 Poster: A snowHead
|
Something that I have found myself thinking and pondering over since my return from the Val T last week.
I done some Transciever searching in the past on flat ground or in a field of grass but never in what Paul my friend calls (lets make it real situations).
Now I thought I was ok ie I am well equipped I know how to use the ortovox f1, I have the a pretty good level of fitness but I still found it very difficult to search in deep tracked snow despite knowing what i was doing.
My friend was burying a rucksack at various depths and positions sometimes above me sometimes below and it really did surprise me how the conditions made my search times not at all as good as what I had expected or been expected to achieve.
Worst case was 20 mins searching for a buriel 50 metres or so above me best 7 mins searcing below.I never got anywhere near the 3 and half mins which Paul expected or deemed as acceptable. 
I dont know how many of you have tried to search in situations like this but I would urge you to give it a go,It's not as easy as you would think and your friends life may depend on it !.
Regards Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
3.5 minutes is a carpark search time not a real time. In a real avalanche you are going to be doing very very well to find and did someone out in less than 15 minutes. Think about it, you've all skied slope X, Freddy starts off and he triggers the slide, he gets deposited on a shoulder 200 meters higher up. How long will you take to climb up there? Without climbing skins maybe half an hour in deep snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Moral of the story, don't be the last to ski the slope. Don't be the first either.
Somewhere in the middle is probably best. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Topsmoke wrote: |
Something that I have found myself thinking and pondering over since my return from the Val T last week.
I done some Transciever searching in the past on flat ground or in a field of grass but never in what Paul my friend calls (lets make it real situations).
Now I thought I was ok ie I am well equipped I know how to use the ortovox f1, I have the a pretty good level of fitness but I still found it very difficult to search in deep tracked snow despite knowing what i was doing.
My friend was burying a rucksack at various depths and positions sometimes above me sometimes below and it really did surprise me how the conditions made my search times not at all as good as what I had expected or been expected to achieve.
Worst case was 20 mins searching for a buriel 50 metres or so above me best 7 mins searcing below.I never got anywhere near the 3 and half mins which Paul expected or deemed as acceptable.
|
Highly odd that your friend should be aware enough to push you to realistic searches but offers a totally unrealistic search time. You might manage 10 or 15 minutes for a near surface burial but you can add something again for a deep burial.
I think I'd decline to ski with someone who told me they could locate a victim in 3 and half minutes, it's so absurdly optimistic as to be dangerous. Are you sure he wasn't pulling your leg?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| ise wrote: |
I think I'd decline to ski with someone who told me they could locate a victim in 3 and half minutes, it's so absurdly optimistic as to be dangerous. Are you sure he wasn't pulling your leg? |
Maybe he was pulling my leg 
But at the time the stopwatch was running on every search and it felt real, too real at times and incredibly knackering.
A great experiance all the same and a real eye opener,well worth the effort.
Regards Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the BASI off piste course I'm sure we had to locate the transceiver in less than 5 mins, might even have been 3. In a real life situation to include digging a victim out of hard debris I think this would easily translate to at least 15 mins, therefore it's important in practice to be able to do it quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ise, welcome back here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| beanie1 wrote: |
| On the BASI off piste course I'm sure we had to locate the transceiver in less than 5 mins, might even have been 3. In a real life situation to include digging a victim out of hard debris I think this would easily translate to at least 15 mins, therefore it's important in practice to be able to do it quickly. |
Interesting, I'd heard that was a good course but I thought the point was to give an awareness of risk. If your risk evaluation includes a perception that you can recover a transceiver/victim in 5 minutes or under then that risk evaluation sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ise wrote: |
Interesting, I'd heard that was a good course but I thought the point was to give an awareness of risk. If your risk evaluation includes a perception that you can recover a transceiver/victim in 5 minutes or under then that risk evaluation sucks. |
French guide training (and level III ski tour leader training) requires you locate 2 beacons in under 5 minutes but this is on a flattish 100 x 100 meter search area.
I remember an exercise I did with the Swiss in Davos with a big group searching (simulating a professional intervention on a fairly large avalanche with 4 victims) and we located the final victim after 35 minutes.
Without passing comment on the BASI I share Ian's views, no one should be thinking that they can rescue someone in under 5 minutes. If you get really really lucky you will rescue your buddy alive. That's why I don't think amateurs like us should get too worried about multi-victim scenarios.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| ise wrote: |
| beanie1 wrote: |
| On the BASI off piste course I'm sure we had to locate the transceiver in less than 5 mins, might even have been 3. In a real life situation to include digging a victim out of hard debris I think this would easily translate to at least 15 mins, therefore it's important in practice to be able to do it quickly. |
Interesting, I'd heard that was a good course but I thought the point was to give an awareness of risk. If your risk evaluation includes a perception that you can recover a transceiver/victim in 5 minutes or under then that risk evaluation sucks. |
I don't think they were expected to recover the victim in under 5 minutes, but rather to locate the victim. Digging out and recovery starts then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
I don't think they were expected to recover the victim in under 5 minutes, but rather to locate the victim. Digging out and recovery starts then. |
Still, it's a pretty tall order isn't it? What does locate mean? With probes? Or just where you think the signal's coming from. If locate means a some vague idea of where it might be it seems a bit pointless.
