Everybody has been doing the beacon dance since they hit the market some 30 years ago. In my thinking, the over-emphasis of gizmo based protocols have been a major impediment to the risk analysis approach that is finally seeping into the BC community these days.
Not that beacons, bags, and other gizmos don't have an important role to play in the game, but emphasizing recovery tools over risk avoidance seems like a disaster in the making.
Agreed that Risk Analysis Approach and Communication are the more important aspects of safe travel, but I don't think a protocol for a Transceiver check is an over emphasis on tools and a disaster in the making. Pilots don't consider a preflight check a "disaster in the making", but just one aspect of a safe flight. I have a protocol when climbing on how I check my and my partners rope and harness and would never climb with someone who does not. Just read any of the "Accidents in North American Mountaineering" to see how many avoidable accidents could have been prevented by a standardize protocol within the group. This does not take anything away from the ability to analyze risk. Risk Analysis and recovery tools are not mutually exclusive.
I do think that the reliance on technology or gear may sometimes instill a false sense of security. But at the same time, there is no use in carrying that gear if it is not working or the user does not know how to properly use it.
Pipedream: thank you for your input. That is what we have always done in the past (having the leader and group power up at the same time). Maybe BCA leaves the leaders transceiver off initially to ensure the group has all switched to SEARCH. It would be glaringly obvious if someone did not switch because their beacon would be the only one making a sound.
Let the snow fly.
