Does this seem dumb to anyone else?

I have a friend who's finally stepping-up and getting formally educated this winter. She's enrolled in an AIARE Level 1 class and their field trips span both days of this weekend. I got a frantic text from her on Wed. asking if she could borrow my beacon this weekend for the trip. Knowing full well that she has a high-performing analog beacon that she knows how to use I inquired as to why she needed to borrow a beacon. The response: the instructors for the course are *requiring* the students to have a digital beacon with at least two antennae.

Does that seem like an absurd requirement to anyone else? I mean, you should learn with the beacon you intend to use when a life's on the line - not one you borrowed from a friend. Just like you should learn and practice with the same shovel and probe. When your friend(s) are buried, you don't want to have to think about how to use the rescue gear you have on you. You want it to be as close to muscle memory as possible (yes, the brain's a muscle, too, and you can train it as such).

I'm not sure how far to push this, but I'm very uncomfortable with this kind of education. I'm hesitant to publicly shame the organization running the course but I feel that they kind of deserve it for having such a ridiculous requirement. In addition, I don't see the value in doing back-to-back days in the field. Ideally, your trips are spread far enough apart that the snowpack is different between the two so you can compare and contrast between the days and the decisions made during each and obtain a richer knowledge before venturing out "on your own".

Thoughts? Suggestions for appropriate actions? Am I just crazy?

my two cents...i don't think its an absurd requirement.   Have her bring both transceivers along...maybe she can use both.   

Having helped out with a local club's backcountry ski class for many years, i've seen more than a few students show up with a borrowed, ancient F1, and never get the hang of how to properly search with it...they then borrow another student's Tracker and figure it out immediately.   Its been a few years since I helped out, but even back then we were down to maybe one or two volunteer instructors who felt comfortable teaching an analog beacon search.

My guess is your friend is the exception to what kind of student the class usually gets.  And who knows- since digital beacons have become rather commonplace these days, the provider of the class might not have instructors who even know how to use an old analog beacon confidently.

It would suck if a class provider tossed that 'digital only' requirement out there at the last minute, but as long as it was known from the get-go I don't see anything wrong with them telling people to only bring digital ones.   

I appreciate your not calling out the organization and I'm with Pete re: the likely reasons for their requirements. If I were you and really wanted to know why they have them, I'd email or call them and ask for their reasoning.

The truth of it is that analog beacons, no matter how good you are with them, are old technology that are used less and less frequently. The search style/pattern is different with an analog beacon, as is some of the feedback you're relying on, so having to teach to two different styles of searching may be outside their normal course curriculum.

Not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I can see several solid reasons why they might want to minimize the number of variables in a complex new skill that folks are trying to learn.

As an avalanche educator, there are a number reasons for the transceiver requirement.

1-As analog beacons age they risk frequency drift. The age of the transceiver might be a factor as digital transceivers have been around for over 10 years and we are now seeing triple antenna beacons with far greater accuracy being promoted so everyone can search faster with less practice.

2-Search techniques for analog beacons take alot of practice to become only moderately proficient. Many studies done on 3 different continents recommend triple antenna digital beacons with a flagging function to help with multiple victim search.

As for the field days, recency contributes greatly to retention so the longer you string out the course the harder it is to remember the previous lessons. It makes it easier to back link the current lesson with the one done yesterday rather than the week before.

I hope your friend feels she got full value out of her class.

It's true that the search method used with analog vs. digital is different -- so focusing on teaching one style would make some sense.   I wonder how clearly they indicated in their course offering the digital requirement.   Seems uncool to hide this detail until after payment has been recieved, but maybe your friend missed this detail.

From a purely self-preservationist point of view -- don't you want your friend to upgrade to a three antenna beacon?

I suppose it is also possible that the instructors don't have analog beacons or much experience with analog beacons -- Not all instructors are grizzled greybacks.

I hope she missed the requirement, which was communicated in advance.

Other than this - I know that the new beacons aren't cheap but I think it's a good investment for both her and her touring partners.

I myself have never used an analog beacon and don't feel too bad about it. If she's reasonably proficient with the analog unit, she should be able to pass the tests with it without any issue, right? Or is on the old frequency? That may be a problem...

Cheers
Ivo

My 18 year old nephew had this issue when he took a course last year with Cascade Powder Cats.  I had given him an ortovox m2 for his backcountry safety.  Yes, it was older, but it passed testing for crystal drift.  Hell, you still see them for sale online. When my nephew showed up for class, his beacon was summarilly dismissed and he was given a loaner beacon.  I was pissed.  Like the original poster, I thought he should practice with what he owned.  When contacted afterward, CPC, stated that it was out of date and he should buy a new one.  Wish we all had disposable income to have the latest, greatest beacon.  My nephew, at most will use this beacon 3x a year.  It's awfully hard to justify spending big money for something to gather dust.  I would have preferred he got the chance to try his personal beacon, before being given the replacement.   I have not seen this issue brought up before in any magazines or online sites.  I believe one of the guides was a rep. and he did offer some kind of coupon for a new beacon.    The course was very well liked by my nephew and his dad.   He still has his old beacon. 

