Avalung usage

The message here is very good-<br>The best way to stay out of an avalanche is to never be in one.<br><br>Like Mad Dog said it is a good reminder for us all to be sharp.<br><br>Those of us who fear the wrath of Mother Nature seem to get the idea, but it is those folk that you see eating lunch under a large cornice on a warm day that really need the message.<br>The irony is that they could be the same folks that don't smoke because it isn't healthy for them.<br>Joe

On the use of probes with transceiver search:     From what I have seen of less experienced transceiver searchers near the middle of a practice session is one to two minutes of course search followed by 1 minute plus of fine transceiver search, often sweeping back and forth over the same 9 sq ft of snow surface for this second phase, which always makes everyone quite nervous.  Note in the story above they started diging 2 meters away.  One extra step can be having a second searcher start simultaneous pole probing just after the start of the fine search.  Loosely tapeing a collapsed probe to the outside of the shovel shaft but not too loosely   makes probe access only a few additional seconds since you have to get the shovel out anyway.  A down side would be a false probe signal from a rock or log.  Obviously more fine search transceirver practice is needed in this case.  Pls Dont probe with extreme force the probe is pointy.  Back to the Avalung I do not recall seeing very many in actual use and only a couple helmets maybe that will change this year?  I always wear a helmet when biking just like everyone else except that guy back in college who could not reconize his parents from his hospital bed.  PS the Bruce Tremper book has quite a bit on terrain.

I hope Chris doesn't object to his thread drifting into a general discussion of avalanche technology.<br><br>Again Randonnee, Joe, and you others, thanks for sharing your experience and knowledge of the subject. <br><br>The timing is right for us all to start thinking about avalanche safety... something that seems to be an ongoing journey. The scholars in the field seem to keep coming up with cool stuff faster than us rank and file types can absorb it all (or sometimes even want to). <br><br>One thing I like about the gang that I ski with is we all seem to be fairly conservative when it comes to avalanche conditions. <br>I think we are very fortunate with the maritime snow pack we typically experience here in the PNW. It seems to be much more predictable in comparison to the continental snowpack that our brothers and sisters in Utah, Colorado and the Canadian Rockies have to deal with. We get the exceptional year on occasion such as the one with the persistent buried weak layers that Gary Brill studied a couple of years back. That was the one that took many of our bc ski brethren in Canada. But most years our snow pack is fairly predictable. Unless we do our own backcountry avalanche control, our gang pretty much tends to ski low angle snow during, and immediately after storm events and during periods of warming trends. There's so much great terrain to ski once the snow starts flying that we sometimes don't get around to skiing the steeper chutes that have limited escape routes until late in the season. By that time the base has usually solidified and long periods have elapsed since major snow falls and major warming events. The NWAC's snopack analysis in their avy report is helpful in following the snopack history, especially if one hasn't been digging weekly snowpits.<br><br>Randonnee, the disadvantage of being the nice guy who shares his knowledge for the betterment of all, is that then folks like me always have to come along and "monday morning quarterback" you. Your dissertation was good and for that I applaud you. I also liked the tip of kicking of the skis as you get close to the target before you drop below it; that could be a real time saver. And I doubt that anyone could disagree with you and Joe that the first rule of avalanche safety is "don't get in one". <br>But when you talk about quick and efficient recovery time, I have to respectfully differ with a couple of the points you make here:<br>

...I forgot to mention that all of my ski touring ski poles are probe poles. <br>... Probe use is fine, but in my mind by the time one needs a probe it is approaching body recovery time. <br>... If one needs to pull out a probe, your time will be five to ten minutes commonly. Time=dead brain cells for the victim.

I, too, have ski poles that can be converted to probe poles, but like you I consider their use only practical for a body recovery. Why? As you point out, it takes too long to get a basket off and screw them apart and back together as a probe... at least a minute or more. That's why everyone in the gang I run with carries a dedicated avalanche probe. A good dedicated probe can be deployed and into action in as little five seconds, maybe less. That and the fact that we've found that with their proper use they drastically reduce recovery times. How? We probe to minimize digging. Digging takes more time than probing. As you aptly point out "Time=dead brain cells for the victim." so time is not our friend in an avy victim recovery.<br>My point is this: we have found in our experiments in recovering packs and other body sized targets (instead of only beacons in tupperware containers) that what tends to take the most time is the fine search and the digging... especially if the digging ends up like this:<br>

