Avvy beacon

[iain]

[Norman_Clyde]

I rented a Tracker a few times last season, and found when testing it out that the range did seem to be exaggerated. As I recall, I expected it to be good for about 80 meters, but it was more like 40.

 

I agree with you, Mattp. The last thing you want is for that beacon you carry to change your behavior.

 

Ebay has several beacons for sale right now. The older models seem to be going for about $120 each. Newer ones are closer to retail.

 

Besides taking a course, I would recommend subscribing to the NWAC page, which is a great way to keep aware of current conditions if you haven't been out recently, or even if you have. I don't have the link handy, but you could do a search. Also, there are a few good books out there, such as Staying Alive in Avalanche Terrain by Bruce Tremper.

 

[ 11-19-2002, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Norman Clyde ]

[mammut_rep]

Current digital technology gives only a range of 40 meters. That's why during the secondary search phase, it is recommended that if there are multiple searchers that they remain no more than 40 meters apart.

[Toast]

quote:

---

Originally posted by snoboy:

The idea with the Barryvox, is that you set the settings

before

you use it. Then in the field the only thing to worry about is switching from analog to digital and back,

if

you configured it that way. And hey, if it gets more people reading the manual, that's a good thing, no?

---

Oh... kinda makes sense

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mammut_rep:

Like I said earlier, most people won't need to adjust any settings on the unit. It's good to go right out of the box. You have the OPTION of changing the settings if you want to.

---

Then I don't see why you'd need to have these settings. Seems like you're presenting a gaping opportunity for people to screw things up.

 

Maybe for somebody like snoboy who wants to upgrade to digital but is still stuck in the analogue mode of operation this might be a novel option... but then I say, WTF, why not just stick with what you got and what you know?

 

Besides, a digital beacon like the Tracker is SO simple to use. I'm not sure I buy snoboy's argument that the analogue digital hurdle is so great that you need a more complex device to ease you into it.

 

I do see value in the Barryvox's ability for the default receive mode to be set analogue (i.e. greater range) then shift into digital when in range (i.e. stoner friendly.)

 

Hey, wait a second... How'd I get on your side

[b-rock]

Thumbs up for MountainSavvy's Avy Class if you are in the Portland area.

[thelawgoddess]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toast:

quote:

---

Originally posted by thelawgoddess:

i'd rather be skiing with someone who has this

(digital)

beacon and little more than some common sense than with someone with an old beacon who may or may NOT remember how to use it.

---

I'd rather ride with somebody who's artful in

avoiding

avalanches,

and

knows how to use their beacon should the need arise

---

don't insert your own words to change what i said. the x1 is a "digital + analog" beacon; not a "digital" beacon. and don't skew what i said in response to something else. any idiot would prefer to be in avalanche-prone terrain with someone who actually knows how to use their beacon AND who's "artful" in avoiding getting caught up in one.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toast:

I think you mean digital then analogue

---

the x1 operates in analog mode from about 60m; then switches to digital within about 10m. the best of both worlds ... so to speak.

 

i'm not saying the x1 is the be-all end-all of transceivers; i just think it's an excellent choice. as is the barryvox.

[terrible_ted]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattp:

The fact is that the number of avalanche vicims who are dug up alive after being completely buried (so they couldn't have been found by simply walking on top of the debris and looking for them) is very small (I think it was reported to be almost zero). I forget who it was, but they quoted some avalanche expert who suggested that the whole emphasis on recovery is misguided and may in fact distract from what we should be focussing on: avoidance.

---

I couldn't agree more. I don't have a beacon and I don't plan on getting one. I've spent dozens of hours practicing and even teaching their use (and I have to agree that the newer technology beats the hell out of the old earplug Ortovox), but I just don't see the point. Maybe in Colorado, but here? Beacons are for corpses.

 

Does anyone know of a case where someone was completely buried by a PNW avalanche and recovered alive?

 

$600 is a lot to pay for timely recovery of cab fare or the car keys.

 

If you don't have a beacon, I contend you're much more likely to make the right decision (i.e. route change or turnaround) when your "lucky" turn comes.

 

-t

[JRCO]

I took the avanlanche 1 class here in colorado a couple years ago. They pretty much gave the same statistics on being found alive if you are burried with a beacon. 90% of the class concentrated on avoidance. By the way, my new ski boots have avalanche transceivers in the heels. Don't ask me why. I did not buy the boots for that feature. I guess if some one zeros in on the beacons, they get free ski boots off of a dead guy.

[Toast]

quote:

---

Originally posted by thelawgoddess:

and don't skew what i said in response to something else. any idiot would prefer to be in avalanche-prone terrain with someone who actually knows how to use their beacon AND who's "artful" in avoiding getting caught up in one.

A bit snippy are we? Actually, I prefer to avoid avalanche prone terrain

[thelawgoddess]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toast:

A bit snippy are we?

---

just don't like my quotes being altered is all.

 

and yes, avoidance is good when it comes to avalanches.

[Toast]

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrible ted:

... I don't have a beacon and I don't plan on getting one. I've spent dozens of hours practicing and even teaching their use (and I have to agree that the newer technology beats the hell out of the old earplug Ortovox), but I just don't see the point. Maybe in Colorado, but here? Beacons are for corpses.

 

... If you don't have a beacon, I contend you're much more likely to make the right decision (i.e. route change or turnaround) when your "lucky" turn comes.

 

-t

---

We all weigh bits of information in the field and make determinations of whether its safe to travel or if alternate routes are preferred. But I really don't think we invest in a beacon so that we can push that line. So far I'd guess that we'd all be on board with that.

