 Poster: A snowHead
|
When I started wearing a lid about 9 years ago, perhaps 10% of European skiers (none of the French of course...) and 30% of North American Skiers wore them. Now I'd say it is closer to 60% and 80% respectively.
Last week in Engelberg (fantastic holiday, powder some skinning and a bit of heli-skiing - and only 3 out of 20 people needing to be admitted to hospital... ) I would say that if you excluded the kids and beginners about 5-10% of people were wearing airbags.
Now of course a lot of these were fluoro-clad Scandis with body armour hucking off drops on skis 120mm plus underfoot, but it is interesting the way things are going...
Any views?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Not going to be the case in North America - despite the odd inbounds slide and Engelberg is a bit of an outlier in Euro resorts. No doubt though as the packs get lighter and cheaper that more people who ski offpiste in Europe (or outside the boundary in N America) will consider them as the stats when they are deployed appear impressive (although I question whether we are at statistically signofocant sample sizes in real avys yet).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
stoatsbrother, interesting question. I noticed far more ABS packs in ValD this year than before. 2 or 3 a day, as opposed to 2 or 3 a week previously. I don't see them taking off as much as helmets in the general ski community due to cost, transport difficulties etc. I've noticed many coaching/guiding companies are offering them as a standard part of kit for off-piste groups, I'm wondering if this is the reason for the increase, rather than private ownership?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
I've noticed many coaching/guiding companies are offering them as a standard part of kit for off-piste groups, I'm wondering if this is the reason for the increase, rather than private ownership?
|
Sounds very likely - those sort of trips seem v popular (I'd like to do one, if pitched at suitably beginner level). I don't see their becoming as popular as helmets because most skiers still ski almost entirely on-piste and helmets make eminent sense on piste (the sort of off piste dabbling I do, my head feels safer than it does on piste with dafties flying around).
When I read the thread title I thought it would be about people becoming evangelistic about them. I also, at very first sight, thought it was referring to those great inflatable things for people landing tricks in the park. I don't think they're the new helmets, either.
stoatsbrother 15% hospitalisation sounds higher than average. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Dr John, Probably in VDI. I suspect this is a new way of getting more money out of punters there
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
IMO the culture these days is that technology can make something potentially dangerous, safe and that by buying something that somehow this circumvents or short-cuts experience and with it judgement. The "marketeers" have done an outstanding job!
I remember on many occasions in Glencoe going on rescues where the casualty had "all the gear" but this had failed to make up for a lack of judgement / experience / skill - "All the gear and no idea" - (This is not to say that accidents do happen - there but for the grace of God go I).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Above posts noted - I bought myself a ABS Freeride Rucksack last year and wear it just as I did a normal rucksack, it is no hindrance on lifts/ on the plane/ not a weight issue and it by no means makes me take extra risks, or detracts from the need to take reasoned judgements based on mountain/ conditions knowledge. I merely look at it as an investment in my favourite sport, and hopefully a life-saver if I needed it at any time (god-forbid). As gear advances there will always be a cost vs benefits anaysis to be done on any new kit, and for me an ABS a no-brainer (ask yourself why the ski-guides have them?), you "pays your money and you takes your chance" is my view, and I know I'm much happier to have it on where I go rather than not have it on, and thats all that matters to me - you only get one life after all and whats £600 for your life.
I dont see it as a "all the gear and no idea" accessory, no more than I do my tranceiver, probe or shovel, its just part of the kit and a welcome advancement in technology, and knowing how to use it and test it every 12 months is key. For me its money well spent. I dont think its the same as a helmet, take-up will be less - its a niche product, only of any value when off-piste, and therefore not for everyone. Just another tool in reducing overall risk, but no substitute for mountain skills. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marksavoie, That may apply to some - but there have always been muppets out there, equipped or not.
However if I wouldn't ski a slope without the holy trinity plus Airbag, I am not going to decide ski it just because I do have them. I don't drive faster because I wear a seatbelt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| I don't drive faster because I wear a seatbelt. |
I'm not sure you can know that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stoatsbrother,
| Quote: |
| That may apply to some - but there have always been muppets out there, equipped or not. |
- agreed.[/
An example: the advent of the mobile phone certainly increased the number of rescues due to the attitude "If I get into problems I can always just - dial-a-rescue".
| Quote: |
| I don't drive faster because I wear a seatbelt |
- that may be true for you however I'm not so convinced. As a whole motorcyclists have a much more acutely developed feel for the road than the average car driver.
