off-piste (“side country” or not). If I don’t know his/her ability to use the gear, I’m not going with them, which precludes going out with strangers.
That said, beacons and shovels are only useful after you triggered an avalanche. So many people say they only go out when they feel the beacon is almost unnecessary, but taking the beacon and shovel nonetheless. In that case, one may wonder does it matter whether they’re taking a beacon or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| If I don’t have a partner, what’s the point of taking the gear? |
#1 It's just a good habit, #2 You may see someone you are not with get caught, #3 Someone you are not with will see you get caught, #4 Sometimes avalanches come onto the piste
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| iskipow wrote: |
| I am writing a report on this, and wonder the reasons why this happens and how it can be prevented. It looks like you all are active proponents of beacon on every day (to a large extent), do you have any stories of friends who ski off-piste without transceivers and why they do it? Perhaps it's less experienced skiers/snowboarders who go off-piste once in a while and don't think its necessary to buy one? If you could share your thoughts on this, it would help me loads!! |
I'd imagine a lot of people go skiing with limited information and understanding. It's a long time ago now but when I first went there was loads of stuff to think about before getting into avalanches and the kit used to mitigate against it. An my instructors took us off piste sometimes knowing we didn't have the kit. I figured out fairly quick I liked skiing off piste and the inherent dangers in doing so but I have skied with others who are generally piste skiers but have/will dabble off piste - and don't have gear. I've seen people who only go off piste after a fresh fall (not friends) who don't have a backpack so I presume I have no gear. Fair weather off pisters you might call them. I've no idea how prevalent any of this. I think in general these days there is plenty of information and warnings. I am not sure many are doing it ignorant. I should imagine some think what they are doing is mellow and safe. Which most probably is. Everything is a numbers/risk game. It's just that one time that kills you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
It really depends where. I've done some fairly serious off-piste around the PdS with Swiss fully-qualified instructors who don't carry avi kit, because nowhere they're going to ski (or ski below) is really at the sort of terrain that avalanches. Either not steep enough, not got much stepp stuff above it, wrong angles etc. for there to be any real risk.
I'm not sure I agree with them, having been indoctrinated into having all the kit all the time by years of Ski Club training and leading, but they are qualified to lead groups off piste and I'm not, so I'm not going to argue with them;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Not sure if this is an urban myth but I remember reading/hearing that the two most vulnerable categories for getting caught in an avalanche were novices (lack of knowledge) and the most experienced (who became complacent).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| abc wrote: |
| If I don’t have a partner, what’s the point of taking the gear? That said, beacons and shovels are only useful after you triggered an avalanche. So many people say they only go out when they feel the beacon is almost unnecessary, but taking the beacon and shovel nonetheless. In that case, one may wonder does it matter whether they’re taking a beacon or not? |
One day, somebody else might save your life if you have one on, or at least recover your body, plus they're quite useful when some dumbass (I think that's the appropriate US term) falls in a Tree Well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@RedandWhiteFlachau, You don't need to be a dumbass to succumb to DSI - kills more people in North America every year than traditional release avalanches, often simply because its a much more accessible hazard and people like tree skiing, plus the risk of not being found in time is much higher as any party you are with will likely take quite a while to realise you're in trouble.
In two minds on this - One half is "Get the gear, know your environment, OP insurance etc etc" and its nae on impossible to argue that position when you say 'Off Piste', and I do agree with it.
but...
What are we actually talking about? We're looking at poaching a hundred feet of line in the fresh(ish) stuff off to the side, not hiking couloire lines. And if we were talking about a trip to the US or Canada here, then we know we'd be having a different conversation about controlled inbound terrain - most of my experiences off the trails have been there - but I'll admit to short forays off to the sides or between pistes in Europe without kit, and I expect most of us have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@Layne, statistically speaking it is guides, ski instructors and experienced skiers, probably local to the mountains who get caught - even ones who are not complacent.
Very few novices; especially relative to the number dabbling just off piste.
Here is an article to consider: https://pistehors.com/25352017/avalanche-poodles
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@davidof, exactly
risk = probability x exposure
Do something risky every day and you’re more likely to experience a snag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
(your reference links are slightly broken but easy to decode...)
So let me get that model straight.
I think they're saying [amongst other things] that because the chances of being in a slide are so low in general, the fact that you've not been in one is of little use in determining if you're competent or not. That sounds reasonable and I'd say that many of us believe that's true. In fact the other week a guide was talking to me about precisely that. They use the same argument the other way around, where they talk about reassessing one's "competence" post an event.
