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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
In message
Peter Clinch wrote: 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. I think the problem always arises when you try to set down a code of conduct for 'best practice' but don't take into account that informed pragmatism means that you can often deviate from best practice and for very good reason. Clearly if you're in a party of two and you're relying on one being able to rescue the other in an emergency, both need to be fully equiped. However as the party size increases I think it is perfectly acceptable to start making judgements about what is needed by way of personal safety equipment and what is needed by way of group safety equipment. What is quite clear is that everyone in the party ought to have a tansceiver. When ski-touring on glaciated or steep mountain terrain everyone also ought to wear a harness. Also everyone ought to have a shovel. However in a large party (4+) not everyone requires a probe, ropes and other climbing/crevasse rescue equipment, since the aim ought to be, not to expose the whole party to risk at the same time. Having this equipment distributed and replicated amongst different members of the group so that some is towards the front of the group and some towards the back seems to me to be fine. In an avalanche situation with a medium to large size group hopefully more than one person is left to do the SAR. In that situation it seems quite logical that the tasks of searching with a transceiver, marking possible burial locations, probing with a probe, and digging with a shovel, can be delegated to different individuals. Any one person isn't going to be doing all three things at the same time. For example if you were in group of 6 and 3 were buried in the avalanche, the remaining 3 should organise themselves into a co-ordinated SAR attempt. Thus they should first attempt a transceiver sweep to locate where they think a victim might lie, then delegate at least one person to start probing and digging that victim out, whilst the other two recommence a transceiver sweep for a 2nd victim. The appropriate delegation of duties obviously depends on the number of victims and the number of searchers. Mike -- o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark \__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, " || _`\,_ |__\ \ | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article , Peter Clinch wrote: 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. _ SAR in the avalanche case is almost always picking up dead bodies at least in NA. The situation may be different in Europe, but even in the best circumstances, I find it hard to believe that any SAR team can make it there and start searching in 15 minutes. 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. _ I call it dangerous foolishness. Depending on being lucky in dangerous terrain doesn't seem to me to have any other useful categorization. You still haven't come up with a single valid example in support of your statement. 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. _ Rules are there for you to think before you break them. They are meant to be short, sweet and mostly right, not cover all possiblities. It's sad that most people can't seem to grasp the difference between rules, laws and morality, but that doesn't make the rules any less true or useful. 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. _ Ineffective seems relatively mild to me, delusional would have been my preference, but if you choose to object to that adjective I guess I can't argue with that. That magic ball that will let you know who gets buried and who doesn't must come in mighty handy. Nothing more than that, but nothing less either. _ Even for a British person, that's pointless nitpicking. How about this then, "If you aren't the one buried, your beacon is not much use without a probe and shovel." _ The reason I bother to respond is that I think that if most people really though about what a beacon implies, they would likely never need it. Since carrying a beacon and skiing with others bends your risk taking judgement, I think those factors should be offset as much as possible by the "seriousness of intent" I mentioned earlier. Everyone in the party not carrying the safety triple implies a lapse in attitude, which to me is far more dangerous than any lack in gear. _ Booker C. Bense -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBQ0k1TGTWTAjn5N/lAQGEDQQAmnll0y3oLiugsSNh28lC7Ey4nZ/0xZ3J YbKjI+Yo0KpNOT+wqK1LQPx4SMZsYk1mf9dBPCjC4K3Jpf+oTB qiv74WjcgWZ9o/ lkQwOmgWL6ibaX5h3rz5XMky8/3KiBd6C46CPQ/xBzk2S9cJ/KdPCEMf+PsFls3E Q8lAEaxCn/I= =6BnY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Booker C. Bense wrote:
_ SAR in the avalanche case is almost always picking up dead bodies at least in NA. The situation may be different in Europe, but even in the best circumstances, I find it hard to believe that any SAR team can make it there and start searching in 15 minutes. That would be, errrr, pointless nitpicking :-( SAR is anyone who is searching for you in order to rescue you, probably your companions, who'll be there when you get buried. _ I call it dangerous foolishness. Depending on being lucky in dangerous terrain doesn't seem to me to have any other useful categorization. You still haven't come up with a single valid example in support of your statement. Yes I have. And what you call "dangerous foolishness" is what some veterans I know have been doing for decades, before you could buy such things as avalanche beacons, and they're still skiing to tell the tale. _ Rules are there for you to think before you break them. They are meant to be short, sweet and mostly right, not cover all possiblities. It's sad that most people can't seem to grasp the difference between rules, laws and morality, but that doesn't make the rules any less true or useful. I see a very firm and very important difference between a rule and a recommendation. _ Ineffective seems relatively mild to me, delusional would have been my preference Well, there you go again, using langauage that is far more absolute than the reality. That magic ball that will let you know who gets buried and who doesn't must come in mighty handy. I don't have any such thing, but according to the absolute langauage, a party that has one of their members lose a piece of avalanche kit on the hill for whatever reason has no effective equipment between them any more. That is nonsense. "If you aren't the one buried, your beacon is not much use without a probe and shovel." Again not necessarily the case. If there's one shovel about then people can be looking and if they find something that gives the guy with the shovel something to do. Without the shovel, if you had a friend buried somewhere you knew would you give them up for dead, or start digging with hands and ski tips? _ The reason I bother to respond is that I think that if most people really though about what a beacon implies, they would likely never need it. As we've already agreed, arbitrary lines have to be drawn. Where those lines are drawn will be down to individuals and it's their choice, their right or wrong, their lives on the line. Since carrying a beacon and skiing with others bends your risk taking judgement, I think those factors should be offset as much as possible by the "seriousness of intent" I mentioned earlier. Everyone in the party not carrying the safety triple implies a lapse in attitude, which to me is far more dangerous than any lack in gear. Again the case that if you /really/ want to avoid avalanches, period, stay off snowy slopes. 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/ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 22:16:35 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote: Booker C. Bense wrote: _ SAR in the avalanche case is almost always picking up dead bodies at least in NA. The situation may be different in Europe, but even in the best circumstances, I find it hard to believe that any SAR team can make it there and start searching in 15 minutes. That would be, errrr, pointless nitpicking :-( SAR is anyone who is searching for you in order to rescue you, probably your companions, who'll be there when you get buried. Reminds me of an incident a few years back in Tuckermans Ravine on Mt. Washington in NH. 4 winter hikers went up a trail which the rangers had labeled as moderate risk of avalanche. There was a snow slide that caught all four of them. Three were not buried, one was missing. The three went down to the USFS snow ranger's cabin at the base of the ravine to get the ranger. He got to the site via snowmobile within about 45 minutes of the slide, noticed a glove sticking out of the snow,and found the victim's hand in it. He dug down and found the victim, who had died of suffocation but was otherwise unharmed by the slide. Note that there was no special skill or equipment needed for the search, just sharp eyes. One person with a shovel was able to dig him out in short order. However, the time delay to get SAR was likely what was fatal. If his companions had shovels, and had bothered to do any sort of search, very likely they would have found him alive, and he would have had a great story to tell in the bar that night. By going for help instead of providing help, his "friends" did him little good. Note that in areas with less dense wet snow than NH, the time factor may be different, but the basic principle applies. Also, your incident is not always that close to where a rescuer is staying. With avalanches, I agree. Most likely SAR will be there for a body recovery. Your life depends on the skills, equipment, and presence of mind of your companions. Choose wisely. Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear) -- At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Clinch wrote:
That would be, errrr, pointless nitpicking :-( SAR is anyone who is searching for you in order to rescue you, probably your companions, who'll be there when you get buried. I was reasonably clear about what you meant in your original post Peter but many people conventionally think of SAR as external search and rescue by recognised professional or volunteer bodies. As Booker says, even in Europe they are often involved in body recovery. My experience, which seems to be shared by a number of bodies (CAF, FFME in France) is that in safety critical situations it is easier to set hard and fast rules than allow the endless debate and interpretation which is popular on the Internet and local pub. To follow your logic further not all the group needs beacons with receive mode, perhaps in a group of 6, 3 could have full beacons and three of the group could just carry "doggy" beacons. Going futher we end up with a case I know of last year where just the lead riders had beacons because they were test skiing the slope - unfortunately the avalanche that caught and buried a back marker wasn't aware of this. Your post lacks some consistency. On the one hand you advocate investing considerable money