From a teaching standpoint, I don't see that the methods have changed, based on more modern beacons.  Following the flux line was discarded long ago, and all current methods seem to aim to directly go to the victim.  Even with the new beacons, an understanding of flux lines is important.  The biggest change I see is the ability to see mutiple victims and then have the ability to mask a signal.  Since the tracker is the most popular beacon, and does not have this feature, I am not sure how it is being taught.  There will always be a variety of beacons.  Hopefully at this kind of course, students have the ability to try some of the newer technology, or trade beacons with classmates.  It seems like all beacons have different strengths and weaknesses.  Also, it is always good to know how to turn off a variety of beacons.  Good in case of a large burial situation.

I am mentioning the class provider. The class was excellent and is highly recomended. This appears to be their standard policy, so better for it to be well understood and clearly communicated. I may not like it, but they are putting on the course and probably have put a lot more thought into the situation than I.

For someone that uses an analog beacon three times a year -- I think the proper term is "corpse locator device" -- well actually I think "corpse locator device" is a useful term for *all* beacons with heavier PNW snows and prevelance of trees.   In Utah or Colorado I might have a somewhat different attitude.

I'll echo Mattski's comments and add:
1) AIARE as an avalanche education organization recommends beacon replacement every 5 years, and the preferred use of 3 antenna, digital beacons - though two antenna antenna's are acceptable.  Beacons are more fragile than most suspect, and a cracked antenna can disable a beacon at any time.  What, you've never dropped your beacon? 
2) Why would anyone want to depend on a partner with an analogue beacon to find them if buried - I wouldn't.  The analogue-digital beacon argument ended years ago.  Digitals are hands down better - magnitudes better. 
3) Analogue beacons required the operator to interpret, find and follow the flux line.  Digital beacons make that process almost foul proof for the operator.  The newest use their processing to more directly go to the buried beacon by doing the interpreting internally - but they are still recognizing flux line direction and strength.
3) Without some education on companion rescue and practice, I've seen new users of three antenna beacons struggle a bit during the learning phase - but nothing compared to the difficulty of becoming proficient with an analogue beacon.
4) Digital beacons have allowed both inexperienced and experienced users to quickly located a buried victim, and get about doing what is now recognized as the most critical part of the rescue process - the excavation, the digging out.  Strategic shoveling is the name of that game.  Uneducated shoveling can double or triple excavation times. 
5) So take an AIARE Level 1 class, upgrade your beacon and skills, and learn the latest on companion rescue.  Then your friends will want you with them, you'll be a desired partner, not a liability.
6) I know cost is always a significant consideration.  But if you look around there are usually great deals on some vendor's  two antenna (or 3) digital beacons - usually about the cost of a low to midrange goretex parka.   

I'm not commenting here to rag on anyone, but instead to just share my knowledge and experience. Which comes with the perspective of one who has used most beacons from the first analogue Skadi's (next to worthless), to the most recent 3 antenna's beacons, and as an avalanche educator.

No, I didn't write this up on my Atari.

I think it does make sense that at some point an avalanche instructor would draw a line in the sand, and say we aren't going to cover beacons that are x years old, or designate, as they did, a minimum technology.   Personally, I always thought the Ortovox m2 compared favorable with the tracker.   Better range, not as easy to pinpoint.  The tracker and M2 were of the same era, yet the tracker is still sold, while the m2 is apparently garbage.   I do have a right to be grumpy, but I do acknowlege the need to draw a line somewhere.

As another avalanche instructor, and a guide, I'm suspicious of any beacon more than 5 years old. Materials age, and lifetime guarantee is for the reasonable lifetime of the equipment, not you. Stuff gets banged around, you know?

So I recommend that anyone with a beacon more than 5 years old send it in to the manufacturer to be reconditioned and tested. I know that BCA offers this, and I suspect other manufacturers offers this as well. Contact yours.

I refuse to ski with anyone - for work or fun - with a beacon more than 10 years old. Motherboards crack, battery terminals corrode, plastic ages and gets brittle. I'm lucky enough to have an extra beacon that I can loan for instances like this.

One last thought - how old is your cell phone? Granted, it likely costs less, but having your cell phone stop functioning mid-day may cost you a major inconvenience - your transceiver failing may cost you your life, or the life of someone else.

3) Analogue beacons required the operator to interpret, find and follow the flux line.  Digital beacons make that process almost foul proof for the operator.  The newest use their processing to more directly go to the buried beacon by doing the interpreting internally - but they are still recognizing flux line direction and strength.

Minor quibble: Analog beacons don't require you to follow the flux line. You can also search using a grid pattern. That's how they were originally taught, I believe. Flux line search came later, after they started putting displays on beacons. The original analog beacons were operated by listening for volume changes only. I learned how to search that way from Ray Smutek in 1980. He regularly taught his students to find buried beacons in three minutes. (Or was it five minutes--I can't remember, it was so long ago.)