Markymark29Reducing risk should not be confused with reducing the "impact" of when things go wrong. ABS, etc reduces impact (i.e the consequences) it doesn't reduce the risk of being avalanched. Risk reduction is about avoidance i.e. when, where and how you ski/climb etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
marksavoie, a brief look at the statistics about motorcyclists deaths in incidents involving poor judgement would quickly disabuse you of that view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
I don't drive faster because I wear a seatbelt.
|
I don't either. And I do know that.
| Quote: |
As a whole motorcyclists have a much more acutely developed feel for the road than the average car driver.
|
I'd suspect that's right; doesn't stop them dying in droves, though, does it? Sometimes in crashes with no other vehicle involved. I guess more motorcyclists are on the road for the sheer pleasure of being on the road - that's probably not true of many drivers over the age of 17.5.
Markymark29 makes a series of perfectly sensible points - I'd probably feel the same if I was an off piste skier.
| Quote: |
Reducing risk should not be confused with reducing the "impact" of when things go wrong. ABS, etc reduces impact (i.e the consequences) it doesn't reduce the risk of being avalanched. Risk reduction is about avoidance i.e. when, where and how you ski/climb etc
|
But risk reduction is about both, surely - reduce the risk of being avalanched AND reduce the risk of being buried if you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pam w,
| Quote: |
Quote:
I don't drive faster because I wear a seatbelt.
I don't either. And I do know that.
|
Is that because the car simply won't go any faster?
To reiterate the others on the thread - marky, Pam, Stoats, et al - (or maybe a simple +1 will suffice? )
Risk comprises two unlinked factors - Likelihood and Impact
Some behaviours affect likelihood
Other behaviours affect impact.
But reducing impact cannot affect likelihood, and reducing likelihood cannot affect impact (if and when it does happen) .
However, that analysis is often forgotten, both in daily life and in the mountains.
Reducing 'risk' to an acceptable level generally requires knowledge of, and differing actions to counter, both (and crucually, you have to define acceptable... but that's a whole different thread)
Countering one in the expectation that the other is now less likely, or less devastating, is unfortunately, simple ignorance: that can be overcome, but probably won't be by those who don't pay attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
JimW, very impressive.
Regarding ABS or similar sacs. Using your analysis Jim, many of my friends now have these bags, but they still go to the arvi park and train with transceivers regularly and attend off piste safety seasons with pisteurs to gain more knowledge. So they are in fact reducing risk by gaining knowledge whilst also becoming safer in the back country by carrying there ABS sacs if we agree with the current view that these sacs give you a far great chance of survival in an avalanche is correct.
Of course this is all very theoretical and depends on another factor. How sensible is the person that has just bought the ABS sac. If the person buying the ABS sac is 'sensible' they will not start doing anything more dangerous and will just regard the ABS as yet another part of the kit you carry to help you stay safe off piste, but if they then think they are superman, well it may well all end in disaster unless they have also acquired the skills to ski at a higher level and the mountain awareness that goes with that.
So getting back to the question asked at the start of this thread, yes I have seen more people around Les Arcs with these sacs this season and not just professionals or guided groups. But I do not think they will become anything as widespread as Helmets unless they become much cheaper and even lighter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
If you are 'avalanched', for whatever reason, an ABS bag is more likely to save you than any other bit of kit. Also an ABS bag requires none or minimal training, unlike [most] tranceivers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
If I were an off-piste skier I would would buy one. And, of course, there is convention with which no-one would disagree that off-piste groups all carry mutual rescue equipment.
What gives me slight unease, though, is the notion that there are certain special skills and knowledge that make it safe. From what I read, many of those who meet with fatal accidents do so in the company of mountain guides, and indeed many of the fatalities ARE mountain guides. I have read the books and looked at the videos, and a lot if seems to be a counsel of perfection. Digging trial pits to assess the snow stability, for instance. How often do you off-piste skiers do that? And what you see in one location is no indication of what lies just over the crest, or just around the corner. If you dug pits all over the mountain you wouldn't get much skiing done. When you come over a ridge and a little way down a convex slope, if what you see looks a little overloaded, what do you do? Do you side-step back up? I wouldn't have thought that was possible. Is it not the case that the conditions you go into the mountains looking for are precisely the most dangerous conditions? A fresh dump of snow. Mostly that is going to be in warmer weather after a cold spell. And you are going to want to do it in sunshine if you can.
I am not saying you should not do it. Far from it. I think it is intrinsically dangerous. But that you have a right to do it because you love it. I am just a little concerned that the emphasis on "knowledge" and equipment is going to lead to a prescriptive regime, and we will all end up needing a licence to do anything outdoors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Timmaah, exactly what I've been thinking!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Timmaah, Yep you can just get the outer backpack for the vario systems, but you need a base unit to wear it with, there are also summer base units which the vario packs can zip onto which has NO airbag system in the base.
