 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
If you have enough exposure no doubt eventually you'll find yourself grateful for having had one, but my impression is that on a backdrop of many days spent off piste in many manners, tales of people who would not have survived but for their beacons alone are rare enough to be news.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Fri 11-01-13 23:20; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| arguably a logical way to behave is to carry a receive-only beacon. |
So you're go off-piste skiing with a group of four mates and you all have a receive-only beacon? Apologies because I've not read all of this thread other than a quick skim, but for the life of me I can't see the logic in that argument! By the same argument should we all replace the airbags in our cars with a great big spike to the middle of the steering wheel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
rob@rar, it's that James the Last sees no benefit in someone else being able to find him when he's buried under a metre of snow - but he's acceding to the group demand that he can contribute to the search effort if someone else gets buried, and he's quite happy for others to waste their cash on a pointless transmit-capable beacon if they so wish. So he saves £50 on the cost of a beacon because he's confident he'll never be buried.
No, I'm not that cocky/arrogant [delete to taste] either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
What an interesting thread. I'm reading it from the perspective of not being an off piste skier, but it seems to be more an issue of common sense than anything else. Perhaps I could share my thoughts with you please?
The issue seems to be who do you carry a transceiver for, you or someone else. There was a hypothetical suggestion earlier that someone might consider carrying one that only received - i.e. that the wearer could search for someone else, but couldn't in turn be searched for. Such a concept seems a little selfish, can you imagine the anguish of someone - friend or stranger if they saw someone caught in an avalanche and couldn't do anything to help because the person caught hadn't seen fit to have sufficient regard for their well being to carry one that transmitted as well. OK, the suggestion was clearly a 'mind game', but I don't think the suggester had looked at things from that angle. In a way its no different to the reason I carry a first aid kit in my car - something I am more likely to use on a stranger at a RTA than on a member of my own group/family.
I think what ever we do we have a responsibility:
1. to keep ourselves as safe as we can so that we don't unnecessarily cause someone to put their life at risk coming after us,
2. to carry all we can to make that job easier if someone does have to follow us i.e. when we hike on the hills carry a survival sack so, if we break a leg in a fall, we have the means to avoid hypothermia and give the rescuers time to get to us, or carry a transciever (and other necessary kit) if it seems likely that you are going off piste into a more hazardous area where, god forbid, you may need to be found, and
3. to carry what is reasonable to render assistance, if possible, to someone who hasn't had such a good day as we have
As noted above I believe it is a two way street and whilst you might not care two hoots about your own well being (carry a receive only device  ) IMO it is selfish not to consider those you might leave behind and how your lack of a sense of self preservation might make them feel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| James the Last wrote: |
I go back to my earlier statement; arguably a logical way to behave is to carry a receive-only beacon. That way you never put yourself in a position that is likely to mean you need to use it - but your chums don't feel they have been put in danger. |
so your argument essentially boils down to a concern over risk homeostasis. This I a valid concern, but a receive only beacon is not the solution (but good luck with the marketing plan for that if you are convinced it is). The way to assess risk correctly and dispassionately is to use a decision making framework, the kind of thing you can learn on a course or in (wait for it) Tremper's book. You must evaluate your decisions based on many factors, and being properly equipped is just one of those factors. The idea is you never make a decision to ski a slope just because you have a beacon, or because it's your only ski trip of the year, or because your mate ski-ed it the other week, you decide to ski a slope because you reach an objective decision based on all the data you have available to you that the risk is acceptable to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| By the same argument should we all replace the airbags in our cars with a great big spike to the middle of the steering wheel? |
To be fair, cars haven't had manditory airbags for all that long. Yet, there're many many old folks who managed to live to ripe old age without airbag's magically protection. Would I disable the airbag in my car? No. But I wouldn't think twice driving one without.
So if James wishes to carry a receive only beacon, I have to admit he would not be subjecting himself to vastly increased risk as a result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I suggest a lack of mountaincraft killed her; not a lack of a beacon.
|
??? but a beacon could have saved her life. 
It would not have stopped her being avalanched. There are many, many cases of mountain guides (whom you would expect to have an above average amount of mountaincraft) being avalanched. They use their experience to reduce (not remove) the chance of being avalanched. They have a transciever to reduce the time it takes to find them.
I'm sorry I really don't follow what you are trying to get at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He's trying to say two things:
* People shouldn't treat a transceiver like it will protect you from avalanches. Very sensible and this is the advice any pro in that field will tell you.
* He doesn't think the cost of transmitting is worthwhile when a persons chance of being avalanched is low anyway. This seems a bit odd to me because they provably lower mortality and it's your own mortality up for consideration here!
Oddly though he will buy and use a receiver, which is where all the cost of a transceiver actually is! This seems to be a stubborn acquiescence to social pressure.
