Several avalanche deaths in the Savoie

Ace wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:29:09 GMT, Greg Hilton wrote:


Ace, to play devils advocate, when I went with SCGB off-piste they simply
issued peeps with no instructions on usage at all!

Yes, there were a number of such instances reported last year, which
were mentioned at the pre-season training day. We have instruction
cards for each model and we're supposed to ensure that we spend at
least a short time explaining their use.

It's not just the SCGB who can be a bit "relaxed" - I went off-piste
skiing with a guide (as in a UIAGM guide) and he handed them out, turned
one on to receive to show people how they worked and then we were off.
These were the DTS Trackers [1] which are incredibly easy to use, but
even so I think a few minutes practise would have been a good idea. It's
not just using the device either, there are a lot of other parts to the
drill - e.g. how does the group spread out to perform the search, use of
probes etc.

[1] I got a friend to hide his transceiver outside in large open area of
fairly deep snow (2 tennis courts as it happened), I found it using my
Tracker in no time - just the time it took to walk directly to it. He
then tried to find mine with an analogue device and it took him 5
minutes longer. Pretty good going on his part but just goes to show how
effective the Trackers are.

Ace wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:05:20 +0000, funkraum
wrote:


avalanche risk

Much as I enjoy lots of snow, 5 is 'stay indoors', 4 is 'stay on the
piste' if you must go out (and avoid the traps), 3 is 'you better have
plenty of credit because you are going to use some on this trip' and 2
is just normal Alpine hazard.

With 5 the snow is already on its way down. Stepping on it will just
make it give way. If there was a way of skiing 5 and living to tell
about it, I would have figured it out by now.


I think perhaps you're being slightly over-cautious. For me, a risk of
either 4 or 5 means strictly on-piste only, and with a 5 I'd also
exercise my own judgement as to whether a piste is exposed or not. But
I certainly wouldn't stay indoors.

A risk of 3 is, for me, 'normal', in that I always think carefully
about where I'm going and any potential hazards etc. If it's less than
that, I act the same anyway.

You all sound very sensible, I was wondering recently if some people
take more risks as the resorts start inflating the values?

Two weeks ago (before the recent big dump), we were in Soldeu and the
avalanche risk listed on a hotel bulletin board as 3. Off piste was
definitely dangerous but not (IMO) from avalanches: on average you'd
have found 1 small tree, 3 rocks, and 6 inches of grass for every 3
inches of crusty and tracked out snow [1]. I don't claim off-piste
expertise but with such minimal snow cover are avalanches really that
likely? Or are they reflecting the highest possible chance in the most
remote north-facing slope?

Could this inflation be encouraging off-pisters to ignore the risk factors?

-Sarah

[1] They had a few closed pistes in a similar state too, although credit
is due to the pisties for keeping 90% of slopes open with cannons and
lots of hard work with snowploughs. I'm sooooo jealous of folks heading
to the slopes now with all this new powder!

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:51:05 +0000, Steve Haigh
wrote:

Ace wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:29:09 GMT, Greg Hilton wrote:


Ace, to play devils advocate, when I went with SCGB off-piste they simply
issued peeps with no instructions on usage at all!

Yes, there were a number of such instances reported last year, which
were mentioned at the pre-season training day. We have instruction
cards for each model and we're supposed to ensure that we spend at
least a short time explaining their use.

It's not just the SCGB who can be a bit "relaxed" - I went off-piste
skiing with a guide (as in a UIAGM guide) and he handed them out, turned
one on to receive to show people how they worked and then we were off.

Yes, I've known mountain guides even more relaxed than that - they
seem to assume everyone knows about this stuff.

These were the DTS Trackers [1] which are incredibly easy to use, but
even so I think a few minutes practise would have been a good idea.

Not sure about yer actual practice, but I tend to do a quick demo,
just to show the old 'lines of flux' thang. But you're right - they
really are very simple to use these days. We have several models (but
not mixed in any one resort), so some of them need a little more
practice than others.

It's
not just using the device either, there are a lot of other parts to the
drill - e.g. how does the group spread out to perform the search, use of
probes etc.

