If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Clark wrote:
I've been using an analogue Ortovox F1 or F1 focus for all the years that I've been ski-touring. If I was buying new transceiver today I'd probably consider a digital or a combined digital/analogue device but I recognise that if I did buy a different model I'd probably have to put in extra hours next season in familiarising myself with it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're better with a pinger than I am. I've only had one about 5 years and could do with more practice than I get. After a brief look at Trackers I'd guess that getting up to speed with one would take me no more time, and possibly less, than getting tuned back in to using my Pieps. Mileage will obviously vary! My ski-tour leading pals, who bought Pieps units at the same time I did, and who've had more experience with them than I have, have traded up to Trackers and seem to think they're better. practice. Whilst the newer digital models do make it slightly easier to carry out searches for multiple buried transmitters, there are appropriate methods for using analogue devices that will be perfectly adequate, you just need to know what works well for your own device. When I've practised alongside my friends some of whom use digital transceivers there hasn't been a consistent or noticeable difference in our individual effectiveness in finding single or multiple burials. Though I am mindful that practice sessions aren't really very much like the real thing could well be. It's all very calm and controlled in a safe place and you haven't got friends buried somewhere nearby that may be dead or dying. Anything that does my mental work for me in such a situation could well make a useful difference, though I'd like to never find out... For most skiers like myself the key thing as has been pointed out earlier in the thread is to minimise exposure to risk by becoming aware of the dangers. Carrying a transceiver and shovel should be regarded as a default for any serious off-piste or ski-tour, but it's important not to risk compensate by believing it will definitely offer a great deal of protection. As Booker has suggested, this is much easier said than done. From the examples on the roads we know very well that risk homeostasis happens to people who think it isn't happening to them. Number one priority is to avoid the avalanche in the first place. For some values of "number one priority". It's very easy to avoid avalanches... you just don't go to snowy mountains, but you've already ignored the best piece of avalanche avoidance advice there is if you're on an off-piste mountain ski tour, so clearly you're drawing arbitrary lines somewhere. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In message
Peter Clinch wrote: Mike Clark wrote: I've been using an analogue Ortovox F1 or F1 focus for all the years that I've been ski-touring. If I was buying new transceiver today I'd probably consider a digital or a combined digital/analogue device but I recognise that if I did buy a different model I'd probably have to put in extra hours next season in familiarising myself with it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're better with a pinger than I am. I've only had one about 5 years and could do with more practice than I get. After a brief look at Trackers I'd guess that getting up to speed with one would take me no more time, and possibly less, than getting tuned back in to using my Pieps. I've got friends who are quite devious in these practice sessions. They might deliberately bury the device under, or to one side of a rock or other object, or they might bury two transceivers close together but at completely different orienatations. You start to realise that even the digital devices can give misleading information under circumstances. [snip] practice. Whilst the newer digital models do make it slightly easier to carry out searches for multiple buried transmitters, there are appropriate methods for using analogue devices that will be perfectly adequate, you just need to know what works well for your own device. When I've practised alongside my friends some of whom use digital transceivers there hasn't been a consistent or noticeable difference in our individual effectiveness in finding single or multiple burials. Though I am mindful that practice sessions aren't really very much like the real thing could well be. It's all very calm and controlled in a safe place and you haven't got friends buried somewhere nearby that may be dead or dying. Anything that does my mental work for me in such a situation could well make a useful difference, though I'd like to never find out... For the group of friends I regularly go with I already know from experience that they cope well in adverse conditions. We've been rock-climbing, caving, and mountaineering together as well as ski-touring for many years. In that time we've been confronted with several immediate life threatening situations. For example I broke through into a crevasse during a ski tour in bad weather and snow conditions. My wife and friends didn't panic even though they couldn't see or hear me. They quickly and efficiently rigged up a rope system and the result was found that I was OK and got me out safely. On another occassion we were cut-off by a big avalanche in white-out conditions and had to make the decision