I'm not saying that anybody should use analog beacons today...

I'd echo what several others have said:

The new technologies are better and faster and transceivers older than about five years start to push the point of electronic reliability (as well as signal drift on some models).

Today did a beacon practice session with 16 folks around Hen Skin Lake -- almost everyone had digital beacons -- but some had analog -- the folks with substatial amounts of gray hair and years of practice with their analog beacons did fairly well, but one person whom only had limited previous practice sessions was taking a long time with fine search and getting frustrated -- I offered some coaching, emphasizing the importance of "boxing" when using an analog beacon. With that their were eventually successful at locating the target.

I think that analog beacons require a lot more practice for effective searching -- IMHO the process of boxing and "spike" compensation has to be practiced enough that it is engrained -- I personally wouldn't trust my rational thinking process to work well after an avalanche -- so it has to be practiced enough that rational thinking isn't required. With my old F1 I did hours of practice searching in the city ("kids, go hide papa's spare beacon in the house or yard somewhere") I don't think there isn't enough time in a weekend avalanche course to get the volume of practice needed with an analog beacon that a person graduating from a weekend course with an analog beacon is reasonably competent at analog beacon search.

Just to note, the AIARE requirement is that beacons be less than 10 years old, digital is preferred and equipment outside the warranty must be checked by manufacturer prior to the course.

avtraining.org/Avalanche-Training-Course...-Equipment-List.html

It seems like the organization offering your friend's course was going beyond the AIARE reqs, but not by much. I guess it's only dumb if it wasn't clearly communicated.

This might have been a course that I was the course leader for and the provider was the Everett Mountaineers.

This could be a long conversation with many intertwining themes. I speak only to the two issues mentioned. The reasons for our requirement are current recommendations from industry professionals and personal experiences among our AIARE instructors teaching avalanche courses for many years.

www.avalanche.ca/cac/gear/obsolete
www.avalanche.ca/cac/gear/notrecommended

I can only apologize if this was not communicated clearer to your friend.

We have back to back field days mainly for logistical reasons, but we have also found that it helps to reinforce better communication and teamwork, leading reasons why people get into avalanche accidents.

I hope your friend felt that she is a stronger member of your backcountry team after she took the class and that you guys have a great winter season.

Oyvind Henningsen

From a teaching standpoint, I don't see that the methods have changed, based on more modern beacons.  Following the flux line was discarded long ago, and all current methods seem to aim to directly go to the victim.

1. The search methods have changed from your old M2 to a current three-antenna beacon.
2. Following the flux line is indeed the current method for a directional multiple-antenna beacon.
3. Aiming directly to the victim (as opposed to following the flux line) is impossible (unless the victim's transmission antenna is pointing directly at the searcher).

As for the OP's concern, I would be very surprised if someone who has never taken an avy safety course has somehow become proficient at a non-directional single-antenna beacon.
As a contributor to BeaconReviews.com and an avy safety instructor, if someone showed up to one of my course with a non-directional single-antenna beacon, no, I am not going to waste course time taking aside this student for additional instruction and different search techniques on such outdated gear.

I learned the grid method on an old pieps model right about the time the BCA tracker was getting more popular. Half us were using analog and half were on the trackers. My times were close between the two methods but I did find it easier to have a big arrow pointing the way for me and when I bought my own it was tracker. That was probably 15 years ago. It seems reasonable to me that they would want to teach the most common method rather than accommodate the analog now, maybe 5 or ten years ago I would agree with you more.

As for the OP's concern, I would be very surprised if someone who has never taken an avy safety course has somehow become proficient at a non-directional single-antenna beacon. 

I won the beacon search race at the Methow Valley Freeheel Festival one year using an analog beacon with an earpiece.  I had no previous formal avalanche training. 

Surprise

Which year?
(And does a freeheel festival mean all telemarkers? And what beacons were others using? And what kind of target configuration? And what was your winning time?)

Which year?
(And does a freeheel festival mean all telemarkers?  And what beacons were others using?  And what kind of target configuration?  And what was your winning time?)

1.Maybe 1999. 
2.Lots of telemarkers but not all.  I believe I was a telemarker at the time.
3.The original Tracker was the hot transceiver.  I remember catching some heat over my relic transceiver.  Several folks had the blue Orthovox with a speaker.
4.The target was one of several shallowly buried beacons remotely switched on (a 'beacon basin')
5.Time. I do not recall.  Faster than everyone else.  High probability of some luck on the pinpoint portion of the search.

Funny that as a result of that trip I bought a Tracker, and the next formal organized event I participated in was a Level 1 class this year where once again I had the oldest transceiver (as well as the shortest probe) so now I'm going to buy a new unit and probably a new probe.   Looking forward to further peer pressure to upgrade in 2026.