From personal experience I've "located" a signal and verified it with a probe only to dig and find a rock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
| ise wrote: |
Interesting, I'd heard that was a good course but I thought the point was to give an awareness of risk. If your risk evaluation includes a perception that you can recover a transceiver/victim in 5 minutes or under then that risk evaluation sucks. |
French guide training (and level III ski tour leader training) requires you locate 2 beacons in under 5 minutes but this is on a flattish 100 x 100 meter search area.
I remember an exercise I did with the Swiss in Davos with a big group searching (simulating a professional intervention on a fairly large avalanche with 4 victims) and we located the final victim after 35 minutes.
Without passing comment on the BASI I share Ian's views, no one should be thinking that they can rescue someone in under 5 minutes. If you get really really lucky you will rescue your buddy alive. That's why I don't think amateurs like us should get too worried about multi-victim scenarios. |
And I share your views  I can locate a couple of beacons near the surface on flattish terrain in that time, especially if I can keep my skis on for at least the first.
I have here the Nivotest card and part of that formalised risk assessment has a couple of items about training and experience, group members with an expectation they could locate someone in a few minutes would fail that for me.
As for multi victims, apparently there's a paper published in the Avalanche Review Journal (which I have not read) from BCA analysing some figures (it appears primarily US data) that points up the low incidence of multiple burials. Although even the precis of that I read looks highly contentious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| ise wrote: |
As for multi victims, apparently there's a paper published in the Avalanche Review Journal (which I have not read) from BCA analysing some figures (it appears primarily US data) that points up the low incidence of multiple burials. Although even the precis of that I read looks highly contentious. |
Do you know which edition, I have a stack of them in my office and could look it out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| davidof wrote: |
| ise wrote: |
As for multi victims, apparently there's a paper published in the Avalanche Review Journal (which I have not read) from BCA analysing some figures (it appears primarily US data) that points up the low incidence of multiple burials. Although even the precis of that I read looks highly contentious. |
Do you know which edition, I have a stack of them in my office and could look it out? |
October I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| ise wrote: |
| davidof wrote: |
| ise wrote: |
As for multi victims, apparently there's a paper published in the Avalanche Review Journal (which I have not read) from BCA analysing some figures (it appears primarily US data) that points up the low incidence of multiple burials. Although even the precis of that I read looks highly contentious. |
Do you know which edition, I have a stack of them in my office and could look it out? |
October I think. |
ah I missed that. Interesting article. Bruce basically confirms statistically what I've been saying for years. Don't worry about multi victim search strategies. Ok he has a vested interest in that he runs BCA so wants to promote his Tracker beacons. However maybe the Tracker is simple because that is what is needed for the job?
Anyway he and another couple of researchers investigated 300+ accidents in US, CA, and AU. They found that in only less than a couple of % were true multi victim search strategies required. In most multi victim avalanches victims are either partially visible on the surface or too far apart for signals to be confused.
The conclusion is to focus on other areas such as general search strategies, and more importantly avalanche avoidance etc.
I can send you a copy if you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
So...if an average punter goes off piste with 2 mates, all are carrying tranceivers but with only basic operational knowledge plus maybe a bit of simulated practice in a snowfield, he gets buried in a slide, what chances do his mates have of finding and rescuing him alive?
Very good
Fair
There's more chance of the Pope converting to Islam
i.e. should skiing European Alpine off-piste ever be advised without a guide, or at least seriously expert knowledge of which slopes are likely to slide on any given day?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| hd wrote: |
So...if an average punter goes off piste with 2 mates, all are carrying tranceivers but with only basic operational knowledge plus maybe a bit of simulated practice in a snowfield, he gets buried in a slide, what chances do his mates have of finding and rescuing him alive?
Very good
Fair
There's more chance of the Pope converting to Islam
i.e. should skiing European Alpine off-piste ever be advised without a guide, or at least seriously expert knowledge of which slopes are likely to slide on any given day? |
Better than if they wait for the mountain rescue guys to come looking! That's the message that keeps on getting drummed in: only your mates have a chance of getting you out alive. If you're under for > half an hour then you're as good as dead
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| hd wrote: |
Fair
There's more chance of the Pope converting to Islam
i.e. should skiing European Alpine off-piste ever be advised without a guide, or at least seriously expert knowledge of which slopes are likely to slide on any given day? |
The question you gotta ask yourself is this, do you feel lucky today punk, well do yah?
