Others disagree:
http://www.patrol.org/instructor/avalan/avtrans/6.html
Crystals are an EE thing. I won't delve into because I wouldn't touch that stuff with a 10' pole.
It's interesting you mention that - the root directory of the survey leads to the business school. I'd be interested to see if there was a regional analysis done.
The heel elevator has been gone over elsewhere - it's a non-issue. As for the pole adjust, I doubt it's anything fine sandpaper, graphite, or wear couldn't change.
NO! He means the freaking M-1. The M-1 is the predecessor to the X-1 - it was one of the first digi/analogue beacons. And's nice to use. As for buying a used beacon - if you know the person, or can test beforehand, or believe them to be trustworthy - go for it.
I've only played with one a little - I consider it digital because it has the directional arrows, and more importantly, takes less practice than an F1 or Pieps 457. But compared to a Barryvox or M2, no.
The advantage of a digital beacon is you can get the same search time with less practicing. I prefer skiing to practicing.
M1's are nice. I like the emergency transmit button.
I remember the North Face solo, but not an A4 - and her website doesn't list it (but it's only a highlight list):
http://www.destivelle.com/A/BVFrame.html
before the kid she was quite the hardwoman.
Indeed he/does did - they were quite popular for hard ice/mixed. And I love my Sabretooths - they rock!http://www.gravsports.com/Gear%20Folder/Cobras,%20Sabretooths.htm
I was looking at it from the viewpoint of how many avalanche burials does wearing a beacon effect the outcome of - this number is relatively speaking, low (many more people are found by attached body part) - hence my belief that avoidance is worth investing much more heavily in than body location. You're correct for beacon searches in terms of data.
Cool. You can also use a ski as an improvised traction splint - but this is a better thought out idea. $210 bucks better thought out!
http://www.dyna-med.co.uk/uk2shop-4.htm
There is some supposition that teh Grizzly bears of California, when in existence, may have approached Alaskan bears in size - having access to truly massive quantities of anadromous fish, and no appreciable winter.
No more California used to have quite a few grizzlies - amazing how big a bear could get with no winter, and all the salmon, elk, antelope & acorns you could eat.