mattp Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Fairweather, your caution is commendable but I think you may be overemphasizing the hazard ratings. I believe the hazard level was "moderate" when those people were buried in the backcountry near Crystal last winter, and I think it was "moderate" or less when that group of school kids was killed up at Rodger's Pass. Also, I'd add that just about any powder day has a hazard rating of at least "considerable." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pindude Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 And if I didn't ski in the BC every time the forecast was "considerable" at least in some areas, aspects, and elevations, I'd have very few ski days. Â Number one is education and avoidance obviously, but a transceiver = cheap insurance, even at $300. The stats do warrant it. Carl, your buddy must have spent some $ already on gear and clothes to even consider the BC. I myself won't consider skiing or boarding with someone in the BC unless they have beacon-shovel-probe, are motivated and curious to want to continually learn about the snowpack and avy danger, and are prepared to do what they can if it does happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 pindude said: Carl, your buddy must have spent some $ already on gear and clothes to even consider the BC. It's Dustin's buddy - mine care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski_photomatt Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 cj001f said: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. Â I made some assumptions in interpreting the statistics: if the other easy seach methods weren't available (attached body part/gear) and the person was wearing a beacon, then a beacon seach would be the method of rescue. Basically, if the person is buried with a beacon on then it would be used to find them. This is exactly the situation we all buy and wear beacons for, and it looks like it is about 33% successful. I think we both agree whatever the odds, they are worth the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 ski_photomatt said:I made some assumptions in interpreting the statistics: if the other easy seach methods weren't available (attached body part/gear) and the person was wearing a beacon, then a beacon seach would be the method of rescue. Basically, if the person is buried with a beacon on then it would be used to find them. This is exactly the situation we all buy and wear beacons for, and it looks like it is about 33% successful. I think we both agree whatever the odds, they are worth the money. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 I usually take a transceiver, unless is skiing the S Side of Hood or something. Â I also have a spare that I can lend to cheap partners. Both beacons I have I got used (and they work just fine) for 100$ each. There are alternatives out there for your cheap-ass friends. Perhaps they can knock a few hundred off the ski-setup budget (these days...300$ for boots, 300$ for skis, 300$ for bindings..cmon! ) Â Backcountry skiiers who ski without a beacon, shovel, and willingness to dig a pit are just like people who refuse to wear a helmet leading rock: they will likely live today, but maybe not tomorrow. Â How much is your life worth? Mine is worth more than the price of a beacon even at full retail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustin_B Posted October 10, 2003 Author Share Posted October 10, 2003 I think what really made me start this thread in the first place (and the thing that bothers me the most) is when it comes down to it, I don't really believe it is a money issue, more of the attitude that he just doesn't need one. I guess what it comes down to, probably, is one (or two) less skiing partner in the winter/early spring time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figger_Eight Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Dustin_B said: I think what really made me start this thread in the first place (and the thing that bothers me the most) is when it comes down to it, I don't really believe it is a money issue, more of the attitude that he just doesn't need one. I guess what it comes down to, probably, is one (or two) less skiing partner in the winter/early spring time.  Bummer  Looks like you might need to be the positive influence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pindude Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Dustin_B said: I think what really made me start this thread in the first place (and the thing that bothers me the most) is when it comes down to it, I don't really believe it is a money issue, more of the attitude that he just doesn't need one. I guess what it comes down to, probably, is one (or two) less skiing partner in the winter/early spring time. Â Now that you mention it, one of the few reasons I bought a second transceiver was to get a "cheaper" buddy of mine back out into the BC freshies, but it also took--like Figger 8 mentions--influence on my part to positively open up his awareness and to practice with it. Dustin, good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 mattp said: Fairweather, your caution is commendable but I think you may be overemphasizing the hazard ratings. I believe the hazard level was "moderate" when those people were buried in the backcountry near Crystal last winter, and I think it was "moderate" or less when that group of school kids was killed up at Rodger's Pass. Also, I'd add that just about any powder day has a hazard rating of at least "considerable." Â Matt, I believe you are correct in that the hazard was only moderate that day. I think what this really illustrates is the fact that you have to make your own observations and judgements in every situation and not simply rely on the forecasts. I was up backcountry skiing on the day that those folks were killed at Crystal. We were one drainage over and were excercising a good amount of caution because I had very little trust in the snowpack. Despite the realtively low forecast, the conditions in that area were enough to be worried about. We stuck to mainly skiing trees and areas that we cut and felt safe on and we had an awesome day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheskis Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 It's still over 25 degrees too (for the academics). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.