They have a fair chance of digging him out alive with transceivers and a very poor chance without.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
davidof, probably has some figures on that, but I'd say "Fair" is about right. Quite a few are killed by the physical trauma of the slide itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
| hd wrote: |
i.e. should skiing European Alpine off-piste ever be advised without a guide, or at least seriously expert knowledge of which slopes are likely to slide on any given day? |
They have a fair chance of digging him out alive with transceivers and a very poor chance without. |
Indeed very true, but my question really is does that justify them skiing off-piste with transceivers only and no guide?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
ah I missed that. Interesting article. Bruce basically confirms statistically what I've been saying for years. Don't worry about multi victim search strategies. |
we were just talking about this in the bar after a tour, one of the things we talked about was that as a group we're aware of risk and tend to avoid skiing close together and placing high additional loads into the snow pack where there's a risk, you can't be so complacent to think it can never happen to you but you can reasonably say that you're taking steps to avoid multiple victim burials, ie I'd rate our chances of having a single party member buried significantly higher than more than one, like 10 times more or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| hd wrote: |
| davidof wrote: |
| hd wrote: |
i.e. should skiing European Alpine off-piste ever be advised without a guide, or at least seriously expert knowledge of which slopes are likely to slide on any given day? |
They have a fair chance of digging him out alive with transceivers and a very poor chance without. |
Indeed very true, but my question really is does that justify them skiing off-piste with transceivers only and no guide? |
Well lets assume your group are completely clueless, they know absolutely nothing about snow etc (not necessarily a bad thing as we all know about a little knowledge) then here are two simple rules of thumb:
1. When the risk is 1 or 2 in France (yellow flag is flying) ski where they like
2 For France and Switzerland when the risk is 3 only ski less than 30 degree slopes with no steeper slopes above
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
Well lets assume your group are completely clueless, they know absolutely nothing about snow etc (not necessarily a bad thing as we all know about a little knowledge) then here are two simple rules of thumb:
1. When the risk is 1 or 2 in France (yellow flag is flying) ski where they like
2 For France and Switzerland when the risk is 3 only ski less than 30 degree slopes with no steeper slopes above |
But if they they know about the flag and know how to measure/estimate slope angle, they no longer qualify as "clueless" any more!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| abc wrote: |
But if they they know about the flag and know how to measure/estimate slope angle, they no longer qualify as "clueless" any more! |
There's the rub, as Shakespeare would have said. Still if you apply nothing more than the inverse of rule 1 - check34board flag hire a guide, black flag, stay on open pistes, it is not too hard. Bearing in mind there is no risk 0 for a reason.
In Switzerland you need to be more careful with the overall avalanche risk as a guide as a "high 2" is more like a French 3 and a "high 3" is more like a French 4. Don't know about other systems such as in the US.
Regarding rescues, over all accidents where the victim was completely buried you have a 50% chance of being pulled out alive (French statistics over the last 5 years). I would be interested to see a breakdown between digital and analogue beacons used in searching and between pros and amateurs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
Don't know about other systems such as in the US.
|
US don't use 123 nor flags. Ski inbound? Everything open is fair game.
For side country, they don't open the gate if risk is high (whatever high means) Most people "assume" if the gates are open, it means they've bombed the hell out of the slope so anything that can slide had already done so...
Out of bound (= no gate), you get the avalanche report from different source, not from the resort. It could be forest service or what not. They use words not numbers. So I don't know if there's equivelance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| Quote: |
Don't know about other systems such as in the US.
|
US don't use 123 nor flags.
|
Well they do use 1-5, I just don't know how well they are normalized with say Swiss levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| davidof wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| Quote: |
Don't know about other systems such as in the US.
|
US don't use 123 nor flags.
|
Well they do use 1-5, I just don't know how well they are normalized with say Swiss levels. |
There're 5 levels. But I've not heard the numbers mentioned. It's always, the risk is low, moderate, etc.
A quick check at avalanche.org reveal the levels are also color coded. But again, I've never heard anyone say "let's go, the risk is only yellow"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| abc wrote: |
For side country, they don't open the gate if risk is high (whatever high means) Most people "assume" if the gates are open, it means they've bombed the hell out of the slope so anything that can slide had already done so...
|
http://www.telemarktips.com/FSneverSame.html
That group made that assumption and didn't bother to make their own assessment or carry transceivers, probes and shovels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| ise wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
For side country, they don't open the gate if risk is high (whatever high means) Most people "assume" if the gates are open, it means they've bombed the hell out of the slope so anything that can slide had already done so...
|
http://www.telemarktips.com/FSneverSame.html
That group made that assumption and didn't bother to make their own assessment or carry transceivers, probes and shovels. |
But if you read further down the article:
| Quote: |
I've asked myself time and again if I missed something, some important stability clue that went unnoticed. Once I get past the basic fact that we were skiing at all on 3 feet of new snow over a frozen rock and dirt base (far, far from the first time and likely not to be the last), the answer always comes up no.
