if the cord's bunched up it could be a lot less, but it could never be more
Utter rubbish, if the cord is strong enough not to break its is a huge risk to the skier, if its not well it could be any distance from the skiier.
wasting rescue time and resources.
I would love to see some freestyle jumps and spins trailing a 20m length of good solid hemp rope (red naturally)
I think just maybe an avalance tranceiver is a better idea even if it used those new fangled radio waves
nooooooooooooooo! why do i feed this dementing,schizophrenic, multiple personalitied Troll?
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Richard Hammond showed some very nice avalanches on the telly last night. Interviewed a guide from Saas Fee with first hand experience of being caught in a biggie. Worth watching on iPlayer y'all.
After all it is free
After all it is free
kevindonkleywood wrote:
I would love to see some freestyle jumps and spins trailing a 20m length of good solid hemp rope (red naturally)
In that case you'll enjoy this, which also includes napalm:
why do i feed this dementing,schizophrenic, multiple personalitied Troll?
How dare you
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:
How dare you
cos you love the abuse
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
kevindonkleywood, You were a tad unfair in your last (but one) post. I think you meant 'dementED'
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Axsman,
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.
kevindonkleywood wrote:
Quote:
if the cord's bunched up it could be a lot less, but it could never be more
Utter rubbish...
Yep, and he know it, imo.
Quote:
....Troll?
Yep, and he could be putting lives at risk.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
You're right. De ment demented
This Wikipedia entry on avalanche cords is worth reading, since it's the product of combined knowledge and discussion:
Quote:
Avalanche cords
Using an avalanche cord is the oldest form of equipment — mainly used before beacons became available. The principle is simple. An approximately 10 meter long red cord (similar to parachute cord) is attached to the person in question's belt. While skiing, snowboarding, or walking the cord is dragged along behind the person. If the person gets buried in an avalanche, the light cord stays on top of the snow. Due to the color the cord is easily visible for rescue personnel. Typically the cord has iron markings every one meter that indicate the direction and length to the victim.
Critics of this method say that due to the nature of avalanche debris, any rescuers might have to dig through 10 meters (the approximate recommended cord length) of compacted snow and ice, following the cord as it twists and turns in the debris, to finally locate the person on the other end. As this is likely to take much longer than 15 minutes (maximum survival time) to accomplish, the victim is almost certainly going to be dead by the time they are reached. Thus, avalanche cord is not generally used or accepted as being an adequate sole safety measure.
That all seems pretty fair. Rescuers might have to dig through 10m of debris ... there again, it might be 1m.
The last sentence is a good summary:
Quote:
avalanche cord is not generally used or accepted as being an adequate sole safety measure
Might the same argument be applied to transceivers, given the fact that many are dished out by guides to groups who have little or no training in their use? As I've argued, in the very confused and formidable scene of a large area of avalanche debris, could a trace of red in the snow be a useful indicator as to where to start searching?
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
George W. Bash wrote:
You're right. De ment demented
This Wikipedia entry on avalanche cords is worth reading, since it's the product of combined knowledge and discussion:
Quote:
Avalanche cords
Using an avalanche cord is the oldest form of equipment — mainly used before beacons became available. The principle is simple. An approximately 10 meter long red cord (similar to parachute cord) is attached to the person in question's belt. While skiing, snowboarding, or walking the cord is dragged along behind the person. If the person gets buried in an avalanche, the light cord stays on top of the snow. Due to the color the cord is easily visible for rescue personnel. Typically the cord has iron markings every one meter that indicate the direction and length to the victim.
Critics of this method say that due to the nature of avalanche debris, any rescuers might have to dig through 10 meters (the approximate recommended cord length) of compacted snow and ice, following the cord as it twists and turns in the debris, to finally locate the person on the other end. As this is likely to take much longer than 15 minutes (maximum survival time) to accomplish, the victim is almost certainly going to be dead by the time they are reached. Thus, avalanche cord is not generally used or accepted as being an adequate sole safety measure.
That all seems pretty fair. Rescuers might have to dig through 10m of debris ... there again, it might be 1m.
The last sentence is a good summary:
Quote:
avalanche cord is not generally used or accepted as being an adequate sole safety measure
Might the same argument be applied to transceivers, given the fact that many are dished out by guides to groups who have little or no training in their use? As I've argued, in the very confused and formidable scene of a large area of avalanche debris, could a trace of red in the snow be a useful indicator as to where to start searching?