I think the key assumption is that they assume that the "incompetent" model person is smart enough to identify a slope which is at some risk - I'm not sure that's valid. I'm also unsure that "incompetent" ever recognise risk or turn back, which they assume happens 50% of the time. They also talk about risk aversion, which I think may be impossible to separate from competence. Incompetent people don't recognize the risks more competent people see, in my experience.
I think their assumptions may serve to reduce the effect of "competence", which may be a mistake. But their point about the absolute low risk of a problem still works.
Regular risk takers roll the dice more often, and if the difference in competence is as modelled (which as above I'm i
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every year there are a few that don't get dug out in time because they didn't have a beacon on. One teen died retrieving his ski just a few dozen meters from where I had been skiing not half an hour earlier (I believe I was off having lunch at the time, and unaware of the incident until later). Quite a number of incidents involve teenagers (usually boys), but schools and the avalanche commission are working to increase awareness in this group.
Among holiday makers, not carrying kit can be down to ignorance, as they are not as likely to be exposed to all the info about avalanches that those who live in the mountains see all the time – news reports, police searches, social media videos, avalanche courses, daily bulletins, actual avalanches etc. They need to put more effort in to find it, and you don't know what you don't know...
Among the locals, it's more likely stupidity and complacency. One guy I know told me about how he'd skied “some amazing powder lines at the weekend”. I asked if that meant he'd managed to get some kit then, as I'd previously seen him out on the hill, pack-less, and knew it had been a 3-4 rating. No, he hadn't, and he didn't know how to use it anyway but we should definitely go skiing together. I declined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| hang11 wrote: |
No such thing as side country where I am. It’s either inbounds controlled or out of bounds and not controlled.
I wear a transceiver inbounds quite often too. May as well. |
Really? I though sidecountry just means out of bounds ACCESSED BY SKI LIFTS (as opposed to skinning/hiking from the road).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Doesn't really make any difference to risk how you get there does it. It's either inbounds or back country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| phil_w wrote: |
| I think the key assumption is that they assume that the "incompetent" model person is smart enough to identify a slope which is at some risk - I'm not sure that's valid. I'm also unsure that "incompetent" ever recognise risk or turn back, which they assume happens 50% of the time. They also talk about risk aversion, which I think may be impossible to separate from competence. Incompetent people don't recognize the risks more competent people see, in my experience. |
Perhaps, although I wonder if that assessment changes if you think more broadly about 'risk aversion' and include all reasons one might turn back. I've certainly got to the top of lines I'd been planning on skiing, looked down and thought 'that's not for me today'. (On other occasions I've also allowed bravado and peer pressure to 'push' me down lines I shouldn't have.) I certainly agree with you that the 'incompetent' model person isn't (almost by definition) going to identify a slope that's at risk of a slide; but I could imagine that there are a fair number of occasions when someone modelled as 'incompetent' turns back for some less specific version of 'thought better of it'. Perhaps more like 20-30% of the time than 50%, but here I'm just pulling numbers out of what the content filters on here will probably refer to as my 'back bottom'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Perhaps the distinction is really whether you are consciously or unconsciously incompetent (see also Dunning Kruger effect). I know there plenty of situations where I’m not good enough to judge whether it is safe so I try my best to avoid them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| JayRo wrote: |
I certainly agree with you that the 'incompetent' model person isn't (almost by definition) going to identify a slope that's at risk of a slide |
They don't. They just don't ski that terrain as often as competent skiers. They don't get to the big open face on a risk three day and say: hmmm windloaded, weak layer, no thanks. They simply don't get to those kinds of slopes as much in the first place.
I'd have to reread the original article to see what they meant though. I'd imagine quite a lot of incompetent skiers are risk adverse though. They are only incompetent through not having acquired knowledge, not necessarily idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
| JayRo wrote: |
I certainly agree with you that the 'incompetent' model person isn't (almost by definition) going to identify a slope that's at risk of a slide |
They don't. They just don't ski that terrain as often as competent skiers. They don't get to the big open face on a risk three day and say: hmmm windloaded, weak layer, no thanks. They simply don't get to those kinds of slopes as much in the first place. |
I'm not sure that's right: there's an explicit reference to the decision to cross a particular slope ('For the incompetent skier a coin toss is used to decide whether the skier will cross the slope'). Although it strikes me that what's being modelled there is not 'turns back 50% of the time' but 'makes the decision at random'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| jedster wrote: |
| hang11 wrote: |
No such thing as side country where I am. It’s either inbounds controlled or out of bounds and not controlled.