 

But your point above... man, I don't get that. I mean, that's like saying you won't wear your seat belt driving because you never push the limits... and if you wore the belt you might start speeding

[mattp]

Tony -

The best skiing is almost always found when the danger is moderate or above and anybody who does much backcountry skiing is either completely ignorant of the danger or they start to get used to taking chances. If you want to ski powder snow on steep slopes that are not covered with tight trees, that is just the way it is. And I DO feel differently about the situation when we are all wearing beacons and carrying shovels so, while I geneally try to play it somewhat safe, I am sure this affects my choices sometimes.

[terrible_ted]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toast:

---

that's like saying you won't wear your seat belt driving because you never push the limits... and if you wore the belt you might start speeding

 

No, it isn't the same at all. The only purpose an avalanche beacon serves is to recover a corpse from the snow. It doesn't afford you ANY PROTECTION. A seat belt PROVIDES PROTECTION. If I heard even ONE account of a person in the PNW being recovered ALIVE from a burial avalanche, I might reconsider. As it stands, I don't see the purpose. It's a waste of effort (learning to use it) and money. Money and effort probably better spent on avalanche avoidance courses, although most experts rate short courses as only marginably valuable.

 

Let's say a beacon is found at $200. Say you make $30/hour, (wouldn't that be nice... )which means your take home pay is roughly (shut up!) $20/hour. Let's say it takes 4 hours to gain modest competence with your new beacon. You've invested 14 hours of your labor into a device designed to help somebody else recover your body.

 

Why not spend $120 on an 8 hour avalanche course designed to keep you out of an avalanche in the first case? It's the same 14 hours of labor...

 

I'm just guessing here (Most climbers are paid less than $30/hr and most pay closer to $300 for a beacon, and ignoring the fact that it takes two beacons to do anything...), I have no idea what most courses cost, but the point is that the time and money spent in allowing someone else to recover your corpse would be much better off spent teaching yourself how to keep it alive in the first place.

 

Besides, there'd be more Spring booty!

 

-t

[mammut_rep]

For those of you that are still interested in buying a new beacon, checkout the link. The info may also help those of you who are having a hard time figuring out why all of the additional "features" are included in the beacon's design.

 

http://www.usmga.net/resourcesgear.htm

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

As far as prevention goes, what about the new backpack airbag technology, whereby one might become huge and float nearer the surface of the avy? How about survival odds with something like the Avalung and beacons? Why is a dedicated sport climber asking avalanche questions?

 

[ 11-20-2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Dr Flash Amazing ]

[bobinc]

I think the Avalung was designed by crash pad engineers. But one could rightly argue crash pads are much more effective.

[Toast]

Point taken mattp. I also value competent partners who are equipped to rescue. That allows me to venture into the backcounty.

 

However, I'm still not gonna tear down a slope I know has avalanche written all over over it (38 degree slope, fresh dump consolidated into a slab over a known weak layer, sudden rising temps, route over a convex hump, deep whumps sound effects beneath.) Avoideance training would indicate taking a different line (actually with all of the above, I wouldn't be caught there in the first place.) But the key point is, a beacon isn't gonna tempt me to try my luck.

 

Change a few of the factors and my assesment of that risk will change. I'd still probably avoid the hump, and maybe we'd choose to ski cut the slope, but when it's deemed safe (i.e. when I deem it to be safe enough) I'll ride. The beacon itself isn't a factor in that assessment.

 

Ted - Maybe I'm a fool for taking some comfort in the thought of the beacon and competence in rescue technique, but I am in total agreement with you regarding the importance of awareness and avoidance. Let's see, it's 4:20, time for a and a...

[COL._Von_Spanker]

I would love to hear someone define the TECHNICAL differences between analogue and digital modes as it applies to a tranciever. And no marketing BS either.

[thelawgoddess]

quote:

---

Originally posted by COL. Von Spanker:

I would love to hear someone define the TECHNICAL differences between analogue and digital modes as it applies to a tranciever. And no marketing BS either.

---

who's marketing bs?

 

All beacons use analog technology to send and receive the electromagnetic signal, but they differ in how they interpret that signal. Digital beacons use digital processing to interpret, and display information with a digital readout, signal strength bars, and/or directional arrows. However there is a slight delay due to signal processing and the sampling rate. Analog beacons use audio beeps and signal strength lights to interpret the signal. Thus, there is no delay, and the signal is displayed in “real time.”

 

(source of quote)

 

of course, there's more ...

[iain]

that delay in response has dropped a bit recently. but it still is there.

[thelawgoddess]

quote:

---

Originally posted by iain:

that delay in response has dropped a bit recently. but it still is there.

---

for a minute i thought you were talking about my response time.

 

they also involve different search methods. if someone doesn't fill you in beforehand, i can try to explain more later.

[kmurray]

For those who think that beacons are a good thing, you might want to read the following excellent article, which takes an in-depth look at the issues, and notes that such equipment is likely to increase your odds of dying in an avalanche:

http://www.adventureplus.org/avalanche.htm

It certainly changed my thinking.

[COL._Von_Spanker]

So I think I'll save y'all the trouble...

 

All transceivers use analog signal. Digital ones have a digital readout, analog ones have a audible signal. Digital readouts require some sort of micro-processor that samples the analog data coming into the unit, AKA 'sample rate' the sample rate wil determine how fast the data is interpreted and then displayed on the readout. So the real difference between analogue and digital modes is whether you are using the display or the audible function. And if the microprocessor is slow than there will be a lag in the time it take to move the data from analogue signal to ones and zeros to a lcd display.

 

EDIT: I design analog and digital audio products so I don't know how often I have had to explain (and had explained to me) the difference between analog and digital signals.

 

[ 11-20-2002, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: COL. Von Spanker ]

[iain]

Here's a good story involving the Tracker DTS (one of the first to have 2 antennae, but not the only one now).

 

Novice beacon user

[JoshK]