Thanks for that. Glad you agree with that wiki article, seeming as I wrote part of it, including that 'last sentence' you cite above.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
OK. So, are we all agreed that avalanche cords:
1. are best not relied upon as a sole safety measure
2. might save lives, in the event that they provide a quick local trace to the victim
3. can complement other devices, such as transceivers
4. are cheap, obvious to understand and - if made from a material such as parachute cord - strong
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
BTW
Quote:
Might the same argument be applied to transceivers, given the fact that many are dished out by guides to groups who have little or no training in their use? As I've argued, in the very confused and formidable scene of a large area of avalanche debris, could a trace of red in the snow be a useful indicator as to where to start searching?
Transceivers are almost (excluding you, of course) universally accepted as being a more than adequate recovery system when combined with a probe and shovel. But obviously, as with any system, knowledge of use is required.
What is also almost universally accepted, with the obvious exclusion of yourself, is that merely relying on avoidance is inadequate.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Well, pardon me, but every winter we read about scores of avalanche deaths ... but few success stories attributed to transceivers.
Would anyone care to reference some 'transceiver success stories' from the past few seasons?
I'm not for a moment saying that they don't work. People aren't found quickly enough for various reasons, but I strongly suspect that some skiers might be alive today if they'd had bright red cords tied to them.
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?
1. yes, avalanche cord is not generally used or accepted as being an adequate sole safety measure.
2. They are next to useless.
3. No. And if your are thinking of changing that wiki article, you had better have proof and cite your sources.
4. Yes they are cheap and obvious to understand, put that doesn't mean they work.
2. They are next to useless.
3. No. And if your are thinking of changing that wiki article, you had better have proof and cite your sources.
If you sincerely believe that, why not pitch (2) to Wikipedia and see if (3) comes into play.
You can't have it both ways.
The concluding message of that Wikipedia article is hardly that they are "next to useless".
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
George W. Bash,
Quote:
I'm not for a moment saying that they [transceivers] don't work. People aren't found quickly enough for various reasons, but I strongly suspect that some skiers might be alive today if they'd had bright red cords tied to them.
You go on suspecting what you like, so long as you don't try to pass it off as fact. You don't even carry a shovel, so why would anyone listen to you?
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Thu 1-04-10 10:47; edited 1 time in total
2. I know they are not fool-proof, but does anyone have any statistics on the reliability of avalanche cords or have any personal experience with them?
Avalanche cords are long bright (usually red) cords which a person can trail behind them when in hazardous terrain. The idea is that after an avalanche the cord can be followed to the victim. Cord designed for this purpose has arrows on it to point the right direction. The advent of avalanche beacons has made this method obsolete.
From the 1950/51 season through 1994/95 season there was a total of 2 people recovered by avalanche cord. One was alive and one was dead. These figures are not likely to change since this method is rarely used anymore.
The figures are complicated by a few incidents. In January of 1978 four people were buried with avalanche cords but were not found until the snow melted. This has not been included in the above figures since they were not found by the cord. Some statistics may reflect this differently.
There have also been cases of climbers being roped together. I have heard of one instance where an ice climber was avalanched off a climb and buried. His partner tried to follow the rope but had too difficult a time and had to get help. When the buried climber was finally recovered he was dead.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
The shovel argument is an interesting one. Some skiers who make the shovel proposition imply that it's a skier's 'Good Samaritan' duty to be available to dig out a fellow skier. That's perfectly admirable, and it may be based on the ancient self-imposed role of the Great St Bernard monks. They traditionally set out to rescue distressed walkers (including smugglers), in the depths of winter, from their hospice - the highest inhabited place in Europe at the time.
No, I don't carry a shovel, and can't recall ever skiing off-piste with any other recreational skier who has carried a shovel (though the guides I've skied with quite possibly had them in their backpacks).
PJSki wrote:
You don't even carry a shovel, so why would anyone listen to you?
A 'speaking shovel' could make an interesting novelty.
After all it is free
After all it is free
[quote="PJSki"]
Quote:
From the 1950/51 season through 1994/95 season there was a total of 2 people recovered by avalanche cord. One was alive and one was dead.
Wow! So a 50% succesful recovery rate for people using an avalanche cord? That's got to be pretty good, right?
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.
George W. Bash wrote:
The shovel argument is an interesting one. Some skiers who make the shovel proposition imply that it's a skier's 'Good Samaritan' duty to be available to dig out a fellow skier. That's perfectly admirable, and it may be based on the ancient self-imposed role of the Great St Bernard monks. They traditionally set out to rescue distressed walkers (including smugglers), in the depths of winter, from their hospice - the highest inhabited place in Europe at the time.
