Does this seem dumb to anyone else?

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.