Yeah, but I think that's really beyond the remit of a skiing group -
when leading holidays I nearly always invite folk to a demo/practice
session after skiing one evening.

[1] I got a friend to hide his transceiver outside in large open area of
fairly deep snow (2 tennis courts as it happened), I found it using my
Tracker in no time - just the time it took to walk directly to it. He
then tried to find mine with an analogue device and it took him 5
minutes longer.

Grrrr. They're all 'analogue' devices. Just the older ones don't have
a distance reading (and some no direction either, I know). It's
important thet this is understood, as it has a great affect on the
distance readout vs. your actual distance from the victim (plus their
depth, of course).

Pretty good going on his part but just goes to show how
effective the Trackers are.

I find the easiest of all, for new users, are the Ortovox X1s, with
which even a _complete_ novice, with no instruction, will normally
find a target within a couple of minutes. Of course, they won't know
what to do once they've localised the victim (who may be buried deep
down) but that's another story.

--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.

Sarah Eggleston wrote:


You all sound very sensible, I was wondering recently if some people
take more risks as the resorts start inflating the values?

That's a good point, I can see that a resort may well want to err on the
side of caution. FWIW I don't think they do, I think the risks are
stated as they are, but it's a hard one to call, even for the experts.
Also, an overall risk level is a very broad brush, in windy conditions
some slopes will be far more dangerous than others, and in the spring
the risk varies with both aspect and time of day.

Some places do post more detailed reports and any off-piste skier should
look for this info before heading out. That said, I've not found that
kind of info in Europe but maybe I'm not looking hard enough?

Two weeks ago (before the recent big dump), we were in Soldeu and the
avalanche risk listed on a hotel bulletin board as 3. Off piste was
definitely dangerous but not (IMO) from avalanches: on average you'd
have found 1 small tree, 3 rocks, and 6 inches of grass for every 3
inches of crusty and tracked out snow [1]. I don't claim off-piste
expertise but with such minimal snow cover are avalanches really that
likely? Or are they reflecting the highest possible chance in the most
remote north-facing slope?

Thin snow cover can be very dangerous depending on what is below the
surface. It is possible for there to be an avalanche risk if the snow
pack is unstable regardless of how much snow there is. I've no idea what
the terrain is like in Soldeu, but I know an area in St Anton which is a
grassy slope in summer and this can avalanche right down to the base in
spring time. You also have to bear in mind the risk is not just from the
slope you are on but also from slopes above you - could there have been
more snow higher up, maybe on a slope which would threaten an otherwise
safe slope?

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:51:05 GMT, Steve Haigh
allegedly wrote:

[1] I got a friend to hide his transceiver outside in large open area of
fairly deep snow (2 tennis courts as it happened), I found it using my
Tracker in no time - just the time it took to walk directly to it. He
then tried to find mine with an analogue device and it took him 5
minutes longer. Pretty good going on his part but just goes to show how
effective the Trackers are.

That's not good going on his part at all. He needs to practice more. Did
you do more than one turn each?

Last time Champ and I were practicing (I have a Pieps, he has the
Tracker), our search times were pretty much the same. I think he might
have been slightly quicker... can't remember now. Champ?

- Dave.

--
The only powder to get high on, falls from the sky.
http://www.vpas.org/ - Snowboarding the worlds pow pow -
Securing your e-mail

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:38:47 GMT, "John Wilcock" john-
allegedly wrote:

Would all these people have been willing to sign a waiver acknowledging
that they are aware of the risks and thereby entitling mountain rescue
teams to refuse to come and dig them out?

I sign one. I never base my safety on the proximity of mountain rescue.
If you're buried in the backcountry, you'll most likely be dead by the
time they are mobilised and get to you.

- Dave.

--
The only powder to get high on, falls from the sky.
http://www.vpas.org/ - Snowboarding the worlds pow pow -
Securing your e-mail

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:43:31 GMT, "PG" allegedly
wrote:

I was wondering if they should
post something up, in English and French, along the lines of:

A foolhardy boarder died off-piste today here in Les Arcs because he

I'm not sure the mode of transport has any bearing on it. You wouldn't
want the sign to imply that all skiers would have been safe.