in an expensive beacon but then you advocate skimping on probes which are small and relatively inexpensive pieces of kit to carry. It is also true that when I started ski touring we either didn't carry beacons or we used avalanche cords. Things have progressed, including avalanche beacons but the key factor on how proficient you are with an avalanche beacon is not that it cost $150 or $450 but how much you have practised with that beacon in conditions approaching as much as possible those of a real search (search for deeply buried beacon on sloping terrain under stressful conditions). The digital to analogue beacon debate is somewhat like that of digital to analogue watches. Do you remember when you first learned to tell the time ? Interpreting where the big and little hand were pointing was actually quite hard . Digital watches came along and suddenly you just needed to read the numbers (assuming you had learned to read). However by force of years of practise most people found that it was actually easier to read an analogue than a digital watch. Same with beacons, an analogue beacon seems more complex, but you can just listen to the signal while keeping your eyes on the terrain and all the practise will actually make you a better searcher less likely to panic in stressful situations. I believe the interface of an analogue beacon is actually better, large volume control and earphones. Everyone says "hey but a digital beacon is great for someone who doesn't do any practise". I don't want someone who has never done any practise searching for me. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
davidof wrote:
I was reasonably clear about what you meant in your original post Peter but many people conventionally think of SAR as external search and rescue by recognised professional or volunteer bodies. As Booker says, even in Europe they are often involved in body recovery. Almost exclusively in Scotland with our very wet snow. We call the formal teams MRT rather than SAR. Your post lacks some consistency. On the one hand you advocate investing considerable money in an expensive beacon but then you advocate skimping on probes which are small and relatively inexpensive pieces of kit to carry. I don't do *any* such thing. Please read it again. I very specifically said I recommend that people carry probes and shovels. What I said was not the case is that a pinger without a probe and shovel was necessarily "ineffective". Back to my problem with a form of words, why not say something more like "if everyone in a party doesn't have their own probe and shovel then the overall safety of the group will be reduced". That should send a very big warning to anyone who really cares and doesn't give anyone an excuse to ignore it by being an obvious overstatement. Everyone says "hey but a digital beacon is great for someone who doesn't do any practise". I don't want someone who has never done any practise searching for me. Nor do I, but we have to appreciate that a lot of people don't really have the time to spend as much time practising as they'd like. I only get so much snow every year, if I spent all the time really getting up to maximum speed with a pinger that I really need to make a bigger difference than the interface allows then I'd never get a chance to go skiing! Even our local MRT have changed to digital after quite a bit of product assessment. I can't see they'd bother if it hindered more than helped them, and they spend some of their time practising. Almost certainly more than I do, and more than I imagine most recreational skiers do, at least those with UK snow levels. 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/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article , Peter Clinch wrote: Booker C. Bense wrote: _ SAR in the avalanche case is almost always picking up dead bodies at least in NA. The situation may be different in Europe, but even in the best circumstances, I find it hard to believe that any SAR team can make it there and start searching in 15 minutes. That would be, errrr, pointless nitpicking :-( SAR is anyone who is searching for you in order to rescue you, probably your companions, who'll be there when you get buried. _ That's not how we use the word on this side of the pond. SAR means an organized external rescue. Generally, every county sheriff's office has some kind of Search and Rescue setup. Often the actual rescue is done by volunteer teams with the sheriff's office providing overall organization. _ I call it dangerous foolishness. Depending on being lucky in dangerous terrain doesn't seem to me to have any other useful categorization. You still haven't come up with a single valid example in support of your statement. Yes I have. And what you call "dangerous foolishness" is what some veterans I know have been doing for decades, before you could buy such things as avalanche beacons, and they're still skiing to tell the tale. _ I've been doing it for decades, but I know I'm betting my life on my snow reading skills in a relatively safe snow climate. However, that example has nothing to do with carrying a beacon and not carrying a shovel and probe. You're comparing apples and oranges. _ The one thing I've gradually come to realize is that avalanches are very freak events in the large part. It's very easy to rationalize a long lucky streak as skill rather than luck. I've done lots and lots of solo skiing in steep terrain over the years and looked at from a rational point of view, I can't characterize it as anything but "dangerous