James' argument is a good one on the scale of populations, it would be silly to make transceivers mandatory for all skiers but silly from the point of view of the value most people place on their own lives. The person tumbling down in an avalanche wearing a receive only beacon is unlikely to be thinking "well that showed them" and will more likely be hoping they end with at least part of themselves on the surface.
Like vaccination, for tranceivers to be useful also requires the rest of the herd to be using them. Avalanches might be rare but the survival of the victims can be increased if they are rescued quickly and that means the people on scene will be the ones required to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
TGR would have an absolute fit if they read this...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| So if James wishes to carry a receive only beacon, I have to admit he would not be subjecting himself to vastly increased risk as a result. |
Risk of what. He might not be subjecting himself to a greater risk of getting caught in an avalanche by wearing a receive-only beacon, but his risk of death or serious injury if he gets caught increases significantly.
For people who ski off-piste in any kind of systematic way the risk of getting caught in an avalanche are indeed small (and shouldn't be altered in any way by carrying a transceiver), but the consequences of that small risk are potentially fatal. In the grand scheme of things a proper transceiver costs a relatively small amount of money, has almost zero hassle factor to wear and the running costs are a few batteries and a bit of time spent in the avalanche park practising your search skills. So the cost of buying and using a transceiver is not significant, and the potential return on that small investment might be whatever value you put on your own life, your mate's life or even the life of a complete stranger. You would hope that you never need to cash in that small investment (like all insurance we buy), but if the worst happens and you or somebody near you is caught in a slide wouldn't you want everyone to be appropriately equipped for a time-dependent search and rescue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Timmaah, you should go read the thread on Tabke's comments over there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
sah,
| Quote: |
The idea is you never make a decision to ski a slope just because you have a beacon, or because it's your only ski trip of the year, or because your mate ski-ed it the other week, you decide to ski a slope because you reach an objective decision based on all the data you have available to you that the risk is acceptable to you.
|
I'm not sure this is quite as valid as it seems. You can't sensibly decide what risk is acceptable to you outside the context of the reward for taking that risk - if you really really want to ski it, it doesn't change the risk but it does change your acceptable risk threshold.
(on the other hand, you probably hugely overestimate the relative increase in reward, so it's not a bad principle to try and follow in practice)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, from what I've read I think your analogy to taking out 'insurance' seems valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| rob@rar, from what I've read I think your analogy to taking out 'insurance' seems valid. |
Yes, that's exactly how I see it. I try to make sensible decisions as best I can, acting as if I'm not insured, but if mistakes are made by me or someone else then I have insurance to fall back on. Of course there's no guarantee that the insurance will make you immune to any negative effects of the accident, but it can help reduce the consequences. Provided the cost of that insurance is not disproportionate then I can't see why you wouldn't want to be insured. This applies equally to car insurance as it does to wearing a transceiver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
All too often I hear people advising others who merely dabble off piste that they shouldn't be doing so without transceivers. Most of the time they are ignored and probably millions of skiers without transceivers cross beyond the piste markers every winter season.
Are they wrong to do so? Am I wrong to fly without a parachute? We need to look at things in perspective. Yes, a few will be unlucky but that's life. So who should be advised to use a transceiver? In my view only people who are doing skiing for which they should be getting a guide or who are experienced enough to know they don't need a guide. I realise this is arbitrary but what I do know is that if people ask me on the question of avalanches whether it's safe to go side of piste or between piste I always start by saying avalanches can occur anywhere, they need to learn to assess risk, and that while areas near pistes are likely to be safer, once they leave the piste they are responsible for their own safety. I leave it at that.
I don't mention transceivers unless asked but if asked I say that they are a great help finding you dead or alive particularly if completely buried and chances of death are pretty high if avalanched. So my message is "don't get avalanched", not "take the right kit". If someone who is going properly off piste asks if a transceiver is a good idea, nomination for the Darwin Award springs to mind.
Timmaah, sounds like they have a lot of growing up to do if that's true 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Just a thought, who spends most of their time in the mountains skiing...
I'd guess its ski instructors, is a logical extension of this discussion one that if the risk/reward analysism says that we all carry transceivers then surely all ski schools should make sure that all of their on mountain staff carry them, which in my experience isnt the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
slikedges, I fully agree that "take the right kit" is not an alternative to "don't get avalanched". If skiers are beginning systematically to ski off-piste then I think the first advice to them should be to begin their avalanche education (asking questions of instructors or guides, online resources, books, free talks, perhaps building up to specific courses). Part of that avalanche education will stress the importance of being properly equipped (with information as well as with kit).
