On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:10:34 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

People seem to feel that by assessing a risk they are reducing it. I've
found myself doing this more than once and rapped myself over the
knuckles for doing so before changing tack, and I've seen others do it.
I know for a fact I've done it and not turned around at times, I don't
think I'm exceptional there.

Quite so. You could scientifically and statistically calculate the
odds of surviving a 20 story fall onto concrete. It will not be one
bit safer no matter how many decimal places you get to.

You could be the world's foremost expert on avalanches, with 4 PhDs in
relevant topics.

This has exactly zero bearing on the likelihood of an avalanche. All
it will do will give you the ability to assess when and where an
avalanche is likely. You still cannot stop or prevent an avalanche,
all you can do is make the decision to be elsewhere.

No amount of knowledge or equipment will reduce the chances of a given
slope avalanching.

The other thing that bothers me is that some people appear to have the
attitude that a avvy transceiver, or even more so, something like the
Avalung, is a primary protection. These are secondary protection at
best, for when your assessment and/or judgment were incorrect about a
highly variable phenomenon.

Those secondary protections still depend on the rest of your party not
being buried, having their act together, and having the gear and skill
on site to find you and get you out. This all presumes that you were
not injured in the slide, are not buried too deeply, and are
extricated in time.

IMO, the primary protection is the knowledge of how to assess
avalanche danger, combined with the wisdom to act upon that.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom