 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
The chance of needing a parachute if you fly is really extremely small, as is the chance of being in an avalanche if you only go off piste very occasionally. However, over decades of skiing mostly off piste (as I do) the chances of eventually getting in an avalanche get very significant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Found the TGR thread about the 'avalanche from multiple perspectives' incident, for those of you who might be interested: My Avalanche Experience - Helmet Cam Footage and Commentary on Emergency Gear
| James the Last wrote: |
| If other people won't ski with me unless I can rescue them from this miniscule danger, then I would be prepared to carry a receive-only device in order to keep them happy, on the grounds that it would not be making a material change to my life expectancy. |
Is having a beacon really this massively onerous? Seriously? The stress and effort involved in carrying a transceiver, shovel and probe really affects you this much?
Its fair enough that you are prepared to take the small risk of dying in an avalanche... you do what you like. But you'd better be carrying a means for the rest of us to find your body, especially those who's job it is to clean up after these sorts of accidents. Rescue teams and helicopters will be deployed at risk to the people involved and at non-trivial expense, and you making their job harder, even post-mortem, is still quite selfish in my eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| The crowds of ESF instructors taking an army of children off piste down the Vallée Perdue above La Daille ten days ago weren't bothering with all this faff. |
Wasn't the avalanche risk in that area just 1 at that point? I rather suspect they wouldn't have done the same last sunday after all the fresh snow when the risk level was at 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
James the Last, maybe but point is that parachutes would still be a poor choice for where to spend your money when compared to a good steak.
snowball
| Quote: |
| The chance of needing a parachute if you fly is really extremely small, as is the chance of being in an avalanche if you only go off piste very occasionally. However, over decades of skiing mostly off piste (as I do) the chances of eventually getting in an avalanche get very significant. |
No disagreement with this at all. That's why I own the kit and might even bring it with me sometimes, whilst recognising that for many it's just more gear to buy and fuss with, so they rightly cross beyond the markers and without bothering with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I've found all this very interesting and have been generally finding out more about things. I thought this interactive aid was quite informative and I don't recall anyone posting it previously: http://www.mammut.ch/barryvoxtraining
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Serriadh wrote: |
| James the Last wrote: |
| The crowds of ESF instructors taking an army of children off piste down the Vallée Perdue above La Daille ten days ago weren't bothering with all this faff. |
Wasn't the avalanche risk in that area just 1 at that point? I rather suspect they wouldn't have done the same last sunday after all the fresh snow when the risk level was at 3. |
Quite. Exactly my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| Quite. Exactly my point. |
Really? Cos I didn't see any mention of varying avalanche risks in your post. Or, y'know, anywhere in this thread. Only that carrying a transciever, or at least the emitter stage, was pointless.
If you'd actually been arguing that carrying avalanche gear in terrain that was so safe that the ESF would herd a bunch of children though it was pointless, do you really think you'd have had so many negative responses?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Megamum, thanks for that link, it was really interesting. I was rubbish at it - but I never play computer games. Just couldn't work out how to dig properly with a mouse  . Hope I would be better at the real thing. (Obviously, hope I never, ever need to do it.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Serriadh, I followed your link above to the TGR forum and watched and read about that experience. Although he wasn't saved by a transceiver I was astounded at how effective the other gear he carried was. Yet, I expect James the Last, would argue that none of it was really necessary as avalanches won't happen to him. I bet that chap had winced every time he bent his credit card, yet I would argue the the things he carried could well have saved his life - as mentioned above - it's no different to 'insurance'.
As an aside, I couldn't help thinking he was lucky to have had the helicopter standing by, as if he hadn't been able to find his gear after surviving the avalanche he wouldn't half had a difficult job getting off the mountain!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maggi, click to dig left, then click to dig right, then click to dig the bit in the middle!! LOL
Whilst there was a limit to what it could do, I learned more through doing it that I ever knew about this area before.
Another one I found that I liked was this one to explain why the search pattern is circular:
http://www.fsavalanche.org/encyclopedia/avalanche_transceiver.htm
What it then led me to wonder is, if a transceiver shows say 10m to the victim is that measurement in a straight line to the victim or is it the distance you have walk around the curved track?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| Yet, I expect James the Last, would argue that none of it was really necessary as avalanches won't happen to him. |
In his defence, that seems a little unfair  The thrust of his argument, as I see it, is that the chances of you being buried in an avalanche, and yet surviving thanks to a transciever'n'probe search are so slim as to make buying and carrying that equipment and training in its use pointless.
I don't think he's cavalier about the risks, however. I'm not either, and that's precisely why I'm happy to equip myself with the appropriate gear; I don't see it as an imposition. I wear a helmet too 
| Megamum wrote: |
| What it then led me to wonder is, if a transceiver shows say 10m to the victim is that measurement in a straight line to the victim or is it the distance you have walk around the curved track? |
In the last few practises I've done, when you are 'close enough' to the target (under 15m, at least) I get the straight line distance, but if you're far enough away you tend to get a curved path distance. There are all sorts of factors involved, including the orientation of the transmitting antenna and the cleverness of the receiving device.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
when you are 'close enough' to the target (under 15m, at least) I get the straight line distance, but if you're far enough away you tend to get a curved path distance.
|
Serriadh, interesting, I suppose to a certain distance from the transmitter the line is fairly straight and so I guess the straight line distance is a fair estimate anyway. Looking at that diagram I posted it is only after it starts to really curve that the distance becomes elongated by the curved track. Could it be that it is the curved track that it always measures and therefore it appears to be in a straight line when you are closer and off of the curved path to a greater degree?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Serriadh wrote: |
| In his defence, that seems a little unfair The thrust of his argument, as I see it, is that the chances of you being buried in an avalanche, and yet surviving thanks to a transciever'n'probe search are so slim as to make buying and carrying that equipment and training in its use pointless. |
| Serriadh wrote: |
| If you'd actually been arguing that carrying avalanche gear in terrain that was so safe that the ESF would herd a bunch of children though it was pointless, do you really think you'd have had so many negative responses? |
But the 2 are the same. It must be.
Because if you go out a lot in higher avalanche risk, your chance of being buried is higher. Consequently, the chance of landing in that risk band of buried but not dead is also increased proportionally. Transceiver becomes more important because of that use pattern.
The result of being cautious and choosy about when and where to ski off-piste will decrease the chance of needing transceiver. His argument is, for the vast majority who goes out only at low risk days, the chance of transceiver coming into use is too small to be worth insisting.
Now one may after all choose to have one however small the chance of usage is (or even carry one when on piste). But his argument being it's disproportionally promoted for ALL off-piste skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
In answer to the OP, potentially a few more given the response to the BCA tracker thread running at the moment 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