I don't agree that the point at which you should ski with a transceiver is when you start to ski terrain that should require a guide or sufficient experience to read the situation. I think it happens way before that point. It is very easy to end up on terrain and in snow which is potentially dangerous, and for many skiers this will happen before they have any thought of hiring a guide. Using my insurance analogy, I don't think newly qualified drivers need any less insurance than experienced drivers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| ansta1 wrote: |
Just a thought, who spends most of their time in the mountains skiing...
I'd guess its ski instructors, is a logical extension of this discussion one that if the risk/reward analysism says that we all carry transceivers then surely all ski schools should make sure that all of their on mountain staff carry them, which in my experience isnt the case. |
The majority of instructors will spend the majority of their time very firmly on piste so I'm not sure that's the right group to consider. However, if you read Steve Angus' Val d'Isere thread over recent weeks he talks about getting off-piste kit for his clients when he's running off-piste sessions. A friend of mine was on a Snoworks race camp at the start of last season when huge quantities of snow fell, so they were all equipped with kit and skied off-piste. I occasionally ski off-piste without any kit, did for a couple of days before Christmas, but I restricted the terrain I would consider. It's about taking sensible decisions, not rushing out to buy the latest transceiver the moment you pass the piste boundary.
Guides would be a better example, and I wonder what the percentage is who ski off-piste without transceiver, shovel and probe? Vanishingly small I'd guess, possibly 0%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
slikedges, perhaps a better trigger point for beginning avalanche education is when people start considering hiring or buying fat skis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Mind you even 'just off piste' might not be safe. Looking at those averages - what have I done? Say 9 weeks skiing in the last 4 years - every single bit of it done 'on piste'. In that time I have seen 2 slides completely close a run that I would have otherwise have used - one a blue and one a red whilst these slides were cleared. The one on the red only coming down about 2 hours prior to the slope opening (That slope reopened following clearing efforts and safety blasting. I have also seen one piste partially closed and narrowed as avalanched snow was cleared from it. The latter was only a small slide, the first two beyond my sight so I can't comment on their scale, but they were sufficient to prevent the piste being opened. However, to only ski 'on piste' and to be aware of slides onto pistes 3 times in just 9 weeks makes me aware that even just 'off piste' isn't without its risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
rob@rar, I would think it sensible to begin when you reach the point where you think one day you'd like to try off-piste - find out what you're looking for so you can get used to assessing the slopes around the piste well before you're deciding whether to ski them or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Oddly though he will buy and use a receiver, which is where all the cost of a transceiver actually is! This seems to be a stubborn acquiescence to social pressure.
|
Which means if he is avalanched he increase the time/effort/risk for any rescuer ?
Of course you don't need a transciever on the piste -- although, as Grahamn pointed out, there are times when it would be very useful if some of the piste-bound population were carrying them.
Anyone who has done any avy training at all will have been told, right a the start, that a transciever won't stop you being avalanched, so I'm still confused by James' argument,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps James should buy a transceiver and ski with it switched to receive all the time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| finestgreen wrote: |
| rob@rar, I would think it sensible to begin when you reach the point where you think one day you'd like to try off-piste - find out what you're looking for so you can get used to assessing the slopes around the piste well before you're deciding whether to ski them or not. |
Yes, that's not a bad idea. I was teaching a group before Christmas when we had a lot of snow and avalanche risk was high. Although we didn't ski off-piste that week on two or three occasions we did spend 10 minutes looking around us for clues about snowpack stability. I did this because there were a couple in my group who were very keen to ski off-piste and I thought asking them to look at the slopes around them was a good thing to be at least aware of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does wearing a helmet reduce the chances of being killed by an avalanche?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| andersont wrote: |
| Does wearing a helmet reduce the chances of being killed by an avalanche? |
It will help protect your head as your thrown around by the avalanche, but will do nothing to stop your neck, back, arms or legs breaking or stop you asphyxiating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
There's no way I'd take any of my guys away into the back country without them, fact. Before we even set off its good just owning one, but also being able to use it and search properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| So if James wishes to carry a receive only beacon, I have to admit he would not be subjecting himself to vastly increased risk as a result. |
Risk of what. He might not be subjecting himself to a greater risk of getting caught in an avalanche by wearing a receive-only beacon, but his risk of death or serious injury if he gets caught increases significantly. |
How significantly?
My recollection is not very significantly at all. But I may have remember it wrong (or your definition of significantly is different from mine)
Also, I understand "his risk of death". But I don't understand beacon has anything to do with risk of "serious injury".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
abc, the generally accepted convention is that if you can dig somebody out within 15 minutes they stand a reasonable chance of surviving without significant injury (assuming the slide itself hasn't caused serious injury). After 15 minutes the survival rate drops significantly. If you don't have a transceiver and you are completely buried I suspect the chances of you being found and dug out within 15 minutes are very small. Getting a dog on the scene, arranging a problem, getting a recco receiver all take precious time. Your first and best hope are people on the scene who are appropriately equipped and now what to do with it.
