Too much money?

[Dustin_B]

Does anyone out there who backcountry skis (or snowshoes) in the winter/spring refuse to get/use an avalanche beacon because they cost to much money? A friend of mine, who recently started backcountry skiing, refuses to get one because he says they are too expensive. He is convinced that the chances of surviving an avalanche are so low the only chance of survival is to avoid them. Therefore a beacon is only used for body recovery and not worth it. (He went to a lecture or seminar and the "avie guy" gave him some false stats on survival rate or something I think). He says he would only buy a beacon if the people he was planning to go with made him carry one. (this doesn't mean he would know how to use it, or care to learn however). He thinks I am overly cautious/safe for wanting to get one, as we have a couple other friends who feel the same way as he does. He believes it is just "bold" to not use one and all the people who use one are less bold. (probably along the same lines of soloing 4th or low 5th class rock). He has no avalanche training besides that hour-long lecture/seminar. I would think all the avies in B.C. last season would change his mind but apparently not as I just talked to him.

 

Do you ever go backcountry skiing in the winter/spring without a beacon (either because they cost too much or for some other reason)? Do you ever let someone who doesn't have a beacon and the skill to use one, go with you? Do you feel beacons are more of a luxury item that you can do without if you just avoid avie terrain, or are they a necessity? I'm of the belief that they are a necessity and I don't think I'll go backcountry skiing in the winter/spring with out one.

 

(I don't currently own a beacon but I'm in the market. I also haven't been backcountry skiing in the winter/spring so this question is from a newbie perspective.)

 

[Figger_Eight]

I'm not going to say I never go out without one, but it seems your buddy is speaking from a perspective of ignorance and laziness rather than one who has enough experience and education to hedge his bets.

[b-rock]

While expensive I beleive they are worth the cost. I own one and use it, but not always - it depends on the conditions. Chances of surviving a burial may not be great (especially here in the NW) but the chance is there. Though I'd say your buddy is right in that it the best advice is to avoid them (duh), it doesn't sound like he has the proper training/experience to evaluate that risk.

[ryland_moore]

I wouldn't go with him if he was the only one with you as it wouldn't make any difference if you were carrying one and he wsn't. Since he hasn't had any other training, I assume he doesn't know how to "read" layers, dig test pits, and look at bonding of crystals? How else is he able to make a sound judgement? An Avy forecast? If you are skiing in groomers and not on any exposed slopes, are always in trees and never go over 7,000 ft after the snow has compeltely settled (ie. Summer) then maybe, maybe I would think about going without a transceiver. But I don't own one either. I just pay the U of O co-op $10/year and I can pick one up anytime I like. AT that rate, it will take me 30 years to have spent the same amount on a new transceiver. He should take an Avy course at the very least and be able to make site speciifc decisions as to snow stability, not rely on some forecast that is generalized. I know of a group in Jackson that was skiing on a low avy danger day, and one guy triggered a slab avalanche. He was trhe only one not wearing a transceiver and of the 5 that were buried or partially buried, the guy without the transceiver was the only one that died. My two cents.

[cj001f]

His friend may be speaking from ignorance, but there are many more important things to spend you money on (training!) than a beacon if your new to backcountry travel. Especially in the maritime snowpack of the cascades, where avalanche hazards decrease fairly quickly after a snowfall, and in general there are few persistant weak layers in the snowpack (unlike the continental snowpacks of CO & UT).

 

As for his statistics, a majority of Avalanche victims die of trauma, not suffocation - draw your own conclusion on what a beacon's useful for.

[Figger_Eight]

Yeah...the chances of coming out okay are certainly against the victim - but if it saves your ass just once it makes wearing and using one worth it.

 

They are expensive...but if they were only $100 bucks - would the reasoning to wear one / not wear one stay the same? Since they are around $300, does a pair of new boards sound like a better deal than the chance to maybe sneak out of a burial alive?

 

I dunno...just a question...

[sobo]

I own a beacon. I use a beacon. I have taken several courses and seminars in the use of the beacon and avalanche awareness/safety. So have the people I go into the backcountry with. In ALMOST every case, we all insist that all others in the party carry/wear/know how to use beacons and shovels. That's right, a shovel for everyone in the party as well (what good does a shovel do if the guy with it gets buried ).

 

DustinB, your friend, is practicing a *skill* we refer to commonly as Recreational Darwinism. We'll see if he *evolves* in the future.