to snow-hole. Again everyone got on efficiently with the task in hand. I've also witnessed people caught up in local terrain trap avalanches from close up so have experience of what to expect and what to do. For most skiers like myself the key thing as has been pointed out earlier in the thread is to minimise exposure to risk by becoming aware of the dangers. Carrying a transceiver and shovel should be regarded as a default for any serious off-piste or ski-tour, but it's important not to risk compensate by believing it will definitely offer a great deal of protection. As Booker has suggested, this is much easier said than done. From the examples on the roads we know very well that risk homeostasis happens to people who think it isn't happening to them. I agree, as a cyclist and driver I am aware of risk compensation and as you say it is difficult not to. However simply recognising that risk compensation is a real phenomena is a first step. Number one priority is to avoid the avalanche in the first place. For some values of "number one priority". It's very easy to avoid avalanches... you just don't go to snowy mountains, but you've already ignored the best piece of avalanche avoidance advice there is if you're on an off-piste mountain ski tour, so clearly you're drawing arbitrary lines somewhere. Agreed. Mike -- o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark \__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, " || _`\,_ |__\ \ | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Booker Bense wrote
IMHO an avalanche transciever is the LAST thing you need. Avalanche education is the FIRST. Thanks for sharing a very smart perspective, Booker. A really helpful book is: Staying Alive in Avalanche Terrain, by Bruce Tremper (Mountaineers, 2001) Ken |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Mike
had to make the decision to snow-hole. Again everyone got on efficiently with the task in hand. Another story is: other people not involved in the accident. Peter Foertsch, a guide I know from several tours with the alpine club told me the following story. They were while fine weather on the way back from "Winnebacher Rosskogel" (Austrian Alpes). This is a quite famous long tour close to Innsbruck, around 50 to 80 people were on the mountain that day. A single skier caused an slide of ~200 ft width and ~100ft length and was buried under the avalanche around 1000ft below his original position. Peter and his wife watched the avalanche and could start the search immediately. Appearently a lot of other skiers had seen the accident too and came offering help. BUT: none of them switched off his beacon! So Peter had around 20 signals of beepers. It took them around 10 minutes(!!) to make all people to switch of! Then it took further 3 minutes to find the victim, who was unblessed (thank god or whom else...). Florian |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article , Kurt Knisely wrote: In article , Ken Roberts says... Booker Bense wrote IMHO an avalanche transciever is the LAST thing you need. Avalanche education is the FIRST. Thanks for sharing a very smart perspective, Booker. A really helpful book is: Staying Alive in Avalanche Terrain, by Bruce Tremper (Mountaineers, 2001) I'll agree, it's an excellent book and I left one copy in a new hut in BC to help christen the hut (have since purchased another). You know though, even the pros get caught after years and years of experience. They don't always publicize the event either, other than in the daily avalanche report--no names mentioned. Of course they spend more time in avalanche terrain than most of us do through the year even if we ski often. _ All the recent research I've read looking at actual avalanche statistics says that experienced people on their local terrain are the most likely to take excessive risks. If you read enough accident reports of survivors, you can see a pattern of 20/20 hindsight, where people see the danger signs, but just don't act on them for whatever reason. Of course if you ski steep powder, you're more or less going to see some danger signs every time you ski. I wish I had some good answers about all this but I don't. However, I think people are coming around to the realization that dealing with group dynamics and mental traps is just as important as learning about weak layers. _ Booker C. Bense -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBQ0QDbmTWTAjn5N/lAQEnBwQAqPdL2eVAF45SNZMVXeD5NOFT4XyV81ry ORWtubyrcPIx5+Od43j05B62jjI7cJm4i/bXRFGk4fewaO8qfLQzIn7WG+FXKgDM 5TOwHV6KARhpcWKY7I3vbzLcCafU3zSpoj5i+jEuN+MOP2ACrE 51ReAOiSbYNAS1 M2JJTx+UI/k= =phhv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Booker C. Bense wrote:
_ All the recent research I've read looking at actual avalanche statistics says that experienced people on their local terrain are the most likely to take excessive risks. If you read enough accident reports of survivors, you can see a pattern of 20/20 hindsight, where people see the danger signs, but just don't act on them for whatever reason. 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. Starting climbing a gully on Ben Nevis once (axes, not skins), I dug a forecast pit. Not good, I told my partner I wasn't bloody going up there! Dave wonders if we shouldn't get a little higher and dig another pit, it might be different higher up, and after all there's debris about so it's probably come down already? At this point he notices me wildly gesticulating, which was because it was falling down right behind us! At this point he concurs with my original prognosis, and makes a note that that's a mistake to learn from (he goes on to become expedition adviser for the RGS, so we're not talking idiots here). Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Uli Hausmann wrote:
Here, i've a slightly different point of view: You should get a transceiver which does a good moltiple persons rescue distinction I would suggest that most people should focus on and be competetent at single victim searchers and should ski in a way that this rescue scenario will be the norm should disaster strike. That given, I'd suggest getting an Ortovox F1 or similar and practising with it. Simpler the better I think. Spend the balance, as you and Booker agree, on avalanche classes or something. If you want to give yourself a chance in an avalanche and are largely lift-served off-piste skiing or day touring get an ABS to go with it. Neither device should lead you to take on more risk. You always need to ask the question, would I ski this slope without my beacon? Just to add that a beacon without every person in the group carrying a shovel and probe is ineffective. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
davidof wrote:
Simpler the better I think. Spend the balance, as you and Booker agree, on avalanche classes or something. Define "simpler"... An automatic gearbox is more complex than a manual gearbox, but it is simpler to use. Which sort of "simpler" do you want here? On the financial aspect, I'd be quite surprised if someone involved in a sport as esoteric and reliant on spending money as most modern backcountry mountain skiing couldn't stretch to a more expensive beacon /and/ lessons too. There will be exceptions, granted, but I think most of us could easily save the balance from our budgets elsewhere if we felt it worthwhile. Just to add that a beacon without every person in the group carrying a shovel and probe is ineffective. There are some obvious exceptions to that (one person doesn't have them, they're the one that gets buried), so while I echo the thought that everyone is best off having them I don't think advice should be overstated into areas it isn't really true. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article , Peter Clinch wrote: Just to add that a beacon without every person in the group carrying a shovel and probe is ineffective. There are some obvious exceptions to that (one person doesn't have them, they're the one that gets buried), so while I echo the thought that everyone is best off having them I don't think advice should be overstated into areas it isn't really true. _ I can't imagine any area where this isn't true. I have no idea what you're trying to say other than pointless nitpicking. A beacon without shovel and probe is useless. I agree there are times and places where the safety triple isn't needed, but if you're carrying a beacon, you need a shovel with a metal blade and a real probe. Not so much that these work better and faster than the alternatives, but to my mind it's more about demonstrating seriousness of intent. Probe Poles and super lightweight plastic shovels make a statement that you don't really think you'll ever have to dig someone up. _ Booker C. Bense -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBQ0aFeGTWTAjn5N/lAQHqiwP+IF05Mi+dLu36ZPT8YBnyHBrK5geA+Sug y/gS3VhGneSudu1tSC9GwBhYrSWiXWh3+5+DZfyoO9e+w+wgzzul +5SnLMKRcT2/ qsFldRQnZ7W17CefH+iZTAVDR5ktJXd5FWn9gu9L2T8GTOwFaM 5xcWYxWbHKEEjO rqCvCknClms= =kUdn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Booker C. Bense wrote:
_ I can't imagine any area where this isn't true. I have no idea what you're trying to say other than pointless nitpicking. A beacon without shovel and probe is useless. If a SAR team are homing in on my beacon then my shovel and probe are no use to me and no use to them, or anyone else. You call it pointless nitpicking, I call it purposeful nitpicking. I greatly dislike people using absolute language concerning conduct where it isn't really quite so well defined as that. And to avoid this sort of thing happening I prefer considered and careful use of language on safety issues, so people know as close to *exactly* where they stand as possible and we don't slide into absurd nonsense like "Cotton Kills!" or "Less Than 3 There Shall Never Be!" being broadcast as if they handed to Moses on stone tablets. So, should a group of X people all carry probes and shovels as well as beacons? I'd recommend it, yes. Are their safety efforts necessarily "ineffective" if 1 of them doesn't have a probe and shovel? I don't think so, so I don't think it's right to say that as if it is. Nothing more than that, but nothing less either. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Avalanche Center Fall Update | Avalanche Center | Alpine Skiing | 5 | October 8th 03 11:42 PM |
Avalanche Center Fall Update | Avalanche Center | European Ski Resorts | 0 | October 8th 03 07:54 PM |
Avalanche Center Fall Update | Avalanche Center | North American Ski Resorts | 0 | October 8th 03 07:54 PM |
Avalanche Center Fall Update | Avalanche Center | Nordic Skiing | 0 | October 8th 03 07:53 PM |
Avalanche Center Fall Update | Avalanche Center | Backcountry Skiing | 0 | October 8th 03 07:53 PM |