foolishness". IMHO, dangerous foolishness is okay as long as you are aware of what you're doing. I know I'm mostly depending on luck, but I try and keep the odds heavily weighted on my side. _ Rules are there for you to think before you break them. They are meant to be short, sweet and mostly right, not cover all possibilities. It's sad that most people can't seem to grasp the difference between rules, laws and morality, but that doesn't make the rules any less true or useful. I see a very firm and very important difference between a rule and a recommendation. _ I don't. Unless you keep it short and simple, it's far too easy to bend. In my experience, bending rules is what gets you into trouble. When you consciously break rules, you tend to compensate for the increased risk more effectively. I'm not against breaking rules, I do it all the time. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you are aware of what you're doing. Making fuzzy situational rules has a long history of getting people in way over their heads. It may not be logically correct or even very rational, but it's been long shown that it's by far the most effective way to operate in a hazardous environment. I realize it offends your sense of language, but really ( in the best tradition of USENET ) we're arguing about language rather than fact. I believe that hyperbole has it uses and you find it offensive. _ I heartily agree with what I perceive as your underlying argument, Attitude and Knowledge are the primary ingredients of dealing with risk. No piece of gear can make you safer merely by carrying it. _ As an interesting example, I have a friend that's a fairly experienced parachutist. Over the years I've introduced him to rock climbing and he was frankly amazed at the attitude towards safety of most climbers and climbing culture in general. The difference I think is that in parachuting the gear and procedures have to work right every time and it gets tested as good or bad every time. Virulent safety checking is part of parachuting culture. In climbing, 99% of the time it doesn't really matter if you set good gear or bad since the piece never gets tested in the extreme. You can build crappy belays for years, before you ever have to suffer the consequences of your actions. It's very easy to get sloppy, since you never get any feedback until it's too late. The situation in backcountry skiing is even worse, 99.9% of the time it just doesn't matter what you do or carry. With the odds at a thousand to one, you can roll the dice a long time before your number comes up. _ Booker C. Bense -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBQ0rCrmTWTAjn5N/lAQERpQP/U9Sb34w+Jaz7/VkwX4nbs4uOGTabCEsu vq/Cd7fciw06zthtiuALSg4harZjRUAt7IdOMasXrcZw1/Jp1wh+dVjTH+oTgOOA TV2hpQCYjq6VZku6u5RHJY+H0UmDQU40/Qxg0hwWBOu2dmBronaJyPklzR9zNLy+ Vr4yIl2zP/w= =nIUI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Booker C. Bense wrote:
_ That's not how we use the word on this side of the pond. SAR means an organized external rescue. Generally, every county sheriff's office has some kind of Search and Rescue setup. Often the actual rescue is done by volunteer teams with the sheriff's office providing overall organization. Please forgive my terminology then. I meant anyone searching to rescue. _ I don't. Unless you keep it short and simple, it's far too easy to bend. In my experience, bending rules is what gets you into trouble. When you consciously break rules, you tend to compensate for the increased risk more effectively. I'm not against breaking rules, I do it all the time. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you are aware of what you're doing. Making fuzzy situational rules has a long history of getting people in way over their heads. It may not be logically correct or even very rational, but it's been long shown that it's by far the most effective way to operate in a hazardous environment. I realize it offends your sense of language, but really ( in the best tradition of USENET ) we're arguing about language rather than fact. I believe that hyperbole has it uses and you find it offensive. It's not that it offends my sense of language, but that saying something wrong can give people a wrong idea. We have thousands of cases of people who think they need ankle support to walk around a country park, we have numerous cases of people who think down gear is an elaborate suicide method because they think it'll explode or something if you get a single drop of water on the outer shell, we have people who think you'll die if you venture outside of city limits in a cotton T shirt. It's a lot of crap, and I see no point in exaggerating where telling it like it really is has enough warnings as it is. Telling people they are in *more danger* without a probe and shovel and/or that they should always take one should be enough, saying their pinger is /bound to be useless/ if they don't have shovel and probe themselves is an overstatement, and is so obviously an overstatement that it might remove some faith in other rules/recommendations, which is a Bad Thing. "You should always carry a shovel and probe" is fair enough, "a beacon without every person in the group carrying a shovel and probe is ineffective" is not really IMHO, for reasons given. *And* the former is shorter and simpler than the latter in any case. 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/ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your response which I was interested to read. |
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 |