Buying the right avalanche transceiver?

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"