Serious injury? Brain damage from asphyxiation because it has taken a long time to be dug out counts as serious injury in my opinion.
Your recollection of how significant the risk of death or serious injury from being under the snow for too long might not be very accurate if you've not done much reading or training about avalanche safety. I seem to recall you being adamant that skiing any slope next to a piste was perfectly safe. Do you also take the view that wearing a transceiver is unnecessary?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| finestgreen wrote: |
sah,
| Quote: |
The idea is you never make a decision to ski a slope just because you have a beacon, or because it's your only ski trip of the year, or because your mate ski-ed it the other week, you decide to ski a slope because you reach an objective decision based on all the data you have available to you that the risk is acceptable to you.
|
I'm not sure this is quite as valid as it seems. You can't sensibly decide what risk is acceptable to you outside the context of the reward for taking that risk - if you really really want to ski it, it doesn't change the risk but it does change your acceptable risk threshold.(on the other hand, you probably hugely overestimate the relative increase in reward, so it's not a bad principle to try and follow in practice) |
That's a good one.
The risk of avalanche is only to be tolerated if one wishes to ski off-piste, presummably better snow, challenge or whatever other objective of "fun". So there's really nothing "objective" about avalanche risk. It's always clouded by the wish to ski something 'fun'!
Though the same can be said of crossing the road mid-block. You look both ways and there's no cars coming. Chances are good there will not be one but there's a small chance a car might appear and will be upon you faster than you can get out of way. The risk is made very small by looking both ways, but it didn't reduce the risk to zero. To risk can be further reduced by crossing only when the light is green. But many of us WILL cross because we FELT the risk has been mitigated enough, particularly when the pub is "right across" on the other side...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| abc, the generally accepted convention is that if you can dig somebody out within 15 minutes they stand a reasonable chance of surviving without significant injury (assuming the slide itself hasn't caused serious injury). After 15 minutes the survival rate drops significantly. If you don't have a transceiver and you are completely buried I suspect the chances of you being found and dug out within 15 minutes are very small. |
Statistics (often offered on this kind of discussion on snowhead forum) indicates victims most often die from the trama of the slide itself! And that's especially true of victim who're completely buried.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Mention of Recco (corpse finders) above - just an ad hoc question - will a transceiver blip on a recco receiver?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Yea, that's what I recalled, 20%. Given the rare nature of the event, I'd say the statistical uncertainty might make it anywhere between 10-30%?
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Sat 12-01-13 18:48; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Also you're significantly more at risk of sustaining trauma injuries in North America than in Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| meh wrote: |
| Also you're significantly more at risk of sustaining trauma injuries in North America than in Europe. |
I see a disconnect in the data in that regard.
The paper you quoted implies 50% of slide buried victims died regardless. But in another source comparing N.America vs Eueoe, I seem to recall only 5% of European slide victims die from trama. So what else did the European slide victims died from?
Granted, these may not be the same sample pools. So statistical fluctuation might make a mockery of all the percentages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abc, could still be asphyxiation. After all the median time was 20 mins which is outside of the 15 minute sweetspot.
But yes I think the stats for a lot of these things are very dependent on what sample set you use. Needs way more research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| meh wrote: |
| Also you're significantly more at risk of sustaining trauma injuries in North America than in Europe. |
I see a disconnect in the data in that regard.
The paper you quoted implies 50% of slide buried victims died regardless. But in another source comparing N.America vs Eueoe, I seem to recall only 5% of European slide victims die from trama. So what else did the European slide victims died from?
Granted, these may not be the same sample pools. So statistical fluctuation might make a mockery of all the percentages. |
Asphyxiation or hypothermia. There are more trauma deaths in the USA because there's more tree skiing. In Canada the figure quoted is 50% death through trauma, presumably because even more of the skiing is in trees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| abc wrote: |
Statistics (often offered on this kind of discussion on snowhead forum) indicates victims most often die from the trama of the slide itself! And that's especially true of victim who're completely buried. |
This is incorrect. Stats for Europe quote 6% for trauma death due to an avalanche, 25% in the USA and 50% in Canada (see Tremper for the figures, he himself is quoting published research e.g. from SLF). You can argue about sample sizes or error, but it is not the main cause of avalanche death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
Yea, that's what I recalled, 20%. Given the rare nature of the event, I'd say the statistical uncertainty might make it anywhere between 10-30%? |
But if you have a 30% chance of survival without, increasing to a 50% chance with, then the increase in survival rate is 66% instead of 20%. The difference in survival rate is a percentage of a percentage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