- Dave.

--
The only powder to get high on, falls from the sky.
http://www.vpas.org/ - Snowboarding the worlds pow pow -
Securing your e-mail

Hi Steve

1.) Finding a test tranciever which is buried under 10 cm of snow with
joking friends around in a flat meadow near the next hut in fine weather
is something completely different from finding a person under 1 or 2 m
of packed snow with probe and shovel[1], in a steep slope, while your
heart beats like crazy and your brain goes nuts because of fear.

For being able to handle this real life situation, you have to have
trained the simulated live situation (flat meadow...) a hundred times.


2.) Finding a test tranciever which is buried flat lying in the snow is
easy. In a situation where the senders antenna is positioned vertical,
the searcher with the DTS (or any other dual antenna system) is the same
helpless as a person with an single antenna system.
The real difference is NOT between the better or worse technology but
between a well trained searcher who knows about the difficulties of his
system and a pseudo instructed person, who thinks "technology will fix
it for me", but who never learned to know the traps of its transciever.

Btw: Your story of the UIAGM guide, who instructs the Trackersearch
within two minutes, sounds like: a man from the boat rental gives you a
boat and a sextant, and tells you "hey its quite simple, look here is
the sun, and here is the angle und you simply transfer it to the map.
Its no problem to cross the ocean".

Would you want to sail...?

Florian

[1]
If the person is under 2 meters of snow, the beeper shows you NOT a
point where the person is, but a circle of around 2 or 3 meters where
the buried person might(!) be. _Here_ starts the race with the time -
not while the search with the beeper.

Florian Anwander wrote:

Hi Steve

1.) Finding a test tranciever which is buried under 10 cm of snow with
joking friends around in a flat meadow near the next hut in fine weather
is something completely different from finding a person under 1 or 2 m
of packed snow with probe and shovel[1], in a steep slope, while your
heart beats like crazy and your brain goes nuts because of fear.

For being able to handle this real life situation, you have to have
trained the simulated live situation (flat meadow...) a hundred times.

True.



2.) Finding a test tranciever which is buried flat lying in the snow is
easy. In a situation where the senders antenna is positioned vertical,
the searcher with the DTS (or any other dual antenna system) is the same
helpless as a person with an single antenna system.
The real difference is NOT between the better or worse technology but
between a well trained searcher who knows about the difficulties of his
system and a pseudo instructed person, who thinks "technology will fix
it for me", but who never learned to know the traps of its transciever.

Not sure I agree with this, the Tracker type has been found to be
significantly quicker in tests carried out by ski patrolers in N America
[2]. I agree there are issues with the orientation of the sending
device, but overall search times are quicker for a Tracker than an old
single antenna in searches carried out by trained professionals. In the
case of amatures I would guess the tracker would be a lot quicker. Put
it this way, I'd rather my friends had a Tracker than a single antenna
device.


Btw: Your story of the UIAGM guide, who instructs the Trackersearch
within two minutes, sounds like: a man from the boat rental gives you a
boat and a sextant, and tells you "hey its quite simple, look here is
the sun, and here is the angle und you simply transfer it to the map.
Its no problem to cross the ocean".

I think a Tracker is a bit easier to use than a sextant, but I take your
point.

Would you want to sail...?

No, but I get sea sick anyway:-)

Florian

[1]
If the person is under 2 meters of snow, the beeper shows you NOT a
point where the person is, but a circle of around 2 or 3 meters where
the buried person might(!) be. _Here_ starts the race with the time -
not while the search with the beeper.

This is a very good point - hence the need for probes, and some
knowledge of the theory of tranceivers + real practise (well, not *that*
real hopefully).

Steve

[2] Not surprisingly a lot of positive reports can be found on the
Tracker website:-) www.bcaccess.com

Ace wrote in
:


Having said that, I did have to return my wifes to the local pub
afterwards and stayed for the odd beer, so it wasn't all bad

Heh. We lost a few last year when reps trusted members to bring them
back later.


Well if the SCGB rep hadn't skipped the afternoons fun he could have had it
handed back!! He was knackered after one morning run, so left us with the
guide

cheers,

Greg