This of course opens up another whole area of discussion, if actually the airbag manufactures should be offering backpacks saying ABS on the outside when there is no airbag in the pack. This is not just limited to ABS other people are making packs that zip onto the ABS base unit and for next year there will be others out there as well.
Phew so many airbag threads at the moment, its difficult to keep up,
Going back to the original thread, airbags have seen a huge growth over the last two seasons, this season even more than last. IMHO I do not think they will ever be as pop as helmets, but maybe transceivers?
There will be another huge shift for next season, with whats coming to the market, as many of you know the trade shows are during Feb so I will update when I have all the information from these shows. What I can say is that the choice will be much larger
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| planeurge wrote: |
| What gives me slight unease, though, is the notion that there are certain special skills and knowledge that make it safe. From what I read, many of those who meet with fatal accidents do so in the company of mountain guides, and indeed many of the fatalities ARE mountain guides. |
it isn't about making it absolutely safe - no skiing is. it is about being able to assess the risks in a reasonable way. the technique i use, in theory, makes the risk of skiing similar to going for a walk in the mountains in summer. it isn't completely safe, but it is a level of risk i am happy to take on assuming i assess it correctly and this is where the knowledge and experience comes in
| Quote: |
| I have read the books and looked at the videos, and a lot if seems to be a counsel of perfection. Digging trial pits to assess the snow stability, for instance. How often do you off-piste skiers do that? And what you see in one location is no indication of what lies just over the crest, or just around the corner. If you dug pits all over the mountain you wouldn't get much skiing done. |
some people are more into pits than others. i can see the use for getting a very general idea about the snowpack when you first visit an area but i don't think a pit should make the difference between skiing a slope and not doing do
| Quote: |
| When you come over a ridge and a little way down a convex slope, if what you see looks a little overloaded, what do you do? Do you side-step back up? I wouldn't have thought that was possible. |
it's quite rare to jump onto a slope with no idea of what its topography is like. if you do decide you don't fancy it once you are on the slope, yes you do climb out. it may not be fun but it's better than being avalanched
| Quote: |
| Is it not the case that the conditions you go into the mountains looking for are precisely the most dangerous conditions? A fresh dump of snow. Mostly that is going to be in warmer weather after a cold spell. And you are going to want to do it in sunshine if you can. |
the sad irony of off-piste skiing is that slopes between 30ish and 40ish degrees are most likely to avalanche and these are right in the sweet spot for powder skiing. not necessarily true that the weather always warms up after a dump. if you get a cold front coming through it will get progressively cooler
| Quote: |
| I am not saying you should not do it. Far from it. I think it is intrinsically dangerous. But that you have a right to do it because you love it. I am just a little concerned that the emphasis on "knowledge" and equipment is going to lead to a prescriptive regime, and we will all end up needing a licence to do anything outdoors. |
you are sounding like a lawyer here i'm not sure what the problem is with having simple groundrules which will help people be safe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| planeurge wrote: |
| I think it is intrinsically dangerous. |
Yes, but isn't that the case for so many aspects of our lives which we do on a day to day basis without any hesitation? In the 10 years up to 2008 there were more than 32,000 road deaths. In 2008 alone there were 2,538 road deaths and nearly 250,000 injuries. But that doesn't stop people driving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arno: Good. You agree with me then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
rob@rar,
| Quote: |
I am not saying you should not do it.
|
Road safety usually concerns other road users as well, so it is appropriate that there should be a more prescriptive regime. Skiing risks are much more heavily weighted towards the individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
planeurge, indeed, and I also don't think there should be a prescriptive regime governing what skiing you can do. I'm not sure that encouraging people to develop the best understanding they can of snowpack stability, and exhortations to be properly equipped amounts to a prescriptive regime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
stoatsbrother, Sorry to have skewed your thread. I am sure airbags are a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
planeurge, not sure - I couldn't work out what your point was
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, Good. We agree about that then.
As for safety training, I am sure it is a very good idea, as long as it comes with a warning, that a lot of the risk is unknowable and outside your control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Arno wrote: |
| planeurge, not sure - I couldn't work out what your point was |
Have to confess to being a little bit unsure as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Some interesting thoughts on lessons learnt from recent tragedies here
http://www.henrysavalanchetalk.com/tragic-accidents-val-dis%C3%A8re-season-january-11-two-others
cut n paste of the Advice section below......
1. LEARN HOW TO HAVE FUN ON LOW ANGLES SLOPES
Stay on and around slopes of 25° (slope steepness of a red run maximum – see photo ‘Learn how to have fun on low slope angles’) or less especially on North facing slopes above 2200 metres that have not been skied much this season
After new snowfalls stay at least 200 m to 300 m away from steep slopes above off-piste routes that don't get skied (more distance if the recent snowfalls are close to a metre or more). You can trigger these kinds of slopes from a distance.