[cj001f]

sobo said:

I own a beacon. I use a beacon. I have taken several courses and seminars in the use of the beacon and avalanche awareness/safety. So have the people I go into the backcountry with. In ALMOST every case, we all insist that all others in the party carry/wear/know how to use beacons and shovels. That's right, a shovel for everyone in the party as well (what good does a shovel do if the guy with it gets buried ).

That's a wonderful idea - but in practice it raises the fiscal bar fairly high to enter the backcountry (unless you have access to cheap, reliable rental beacons - THAT YOU KNOW HOW TO USE! - it's alot harder to practice if you use a different beacon each time). My point is $300 is best spent on a class that will open your eyes to the dangers around you - not on something to get you into trouble (skis) or give you a false sense of what you could survive (beacon). And honestly the Avy danger isn't THAT high in the cascades if you know when to go, and where not to go (and yes this is an absurd generalisation)

[russ]

cj001f:

.....And honestly the Avy danger isn't THAT high in the cascades if you know when to go, and where not to go (and yes this is an absurd generalisation)

 

And you've portrayed your friend as pretty clearly NOT knowing when to go, and where to go. The boy needs sum egdeukation. Tell him to go take one of Gary Brill's avalanche class series - not very expensive.

[Dustin_B]

cj001f said:

As for his statistics, a majority of Avalanche victims die of trauma, not suffocation - draw your own conclusion on what a beacon's useful for.

 

"According to statistics from the American Avalanche Association, approximately 70 percent of avalanche fatalities are caused by suffocation; approximately 30 percent are the result of trauma."

 

from here

[cj001f]

Dustin_B said:

"According to statistics from the American Avalanche Association, approximately 70 percent of avalanche fatalities are caused by suffocation; approximately 30 percent are the result of trauma."

 

from here

One might draw a different conclusion on beacon effectiveness from here:

http://geosurvey.state.co.us/avalanche/US_World_stats/summary/1950-2001/method_rescue01.html

[b-rock]

a quick google search on 'avalanche statistics trauma' turns up quite a few articles that claim the trauma deathe percentage to be 25-35%, though none of the instances quote an official source or statistic. i bet that percent is higher in the nw. carl your link does show that your best bet at rescuing a victem lies in reading visual clues after the slide.

[cj001f]

b-rock said:

a quick google search on 'avalanche statistics trauma' turns up quite a few articles that claim the trauma deathe percentage to be 25-35%, though none of the instances quote an official source or statistic. i bet that percent is higher in the nw. carl your link does show that your best bet at rescuing a victem lies in reading visual clues after the slide.

I was incorrect. From the Avy Handbook - 65% die of suffocation, 25% Trauma, 10% Hypothermia/Shock. I still stand by my belief that you are better served by spending the $ on a class and learning than a beacon.

Edited October 8, 2003 by cj001f

[sobo]

cj001f said:

sobo said:

blah blah blah

That's a wonderful idea - but in practice it raises the fiscal bar fairly high to enter the backcountry (unless you have access to cheap, reliable rental beacons - THAT YOU KNOW HOW TO USE! - it's alot harder to practice if you use a different beacon each time). My point is $300 is best spent on a class that will open your eyes to the dangers around you - not on something to get you into trouble (skis) or give you a false sense of what you could survive (beacon). And honestly the Avy danger isn't THAT high in the cascades if you know when to go, and where not to go (and yes this is an absurd generalisation)

 

I don't disagree, carl. But it's a decision we must make if we decide that this is to be our form of recreation. And if we decide we want to keep on living! True, money may be better spent on education, but who wants to do that when toyz can be bought with that same $$?

 

And true also that we can minimize our exposure by choosing wisely the times and places we decide to go. But my point is that me and my pals have placed a value on both education *and* equipment to better our chances of returning home, whereas DustinB's friend has categorically denied the value of both.

 

Also, being a member of a mountain rescue unit, I don't mind going out to help pull someone off a mountain who got in over their head a little bit, whereas I do mind going out for a body recovery because someone decided to be just plain cheap and stupid. My $0.02

[mattp]

I generally agree with Carl that it is more important to learn to minimize the chance of being caught in avalanches than to recover your buddy once an accident happens, but one point for backcountry skiers to remember is that there is a high correlation between good skiing terrain and snow with avalance danger. That is, the slopes that are friendly and fun for skiing are generally of a steepness (25-40 degrees) that is most likely to avalanche, and if they are open enough to ski -- even if tree skiing -- they are open enough to slide. Also, the prime powder that we all go looking for is that which has not settled after a big dump and, again, is among the most dangerous of types of snow that one could venture into. If you are out there chasing the powder and hunting down fresh ski runs, you are going to trigger avalanches and you better take it seriously!