No, I don't carry a shovel, and can't recall ever skiing off-piste with any other recreational skier who has carried a shovel (though the guides I've skied with quite possibly had them in their backpacks).
.
So what safety equipment do you recommender people take with them when they head off-piste? Personally I think you're an accident waiting to happen. Unfortunately, mountain law denotes that any skier aware of any difficulty you get yourself into has to come to your aid. You are, of course, bound by the same law but would be next to useless to anyone else with just your 10m of cord.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
[quote="The Voice of Reason"]
PJSki wrote:
Quote:
From the 1950/51 season through 1994/95 season there was a total of 2 people recovered by avalanche cord. One was alive and one was dead.
Wow! So a 50% succesful recovery rate for people using an avalanche cord? That's got to be pretty good, right?
Yeah, it's all a big joke. We really need to get back to the important stuff like poor TOs, chalet prices and the best places to go at Easter.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
George W. Bash wrote:
....No, I don't carry a shovel, and can't recall ever skiing off-piste with any other recreational skier who has carried a shovel ......
Long time since you skied serious off-piste, then, eh? But I guess we knew that.
Why on earth are you advocating any form of buried body detection - even if it is just an avalanche cord - if you don't advocate shovels to recover the buried?
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.
achilles wrote:
George W. Bash wrote:
....No, I don't carry a shovel, and can't recall ever skiing off-piste with any other recreational skier who has carried a shovel ......
Long time since you skied serious off-piste, then, eh? But I guess we knew that.
Why on earth are you advocating any form of buried body detection - even if it is just an avalanche cord - if you don't advocate shovels to recover the buried?
We'll never get a straight answer to that.
I think there might have to be a new addition to that wiki page stating David Goldsmith's views and putting them in contest as being in a very small minority.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Quote:
The shovel argument is an interesting one. Some skiers who make the shovel proposition imply that it's a skier's 'Good Samaritan' duty to be available to dig out a fellow skier. That's perfectly admirable, and it may be based on the ancient self-imposed role of the Great St Bernard monks. They traditionally set out to rescue distressed walkers (including smugglers), in the depths of winter, from their hospice - the highest inhabited place in Europe at the time.
No, I don't carry a shovel, and can't recall ever skiing off-piste with any other recreational skier who has carried a shovel (though the guides I've skied with quite possibly had them in their backpacks).
Sorry, but that is SERIOUSLY weird, both the idea that there's no point in carrying a shovel off-piste and the inappropriate interpolation of a quick bite of Wiki-history. Major loss of plot.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Hurtle wrote:
Quote:
The shovel argument is an interesting one. Some skiers who make the shovel proposition imply that it's a skier's 'Good Samaritan' duty to be available to dig out a fellow skier. That's perfectly admirable, and it may be based on the ancient self-imposed role of the Great St Bernard monks. They traditionally set out to rescue distressed walkers (including smugglers), in the depths of winter, from their hospice - the highest inhabited place in Europe at the time.
No, I don't carry a shovel, and can't recall ever skiing off-piste with any other recreational skier who has carried a shovel (though the guides I've skied with quite possibly had them in their backpacks).
Sorry, but that is SERIOUSLY weird, both the idea that there's no point in carrying a shovel off-piste and the inappropriate interpolation of a quick bite of Wiki-history. Major loss of plot.
What do you expect? The guy's an effing head case, after all.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
achilles, we're discussing red cords, not red herrings.
The timing of my last skirmish off-piste is hardly relevant to whether avalanche cords work. The source that PJ Ski has now cited mentions a life saved by avalanche cord some time between 1950 and 1995: a period of 45 years, half of which has seen very little use of avalanche cords.
That's really the essence of it - the prejudice against avalanche cords is based on virtually no knowledge, testing or experience of them. But he's citing an apparent avalanche expert who says that at least one life has been saved (presumably the author could specify the occasion) ... and some indication that climbers' ropes have served a similar benefit.
When did I say I don't advocate shovels? I wouldn't carry one normally, but obviously if a guide specified it, I'd carry one. I don't own a transceiver, but would agree that a shovel and probe would make a lot of sense in combination.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
George W. Bash,
Quote:
would agree that a shovel and probe would make a lot of sense in combination.
Well, that's a relief.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Hurtle wrote:
Sorry, but that is SERIOUSLY weird, both the idea that there's no point in carrying a shovel off-piste and the inappropriate interpolation of a quick bite of Wiki-history. Major loss of plot.
That's a misrepresentation of what I wrote.