When you are travelling on low angles slopes, watch out for convexities that lead into parts of the itinerary that are steep enough to avalanche. Even on low angle off-piste itineraries, there are always small parts that are steep enough to avalanche.
2. PAY MORE ATTENTION TO THE AVALANCHE FORECAST BULLETINS AND WHAT AVALANCHE CONTROL PROFESSIONALS ARE OBSERVING
I’ve learned that I should be paying closer attention to the avalanche bulletins and what the pisteurs (ski patrol) have to say about what they have seen during avalanche control and apply that more directly to my decision making (where the weak layers are worst, where there are dangerous slabs developing and releasing, where there has been recent avalanche activity and/or where they think that slopes are suspect) etc. I suggest you do the same if and when you consider going on to steeper slopes with fresh snow on them.
3. GO ONE AT A TIME OR KEEP DISTANCES BETWEEN PEOPLE IN THE GROUP AND STOP IN SAFE SPOTS (while on or around ‘steeper slopes’ of 25° steepness or above).
This is another thing that I’m stricter about now – with myself, with my mates and with my paying clients even when the rating is not high and there is little or no recent avalanche activity on similar slopes. I suggest you do the same.
Further related points FOR DISCUSION – Please comment
1. PRESSURE ON THE PROFESSIONAL
People who hire a local off-piste professional, have a very good level of skiing and spend many days in the area in question - a resort like Val d’Isère - are more likely to want to be taken to places far afield, places that they can’t or don’t want to go to just with their mates. In other words, people who know an area very well are not hiring someone to take them to places that they can easily go to with their mates (like the types of low angle places I’m advising people to go to in this blog post). The desire and expectations for untracked snow also motivates all of us to search farther afield. I believe that this influences the dynamics of the group and the decision making process of the professional.
2. ESCAPING A MOVING AVALANCHE
I suspect that the professionals who were caught in these avalanches, and experienced skiers in other accidents, are better able to save themselves compared to people with less skill and experience off-piste because they have the presence of mind and skill needed to get off the slab (or out of the main part of it) quickly enough. Instinctively they were thinking of an escape route. Plus they had the skiing skill level needed in order to get to the edge of the slab (or close enough to it) so that they were able fight to get out of the slab once it had broken up and they were taken in it.
Consistently I’ve seen in case studies and statistics that the better skiers/snowboards seem to escape with fewer injuries than their less competent friends or clients. I believe that this has something to do with it and I’m interested in comments on this.
Ride Hard, Ride Safe,
Henry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
JimW made the point very well about risk (the likelihood) and impact (consequences of being avalanched).
We each judge for ourselves what level of risk we find acceptable. Training can help us make better informed judgements about the level of risk. The crux is sometimes how fine a judgement we want to make about the level of risk. Do you want to leave a large margin for error in that judgement or not.
I think ABS is a great addition to the "reducing the impact" of being caught in an avalanche (as is the ARVA, etc). The ABS is clearly designed to avoid you being buried. However isn't going to save you from the other effects of the avalanche - ie. having your head smashed off a rock; being flung into a tree (Chartreuse Nov 2010) or over a cliff (friend in Glencoe); it's also not going to stop you ingesting snow and having your airway blocked - a major reason for rapid fatalities in avalanches (Nevis Range).
Snowpits - from a mountaineering point of view I've found them very informative. I recall a day in Glencoe demonstrating to clients and seeing 3 walkers head on up the corrie. I said that I wouldn't go up the headwall that day. We had just seen how easily a block (isolated at the back of the pit) sheared on a layer of weakness. I rated the risk on the Euro scale at about 3 / 3+. From time to time I looked up to watch the progress of the 3 walkers. I noted that they saw a risk as they were taking a particular route however it was clear they would have to cross the convexity of the slope. The next thing - boum! the lead walker had triggered the slope. IMO snowpits have their uses! The avalanche forecasters (esp. Scotland) are out digging them every day! It's not a precise science but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's another piece in the jigsaw of building up a picture of the snowpack and its stability or otherwise.
I'm not risk averse on a personal level having soloed some respectable routes in Chamonix and on rock and ice in the UK plus done a fair bit of paragliding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
kitenski, I always have potential islands of (relative) safety in mind when I am skiing slopes. Looking at the terrain you can usually imagine where a slide might run to and be damn ready to have a run out option off to each side in mind. It may only add a small edge to your chances but if you put every bit of knowledge you have to avoiding and mitigating possible slides it can't be a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