 

Beg, borrow, or steal -- do whatever you have to to to get a beacon (you can probably get a used one of a model that is a few years old for a lot less than a new one), and learn how to use it. Then try not to let the fact that you are carrying a beacon lull you into the stupid idea that you can get buried and your buddy is going to save you!

[JayB]

In a recent survey, 9 out of 10 people who were located and dug-out by their partners after a beacon search concluded that the cash that they shelled out for a beacon was money well spent. Of those respondents who were buried with their beacon and died anyway, 100% concluded that the buying the beacons was indeed a waste of money.

[Fairweather]

It seems to me that simple single antenna, analog transceivers are outrageously overpriced. (Pieps, Ortovox F1, etc) They are such simple devices, I can't imagine why they still fetch $200 - $300 in a free market. Frankly, I wonder if the prices are "fixed". I'm sure the R&D costs associated with this dated technology is no longer a factor in justifying the currently asked retails. Especially since there seems to be a migration toward the dual antenna models.

After taking Paul Bauger's avy classes up at Crystal a few years back, I came to the following conclusion:

Any avy forcast above "moderate", means I stay home or go lift skiing. If I doubt things enough to dig a pit, I probably shouldn't be there in the first place. Not a fool-proof system, but hey.......I wanna liiiivvve!

[Figger_Eight]

JayB said:

In a recent survey, 9 out of 10 people who were located and dug-out by their partners after a beacon search concluded that the cash that they shelled out for a beacon was money well spent. Of those respondents who were buried with their beacon and died anyway, 100% concluded that the buying the beacons was indeed a waste of money.

 

[cj001f]

Fairweather said: Any avy forcast above "moderate", means I stay home or go lift skiing. If I doubt things enough to dig a pit, I probably shouldn't be there in the first place. Not a fool-proof system, but hey.......I wanna liiiivvve!

I think this is the best advice to a novice. When in doubt, STAY OUT!

 

And I, too, think there is some sort of passive collusion in the beacon market - similar to the top of the line GTX shell market.

[Billygoat]

If you are skiing by yourself then, no need. If in a group then it's your responsibility to be trained and have the equipment. Unless the group does not give a shit. Then it is back to every man for himself,"Recreational Darwinism" . You could try avalanche cords for some modicum of protection. Avoidance and timing as well as a large amount of luck is everything...

my humble $ .02

[babnik]

JayB said:

In a recent survey, 9 out of 10 people who were located and dug-out by their partners after a beacon search concluded that the cash that they shelled out for a beacon was money well spent. Of those respondents who were buried with their beacon and died anyway, 100% concluded that the buying the beacons was indeed a waste of money.

 

and there were prolly 10 times (at least) of the latter group

[cman]

I have a beacon, shovel and probe, and bring it with me almost all the time, except spring. People can rationalize not buying the equipment all they want because of ethics or just being a cheap ass but all it takes is one time to easily see that you or your friends life is well worth a couple hundred bucks.

certainly education is the most important part of backcountry skiing but why not have a backup safety system? i always build redundancy into my climbing anchors.

[ski_photomatt]

babnik said:

JayB said:

In a recent survey, 9 out of 10 people who were located and dug-out by their partners after a beacon search concluded that the cash that they shelled out for a beacon was money well spent. Of those respondents who were buried with their beacon and died anyway, 100% concluded that the buying the beacons was indeed a waste of money.

 

and there were prolly 10 times (at least) of the latter group

 

The link above clearly shows that about 1/3 of attempted beacon rescues are successful. Not 1/10. This seems obvious to me: if you are ever buried in an avalanche, and wearing a beacon (with partners who also have beacons and know how to use them), your chances of survival go from 0/3 to 1/3. That makes it worth the money.

[cj001f]

ski_photomatt said:The link above clearly shows that about 1/3 of attempted beacon rescues are successful. Not 1/10. This seems obvious to me: if you are ever buried in an avalanche, and wearing a beacon (with partners who also have beacons and know how to use them), your chances of survival go from 0/3 to 1/3. That makes it worth the money.

Check your math again photomatt. The link said that 1/3 of the people Found by a beacon survived. Note that a majority of people found by an object/body part associated with them survived, and close to that with a fine search - so the actual number of times a beacon was useful in finding a living person was relatively small. Of course I'd be glad for that small chance.

[sheskis]

Ski only 25 degree or less slopes! Have fun with that!

 

Rather than cheaping out, get the training and buy the gear.

 

If your buddies are also morons, they won't have the gear or training to dig you sorry ass out anyway. Swim much?