Just apply a bit of logic to this - when rescuers want to find a ship or aircraft that's sunk to the bottom of the sea, they consider anything floating on the surface to be a pretty useful clue. And if the sea's calm, the indication could be very accurate indeed.
Snow is perfectly calm after an avalanche, and a portion of red cord floating 1m/2m from a victim (for example) might strike you as a useful locator.
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 is that it for this year's red string thing or is there more? Maybe we could do anonymity on the web next, or possibly revisit the 'admin - is he a git or what' topic - can't say I've seen that one recently.
On the subject of carrying shovels, I recommend a snowboard for its multi-purpose functionality - I used mine to dig the car out on several occasions in January.
Sorry, but that is SERIOUSLY weird, both the idea that there's no point in carrying a shovel off-piste and the inappropriate interpolation of a quick bite of Wiki-history. Major loss of plot.
That's a misrepresentation of what I wrote.
Just apply a bit of logic to this - when rescuers want to find a ship or aircraft that's sunk to the bottom of the sea, they consider anything floating on the surface to be a pretty useful clue. And if the sea's calm, the indication could be very accurate indeed.
Snow is perfectly calm after an avalanche, and a portion of red cord floating 1m/2m from a victim (for example) might strike you as a useful locator.
Then again it might have become detached, acted as a strangulation device or be so far from the victim as to make digging out in time impossible.
No one is saying that items on the surface are not useful in locating a buried victim. In fact the first rule is to do a visual scan of the area look for such clues. But ultimately the rescuers need to start digging at a point where they know the victim to be and a transceiver/probe combination is currently the fastest way to get to that point.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Lizzard wrote:
So is that it for this year's red string thing or is there more? Maybe we could do anonymity on the web next, or possibly revisit the 'admin - is he a git or what' topic - can't say I've seen that one recently.
On the subject of carrying shovels, I recommend a snowboard for its multi-purpose functionality - I used mine to dig the car out on several occasions in January.
But no good for shifting avalanche debris, as I'm sure you know.
From an aesthetic point of view, I am not trailing a red cord behind me, I rather die dahlings. Clearly, nobody (apart from maybe one) is going to do it so "does it save lives" is unlikely to ever be tested in anger.
Whatever study someone does, there simply aren't enough real-life avalanche encounters to get a result. I've been hanging around this site for 6 years (note to self: get a life) and I am aware that an awful lot of people carry all the gear (inc shovel of course) but I can't recall hearing about more than one incident where any has either been caught in a slide or needed to perform a rescue. Judging by the amount of off-piste talking that goes on I would have expected more encounters. We hear about others having incidents and we regulary get reports of deaths (sadly one Brit last week but mainly folks from other nations and their guides) but it doesn't seem to happen to . To me it means that "no gear" is almost as foolproof as "all the gear" and it's all about personal preference re feeling secure, the choice of terrain and knowledge. Avalanche cords "No" but an enjoyable piece of madness.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
George W. Bash,
Quote:
Just apply a bit of logic to this - when rescuers want to find a ship or aircraft that's sunk to the bottom of the sea, they consider anything floating on the surface to be a pretty useful clue. And if the sea's calm, the indication could be very accurate indeed.
Snow is perfectly calm after an avalanche, and a portion of red cord floating 1m/2m from a victim (for example) might strike you as a useful locator.
Your repeating yourself endlessly has no bearing on the point I actually made, which had nothing to do with avalanche cords.
Bode Swiller, interesting.
After all it is free
After all it is free
George W. Bash wrote:
achilles, we're discussing red cords, not red herrings.
The timing of my last skirmish off-piste is hardly relevant to whether avalanche cords work....
But, sweet heart, it is very relevant to you saying "I don't carry a shovel, and can't recall ever skiing off-piste with any other recreational skier who has carried a shovel" - almost all skiers I ski with on any serious off-piste carry a shovel as a matter of course - and that's been the case for years.
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.
PJSki, I don't often park my car where there's a significant avalanche risk, it's true. I did try boarding over the top of a load of avalanche debris once, but this was a less than successful enterprise, so I haven't repeated it.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Quote:
Just apply a bit of logic to this - when rescuers want to find a ship or aircraft that's sunk to the bottom of the sea, they consider anything floating on the surface to be a pretty useful clue. And if the sea's calm, the indication could be very accurate indeed.
Snow is perfectly calm after an avalanche, and a portion of red cord floating 1m/2m from a victim (for example) might strike you as a useful locator.
Conversation at scene of avalanche:
Pisteur: Qu'est qui arrive here?
Ernst W Bash: Mon ocean liner est prdue dans ce avalanche debris la!
Etc.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
cos you love the abuse