... To avoid probe use, one must pinpoint with a transceiver to a small area of about four to six inches. Then, I have found that efficient digging to locate the buried victim involves trenching from a foot above the pinpoint to below, dig like a madman and do not stop until it just gets too deep. By using this technique and not stopping right away one makes a sizeable excavation in seconds. After maximal fast trenching and no find, it is time to quickly search the trench walls with the transceiver and possibly the probe, however probe use involves time so it is far down my list

As you point out, once that much digging (and time) has transpired, chance wane.<br>So to shorten the most time consuming portion of the rescue (the fine search and the digging) we have found that, at least for us, once the searcher is inside 3 meters he or she starts giving directions to the prober(s) as to where to probe while continuing to pinpoint the search with his or her beacon. We have consistently found that once the final searcher is inside a meter of the victim, while still directing the prober(s) where to probe, the probers will usually get a strike within 1 to 3 probes. We don't dig until we have a probe strike and when we do we are digging down the left in place probe direct to the victim. Also, with the probe left in place against the victim, there's less chance of a hard victim strike with a shovel blade. The point is, no more checking the sides of the hole with the beacon for us. THAT's what takes time (and embarrassingly enough, I've dug those holes just a foot or two off which ended up costing that fatal 10 to 15 minutes - though, thankfully only in practice).<br>And, at least in my experience, without a probe strike, it's hard to be absolutely certain as to where to dig. You say:<br>

. * Why start digging above?*- The strongest transceiver signal is from the shortest distance through the snow to the transceiver. That distance is perpendicular to the slope, and the natural tendency is to dig straight down the plumb line. If one digs straight down the plumb line it is likely that the transceiver will be just inches above the dig. ...

I've not always found that to be true. With the sending unit's antenna tending towards vertical there can sometimes two and even three peaks and nulls to contend with... enough to confuse an anguished searcher and even the most sophisticated digital beacon. In such conditions I've found it much too easy to start digging in the wrong place. In my opinion a probe strike mitigates that possibility and possibly saves a life of a person very dear to you.<br><br>If I ever happen to be so dunderheaded as to get myself completely buried, my "letter to Santa Claus" is for me to be with people who:<br>1. watch carefully and observe where they last saw me,<br>2. make sure they stay out of harms way in rescuing me,<br>3. immediately scan the area for visual cues of my whereabouts,<br>4. Immediately designate a rescue team leader to direct my rescue,<br>5. If no immediate signal apparent from my beacon the leader would designate a competent searcher possessing an analog beacon (better range) to immediately begin a course search while at the same time instructing a competent searcher with a digital beacon to get out probe and shovel and stand ready to take over the beacon search when the signal is within his or her digital beacon's range, with a "pinpoint on a line" type final search, and at the same time instructing all others to get out probes and shovels and stand ready for the final recovery, unless needed for other activities.<br><br>I figure if there were at least two rescuers that are present to see the incident, using the above methods, the analog beacon will have my signal immediately after the slide subsides and the digital beacon rescuer will be taking over within 10 meters from me. The digital beacon rescuer will be designating probe points within a minute after the search began and they will have my face exposed inside of two minutes, unless I'm buried over 3 ft deep. Oh, and yeah, I might have a bruise or two from the probe to bitch about.<br>Sorry, Randonnee, please don't be offended, I could be wrong (and if I am I would appreciate being educated as to why), but I just don't believe that scenario could be accomplished, consistently, in that short a period of time, without a dedicated probe.<br>I'll bet that dog can do it though

No worries. I share my experience. I am responsible for myself and partner only, I do not intend to change anyone's mind. Think for yourself, think it through for yourself. Everyone should be comfortable engaging in discussion on this forum. I still believe in my preferred standard that I described, and have practiced it for 25 years:<br><br>Accurate transceiver pinpoint and excavation of the transceiver from the starting zone buried 2 to 3 ft deep in less than 3 minutes, as described. <br><br>I achieved this standard, after a lot of practice, with the old transceivers with an earpiece. That wire and earpiece placement added time and stress. <br><br>I have nothing against probes, but long ago developed the ability to recover as stated above. Without a transceiver or dog, probably only luck and God will save someone who is buried in an avalanche. <br><br>I have seen probe poles used, with basket removal, in an actual rescue, as well as used folding probes, and ancient metal probes. My other thoughts on probes are that I was not aware of a live recovery deeper that 5 ft. until the one linked above with the Avalung, so I have always mused about why I should pack around an 8 ft probe. I have probe poles just in case,and given the fact that I have a dog and like to use my transceiver as I described I doubt that I would use them in a successful recovery.<br><br>My other thoughts are about avoidance and escape. I like to get my gear choices settled and become proficient as needed. I tend to prefer to spend more time, energy, study, and thought in regard to how to avoid avalanche entrapment and how to attempt escape if caught. If I am caught, I have failed, all else if of lesser significance in my view.