...
We found out later that the head patroller in charge that day had also skied P3 in between our first and second runs
...
there were just 4 inbounds avalanche fatalities on slopes designated open at North American resorts in the 16 years covered by the study, ending with the 2005/2006 season. |
They did "make their own accessement". So did the patroller who skied the same area.
As for avi gear, see this: (Inbound avalanche on Christmas day at Canyon)
http://www.saminfo.com/news/article.php?tid=2561
Some of the victims was not even in "side country", they were just cruising along at an open piste below.
Bottomline, "side country" is treated as inbound, avi controlled. If you question the patroller's controll work in the side country, you should also question their decision in openning other inbound area too (un-bashed piste, between piste, base lodge, car park etc...). There had also been incident an entire village got wiped out by avalanche! Should eveyone in the village have beacons in their sleep? Where does it begin and end?
It's one thing to be cautious and personally responsible. It's something else if you look at one or two incident and make a blanket statement about the safety of certain area/time. Because if you go far enough, why bother with the avi forecast (flags) at the resort? There had been avalanche incidence in almost all risk levels, including the very low risk period. What's the point of doing that if you treat all of them the same?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| abc wrote: |
They did "make their own accessement". So did the patroller who skied the same area. |
Not really, they missed the obvious trigger point on the shallow ridge and then adopted a poor group discipline on the descent, it's clear any real thought went out the window and they were transfixed by the apparent safety of this controlled area.
What's beyond doubt is that they never expected it to be anything other than safe which is why they weren't carrying any equipment at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
they missed the obvious trigger point on the shallow ridge
|
It's easy to be smart after the fact from thousands of miles away. But it seem not at all "obvious" to the patroller nor the party on the spot.
As for poor discipline, they did spread out and only skied one at a time. There was one mistake admitted by the victim who, had he considered ANY avalanche risk exist, should have skied out of the slide path right away as quickly as possible after the fall.
| Quote: |
| What's beyond doubt is that they never expected it to be anything other than safe which is why they weren't carrying any equipment at all. |
Why shouldn't they be? How often do you check for potential avalanche risk while waiting at the bottom of the lift? Or driving in a car through the mountains after a big snow fall? There had been known accidents of those kind too.
The whole point is, side country avalanche is as rare as avalanche into the piste, or onto a mountain road. So whatever precaution we advocate should also apply to piste skiing. Now, you or the author may choose to be extra safe than others while skiing side country, it doesn't change the fact that inbound is avi controlled and made as safe as the road you drive to get to the lift and the lodge you sleep in. None of them are 100% safe, but then, what is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| abc wrote: |
Why shouldn't they be? How often do you check for potential avalanche risk while waiting at the bottom of the lift? Or driving in a car through the mountains after a big snow fall? There had been known accidents of those kind too. |
permanently, I've been hit in the car by rockfall in the valley in fact so I'm well aware stuff falls from above. Admittedly that says more about the state of our road than anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| abc wrote: |
How often do you check for potential avalanche risk while waiting at the bottom of the lift?
|
Quite regularly throughout the day actually. Perhaps this is an unusual attitude.
| Quote: |
Or driving in a car through the mountains after a big snow fall? There had been known accidents of those kind too.
|
Seen plenty of cars with dents from rockfall where I go. There are regular slides and rockfall, despite the best efforts of the authorities.
| Quote: |
The whole point is, side country avalanche is as rare as avalanche into the piste, or onto a mountain road. So whatever precaution we advocate should also apply to piste skiing. Now, you or the author may choose to be extra safe than others while skiing side country, it doesn't change the fact that inbound is avi controlled and made as safe as the road you drive to get to the lift and the lodge you sleep in. None of them are 100% safe, but then, what is? |
It's all about making personal choices and taking responsibility for your actions. There really is no mileage in being passive about personal safety, unless you genuinely believe that it's someone else's responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I found my Transiever in no time today, it was in my bag where i keep it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowbunny wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
How often do you check for potential avalanche risk while waiting at the bottom of the lift?
|
Quite regularly throughout the day actually. Perhaps this is an unusual attitude.
. |
"Perhaps"? I'd say DEFINITY ("unusual attitude").
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to check the avalanche risk most mornings, especially after a snowfall.
I wouldn't go out of my way to check what it is, but as it's on the board by the lifts there's no harm in doing so. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