I wear a transceiver inbounds quite often too. May as well. |
Really? I though sidecountry just means out of bounds ACCESSED BY SKI LIFTS (as opposed to skinning/hiking from the road). |
In Europe there is no such thing as OOB anyway, but lift-accessible off-piste could be described as side-country, it's just a term that isn't often used. Personally I'd take it to imply just a little more that regular off-piste, perhaps a long high traverse or short climb, on skins or otherwise, to access less-used and hopefully untracked terrain, as opposed to back-country which would definitely mean not easily accessible from a lift and requiring significant effort to get to.
In any case, the ARVA should be worn based on the terrain itself, not whether it's easily accessible or controlled in any way. Avalanches can, and frequently do, happen in pisted areas as well, so even between-piste skiing could be at avalanche risk.
As I said earlier, there's a lot of off-piste terrain in the PdS that's viewed as 'safe' by the locals, for example the huge area from Linga to Plaine Dranse, where you can ski pretty much anywhere, but where there's nothing with slopes of more than 25 degrees or so ( apart from gully walls etc.) so are well outside the slope angle that's normally considered to be at risk of avalanche. So I happily ski that sort of stuff without the kit, on any normal day out skiing, but that sort of thing isn't common in a lot of resorts so I would not extrapolate it to a general rule.
So yeah, off-piste, regardless of what label you give it or how it's accessed, should normally imply wearing your beacon (ensuring it's switched on and working of course) and ruscksack with shovel and probe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Also, inevitably, the day you don't bother/forget/whatever to take your kit, you find a previously unskied stash that needs to be skied 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I don't think snow and avalanches know whether its inbounds/ outbounds/ on piste or wherever, so I/we wear a beacon at all times, seems sensible if we have them to use them, weight/ faff is minimal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@Markymark29, +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@Richard_Sideways, I’m a bit thick. What’s “DSI”?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| hang11 wrote: |
| Doesn't really make any difference to risk how you get there does it. It's either inbounds or back country. |
of course not -it's off piste and needs to be treated as such
But you said it doesn't exist and I'm pretty sure it does in NZ!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Gordyjh wrote: |
| @Richard_Sideways, I’m a bit thick. What’s “DSI”? |
I presume deep snow immersion, falling into/getting stuck in a tree well
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Layne wrote: |
| We (family of 4) put our transceivers on every day regardless of the conditions or what we intend to do. It's like a seat belt in a car. |
Out of interest do all 4 of you also take a rucksack with probe and shovel?
Sometime I don't take my transceiver (because I don't want to carry my rucksack) and also when I want to ski on piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jedster wrote: |
But you said it doesn't exist and I'm pretty sure it does in NZ! |
Nope. It’s a term that’s used by the odd person but 100% people would tell you it’s either in or out - no side country half way house.
Also in Nz the terrain accessed from lifts is usually the sketchy stuff. Road and walk in access is quite limited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Side country” isn’t well defined. It seems to vary from country to country too.
I’ve not heard it used in the context of skiing Europe. So I really don’t know what it means. But perhaps it refer to skiing between piste? Whilst a “proper off piste” is you don’t see the piste till the end of the day (if at all)?
Contrast to that, the term is widely used in North America. It is mostly understood to be exiting from the avi controlled ski area, skiing un-controlled slopes, but in close proximity to the controlled area, and returning to the base of the starting area. Whilst “backcountry” typically refer to skiing slope not connected to any ski resort at all, or at least far from it even if exiting from ski area.
In that, the North American “side country” is no different from the European “proper off piste”, even if they’re close enough to see the ski area they started from.
The “skiing without gear” happens A LOT in North America “in side country”! Basically, a lot of skiers simply “expand” the ski area by venturing outside the avi controlled area, because they can see it. Many are oblivious to the avi danger. They don’t carry beacon because they really don’t know they should. Some don’t even know what a avi beacon is!
Don’t know if Euros do the same with their definition of European “side country”, aka cutting between piste?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| kitenski wrote: |
| Layne wrote: |
| We (family of 4) put our transceivers on every day regardless of the conditions or what we intend to do. It's like a seat belt in a car. |
Out of interest do all 4 of you also take a rucksack with probe and shovel? |
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No.
If it looks set to slide, I just ski a bit faster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
