The Torture of Beacon Reviews

In time I think your perspective will prove accurate. Either airbag packs will become the norm and the beacons will be simplified for the extremely rare case where a skier still gets buried, and/or we will have devices that can “read” the snowpack and give a much better prediction which will minimize risk even further.

I look forward with eager anticipation to the day my beacon is as reliable and trustworthy as my pc. Just waiting for it to boot up….. why isn’t it doing what I want? oh the network has hung…. application not responding…. 😉

Touche. My F1 Focus also died on a trip (fortunately resort based). Still transmitted, but I realized something was wrong when we did a range comparison when practicing and the tracker picked up the target before mine did.

Excellent comments by Randonnee. It bears repeating: a transceiver is not a primary safety device. Many of the details of transceiver design and operation are of little practical value to most users; especially when dealing with a large search area or complicated burials. The ability to conduct realistic practise searches remains the best “feature” associated with owning a transceiver.

With respect to some of the comments about assessment of instability: current diagnostic methods are quite good, but wishful thinking and risk-taking ( both of which are unquestionably influenced by avalanche safety equipment such as transceivers ) is still state of the art for many recreationists.

It is well-known that the results of slope side instability tests can have a helpful or harmful influence on perception of instability. Yet there is still this belief among many that better snowpack analysis or better equipment is the way to overcome simple denial. People are still capable of making poor decisions whether or not someone invents a device capable of stratigraphic analysis.

I was skiing a few months ago on Mt. Rainier and we couldn’t help but notice that most east aspect slopes had released. Yet there was still talk by some members of our party ( all of us clad in expensive transceivers and other fancy mountain gear ) that perhaps some east aspects were safe for travel. Huh? The Nile ain’t just a river in Egypt.

The fact of the matter is that ski touring remains an organic, non-cerebral event for many people. People go ski touring precisely because they don’t want their mind gnawing on problems all day. Transcievers and shovels may provide a means for some people to relax their minds for a few hours, knowing they’re safe in the invisible glow of the transceiver’s electrical field … but they certainly don’t make anyone safer.

It remains apparent during my backcountry encounters with others at times that some do not want to think, test, observe, use care at the expense of turns. It seems that they just want a brief algorithm from someone else to decide go/ no-go and the best transceiver, shovel, and probe which perhaps supports their hero-dreams and their denial of potential death or injury resulting from their actions on avalanche terrain. My avalanche hazard evaluation for my favorite powder runs, aka avalanche paths, begins with the first snowfall that season and continues daily whether or not I am there on the snow. Data is available to do so.

Last season I toured nice powder with a friend one day near Stevens Pass, on the crest (rare for me, too crowded). We encountered some ski tourers from the city who invited themselves along after deciding that perhaps I knew something. They followed us for two runs, and where I ski is clearly safe. Even after pointing out the slope where I nearly met tragedy in 1996 (Re: Wildsnow Guest Blog) , and pointing out that that slope did not have the crown from an avalanche (like contiguous slopes) therefore was still prime to go, one of these guys said he was going to huck 15- 20 ft onto that hanging slab. After skiing two runs where it was safe, in my opinion, this guy who had done no testing as I had, decided to jump on a dangerous sweet spot where I had refused to go near for safety reasons. Now that is some interesting psychology in my view. I skied off the other side, I guess he was ok, I did not hear of an accident.

My views are from a decade of avalanche work long ago, my views seem to be old-school or something. Very little, it seems, has been gained in regard to avalanche avoidance. Ignorance and lack of sober consideration and self-control seems tragically common in regard to the avalanche problem, even with all of the formal classes now available and with all of the hyper-marketed avalanche gadgets.

Hey Jonathan,

What matters is knowing with a high degree of certainty whether or not the slope one is about to enter will avalanche with a hazardous potential. Really little else enters my mind except briefly when on avalanche terrain.

My conclusion (opinion) based on my own observation is that endless debate, avalanche education, and number crunching about avalanche accidents and equipment has not improved the avalanche avoidance skills of the clear majority of backcountry skiers that I encounter, including a couple of course instructors. There are hordes of ski touring folks remaining alive simply because the snowpack is actually usually stable! This is my observation and opinion and is likely difficult to prove or not.

I think that marketing of avalanche gear has taken the important focus from understanding avalanching. I question whether most backcountry travelers are able to accurately identify many avalanche paths, as well it is my opinion that most cannot define why or why not did a certain slope avalanche.

My opinion could be flawed, especially since I avoid the mainstream of backcountry skiers and vigorously protect my (and my parties’) solitude. In fact, because of previous encounters with idiots skiing above me on a potential slab, other’s behaviors, etc., I am pretty uncomfortable skiing around most folks if there is real avalanche potential. Because my opinions and hazard evaluation has kept me safe for three decades, and my methods, flawed or not, have offered near complete safety with one exceptional incident.

Certainly, I applaud and enjoy the efforts of folks like you or others who engage and publish serious analysis or testing, thank you.

Jonathan I do admire your interest and incredible energy invested. There is so much information from you that is valuable. Please don’t be discouraged by my words.

My level of confidence and very conservative (believe it or not) exposure to uncertain hazard is what I trust. I trust those abilities more than a transceiver rescue. Actually I powder ski avalanche paths alone, and ski cut size 2 avalanches when alone, routinely. If there is size 3 potential (in my estimation), I am aware of that potential and will not be found exposed to it. From my AC days if I am able to reduce the hazard by ski cutting with results to the weakness, I gain confidence, and conversely if it does not go when I think it should I back away out of uncertainty. So for me personally, transceivers lack importance compared to the true life/death decisions about avalanche potential that I make routinely (even before ABS). From interpreting the data, there is only a slim improvement in my survival if I have a competent partner, anyway- it is practically the same commitment with a partner as when solo. No, I am not recommending solo travel, if I die in an avalanche that will be a lesson to be heeded…