I certainly agree with most of you views, especially this one:<br>

... If I am caught, I have failed, all else if of lesser significance in my view.

<br>Thanks again for contributing.

Thanks Ron and Rando for the healthy banter.<br>Great Santa list Ron-I'll be sure to have it when we travel.<br><br>One thought that Rando had on "non-avalanche workers" need to focus more on terrain and aspects. If a persons focus is to learn avalanche causes and effects so they can travel safely and mitigate problems. I think it is OK to study all the scientific elements of snow, but field application is important as Rando states. Avalanche study is a lifetime process, so all the elements need to be factored.<br>Consider surfers-every wave is an avalanche. So they must assess the risks before paddling out and prior to every drop. Size of wave, current, underwater hazards, fatigue, time of day. I use this example because it demonstrates at any given moment you can have fun or you could die. Therefore a surfer should have all of the elements in mind all the time not just the size of the wave and current. I demonstrate this because Safe BC travel combines all elements not just one or two. But if you are a beginner you can only absorb so much info before you have overload, so analizing the snow layers and crystals are safe elements and are crucial before putting the big wave in front of a beginner or lesser BC skilled tourer. That way when you go out on the field it falls into place.<br>I learned backwards-I learned the snow skills and then learned the science. I took the long road, but I can say I am still learning. <br><br>Also we know the thought that purchasing a gadget like a beacon, Avalung, ABS, shovel , Probe without the know how to use them is silly. Those that think by merly owning such tools will not get into an avalanche is ridiculous. Darwin Therory weeds those folks out. <br><br>Realizing that all the rage is the BC there are going to be less informed folks out on the hill. When I run into such folks in the BC and query them. They are quickly classified into 2 groups Teachable or Un-Teachable. I offer knowlege if I see them putting themselves at potential risk. But I ask first if they are willing to learn, so I don't waste my breath.<br><br>I agree with Rando that most surviving victims will be close to or near the surface.<br><br> Ron your search methods seem most practical to me. Probing can be exhausting, but not as tiring as using a shovel or hands to dig to the wrong spot. I have had to do speed digs and the fatigue ends up putting me at risk for survival. And a probe can reach a victim 100 times faster than a shovel when there is no visual evidence of the victim.<br> <br>I also encourage people to buy a probe and to lean away from pole probes.<br>1) You may need your poles to travel up and down hill to the victim.<br>2) The time getting the baskets and connections together are valuable and sometimes the connections are bent or don't come off.<br>It is easy to buy a 2 meter 6 0z probe dedicated to just that PROBING and your friends will love you for it.<br><br>On the subject of beacons use-<br>Under 3 mins is very, very impresive Rando. Given that you are following the slide zone to the debris to search. Even if you were below the slide and had to work your way up 3 mins? <br><br><br>Randonnee well said---But?<br>

No worries. I share my experience. I am responsible for myself and partner only, I do not intend to change anyone's mind. Think for yourself, think it through for yourself. Everyone should be comfortable engaging in discussion on this forum. <br><br><br>I have a dog and like to use my transceiver

<br><br>Certainly you have made these considerations, but you have become a case study for those who have dogs trained or untrained in the BC.<br><br>This brings to mind a questiion. God forbid, but what if your dog is buried? You are responsible for yourself, partners and your dog!<br>I hear to much reliance on the dog for rescue purposes.<br>Lets say for instance your dog and your partner is buried.<br>Does your dog have a beacon?<br>Are your speedy recovery times based on the use of the dog?<br>After reading your reports and what you have said in this thread it seems unlikely that you put yourself at much avy risk, but....<br><br>Personally I think it is great that you have a dog and spent the time and effort to train your dog. <br>But your wonderful dog besides a great companion is essencially used as a tool. Take away that and it would be very emotionally and technically stressful in the field. <br><br>FYI to those who like to travel with dogs. Dogs in the BC are fun but need careful consideration in BC travel. Instead of just taking care of your needs for safe travel you have to consider the dog. Even well trained dogs need Food, water, warmth of feet and can trigger avalanches. My point is that attention is pulled in other directions than the existing conditions.<br><br>If the terrain/conditions are so potentially dangerous that it necesitates wearing a beacon, helmet and Avalung what does the dog have to protect itself?<br>Joe<br><br><br>